Yesterday, in a display of cynicism and extreme ideological rigidity, President Bush held a press conference to say that he will Veto a bill that expands the popular S-CHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it will lead us to the dreaded socialized medicine that all these crazy liberals are talking about. He added that the plan raises taxes (it doesn't, unless you smoke cigarrettes) and that it covers children whose parents make as much as $83,000 a year (good!). The program is set to expire on September 30th, so the need to reauthorize is urgent. The President says he supports a reauthorization, but does not want to expand the program. Under Bush's plan, there will still not be enough money to cover all of the children eligible of SCHIP coverage.

  Americans shouldn't be fooled by Bush's despicable press conference yesterday. This is a bipartisan bill that passed with a veto proof majority in the Senate. Conservative stalwarts such as Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley adamantly support SCHIP expansion. Yet, President Bush is so tied to his market based ideology that he will be denying millions of innocent American children access to Health Insurance. This bill is not socialized medicine, though some of us wish it was. It will simply add funding to a succesful, popular program, that allows states to invest in the health of its children. Expanding coverage to lower/middle income Americans is exactly the right thing to do. Millions of middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance because they are squeezed by declining wages and high energy prices. All of this while hedge fund managers are swimming in dollar bills. It is only sensible to take this moderate action, to make sure that 13 million children are no longer punished by their parents' income level.

 Even worse, Bush tried to blame this on the Democrats in Congress, saying that he wants to extend the program, while his opponents are "playing politics." Give me a break. Expanding health insurance to children in a bipartisan, cost effective way is the furthest from playing politics that you can get. Playing politics would be if you threatened to veto a bill simply because you are so fundamentally against the idea of government health care that you can't think clearly. He should be ashamed of himself. As should any member of Congress who votes to uphold the President's veto.

   Read More »

  An opportune break in my class schedule has allowed me to watch the opening statements in the House hearing with witnesses General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton started with a cordial introduction (too cordial for my taste). Next was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, who gave a thoughtful opening statement in which he candidly told Petraeus that he "didn't buy" the reported "progress" in Iraq.    
  Then, I started to get sick. Duncan Hunter, ranking nut job on the Armed Services Committee, and Presidential not-hopeful, talked mostly about attacks on Petraeus on from the left, including Moveon.org's full page ad in the New York Times. Then the ranking member of the FA committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, echoed Hunter, talking more about the left's effort to undermine Petraeus, than the surge itself.        This is just so typical of conservatives. They are more angry with the left-wing backlash (which is is unfortunatley not substantial enough) than the high levels of violence in Iraq. They are ignoring what should be loud and clear: The surge is a failure, and anyone who justifies its continuation should be discredited.    
  The surge has not decreased sectarian violence. When General Betray-us says that sectarian strife has decreased, he is fudging the numbers. He is not including Sunni on Sunni and Shia on Shia violence, nor is he including Car bombs, which happens to be a very common occurance in Baghdad. There has been no political progress. All military progress is irrelevant for a number of reasons. First, the numbers are deflated because of how many Iraqis have fled the country. Secondly, securing one province (which is 5% of the country) will not do enough. Finally, we're just playing a game of whack-a-mole. Wherever we go, they will go attack somewhere else. All we're doing is further angering the Iraqi people, and through our actions, creating a new generation of those who want to do us harm. 
    Frankly, I don't give a darn who General Petraeus is. This war wouldn't be won with General Superman. I don't care about small incremental progress in Anbar Province, or Diyala, or any other area for that matter. The strategy is fundamentally ridiculous, and the fact that we are still supposed to believe people who have been wrong about everything boggles my mind.
  So when you watch the dog and pony show from Congress, step back and remember what is actually going on. The administration is using these people as puppets to fulfill their ultimate goal, which is to keep Americans dying in Iraq long enough so that they are not blamed for losing the war they started. 
   Read More »