 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
John Q. Citizen's Journal
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Aug 23rd 2009, 03:33 PM The four articles are written by Kip Sullivan, a nationally recognized expert on health care systems whose life work is to analyze and explain health care systems to non-experts in the field. (That would be you and me, legislators, unions, clergy, news organizations, citizen groups) If you read these information rich, well documented, well written, and easy to understand analysis of the history of the "Public Option" , the current state of the "Public Option" and the future of the "Public Option," you will know more about the "Public Option" than 99% per cent of your friends, and more about it than most congress critters do.
Bait and Switch: How the Public Option was sold.--- History and overview of the "Public Option" and how it came into vogue http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-s... / Does The Congressional Progressive Caucus Care About It's Public Option Principles?---- Public Option and Congressional Politics: What's going on? http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-c... / Reply to Critics of Bait and Switch: How the "Public Option" Was Sold --- A Rebuttal To A Scandalized Bloggosphere http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-c... / The Senate HELP Committe “Public Option” Will Be Multiple “Options,” And These Will Be Run By Insurance Companies ----Analysis of the "Public Option" in the Senate HELP Committee Bill http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/14/the-senate... Happy Reading. results in the foreseeable deaths of eighteen thousand (18,000) men, women, and children each year and every year in America. The cause of death is the purposeful denial of access to health care, for profit.
Just like the Drug Cartels, The Sex Traffickers, and The Mafia, The Asbestos Mines, and the Tobacco Companies, The Health Insurance Companies make big money and could care less that their business kills Americans each and every day. Many lawmakers and important government officials accept or have accepted large payoffs from these criminals. And many powerful public "servants" do the bidding of these scumbags. From George Bush, to Max Baucus to Hillary Clinton to Chuck Grassly, to Barack Obama, these powerful men and women refuse to protect our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands and wives, our mothers and fathers and instead knowingly and complicity choose to protect the interests of criminals. We are on to you Max, George, Hillary, Chuck, Barack, and you ilk! We have had enough of your criminal associations, we have had enough of your casual acceptance of blood money, and we have had enough of your complicity in the death, disfigurement, injury, and harm that your morally corrupt acceptance and furtherance of an ongoing criminal conspiracy have caused. At one point in our history we allowed men and women to own other men, women, and children and to exploit them as slaves for economic profit; then, We said ENOUGH! At one time in our history we let the factory owners and the mine owner work children to death for the profit of the owners. then, We said ENOUGH! At one point in our history we let polluters dump toxic poisonous wastes into our water, our land, and our air, that killed and injured people so that the few could make more money; then, We Said ENOUGH! At one time in our history we let Tobacco Companies market addictive poison to our kids for their corporate profit. Then, We Said ENOUGH! Right now in our history we allow the health insurance companies to determine if we receive health care, what kind and how much we receive, and we allow them to bribe our public officials so that they can continue to make money while we go without health care. ENOUGH! ENOUGH! ENOUGH! Things have changed. In fact, the proponents have said repeatedly it is a stepping stone to single payer.
So why not just pass a single payer system? Since that's what both the public option people want and the single payer people want? Any public option plan that functions like you or I would want it to function is unacceptable to the health care industrial complex. And just as unacceptable as a single payer system. So there is zero political advantage to a public option over a single payer system. In fact it would be harder to pass since a lot of people who favor single payer don't want a public option system Then their is the question of cost. We already have tons of evidence that single payer contains costs quite effectively while insuring quality care for all with complete choice of care provider. It's portable, it's easy, both for the care provider and for the patient. The public option will raise costs significantly. It will require widespread and constant means testing to determine who is eligible for government subsidies and who isn't and how much subsidies someone is eligible for. For example, the cost of administering Medicade is about 5% higher than the cost of administering Medicare, since virtually everyone is eligible for Medicare when they turn 65. There is no means testing, so it's much cheaper to do. With Medicade, the applicant has to go down to the county and fill out reams of paper work documenting their income, and if the income changes they have to update that in a timely fashion. And a case worker has to review and document the incomes and then has to determine what benefit the recipient gets. It's expensive, it's time consuming, if a mistake is made the recipient has to pay back any over benefits accidentally dispersed. The state has to follow up and collect. Also, remember what happened as soon as the Medicare part D (drug benefit) went into effect and the government subsidized big pharma? Drug prices took a big jump. And why not? Free money for big pharma. The same will happen with private insurance. Cost is why we are where we are today. If health care weren't too expensive no one would be debating anything. But cost is why so many people are uninsured and under insured. It's why there are less people covered by private insurance today than a year ago, and why a year ago there were less people covered by private insurance than a year before that. The public option is actually a bail out for private insurance companies. Why not demand what we want and what we know works to cover everyone and to bring down costs? Anything else is just screwing around.
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat May 16th 2009, 03:59 PM This was posted in Left in the West Blog today.
Beaverhead County is mostly rural and fairly conservative as a whole. ************************************************************************************************************************** We're voting today to decide whether or not to send a critical open letter to Max Baucus. If the vote passes, and I think it will, this is what will appear: Honorable Max Baucus It has not escaped our notice that the Senate Finance Committee, which you head, has excluded from its deliberations advocates of a single-payer public program. The only voices your committee is choosing to listen to are those of corporate healthcare interests, the very interests that have brought about the crisis currently afflicting us. Nor has it escaped our notice that you have taken more money from companies committed to the healthcare status quo than any other Democrat in Congress. Though you had no serious Republican challenger in 2008, you accepted the following sums of money from for-profit healthcare interests: Insurance companies: $592,185 Health professionals: 537,141 Pharmaceutical/health products: 524,813 Health services/HMOs: 364,500 Hospitals/nursing homes: 332,826 Total: $1,826,652 Ninety-one percent of these political contributions came from out of state. No wonder some call you "the Senator of K Street." It is clear to us that you are too beholden to these groups to oversee a fair discussion of issues involving them. You should immediately pass off the chairmanship of the committee, at least for the duration of the health insurance deliberations, to another senator less in the pocket of these special interests. Advocates of a single-payer healthcare option, an option favored by sixty percent of the American public and operating quite efficiently and far less expensively in Canada and virtually every European country, need to receive a fair hearing by your committee, with or without you as its chairman. We supported you in the last election. But if you continue to side with large corporations against ordinary Montanans, rest assured that we will support a Democratic challenger to you in the next primary. Sincerely, Richard Turner, Secretary Beaverhead County Democrats Source: The Missoulian (Lee Newspaper Chain, Montana)
Effort pushes ‘Medicare for all' system By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau HELENA - As part of a grass-roots effort to reform health care, Montanans are sending ideas to President-elect Barack Obama - and, so far, many are saying that a national, “Medicare for all” system is the way to go. “The consensus of (our group) was that we did not see a lot of change coming unless we went to a single-payer, universal health system,” said Deborah Hanson of Miles City, who organized a meeting of local citizens at the behest of Obama's transition team. “That was sort of a general consensus - knowing, of course, that may not happen.” The Miles City meeting, held Dec. 21 at Hanson's home, was one of several in Montana and thousands held across the nation during the last two weeks of December. * Obama's nominated secretary of Health and Human Services, former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, asked that Obama supporters hold local health care community discussions nationwide to gauge the problems people see with America's health care system and how they'd like to reform it. Read more: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01... A great article, in depth about how people all over the state of Montana are showing up at Obama inspired health care forums, meetings, and discussions, and how the people overwhelmingly want single payer. This is really important because Baucus has already dismissed single payer on ideological grounds, and this irrefutably undermines the primary "it isn't politically feasible" argument that Democratic single payer - opponents are using against single payer. Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Dec 07th 2008, 04:06 PM If you would like a forum for exchanging information about Single Payer initiatives, activism, and ideas, please post here.
Thanks Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Dec 04th 2008, 04:45 AM a white woman would be more electable by a majority of the citizens?
See, I didn't buy that back when and I don't buy that we can't a system that: 1. Is affordable for everyone 2. Accessible for everyone 3, Provides choice of care providers for everyone. In fact, I think that should be a lot easier than electing a black man to the White House was. We passed Medicare back in the 60s, which is of course single payer for a pool that's 65 and older. So we already kind of passed it 45 years ago.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Dec 04th 2008, 02:01 AM I want three things from a comprehensive health care reform bill.
1. Affordable. Health care needs to be affordable for all.That means no more lost houses, no more bankrupt businesses because somebody gets sick. No more problem getting needed health care because of money or insurance. 2 Accessible. Any body can access the system as needed. 3. Choice of care provider for all. Everybody can go to who they want for health care. If the unimpeded free market can deliver that then that's we should do. If a single payer fee for service system can do that, then that's what we should do. If a two tiered system of both public and private financing can do that, then two Americas is a small price to pay for a health care system that works, at least to some degree for everyone, I suppose But to limit the debate at this point based on ideology instead of efficacy is wrong. If the Two Americas approach is best, let it stand on it's own two feet and show us why it's better than the Oliver Twist system or the Canadian style system. http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agend... / The proposal for an employment based hi bred public/private system is at the url/ I'm opposed. I think it can be proved that a tax based single payer fee for service system will provide much better outcomes for the country as a whole. Sure there will be some Insurance executives who don't like it, i know. But for the sake of the country, they will need to sacrifice. Like our soldiers have. Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Mar 12th 2008, 11:09 AM The Hillary campaign's cynical and calculating decision to inject racism's ugly emotions into the democratic primaries could result in major damage for women and children in this country.
We all know that Hillary endorses John McCain as qualified: But what Hillary doesn't tell you is that some of the things he is qualified to do is: 1. Appoint judges that will overturn Roe v Wade, 2. To gut SCHIP 3. To shift taxes onto middle and lower income families off the wealthy 4. To wage endless war at the expense of women and children Hillary knows that the Democratic party can't win a national election in this country without the Democratic Party's major coalitions; The people of color, the young, and the baby-boomers who self identify as Democrats. Yet she is purposely and calculatedly attempting to drive a wedge into this coalition through introducing, fostering and nurturing racism. This will end up badly for women and children in this country. It's time for Hillary to go. Every day she stays makes President McCain a greater likelihood. Hillary is endangering women and children. Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Mar 10th 2008, 11:54 PM do, and apparently so do a number of the major and minor honchos of the Democratic party if one believes their public statements at any rate.
The only recklessness I've seen is Hillary's twin assertions that Obama isn't qualified, yet that he is qualified, as the front runner in elected delegates, states won, and popular vote, to be a heart beat away from the oval office, but only on a Clinton headed ticket. That seems pretty reckless to me. My belief is that the supers will put Hillary out of her manic depressive bi-polar misery sooner rather than later. The recent election of a Democrat to Hastert's district is yet another indicator that Obama has the longer coat tails, and the supers who rely on winning elections for their bread and butter can't miss that aspect. This is also demonstrated in the constant and very large erosion of the once formidable but now rather small Clinton lead in super delegates. Once the supers decide enough is enough, the game will be over, and according to the rules. That will be long before the convention in my opinion. Still, I'm contemplating attending the convention as overflow crowd with 3 my kids who will range in age from 9 to 14 by August. I don't plan to attend as a street-fighting man but rather as a street-dancing man. Maybe I'll see you there.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Mar 05th 2008, 04:04 PM Dear Editor (Missoulian)
Hillary needs to come clean with the voters. For over a year, she has refused to release her 1995 and 1996 tax returns. Hillary often says candidates need to be vetted, yet she snubs the voters and refuses to let us vet her. Hillary isn't hiding any illegal scams or lobbiest income - To the best of my knowledge. But why is she hiding anything from the voters of Montana? Shame on you Hillary! (my name) Demoractic Party member and voter
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Feb 18th 2008, 06:36 AM what is it?
Is Hill in a conspiracy with the Repos and losing 10 states in a row as well as the the popular vote on purpose to set Obama up for a giant November fall and 40 more years in the wilderness for the Democratic Party and especially the left in the Democratic Party and beyond? Or do you figure george isn't going anywhere and will do to some major national emergency declaration? Or are you just super afraid of the awful, horrible, mean rotten, Norquist? And his rotting friends? See us Obama voters? We're not afraid of Norquist. Every time he talks, we don't tremble. We don't stop contesting states, counties, cities, towns, neighborhoods, streets or people because we gave up. That's a lesson Clinton never learned, apparently, don't cede power to the opposition. Five elections and 3 primaries of the 17 state strategy. Ceding turf is not a winner. Just as she never learned how to move the grass roots. She's great as far as dealing with corporate movers and shakers, corporate consultants, and corporate lobbyists. That's been her whole life. But we have a candidate who actually worked in the grass roots and understands the grass roots and is actually able to move the grass roots. Plus he can talk to any and every CEO that Hill can. It scares the fuck out of people like Norquist, because they were supposed to do that with the fundies, the Dems weren't supposed to do that; But they got McCain and the fundies dislike McCain almost as much as they dislike Hill, and some of the fundies even like Obama anyway. They can shoot Obama, but other than that he's gonna kick their ass. Just like he's kicking old ready on day 1's, ass. She's ready on day one to have her ass kicked by a guy who has a facility available to him that she just doesn't have available to her. And Obama has enough sense to know not to cede power to the opposition by just walking away and turning your back on vast areas of people, policy, and communication. And once Obama has put Hill out of her misery come March, then he will turn his attention to McCain, and once again, quietly, methodically, and undeniably he will take him apart. I think Norquist is more afraid of Obama than Obama is afraid of Norquist. That's what the threats and bluster is about. And I think Norquist has very good reason to be afraid of Obama.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Feb 08th 2008, 12:40 PM The wrong answer is 'because of the Republicans.' Please read the whole article before responding. Due to DU rules, I could only include but a small portion of the analysis. Vicente Navarro was the sole advocate (the token) of single payer allowed onto Hillary's 500 member health care task force. Vicente Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University, U.S.A., and of Political Sciences in the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain.
The answer 'It was the Republicans fault that Hill's plan failed' isn't just wrong, it's stupidly and ignorantly wrong. It's just parroting propaganda at it's worst. This article, in it's entirety, should be mandatory reading before anyone opens their mouth with an opinion as to why Hill failed. November 12, 2007 Getting the Facts Right Why Hillary's Health Care Plan Really Failed By VICENTE NAVARRO http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro1112200... snip... Let's start with some corrections to Starr's assumptions. The commitment of the Democratic Party and candidate Bill Clinton to universal health care coverage for all citizens and residents started much earlier than Starr suggests. It began in the presidential primary campaigns of 1988, when Jesse Jackson (for whom I was senior health advisor), running for the Democratic nomination, made a commitment to universal, comprehensive health care benefits coverage a central component of his platform. This proposal was dismissed by the Democratic Party establishment as "too radical," but it had already mobilized large sectors of the party's grassroots (especially labor unions and social movements) to support Jackson, with more than 40% of the delegates at the Democratic Party Convention in Atlanta. This shook the Democratic establishment and stimulated responses from Governor Clinton, Senator Al Gore, and Congressman Richard Gephardt to block this rise of the left in the Democratic Party, which they did by establishing the Democratic Leadership Council, among other interventions. (Gore and Gephardt have changed since then; Bill Clinton hasn't.) (I describe these effects of Jackson's health proposals on the Democratic Party in "The 1988 Presidential Election," in The Politics of Health Policy: The U.S. Reforms 19801998, Blackwell, 1994. pp. 99-110.) To control this growth of the left, something had to be done. And as liberals always have done when faced with the left, they recycled its progressive proposals, adopting much of their narrative but emptying them of their content. This is what Clinton did in his 1992 campaign. He used the title, narrative, and symbols of Jesse Jackson's campaign, calling his platform "Putting People First" (the title used by Jackson in 1988) and including the call for universal health care benefits. As the perceptive Financial Times wrote, "Clinton Whereas Jackson had called for a single-payer program similar to that in Canada, Clinton chose the opposite pole of the political spectrum: managed care competition. Managed care competition basically meant the insurance companies exercised full control over health care providers, with doctors working in group practices called Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). As stated by Paul Elwood, a leading member of the White House task force, "insurers-controlled HMOs, under managed care competition will stimulate a course of change in the health care industry that would have some of the classical aspects of the industrial revolution--conversion to larger units of production, technological innovation, division of labor, substitution of capital for labor, vigorous competition and profitability as the mandatory condition of survival" ("Heath Maintenance Strategy," Medical Care, 9 (1971), p. 291). This industrial revolution in medical care would indeed have revolutionized the practice of medicine. It is important to note that the idea of managed care competition was first proposed as a solution to the irrationality of the U.S. health care sector by Alain Enthoven, personal advisor to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War. Enthoven was in charge of developing the "body count" as an indicator of military efficiency. After the Vietnam fiasco, Enthoven retired to the Rand Corporation, choosing to focus his intellectual efforts on the reform of U.S. health care. A strong ideologue and market fundamentalist, and completely ignorant of the mechanics of the medical care sector, Enthoven thought the best way to control out-of-control costs in the health sector was to increase competition in the sector, letting health insurance companies compete for consumers--meaning patients--based on the price of services. The problems with such a naďve and unrealistic scenario are many. First, patients do not determine the cost or price of medical care services. Second, patients have very little choice in the U.S. health care sector: employers choose which plans are available to employees. Third, the market does not exist in the health care sector. Fourth, the insurance industry's financial viability depends on its ability to discriminate against heavy care-users. I could go on and on detailing just how wrong Enthoven's proposals were. Not surprisingly, managed care was the proposal chosen by the insurance industry and by employers. As Bill Link, Executive Vice President of Prudential and one of the highest-paid CEOs in the country, stated: "for Prudential, the best scenario for reform--preferably even to the status quo--would be enactment of a managed competition proposal." Link envisioned the corporatization of U.S. medicine, breaking the long dominance of health care providers in the medical care sector. As Enthoven wrote in an article co-authored with Richard Kronick, another leader of the White House health care reform, "what about traditional fee-for-services individual and single specialty group practices? We doubt that they should generally be compatible with economic efficiency. . . . Some would survive in private solo practice without health plan contracts, serving the well-to-do." It could not have been put more clearly: managed care competition was corporate assembly-line capitalism for the masses and their health care providers, with free choice and fee-for-service medicine for the elites. Much more at the url http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro1112200... Vicente Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University, U.S.A., and of Political Sciences in the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Nov 11th 2007, 05:44 PM Records are from 1997 to present as per gov tracks http://www.govtrack.us /
I've seen post after post from Kucinich detractors and other rumor mongers that try to claim that Dennis Kucinich is somehow "less effective' in congress than his peers are. So i thought I'd look it up and find out for my self. What I discovered is that Kucinich has more of his bills voted out of committee than does Pelosi during the same time frame. This despite the fact that in 1997, when Kucinich entered Congress, Pelosi was already a 10 year veteran of the House, and she was then elected to the Dem House Whip Post in 2001, as Minority leader in 2002, and assumed the Speakership at the beginning of 2007. Also, relative to Kucinich's peers in the House of Representatives, he has a better record than say Senator Clinton, or Senator Dodd in getting bills voted out of committee, who have a "very poor" rating relative to their peers in the Senate. I also included Bernie Sanders' record, since he was another quite liberal House member (moved up to the Senate in 2007) and I thought it might be interesting for comparison purposes. Sanders entered the house in 2001. Dennis' attendance (missed votes) record is also average relative to his peers in the House, even though he is in his second run for the President. (2004 and current) This compares favorably against both Obama and Biden, who have a "very poor" and "poor" rating respectively when compared to their peers in the Senate. US HOUSE KUCINICH http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 101 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 92 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Kucinich has co-sponsored 3069 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Dennis Kucinich missed 323 of 6907 votes (5%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). PELOSI http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 55 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 48 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Pelosi has co-sponsored 1724 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Nancy Pelosi missed 278 of 5936 votes (5%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). BERNIE SANDERS http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Bernard Sanders has sponsored 119 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Sanders has co-sponsored 2784 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Bernard Sanders missed 267 of 6234 votes (4%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). US SENATE OBAMA http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 123 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 114 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 498 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Barack Obama missed 148 of 1051 votes (14%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Very Poor relative to peers). DODD Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Christopher Dodd has sponsored 327 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 262 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 8 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Dodd has co-sponsored 1815 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Christopher Dodd missed 245 of 3678 votes (7%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Average relative to peers). CLINTON Voting History Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 337 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 291 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1670 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Hillary Clinton missed 114 of 2359 votes (5%) since Jan 23, 2001 (Average relative to peers). BIDEN Voting History Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Joseph Biden has sponsored 218 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 125 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 6 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Biden has co-sponsored 1118 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Joseph Biden missed 334 of 3682 votes (9%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Poor relative to peers.) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... EDWARDS No info available at the govtracks site Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Nov 04th 2007, 04:15 PM Dem majority no vote for the IWR in the House. He's an active member of the progressive caucus
He just won't sell out because someone tells him he should. When he says "No, I'm not going along with something I know is wrong," then people try to smear him with this shit. The same thing happens to anybody who can't be bought, they try to bring social pressure on them to conform to those who can be bought. These same smear - Meister's always then go back when Dennis was 32 and taking on the monied interest in Cleavland. Yeah he pissed a lot of fat cat power brokers off. More power to him. I wish some more of our go along to get along spineless Dems would do that. They just don't have the personal confidence and center to take that kind of heat. Harry Truman got the same bad rap. Yeah, Dennis already said it was a mistake to fire his insubordinate Chief of Police on TV on good Friday. But that was 30 years ago. He's learned a heck of a lot since then. Here's Kucinich's record. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 101 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 92 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Kucinich has co-sponsored 3069 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Some of Kucinich's most recently sponsored bills include... (View All) H.R. 3875: To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina. H.R. 4060: To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education. H.J.Res. 39: Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously. H.R. 2707: To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. H.R. 3183: For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.Text Cali tries to attack Dennis by contrasting his record with another great progressive, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and tries to make the charge stick that 'Dennis doesn't work well with others.' However, when we look at his record over the same time period, we see that he hasn't had more success than Dennis in the GOP controlled house (up until Jan of 07)that both have had to labor under, not to mention the regressive attitudes of many in the Dem caucus. Dennis in fact, has co- sponsored more bills than Sanders, and gotten more bills voted out of committee. Dennis has gotten 9 bills out of committee to Sander's 2, and both Sanders and Kucinich have gotten one bill enacted into law. Why Cali tries to pit two great progressives against each other to smear Dennis is beyond me. Perhaps someone should ask her. Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Bernard Sanders has sponsored 119 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Sanders has co-sponsored 2784 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... And finally, here is the record of Nancy Pelosi, former minority leader of the house and current Speaker of the house Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 55 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 48 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Pelosi has co-sponsored 1724 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Notice anything here? Dennis has gotten more votes out of committee, sponsored and co-sponsored more bills than Sanders or Pelosi, and all have enacted one of their sponsored bills into law. Kucinich is doing a great job, and should be very proud of his record. He entered the House in 1997 as a freshman. Pelosi entered in 1987, and Sanders in 1993. Dennis got right down to getting things done, Cali not with standing
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
|
Profile Information John Q. Citizen
 DU Donor16667 posts Member since Tue Jun 15th 2004 Montana Male Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.
Steal a little bit of money they put you in jail,
steal a lot and they make you king... Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Lawmaker asks people to stop complaining, and gets an earful By babylonsister Peace (Dial up warning) By unhappycamper Naomi Klein: 'No Logo' Revisited By marmar In Morocco, Tzipi Livni backs Mideast talks By oberliner Karl Rove Memoir Coming in March By unhappycamper Some Disturbing Facts About ACORN #ACORNfacts *snarf* By Are_grits_groceries Army tests wallpaperlike material that could keep out blast debris By unhappycamper "Stealing some of our best lines" By n2doc 200 Web sites spread al-Qaida's message in English By unhappycamper 1 mil a year? By n2doc Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. DOMA Declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by Ninth Circuit! 169 recs : By berni_mccoy Students Take Over UC Berkeley 87 recs : By dana_b New DU Bumper Sticker: "Obama's Prayer: Psalm 40:15" 62 recs : By TygrBright You voted for Bush? Both times? Then no, you don't get your country back. You fucked it up. 58 recs : By charlie VICTORY! Cafe Press Pulls Psalms 109:8 Designs 43 recs : By wicket 2 bulbs burn out in hospital sign, now gives very different message 42 recs : By DearAbby Paul Krugman: The economy is in grave danger because Wall Street was treated with kid gloves 42 recs : By Better Believe It Attention DUers: If you use Spybot to detect spyware, read this. 42 recs : By Fly by night Let's Call It What It Is: Privatization, Not Education Reform 40 recs : By Dinger Elizabeth Warren Appreciation Thread 37 recs : By Karenina Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
