News Today

One of my favorite quotes from George Washington was two little snippets of advice that he had for the young United States of America.

His first word of advice was that we should not form political parties (oops!) and the second had to do with the U.S. making alliances with foreign countries.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

– George Washington.

Well, for better or for worse, we didn’t listen to George on this one either. Would we have been wise to?

. . .

Today the United States holds alliances all across the world. We’re allied in one form or another with almost all of Europe, several countries in Asia, and with many countries in North, South and Central America. With these alliances come both assets and liabilities, but what real assets are we talking about here?

Let’s take a look at one alliance in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Originally it was a pact between the United States and 11 other countries, but over the years NATO’s ranks have swelled to 28 countries. The point of NATO was to provide a military support between its members.

From the treaty:

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO member’s military spending accounts for about 70% of the military spending in the entire world. You can bet that’s not divided up evenly between all 28 members of NATO either. In fact, the United States military spending works out to about half of the military spending in the world.

To make a bad situation worse, we have treaties like the 2002 Berlin Plus Agreement. Signed between the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Berlin Plus Agreement gives the EU rights to the use of NATO assets should NATO decline to intervene in an international crisis. What was that whole bit about entangling our peace and prosperity with the toils of European ambitions again, George?

Six months into President Barack Obama’s administration Obama received a letter from several Central and Eastern European NATO members stating that the “ability to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad … depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States.”

Here’s the thing, almost all of the countries that were demanding more resources from the United States spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. The government puts defense spending at 20% of the United States GDP, but if you account for past military expenses such as veteran’s benefits and interest from debt that number jumps dramatically to about 54%.

“The primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on a recent visit with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. “It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”

These countries are able to spend virtually nothing on defense because the United States is doing it for them. What is it that the U.S. is getting in return though, other than an excuse to spend that much money on the military?

Justin Logan of the CATO Institute worded it best:

“America’s alliances are no longer considered responses to security challenges. Instead, they have become ends in themselves. In an era of record-breaking budget deficits and serious economic problems at home, the billions of dollars Uncle Sam pays each year to baby-sit Europe and East Asia ought to be coming in for scrutiny, not perpetual affirmation.”

Sources:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10954
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.Washington.Quote.2D30
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C4B3E460-5AD5C2A3/natolive/index.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

While Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made it through the Senate relatively easily (68-31 with 9 Republicans joining a unified Democratic Senate in approving the justice), the rest of President Barack Obama’s lower court nominees are moving at a much slower pace.

Slower than molasses, even.

Only three of his 22 lower court nominees have been confirmed so far and the latest, Roberto Lange (for a federal district court appointment in South Dakota), waited 3 1/2 months to be approved. Gerard Lynch from New York and Jeffrey Viken from South Dakota, the other two nominees to be confirmed, spent a similar amount of time waiting to be approved.

Two unapproved nominees, Andre Davis of Maryland and David Hamilton of Indiana, cleared the Senate judiciary committee almost 150 days ago. Both of them are still waiting for a floor vote. Another nominee, Beverly Martin, has the support of Georgia’s two conservative Republican senators and was unanimously reported out of the Senate judiciary committee almost 50 days ago. She, too, has not received a Senate floor vote.

All in all eight of Obama’s nominees are currently waiting for floor action.

In some ways this is nothing new. Senators in both parties have been guilty for a while now of using procedural tactics to block or delay confirmations. However, as Slate’s Doug Kendall points out, these heavy-handed tactics were typically reserved for controversial candidates whereas the Republicans appear to be contesting them all.

From Kendall’s article:

“To date, however, the tit-for-tat game has played out within a fairly narrow category of nominees who are deemed controversial. While there has never been an agreed-upon definition of what that means—it’s an eye-of-the-beholder type of thing—there has consistently been a large category of nominees that are not considered controversial. They have typically made it easily through the Senate confirmation process, no matter how rough the ride is for their controversial counterparts.”

Let’s compare Obama’s progress with his predecessor. During the last two years of his presidency, George W. Bush’s support was dwindling and he faced a Senate under Democratic control. Still, 26 of Bush’s 68 nominees cleared the floor within 3 months of Bush nominating them and 23 of the Bush nominees were confirmed on the Senate floor within a week of passing out of the judiciary committee.

Bush’s first two years went about the same. A Democratic majority in Congress confirmed 100 of Bush’s nominees in 17 months, even after delays due to a change in party control.

So why is it that the more popular Obama, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, is having so much trouble?

Again let’s turn to Kendall’s article.

“The emerging Republican strategy is to hold these uncontroversial nominees hostage as pawns in the larger war over President Obama’s agenda and the direction of the federal judiciary. The Senate operates according to a set of arcane rules that allows a minority party to bring the institution to a halt if it chooses to do so. Most bills and nominations pass through the Senate with no debate and only a voice vote on the Senate floor. But this requires every senator to play along. By stonewalling on every nominee so far, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is requiring his counterpart, Sen. Reid, to negotiate, or devote precious floor time, for every judicial confirmation.”

While I can’t say I agree much with Kendall’s description of our government’s checks and balances as “a set of arcane rules,” Kendall goes on to describe why the G.O.P.’s tactics are detrimental to our whole judicial system.

“This is unprecedented and dangerous. There are already 95 vacancies on the federal bench at a time when there is bipartisan agreement that we need more judgeships. The last thing we need is for existing seats in overworked courts to go unfilled.”

“Even more important, Republican obstruction of uncontroversial nominees undermines the one part of the judicial confirmation process that was still working, until now. Well-qualified nominees who enjoy bipartisan support should be able to count on a fair and relatively smooth Senate confirmation process. This is critical because while they’re waiting, the careers of these nominees go on hold. Given the demands of the bench, and the gap between judicial salaries and what these candidates could earn in private practice, the nation is already lucky that top candidates are willing to serve. If we throw in an unpredictable and lengthy confirmation process, the quality of the federal bench—and the dispensation of justice—will unquestionably suffer.”

Sources:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_next_war_over_the_courts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2233309/#return

In a 100-page report titled “Troubled Waters: Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water,” Amnesty International claims Israel is cutting off access to water for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

“This scarcity has affected every walk of life for Palestinians,” Amnesty’s researcher on Israel, Donatella Rovera, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday, ahead of the report’s release. “A greater amount of water has to be granted to them.”

According to the report, water consumption per capita for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is about 70 liters (18 gallons) per day, while Israeli per capita use is 300 liters (79 gallons). On average, Israelis use four times the amount of water per person on than Palestinians.

In the West Bank the Mountain Aquifer is the only source of water for Palestinians. Israel controls the aquifer and over 80 percent of water drawn goes to the Jewish state. As a result, the 450,000 Israelis who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinian residents.

Rovera said the water situation in Gaza, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, had reached a “crisis point.” He also estimated damage to Gaza’s sewer system from the Israeli offensive has left 90 to 95 percent of the water in the region contaminated and unfit for human consumption. To make matters worse, an ongoing Israeli blockade is stopping any supplies for repairs to come in.

Israeli officials denied many of the claims from the report, complaining that Amnesty had neglected to use transparent information provided by the Israeli government.

“Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

“The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission) and handling of sewage.”

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOfJfAnrmQ&feature=player_embedded
http://topics.cnn.com/topics/amnesty_international
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVkvzuni3YkNQU5PikPz4yiPs0GQD9BJA3KO0
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/27/israel.water/

Oops, I better clarify that the title of this post is satirical.

Because you can’t trust everything you read on the internet. You have to verify it, take some time to find sources to back up your conclusions. That’s why I list my sources underneath every one of my articles, so you the reader can do just that. I don’t mean to sound all preachy and everything but this latest story I ran across shows why it’s important to research what you read.

Matthew Avitabile is an upstate New York grad student who writes a blog called Jumping in Pools. Often times his posts are satirical. In fact, one of the more recent blog posts that Avitabile did was actually titled “Obama to Consult Magic 8 Ball for Afghanistan Strategy.”

There’s nothing wrong with Avitabile’s postings. In fact, some of them are quite humorous. A while back Avitabile posted a blog, labeled satirical, about a fictitious seminar paper that Barack Obama wrote while at Columbia.

From JIP:

“Obama was required to write a ’senior seminar’ paper in order to graduate from Columbia. The subject of this paper, which totaled 44 pages, was American government. Entitled Aristocracy Reborn, this paper chronicled the long struggle of the working class against, as Obama put it, ‘plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government.’

“In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: ‘I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.’

“In part, the future President blames this on the current economic system: ‘There are many who will defend the ‘free market.’ But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny.’

“However, the President also singled out the American Constitution: ‘… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.’

“It is yet unknown if more of this thesis will be released. It was also noted that the President received an A- for the paper, which later led to his graduation.”

Despite the satire label on the post, the blog posting began to gain credibility. So much so that Rush Limbaugh actually cited the posting’s claims a couple of days ago on his radio show.

“The Constitution is the most liberty-promoting and freedom-acknowledging document in the history of the world, and this little boy in college is writing about it with utter disdain, and he still shares those feelings,” Limbaugh said, adding, “So Joe Klein at Time magazine has known for a long time about Obama’s college thesis when he was at Columbia. Why didn’t this come out a year ago at this time? Why didn’t this come out before the election in November?”

Perhaps because it never happened? Within minutes a caller informed Rush that there wasn’t any credibility to the accusations. Sometimes men like Rush Limbaugh don’t like to let pesky things like truth or facts get in the way though.

“I’m also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama’s thesis is a satire blog…,” he said minutes later in the same show. “So I shout from the mountaintops, ‘It was satire!’ But we know [Obama] thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He’s mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That’s how it works in the media today.”

Rush wasn’t the only one trying to backtrack though.

“It’s important to note that none of this nonsense would be running wild around the internet if the campaign had just released Obama’s thesis in the first place,” said Meredith Jessup of TownHall.com.

Yeah about that. A Columbia University spokesman told PolitiFact that “an undergraduate thesis requirement for those in political science did not even exist at Columbia in 1983.” There was no thesis, not for Obama or for any other Columbia political science student in that era.

Amazingly enough, this isn’t even the first time that one of Jumping In Pool’s fictitious postings had gained credibility. Remember the claim that Obama wanted soldiers to stop taking an oath to the Constitution and instead pledge their loyalty to the president himself? That claim was started by Avitabile as well (and was also false).

I’d like to clarify again, there’s nothing wrong with what Avitabile is doing. One of the most entertaining bloggers on today.com makes his money by posting nothing but satirical news posts. Avitabile explained that he wanted to do the post in satire, but not so over-the-top that you knew it was false right away.

“If you have to explain a joke, it’s not funny,” said Avitabile. “I kind of get inspiration from Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. You want people to be let in and then at the end, they realize it, and either find it funny on its own terms or find their reaction to be funny.”

The problem comes when people blindly trust what they read in an e-mail forward/blog post and don’t take the time to do even a minimal amount of research before believing something that they hear or read.

Sources:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/26/blog-posting/obamas-columbia-thesis-all-fiction-dreamed-blogger/

Another third party candidate is poised to make a legitimate run in an upcoming special election. Meet Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who has been gaining support in his campaign to take over the New York House seat left vacant by the resignation of Republican Representative John McHugh.

The support for Hoffman isn’t just some astro-turf nonsense either. It’s even bigger than a legitimate grassroots uprising. In a surprising coup, many of the Republican Party’s most vocal leaders are also backing the Conservative Party candidate, despite the fact that the G.O.P. already has a candidate in the race, Dede Scozzafava.

On Friday former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum became the latest in a growing list of G.O.P. leaders to endorse Hoffman. That list includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

To these conservatives Scozzafava has way too many strikes. A state assembly woman who supports gay marriage rights, abortion rights and is in close with labor?

Palin’s endorsement came on Thursday, and the former governor said that Hoffman “stands for the principles that all Republicans should share” in a statement about her decision. By the way, Hoffman’s campaign reported over $100,000 in campaign donations in the 24 hours following her endorsement.

Still, not all Republican Party leaders are convinced of Hoffman’s credentials, or that it’s a good idea for G.O.P. members to undercut one of their own. Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Scozzafava, offered these grim words of advice for conservatives — “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority.”

. . .

In keeping with the independent theme of the post, Mark Blumenthal of the National Journal had a very interesting article about New Jersey’s Independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett. In his article Blumenthal alluded to a “perfect storm” of sorts that Daggett appears to have going for him.

From the article:

“Those who follow politics are familiar with a pattern, evident mostly in primary elections, in which two front-running candidates will battle for months, often with an acrimonious exchange of negative advertising, only to be overtaken by a little-known third candidate who surges from single digits in the campaign’s final weeks.

In almost every case, three dynamics facilitate the also-ran’s rise: Strong performances in campaign debates and endorsements from prominent newspapers boost their name recognition, while a last-minute surge in the polls helps convince voters that the long shot really can win.”

A closer look at New Jersey’s race reveals that Daggett’s campaign is following that pattern. Daggett has been the clear winner in both debates, he’s already won the endorsement of the Newark Star-Ledger and a Thursday Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed 39% of voters going for Corzine, 36% for Christie and 20 percent for independent Chris Daggett.

All this being said, it’s undeniable that history is against him. Out of the 365 governors to take office since 1970, only five have claimed a political party affiliation other than Democrat or Republican.

Sources:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/yet_another_fight_over_party_i.php
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20091023_1421.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/

One issue that I think will define the next generation, much like the civil rights era did for the baby-boomers, is gay marriage. This is an issue that runs deep in a lot of places across the United States, and even the world.

Gay marriage has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The first recorded mention of same-sex marriage occurred during the early Roman Empire where it was practiced both openly and commonly.

In fact, it wasn’t until 342 AD when the Theodosian Code was issued by the Christian emperor Constantius II that gay marriage became outlawed in Rome. Same-sex marriage didn’t just disappear though, there’s actually evidence that gay marriages were performed in medieval Europe as long as 600 years ago.

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of “registered partnerships”, and in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries to date that give equal marriage status for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the United States gay marriages are not recognized federally, however, same-sex couples can currently marry in six states and receive state level benefits. Several states also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he does support “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”, and called Proposition 8 “unnecessary.”

If you asked 100 U.S. citizens if they supported the issue or not, you’d probably get about the same amount of people in support as you would people against it. If you asked me whether I’d support the issue, you’d get a resounding NO.

Now let me explain myself…

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. This is often an argument you’ll hear from people who are against gay marriage, that marriage cannot be defined as anything but between a man and a woman.

This got me thinking… To me, that seems like something that individual churches could decide a lot better than the federal government. In fact it seems very out of place for our government to be as heavily involved in marriages as they are.

It was in thinking about this that I stumbled (somewhat accidentally) upon my position against gay marriage, or really against marriage itself. There is no reason why our government needs to be involved in the actual marriage process, that is a role much better suited for our church.

I believe the government should offer civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships — whatever you want to call it — to anyone and everyone. These partnerships should have equal protection and rights, regardless of the couple’s sexual preference. That’s only fair, and what we have right now is far from being fair.

In fact, a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges,’” including complete ineligibility for same-sex couples for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

Besides, the other positive about this kind of a solution is that the actual “marriage” issue (whether marriage is a term that applies only to a man and a woman) would be left up to individual churches, where it belongs. This way if a church did not want to recognize/perform gay marriages, then they would not be forced to.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/21/readers-respond-to-obamas-complex-stance-on-gay-unions-.html

Then he should find someone who is willing to do it. This is an amazing story to be reporting on, considering it’s 2009 and not 1959.

Meet Keith Bardwell. Bardwell has served as a Louisiana justice of the peace for over 34 years at Tangipahoa Parish. In his entire time of service Bardwell has refused to marry interracial couples.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Instead, Bardwell refuses to marry interracial couples because he reached the conclusion that both black and white society are reluctant to accept offspring of such relationships.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

While this is a subject that could probably use a little more discussion and debate, the fact remains that Bardwell is breaking the law.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann.

I’m not trying to tell Bardwell that he needs to change his opinion, far from it. However, if marrying interracial couples is morally wrong to him then the Tangipahoa Parish needs to find someone who is ok with it. I’d like to think that our society has at least advanced that much in the past five decades.

“That was one thing that made this so unbelievable,” said Beth Humphrey, who was denied a marriage license by Bardwell. “It’s not something you expect in this day and age.”

Beth Humphrey and her partner Terence McKay said they are considering consulting the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

The ACLU is already taking action. They recently sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, demanding an investigation on Bardwell and recommending “the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice.”

Sources:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jy_z-Zo4fvJEf2TK1LCiiPIe9NDwD9BBRD8O0

According to Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the $700 billion financial bailout.

In a report issued on Tuesday, Barofsky criticized the Treasury for many things, including “outsourcing” its oversight duties to the Fed, which he said had different priorities from Treasury. Speaking to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday, Barofsky added that the Treasury “still did not have their arms wrapped around” AIG’s compensation structure when he finished his audit in September.

To better understand this let’s take a brief history lesson.

Before becoming Treasury Secretary in January Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner claims he was unaware of the $1.75 billion in bonuses and compensation promised to AIG employees until March. His subordinates at the New York Fed paint a different picture, saying they knew about the bailouts in November.

There’s really two things that could be wrong here. If Geithner did know about the bonuses and then tried to hide that fact then that’s a pretty serious offense. If he indeed didn’t know about it, then it’s downright negligient.

“This is a failure of communication and a failure of management,” said Barofsky.

Geithner led the Feds efforts last fall to prop up AIG with billions in emergency financing and continued to give massive aid packages to the insurance conglomerate after becoming Treasury Secretary. AIG has now received more than $180 billion in federal funding. So far officials have discovered 620 bonus programs totaling $455 million, and 13 retention plans allocating $1 billion.

“[Geithner] failed to know what he should have known, failed to do what he should have done, and failed to give us transparency” said Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In a written response, Herbert M. Allison Jr., the Treasury’s assistant secretary in charge of overseeing the government bailout, said the department is implementing the guidelines and “has no present intention” of buying another financial company.

“We welcome your comments and suggestions as Treasury continues to strengthen oversight of financial institutions” wrote Allison.

I think I’ll save my breath.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aig_bonuses

A reform of the U.S. health care system took a crucial step closer to becoming a reality Tuesday after the Senate Finance Committee approved a 10-year, $829 billion plan. The bill even gained its first Republican supporter after Olympia Snowe chose to once again break rank and vote for a Democrat-sponsored bill.

“When history calls, history calls,” said Maine’s Olympia Snowe on her decision to break rank.

The Finance Committee was the last of five House and Senate panels that had jurisdiction on the issue. So what happens next with reform? News Today takes a look at what to expect from all of the major parties involved.

. . .

President Barack Obama

Obama, perhaps trying to learn from the Clinton’s mistakes, has left most of the bill-writing process to the legislature. However as the bill begins to make its final push the president will have a crucial role to play in the days ahead.

Expect to see an even larger dose of Obama on the television, internet and radio in the days ahead as he attempts to rally public support for reform. Behind the scenes you can also expect Obama and members of his administration to continue to hold numerous meetings with on-the-fence lawmakers.

Obama had one such meeting Tuesday afternoon with Sen. Evan Bayh, a moderate democrat whose vote could be crucial to a reform bill passing.

. . .

In the Senate

Majority Leader Harry Reid will now be charged with the unenviable task of merging the Finance Committee bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. How well Reid is able to do this will determine if a health care reform bill can attain the 60 votes needed to stop a Republican filibuster.

One of the key differences Reid must overcome while combining the bills is the issue of a public option. The Finance bill does not include a public plan, while the health committee’s bill does.

. . .

In the House

House Democratic leaders will be walking a very thin line as they work to combine one of the seperate bills approved by committees over the summer. For many moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats, support of a bill could cost them their jobs. Democratic lawmakers have also received backfire from liberal supporters who argue that the proposed bills don’t go far enough to achieve real reform.

The health overhaul bill in the House will likely not grab a single House Republican vote and Pelosi can afford to lose 38 Democrats and still grab a victory.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28256.html#atssh-digg
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AqpV7N5Y0xq8jtVFQJ9JI5eMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJxNzI1OGwzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDE0L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2hlYWx0aGJpbGxjbA–

But here’s why you should hear about it. It’s a bill that was introduced by Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin and six other U.S. Senators that would protect American’s civil liberties (liberties which have been taken away under the PATRIOT Act and other unconstitutional legislation).

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee set aside Feingold’s JUSTICE Act, instead opting to vote on a weakened version from Senator Pat Leahy.

From Russ Feingold’s diary on the Daily KOS:

“I hoped to be able to support a reauthorization bill introduced by Sen. Leahy that, while narrower than the JUSTICE Act that Senator Durbin and I have championed, did contain several important and necessary protections for the privacy of innocent Americans. Events over the past two weeks dashed those hopes. Over the course of two business meetings, Sen. Leahy’s bill was diluted to the point that I had to vote against it. It falls well short of what the Congress must do to correct the problems with the PATRIOT Act.”

There still is hope though. For one, the Senate Judiciary’s bill (S. 1692) that would renew the PATRIOT Act has yet to pass in the Senate. Earlier this year Steny Hoyer made it very clear that House Democrats would not just be a pushover for the Obama administration, and in 2006 almost two-thirds of House Democrats, including now-Speaker Pelosi, voted AGAINST the PATRIOT renewal.

The Obama Administration is okay with the continuation of the Bush status quo on civil liberties. The American people clearly are not and right now we need Congress to listen to the people instead of the President.

Downsize DC has started a campaign on the subject that you can join here. It’s very easy to join and once you have registered you’re just a few clicks away from e-mailing your senators and representatives. I would urge all of you to sign up.

Sources:
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/117
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/8/791144/-Its-Not-the-Prosecutors-Committee,-its-the-Judiciary-Committee
http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=317927