A Second Look Rotating Header Image

twitter

Filibuster Abuse is the Problem, Not a Bad Bill

Re:  Kill The Bill? Some Progressives Say Nothing Is Better Than Senate Health Care Bill

grayson

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8)

The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.

In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.

“Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate,” wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.

The Congressional Budget Office is crunching the numbers on the Senate health care bill. It would be premature to start the drumbeat for lynching the bill until we see the final version. I know that this sounds mundane, but it the bill comes back deficit neutral, as some predict, then we can make a better informed decision.

No one is more progressive on health care than I am but I am not going to stomp my feet and screech until I see what’s in the compromise and how much is costs. Doing nothing may be better than the Senate bill, but there is still the House bill to consider and the marriage of the two may put some things back that have been negotiated away.

At the progressive website Firedoglake, some still hope that the Senate will abandon Lieberman and pass reform with reconciliation.

The real problem here is the Senate’s use of the filibuster, not the fact that Reid is negotiating away all the safeguards against price caps, competition through a public option, and the option to buy into Medicare for those 55 to 64. It’s the abuse of the filibuster that is at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation process only concerns budgetary matters, and maybe, the public option. The Republicans would use secret holds and every other trick they can to stall or kill the bill even with the reconciliation. They would challenge the legality of using reconciliation in the first place.

Issues like eliminating lifetime payment caps and ending discrimination because of pre-existing conditions would have to be passed in a separate bill, which would also be obstructed with the filibuster.

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8) said it much better than anyone. Grayson’s words from The Hill (right-wing), By Tony Romm – 11/24/09 05:25 PM ET:

“Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?” asked Grayson, who listed a series of important bills that passed with fewer than 60 votes.
“Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system,” he added. “Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!”

Amen. Join Grayson at StopSenateStalling.com.

____________________________________________________

Share

A Second Look | Claire McCaskill Tweets Like a Republican & The Myth of Clean Coal

via Think Progress » Claire McCaskill Tweets That Clean Energy Bill Will ‘Unfairly Punish’ Missouri.

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will establish the first national standards for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and global warming pollution. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) responded on Twitter this morning, saying that the legislation’s cap on carbon pollution would “unfairly punish” Missouri’s families and businesses:

Claire McCaskill tweets on cap and trade

Who needs Luntz or Norquist when we have a DEMOCRAT to put out the weekly Republican talking point?

Thanks Claire.

At any rate, I want to urge everyone to follow the link back to the original story at Think Progress and read through some of the readers’ comments. One in particular grabbed my attention as being representative of the right-wing echo machine at full speed. The commentator is trying to make the case that coal doesn’t pollute:

Tim Vaculik Says:

Folks, we have the cleanest coal-fired power plants in the WORLD.

If we want to get away from using coal, fine! Let’s invest in NUCLEAR power plants like the French!

June 27th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

You know, there are many things that could be said about this one statement, but here’s what I have to say.

Actually what we have, Tim, are coal fired electric plants that have never stopped pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the air. They don’t have the technology to stop it. They claim that coal is “clean” because they capture the particulates, or ash, in smoke stack scrubbers before the hot smoke is released. They take that ash and pour it into water pools called impoundments that they dig on whatever land is available, sometimes near streams so that the polluting ash can seep into the water, and sometimes the ash dams burst causing an ecological catastrophe and either injuring or endangering human life. Many of these dams have not been inspected in 20 years.

The coal fired smoke that is still released into the atmosphere has the ash removed so that it is invisible and appears to be “clean” when in reality not one pound of CO2 is removed. “Clean coal” is a lie.

The FutureGen project in eastern Illinois was abandoned last year due to cost overrun. The Department of Energy, along with some private investors, began the project to develop the worlds first coal fired electrical plant that would capture and store carbon dioxide given off from burning coal. They gave up when the price tag went over $1.8 Billion.  It was in the news again a few days ago because another two of the private investors dropped out and the Department of Energy is looking for more.

And don’t get me started on mountain-top removal.

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: