Sarah Palin: When Reality is Irrelevant

There have been so many comments about this post on Facebook, that I decided to copy and paste them in here.  Look below the fold.

By now you've all heard about, and possibly read, this month's Vanity Fair piece about Sarah Palin by Todd S. Purdum, It Came from Wasilla.  (If you haven't, go read it!)  It's an expose about the train wreck that was the McCain-Palin campaign in the final few months.  But this time, we hear a bit more than leaks about Sarah Palin being a "whack job," a "diva," or "going rogue."  My favorite revelation?  Apparently Palin's handlers started calling her the "Little Shop of Horrors" within a week.

There's a nice follow up article in Politico today about the Republican infighting generated by the Vanity Fair piece.  Bill Kristol, an adviser to the McCain campaign and someone rumored to have been responsible for McCain's selection of Palin as a running mate, started off the bitch fest with a post on The Weekly Standard's blog criticizing the Vanity Fair article.  Since then, he and Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, have basically traded school yard insults, dragging in Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign policy adviser.  Keep it up, boys.  We really don't care who leaked all the stuff about Palin during the campaign or whether one of you suggested she might have post-partum depression.  It's all good for the Democrats!

Here's a sampling of the pissing match:

“Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory,” Schmidt said. “He’s in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism.”

Responding to Schmidt’s counterattack, Kristol directly fingered Schmidt: “It’s simply a fact that when the going got tough, Steve Schmidt trashed Sarah Palin, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists. This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick when, at first, he thought it made him look good. John McCain deserved better.”

At this, Schmidt unloaded in a lengthy telephone interview, suggesting that Kristol was carrying out a personal vendetta based out of anger over the attempt to fire Scheunemann in the final days of the campaign.

Man, it doesn't get much better than this.

Go Beyond Just "Tribute" for Veterans

When I attended the inauguration earlier this year, I met some amazing people.  One of those was a man named Paul Schneeberger.  Paul had become involved in military and veterans issues after interviewing some Gold Star Mothers for a film project.  (A Gold Star Mother is a mother who has lost a child in battle.)  And so, without any personal connection to the military or its families, Paul took up our cause.

Paul and I spent a great deal of time talking about the disconnect between the American public and our military.  There is no longer a shared sense of service or responsibility when it comes to the defense of our country.  There really hasn't been since the memories of World War II began to fade.  Now, only one percent of our nation is at war.  The rest of us were told to go shopping.

The problem is that while we were shopping, military families were becoming stretched to their very limit by multiple deployments, injuries, and other unseen wounds like PTSD and TBI (traumatic brain injury).  While the current administration is doing its best to increase funding for the VA, personnel and military families, we're in a recession and a big one at that.

I don't think most of the American public truly understands what the long term costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be.  With each deployment, a soldier's chance of serious problems with PTSD greatly increase.  We're also seeing brain injuries that the current military and VA medical systems simply aren't equipped to handle.

Yes, many people slap yellow ribbons on their cars and wave flags and say they support the troops.  But they don't really know.

Is Release of Torture Photos Necessary? The MOMocrats Debate Obama's Decision.

Last Wednesday, under the advice of Pentagon officials, President Obama reversed a decision to comply with an appeals court's May 28th deadline for the public release of dozens photos depicting acts of abuse and torture perpetrated on detainees in U.S. custody by U.S. military personnel. The President now argues the public release of the photos should be withheld from public view because the situations depicted in the photos have already been investigated by the Pentagon, and some of the U.S. personnel who perpetrated the abuses have already been punished. Obama said in a May 13 press statement:

[. . .] this is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken.

It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.

Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse. And obviously the thing that is most important in my mind is making sure that we are abiding by the Army Manual and that we are swiftly investigating any instances in which individuals have not acted appropriately, and that they are appropriately sanctioned. That's my aim and I do not believe that the release of these photos at this time would further that goal.

Now, let me be clear: I am concerned about how the release of these photos would be -- would impact on the safety of our troops. I have made it very clear to all who are within the chain of command, however, of the United States Armed Forces that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated.

When we at MOMocrats discussed President Obama's decision to fight the court-ordered release of these photos, we discovered that our writers held a range of views on the pros and cons of the President's new position. Here is what six of the MOMocrats had to say about whether or not more photos of U.S. troops abusing and torturing prisoners should be publicly released:

Views on Taxation from a Fiscally Conservative DADocrat

After reading several of the MOMocrat posts and comments surrounding the Teabagging (giggle), loyal reader and DADocrat, T., asked if he could weigh in. Please be kind to him.  This is his first blog post ever.

I like most of the suggestions I have seen on MOMocrats here regarding the "positive side" of why we as U.S. Citizens pay our Federal Taxes.  I am, as the MOMocrats will verify, a fiscal conservative, although I am best described as Independent politically.

A couple of points for this tax time musing I would like to make.

First, lets compare apples to apples.  There are many different taxes we pay, some pay more, less, or none at all, given the disparities in the various sales, usage, property, personal property, sin, and income taxes across the 50 states.  So lets focus on Federal Income Tax.

Yes, it pays for all of the good things that we in this Nation have come to enjoy, in many cases take for granted, or have no idea we are even paying for it.  Our leaders, chosen by us, have instituted a relatively progressive system of collecting federal income tax.  A system that is, lets all admit, less than perfect given all of the deductions and loopholes that exist, but it is nonetheless what we have to work with.

I am not going to argue that taxes or what they pay for are inherently good, bad or indifferent.  I would like to comment on how what we pay affects the overall health and function of our capitalist economy.  Yes I said capitalist.  Our system of free enterprise is what makes our Nation great, and in the long run pulls us through rough times, and allows us to prosper in good times.

To that end, I would like to point out some middle ground regarding Federal Income Tax, and how its application fluctuates given the economic situation.  There are many theories;  Keynesian economics, Supply Side economics and even the good old Laffer Curve to help us understand the effects of taxes.  But in the end it is all a matter of what rates on which income brackets are best suited to a given economic situation.  

Assuming that a 0% tax and a 100% tax would certainly result in the same thing, Zero federal revenue and chaos in the economy, the answer lies somewhere in between.  Sometimes the market needs help and sometimes it needs to be left alone.  The tricky part, and the part many will never see eye to eye on, is to what degree does the government intervene or not intervene.  In this case the intervention stands on how we as a nation decide what our present fiscal policy should be regarding taxation and intervention into free enterprise.  I contend that for this precise moment in time our government should run a deficit, should intervene in the market, and should keep "everyone's" taxes on the low end of the spectrum.  That is not to say those factors should not change when the economic situation changes.  They will always fluctuate, indeed should fluctuate, and the crazies on both ends of the dogmatic/ideological spectrum are just going to have to live with that fact.

What we do not want to occur, and I firmly believe no one blue, red or purple would ever advocate for, is a system of taxation and intervention that results in the old Soviet maxim, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us"

T is a dad of two young boys, a fiscal conservative, and he voted for GWB.  Twice.  Try not to throw rotten tomatoes at him.  He's seen the error of his ways.  T is not a blogger, but he plays one on TV. We're also pretty sure that the last line is an attempt to get flamed by liberal whack jobs who take themselves too seriously and not a reflection of T's actual views.

Why We Pay Taxes....

Today is Tax Day.  While I hate filling out the paperwork as much as the next person, I consider it my duty as an American citizen.

In response to all the Teabagging brouhaha, Jane Fleming Kleeb, head of the Democratic Young Voter PAC, wife of 2008 Senate candidate Scott Kleeb, Nebraska resident, honorary MOMocrat and all around great person wrote this on Facebook earlier today:

I pay taxes so my little girls can go to public schools #teaparty #teabagging

In the comments to that on Facebook, many people brought up other reasons they pay taxes and I realized that we need to do that here.  So I'll start the list off and I'd like everyone to add to it in the comments.

I pay taxes so....

1. uninsured children can have health care
2. children will have enough to eat
3. my country stays safe
4. my children can breathe clean air

I could go on all day, but I want to hear from all of you.  Tell us in the comments why you pay taxes.

Stephanie also blogs at Lawyer Mama and is the New Media Director for Blue Star Families.

Virginia's "Party of NO" Strikes Again

I really wanted to title this post "Virginia Republicans have their heads up their asses."  Today, Virginia's Republican controlled House voted 53-46 against changing the unemployment standards in Virginia to permit $125 million in federal stimulus money for laid off Virginia workers.

That's right. Even though Virginia has a Democrat as governor and two Democratic U.S. Senators, our legislature is still controlled by Republicans. Virginia has state elections on "off" years. We will elect a new Governor this year, a new House, and a nice new chunk of the Senate. Can you guess what Democrats are focusing on in Virginia right now? Yes, the "Party of No" is in our sights.

Governor Kaine spoke emotionally about the highly contentious vote and it's a video worth watching. Kaine has it right. This vote shouldn't have been about taking an ideological stand against federal spending. It should have been about the people in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This vote explains why so many of us in Virginia will do whatever we can to ensure that we get as many as possible of those 53 Republicans out of office over the next 2 years.

Stephanie also blogs at Lawyer Mama, VB Dems, and Raising Moran.

Members of Congress Concerned about VA Health Care

Yesterday, 45 members of Congress, led by Glenn Nye (D-Va), sent a letter to the president opposing any possible plan to bill third party insurers for veterans care for service related injuries and disabilities. While no official proposal has been drafted by the administration, they have confirmed that the idea is still on the table.

March 17, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We first want to take this opportunity to thank you for the clear commitment your administration’s budget outline makes to our nation’s veterans.  The proposed 10 percent increase in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for next fiscal year is truly historic.  We believe the 2010 budget will ensure the VA never again faces the chronic under-funding that prevented countless veterans from receiving the health benefits they have earned.

While we strongly support your plans to increase funding for the VA by $25 billion over the next five years, it is with equal conviction that we oppose the proposal to bill veterans’ private health insurance plans for care and treatment of service-connected injuries or disabilities.

We do not give our veterans health care - they earn it - and it would be unacceptable for the VA to ask our veterans to pay for the treatment of injuries received while serving our nation in uniform. That responsibility belongs to the VA, and it would be wrong to outsource the responsibility of covering the care of those veterans to private insurance companies.

Additionally, this proposal could harm our veterans and their families in unintended, yet very serious ways, jeopardizing their families’ health care and even negatively affecting veterans’ employment opportunities.  Billing a veteran’s private health insurance for the treatment of service-connected injuries could lead to increased health care premiums, and could potentially discourage employers from hiring veterans.

We know you are committed to expanding employment opportunities for veterans. Already this year, your administration and Congress have worked to create countless jobs for veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this proposal would undermine our efforts.

We urge you to take this proposal off the table, and let us instead focus on ensuring that our veterans receive the full care and benefits they have earned.  The moral obligation our nation has to our veterans demands nothing less.  We are happy to discuss these issues with you further as we move toward a final budget for the VA.

We would like to thank you again for your commitment to improving care for the men and women who have borne the battle, and who have sacrificed their health and well-being in serving their country.  Thank you for your service to our nation.

Sincerely,

Glenn Nye
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

This request from Congress follows letters from major veterans groups also opposing the third party payer system.

First, much of the internet hullabaloo about this topic has been inflammatory, emotional, and inaccurate. The Obama administration has not proposed that the VA start collecting from insurance companies for non-service related care. As Secretary Shinseki keeps saying, it's simply an idea at this point. It hasn't been actually proposed yet.

The administration's goal in considering charging insurance providers for service related care is, of course, to increase the funds the VA has for patient care. There are some advantages to this. The VA system is stressed and stretched to its limits. There are too many veterans seeking VA care and not enough resources to care for them. In shifting the burden for service related care to insurance companies, many of those now seeking care at VA facilities will turn to private physicians and facilities, thus reducing demand for VA services.

PROBLEMS:

The most obvious problem with this plan is, of course, that it will shift the bureaucratic and administrative burden to the veteran. Most of us have fought with insurance companies over coverage at one time or another. We've also received bills from doctors or hospitals demanding immediate payment when our insurance companies are slow to process claims. Frankly, our veterans don't need that. VA care is a promise made to our men and women in uniform and its one that should be kept if at all possible. It's part of the cost of defending our country. 

Insurance policies will also become more expensive for businesses, employees, and those with individual insurance contracts if service related care must be covered by that insurance. Veterans groups worry that employers will be reluctant to hire veterans with service related injuries and disabilities and that it will become even more difficult for veterans to acquire individual insurance policies.  Their fears are certainly well founded.

The insurance contracts themselves will also raise obstacles to the third party payer idea.  Most individual insurance contracts specifically exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions.  While this is a problem with our health care system in general, it hasn't yet been fixed.  It seems nonsensical to demand payment under an insurance contract that will certainly be denied.  Normally, insurance regulation has been left to the individual states.  However, under Art. 1 sec. 10 of the Constitution, no state may "pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."  Any effective system would require congressional action to mandate coverage for pre-existing service related care under private insurance contracts.

SUGGESTIONS:

It seems as if everyone wants the same thing here. We all want to ensure that the VA has enough money to fund the care our veterans need. No one wants to burden veterans with more bureaucracy and paperwork. Nor do we want veterans and surviving family members to have to fight insurance companies on the VA's behalf. So here's our suggestion:

Drop the idea of making veterans use private insurance to pay for service related injuries and disabilities. instead, go after the outstanding third party claims the VA is already sitting on for non-service related care. That's right. The VA already charges insurance for non-service related care and takes a co-pay from the veteran. (Veterans are not responsible for paying any remaining balance of VA's insurance claim not paid or covered by their health insurance.)

For 2008, the VA's budgeted third party collections were $2.5 billion. The proposed 2009 budget lists third party payments at $3.4 billion, although it doesn't state whether this increase will be from current non-service care payments or from the considered service care insurance payments. This is an increase from $1.4 billion the VA collected in 2005, the $804 million in 2003, and the $687 million it collected in 2002.  Moreover, the VA has begun to contract out its bill collection services.  It doesn't seem like a giant leap to suggest that the VA might be able to make up the $900 million shortfall if it concentrated on actually collecting the money already due from insurers for non-service related care.

Whatever the administration decides - and Congress actually passes - let's not make things more difficult for military families and our veterans.

Cross posted at

Blue Star Families

, where Stephanie serves as the New Media director and ocassionally indulges her wonk policy whims.

The War on Rampant Defense Spending

President Obama has declared war on inefficient government contracts.  I know we've all heard this before.  Remember when Al Gore, the "Efficiency Czar," dumped a pile of paperwork on the White House lawn and declared that the Clinton administration would conquer government waste and inefficiency?  And who can forget George W. Bush stating that "the era of big government is over" at the beginning of his term in the White House?  We all know how that one panned out. #FAIL!

But today Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum to the heads of all executive branch agencies.  In that memorandum he ordered agencies to rein in no-bid contracts of the sort that have oozed wasted money in Iraq; cut down on outsourcing "inherently governmental activities;" and review all current government contracts for waste and, if necessary, cancel them.  Here's the good part:

I hereby direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of General Services, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of such other agencies as the Director of OMB determines to be appropriate, and with the participation of appropriate management councils and program management officials, to develop and issue by July 1, 2009, Government-wide guidance to assist agencies in reviewing, and creating processes for ongoing review of, existing contracts in order to identify contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, or not otherwise likely to meet the agency’s needs, and to formulate appropriate corrective action in a timely manner.  Such corrective action may include modifying or canceling such contracts in a manner and to the extent consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

If you made it through that, congratulations.  If the bureaucrat-ese made you zone out after the first sentence, the long and short of it is that OMB has until July 1st to come up with government-wide "guidance" to review and cancel wasteful contracts.  Now some of you may say "They have until JULY?  Is anything EVER going to change?"  But trust me, 4 1/2 months in the government is like 2 days in the corporate world.  Seriously.

Rachel Maddow's Take on Bobby Jindal's NSOTU Response

You must watch Rachel Maddow's take on Bobby Jindal's response to the Non-State of the Union speech for the Republican Party.  Immediately afterwards she was actually rendered speechless.  Then she pulled it together for this:

Can I just say, "ditto"?

Stephanie also mocks Republicans at Lawyer Mama.

Equal Pay Passed Without You, but Women Won't Forget....

Please welcome Progressive Gal, a dear friend of mine who blogs at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife. She's been my political partner in crime since she cyber-stalked me and we met for the first time in July of 2008 and discovered we both live in the same Virginia suburb.

Although you probably wouldn't know this from reading my political posts at MOMocrats, Glenn Nye is not really my congressman.  My actual congressman, Randy Forbes, is a right wing Republican.  He was also running against a Democratic candidate in 2008 who didn't have a bat's chance in hell or two nickels to rub together.  So PG and I threw our efforts into the congressional race in the 2nd District between Thelma Drake and Glenn Nye.  Sometimes we like to pretend that we live in Nye's district but, alas, we do not.

When PG wrote our actual congressman about his vote regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he wrote back an email that pissed us both off. We had to reply, and so we wrote this response together. 

Snark by PG, wonk by me.

***************************************************

With the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by both the House and Senate, we wanted to take the time to share the rationale of one Congressman who voted against it. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) is one of the 171 Congressmen who voted against equal pay for women. Here is an excerpt from his (or apparently a less able staffer's) lackluster rationale to defend his vote against women along with our critique of his arguments. The short version is: I really care about fair pay, really I do. I just don't want to take any measures that actually ensure any regulation. You'll just clog up the court system when they need to be concentrating on other things like ensuring my rights to use taxpayers' time and money to host Congressional Prayer Caucuses. It's all about family values, dontcha know?

Here is his response:

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a vote of 247 - 171 without my support. This bill would allow employees to file charges of alleged employment discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged discrimination. By permitting such claims to be brought within 180 days - not of a discriminatory pay decision, but of a paycheck affected by that decision - the measure would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations on such cases. While this bill's stated intention was to improve pay equity, this ill-advised provision would almost certainly encourage the filing of claims that are not timely, and thus add to the already considerable burden on the courts. There is no evidence to suggest that the current statute of limitations has resulted in any demonstrable prejudice against claims by employees for pay discrimination.

Well, Congressman Forbes, let's talk about your "problems" with the bill.