DON'T TRUST REPUBLICANS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

Time is running out. I don't approve of the delay asked by the Blue Dogs and the meanie Republicans on the Democrats' health care reform bill. The Republicans were against Social Security retirement income back in 1936. Imagine the devastating effect on retirees and older people if the Congress had not passed that bill back then. The Republicans were against Medicare in 1965. Again without Medicare seniors would have no health insurance and thus be deprived of health care. Today, the U.S. is facing an even more important and critical question: do we want to see every American, man, woman, child, covered by adequate health insurance? The Republicans obviously oppose the program as "too costly." But if we left it to the Republicans, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, and no universal health insurance coverage.

REPUBLICANS TRY TO DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN GRANTING COVERAGE TO ALL AMERICANS

The Republicans seem like they are going all out to defeat Obama's reform of health care. They want to delay, amend, discuss, procrastinate, all with the aim of killing the first serious attempt to extend health care coverage to everyone, including the 40+ million Americans without any health insurance.

Think Progress reports today in a story written by Ben Ambruster that the Huffington Post obtained a secret memo put out by the Republican National Committee:

"After following GOP pollster Frank Luntz’s advice to demonize President Obama’s health care plan by distorting it, many conservatives have recently embraced a new obstructionist tactic: delay any reform measure going through Congress for as long as possible. The Republican National Committee is giving the strategy its official stamp of approval. In a 12-page memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the RNC urges Republicans to “engage in every activity we can to slow down” health care reform:

"In particular, the 12-page memo makes the case that it is a Republican priority to slow down the consideration of health care reform before it can become codified.

"“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,” the memo affirmatively declares."

The Republicans hated Social Security Retirement Income when that was passed in 1936; they hated Medicare in 1966; now they hate extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured. The Republicans call it "socialized medicine" when we Democrats insist that everyone has a right to full and competent health care. They would rather keep the 40+ million Americans without health insurance than have the country commit to make sure that everyone is insured.

BANKRUPT REPUBLICANS CALL OBAMA DEMOCRATS "SOCIALISTS"

Larry Kudlow, that Republican ideologue on CNBC, calls the Democratic budget and tax policy "socialistic." As the use of this term seems to date Kudlow back about 50 years, I would not think other Republicans would pick this up. Does anyone out there in Republican land really believe that universal health care is "socialistic?" Or that a progressive tax policy that increases income taxes on people who make over $250K indicative of an unfair "soak the rich?" Or how about establishing more regulation for banks and brokerage firms to prevent stuff like the Bernie Madoff scam?

But in today's Week in Review in The New York Times, Mark Leibovich writes:

"The early fiscal activism of President Obama has provided a heap of new fodder for anti-socialists, effectively turning a useful label meant to inspire fear into a we-told-you-so taunt. Last week’s blizzard of economic developments — the administration’s new budget, its partial takeover of another major bank — was fortuitous timing for CPAC, which ran from Thursday to Saturday, giving conservatives an opportunity to give full-throated voice to this re-fashioned refrain."

This is all too reminiscent of hearing people in Queens and Brooklyn some 50 years ago criticize FDR and the Democrats for their socialistic programs. Back then, providing social security retirement income was a radical communistic program for some Irish Catholics at St. Thomas parish who thought that Joe McCarthy was a Catholic saint and that there should be a law against Jews, Italians and Puerto Ricans moving in and "disrupting" Irish neighborhoods like Woodhaven.

Writes Leibovich:

"Of course, there is nothing remotely new about “socialism,” or the willingness of conservatives to hit the opposition over the head with the term, just as the name callers among the liberals have bludgeoned conservatives as “fascists,” “fundamentalists” and “plutocrats” and whatnot for decades.

"But the socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy. . . .

"“The right would use ‘socialist’ against Franklin Roosevelt all the time in the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College in the Bronx. “To hear him referred to as Comrade Roosevelt during that period was not unusual.” But while socialism is being invoked repeatedly now, Mr. Geisst said, it is a less potent slam than it once was."

Calling Obama and Democrats "socialists" seems to highlight a lack of coherent and rational opposition in the Republicans these days. The Republican platform seems thin and weak. Other than tax cuts, what do Republicans stand for? They have no program for the forty million without health care, they have no program to restore the economy, they have no program for withdrawal from Iraq. So in the absence of any thought-out policies, Republicans fall back like children and start to call names.

Leibovich reports:

"“Americans are just genetically opposed to socialism,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group headed by Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader.

"Mr. Kibbe had just finished moderating a CPAC panel in a packed ballroom on Friday morning called “Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?”

"After four speakers took turns whacking the S-beast, Mr. Kibbe ended the proceeding with a quick survey:

“If anyone here is not a socialist, raise your hand,” he said, before heading off to a reassuring mass of palms."

BILL MOYERS' GUEST IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE OBAMA'S AD ON MCCAIN'S PLAN FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

I saw and heard Kathleen Hall Jamieson's analysis of various campaign ads last night on Bill Moyers Journal. Jamieson said that Obama's ad on McCain's proposal to create private accounts in lieu of Social Security retirement income was "dirty politics." I strongly disagree with Jamieson.

I found Obama's take right on, contrary to Ms. Jamieson's description. Those private accounts favored by Bush and McCain would divert contributions of younger workers to their own private accounts, thus depriving older retirees of monies necessary to pay for their SS retirement benefits. While it would take some time for this to affect current SS recipients, it still would occur sometime in the future. Furthermore, in today's market meltdown, all types of assets have been decimated. That includes bonds as well as stocks. So 1) Jamieson is not correct in saying that certain types of accounts would protect against market melt-down, or 2) that McCain/Bush SS privatization would not have an effect on retirees or future retirees.