What should they have done - had a team show up and beat Lieberman senseless? Yaweh, this is getting tedious.
When the ACA was passed, it was actually pretty unpopular, even with a lot of the folks it’s benefiting. Since then, Republicans have won the Presidency, knackered the ACA in several ways and cut federal revenues dramatically with the tax cuts for the one percent.
The good news is that they are now on the retreat. This last election set the stage for some more forward progress, but first we have to get past the removal, one way or another, of Cadet Bonespurs and regain control of the Senate. At that point, we can claim a clear mandate and move the ball forward again - reimposing higher taxes on the one percent and offering up a single payer option with mandatory coverage for all.
Maybe then you’ll stop with this bullshit kvetching? Nah, nothing short of full coverage for unicorns will satisfy you, and maybe a Bernie/Sarandon ticket in 2020?
Seriously, you need to start thinking in terms of alliances with folks who don’t agree with you 100 percent, it’s the only way to get even some of what you want…
Same tired, irrational refrain and promises? You REALLY REALLY NEED TO LEARN HOW TO MOVE ON AND LET THINGS GO. You’re mired, man. Get unstuck.
Still having trouble understanding the structure of our government and the practical realities of power as they exist on the ground, eh? The BEST we can practically hope for at this point is laying the groundwork for a relentless push for climate change legislation IF we’re capable of taking over in 2020. If what you want in the interim instead of careful planning and groundwork is a bunch of show-votes, show-trials, angry rhetoric, dog and pony shows on the floor and at press conferences…all of which you think will magically move the ball and change the minds of people on the fence or on the right, as opposed to catalyzing massive backlash, then you need to magic-think again. Good, clear and non-stop messaging should certainly be part of the package, but when it comes using the levers of power that we actually control, the effort should be building the record, building the case and preparing to make it when the opportunity is ripe.
Seriously? Actually, that’s a certainty hehe. More to the point, it’s also you wallowing so deep in hyperbole I question why I bother responding. I think it’s because I like your level of outrage. Outrage is good. I just think your aim is off at the moment, which is why you gotta get unstuck.
Nonsense. Obama and Rahm Emanuel did not even try. They cut secret deals in the White House with insurance and pharma companies, and then reneged on Obama’s campaign promises, such as requiring a Public Option and negotiated drug prices. Obama was clueless at how to play hardballl politics because he felt it was beneath him. He was more worried about not hurting Joe Lieberman than passing a Public Option.
And the ACA did not come come close to insuring the number of people that that Obama and Pelosi promised. Not. Even. Close.
And all the incrementalists said “just wait, this is only the beginning,” but then nothing.
Yes, because Obama failed at the politics and let the Republicans define the message. Then the roll-out was a disaster, and again he let the Republicans define the message. Obama was afraid of the Republicans his entire Presidency.
No, I totally understand it. Like I have written many times, our Constitution is a suicide pact. Our un-democratic Constitutional government is incapable of preventing the mass extinction that has already started.
Mass extinction is already underway. As this article shows, Nancy Pelosi and all the old Democratic leaders are either clueless or in willful denial about what needs to be done. Nothing can or is going to happen in 2020 to change that.
We are not going to survive this.
I am outraged, but I ain’t stuck. The people who are stuck are those stuck thinking that the same system that got us here is gonna save us. It isn’t because it can’t.
The ACA was the best that could be done with all the Republican opposition. And if people who are not sick do not pay for insurance then there is just not enough money to support the system. The insurance companies, etc, will bail. Yes, in a perfect world of Medicare for all that would not happen. One way or another we all pay into the system. Money is deducted from my SS to cover an insurance payment. The younger you are when you start paying for health insurance the lower the costs. And usually you do not have to worry about pre-existing conditions.
Decades ago when we were on a COBRA after my husband lost his job I was diagnosed with
Addison’s Disease, a very serious condition which untreated means certain death. Suddenly our insurance company booted us down to a lower level of care because, I guess, I now had a new condition. For at least six months I had to go through the same battle with them to get the insurance coverage we were paying for. Addison’s is cheap to treat except for the period where one is nearly dead before diagnosis and needs a short hospital stay.
People who don’t have any health insurance are just gambling. Maybe you will be very very lucky and never need to see a doctor or require hospital care. I don’t know anyone like that. But if and when you do and you don’t have insurance the cost will be catastrophic.
Like many, many people I am worried about the effects of global warming, especially on my granddaughters. tRump managed to get himself elected POTUS by a lot of help from the Russians and a lot of uninformed Americans and some just stupid Americans. The Republicans have had majorities in the Congress for way too many years and thanks to the Surpreme’s “Citizen’s United” electing Democrats will be more difficult and very, very expensive. If Hilary had been elected POTUS she would have filled Supreme Court vacancies with reasonable judges. Instead we got a total joke for POTUS and very few people are laughing any more.
If too many Americans hadn’t entertained themselves by laughing at Al Gore’s “hockey stick” we would be much further down the road to ameliorating the effects of global warming.
And yes, mass extinctions are underway and have been underway from human depredations for a long, long time. They are finishing off what they started centures, millenia ago.
We may be able to hold the line against the earth warming too much but we are starting very very late. Many states still get a majority of their energy from coal burning. Asia is burning coal like crazy. So there is a huge mountain to climb to slow the warming down. Maybe we will get lucky and a whole bunch of volcanoes will erupt. If not, humans will have to either get smarter or die off.
Life WILL go on until our planet goes through another major eruption event or freezes over. Both have happened in the past.
As the Atlantic noted, the Climate Crisis committee won’t have the authority to draft legislation and it likely won’t have quite the same subpoena power as her previous Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Hmmmm. So I’ve got one or two questions:
(1) The word “quite” seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence, but it’s not really shining much light on the situation. “Not quite the same subpoena power” seems to imply “will still have subpoena power, but that power will be weaker” – but left unanswered is just how much weaker, and in what way(s)?
(2) If the answer is that this committee’s subpoena power will be significantly weaker, then my follow-up question is: why do that? Was the previous committee’s subpoena power judged (by the Democratic leadership) to be too broad? Did it cause problems, and if so, what were they? If not, then what is the rationale for reducing the subpoena power of this new committee?
P.S. A “Green New Deal” committee would be great too, and no reason we couldn’t have both, as there’s a slightly different focus there – but let’s not get hung up in semantics or turf wars. The important thing is to restore sanity and an evidence-based approach to this crisis, and to act with the urgency required to address this crisis.
Casten should definitely be on this committee given his work in clean energy technology and the fact that he ran on addressing climate change.
TPM needs to correct this story. The following statement is just wrong:
“Several environment-focused members of the Democratic caucus — who have pushed for a Green New Deal committee — have expressed concern that the committee won’t go far enough to combat climate change.”
None of the House members with expertise on climate change endorsed the Green New Deal proposal. These include Ted Deutch, Suzanne Bonamici, Peter De Fazio, and Raul Grijalva among others. There’s a reason for this. The Green New Deal is a proposal for a universal basic income and guaranteed jobs program dressed up as a climate change program. It also doesn’t propose doing anything–just drawing up a plan that can be used as a litmus test for Democrats in 2020. You can’t claim fighting climate change is an existential matter and at the same time say we can wait two years to do anything. That’s a pretty big tell about what the purpose of the proposed Select Committee was.
I hear you: “Mass extinction is already underway.” And yet Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal proposal is not a proposal for action for at least two years if not longer. It’s a proposal for a select committee to produce a proposal by 2020. That’s it. Don’t you think we should be doing anything we can now? Ted Deutch has a bill ready for a carbon fee. Given that “mass extinction is already underway,” I think we should go for it:
The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA) will help reduce U.S. carbon pollution by 40% in 12 years, with 91% reduction target by 2050 (vs. 2015 levels). This would be achieved by pricing carbon at $15 per metric ton of CO2e and increasing the price by $10 every year. The Treasury Department would return 100% of the net revenue back to the American people, a policy highlighted by a Treasury Department report as helping lower- and middle-income families.
You do realize that 2 years is 1/6th of the time we have left before life on this planet is irrevocably ruined for human civilization, right? So “starts” are not what we need. We need ACTION NOW. What you’re saying is no different than putting a band-aid on a severed limb that needs a tourniquet and proclaiming it a start…
While there are grains of truth in all the above comments, none answers the following questions:
“A committee that explores what can be done” could “explore” a lot better with subpoena power.
Pelosi being “not above the law or a wizard” does not explain why this new committee should have less power than its predecessor, which was also created by the same not-above-the-law-and-not-a-wizard Pelosi.
And “incrementalism” is one thing but going backwards is quite another.
Would you like to hear what Steny Hoyer said about this? He explained that subpoena power will not be needed because many experts in the field are already “dying to” testify before the new committee.
Well, for over 2 years there’s been no talk or movement to try to reverse climate change. I was only commenting that I was happy that Pelosi was appointing someone to that new committee to at least restart the process. I know it’s urgent but when you have people in power that aren’t taking it seriously, what can we do?
No “probably” about it. We’re all definitely going to die. Thank goodness too. Immortality would be horrendous for humanity.
As to climate change, first please call it global warming instead of this W propaganda term. Second, we’re not going to stop it. Nothing we can do will stop it. Global warming is already happening, will continue to increase, and it’s going to be deadly to some portion of the earth. No matter what we do. You can panic about that or you can dig in and contribute. Self-indulgently blaming Nancy Pelosi for it is probably one of the least useful things you could choose to do.
Reverse as much of the harm done by T. as possible.
Radical initiatives on the Federal level beginning Jan. 2019.
Initiatives that will be continued after the Dems win the WH, Congress and Senate in 2020.
