members of the senate

At least we have a few Democrats in Senate still wanting to see true reform:

Four Democratic senators, including two facing potentially challenging election campaigns this year, are asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation, a procedural maneuver requiring only 51 votes, to push for a public health insurance option.

Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) signed a letter to Reid saying they support this plan for four reasons: the cost savings the public option is estimated to achieve, continued public support for the public option, the need for increased competition in the insurance market and the Senate's history of using the reconciliation process for health care reform.

"Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system," the letter says. "Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it."

Of course Harry won’t listen to any of this. He seems to only care what conserva-dems want. Maybe it’s time for the more liberal members of the Senate to start playing those games and threaten filibusters to see what Harry does.

Right along party lines as expected, with Jim Bunning not voting. What’s interesting is that since the GOP started praying for Democratic members of the Senate to not show up, a Republican has missed every vote. Irony or sweet revenge?

This ends the 2009 legislative year and now we are on to reconciliation to fix the health care bill. I actually have a little bit of hope of some good coming out of there, given statements some House members are starting to make. This bill is far from perfect, but we now have a real chance to make it better. It’s a much more real chance than the “fix it later” mentality. We won’t get things like a public option out of conference, but if a few things could happen like dropping/greatly reducing the mandate for lower income people, then it’s a bill I could stomach. I’ve said all along that the mandates was the deal breaker for me because of the adverse affect they actually will have on lower income people, namely those who make just enough to not get Medicaid.

I will admit that the bill does a lot to reduce costs for families, but most are focusing on the more median income families. In our uncertain economic times with a very weak job market, forcing people below 175% of the federal poverty level to buy insurance is adding to an already disastrous situation. It also shows the disconnect between Washington and the lower income people. They don’t know what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck. They are operating on the assumption that people in this situation don’t get insurance out of greed. For most it is out of a very, very tough decision on what expenses can be cut in order to survive. Health insurance means nothing if you are homeless or can’t afford to eat, and the extra $1,100-$5,000 a year these people will now be forced to pay is going to be felt hard.

To keep it in context, here is the chart from the CBO that many have been using to calculate health care costs under the new legislation:

That is exactly what the CIA has done:

The CIA destroyed videotapes it made in 2002 of two top terror suspects because it was afraid that keeping them "posed a security risk," Director Michael Hayden has told agency employees.

Hayden's revelation to the CIA employees became public Thursday and it caused a commotion on Capitol Hill where members of the Senate Intelligence Committee immediately vowed to conduct a thorough review. A leading human rights group voiced alarm about it.

In his message to agency workers, Hayden said that House and Senate intelligence committee leaders had been informed of the existence of the tapes and the CIA's intention to destroy them to protect the identities of the questioners. He also said the CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes in 2003 and verified that the interrogation practices were legal. Hayden said the tapes were destroyed three years after the 2002 interrogations.

If you or me destroyed evidence we would face criminal charges. Some how I doubt that will be the case. In our corrupt capital, the rule of law takes the backseat to everything else.

The report released by McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee sure makes it look bad for old Bob Ney. As matter of fact it looks like he may have done the same thing Clinton did to get impeached:

In the fall of 2004, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) told Senate investigators that he was unfamiliar with a Texas Indian tribe represented by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Days later, evidence emerged that the congressman had held numerous discussions with Abramoff and the Indians about getting Congress to reopen their shuttered casino.

Ney's statements to staff members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee were included in the panel's 357-page report on tribal lobbying, released yesterday after two years of hearings and investigation. Accompanied by more than 1,000 pages of e-mails and financial ledgers, the report catalogues the now mostly familiar story of how Abramoff and his lobbying team of former congressional aides bilked half a dozen tribes out of more than $80 million.

So we got Ney lying to a Senate committee about his knowledge and involvement in the deals. Let’s look at exactly what he lied about:

Ney's Nov. 12, 2004, interview with committee staffers took place amid a flurry of front-page newspaper articles about how Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon had flimflammed the Tigua tribe. The two first worked secretly with anti-gambling forces to close the casino and then convinced the tribe that for $4.2 million, they could get Congress to come to its rescue.

In his interview with the committee staff, "Congressman Ney said he was not at all familiar with the Tigua" and could not recall meeting with members of the tribe, the report said.

Hmm does this really shock anyone? From this morning's

New York Times:

The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's
domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing
scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said
Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration
officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the
public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal
defense at length in several public settings.

Article continues

here.

Well hopefully yesterday's events will help form what happens here. The White
House refused to turn over documents on the response to Katrina. Of course they
were claiming "executive privilege".

The GAO comes out with a report faulting the White House and Homeland
Security for the response. Perhaps the same will come out of this. The White
House won't turn over documents and once again the White House will be proven in
the wrong. Of course it pisses me off to no end that the Republicans had no
problem at all issuing subpoenas about Clinton's blow job yet issues of our
constitution and our response to disasters they won't even consider that power.