When it comes to health care reform -- when it comes to lowering costs and finally doing something about the millions of people in this country who live just one medical emergency away from financial ruin -- "no" is not a serious response.

So when John King from CNN asked me if I would vote for health care reform, even if it meant losing my job, it was easy for me to answer.

I said "Yes."

There is no reason we should buy the political scare tactics of opponents who say supporting health care reform is a one-way ticket out of office. Read more...

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

If President Barack Obama calls for tens of thousands of additional troops in Afghanistan, will the Democratic-led Congress fund this effort?

Ronald Goldfarb, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

One hopes Congress will exercise its constitutional power to control war decisions. But I doubt it will. Sadly, peace, non-war, positions are rare with politicians. We hear constant complaints about too much spending when it concerns healthcare, but none when it comes to killing and maiming our young men and women in the military.

How can we afford this war, politically, economically, morally? No one has made the case that our engagements in Afghanistan will make America safer, or immune from attack. So why are we there?

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

The American people are ready for smart, serious decisions about the use of our military, and the Democratic party will support that.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Congress will fund the effort, but it will do it kicking and screaming and after asking a lot of tough questions.  Rightly so.  After about eight years of insufficient oversight, when Congress was complicit in the Bush administration’s strategy-less, no accountability and no end in sight way of fighting wars, we are seeing more scrutiny on this administration’s national security decisions.
 
Congress will hold a series of hearings, ask questions that are aimed at sharpening policies, and perhaps even set clear conditions for additional funding dependent on outcome.  That would be a good thing.  Though President Obama was right to take the time to deliberate on options, his team still hasn’t provided sufficient answers to key questions – like what precise conditions are they setting on assistance to Afghan authorities, how much Pakistan and other key countries are willing to play a more constructive role in advancing stability, and how to pay for the war without passing the costs onto our grandchildren.  The metrics for to measure progress developed by the Obama administration are still an unclear mess, and simply saying “we’ll know it when we see it” is too glib of an answer when we’re sending more Americans into harm’s way and spending taxpayers’ money.

Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of Independent Women's Forum, said:

Congressional Democrats will be in a tough spot if the president calls for additional troops for Afghanistan: They don't want to alienate the far left wing of their base, but also cannot afford to further lose the support of Independents and "Obamacans" and give new life to the image of undisciplined Democrats unwilling to wage a war that the Commander-in-Chief believes saves the national security interests of our nation.

Ultimately, it seems most likely that enough Democrats will join with Republicans (who are most likely to support the president's call for additional troops and funding). They cannot abandon our nation's commander-in-chief.

Paul Kawika Martin, policy and political director of Peace Action, said:

If you were a gambler, you would have to bet the the Democrats will ultimately fund more troops for President Obama.  Remember that the Democrats didn't even come close to mustering enough votes to stop the Bush Administration's folly in Iraq, even after finding out that they were lied to and a near-super majority of Americans wanted troops to come home.

Most Democrats in Congress have ceded the debate to the neo-cons that your not supporting the troops if you vote against war funding. This is ludicrous, of course. It's the utmost support of our troops to exercise democracy and vote for policy beliefs. It's the utmost support to vote for the troops to come home. Certainly, during the debate on Iraq, you heard Republican cries of "Where's your patriotism?" to those that voted against funding the war in Iraq. Then, this year, the Republicans voted en masse against supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they opposed money for the World Bank.

There are a few courageous Republicans that will most likely vote against funding, including Rep. Walter Jones. He will vote his thought-out policy beliefs, rather than join the Republican Party line that if you don't support more troops than you are weak, unpatriotic and "dithering." Many Republican's will play the worn out partisan card that the Democrats are "weak on defense." And many Democrats haven't figured out that to trump that argument, you need to discuss all of the tools in America's tool box, including economics, aid, development and diplomacy.  Reps. Barbara Lee and Jim McGovern have made that wise argument and will vote against war funding.

Chairmen Obey and Murtha provide an interesting twist. Both have said that if we do fund more troops then we must pay for them now, not put the deficit burden on our grandchildren. So far, the near trillion dollars the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been nearly all borrowed from other countries, namely China and Japan. Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes claims that if you include interest on debt, veterans benefits and other costs to society, then the total costs for the wars could top a staggering $5 trillion to $7 trillion.

Of course, I hope I lose my bet and that enough courageous Democrats and Republicans vote against funding more troops and instead use that money to pay Afghan security forces a livable wage so they are less susceptible to Taliban bribes; to fully fund the National Solidarity Project that helps bring Afghans out of poverty (a root cause of violent extremism); and to increase funding for Afghan-led aid and development that will tackle the 40 percent unemployment rate and 30 percent literacy rate.  Lastly, without a comprehensive peace process -- that includes all internal and regional actors like the Taliban, Iran, India, Pakistan and China -- Afghanistan will continue to suffer the brunt of proxy wars and instability.

Last week, as the national debt topped $12 trillion for the first time in U.S. history, one influential policymaker said, “I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt … that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

This analysis was delivered by President Barack Obama, on whose watch “red ink as far as the eye can see” has become the status quo.

While mostly accurate, President Obama’s comments actually miss the fact that our rapidly decaying fiscal situation has already undermined confidence in the U.S. economy.  Washington Democrats saw to that with a trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ that was supposed to be about creating jobs, but has instead produced countless examples of wasteful government spending while more than three million more Americans have lost their jobs.

It’s no wonder, then, that the Chinese government, which controls about one out of every four foreign dollars invested in our debt, has been asking detailed questions about the long-term fiscal impact of a government takeover of health care.

The Chinese have every right to be concerned.  The head of the Concord Coalition, an independent fiscal watchdog, recently described the Senate’s 2,074-page government takeover of health care as “basically, a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases.”

Much more is at stake here than the short-term status of our economy. The federal government is currently operating on a budget that doubles the national debt in the next five years and triples it in the next 10.

By the time the next decade is out, interest payments to sustain the national debt will exceed $700 billion. That is more than what our nation will spend this year on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – combined.

Out-of-control spending has been a problem for years in Washington, but instead of hitting the brakes on spending as they promised they would, President Obama and Washington Democrats have stepped on the accelerator.  Now, instead of working with Republicans to impose real fiscal discipline, Washington Democrats believe the answer is more of the same unsustainable spending and borrowing. Our kids and grandkids should not have to foot the bill because out-of-touch Washington Democrats will not make the same tough choices required of every family struggling to make ends meet.

Our government is out of money and Washington Democrats are out of ideas. At every turn this year, Republicans have offered better, fiscally-responsible solutions to tackle the immediate challenges facing the American people, including an economic recovery plan that would have created twice the jobs at half the cost, a budget that would impose strict caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis, and the only health care bill that would cut the deficit and consistently reduce federal spending on health care over the next two decades.

Families are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ but all they are getting from out-of-touch Washington Democrats is more spending and more debt piled on our kids and grandkids. The American people deserve a government that lives within its means and fully commits itself to creating good-paying jobs, and only Republicans have proposed solutions to give them exactly what they want.  Now more than ever, America needs more jobs, not more debt.

(Cross-posted from Biggovernment.com)

As President Obama prepares to announce his new strategy in Afghanistan, it is vital to note that success or failure will not be determined by our military footprint alone. With mounting press speculation regarding a possible increase in U.S. troop levels, we should consider General McChrystal's warning that "focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely." Even more important is the level of commitment from our Afghan and international partners. In his second term, President Karzai must act decisively to improve security, deliver basic services, and rid the government of corruption.

When I met President Karzai during a September visit to Kabul, we discussed the effectiveness of counterinsurgency strategy and the importance of stronger governance at all levels - national, district, and provincial. President Karzai must do a better job of delivering essential services because, ultimately, this is a battle for legitimacy between his government and the Taliban. This battle must be fought with the Afghans in the lead and the U.S. in a supportive role, because without a true Afghan partner, the U.S. military presence can only go so far.

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Is the rush toward a jobs bill an implicit admission that February's $787 billion economic stimulus failed?

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit blogger, said:

Admission or not, it's obvious that the stimulus has been a miserable failure, with unemployment much worse than the Obama Administration said we'd see without the stimulus, and much, much worse what they promised us we'd see if the stimulus passed.  Arianna Huffington is calling unemployment Obama's Katrina, increasing pressure for action. But a "jobs bill" is likely to prove yet another expensive flop. Legislation doesn't create jobs. Investment creates jobs, and in the current political environment, you're crazy to invest unless the political fix is in.

Much of the unemployment problem stems from uncertainty created by the Administration and Congress, as they rush one poorly thought out gimmick after another through the system and create the sense that the only good investment is one that's government-approved.  The best thing they could do is probably nothing, but since doing nothing offers no opportunities for political posturing and graft, I predict that we'll see another expensive yet ineffectual program instead.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

The jobs bill reflects that the damage done in the prior eight years will take more work to repair. There are many good people in Washington and elsewhere, working very hard on that.

Daniel J. Mitchell, senior fellow at The Cato Institute, said:

The so-called stimulus was a massive waste of tax dollars, but this should not be a surprise.

The $787 billion spending spree was based on the discredited Keynesian theory that did not work for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s and did not work for Japan in the 1990s. It also did not work for Bush last year, so it is baffling that anybody would think it would work this year. Borrowing money out of the economy’s right pocket and then having politicians put the same money in the economy’s left pocket was the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The only surprise was that the White House was foolish enough to make specific claims of the good results that supposedly would flow from all the pork-barrel spending. In part, this is the absurd notion of claiming 600,000-plus “jobs saved or created” when total employment actually has fallen by more than 3 million. But the bigger mistake was claiming that the faux stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent and that failure to squander $787 billion would cause the jobless rate to climb to 9 percent. The politicians got their wish, yet now the unemployment rate is above 10 percent. Brilliant.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, said:

There is little dispute among economists that the stimulus helped to boost growth and prevented the unemployment rate from rising even higher. This can be seen very clearly in the data. For example, consumption grew in the 2nd quarter even though wage income fell. This was obviously due to the increases in unemployment insurance and other benefits, as well as the Make Work Pay tax cuts. Everyone who has looked at the data recognizes the positive role that the stimulus played.

The reason why there is a need for a jobs bill is that the economy was hit harder than President Obama and most private forecasters anticipated. They can be blamed for not getting their forecast right (they are supposed to be good economists), but on the other hand, President Obama was not the person who let an $8 trillion housing bubble grow unchecked, or insisted that its collapse would be no big deal when it started to deflate. (That person would be Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke).

Anyhow, the economy was worse than was generally recognized, as some of us did try to warn last winter. This means that much more stimulus was needed at the time. The story here is of a hugely overweight person who cut back their food intake by 300 calories a day. If this person had originally been consuming 3000 calories a day, then this reduction in food consumption will probably not be adequate to get their weight down. But the conclusion is  not to go back to eating 3000 calories a day, but rather to cut food intake more.

The Republicans will try to take advantage of the Obama administration's forecasting mistake to claim stimulus doesn't work. However, if the public gives into this nonsense then we will all end up fat and unemployed.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Yes. If you drove south from northern New Hampshire to North Carolina on I-95 as I have done this past weekend, you would see extensive work conspicuously done by women and men in lime green clothing here in the frozen north where almost no one lives. Every road has been resurfaced; the ledges have been torn off the high cliffs by the highways that just last year housed hawks and peregrine falcons, lines have been painted everywhere.

Much of this work has been voted down again and again locally as work that did not need to be done, work that we did not want done; labor that we do not respect; work that we do not consider to be real work. Increasingly, the feds need to New Jersey-fy us so as to removeth chill of the cold, clear, northern night and the coyote’s chant that sends the willies up their spines. But there is less than 2 percent unemployment up here in these parts. This money is a complete waste by nostalgicos channeling the Inner Roosevelt and longing for the days of Woody Gunthrie and Big Bill Broonzy singing folkloric ditties in a box car heading across the western plains on the government’s tab.

Commodities guru Jim Rogers, in comparing the Obama spending to that of the Chinese, points out that the Chinese are correctly spending infrastructure money by applying it where it is needed for the 130 million new workers recently arrived in the industrial centers. Here it is just tossed anywhere, as if out of an airplane, regardless of need. All patterns of population and economy today point west. When people here in the Land of the Free move they tend to move today to Texas and Alaska. There has been no attempt to follow patterns of rising karma. And then when you get south to New York City, where employment is now most probably above 20% the roads and infrastructure are a mess and not a finger has been lifted. There appears to be no plan whatsoever as Rogers says.

Rep. John Carter (R-Tx.) said:

There is no doubt that the original Stimulus failed to create jobs, and has in fact probably cost additional jobs and prolonged the recession.  To create jobs we need to lower the tax burden to stimulate investment, which is the exact opposite of what the Democrats did earlier this year and now contemplate again.

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said:

The damage done to our economy by Bush policies will take longer than months to fix, especially to help the millions of American families who are still struggling to make ends meet. The economic recovery package was an important step in a new direction but we need to do more to help Americans who have lost their jobs due to years of deregulation and harm done to our social and economic fabric by failed Republican policies and tax cuts to the wealthiest. 

Dick Morris, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

It is the political and economic equivalent of the escalation of the Vietnam war.  If 100K troops don't win, send in 200K and so forth until the fact that the program isn't working becomes obvious to everyone, even its advocates.
 
The stimulus spending is not failing because it is inadequate but because it is counter productive.  The capital it absorbs could be better spent investing in private sector job growth.  All the stimulus is, is a heart lung machine to keep the economy alive.  it does nothing to assure that it will be able to live on its own once the machine is disconnected.  In fact, by absorbing all the oxygen in the room to pay for its deficit, it assures that it will not be able to do so

Read more after the jump.

A tremendous human rights project is under way in the US Congress. The health care reform effort has the potential to expand access to critical services to uninsured Americans across the country.
But the Stupak amendment undermines this entire effort and directly contradicts the goal of health care reform. Indeed, this amendment would limit women’s rights and endanger their health.

To be sure, abortion is a difficult issue that merits debate.   We continue to grapple with this issue as a society.  And this is precisely the reason that the Stupak amendment should be rejected.
Instead of fomenting discussion about how to prevent crisis pregnancies and why women choose to have abortions, the amendment is effectively a blanket denial of access to abortions for women with limited financial resources. These are the women whose needs health care reform is intended to help— women who are the least likely to have access to fertility control , maternity benefits or childcare support.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and SAGE (Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders) have just released Outing Age 2010: Public Policy Issues Affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Elders, an update to the Task Force’s groundbreaking Outing Age report issued in 2000. Like its predecessor, Outing Age 2010 presents an in-depth look at public policy issues and challenges facing millions of aging LGBT people in the United States.

The updated report comes on the heels of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent announcement of plans to establish the first national LGBT elder resource center. LGBT aging issues have been a focus of the New Beginning Initiative, a Task Force-coordinated collaboration of more than 20 national LGBT organizations moving to promote change within federal agencies to improve the lives of LGBT people. LGBT aging issues have been identified as a priority issue for the Task Force and SAGE.
Read more...

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Republicans seized on an addition to the Senate healthcare bill that provides $100 million in extra Medicare subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster," as pork designed to win the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

Will Democrats pay a political price for this amendment or will memories of Hurricane Katrina prevent a widespread backlash?

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit blogger, said:

"Every election is an advance auction of stolen goods." This is just dividing the loot.  It should remind people that the more power and money they give to the government, the more power and money will be spent in the purchase of . . . yet more power and money for the government.

Bill Press, host of the Bill Press Show, said:

Nobody will remember this well-deserved Medicare subsidy, and nobody can prove it "bought" Sen. Landrieu's vote. Republicans are just looking for anything to distract the American people from the fact that they voted, en bloc, for the status quo and for leaving insurance companies in charge.

Armstrong Williams, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Its cash-and-carry time on the hill. Desperate to pass Obama’s signature health care proposal, the Democrats are funneling money to key centrist Democrats, whose votes are needed to pass healthcare reform. 

Most of the country calls this bribery. In D.C., the preferred term is “walking around money.” Semantics aside, here’s the jig: the Democrats need every Democratic senator, plus two independents that caucus with them, to ensure that the healthcare bill is filibuster-proof. In order to ensure that they get those votes, they’re now handing out bribes ... er, um ... “walking around money” to those Senators who might oppose the bill.

Exhibit A: Centrist Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently declared she would vote for the Senate's first procedural motion on healthcare reform. Just 24-hours prior, the Democrats inserted an amendment into the bill providing for $100 million in extra Medicare subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." Landrieu's state of Louisiana, of course, was hit by Hurricane Katrina, thus making it a shoe-in for the extra pork. As if there were any doubt as to the intended recipient, the amendment clearly states that only Louisiana is entitled to the extra cash. In a press release, the GOP criticized her vote as the "new Louisiana Purchase." Otherwise stated, Sen. Landrieu was bribed. I can understand if she supports the healthcare proposal because she feels tax hikes and Medicare cuts are an acceptable price to pay for near-universal healthcare. I cannot accept that she is supporting a bill that may bankrupt the country in exchange for an unapologetic bribe.

Peter Fenn, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

So, let me get this straight -- the Republicans want to bring up their incompetence and mismanagement of Katrina and complain about help to that devastated area? Hmmm, bring it on.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

A corrupt Louisiana politician? Who would've thought?!

The public is realistic -- i.e. completely cynical -- when it comes to the behavior of politicians. They expect this -- and are rarely disappointed.

There will be a backlash, but not against the "Louisiana Purchase," specifically, but against the healthcare "reform" bill in general if and when it becomes law. Because they will then discover that they've been "reformed" out of their private health insurance plans, confronted with a tax hike, and coerced into buying into a government-mandated healthcare plan that they may not want, or need.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

The cost is equal to 0.003 percent of the budget or 100 soldiers in Afghanistan for a year. There are bigger political handouts than this, with less justification, every day of the week. If the Democrats pay a price for this it would only be because the media is even more incompetent and/or corrupt than is generally recognized.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

It is a disgrace. It is this kind of malfeasance, manipulation and criminal contempt for the citizenry that is leading states with vitality and life force to take their own initiatives.

A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, said:

No one wants to know how sausage is made, for this very reason. And this isn't new. There are likely more concessions we know nothing about. But Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) isn't wrong to fight for money for the very broke state of Louisiana and she isn't wrong to make a trade in exchange for her support on a procedural vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made his own deal to help his state cover the Medicaid expansion included in health care reform that are so unpopular with governors across the country. The states simply cannot afford to shoulder more Medicaid costs.

Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The American public is so used to hearing examples of wasteful spending and the corrupt use of earmarks that the mini-scandal over the purchase of Senator Landrieu is likely to elicit little more than yawns. The public's opinion of Congress -- which boasts approval ratings of less than 30% -- could hardly be lower.

Yet, if the Democrats are unlikely to pay the price for this instance of vote buying, they are likely to pay a price for ramming through a health care package that few Americans say they want. A poll of women (who are generally assumed to be more sympathetic to an expanded role in health care) showed that two thirds of women would be less likely to support a candidate who supported moving people from private to government run care.

People are increasingly coming to realize that the Democrats' health care proposals would mean higher insurance prices for most families, higher taxes, more government debt, and big cuts to Medicare; in other words, it's a big political loser. Democrats can be certain that Republicans will work to tar opponents as tax-and-spend, big government liberals for supporting this massive expansion of government's role in health care. And with the facts supporting the allegations, it's a charge that's likely to stick.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

Democrats won't pay a political price for the "bribe" given to Sen. Landrieu because the Republicans, who might exact such a price, are equally guilty of padding legislation with their own earmarks. The process of looting the taxpayers with special payments for virtually everything under the sun is the problem. If constitutional law and good sense ever return to Capitol Hill, the process will cease. At that point, the increasingly beleaguered American taxpayer will breathe a sigh of relief.

With unemployment at 10.2%, it is imperative that we focus on job creation. In the halls of Congress, there are reports of yet another "stimulus" spending bill. It is great that jobs are again on the agenda, but to continue to do the same thing (simply spend more money) and expect different results is the definition of insanity. As the private sector continues to shed jobs, the size and scope of the federal government is expanding at breakneck speed: trillions in new taxes, spending, and debt; the creation of new government entitlement programs; unprecedented power grabs over our financial, health care, and energy sectors. Washington needs to drop its adherence to the notion that spending your money and printing new money are the only answers to promoting jobs here at home.

As we open another stimulus debate, it is instructive to revisit the passionate and vocal case recovery2.gifmade earlier this year for the trillion dollar spending package (H.R. 1). In January of 2009, President-elect Obama's economic team released a detailed report that made clear the need for their spending bill and the consequences if we didn't rush one-trillion dollars out the door. The following chart, along with updates that mark the actual unemployment data, makes clear the disparity between Washington's promises and the dismal results.
Read more...