No More Dead Soldiers!

We are finally seeing some movement to bring an end to what seemed an endless occupation of Iraq, but at the same time as the Obama administration is putting an end to one of the largest mistakes of the Bush era we see Obama taking some major steps in the wrong direction. I'm talking about Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 (two years longer than in Iraq), and yet no one is talking about it. The war in Afghanistan is just as impossible as the war in Iraq was irresponsible. The purpose of the war in Afghanistan seems to have been an attempt to squash the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and it has been remarkably unsuccessful. With military men and women who have little to no knowledge of the culture or language of the Afghan people, and no way to distinguish between Taliban members and civilians the war has been remarkably unsuccessful in making Afghanistan or the world safer. Too many Americans and Afghans have died in this ghost hunt, and it needs to end. There is, as Afghan war veteran Reyes said, no military solution for what is a political problem. Afghan people are joining the Taliban because of the American military presence which has destroyed their homes and families. They join the Taliban because they face major economic instability in the region. No mount of bloodshed or bullets will end this war. We need to stop throwing away the lives of American servicemen and women, and innocent Afghan civilians.

Here are some educational videos on the situation in Afghanistan and why Obama's escalation of the amount of troops in Afghanistan is not the way to go. The videos contain interviews with Afghan people, veterans of the war, and experts in the region.

For more information about the war in Afghanistan go to

RethinkAfghanistan.com, and click on the button on the

right of this screen.

No Free Ride for Obama

This is my message to all the other liberals out there. Just because Obama is in office now doesn't mean we can give up. In fact, we need to double our actions. Just because we've got a Democratic Congress and we got Obama in the White House doesn't mean our problems will magically fix themselves. We need to make sure we push our Representatives and Senators and Obama in the right direction. We need to remind them that we voted them in to bring the change we need in Washington. Unfortunately we have had a few set backs. Sure, Obama made the move to close Gitmo, but he still seems willing to try them in military courts where they will not receive all the rights that make America....well America. And though Obama has ordered a stop to torture he is unwilling to put the man who gave the okay to the usage of torture on trial. And while Obama has made a solid commitment to put an end to the war in Iraq he is asking for troops in Afghanistan. The Obama administration wants to sign health care reform into law by then of this year, but we have seen them totally ignore single-payer as a solution. We've made a lot of progress, but we can't stop here. We need to be vigilant. We can't back down now that we are here. We've got to be ready to fight for health care reform, an end to these wars, real solutions to the economic crisis, and human rights. We can not afford to give Obama a free ride; it's not enough to just be better than the Republicans, we need to do what's best for this country.

Government is EVIL!

The "recent" Tea Parties and their overwhelming anti-government sentiment has got me thinking, is government really evil? So I've decided to take a look at what the government really does, and see for myself it is really as bad as they say.

One of my friends, you know who you are ;), made the statement once that she could not think of one government program or agency that worked. I, being my liberal self, was taken off guard by such a statement and couldn't believe that she couldn't think of one, I mean not even ONE. I mean there's the ..... uhhh ..... wait.... there's the ...... Okay, so I have a dilemma, as you can see. I couldn't think of any government agencies or programs that were beneficial. So my question, are there any good government programs, or are they all just wasteful inefficient jokes funded by the tax payers dollar?

So I went on search to find good government programs. Turns out my family and I deal with, and in some cases even depend, on government agencies everyday. I attend one of the best schools in the country, and it's made possible because the government funds it. I use electricity, and the FERC makes sure that the electric companies don't charge my family too much money. I know that the water I use is safe because the local government makes sure it meets safety requirements. I can be sure that the food I buy from the store is safe because it meets FDA requirements. I'll be mailing my mother a mother's day card for virtually no cost because we have a nationalized postal service. I can find out what the weather will be like tomorrow because of the National Weather Service. Today we had the fire alarm go off and the fire department came to make sure we were safe, and they are a government provided service. My parents can drive across the state to pick me up on safe roads and bridges constructed by the government. My uncle is receiving treatment in a hospital for his multiple strokes because he is insured by Medicaid. He has access to some of the best medical treatments because of the National Institute of Health, a government agency, and the government's funding of university research. The FDIC makes sure that if my bank goes under that my money is insured. The list goes on and on.

Turns out, the government is EVERYWHERE and you know what I kind of like going to a great school, having my uncle receive the medical treatment he needs, and being able to send my mom a letter for 43 cents through USPS compared to $4 through FedEx. We all go through our daily lives without noticing all the little things we depend on to make our lives easier and safer. Our government has really done a lot of good, and it is agencies like the NIH, which has produced a wealth of medical knowledge, Medicaid/Medicare, which insures the poor and elderly, Social Security, which helps to make sure we can retire and still pay the bills, and so many more that prove that government is not inherently evil. The government is a necessary institution that insures our safety and well being.

I think that if the political right would just take a minuet and look at how it is the government that makes our standard of living possible that maybe they wouldn't be such anti-government crusaders. I mean, the majority of the Tea Parties were thrown in public venues, paid for by tax payer dollars. The protesters were protected by the police, a government agency. I mean really, it is our government and it's spending that made the Tea Parties possible.

For an unapologetic defense of government I would highly recommend GovernmentIsGood.com

Welfare Myths Debunked

A lot of people, especially here in the south, have a major problem with welfare. The common argument is that they are sending a part of their hard earned paycheck to keep some crack addict on a couch and in a nice car, or paying irresponsible mothers to have more kids so she can get more money. Moreover, these people NEVER get off of welfare; they just stay on it year after year with no incentive to find a job. Basically they feel that people on welfare are living the good life on other people's paycheck. So, the question today is, Is this true?

Well here are the facts about the people on welfare.

First, of the nearly 14 million people receiving public assistance only 5 million are adults. That means that 9 million, or 64%, of those on welfare are not even of working age. But lets find out more about the 35% who can work. The vast majority of adults on welfare are women, 90%, and, contrary to racial stereotypes, the majority of recipients are white. Another interesting tidbit, it is correct that the women on welfare tend to be mothers, but there is no evidence that they are having large families in order to get more money. In fact, approximately 43% of welfare mothers have only one child and 30% have two children. Guess what, that's the same number of children that the average family has. There is simply no basis for the claim that welfare creates an incentive to have more children.1

So, now we know a bit about who is on welfare, but lets see what else we can dig up. Well, turns out that the average woman on welfare, again 90% of those on welfare are women, were legitimately employed, lost their jobs and were unemployed for four months before applying for welfare. 47% of them even had 2 or more jobs before going on welfare. And according to a study by the University of Michigan, those on welfare are more often than not use welfare to supplement the income they receive from a job. It also turns out that 19% of welfare recipients are on welfare for less than 7 months, 15% for 7 to 12 months, 19% for one to two years, and 26% in two to five years (if you haven't been counting that's 79%). And just because this is so interesting, the majority of people who receive unemployment insurance do so for only 4 months.2

And just for fun lets see how much these people are getting anyway. The average monthly payment that welfare families receive is actually on the decline, while the cost of living is increasing.3 Here are the numbers, "In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (1) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (2) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job." These people are definitely not living the high life. Another note of interest is that welfare programs only account for 1% of the federal budget, and 2 % of the state budgets.4 In fact, we spent $500 million on bailing out the Savings & Loan Industry when Bush was in office, and that was enough to fund welfare for 20 years.

In the end, the average welfare recipient is not the same person that people imagine they are. It's hard working mothers who can't make ends meet. The problem here is wages. The average hourly wage has been on the decline since the late 1970's. This of course effects the poor the most since they already make the smallest wages. On top of that, women get paid less than men on average, so their wages have seen an even steeper decline. With such a small paycheck it's no wonder that these women lose their jobs if they have children. Child care is expensive, and if you're struggling to make ends meet then there is little hope of keeping your job when you have to take of a kid. Then just imagine trying to find a new job when you have to take care of the child. The problem is not welfare, the problem is with the system that forces people into this situation.

To make real change in the welfare system we need to attack the cause. We need to make sure that every mother has access to quality affordable child care. We need to create more educational and training programs to help those on welfare to find higher paying jobs. We need to raise the minimum wage to an amount that a real family can actually live on. We need to make it easier for employees to join unions, which have proven to increase wages and better working conditions. These are simple ways to reduce the number of people dependent on welfare, and if we ever want to see a real change in this area they are necessary.

Jindal’s At It Again

Gov. Jindal has made it to the national scene lately with his amazing ability to be completely ridicules at the expense of the citizens of Louisiana. So far he has rejected nearly $100 million dollars in stimulus for Louisiana, made a lame speech devoid of anything useful on national television, and more recently he has made cuts in funding for medical care that goes to those who need it most and education. Aren't we all proud of the a great job that governor of ours is doing.

Let me just explain the list above in brief.

First, Gov. Jindal rejected $98 million dollars allotted to Louisiana in the Recovery Act. To start with, that $98 million dollars is the most simulative money allotted to Louisiana providing a return of $1.64 in the economy for every $1.00 spent.1 Now to his reasoning for doing this, his argument is that it would require a "permanent" change in UI (Unemployment Insurance) laws. This argument however seems a bit unfounded since Jindal could just enact a sunset clause, which would put an expiration date on the program, and that would be the end of it. And even Republican Representative Robert Adley, of the Louisiana State Legislature, said that that we could revisit the UI laws later.2 Jindal's rejection of the stimulus money is purely political pandering. Jindal was warming up nice and close to the conservatives in the GOP, and he was rewarded. Later, Jindal was going to be the one delivering the Republican response to President Obama's Not-State of the Union Address-State of the Union Address.

In his response Jindal provided no substance for the American people in this time of economic turmoil. Jindal proposed 1)less government spending, less government period, 2) tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and 3) made statements about how the Republican party is ready to lead on issues like healthcare reform. 1) Now is not the time to cut spending, it is as simple as that. This crisis is getting worse because people aren't buying. We need more spending, and government spending in the form of infrastructure and UI are the best ways to stimulate the economy. Government funding of infrastructure will produce jobs for the currently unemployed, meaning people will be making money and will thus spend it. Government funded expansion of UI is the most simulative form of spending as shown above. Cutting spending will not help solve this problem at all. 2) The Republican response that tax cuts are a good idea for stimulus, as Jindal said in his speech, are just plain wrong. Cutting taxes will not help to fix this problem. Right now the American people are either too far in debt or too afraid of losing their jobs to spend the money given to them through tax cuts. Thus spending will not increase, and we will still be in a recession. In the end here, Jindal proposed nothing new to the American people. Jindal is just reiterating failed Republican policy that has lead us into the mess we are in now. 3) The governor also said that "[Republicans] stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage." This got me to wondering, what is it that the Republicans have proposed in regards to health care reform? Oh right, NOTHING! The Republicans have done absolutely nothing when it comes to health care reform accept give HMOs and pharmaceutical companies more control over our health care. Republicans have no desire to fix the health care crisis as shown by their lack of action. Gov. Jindal then said that what he does oppose is government run health care that would put government bureaucrats in-between the patients and doctors. What's funny to me about this is that we do have government run universal health care in this country for people 65 and older, Medicare. Medicare, however, doesn't tell those it insures where they can and can't go, and it doesn't put a bureaucrat in between the patient and doctor. In fact, more doctors prefer Medicare because they don't have to argue with them to provide coverage like they do with private insurance. Private insurance is the one that puts a corporate bureaucrat in between you and your doctor.2

Most recently, Gov. Jindal has done even more to screw over the citizens of Louisiana. In order to cut the state deficit Jindal is cutting funding to higher education and health care. Higher education will see a decrease in funding by $219 million, which will lead to cutting jobs and programs. Just what we need, higher unemployment. Jindal also plans to cut funding to Medicaid, a program that provides health care to the poorest of Louisiana residents and the elderly, by $412 million. There will also be a 7% reduction in the amount that Medicaid reimburses providers, and $30 million cut in funding for the Charity Hospital System. Accoding to the Times-Picayune, "John Matessino, president of the Louisiana Hospital Association, said in a news release that the cuts would lead to reduced services, layoffs and a shifting of costs to privately insured patients."3 Jindal will also be cutting 300 state jobs. That means an additional 300 unemployed on top of the teachers, doctors, and nurses who may also lose their jobs because of Jindal's cuts.

Good job, Bobby! Keep it up!

Jumping Right In

Well, let me say a little bit about myself. I'm a Progressive Democrat, which means that I have all the typical liberal social views (you know equality, pro-choice, etc.), economic views (safety nets for those in hard times, social projects, universal health care, the best way to stimulate a bad economy [like the one we have] is through spending, etc.), foreign policy (war is and always should be a last resort, diplomacy should be our first response, humanitarian aid to those in need, the war in Iraq was irresponsibly entered and needs to come to an end, etc.), and all that other jazz. I'm thinking that each blog will focus either on something going on in the country politically, or some issue I feel needs to be spoken about.

My fist issue is…..(drum roll)…..healthcare.

Healthcare is a HUGE issue in this country. We currently have about 45 million people living without health insurance, and that number grows larger with everyday. It's estimated that about 14,000 people lose their coverage every day in this country. The number one cause of bankruptcy in this country is healthcare costs, and what's even worse is that 22,000 people will die every year because they don't have health insurance. People who are without coverage normally go to the emergency room as the first form of response to a medical problem, and by this time, the problem has already progressed really far. Then because these people are unable to pay for their treatment the hospital charges more to everyone else who does have health insurance. But this isn't just a problem for the uninsured.

Insurance companies, HMOs, run the medical system like a business. After all, HMOs are just corporations, and the job of a corporation is not to provide payment for people's healthcare. The job of a corporation is to make money for their stockholders. If HMOs made money by providing healthcare to the sick, that's what they would do, but they don't. Providing payment for medical treatment is how they lose money. So, to solve this problem HMOs have come up with an ingenious plan: don't cover the sick, but only the healthy who don't need medical attention (and if they wind up needing it then either deny them the treatment, or if they have something really bad that will cost a lot of money then just drop their coverage). We live in this system, a system where HMOs cherry pick the healthiest and the richest, so that they keep shoveling profits into the corporation and ask for nothing in return. They are not here to help this sick, they are here to make a buck.

30% of every dollar spent on healthcare doesn't even go towards health care costs. That 30% goes to CEO paychecks, administrative costs, paperwork between the hospital and the HMO, etc. This system is so inefficient. With all of these HMOs the hospitals have to hire plenty of people just to deal with the insurance companies. All of these companies require different paperwork, and they all have a different list of everything they will cover for each person because each company offers a whole bunch of different plans. The whole thing just winds up being a huge mess where the doctors have to fight with insurance companies before they can even begin to treat a patient, and millions of dollars are wasted on just paperwork. The U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation, and what do we have to show for it? A medical system that is consistently ranked at the bottom of the list. When the World Health Organization compared the healthcare industry in Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada to the U.S., the U.S. ranked 6^th. So even with our giant corporate bureaucracy running our healthcare we are still at the bottom of the list.

When it comes to healthcare, the free market simply doesn't do the job right. We are seeing huge numbers of people being left out, and even with our massive spending we get the least amount in return. Our system is broken. Healthcare is being treated like a commodity, to be sold to the bidder with the highest offer. Well, healthcare is not a TV or a new car; it is a necessity. Just like people need water, food, a home, and have a right to a good education and safe communities; people also need and have a right to healthcare. We have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in this country and everyday HMOs are denying people their right to life. This system is disgusting, and needs to be dealt with now.

The solution to our problem is a single-payer system that would cover every American with quality healthcare coverage from womb to grave. A single-payer system is when you have just one source of payment for healthcare costs instead of hundreds of HMOs paying for it. This will streamline the cost of healthcare in this country, and make our system much more efficient. Government healthcare programs like Medicare only spend 3% of every health care dollar on administrative costs, and those covered by Medicare are more pleased with every level of care they receive than people with private insurance are. So, if we built a single-payer system based on one we know works (Medicare) we could actually provide every American with quality healthcare. Right now the government is already paying 60% of the health care costs in this country, and we could actually cover every American with quality coverage without spending any more than we are now (this is according to a study performed by the Congressional Budget Office in December of 1991).

A Medicare-for-All system would be much better than any other system proposed for healthcare reform. Some propose a system that would keep private insurers on place, but open up a public plan to everyone who wanted it. This wouldn't solve our problems though. If we keep the private insurers in place then the rich will keep their present coverage, and that means that HMOs will still be racking up a lot of money in profits. They would then continue to do what they are doing now, which is hiring lobbyists to look out for their best interests. This would lead to cuts in the public plan that would then drive more people to the HMOs, giving them more profits. If the rich are allowed to go to another system than the public plan would falter with lack of support. Studies have also shown that countries that keep private insurers in the mix with a public plan are less efficient than those who only offer a public plan.

Now, you may be thinking, "Well, if it's such a great idea than why don't we have someone working on this?" The answer is that we do. Rep. Conyer's has a bill in the House, HR 676, that would set up a single-payer, Medicare-for-All, system. HR 676 would cover every American with quality coverage. This is something we need to be working on now. We need to make sure that HR 676 passes, and that we see universal healthcare in this country NOW!

Here are some great resources for more info on single-payer, Medicare-for-All, and HR 676:

Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan

Healthcare-NOW!

Open Up Medicare to All – LA Times

73% of Votes Think Health Care Reform Must Include Choice of a Public Health Insurance Plan – Huffington Post