Politics - I don't know why, but they seem to have a tendency to separate us, to keep us from one another, while nature is always and ever making efforts to bring us together. ~Sean O'Casey
Al Snyder's son died in Iraq in May of 2006. Members of the rabidly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed his son Matthew's funeral, causing immense personal, emotional pain for him, his family and their friends.
Snyder won a $5 million civil lawsuit against the church and the Phelps family, but it was recently tossed out of a federal court....
Mar 29, 7:03 PM EDT
Marine's dad ordered to pay protesters' court fees BALTIMORE (AP) -- The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
10-24-2008 Republican presidents have appointed more than half of the current 179 federal appellate judges, but that could rise dramatically to 74 percent if Sen. John McCain wins the presidency, or give Democrats a 56 percent majority in appointments if Sen. Barack Obama prevails, according to a Brookings Institution report issued on Wednesday.
In addition, the report by Russell Wheeler at Brookings, predicts that in four years of an Obama presidency, his appointments could shift Republican dominance on 10 of 11 circuits, to give Democratic appointees a majority in seven circuit courts. Currently, of the 11 circuit courts, only the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has a slight majority of Democrat-appointed judges.
The balance of appointments could put solid Democratic majorities under Obama on the 2nd, the 3rd and the notoriously conservative 4th Circuit, which currently has four vacancies. It would add to the existing Democratic-appointed majorities in the liberal 9th Circuit.
Obama appointees would tip another four courts, the 1st, 7th, 11th and D.C. circuits to slight Democratic-majority appointments.
"I think this shows in striking form what it means for the courts of appeals, depending on who is elected," said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, who tracks judicial appointments.
"For the 4th Circuit [an Obama victory] would be a substantial change, because it is the most reliably conservative court in the nation," he said.
In the 2nd Circuit, it will be important because the New York-based court hears so many of the nation's most significant business cases, Tobias said.
Wheeler cautioned that not all presidential appointees are of the same party or philosophically aligned with the appointing president, but may represent political deal making.
For example, President Bill Clinton appointed Judge Richard Tallman, a conservative Republican to the 9th Circuit, in exchange for Senate confirmation of other stalled nominations. And Judge Helene White, whose original nomination by Clinton died in the Senate, was appointed to the 6th Circuit by President George Bush in a deal with Democrats to release other nominees.
"Be careful not to assume that [judicial] appointments break along party lines," said Tobias. "History doesn't bear out that everyone votes on party lines with the president that appointed them," he said.
The 9th Circuit's Judge Alfred Goodwin, for example, a moderate conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon, famously wrote the opinion declaring the words "under God" unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Republican presidents have named 100 of the current 179 appellate judges, or 56 percent, while 64 judges, or 36 percent, were appointed by Democrats. The remaining 15 spots represent current vacancies or judges who have said they will step down by January for semi-retired "senior status."
A McCain victory would intensify the existing predominance of Republican appointments on several courts, tipping the last remaining circuit dominated by Democratic appointees, the 9th Circuit, to a Republican-appointed majority.
The Republican domination of appellate court appointments has risen since President George Bush took office in January 2001, when the courts were evenly divided with 76 appointees from each party, or 42 percent each, with 27 vacancies, according to the report.
Another factor that will affect how much McCain or Obama can shift the percentage of appointees will depend on how many judges from the opposite party retire or leave office.
During Clinton's eight years in office, 18 Democratic and 38 Republican appointees on circuit courts retired. That gave Clinton the opportunity to replace more Republican appointees with Democrats. By contrast, only one-quarter of Bush's 60 appointees replaced Democratic appointees.
Wheeler also predicted that the new president would garner an additional 13 circuit judges as part of a judgeship bill intended to increase the overall number of judges nationally. But the bill has failed to win approval and is unlikely to be taken up by the lame duck Congress, which will be focused on economic bailout measures.
...We at CODEPINK could not allow this war criminal to tout his book around the country and get away with describing anything tied to Bush as courageous. Not to mention that there has been no consequence for his constant lies. Serious lies. Lies that led the US to invade an innocent country at the cost of over 100,000 US casualties and an estimated million Iraqi lives and another 4 million displaced....
A few weeks ago I gave a talk at a company convention in southern California. This company has offices worldwide, is very successful in its line of work, but on the horizon are some dangers. They brought me in to address those dangers. The specifics here do not matter much, only to say that, like a lot of companies that were successful in the 80s and on up to the present, they have come to rely upon a particular business model that is part circumstance and part design.
Loosely put, their upper-tier employees operate more like entrepreneurs, each one out for him or herself. Each office tends to think of itself as an island, competing with the other branches across the globe. This works to some extent, as these entrepreneurs are very motivated to expand the business. On the other hand, it makes it very difficult to create an overall esprit de corps.
As I was preparing the speech, for some reason an image kept coming to mind--the jet-fighter pilot, and the theories of Colonel John Boyd as it pertains to this form of warfare. Many of you might be familiar with Boyd's most famous theory: the OODA loop. I will paraphrase it for those who are not familiar with it, with the understanding that it is much richer than the few words I am devoting to it here.
OODA stands for Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action. A pilot is constantly going through these loops or cycles in a dogfight: he tries to observe the enemy as best he can, this observation being somewhat fluid, since nothing is standing still and all of this is happening at great speed. With a lightning-quick observation, he then must orient this movement of the enemy, what it means, what are his intentions, how does it fit into the overall battle. This is the critical part of the cycle. Based on this orientation, he makes a decision as to how to respond, and then takes the appropriate action.
In the course of a typical dogfight, a pilot will go through maybe a dozen or so of these loops, depending on how complicated the fight, and how fluid the field. If one pilot can make faster decisions and actions, based on the proper observations and orientations, he slowly gains a distinct advantage. He can make a maneuver to confuse the enemy. After a few such maneuvers in which he is slightly ahead in the cycles, the enemy makes a mistake, and he is able to go in for the kill. Boyd calls these fast transients, and if you are ahead in these transients, the opponent slowly loses touch with reality. He cannot decipher what you are doing, and as he becomes increasingly cut off from the reality of the battlefield, he reacts to things that are not there, and his misreactions spell his death.
Boyd saw this theory as having application to all forms of warfare. He went backwards in military history and showed how this was relevant to the success of Belisaurius, the Mongols, Napoleon Bonaparte, T.E. Lawrence. He saw it as also deeply relevant to any kind of competitive environment: business, politics, sports, even the struggle of organisms to survive. In reading about the OODA loop for the first time, I was struck by its brilliance, but I was not quite sure what to make of it. How exactly does this apply to my own battles, my own life, or to those whom I advise in their affairs?
Then, working on the speech, the image and the idea began to coalesce. A fighter pilot is in a unique spot. He is a rugged individualist who can ultimately only depend on his own creative maneuvers for survival and success. On the other hand, he is part of a team, and if he operates completely on his own strategy, his personal success will translate into confusion on the battlefield.
At the same time, the battlefield itself is so incredibly fluid that the pilot cannot think in traditional linear terms. It is more like complex geometry, or three-dimensional chess. If the pilot is too slow and conventional in his thinking, he will find himself falling further and further behind in the loops. His ideas will not keep pace with reality. The proper mindset is to let go a little, to allow some of the chaos to become part of his mental system, and to use it to his advantage by simply creating more chaos and confusion for the opponent. He funnels the inevitable chaos of the battlefield in the direction of the enemy.
This seemed to me the perfect metaphor for what we are all going through right now in the 21st century. Changes are occurring too fast for any of us to really process them in the traditional manner. Our strategies tend to be rooted in the past. Our businesses operate on models from the 60s and 70s. The changes going on can easily give us the feeling that we are not really in control of events. The standard response in such situations is to try to control too much, in which case everything will tend to fall apart as we fall behind. (Those who try to control too much lose contact with reality, react emotionally to surprises.) Or to let go, an equally disastrous mindset. What we are going through requires a different way of thinking and responding to the world, something I will be addressing in my next two books in great detail. (I am happy to report that these two books have now been sold, and that is why I have been away for a while.)
In essence, speed is the critical element in our strategies. (See the chapter on formlessness in POWER and the blitzkrieg in WAR.) Speed, however, is something that is rarely understood. Napoleon created speed in his attacks because of the way his army was organized and structured. If you read Martin Creveld's book on command, he explains that the speed of Napoleon's army is comparable to any contemporary army, but with the technology of two-hundred years ago. This speed comes from the mission-oriented structure in which his field marshals had great liberty to react in real time and make quick decisions, based on Napoleon's overall strategic goals, and with the incredibly swift communications up and down the chain of command.
Napoleon increased the speed of his army by loosening up the structure, allowing for more chaos in the decision-making process, and unleashing the creativity in his marshals. Speed is not necessarily a function of technology. Technology, as Creveld showed, can actually slow an army down. Look at the North Vietnamese versus the US in the Vietnam War.
We are all in the position of those fighter pilots. Those among us who succeed in this environment know how to play the team game in a different way, not being an automaton, yet not completely a freelancer. We are comfortable working on our own initiative, but also find pleasure in making our individuality fit into the group. We are able to embrace change, to let go of old patterns of operating, and to stay rooted in the moment, observing the battlefield for what it is, not cluttered by preconceptions. We can think fast, let go of the need to control everything, stay close to the environment in which we operate (the streets, our clients), and experiment.
It is a new kind of beast that thrives in this new order.
Your mind is the key that will turn this to advantage, not your wealth, the technology at your command, the number of allies you possess. Whatever success you are now experiencing will actually work to your detriment because you will not be made aware of how slowly you are falling behind in the fast transient cycle. You think you are doing just fine. You are not compelled to adapt until it is too late. These are ruthless times.
Discuss John Boyd and the OODA Loop here. The Power, Seduction and War Room thread for this entry features further reading, analysis, and more input from Robert.
Posted by Robert Greene at 1:14 PM
The loss of skilled intellectual and technical labor through the movement of such labor to more favorable geographic, economic, or professional environments.
WASHINGTON — The red-hot race in Texas earlier this month between Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for the Republican gubernatorial nomination helped drive the state to its biggest primary turnout in 20 years.
And just how many people showed up for the election?
About 1.5 million Texans cast ballots in the March 2 GOP primary for governor, according to the secretary of State's office. That means only about 1 in 10 of the 15.3 million Texans 18 and older who were eligible to vote actually cast a ballot, according to Curtis Gans at American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
Since 1962, the percentage of eligible voters picking Democratic and Republican nominees for governor and U.S. Senate has been declining to less than 10% per party. The percentages are even lower for U.S. House and state legislature primaries, Gans says.
"It's a concern," Trey Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of State and the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said of the low voter participation in primaries.
Grayson and his counterparts, who serve as the top election officials in most states, are planning to launch a public-private partnership later this year to increase both voter registration and participation. Grayson says advertisers are joining with state voting officials to target the nation's youngest voters, those ages 18-25.
The extra effort to turn out voters could be necessary in some states this year. A new federal law to ensure that ballots cast by members of the U.S. military get counted requires states to provide a 45-day period for absentee voting. That's forcing some states that normally hold primaries in September to move them to August — when many families are on vacation and turnout could be even lower than usual.
"Typically, you go to the state fair, get the students back to school and then you have the primary elections and sprint to the end," says Mark Ritchie, secretary of State in Minnesota, which moved its Sept. 14 primary to Aug. 10. He's worried that his state's voter-turnout figures, generally among the nation's highest, will drop.
On the West Coast, there's a movement underway to trash the traditional primary system and replace it with a model that would virtually eliminate political parties' role in selecting nominees.
In California, state Sen. Abel Maldonado is leading a campaign to end party primaries and replace them with a free-for-all that would allow voters to choose from candidates of any party. The top two finishers would compete in the general election, even if they were both from the same party. Louisiana and Washington already have this in place.
"A closed primary system brings out the most hyper-partisan members of the Republican and Democratic parties," says Maldonado, a Republican.
An initiative that would force the change is on the ballot in the state's June 8 primary. It's backed by outgoing Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger but opposed by the California Democratic and Republican parties.
In Washington state, Secretary of State Sam Reed says fellow Republicans termed him "a traitor to the party" when he pushed successfully to establish a "top-two" primary system. "To be nominated by the Democratic Party, you have to go hard left and to be nominated by Republicans you have to go hard right," he said. "When you are campaigning to a larger electorate, you don't get locked in."
Reed said the first Washington primary under the new system in August 2008 managed to draw about 43% of registered voters to the polls, despite the lack of a U.S. Senate or governor's race. That bucked a national trend: Gans says states that held 2008 primaries on a different day from presidential primary contests had their lowest turnout ever.
State Rep. Reuven Carlyle, a Democrat elected to the Washington state House under the new primary system, said it "made a profound difference" in his overwhelmingly Democratic district. The district's Republicans were "a major force" in the primary, Carlyle said. "I think it pulls the parties to the center."
A ripple effect on national politics is possible. Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University, believes the partisan nature of most primaries for local office has had an impact. "There's a recruitment chain," McDonald says. "If you're punishing moderates in the farm leagues, they're never going to make it to the big leagues."
Not everyone agrees that changing the primary system will draw voters and centrist candidates. A study by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California concludes that the proposed new primary system would only have "a noticeable but modest effect."
Still, even a modest increase in primary voters might be welcome. As Doug Lewis of The Election Center, an association of state election directors, puts it: "We spend a lot of money to conduct an election that not a whole lot of people show up for."
DECLINING PARTICIPATION
Percentage of age-eligible people who voted in states that had primaries for governor and/or U.S. Senate seats in midterm elections:
REPUBLICAN
Source: American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate
DEMOCRAT
Source: American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate
blah, it's so nice it embedded it twice (and now i can't get rid of one). btw, you don't have to close an embed tag blogger geeks....so stop it!--java
President Barack Obama discusses the START treaty, during a phone call with President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia in the Oval Office, March 26, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
After nearly a year of very difficult negotiations, the White House and the Kremlin have announced a new strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty, also known as New START, which they will sign in Prague on April 8, 2010. The first START treaty was signed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991; the history since then has been rocky and complex, but at least we've made some progress.
Here are the key details of New START, via a White House press release:
Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail.The first tier is the Treaty text itself.The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions.The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents.The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol.All three tiers will be legally binding.The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Strategic Offensive Reductions:Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force.Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty.These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
Aggregate limits:
* 1,550 warheads.Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit. o This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
* A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. * A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. o This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.
Verification and Transparency:The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty.Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring.To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.
Treaty Terms: The Treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement.The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years.The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements.The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty.The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.
No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike:The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.
Although the treaty is routine -- kind of like a required maintenance agreement -- its significance cannot be overstated. It sets an example for the rest of the world; it proves that we are, indeed, dedicated to arms control, and could very well have a ripple effect in terms of future nuclear arms control talks, e.g. discussions about tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
The road to ratification will be very difficult; the treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate and the Russian Duma. I'll address this issue, answer your questions, and more, in a very detailed piece I'll post this coming Sunday.
In the meantime, stay tuned. Arms control blogs you should follow include Arms Control Wonk, the Center for Strategic and International Study's Project on Nuclear Issues, and of course the always-excellent Nukes of Hazard.
Also, please join the ongoing discussion in Granny Doc's recommended diary.
Born and raised in the small desert mining town of Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid has spent his life fighting to ensure every American has the same opportunities for success that he has had despite his humble upbringing. As a child, Reid’s father was a hard rock miner and his mother took in wash. Sen. Reid grew up in a small cabin without an indoor toilet and attended a two-room elementary school. Opportunity was scarce in Searchlight and Reid made the most of the chances he got: hitchhiking more than 40 miles as a teenager to attend the nearest high school and putting himself through law school by working nights as a U.S. Capitol police officer.
As the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is a powerful voice for Nevada. For more than two decades he fought against and finally ended the plan to make Yucca Mountain the nation’s nuclear waste dump. Reid is working to make Nevada the leader in renewable energy, and he stood up to keep more than 10,000 construction workers on the job during these tough economic times. Sen. Reid has delivered funding to keep cops on our streets and teachers in our classrooms. He secured hundreds of millions of dollars for a new VA hospital in Nevada and successfully fought attempts to close Nevada’s military bases. Reid has always been a guy who gets things done, winning him praise from Democrats and Republicans alike. His Democratic colleagues unanimously elected him to lead the Senate and he has even received praise from Nevada’s top Republican political consultant, who said, “Sen. Reid has delivered results to our state like no other elected official in our state’s history.”
From Searchlight to Washington, D.C., Harry Reid’s unwavering commitment to Nevada has spanned four decades of public service. As Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, Reid waged a legendary and unrelenting fight against the mob to clean up the gaming industry and make Las Vegas what it is today. As a young assemblyman, he introduced the first air pollution laws in state history and worked tirelessly to protect Nevada consumers. And at the young age of 30, Harry Reid served as Lt. Governor to one of Nevada’s most popular Governors, Mike O’Callaghan.
Sen. Reid still lives in Searchlight today. He is guided by the lessons and values he learned there. Throughout his service in public office, Harry Reid has made one thing very clear…he always puts Nevada first.
WASHINGTON — After running through an obstacle course of Republican amendments and procedural objections, the Senate on Thursday afternoon approved of a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care overhaul, capping a bitter partisan battle over the most far-reaching social legislation in nearly half a century.
Republicans, raising procedural challenges, identified flaws that struck out minor provisions to the bill. Because of those changes, it now goes back to the House for one more vote, though passage seemed virtually assured.
Democrats said they were confident the measure would soon be on President Obama’s desk for his signature.
The vote, just after 2 p.m., was 56 to 43, with the Republicans unanimously opposed. Senators cast their votes standing individually at their desks, a ceremonial gesture reserved for historic occasions. Three Democrats opposed the measure, Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, was ill and did not vote.
The bill, a budget reconciliation measure that the Republicans could not filibuster, also included a broad restructuring of federal student loan programs to pay for billions of dollars in school initiatives — a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s education agenda that has been overshadowed by the larger health care fight.
With both sides girding for a last round of parliamentary challenges, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived in the chamber to preside over the session in his role as president of the Senate. Mr. Biden served for 36 years as a senator from Delaware, making him intimately familiar with the chamber, its rules and precedents, and the main combatants on the floor.
As Senator Judd Gregg formally made the procedural challenges, Mr. Biden twice replied, “The point of order is sustained.” Then, he added, “Both provisions are stricken.”
Once the roll call was completed, Mr. Biden said, “There are 56 yeas and 43 nays, the bill as amended is passed.”
The vote came after Senate Democrats defeated more than 40 Republican amendments aimed at delaying or derailing the legislation, including proposals related to insurance coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted sex offenders, the legality of gay marriage in the District of Columbia, and gun rights.
As the Senate worked into the pre-dawn hours of Thursday morning, the parliamentarian told lawmakers that he would strike out some provisions related to the education portion of the bill because they violated the complex budget reconciliation rules.
One provision sought to prevent any annual decrease in the maximum amount of Pell grants for students from low-income families. Democrats said they would omit the disputed provisions, and advance the legislation.
Republicans said they would carry their opposition to the bill into the fall election campaign, in an effort to win back majorities in Congress and repeal the measure.
The mid-afternoon vote came after nearly 24 hours of acrimonious debate — a fitting finale to the Senate’s role in a nearly year-long saga that included protracted drafting sessions at the Capitol, raucous town-hall meetings with constituents over the August recess, the approval of legislation by five different Congressional committees, passage of the House measure on Nov. 7, and adoption of the Senate bill on Christmas Eve after 25 straight days of floor debate.
The Senate action appeared to be the penultimate step in a series of intricate legislation maneuvers that Democrats were forced to undertake after a Republican, Scott Brown, won a special Senate election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19, stripping Senate Democrats of the 60th vote that they needed to surmount Republican filibusters.
Many Democrats credited the president with having saved the legislation from the brink of collapse. He held a remarkable, day-long televised forum with Congressional leaders of both parties, lobbied for the overhaul in campaign-style rallies around the country, attacked abuses by private insurance companies, and repeatedly told the stories of everyday Americans who had suffered in the existing health system.
With Mr. Obama having signed the main health care bill into law on Tuesday, the Senate’s passage of the reconciliation bill was all but certain. The only question was if Democrats could fend off the Republican parliamentary attacks aimed at knocking out key provisions, or making changes, to prolong the process by requiring another vote by the House.
Although the bulk of the Democrats’ overhaul was already the law of the land, the passage of the final revisions fulfilled a promise that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, made to rank-and-file House Democrats before they took up the Senate version of the health care legislation and approved it on Sunday night by 219 to 212.
The House then approved the reconciliation measure by 220 to 211.
“The health care bill was passed because very, very, very heavy-duty promises were made to members of the House that reconciliation would be passed to address many of their concerns,” said Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats. “Pelosi would not have had the votes in the House unless there was a strong promise that reconciliation would be passed.”
House Democrats had resisted approving the Senate measure because it contained a number of provisions they opposed, including some aimed at winning the support of individual senators, such as extra Medicaid money for Nebraska that was widely derided as the “Cornhusker kickback.”
The reconciliation measure makes a slew of changes to address the concerns of House Democrats, as well as to bridge differences between the original House and Senate bills and incorporate additional provisions sought by Mr. Obama.
Among the major changes was an adjustment to a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance policies to delay the start of the levy until 2018 and to limit its impact, reflecting a deal that was struck by the White House and organized labor leaders.
The bill eliminated the extra money for Nebraska, and other similar provisions.
The overall health care proposal is expected to extend health benefits to 32 million uninsured Americans at a cost of approximately $938 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The cost of the legislation would be more than offset by reductions in spending on government programs, particularly Medicare, and revenues from new taxes and fees so that it would reduce future federal deficits by $143 billion over a decade the budget office said.
While Democrats hailed the passage of the legislation as major expansion in the nation’s social safety net, and as the realization of a goal sought by presidents and lawmakers for nearly a century, Republicans blasted the measure as a dangerous expansion of government and an encroachment on the lives of ordinary citizens.
The bill would require most Americans to obtain health coverage, or pay financial penalties for failing to do so.
It would expand eligibility for Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income Americans, and would provide subsidies to help offset the cost of private insurance for citizens earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $88,200 for a family of four.
The bill also tightens government regulation of the insurance industry. Beginning later this year it bars insurers from denying coverage to children based on pre-existing medical conditions, and it will require insurers to allow adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
By 2014, it would require states to establish insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where individuals and families and employees of small businesses could shop for policies by comparing benefits packages and premium prices.
Earlier on Wednesday, some Democratic lawmakers reported that they had received death threats as a result of their votes in favor of the health care bill, and they were likely to experience more direct feedback from constituents when they return to their home states and districts for a two-week recess beginning this weekend.
Where does all this anger come from? Why are there so many people who are reacting so violently to a health care bill passed by congress which they personally have no real knowledge of? Tea party members are not handing out copies of portions of this bill that really will destroy their freedoms. Why? Because it isn't really about health care after all.
This debate and the proposed reform is a palate upon which the vested interests of the very wealthy and very conservative have painted a picture of fear and hate to preserve the status quo (where they have the tax cuts and a monopoly on distribution) and avoid even minor accountability to the only tool society has legally, the US government. It is an exploitation of the very anger that comes from the victimization of these lower income, poorly educated and economically disenfranchised individuals.
First the corporate warriors on the right give away the farm to the robber barons of our age and then they tell those who no longer have an income that "it's the democrats fault" or "it's the government's fault" (some other dude did it, not me!) and thus the cycle of political life continues. What's wrong with these people? I would suggest that they are perfectly normal and that the real responsibility lies with the perversion of political discourse by those seeking to avoid exposure and truth. Victimization and exploitation; misdirection and gamesmanship are all tools of those who seek to exploit Americans economically and then, when that breeds enough anger, again politically. When crazy speech writers for Richard Nixon catch on, you know that there are some things that are obvious. But, to someone with limited education and limited access to factual news reporting it is easier to blame the great big bogey man than to take a look at what has really limited the freedoms they hold so dear.
You as an American are not a victim as much as a torch bearer of liberty. Are the jack booted federal guards rounding you up and taking your guns? No. And there is nothing in any health care legislation even remotely relating to limiting your free speech. Is it about the Constitution or the factory shutting down? Is it the government or the color of the president's skin? Dividing this country along racial and religious lines is similar to how the British ruled India for so long. If we are fighting amongst ourselves than no one is watching the store as corruption and endless greed empty the coffers. (Please note that the "bank bailout" bill was passed during the Bush administration and signed into law by good old W, a life long republican, himself.)
Is it health care or the frustration you have seeing your children having to compete with workers making less than 50 cents a day in some distant land? Who lied to you? Why can't grandma keep the house and afford her medication? Where does all the money go? Is that nationalism or simple economics? It was not Himmler or Hitler walking the barbed wire outside of Auschwitz, it was the average German soldier who truly believed, after an extensive media blitz and complete distortion of their economic fate during the Great Depression, that the evil Jews were the reason that they had come to such a crushing economic disaster. Both anger and hate are blind.
BTW, has Rush Limbaugh booked his flight to Costa Rica yet?
NOT long ago, I had the pleasure of a lengthy meeting with one of the smartest men on the planet, Warren E. Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, in his unpretentious offices in Omaha. We talked of many things that, I hope, will inspire me for years to come. But one of the main subjects was taxes. Mr. Buffett, who probably does not feel sick when he sees his MasterCard bill in his mailbox the way I do, is at least as exercised about the tax system as I am.
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
This conversation keeps coming back to mind because, in the last couple of weeks, I have been on one television panel after another, talking about how questionable it is that the country is enjoying what economists call full employment while we are still running a federal budget deficit of roughly $434 billion for fiscal 2006 (not counting off-budget items like Social Security) and economists forecast that it will grow to $567 billion in fiscal 2010.
When I mentioned on these panels that we should consider all options for closing this gap — including raising taxes, particularly for the wealthiest people — I was met with several arguments by people who call themselves conservatives and free marketers.
One argument was that the mere suggestion constituted class warfare. I think Mr. Buffett answered that one.
Another argument was that raising taxes actually lowers total revenue, and that only cutting taxes stimulates federal revenue. This is supposedly proved by the history of tax receipts since my friend George W. Bush became president.
In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again.
By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue. To be fair, corporate profits taxes have increased greatly, as corporate profits have increased stupendously. This may be because of the cut in corporate tax rates. Anything is possible.
The third argument that kind, well-meaning people made in response to the idea of rolling back the tax cuts was this: “Don’t raise taxes. Cut spending.”
The sad fact is that spending rises every year, no matter what people want or say they want. Every president and every member of Congress promises to cut “needless” spending. But spending has risen every year since 1940 except for a few years after World War II and a brief period after the Korean War.
The imperatives for spending are built into the system, and now, with entitlements expanding rapidly, increased spending is locked in. Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt — all are growing like mad, and how they will ever be stopped or slowed is beyond imagining. Gross interest on Treasury debt is approaching $350 billion a year. And none of this counts major deferred maintenance for the military.
The fourth argument in response to my suggestion was that “deficits don’t matter.”
There is something to this. One would think that big deficits would be highly inflationary, according to Keynesian economics. But we have modest inflation (except in New York City, where a martini at a good bar is now $22). On the other hand, we have all that interest to pay, soon roughly $7 billion a week, a lot of it to overseas owners of our debt. This, to me, seems to matter.
Besides, if it doesn’t matter, why bother to even discuss balancing the budget? Why have taxes at all? Why not just print money the way Weimar Germany did? Why not abolish taxes and add trillions to the deficit each year? Why don’t we all just drop acid, turn on, tune in and drop out of responsibility in the fiscal area? If deficits don’t matter, why not spend as much as we want, on anything we want?
The final argument is the one I really love. People ask how I can be a conservative and still want higher taxes. It makes my head spin, and I guess it shows how old I am. But I thought that conservatives were supposed to like balanced budgets. I thought it was the conservative position to not leave heavy indebtedness to our grandchildren. I thought it was the conservative view that there should be some balance between income and outflow. When did this change?
Oh, now, now, now I recall. It changed when we figured that we could cut taxes and generate so much revenue that we would balance the budget. But isn’t that what doctors call magical thinking? Haven’t the facts proved that this theory, though charming and beguiling, was wrong?
THIS brings me back to Mr. Buffett. If, in fact, it’s all just a giveaway to the rich masquerading as a new way of stimulating the economy and balancing the budget, please, Mr. Bush, let’s rethink it. I don’t like paying $7 billion a week in interest on the debt. I don’t like the idea that Mr. Buffett pays a lot less in tax as a percentage of his income than my housekeeper does or than I do.
Can we really say that we’re showing fiscal prudence? Are we doing our best? If not, why not? I don’t want class warfare from any direction, through the tax system or any other way.
Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.
The media are outraged at the "class warfare" supposedly present in President Obama's budget plans. In the past few days alone, Michelle Bernard said Barack Obama "was almost declaring class warfare" in his speech to Congress; CNBC's Carlos Quintanilla said, "I don't want to call it class warfare, although that's what it may end up being in the end, this debate over wealth redistribution"; the AP's Jennifer Loven asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, "Are you all worried at all that that kind of argument, that 'class warfare' argument could sink the ability to get some of these big priorities through?" Politico ran a Jeanne Cummings article headlined "Class warfare returns to D.C." And this afternoon, MSNBC joined the pile-on, with a segment asking: "Is there a war against the wealthy? Do we have a class war developing?"
What sparked this sudden concern about "class warfare"? President Obama indicated that in order to fund things like health care, the very wealthiest Americans (individuals who make more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000) might have to pay slightly more in taxes, via the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts for those earners. Under this plan, the wealthiest Americans (again, those making more than $200,000) would be subject to the same income tax rate they paid in the 1990s -- when, it should be remembered, the rich got richer and the economy did quite well.
If this plan -- raising taxes slightly on people who make more than $200,000 a year in order to pay for things like health care for people who don't -- sounds familiar, it's because Obama campaigned on it for roughly two years. Conservatives, amplified by the news media, ridiculed it with labels like "socialism" and "class warfare" and used all kinds of scary rhetoric. And the American people voted for it anyway.
So it's a bit odd to see all this media angst over the idea that Barack Obama's plans to do something he said he would do -- and something the American public supported.
Cummings' Politicoarticle is the oddest of all, promoting the "class warfare" theme with a series of misguided and nonsensical grievances. She began by complaining, essentially, of being insufficiently surprised by Obama's plans:
Obama's creative juices seemed to run dry as he turned Thursday to his party's most predictable revenue enhancer: taxing the wealthy.
The result: an instant revival of an old and predictable Washington debate.
It's too bad this bores Cummings so badly, but somehow I doubt that either Barack Obama or the American people consider "keeping Jeanne Cummings on the edge of her seat" among their top priorities.
Instead, most people probably want to know more basic things about Obama's plans: how they will be affected, whether it will work, what the gains will be, and at what cost. Sadly, despite writing more than 1,000 words, Cummings never comes close to answering any of those questions -- or even, really, to trying.
Instead, she opined that Obama's proposals brought "reminders of how fresh Obama's gains are and how fleeting they could become if he loses the aura of bringing a new style of leadership to the White House." It isn't particularly clear what that means, though presumably if Obama accomplishes universal health care and gets the economy moving, few will care about his "style" in doing so.
Later, Cummings reported that a think-tank policy expert said Obama had "argued that containing health care costs is essential to economic recovery." But is containing health care costs essential to recovery? Cummings didn't so much as hint at the answer. Actually, she didn't even acknowledge that it was a question.
Instead, Cummings continued to emphasize her boredom: "[N]o amount of spin or recalibration could fuzz up the flashback to previous Democratic administration's fiscal policy when Obama unveiled his spending plan."
Now, first of all, she hadn't identified any misleading "spin" previously, so that word is just tossed in as an unsubstantiated pejorative. But more importantly: Why does the "flashback" to Bill Clinton's fiscal policy need "fuzzing up"? It was, after all, rather more successful than the fiscal policies that followed. Cummings, of course, doesn't address the efficacy of that policy; she just complains that it isn't new and exciting. Well, fine, but few economists think the goal of fiscal policy should be to entertain Politico reporters.
Cummings' article actually got worse from there. Take, for example, this passage:
Some economists argue that the anticipation of a return to higher tax rates may be enough to thwart critical investments and purchases.
For instance, the White House has been working for months to get the nation's banks to begin lending again and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently announced a new government program aimed at getting loans to small business and to car and house buyers.
And who are the people out there today with the cash -- and confidence -- to spend? Most often they are people and families with earnings ranked in the top echelons and who will be subject to the Obama tax hike.
It may be true that "some economists" argue that taxing people who make more than $200,000 at the rate at which they were taxed during the 1990s boom "may" thwart investments and spending. But Cummings doesn't tell us who these economists are or quote their arguments in any way. Nor does she tell us if this is a mainstream view among economists, or a fringe view. Nor does she offer the counterargument.
Though her next paragraph begins with the words "for instance," it doesn't actually provide an "instance" of the assertion that comes before it. And the third paragraph suggests that the key to economic stimulus is keeping money in the hands of the wealthy so they can spend it. This runs counter to the widely held view that the way to jump-start the economy is to ensure that the poor and middle class have money to spend -- because unlike the wealthy, who have enough money to both spend and save, the poor and middle class will actually spend it. That's why economists like Mark Zandi -- an adviser to John McCain's campaign, not a knee-jerk liberal -- say that things like food stamps and unemployment benefits are more stimulative than tax cuts.
But none of those basic facts make an appearance in Cummings' article; instead, she offers poorly considered platitudes on behalf of the wealthy.
Speaking of "the wealthy," Cummings doesn't bother to tell us who they are. She refers to "the wealthy" and "wealthy earners" and "people and families with earnings ranked in the top echelons" and "wealthy households," but never tells us what "wealthy" means. It means people who make more than $200,000. It is important to spell that out: A Time poll in 2000 found that 19 percent of Americans thought they were among the richest one percent of Americans, and another 20 percent expected they would get there one day. News reports that refer simply to tax increases on "the wealthy" or even "the richest 1 percent" don't really inform; they confuse. They lead large numbers of readers to incorrectly believe they will be subject to tax increases.
But the real problem with Cummings' article -- and with the rest of the week's news reports about "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" -- is that they frame Obama's proposals in such negative terms. It's hard to think of a single example of tax or spending policy that doesn't in some way "redistribute wealth." Some redistribute wealth upward, some redistribute wealth downward. But the media only seem to break out the "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" pejorative when the wealth in question is heading to those who are not already wealthy.
(At this point, it should be noted that big-name political reporters earn considerably more money than most of the people who read and watch their reports. According to Sean Quinn at FiveThirtyEight.com, one reporter asked after Gibbs' briefing yesterday: "Did you notice all the questions about taxes came from reporters making over $250,000 a year, especially the TV guys?")
Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about wealth, has noted that because of the way the tax code is structured, he effectively pays taxes at a lower rate than the secretaries who work for him, concluding: "There's class warfare, all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
One reason they're winning is that the news media do not use the loaded phrases "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" to describe things like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the home mortgage deduction (which favors those who are wealthy enough to buy homes over those who are not) or countless other policies that benefit wealthier Americans at the expense of those who are less fortunate. Instead, the media pretend this is a one-sided war -- as though the wealthy are being unfairly assaulted by an army of bullying waitresses and janitors and farmers and teachers.
Another reason is articles like today's Washington Postfront-pager. The Post tells us in paragraph one that Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and waits until paragraph 18 to reveal that he plans to make permanent a tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. A tax increase that applies to almost nobody -- that leads the article. A tax credit that applies to much of the nation's workforce? Buried 18 paragraphs in.
And like this Los Angeles Timesarticle, which announces near the beginning that Obama's budget "would raise taxes, redistribute income, spend more on social programs than on defense" and quotes House Republican leader John Boehner saying, "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it" -- without making clear that this is true only if you are among the very small number of very wealthy people whose taxes would go up. In the process, the Times twice refers to income "redistribution" and quotes another Republican congressman invoking the specter of "class warfare."
They're winning, in large part, because they have the media on their side. Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
Billy C. Murdock - New Braunfels, Texas
I am shocked by how some people are taking Barack Obama's statement from April 6 totally out of context ("Obama: 'Bitter' comments were ill chosen," USATODAY.com, Saturday).
(Photo - Obama: His “bitter” comment comes up at Wednesday’s debate in Philadelphia / William Thomas Cain, Getty Images)
Obama said at a private fundraiser in San Francisco that working class voters "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."
I would add that religion and violence have been the foundation for bitterness not just for the working class but for thousands of poor people for years. When gasoline prices are so high and groceries cost so much, the poor sometimes resort to violence. Other times they go to churches for food, counseling and prayer.
When Obama toured Pennsylvania recently, he saw people living in dire economic conditions. I'm sure that experience broke his heart.
And what happened?
He voiced his concern at a fundraiser, and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York jumped on his words, which are being played as though the senator of Illinois lacks compassion toward working-class voters.
Wake up, working class
Ed Fitch - Lawrenceville, Ill.
I live in a rural area where good jobs have gone south and likely will not return.
The very people who have suffered most still overwhelmingly vote for presidential candidates who pander to big business. The question that Barack Obama was trying to answer was why working-class Americans don't vote for him. His answer was insightful and true. Poor people seemingly vote for candidates based on reasons other than their own economic interests.
Their concerns over gun control, abortion, flag burning and prayer seem to trump their job pain. Obama explained all this eloquently.
My hope is that in the next election, common people such as myself will reject the red herring excuses and stop shooting themselves in the foot.
BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: In much of rural America, talk radio tends to be conservative --rarely liberal. And in some places, archconservative radio broadcasters rail against immigrants, environmentalists, the UN, and everything they think is liberal. Critics call them purveyors of fear and say they sow the seeds of hate. Defenders say it's a free expression of ideas. Lucky Severson reports.
LUCKY SEVERSON: Traveling under the big sky of Montana requires some sturdy wheels, preferably a pickup truck, and a good radio, which usually offers FM music and AM talk.
In this part of the world, on the airwaves conservative talk has a virtual lock. Odds are the talk will progress from Rush Limbaugh to someone even more conservative -- like John Stokes, owner of station KGEZ in Kalispell, Montana.
JOHN STOKES (Radio Host, KGEZ, Kalispell, Montana, on Radio): When the Left extremists are out of power, they are vicious, and it is pure, unadulterated, satanic evil. And they may look like your neighbors. It's evil.
SEVERSON: If you're in Montana, or much of rural America, you will hear very little of what people in these parts call "namby-pamby" liberalism on AM radio, and that's music to John Stokes's ears.
Mr. STOKES: I think it's gone so far extreme to the left that there was a backlash, and that's where you're probably seeing more people come out of the closet and say, "Enough is enough."
SEVERSON: He thinks talk radio is an outlet for America's aggravations.
Mr. STOKES: This is the great thing about America -- is that you can still get on your soapbox and do something. These people say that I incite people to violence. That's the last thing I want.
SEVERSON: But his detractors say some of his broadcasts have incited harassment and stifled public debate. Consider his program shortly after 9/11, when he equated environmentalists with terrorists.
Mr. STOKES (On Radio): So when these left-wing lunatic liberals complain that I have somehow connected them to this, yes, you are responsible. The Green extremists out there, the Green Nazis. Look in the mirror; it's your political correctness that has caused these problems.
KEN TOOLE (Montana Human Rights Network): People contacted us and said, "I've had things happen to my house, and I think it's because they talked about me on the program." Then you've got a problem, and that definitely affects not only the ability to have civic debate, but it also affects the decision making.
SEVERSON: Ken Toole is a Montana state senator and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network. He has been critical of Stokes's talk show called THE EDGE. He says the rhetoric has pushed some listeners over the edge to harass targets of Stokes's attacks. That may be why Stokes refers to Toole as "king fool of the human rights nitwits."
Mr. TOOLE: We went to Stokes and said, "You've got to knock this stuff off," and called him out on it. This is bullying. Does the schoolyard bully affect the schoolyard? I think so.
Mr. STOKES: There hasn't been one incident of violence at all by anybody that's been related to this show.
SEVERSON: How about harassing phone calls?
Mr. STOKES: We get them.
SEVERSON: How about some of these people who are mentioned on your program -- do they get them?
Mr. STOKES: I wouldn't know about that.
MARIA ARRINGTON (Quaker): Since he came into the valley, I'm seeing bumper stickers that are totally offensive to me, that literally say, "Kill the Green Nazis," and from their definition of a Green Nazi, here I am. Do you want to kill me?
SEVERSON: Maria Arrington and Jean Hand Triol are both Quakers and self-described liberals living in the Kalispell area.
Ms. ARRINGTON: I don't think there's any problem having conservative talk radio. My problem with the stations that we're talking about right now is that they're sowing the seeds of hate and fear, and that is dividing the community.
JEAN HAND TRIOL (Quaker): Even if we had different political views, we could have a dialogue, and now a lot of people are afraid to even express a liberal view.
SEVERSON: There is, of course, the other point of view, one you might hear from many of the men in this Bible study group. They call themselves "dirt bags" instead of "sinners," and they meet every Friday morning for Scripture lessons at a local casino.
JOHN CREAMER (Bible Study Leader): Father, we thank you for good health, for this beautiful place ...
SEVERSON: The "dirt bag" Bible discussions are conducted by John Creamer. He's a friend of John Stokes and has a religious program on Stokes's radio station. Creamer thinks talk radio is good for the community because it gets the juices flowing.
Mr. CREAMER: I think it stimulates a lot of thought and discussion, and it may not be the best way to do it, but what is a better alternative to get people thinking about what they should be thinking about?
SEVERSON: But the expression of views on talk radio is almost exclusively one-sided. That's been the trend since the demise in the 1980s of the fairness doctrine that required giving voice to opposing opinions. There are differing views on National Public Radio, but Montana NPR stations play mostly music during the day. By and large, radio talk is coming from local personalities like John Stokes and nationally popular right-wing hosts like Michael Savage.
MICHAEL SAVAGE (On Radio): And the Democrats are now functioning like old Soviets before the fall of the wall. And I do believe that they're finished. That's why they're getting this desperate. Akron, Ohio: Joe, you're on THE SAVAGE NATION ...
SEVERSON: In this part of Montana, dozens of timber mills have closed, costing hundreds of jobs. Many locals blame government regulations, and especially the environmentalists, Stokes's so-called Green Nazis.
Mr. STOKES (On Air): This hue and cry now that you're starting to hear from the environmentalists, the Green Nazis: "We need have a dialogue. We need to sit down and understand each other." Don't. We need to finish them off and make sure they don't have babies.
SEVERSON: This is a scratchy picture of John Stokes's Earth Day protest. He is burning the swastika, his symbol for Green Nazis or environmentalists.
He says a thousand people turned out to join his protest against the United Nations, where they shot the UN flag full of bullet holes.
Mr. STOKES: America is in peril. We are under threat of imminent attack. You know, we are being invaded. You can't get anything changed unless you can get people excited about the issues.
SEVERSON: But it's not only issues. It's gays, African Americans, all illegal immigrants, and others. Montana Human Rights Network director Ken Toole:
Mr. TOOLE: We very regularly bring a Holocaust survivor to Montana to talk about the Holocaust, to talk about bigotry and intolerance and take them through the schools. Stokes referred to him as a whore doing the work of the Human Rights Network.
SEVERSON: Researchers have reached different conclusions as to whether biased talk radio simply reinforces listeners' values or causes them to take action. So how influential can a station like KGEZ be? Stokes says he has about 20,000 listeners in a market of around 100,000. But Ken Toole says the size of the audience isn't that important.
Mr. TOOLE: Despite the fact people say, "Oh yeah, he's wacky. It doesn't matter. Nobody listens to him," we think people do hear it. It's not that they do agree. It's not that they're fans, but it is that those kinds of hosts tend to cast how the community debates occur.
SEVERSON: The Reverend Donna Schram of the Flathead Valley United Church of Christ is concerned about the chilling effect of Stokes's brand of discourse.
Reverend DONNA SCHRAM (Flathead Valley United Church of Christ): It's pretty hard, I think, to live that Christian life of give and take of love when you're constantly looking over your shoulder and being in a fearful state.
SEVERSON: The reverend's church is part of the Montana Association of Churches, which has begun asking members to get more involved in civic affairs to counter the influence of talk radio.
Mr. STOKES: The Association of Churches is one of the most leftist, communist organizations in Montana. They put stuff out in churches to boycott all my sponsors. I mean, they're an extremist group.
SEVERSON: Stokes's defenders contend that talk radio is nothing more than a gauge of small-town America's pent-up frustrations.
Mr. CREAMER: It's one of the first times that there has been a measurement taken of the people's temperature, and it's frightening to some people what that temperature is, and it's like, "Oh my gosh, we need to put this thermometer away because it's showing much too high of a temperature."
SEVERSON: Jean Triol agrees that the temperature is much too high, but blames talk radio for elevating it.
Ms. TRIOL: Everyone I speak with is concerned about the same thing and kind of ashamed that they're hunkering down and, you know, not out there with their opinions. It's a bad feeling.
Mr. STOKES (On Car Radio): Good morning on THE EDGE. What do you want to bet that when all is said and done, the foundations that fund our local environmental terrorists are also the primary foundation behind the Taliban? There will be a connection.
SEVERSON: And if you don't agree with him, John Stokes says there is a solution.
Mr. STOKES: Anybody who doesn't like what I'm doing can turn the radio station off. Turn the dial.
SEVERSON: For now, Stokes says his audience keeps getting bigger and bigger.
For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I'm Lucky Severson in Kalispell, Montana.
OK. It's not often that politics and travel cross lines - unless you count immigration - but this little viral movement caught my interest. A couple of New York guys are trying to help Rush Limbaugh make good on his vow to leave America if the health care legislation passed. You see where I'm going here? The duo, who claim not to have health insurance, have set up a Web site - aticketforrush.com - where they are collecting $1 donations to buy Limbaugh a one-way, first-class plane ticket to Costa Rica.
Why Costa Rica? I'm not sure, but I think it might have come for Limbaugh himself, although he seems more of an Eastern Europe group tour kinda guy to me. But whatever. Or wherever. The Web site has raised more than nearly $2,000 so far toward a first-class ticket from Palm Beach International to San Jose, Costa Rica. That's more than enough for the airfare. (Travel tip: it's probably cheaper to fly from Miami or Fort Lauderdale. Just have Rush take a shuttle bus from his Palm Beach estate to FLL or MIA.)
"Mike and Patrick, two dudes living in Brooklyn," who created the Web site, pledge to donate the money to Planned Parenthood if Limbaugh turns down the ticket or if they raise a lot more than the airfare.
For those who are skeptical - count me in this group - the guys clearly state on the site that "we can't give you anything other than our word" that they will donate the money and not buy themselves a beach vacation or health insurance. But if they are true to their word and Limbaugh is true to his, he might want to start packing. UPDATE:Limbaugh says he doesn't fly commercial. This collection might go on for awhile if a private charter is required. $2,000 wouldn't even pay for an hour of time on the smallest exec jet. Associated Press Photo
I was born in Minneapolis the daughter of a union worker and a Catholic, country girl. I married a rock musician (unfashionably) 1n 1978 and have lived in both San Francisco, CA and St. Louis, MO. My childhood was defined by beatings that taught me one salient fact: I am not a dog. I was born into a blue collar home. Now, I am just "blue" in my politics. I have two intelligent children attending university and I am worried for their future, as well as ours. I love America because it is a great country founded on the ideals of common cause and common good. I wonder if we will still be a great country for my grandchildren? Will my children and their children be slaves to war and poverty? Is success collecting a paycheck from one global multi-national corporation and sending that money, via another check, to other multi-national global corporations? Is your only choice, as George Carlin put it, between paper and plastic? Well, maybe it's age rage or maybe it is simply time to pay attention and form your own opinions.
-drain
n
Reid has always been a guy who gets things done, winning him praise from Democrats and Republicans alike. His Democratic colleagues unanimously elected him to lead the Senate and he has even received praise from Nevada’s top Republican political consultant, who said, “Sen. Reid has delivered results to our state like no other elected official in our state’s history.”
The media are outraged at the "class warfare" supposedly present in President Obama's budget plans. In the past few days alone, Michelle Bernard said Barack Obama "was almost declaring class warfare" in his speech to Congress; CNBC's Carlos Quintanilla said, "I don't want to call it class warfare, although that's what it may end up being in the end, this debate over wealth redistribution"; the AP's Jennifer Loven asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, "Are you all worried at all that that kind of argument, that 'class warfare' argument could sink the ability to get some of these big priorities through?" Politico ran a Jeanne Cummings article headlined "Class warfare returns to D.C." And this afternoon, MSNBC joined the pile-on, with a segment asking: "Is there a war against the wealthy? Do we have a class war developing?" 
OK. It's not often that politics and travel cross lines - unless you count immigration - but this little viral movement caught my interest. A couple of New York guys are trying to help Rush Limbaugh make good on 
