• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Obstructionism

What are you letting Tommy Tuberville (r) continue to do?

12 Sunday Nov 2023

Posted by Michael Bersin in Eric Schmitt, social media, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Eric Shmitt, Fascist pig, gaslighting, missouri, national security, Obstructionism, performative bullshit, right wingnut, Senate, social media, U.S, useful idiots

Do tell. Do explain.

Yesterday, from Eric Schmitt (r):

[image cropped]

Eric Schmitt
[November 11, 2023]
[….]
A big thank you to all the veterans out there on this #VeteransDay . Thanks for your sacrifice and your service to this great country. We appreciate you!

Some of the responses:

And yet you endorsed the orange turd.

Resign you pandering lying hack

Eric. You and your party have consistently left veterans out in the cold quite literally.
Go shove your flag waving and go do your job. [….]

Honor our veterans by strengthening our military. Actively work to stop tuberville’s blockade. It is easy to say thank you.

People are noticing.

Eric Schmitt (r) [2022 file photo].

Claire McCaskill, moral obligation, and the existential threat of the Trump presidency.

05 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cabinet appointees, Claire McCaskill, Congressional confirmation, Donald Trump, Medicare, Obamacare, Obstructionism

In my opinion Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill wants to be a good person as well as a good politician. She’s a Democrat because of the former and a temporizing centrist because of the latter. It’s not her fault that a raging red river flooded Missouri after she (and the first black president) were elected. But she dropped her talk about “progressive” values and began to sing the praises of “bipartisanship” shortly after the Tea Party began mobbing her Town Halls. The choice between good person and good politician are not necessarily opposed, but McCaskill’s case is complicated by demographics.

With the election of Donald Trump, though, things have changed. We stand to lose almost a century of progress while the Great Kleptocrat loots the nation and GOPers, in the pay of the Dark Money boys, stand by silently and let it happen as long as their wealthy patrons get theirs. We have to hope that as a good person McCaskill understands that she cannot choose to go along to get along in the new environment, nor will it buy her much political capital if she decides that she has to be less of a good person in order to be a good politician. There are plenty of folks with a respectable veneer who are a little further right (like, perhaps, Ann Wagner) who can far more convincingly fill the niche into which McCaskill’s been trying to squeeze herself .

The first test will likely be Obamacare and Medicare.  So far, McCaskill is saying the right things about Medicare without feeling compelled to add her thoughts about how to reform it in ways that hurt poor and middle class Missourians. The Obamacare test may be pushed further down the road if, as TPM’s Lauren Fox suggests, Republicans decide to repeal it, delay implementation of the repeal until after the midterms, and rely on compliant Democrats to pass a fifth-rate GOP replacement – and blame them for the repeal if they don’t. McCaskill’s been a sucker for this type of bait and switch in the past.

An even more immediate test, however, will be whether or not McCaskill is willing to go along with some of Donald Trump’s more unqualified and potentially destructive cabinet nominees. Democrats need to make it clear that Trump’s designated wrecking and looting crew will not waltz their way past the Senate. Although cabinet nominees only require fifty-one votes for confirmation, Democrats – and, who knows, maybe a few principled Republicans, if that isn’t an oxymoron – can make the confirmation process into what Politico calls a “slog” and tie up destructive policy moves on the part of the Trump Mafia.

We need McCaskill to stand with other Senate members who are now signaling that they aren’t going to roll over and confirm unqualified candidates who stand well outside even the conservative mainstream. According to Politico, “Democrats are likely to require roll call votes and possibly delay the nominations of Betsy DeVos to be secretary of education and Tom Price to to be Health and Human Services secretary, in addition to Mattis, Mnuchin and Sessions.” Early signs are that McCaskill is waiting for a little push to go either way. Politico quotes her as cautiously tending to support the emerging Democratic line:

“I’ve heard no conversations about the kind of obstruction that Mitch McConnell specialized in,” said another endangered Democrat, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. “But there may be some where there are real questions about their qualifications and some of the things in their backgrounds.”

Damn straight there is, Claire.

It’s a good sign, though, that McCaskill is trying to point out that lots of the nominees are genuinely dreadful; she seems to be trying to anticipate accusations that slowing the more outrageous nominations down in order to thoroughly vet questionable candidates is simply tit-for-tat against GOPers who, for purely partisan reasons, denied confirmation to a Supreme Court candidate that all admitted to be more than qualified.

Standing up against nominations that will be bad for the country is not by any measure the same type of political game that Republicans played all through the Obama presidency. They routinely obstructed the nominations of qualified judicial and agency candidates and slow-rolled the nomination of perfectly qualified cabinet level candidates like Loretta Lynch. Expect qualified Trump nominees like Elaine Chao to be easily confirmed.

As Nancy LeTourneau writes in response to charges of what she calls “both-siderism” in the Politico article:

Barack Obama didn’t nominate an Attorney General who had been rejected for a federal judgeship because of his history of racism. Nor did he nominate a Defense Secretary who violated the restrictions on the time between military service and serving in that capacity. He also didn’t nominate a woman with no training or experience in education to be Secretary of Education. Nor did he nominate someone who had been involved in the most egregious practices leading up to the Great Recession to be Treasury Secretary. In other words, the Cabinet Trump is proposing is extremist in a way that is unprecedented. As such, both the Senate and the American public need to seriously consider their capacity to harm the institutions on which so many of our citizens depend.

So let’s just hope that Claire McCaskill can put the good of the country before political expediency. Democrats are going to have to play a long game, and it’s likely that there are some who will have to take one for the team.

*Spelling of Elaine Chao’s name corrected (12/6, 11:54 am)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r) won’t do his job and the sun also rises

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

missouri, Obstructionism, Roy Blunt, Senate, U.S. Supreme Court

Early this morning in west central Missouri.

Sunrise.

Sunrise.

Meanwhile, the same old republican obstructionism in Washington, D.C.:

RoyBlunt031616

Senator Roy Blunt ‏@RoyBlunt
I will not vote for this nominee to the Supreme Court. (3/3) 10:34 AM – 16 Mar 2016

Dude, you and the republican majority in the U.S. Senate won’t even hold hearings or a vote.

Do your job. Schmuck.

Previously:

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14, 2016)

Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job (February 23, 2016)

Jason Kander (D) to Roy Blunt (r): #DoYourJob (February 25, 2016)

Tell Roy Blunt to do his job (March 4, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job

23 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

missouri, Obama, Obstructionism, Roy Blunt, social media, Supreme Court, Twitter

Today from Senator Roy Blunt (r), via Twitter:

SenatorBlunt022316

Senator Roy Blunt‏@RoyBlunt
As usual, WH gets it wrong. Again, Senate shouldn’t confirm SCOTUS justice until we have a new president. I will not vote for Obama nominee. 2:18 PM – 23 Feb 2016

Some of the responses:

ChairQueen022316

thechairqueen ‏@thechairqueen
@RoyBlunt while you are busy doing nothing, maybe take that time to read the Constitution. #scotus 8:10 PM – 23 Feb 2016

TheStandard022316

The Standard ‏@nffc65
.@RoyBlunt so basically you refuse to do the job you are being paid for? 8:11 PM – 23 Feb 2016

MichaelThurman022316

Michael Thurman ‏@smichaelthurman
@RoyBlunt You’ve got to be embarrassed for your self, right? Come on… 3:06 PM – 23 Feb 2016

Nah, nothing every embarrasses Senator Roy Blunt.

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Previously:

Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)

Clarity in a time of right wingnut political fog (February 15, 2016)

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle

14 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Constitution, Mitch McConnell, Obstructionism, Supreme Court

What is written:

United States Constitution
Article II

Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years….

Section 2.
….He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law….

Apparently the President of the United States holds office and exercises executive powers for a full four year term. Included in that is the power to nominate individuals to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

What is said – Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (March 4, 2008):

….I belong to a school of interpretation called ‘originalism’. Uh, sometimes people come up to me, screw up their faces and ask, ‘Justice Scalia. When did you first become an originalist?’ [laughter] Like it’s a terrible disease [laughter]….

….It used to be orthodoxy….

….The Constitution does not change. It means today what it originally meant when the people adopted it. Now, of course, you have to apply some of its provisions to new phenomena. In so far as it applies to existing phenomena, it’s the same. It does not morph….

“….In so far as it applies to existing phenomena, it’s the same. It does not morph….”

A press release from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (r), via Facebook:

….The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President…

We’d all have to wait at least another year. Evidently not an originalist.

Previously:

The world has changed (February 13, 2016)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General

25 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorney General, cabinet, Claire McCaskill, confirmation, Loretta Lynch, missouri, Obstructionism, Onbama, Senate, vote

“….We have a new test. You must disagree with the president who nominates you. Let me say that again because we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense. You must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly elected President of the United States because she agrees with the duly President of the United States…..”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D), yesterday, on the floor of the United States Senate:

The transcript:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Mister President, uh, briefly, this should be, um, a happy day for America. This should be a day that is circled in the calendar as another day as the, as the President of the Senate knows that this is about the American dream. This woman is the embodiment of the American dream in action. We should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the United states of America.

So why am I not happy? I am sad. I am depressed. Because what we are gonna witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. Doesn’t get any uglier than this. Because what we are saying today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today, it doesn’t matter if you’re qualified. It doesn’t matter if you’re one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the history of our country. That makes no difference. We have a new test. You must disagree with the president who nominates you. Let me say that again because we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense. You must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly elected President of the United States because she agrees with the duly President of the United States.

think of the consequences of that vote. Think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this Senate if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seat I can’t get elected President unless I’m against Loretta Lynch. If we all adopt that in the future how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet? Because it will be incumbent on all of us to be against cabinet members who have the nerve to agree with the president who has selected them for his team.

It is beyond depressing. It’s disgusting. She is so qualified, she has worked so hard all her life. She is a prosecutor’s prosecutor. She’s prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of the planet. And the notion that this has occurred because she agrees with the man who selected her – I think everyone needs to understand what that means for the future if all of us embrace that kind of base politics in these decisions.

It is not a happy day. It is a very sad day. I am proud of who Loretta Lynch is. I am proud that she will be Attorney General of this country. I am sad that it will be such a close vote.

Thank you, Mr. President.

That’s our Claire.

The release from Senator McCaskill’s office:

McCaskill Highlights ‘depressing…base politics’ of Colleagues Opposing President’s Attorney General Nominee Because the Nominee Agrees With the President

During Senate floor speech, Senator blasts unprecedented opposition to first Attorney General nominee who’s ever prosecuted terrorists

Thursday, April 23, 2015

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill took to the Senate floor today and called out her Republican colleagues for their unprecedented opposition to Loretta Lynch’s 166 day-long nomination for the post of U.S. Attorney General.

Lynch-who has had to wait more than twice as long as the previous seven Attorneys General combined for a confirmation vote-will be the first Attorney General to have previously prosecuted terrorists.

[….]

“We should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the United States of America,” McCaskill said. “So why am I not happy? I am sad. I am depressed. Because what we are going to witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. Doesn’t get any uglier than this. Because what we are seeing today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today, is it doesn’t matter if you’re qualified. It doesn’t matter if you are one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the history of our country. That makes no difference. We have a new test. You must disagree with the President who nominates you…we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense.”

When Lynch was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2000, her nomination was approved by the Republican-led Judiciary Committee and confirmed unanimously by the Republican-led Senate. In 2010, when she was re-nominated to this post, Lynch was again approved by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed unanimously by the full Senate.

Lynch’s nomination today was narrowly approved by the Senate by a vote of 56-43, and she will replace Eric Holder as Attorney General.

###

“….Think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this Senate if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seat I can’t get elected President unless I’m against Loretta Lynch. If we all adopt that in the future how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet….?”

Uh, should we ask Senator Roy Blunt (r)?

Ferguson and the Republican base: whose anger management issues matter most?

30 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Conservatism, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, grand jury, guns, Michael Brown, missouri, Obstructionism, racism, republicans, right-wing, riots, Robert McCulloch, Roy Blunt

Ferguson went up in flames last week when a grand jury decided that there was not sufficient evidence to hold accountable the white police officer who killed unarmed, black teenager, Michael Brown. It was the finding that the most seasoned and, hence, cynical observers expected, although there was also a tiny, but persistent hope that those expectations would be disproved. No one should have been surprised that the reaction to that disappointment resulted in what the Guardian characterized as “one of the worst nights of race-related rioting in the US for a generation.”

Angry people act out in the way they did last week when they feel powerless to affect events and to make themselves heard in less violent ways. It’s de rigueur for folks like me to piously declare that we don’t condone the violence and that it only hurts the innocent. The first point is obvious and the second only partly true, but the fact that violence is usually bad should not be used, as seems to be the case locally, to obscure the nature of the provocation. It would be great if we could all emulate the Ghandis and Martin Luther Kings of world, but Malcom X had a point when he observed that “the chickens would come home to roost.” That given, there’s no way I’ll overmuch criticize Michael Brown’s stepfather who greeted the grand jury decision with exhortations to “burn this bitch down.”

Nor does it help that after the transcripts documenting the Grand Jury deliberations were made public, they suggested a flawed process which news sources often politely referred to as “exceptional.” There are by now many analyses of the problems with this particular grand jury. (I’ll try link to some of those that I’ve read in a separate post.) The upshot seems pretty clear: It starts with a prosecutor who should have either recused himself or been replaced in order to insure that the local perception of his bias against African-Americans and in favor of the police not be allowed to taint the process. It continues with a grand jury supervised by that prosecutor in such a way that, as the Guardian concludes, it looks like he “conducted what amounted to a secret trial with no adversary to challenge what was presented to the jurors.” Did anyone ever doubt what the response to the failure to indict would be from those who live with a sense of ongoing injustice and who are now told that the grand jury has done its job and they need to just suck it up and get on with business as usual?

Meanwhile, those of us who have observed the level of incompetence that has characterized the handling of this situation by all levels of state and local officialdom are expected to devote our energies to hand-wringing about the damage done by the the more volatile elements that rampaged through the streets of Ferguson. Sure, the refrain goes, it’s bad for hair-trigger cops to shoot unarmed young black men – a relatively common event, incidentally – but let’s spend our time talking about the riots because damaging property is so bad that it mitigates our need to take the anger over the death of Michael Brown seriously.

Oddly, however, when another group of mostly white folks threw a far more prolonged – and still continuing – temper tantrum, one that has had vastly more negative consequences than the rioting in Ferguson, it hasn’t generated nearly the same degree of pious sermonizing.  I am referring to the ongoing social and political tantrum that got rolling about the time of the election of the first African-American president.

The fear that Barak Obama’s election has inspired has been both instigated and exploited by the Republican party and the various corporate funded right-wing groups for whom the GOP does due diligence. No matter how many indignant denials it elicits, it’s pretty clear that among the 20% of Americans that form the hard-core Republican base, racism is an animating force. These are the folks for whom code words and phrases such as “welfare-queen,” “black-on-black crime,” Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment, and Newt Gringrich’s “food-stamp president” dig were devised. The success of these race-baiting dog-whistles has created an environment wherein some politicians feel empowered to make overtly racist comments of the type that would have forced them from office just a few  years ago.

But our angry conservatives have gone even further down their furious rabbit hole. These are also the folks who began arming themselves against their fellow citizens, the ones they consider “other,” the liberals (just as frequently designated communists, socialists, or, in defiance of logic, facists or Nazis) along with the various dark-skinned people who, in the mind of many such people, make up Romney’s 47 percent. After Obama’s election, they rushed out to buy more and more guns, and, in increasing numbers, join right-wing “patriot” groups in response to the paranoia inspired by a liberal black president. The increasingly triumphalist gun culture has encountered little opposition and so terrified any politician inclined to oppose it that it has entrenched itself to the extent that we may never recover.

Worse yet, the rage against President Obama that these people express also provides both the motivation and the cover for the GOP’s corporate-serving obstructionism – never doubt that ALEC types were first and foremost among the people funding the incipient efforts to stir up what became the undeniably racist Tea Party. They’re the reason we cannot have a rational response to energy and climate-change, or address issues of income inequality that are destroying our middle-class. They’re the folks who, in the name of discredited free-market theology, have restrained economic growth with their failed austerian policies, and who scheme to destroy Social Security and Medicare, not to mention their continuing hysterics about Obamacare. It is true that they are bought and paid for by the big money boys, but they get away with it because of the enthusiasm of the overtly and covertly racist Obama-haters whose fear and fury they placate manipulate and occasionally share.

When the local columnists and op-ed writers, news show hosts, and average Joes spend as much time decrying the destructive GOP-enabled gun-culture that surrounds us, the refusal of Republican politicians to address our welfare while instead fighting against Obamacare, which is, sorry folks, fait accompli, I’ll take seriously their far too self-righteous condemnation of angry, hopeless, and ultimately helpless people in Ferguson, Missouri. When local media tries to make Roy Blunt accountable for telling racist jokes about “monkeys” in order to please the “family values” crowd, I’ll express some indignation about a few nights of rampage. We all know that lots of innocent people were hurt by the fire in the streets last week, but why does that trump the many more innocent people who have been devastated by injustice and the complacency of the well-off and powerful – and why is it more important than the political ravages the right-wing has perpetrated in their quest to neutralize the black man in the white house and render powerless the black men in the streets.

Deconstructing Billly Long’s GOP boilerplate

22 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ACA, Affordable Care Act, Billy Long, debt-ceiling, government shut-down, missouri, Obamacare, Obstructionism, Republican rhetoric

There’s been lots of hot air on the topic of the Affordable Care Act (ACA – or Obamacare for those simple GOP folk who don’t already know they’re the same thing). The latest barricade errected against Obamacare by the GOP was a vote in the House last week that attached provisions to defund the ACA to a budgetary spending measure that would keep the government running. It takes Missouri’s own Rep. Billly Long (R-7), though, to sum up the two years of blather that have culminatead in this DOA gambit in four sentences (h/t the The Turner Report).

“When traveling my district I continue to hear from business owners and citizens who are burdened by this law and concerned about its impact on jobs.”

You can be forgiven if this blithe statement leaves  you scratching your head and trying to figure out what Billy could possibly mean. After all, it’s hard for anybody, even folks who were willing to vote for Ozark Billy, to be burdened by a law that hasn’t, apart from a few peripheral provisions, taken effect. The parts of the ACA that are already in effect – such as no copays for preventive health care and no more lifetime limits under current insurance plans, expanded coverage for adult children under 26 – aren’t really much of a burden to anyone except possibly insurance companies – and given the yearly salaries of most insurance CEOs, they can’t be hurting them too badly.

The Obamacare as job-killer myth has also been laid to rest repeatedly. A new report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research concludes that “There is really no evidence that the ACA has had any noticeable impact on employment growth.” But don’t expect our Republican friends to pay any attention to facts when fabrications serve their purposes so much better.

“My colleagues and I in the House have repeatedly backed our words with actions when it comes to Obamacare through our votes and committee work.”

This sentence is where our man of the people pats himself on his GOP back. It’s probably safe to conclude that Billy is referring to the 42 votes to repeal Obamacare that have taken place in the House – despite the fact that everyone and their grandmother knew that none of these votes would ever go any further and were a complete waste of time – apart from keeping the gullible anti-Obamacare GOP base riled up.  

“It is time for our colleagues in the Senate to back up their words with action when it comes to repealing Obamacare.”

Here Billy is asking the Senate to back up House Tea Partiers’ kamikaze fanasies about defunding Obamacare by refusing to pass contining budget resolutions or, down the line, refusing to raise the debt ceiling without anti-Obamacare language. Nevermind that nothing that has been proposed would necessarily halt Obamacare implementation – that ship has come and gone. The ACA could weather the government shutdown that would result from GOP hostage-taking tactics just fine. What would be hurt, though, would be significant swaths of vulnerable Americans, not to mention the country’s economic prospects. Want to kill job growth, shut down the government.

“I continue to believe the best course of action is to repeal this law and start from scratch.”

Feel like you’ve heard that before from more than one GOP mouthpiece? You have. And you and I already know just what starting “from scratch” means – the same ol’, same ol’ that we’ve heard from the GOP over the years: one-size-fits all tax credits, tort reform, buying insurance across state lines (while decimating consumer protections), high-risk pools:

… all the things that don’t actually don’t do anything to address the real problem in our health care system: the increasing, systemic cost of health care. But they don’t include any provision for lower-income people to purchase affordable insurance. They don’t include any of the popular Obamacare provisions, like young adults being able to stay on their parents’ plan or an end to lifetime limits on what insurance will pay.

So there you have it; GOP healthcare strategy in four pieces of lame boiler plate. But why are we being subjected to these efforts at self-justification in the wake of the GOP’s destructive, leave-no-hostages-alive vote last week? My impression of Billy Long is that he’s a go-along to get along kind of guy and right now the folks who reward him for going along are playing a dangerous game. Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas sum up the GOP’s motivation aptly:

There’s a cold logic behind the willingness of some conservatives to risk everything to stop Obamacare. But it’s not that Obamacare will fail. After all, if the law will just be a debacle, Republicans should let it take effect, ride the catastrophe to overwhelming victory in the 2014 midterms, and then use their massive congressional majorities to repeal it.

Rather, as E.J. Dionne writes, the real fear is that the law will succeed. Once Obamacare begins delivering health insurance to millions of Americans it will become effectively impossible to repeal. That’s what’s happened in every other country that’s introduced a national health-care system. That’s why the right needs to stop Obamacare before it begins.

Come 2016 (or maybe even by November 2014) when people are faced with hard evidence that Obamacare isn’t going to hurt at all, the characters who’ve been emitting all the high-pitched screams in order to incite the Tea Party mobs are going to look mighty stupid. So stupid that lots of voters might think twice about sending them back to Washington or Jefferson City.

Edited slightly for clarity; URL added in 4th from last paragraph.  

When obstruction equals outright evil

05 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACA, Affordable Care Act, missouri, navigators, Obamacare, Obstructionism, regulation, Republican Party

Early in August I wrote that among other state-level strategies to derail Obamacare:

GOP lawmakers have learned a thing or two from their “War on Women” strategy of regulating reproductive choice almost out of existence, and seem to be using the same regulatory approach to sabotage the Obamacare exchange. Otherwise religiously anti-regulation GOPers have decided that they must rigorously regulate individuals, known as navigators, hired to help Missourians use the exchanges lest they engage in “fraud.” And if they manage in the process to slow the information stream to a trickle, well, what can you do?

A recent Salon article by Brian Buetler makes it clear that this effort to keep reliable information from those who most need Obamacare has become a coordinated national-level strategy, directed toward those states with the most to loose, those that have the largest uninsured populations. Prominent among these states is Missouri which is now on the receiving end of both state-level and national-level Obamacare obstructionism:

For the most part, Republican state elected officials have undertaken the most direct efforts to stand between uninsured people and Obamacare – refusing to launch their own exchanges and expand Medicaid – while Republicans in federal office fight a more symbolic fight.

But now a group of House Republicans has crossed that line – by attempting to bog down Obamacare enrollment specialists in states with the highest uninsured populations, according to a new Salon analysis.

Last week, as several other outlets reported, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to state agencies and nonprofit groups that received Obamacare “navigator” grants – organizations that will help educate people about the law and facilitate their enrollment – seeking an incredibly broad and difficult-to-compile range of information.

In order to do the most harm, the House Republicans directed their inquiries to organizations in 11 states with larger uninsured populations than in other states – including Missouri. As Beutler notes, claims that the inquires are meant to protect the privacy of those using the exchanges ring hollow since the Committee members seem unconcerned with protecting the privacy of Obamacare exchange users in any of the remaining 39 states, instead, he writes, the “targeting scheme was meant to maximize bang for their buck.” Supporting this contention is the timing of the inquires; Beutler quotes Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA):

“The timing of these letters is particularly suspect,” Waxman wrote in a letter to Upton protesting the investigation. “You are insisting on voluminous document productions by September 13, just when these groups need to be focused on their mission of helping uninsured Americans enroll for coverage. Indeed, it appears that these requests may have been sent solely to divert the resources of small, local community groups, just as they are needed to help with the new health care law.”

This latest bit of flim-flam is only the most recent in a long string of efforts to derail the healthcare delivery reforms we democratically authorized in the election of 2008 and reaffirmed in 2012. The Republicans who were sent to do the people’s business in Washington D.C. have even descended to the level of trying to intimidate national sports franchises to keep them from helping publicize Obamacare benefits. This level of opposition is beyond cynical; it’s truly vile.

I am a cancer patient. Last Friday, I learned that I am, after a lengthy and complex treatment process involving two surgeries and seemingly endless chemotherapy, in remission. I happen to have access to good insurance and received truly excellent care. I cannot imagine what would have happened if I had been uninsured – although one thing I am sure of, given the nature of my particular cancer symptoms, is that I would have been diagnosed at an even later stage of the disease and I would likely be dead now, rendering questions of my ongoing care moot.

From this perspective, I not only want to know what is being done to counteract this disgusting effort to hurt real, actual people in the name of a trumped-up, long-discredited, rightwing ideology that sees efforts to use collective resources for public benefit as some type of suspect “socialism” that must be stopped at all costs. I also want to know who is going to publicize the evil perpetrated by Republican Obamacare fraudsters during the past few years. I want their names and their crimes on a publicly accessible list.

I want the Republicans in Missouri who have participated in these and other Obamacare charades, who have promulgated disinformation and outright lies to be held accountable in a way that hurts them as much as they have hurt the citizens of the state. I have never been an eye for an eye kind of person. I have always scoffed at the whining of crime victims who carry on as if they and they alone have the right to determine what punishment is adequate to the crimes carried out against them, but this time I want to know that Republicans who have participated in GOP’s descent into evil will have to pay.

The stimulus and GOP dissimulation

26 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

GOP, Great Britain, missouri, Obstructionism, Propaganda, Recovery Act, Republican rhetoric, stimulus

Remember when GOPer Roy Blunt ran for the Senate by harping on the “failed” stimulus?

Remember when Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) took to the floor of the U.S. House to denounce the Recovery Act (i.e., the stimulus) as a failure, and Obama and the Democrats for turning the Bush recession into a depression?

Remember when Rep. Billy Long (R-6) demanded that Congress “admit they made a mistake and vote to repeal the Stimulus Act in order to reduce our deficit”?

These examples offer a very small subset of the disrespect that our GOP delegation lobbed at the Recovery Act. Almost every Missouri GOPer has a small archive of similar statements. They are usually accompanied by recipes for budget cuts, deficit reduction and similar austerity measures.

Which is what makes this chart (h/t Maddow blog) so sweet (for those of us in the U.S. at least).  Look at what happened to Great Britain and the Eurozone countries that took the austerity message so deeply to heart:

Britain, whose austerity policies many GOPers urged the administration to emulate, has officially entered a “double-dip” recession, while the U.S., where our President and his Democratic allies managed to push a small stimulus past GOP obstructionists, shows slow but consistent growth ever since the stimulus package began to take effect in the second half of 2009.

Don’t forget, either, that many economists have faulted the Recovery act only for being too small. Most realize,  though, that a larger stimulus would have been impossible given the Republican’s hide-bound, seemingly ideological opposition to the Keynesian approach that proved so effective in the 1930s and 40s.

Ed Kilgore, reporting on Robert Draper’s new book on the 111th Congress, quotes several passages that indicate that the GOP war on the stimulus may have been motivated by political considerations as much or even more than ideological concerns. Draper recounts the almost immediate mobilization of key Republican policy makers, at a dinner on the night of the Obama inauguration no less,  to devise ways to “submarine” the Obama presidency. Kilgore summarizes the strategy they devised:

In Draper’s account, these schemers decided on three very immediate steps: a campaign of villification [sic] aimed at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, an effort to obtain a unanimous vote in the House against economic stimulus legislation, and an early initiation of attack ads.

So political has the attack on the stimulus been and so divorced from fact, that I doubt whether the dire effects of the austerity crash across the Atlantic will penetrate GOP rhetoric in the slightest degree. I predict we’ll continue to hear the same tired canards about the “failed” stimulus” from the same cast of characters from now until November. Maybe then, if we’re lucky, the players will change for the better – in a few cases at least.

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • How it started…
  • Somebody should probably tell him
  • Thank you, Joe Biden (D)!
  • Early this morning
  • We could have had taco trucks on every corner

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,046,664 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...