Michelle Bachmann and Friends

Watch out Washington! Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) founder of the "Tea Party Caucus," has also decided to start a "Constitution caucus," and then hold regular "Constitution classes" for freshmen Republican lawmakers? That's right, she wants the freshman legislators to be coached, like players in a football game, on the constitution by teachers of her choice.

Her first mentor is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He recently stated that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

Bachmann: We're going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do: we're going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Each week she plans to have a class on the Constitution Her all-star line up also includes Evangelical David Barton and his Christian perspective on American history.

Bachmann: Every week we'll start our week with a class on the Constitution and how maybe bills that we're working on fit in with the Constitution - real time application.

Brody: One guest speaker on the list: influential Evangelical David Barton and his Christian perspective on American history.

Bachmann: The Judeo-Christian heritage isn't a belief. It's a fact.

Brody: And there's another fact Bachmann is bringing to the table.

Bachmann: One thing we know from the Book of Isaiah is that Isaiah tells us that the government is on His shoulders. "We can trust a holy, almighty God with our future and nothing is too big for Him."

Although she says this caucus is bi-partisan, she also said that it is a "constitutional conservative" caucus with a Christian perspective on American history.

Bachmann is right about one thing, she needs practice, practice practice to understand the Constitution. The irony is she is so busy loving the Constitution that she can't make time to actually participate in the legislative process.

Hate Group Lawyer Wrote Anti-Immigration Bill

The movers and shakers of the anti-immigration bill in Arizona have a connection. They are connected by a personal history of hate. The main sponsor of the bill has been connected with a neo-Nazi group. The author of the legislation is an attorney for an anti-immigration hate group and has a history of racial profiling and discrimination.

Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law was written by a lawyer at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed as an anti-immigrant hate group since 2007. The law, a recipe for racial profiling, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. (See statement by SPLC Legal Director Mary Bauer.)

Kris Kobach, the author of the Arizona law and a lawyer at FAIR’s Immigration Reform Law Institute, has been the prime mover behind numerous ordinances that seek to punish those who aid and abet “illegal aliens,” including laws adopted in Farmer’s Branch, Texas, and Hazelton, Pa.

The laws have not done well and have cost some localities immense sums of money to defend. Recently, the city of Albertville, Ala., refused to work with Kobach on just such an ordinance, reportedly because of the high legal costs incurred by these other communities.

Kobach has a history of racial profiling and discrimination.

Before joining FAIR, Kobach served as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top immigration adviser. He then moved on to take charge of Department of Justice efforts to tighten border security after the 9/11 attacks. There, he developed a program — the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System — that called for close monitoring of men from Arab and Muslim nations, even legal U.S. residents. The program collapsed due to complaints of racial profiling and discrimination.

Given Kobach’s history with racial profiling, it is particularly alarming that he was tapped by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio in February to train his officers. A federal grand jury investigation is under way amid a slew of complaints that Arpaio used racial profiling techniques to round up suspected undocumented immigrants. The grand jury is also reportedly looking at whether Arpaio used his office to target political opponents.

FAIR has a record of racism and bigotry.

It’s not surprising to find a group like FAIR behind this repugnant law. FAIR has an extensive track record of racism and bigotry. The group, for example, has accepted $1.2 million from the racist Pioneer Fund, a foundation established to promote the genes of white colonials and fund studies of race, intelligence and genetics. FAIR has employed key staffers who have also joined white supremacist groups; it has board members who write regularly for hate publications; it promotes racist conspiracy theories about Latino immigrants; and it has produced television programming featuring white nationalists.

FAIR has been dominated for much of its life by its racist founder and current board member, John Tanton, who has written that “for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” Tanton’s role model for FAIR is John Trevor Sr., founder of the racist American Coalition of Patriotic Societies and a key architect of the racially restrictive Immigration Act of 1924. Trevor also distributed pro-Nazi propaganda and warned shrilly of “diabolical Jewish control” of America. Tanton once said Trevor should serve as FAIR’s “guidepost to what we must follow again this time.”

FAIR’s president, Dan Stein, has warned that immigrants are engaged in “competitive breeding” aimed at diminishing white power. He led efforts to win funding from the Pioneer Fund, saying in 1993 that his “job [was] to get every dime of Pioneer’s money.” Stein also served as editorial adviser to Tanton’s hate journal, The Social Contract, at a time when it ran its ugliest edition ever, “Europhobia: The Hostility Toward European-Descended Americans.” The issue’s lead article argued that multiculturalism was replacing “successful Euro-American culture” with “dysfunctional Third World cultures.” Stein has declined to offer any criticism of FAIR’s founder, instead characterizing Tanton last September as a “Renaissance man.”

The principal sponsor of the Arizona's legislation has a history of hate.

The principal sponsor of the Arizona law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, has his own history of hate. In 2006, Pearce forwarded an email to his supporters from the neo-Nazi National Alliance titled “Who Rules America?” The article criticized the media for promoting multiculturalism and racial equality, and for presenting the Holocaust as fact. More recently, Pearce has been photographed hugging J.T. Ready, a Phoenix-area resident who is a member of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement.

A new direction needs to be taken on the issue of immigration. The course for the country must not be made by racists, bigots and haters.

Are We at the Point of Accepting the Unacceptable?*

Health insurance coverage is only one aspect of the health care crisis that Americans are facing. The healthcare legislation passed by Congress mandates insurance for every citizen. But questions still remain regarding what will be covered and if it is affordable.

Marcy Wheeler at FireDogLake looks at how this legislation will affect a family of four making around $66,000 a year (three times the poverty line).

Here’s a version of one family’s total household costs under the plan: a middle class family with two cars and some child care costs. Note, in this scenario, I’m assuming the middle class family will pay 7.9% of its income for health insurance premium, significantly less than the 9.8% the plan assumes that family could pay to get the subsidies available. This, then, shows what a family would be required to pay (or incur a penalty) under the 8% opt-out rule.

301% of Poverty Level: $66,370

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $7,712 (12% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Child care (average cost for just one pre-school child in MI): $6,216

Health insurance premium: $5,243 (7.9% of income, max amount before opt-out w/o penalty allowed)

Transportation (assume 2 cars, 12,000 miles each, @IRS deductible cost of $.55/mile): $13,200*

Heat, electricity, water: $1,500

Phone, cable, internet: $1,200

Total: $64,276 (97% of income)

Remainder (for health care out-of-pocket, debt, clothing, etc.): $2,091

In other words, assuming this family had no debt (except for that related to the two cars), no clothing costs, and no other necessary costs–all completely unrealistic assumptions–it would be able to incur just $6,970 of medical care out-of-pocket costs before spending all that $2,091 and going into debt (the opt-out is based on an insurance plan that provides 70% of costs, so this assumes the family will pay 30% of health care costs). Yet that family would be expected to spend up to $5,882 more out of pocket before the “subsidies” started picking up its out-of-pocket expenses. (If the family paid the full 9.8% of its income on premiums–at which point it would become eligible for subsidies under the plan–it would have just $825 left to spend on all other expenses, including health care out-of-pocket expenses.)

This family couldn’t even go through a normal childbirth without going into debt.

Nate Silver at Five-Thirty-Eight takes issue with Marcy's analysis. He believes the healthcare plan passed by Congress will be beneficial to most low or middle income families.

First of all, several of of Marcy's cost estimates are on the high side.

As Marcy points out, her assumptions may be favorable to this family in other ways -- her family doesn't have any debt, for example. Nor do I doubt that there are some families who would fit Marcy's template almost perfectly (although they should still be able to take advantage of the significant tax breaks that Marcy hasn't accounted for). But in general, this is significantly more than most two-child families will be spending on these services -- probably by a margin of $10,000 or so.

Nevertheless, that's not really the most important point. Rather, what is this family spending on health care now? ...if the family isn't buying insurance, their health care costs certainly shouldn't be figured as zero.

Frankly, unless they're living in New York or the San Francisco Bay or some other place where the cost of housing is very high, the family that Marcy draws from -- one which pays $1,600 per month for rent but does not buy health insurance for themselves or for their children -- does not have a reasonable and responsible gameplan to begin with. If they can't figure out how to squeeze out $430 per month in insurance premiums, what are they supposed to do in the status quo when somebody actually gets sick? You can object to the Senate's health care bill on libertarian/paternalism grounds, but it will leave the overwhelming majority of low- and middle-income families better off.

Yet Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic looks at what families can actually afford. He believes that the Senate bill is worth passing yet the reform is not good enough. He supports his position by acknowledging the dichotomy of his assessment.

Without reform, this family would either be uninsured altogether or paying high premiums for coverage that is, most likely, far less comprehensive that what the Senate bill would guarantee them. [...]

Families dealing with serious medical problems, particularly chronic diseases that require ongoing care, have enough problems without having to sweat out every penny. And even the best insurance policies leave people on the hook for expenses that fall outside of covered benefits and, as a result, don’t even count towards out-of-pocket limits.

Making those two arguments simultaneously is not easy. It's the political equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. But if progressives can figure out a way to do it, the people that already stand to benefit from reform will benefit even more.

The sad part about all this analytic journalism is that if you need to pick through and parse out the benefits versus the disadvantages of the bill, then maybe the complexity is itself a detriment of this legislation.

For progressives, the answer lies in the clarity and simplicity of a single-payer, not-for-profit system. Of course, a public option or Medicare for all would be acceptable. No matter how many ways you look at it, this healthcare bill is not!

*UPDATE!!!

J. Lester Feder at the Nation has a review of the pro & cons of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by the Senate. The Senate's draft of the bill must be merged with the much more progressive version passed by the House. Feder believes that despite very serious shortcomings of the Senate bill, it is necessary to pass healthcare reform now otherwise "another generation may pass before another chance will come to try again."

Despite these very serious shortcomings, however, the bill the Senate passed would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million by 2019. The Medicaid program will be open to new ranks of the country's poorest residents, and the near-poor and middle class will get subsidies to buy insurance. The Senate also advanced some important delivery system reforms that could chart a path towards reining in costs.

As disappointed as progressives are with the compromises Democratic leaders made to get this bill through the Senate--and as tempting it is to believe they may have gotten a better deal if they'd pursued a more aggressive strategy--they are on the verge of doing many other lawmakers have tried and failed to do. And if this effort fails, another generation may pass before another chance will come to try again.

Lester's view is common among people who feel defeated on the healthcare issue but who think this is the best that could be achieved. The attitude is "something is better than nothing."

Was that Ben Nelson's attitude when he fought against abortion funding? Was that Joe Lieberman's attitude or Max Baucus' position when they fought against the public option?

Hell NO!!!

They stood their ground and fought for the position they were espousing.

There wasn't one Senator that stood his/her ground on support of the public option. They all caved in. Do you really think any of the Representatives in the House will fight for 'The People'? Or will they allow the bullies of Congress to dictate from the moneyed corporate pulpit?

Al Franken Amendment Protects Rape Victims

Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) first piece of legislation is a "rape amendment," which withholds defense contracts from companies that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Yesterday, it was signed into law. The Yea votes came from all Democrats , except Byrd (D-WV) and Specter (D-PA) who were not present for the vote. Also voting Yea were 10 Republicans and 1 Independent.

There were 30 Senators who voted against the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 ). All who voted Nay were [male] Republicans. Which means that 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus -- voted against this.

Digby had an interesting comment on this.

The reason I think it's good news isn't just on the substance (which it certainly is) but on the politics. Franken's amendment is driving the Republicans crazy because they basically voted to protect rapists and are now paying a political price for that. And now they are whining that Franken was somehow "uncollegial" because the amendment put them in an embarrassing position (which makes me wonder how many other things issues are swept under the rug because it would make members of the opposition uncomfortable.)

That's the kind of thing the Democrats should do more of. Expose the Republicans' hypocrisy and cruelty by forcing these issues on to the agenda.

Steve Benen notes.

WHATEVER IT IS, THEY'RE AGAINST IT.... It's tempting to think a measure like this one would pass unanimously. After all, it's not as if voters would elect monsters to the Senate, right?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

All Franken's measure would do is allow victims of rape and discrimination to have their day in court -- not exactly controversial stuff. When Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Franken of pushing a "political attack directed at Halliburton," the Minnesota senator explained that it would apply equally to all defense contractors.[...]

When the Senate considered a measure yesterday to give rape victims who work for U.S.-subsidized defense contractors a day in court, 30 out of 40 Republican senators said, "No."

The notion that the majority should be able to reach constructive, worthwhile compromises with this minority is clearly ridiculous.

A Broken System

The Real Problem with Voter I.D. Legislation is that the System is Broken

According to Firedoglake: It’s a Catch-22.

Imagine being stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare like the one my pal Eric Ward faces:

I’m African-American and my family moved to California almost a hundred years ago after a lynching took place outside their hometown in Kentucky.

I’m also undocumented, or in the current anti-immigrant vernacular, “illegal.” I don’t have the necessary documents to prove my identity. Therefore, within four years, I won’t be able to vote, have access to social services, or receive state identification to travel.

It's not just African Americans who are being swept up in this hysteria, and it isn't just this misbegotten measure that is victimizing ordinary American citizens. You can also include Native Americans and senior citizens among those whose status as voting citizens is now considered dubious.

This is happening right now to my 93year old mother-in-law. She moved from Chicago, IL to Seattle, WA to be closer to her daughter. She let her driver’s license expire since she decided to stop driving. Now she is trying to get a state I.D. and is having difficulty. This is because the birth date on her birth certificate is different than the birth date listed on her social security card, her expired driver’s license and her Medicare card.

It’s enough to make your head spin!!!