Founding Fathers Supported Obama Care

Paul J. O'Rourke has a dynamite column showing that the Republican claim that the Obama Health Care Reform is unprecedented and unconstitutional can't stand scrutiny. In 1789, the Congress passed and President John Adams signed a law mandating medical insurance for seamen. (ht: Jeff Weintraub)

Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.

Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.

"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.

The history lesson

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance,

This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”

"Who do you trust on health care"

WaPo poll asks

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care? - and finds:

Obama (54)
Republicans in Congress (34)

Why is this President different?

A Sever at Tapped

the first African-American president of the United States, who will be hosting the first
ever Seder at the White House.

Read the whole thing.

Merle Haggard writes a song for Obama

The music is available yet, put Merle Haggard wrote in honor of Barack Obama just before inaugural day and posted them on his website. Maybe the Prez should have invited the poet of the common man to be part of the celebration.

Hope’s are High
Hope’s are high, faith is strong
If we all try we can get along
Cause there’s a new day and a brighter day
with a new song to sing along
And there’s Sunshine and blue sky
And Hope’s are high
There’s a blue bird atop a tree
singing loud for you and me
he’s got a new note and a brighter note
That we should sing and let ring
cause there’s sunshine and blue sky
and hope’s are high
We’ve got bad times behind us
and the good times up ahead
bet your money on the promise land
and the good things that he said
We got a new style with a sincere smile
and a new song to sing along
and we got sunshine and a new guy
and hope’s are high
Hope’s are high
We’ve got bad times behind us
and now we’ve got good times up ahead
Put your money on America
and the good things that He said
Cause there’s a new day and a brighter day
and a new song to sing along
And there’s sunshine and blue sky
and Hope’s are high

Putting the Warren invocation in perspective

Gay rights groups, liberal organizations like People for the American Way, and the progressive blogosphere are upset that President-elect Barack Obama has picked mega-church pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren to offer the invocation at next month's inaugural.

I can't say I was thrilled when I first heard the news. What was Obama thinking, I asked like many others. One gay rights leader described it as a "slap in the face." It is certainly being portrayed that way in the email blasts and list serves I'm seing.

One Kansas blogger, Moti Rieber who blogs at Fed Reb, has writen several intelleigent and angry posts on the subject. In one he wrote

Someone asked me whom I would have chosen instead. There are many progressive religious figures who have been largely excluded from the public discourse for years now, and who would broadcast a truly inclusive message at the start of the new administration, but just off the top of my head I came up with four

Moti names four fine progressive religious individuals, who I think would make fine invocators in in January. (But many doctrinaire religious progressive think Jim Wallis of Sojourners doesn't pass the grade on abortion or gay rights.)

But he left out the one that Obama has actually picked to be part of the Inaugural ceremonies. Yes, that right. There's a progressive religious figure already invited.

Obama has asked Joseph Lowery to give the benediction Lowery is an icon of the civil rights movement, long-time of the SCLC, tireless advocate of peace and social justice, and a supporter of gay rights.

The first step in putting the Warren invocation in perspective is to realize that it is not Warren but Warren + Lowery.

Understanding that is key to understanding what Obama may be thinking. And key to how the gay rights movements and friends of that movement should respond.

That's a subject for another day.

After the election: Two Views from Kansas

Two Wichita bloggers have insightful posts about the election which saves me from having to write something completely original myself.

Moti Rieber at Fed Reb says America is a center-left, not a center-right nation

reality has a liberal bias.

...due to a lot of the rightwing assumptions that have dominated our political discourse over the past many years, which have ...also permeated the pundit-sphere, it is likely that efforts will be made to pull Obama to the right by people who say things like, oh, you have to settle the markets before you take care of health care, for instance. I've written about that before.

So far at least it seems that Obama gets that, and so does the congressional leadership, and that they are determined to hit the ground running with an "aggressive agenda" - I would prefer a "progressive agenda," but you know, it may amount to the same thing. But it is important all the Move-On-ers and everyone else who did so much to bring us to this moment make sure to let Obama and their congresspeople know that we don't want a lot of backsliding on this.

Moti wrestles with the implication of the California Prop 8 vote. I'm not sure I agree with his judgment that "Ultimately, civil rights cannot be won through the ballot box, but only through the courts, because that's their job." I don't think that has been the case. Historically, the courts have often denied or abrograted rights (child labor, union rights to cite two examples).

I do think that Moti is right when he argues

The Democratic Party cannot and should not spend its political capital pursuing a social agenda that will only cause the people who broadly agree with it on economic issues to rebel. The social issues will have to continue to be fought on an Alinskyist, community organizing basis. But as I said last night, the weight of history is on the side of right, and eventually (and not too long now, I think) justice will prevail.

Russell Arben Fox also judges the election to be of potentially historical importance.

there are good historical reasons for seeing the election of Barack Obama as the distillation of a potentially strong and long-lasting realignment in American politics, perhaps as strong as the one which gave the Democrats dominance over the federal government for decades following FDR's election in 1932

If Rieber cautions the Democrats not to alienate culturally conservative voters, Fox wants to go a step further and positively embrace the communitarian concerns of many working and middle class voters.

rejects some of the more individualistic and/or secular presumptions behind many modern liberal arguments, and thus are interested community empowerment, unionization, participatory democracy, parental involvement in education, civil service, anti-consumerism, progressive taxation, media responsibility, fair trade, civic religion and respect, localized and decentralized bureaucracies, limitations on corporate power, and so forth...all could be captured by this umbrella. Obviously, it describes a very different (ideologically, at least; perhaps less so demographically) umbrella coalition of progressive voters than does Judis and Teixeira's, and--given America's political culture--a far less likely one as well.

The "insanity" of McClain on Socialism

Jack Balkin comments on an interview where John McCain lays down why he considers Obama to be a socialist and attempts to explain his economic views.

To summarize: a key tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth. However, a 700 billion dollar bailout of banks and Wall Street firms is not socialism. Rather, it is "help[ing] those who need help, who can't help themselves," which is not socialism (because it is not redistributive?). Giving tax credits to people who pay payroll and Social Security taxes under Obama's health care plan is welfare (indeed, why isn't it socialism as well?). However, giving tax credits to individuals under McCain's plan is not welfare (and presumably, is not socialism either).

As far as I can see, according to McCain, "socialism" and "welfare" are thus defined as "redistributive policies that my opponent favors." Redistributive policies that I favor-- like using taxpayer money to buy up old mortgages and subsidize new ones-- are neither socialism or welfare; they are helping people. Where both my opponent and I have supported the same redistributive policies (like the recent bank bailout bill), they are socialism or welfare when he proposes them and not socialism or welfare when I propose them.

The insanity of McCain's remarks comes from two important facts about American government. First we live in a regulatory and welfare state in which one of the most important tools of government is taxation and spending, which are almost of necessity redistributive in character and/or effect. Second, at least since the time of the the New Deal Americans assume and expect that government will engage in redistributive policies to solve social problems and deal with crises. The bank bailout and health care reform policies are only the latest examples of techniques of governance that have become as American as apple pie.

McCain cannot really turn his back on the basic features of American governance in the post New Deal era; at most he can argue about the different ways that government should engage in redistributive taxing and spending policies to promote the public interest. Thus, his use of "socialism" and "welfare" are completely disingenuous, little more than scare tactics designed to obfuscate basic political assumptions about governance that both major political parties share.

Jewish voters and Obama

Jeff Weintraub comments on Matt Yglesias post about the myth of Obama's Jewish problem.

they prefer either Democratic candidate over McCain by very large margins:

Clinton: 66%
McCain: 27%

Obama: 61%
McCain: 32%

=> OK, let's add a small qualification. The 61% figure estimated here does not match the proportions of the Jewish vote that have gone for the Democratic candidate in the most recent Presidential elections.

Jeff goes on to argue that the 61% is a "floor" not a "ceiling" for Obama. There's good reason to think he's right.

Kerry is estimated to have received in the mid-70s of the Jewish vote. But that was in November 2004. How was Kerry doing earlier in 2004? An American Jewish Committee poll in December 2007 showed Kerry with the support of 59 percent of the Jewish vote. By mid-September that had increased to 69 percent.

John Edwards for VP?

Eric Lee is not only making the case that Barak Obama should pick John Edwards as VP, he is organizing a grass roots campaign to send that message to the Obama campaign.

Here's what Eric writes

It's the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. It now seems pretty clear to everyone that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. The question now is -- what can we do to ensure that he defeats John McCain in November. And not only defeats McCain, but defeats him decisively.

We need more than a Democratic victory in November -- we need a landslide. We need huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We can only achieve that if we have the kind of unbeatable team at the top that unites the party and the nation.

It's obvious that Hillary Clinton is not going to be Obama's running mate. Obama has to choose from among many outstanding Democrats, including some who ran against him in the early primaries, to find a great Vice Presidential choice. But one man stands head and shoulders above all the others as the obvious choice: John Edwards.

John Edwards set the agenda for all the candidates in the early stages of the primary battles. He came up with the first and best comprehensive health care plan. He raised the issue of poverty as no leading politician has done for 40 years. His charisma, his abilities and his appeal to those voters Obama must win in November are beyond dispute.

An Obama-Edwards ticket in November is the Democratic party's best chance of winning a resounding victory. If you agree, please sign the form above. We'll make sure that Obama gets this message loud and clear from the many Democrats who we're sure agree with us.

If you agree, visit the Edwards for VP site and sign-on. BTW, Eric promises to have Obama-Edwards campaign materials available soon.

Most lists of potential VPs for Obama seem to be to excessively centrist and rather bland. Despite the importance of Ohio, no-one seems to mention Senator Sherrod Brown, a very forceful critic of the myths of fair trade (he's even written a book on the subject) or Governor Ted Strickland.

If Eric is right and Hillary out of the equation, it seems to me that Obama's advisors will present him with three options. First, a woman to win over Hillary's female supporters. Second, a balance-the-ticket moderate who will satisfy the media and the punditcrats. Third, as Eric argues pick a running mate who will give an economic populist punch to the ticket. This is the way to build an enduring, progressive Democratic majority.