Children's Health and The Compassionate Conservative

President Bush has announced that he will veto a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private coverage. The bill would provide an additional $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 to 5 million children to the 6.6 million people already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. It is supported by bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress.

Bush says that the measure is “too costly,” unacceptably raises taxes, extends government health insurance to children in families that can afford private insurance, and smacks of a federal takeover of health care.

Isn’t it reassuring to see President Bush getting tough on budget matters? This is the same president who has so far spent $455 billion on a senseless, deadly, tragic war in Iraq. This is the same president who failed to veto a single spending bill enacted by the Republican Congress from 2000 through 2006, during which time the Republicans spent an extra $158 billion on earmarks for rotten pork projects. This is the same president who reduced taxes for wealthy Americans and obtained multi-billion-dollar tax breaks for his beloved oil companies while the companies were making record profits and soaking the public with increased gas prices.

The President makes the phony argument that expansion of SCHIP is a government giveaway intended for people who can afford their own health insurance. His minions claim that in some states, people making as much as $60,000 for a family of four would be eligible under the plan. Needless to say, most families benefiting from the plan will make far less than $60,000. The nonpartisan Urban Institute estimates that approximately 78 to 85 percent of the 4 to 5 million uninsured children who stand to gain coverage under the expansion have family incomes below 200 percent of the FPL (Federal Poverty Level-- $20,650 per year for a family of four). The bill would provide penalties and make it very difficult for states to cover children of families earning more than three times the poverty level. In most states, premium payments are required in order for families with incomes above 200 percent of the FPL to enroll in coverage.

The uninsured people who will benefit from the program are the working poor with children. Many are employees of small businesses or companies which do not offer health insurance. Many others are self-employed or young people. Private medical insurance and care for a "typical" family of four in the U.S. will cost over $13,400 this year according to the Milliman Medical Index. With the high cost of food, clothing, mortgage, rent, gas, heating, electricity, telephone, transportation, water, taxes, college tuition, home repairs, trash pickup, activities for children, and hundreds of other everyday expenses, they simply cannot afford $1115 per month for health insurance premiums. They do without insurance and pray to God that nobody gets sick.

Let us try to understand what it means today to be without health insurance. According to the prestigious Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only industrialized nation that does not insure all of its citizens. People who do not have health insurance do not get the necessary medical tests, check-ups, doctor visits, vaccinations, medical procedures, medications, surgeries, and other care that they need. It is meaningless to say that they will not be turned away at hospital ERs. Often, they will avoid going there until the last minute when it is too late.

Bush, pandering to his ultra right-wing base, claims that providing health insurance for children constitutes government infringement of health care; in other words, socialized medicine. Doesn’t he realize that we now have government-provided health care under Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, state programs such as Ohio’s OPERS, military health benefits under TRICARE, Veterans health benefits, and other programs? Does the existence of those programs constitute socialized medicine? Do they make us a socialist country? Of course not! The single-payer systems in all other industrialized countries have not made them socialist countries. They have simply made them more responsive to their people and less subservient to the power of the insurance and medical industries.

Why do all other industrialized countries have single-payer health care systems while we struggle under the domination of the wealthy, powerful insurance and medical industries? Because George Bush, the compassionate conservative, has no compassion for sick children. He has compassion only for rich supporters, oil barons, insurance companies, pharmaceutical giants, big corporations, and Arab emirs.

There is an organization in Ohio fighting for comprehensive health care for all Ohioans under a single-payer system. It is called “SPAN Ohio.” If you think all children and indeed all people in Ohio should be entitled to health insurance, contact SPAN Ohio, http://spanohio.org/.








,








,

Why We Should Get Out of Iraq

George W. Bush may be the worst president in American history. He has continued a deadly and fruitless war contrary to the advice of his own advisory commission and despite the opposition of many high-ranking generals, most foreign governments, some Republican senators and congressmen, most Democratic legislators, and a majority of the American people. His intransigence has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the polarization of the American public, the expenditure of billions of dollars, the creation of giant deficits, and the failure to address serious problems such as infrastructure, health care, veterans’ medical treatment, and the preservation of Social Security and Medicare.

After it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and had not been supporting al Qaeda, the President appointed the Baker-Hamilton commission to advise him on what to do in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report issued in December 2006 gave a bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq and suggested that most U.S. combat troops should be withdrawn in the following 16 months. Bush said he would pay close attention to their report and acknowledged that we needed a new approach to Iraq. He then increased the troop level by 30,000 and said we were staying until we achieved “victory!”

Bush keeps saying that we have to win the war in Iraq. There does not appear to be any way we can win the war. It may be that our presence in Iraq actually prevents any possible peace. Our presence attracts terrorists to Iraq from all over the world. This increases the level of violence. Recent polls in Iraq indicate that the majority of Iraqis want us out of the country. Even Iraqis who initially welcomed us now think of us as an occupying power and an irritant that is causing of much of the death and destruction in their country

Even though the American electorate showed its opposition to the Iraq war in 2006 by putting the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, the President persisted in staying the course. He suggested that those who wished to bring the troops home were disloyal and cowardly. He asked the nation to wait for a report from the general commanding the troops in Iraq, General Petraeus.

The report of General Petraeus addressed only a narrow military view of things. From a military perspective, there has been some small improvement in the security of Baghdad and other sectors in Iraq. Nevertheless, other areas remain dangerous. The insurgency continues and al Qaeda continues to be active. There are daily bombings all around Iraq, and American soldiers continue to die. The government set up by the Americans is in almost total collapse. Benchmarks established by the Bush Administration have not been met. The new Iraqi army is still not fit to defend the country. The Iraqi police are corrupt and toothless.

When asked if the war was making America safer, General Petraeus said that he did not know. We have to ask ourselves, are we fighting a war and losing the lives of young soldiers for a cause that does not make America safer? Why are we there? Does this war benefit America in any way? Do we hope to stop terrorism? Is the loss of American lives worth it? Is the expenditure of billions of American dollars worth it? Is the war, as Alan Greenspan suggested, all about oil? Are we that dishonorable?
The President, his spokesmen, and many leading Republicans claim that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. Let us be clear on this. The invasion of Iraq enraged Muslims around the world and vastly increased the number of Islamic terrorists. Many terrorists traveled to Iraq in order to kill American soldiers. This did not reduce the number of terrorists focusing on America. It seems quite unfair to assume that it is better to have terrorists attacking soldiers in Iraq than to have terrorists attacking civilians in America. The soldiers are human beings too.

All General Petraeus recommended was a small withdrawal of troops. As you might have expected, the President seized on this as a possible way to assuage some of his critics and announced that he was going to remove 30,000 troops from Iraq by next July. This is the number of troops he put in when he increased the troop strength for the "Surge." As for the main body of soldiers in Iraq, he indicated that they would stay there indefinitely.

Democrats in Congress have tried to pass legislation and resolutions opposing the war, but they have been thwarted at every turn by Republican filibusters. Republicans like George Voinovich have offered pious pronouncements on the war, but when it has come down to voting for change, they have buckled down to Bush and Chaney. It is going to take a new president and new congress to get us out of this mess.

A few months ago I wrote a newspaper column on getting out of Iraq. Here it is:

GETTING OUT OF IRAQ

The American public was slow to catch on. As our troops searched every inch of Iraq to find those weapons of mass destruction (wmds) that the Administration claimed Saddam Hussein was hiding, word filtered out that that none could be found. Reports also showed that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. I knew that Saddam was not cozying up to Osama bin Laden. Saddam is a secular Moslem, very different from Osama’s belief in fanatical Islamic jihad. However, I did not know that there were no wmds. I just accepted the word of the President that they had proof that Saddam had such weapons. When word came down that there were no wmds, I, along with many Americans, felt defrauded.

It took a long time for the public to realize that the war was a horrible, tragic mistake. The Bush White House never admitted making a mistake. The President gave alternative rationales for the war. It was necessary to “remove a vicious tyrant” and to “establish a stable democracy in the Middle East.” Many Americans realized, however, that we should not go to war to remove tyrants or to establish democracies. Such a foreign policy would keep us forever at war. Most Americans realized that this war had nothing to do with protecting America.

I wonder what would have happened if the President had come out and said: “We made a mistake. There are no wmds and Saddam Hussein is not supporting al Qaeda. We are going to pull our troops out as soon a possible.” Perhaps such a statement could never have been made. It would have subjected the President to tremendous scorn and ridicule. However, rationalizing the war and continuing the presence of out troops in Iraq has been a bigger mistake.

I know that Bush’s excuse for continuing the war is that Islamic terrorists are concentrating on our troops in Iraq and are therefore not attacking us in America. One has to ask, how fair is it to our valiant young soldiers to make them the main focus of terrorist atrocities? Besides, the President is wrong. The war has created thousands of new terrorists, men who would never have become terrorists had it not been for the Iraq war. Although many of them are traveling to Iraq to attack our troops, others are still looking for ways to attack us on American soil. The presence of British troops in Iraq did not prevent terrorists from blowing up London subways.

The public has finally caught on. It has come to realize that the war is an enormous waste. Our troops are dying for nothing. The Iraqi people hate us and do not care if we create a democracy there. They also hate one another with burning fury.

Now the public has dethroned the Republicans in Congress and sent a strong message to Bush. Get out of Iraq! I doubt that he will do it. He is the Commander in Chief and he doesn’t have to listen to Congress on foreign policy. He thinks that getting out of Iraq would amount to a humiliating surrender. It is as if the protection of his ego trumps the lives of our soldiers. During the campaign he accused the Democrats of wanting to “cut and run.” Well, the Democrats won the election because the public wants the President to cut the crap.

It is time to admit we made a mistake and time to get out. President Nixon realized that we had to get out of Vietnam and finally withdrew our troops. President Reagan withdrew our troops from Lebanon. President Clinton withdrew our troops from Somalia. We’ve done it before and our government is still going strong.

I realize that extracting 140,000 soldiers from Iraq during a violent insurrection is not going to be easy. We do not want to leave total chaos behind. One possible way to do it was suggested by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek Magazine. I have been reading Fareed for years and have been amazed by his brilliant, clear mind. Zakaria is of Muslim heritage, was born in India, and is the Editor of Newsweek International.

Zakaria says that we must get the Iraqi parliament to publicly ask American troops to stay. If they don’t, we should get out on the next plane. Why should we stay if they don’t even want us? Iraq must also “forge a national compact,” which means that they should agree to a loose confederation which shares oil revenues and suppresses sectarian violence. We should stop trying to provide basic security to Iraq’s cities and villages. We should reduce our force to 60,000 men and use it only as a rapid-reaction force to secure certain core interests. Most of the troops should be stationed in four super-bases outside Baghdad. American advisers should be embedded in every Iraqi fighting battalion. In a few years, says Zakaria, we should entirely withdraw from Iraq.

My one disagreement with Zakaria is that I would not keep forces in Iraq more than one more year. I would gradually reduce them to the point that at the end of the year there are only a few advisers left. If all hell breaks loose when we leave, as it might, too bad.

The Danger of Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Muslim feminist who was born in Somalia and who lived in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya before moving to Holland where she was eventually elected to the Dutch Parliament. She is currently a fellow at the think tank, American Enterprise Institute. In her book, Infidel, she tells about her own genital mutilation, beatings, and the oppression as a woman in the Muslim world. One of the things she says in her book is that the 9/11 hijackers represented more than the lunatic fringe of Islam: “I knew that a vast majority of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam.” Needless to say, Ayaan has been the target of many death threats.

After every savage atrocity perpetrated by Muslim suicide bombers, including the horrific bloodbath of September 11, 2001, Islamic scholars claimed that such sanguinary behavior was not in the true spirit of Islam. We were told that there was nothing in the Koran justifying such attacks. We were informed that Islam is a peaceful religion, that suicide is forbidden, and that suicide bombers were acting contrary to Islamic law. This would all be very comforting if it were true. Unfortunately, it may not be true at all.

Most Americans have noticed that there was almost no outcry by Muslim nations against the 9/11 slaughter. Virtually no denunciations of the massacre were heard from Muslim clerics around the world and in America. Polls have shown strong support for Osama bin Laden in the Arab world. An election by the Palestinians was won by Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel and which is responsible for many suicide bombings.

It may be that our civilization is in grave danger not only from Muslim fanatics but from the whole Muslim world. Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, maintains that because of the basic beliefs of Islam, the world is in danger of nuclear devastation. He argues that it is not merely the fanatic Moslems that wish to destroy us. It is ordinary Muslims. Says Harris: “We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the Hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.” Even moderate Muslims “consider the Koran to be the literal and inerrant word of the one true God.”

Harris demonstrates that although there is a type of jihad that is used as a means of waging war against one’s own sinfulness, “no amount of casuistry can disguise the fact that the outer (or ‘lesser’) jihad—war against infidels and apostates—is a central feature of the faith. Armed conflict in ‘defense of Islam’ is a religious obligation for every Muslim man.” Harris says that: “…The duty of jihad is an unambiguous call to world conquest.”

In his book, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, Bernard Lewis writes: “the presumption [of Muslims] is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule.”

Sam Harris says: “We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry.” Their religion promises a paradise of pure delight for all those who die in jihad. Because they are enjoined to go out and kill the infidels, and because they will experience eternal pleasure in well-watered gardens with young, fair, dark-eyed, full-busted virgins, the idea of dying by H-Bomb does not frighten them. It rather excites them.

To Muslims, all non-Muslims are “infidels.” Harris cites many quotations from the Koran (or Qur’an) condemning non-Muslims, including: “God’s curse be upon the infidels” (2:89); “God is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98); “We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:126); “those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire (4:56) (This last is particularly alarming in light of the fires of 9/11); “Slay them (infidels) wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage” (2:190-93).

We have been conditioned by movies and television to believe that everything in life will turn out okay. Well, maybe. But it is also possible that everything will turn-out horribly. It is possible that because of basic Muslim beliefs, we will wind-up with a nuclear cataclysm that will make the 9/11 disaster seem like a mere pin-prick. I do not know what we can do to prevent this outcome. I’m sure that there are many Muslims who do not wish us harm. But many others do. The war in Iraq is certainly not the answer. That war has only exacerbated our struggle with terrorists. For the same reason, war with Iran would not be the answer. We are confronted with deeply angry, humiliated, fanatical people all over the world. This story may not have a happy ending.

Pope Benedict and Islam

Every day around the world, Muslim clerics denounce the United States, Europe, and Christianity. Many commentators have observed that the seeds of terrorism are sown in the schools and mosques of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the whole Muslim world. Even in countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, which are supposed to be our friends, the governments cannot control the violently anti-western speech of the Muslim clerics. Young people throughout the Muslim world are brought-up to believe that the United States is the “Great Satan.” We are lucky to have any friends at all in those places.

Recently, in Afghanistan, a man was charged with converting from Islam to Christianity. The judge announced that the man would be executed for this heinous offense. The man’s life was spared only after world-wide indignation led to pressure on the government of Afghanistan to set him free.

Hatred for the West and Christianity (not to mention Judaism) is not confined to Muslim terrorists. It is part of the fabric of every-day Muslim thinking. Nevertheless, when Westerners hear about criticism from Muslim clerics they do not go out into the streets screaming white-hot hatred. Muslims around the world, however, turn into violent angry mobs at the mere drawing of a satirical cartoon about Muhammad in a Danish Newspaper.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former head of al Qaeda in Iraq, said: “There is no doubt that Allah commanded us to strike the Kuffar (unbelievers), kill them, and fight them by all means necessary to achieve the goal” (presumably, a world where everybody is a Muslim). Zarqawi quoted the Prophet Muhammad: “I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, establish regular prayers, and pay Zakat (purifying charity).”

This past year, in Regensburg Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a conversation between the 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam. “The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the Pope said. “He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’” The Pope went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus, “contrary to God’s nature.” For these comments the Muslim world was in a fury. They have burned Christian churches and murdered a Catholic nun. Can you imagine Christians doing that in response to Muslim criticism?

I am a little sick of hearing all this sympathy people have for the Arabs, Hezbollah, and the Muslims. The Pope may have been politically incorrect, but I think he was right. The hatred Muslims have for Christians did not originate with the founding of Israel or with the two Gulf Wars. It goes back to the Crusades. It is based upon the progress and prosperity of the West and the decline of the Middle East.

One does not hear about Christian terrorists going to Muslim countries and flying airplanes into their tallest buildings. One does not hear about Israeli suicide bombers blowing-up Muslims in mosques or public places. There are no vast worldwide networks of Christian or Jewish terrorists planning atrocities against innocent Muslim civilians. There is no basis in Christianity or Judaism for carrying out holy war against people of other faiths. One is not executed in Israel, Europe, or America for converting to Islam.

Let’s face it, there is something barbaric about the Muslims of the Middle East. I’m not just talking about those who become terrorists. I’m talking about the majority of citizens. Most of them applaud when terrorists kill thousands of people in the World Trade Towers. They refuse to take any steps which would lead to peace with Israel. Can you imagine how much more prosperous, happy, and safe they would be if they accepted the presence of Israel in the Middle East and entered into trade and tourism treaties with the Israelis? They cannot do it because their religion forbids them. Their hate is far stronger then their feelings of self-interest. They are a bitter people; bitter because history has left them behind and has exalted Western power over them..

In a poll conducted by Al Jazeera, almost half of all Saudis said that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric. This helps explain why we have not been able to capture him. As repugnant and loathsome as the 9/11 bombings and other atrocities have been, bin Laden has wide support in the Middle East. Osama is surely hiding in a remote part of Pakistan. There is a $25 million bounty on his head, but he remains safe from capture. The bounty has no lure for the tribesmen who are sheltering him. The United States does not send a Delta Force to capture him because a conspicuous American raid would endanger the life and rule of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's leader, who is a U.S. ally. If we ever caught bin Laden there would be an uprising throughout the Middle East.

The problem of terrorism is not with a mere handful of fanatics. It is with the world of Islam.

Why the Terrorists Hate Us

In the weeks after 9/11, police searched the lodgings of the hijackers. They found copies of a letter written by the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to his fellow terrorists encouraging them with the words, "remember that today we will be with women." The letter repeatedly referred to the reward the terrorists would receive in Paradise. I was struck by the use of such words for people about to commit murder and suicide. I wondered whether the terrorists' sexual repression and our attitudes about women's rights had anything to do with their hatred of Westerners.

In a recent article for the New York Times, David Brooks pointed out that the terrorists (or jihadists) belong to a branch of Islam called Salafism which is not traditional Islam but a modern fantasy version of it. These fanatical fundamentalists believe that their attacks against Western people are part of a holy war or jihad, and that if they die while engaged in a jihad they will be martyrs and will go directly to Paradise regardless of any sins they may have committed. Their idea of Paradise is not one shared by all Muslims. It reflects the Arab background of sexual taboos and living in deserts where there is scant water or green foliage. In this Muslim Paradise there are lush gardens, vineyards, and rivers flowing with clear, cool water. Muslim men recline on couches in soft silk attire and drink wine without getting inebriated. The terrorists believe that in Paradise they will each be served by 72 beautiful virgins or "houris" who will attend to their every need. There is no corresponding reward for Muslim women.

To Western men, the promise of 72 virgins might not be enough incentive to strap bombs onto their bodies and go ignite them in public places, but it is comprehensible for jihadists when one looks at the culture in which they were spawned. The Arab world is one that has built-up resentment against Westerners for centuries. As the distinguished Princeton professor, Bernard Lewis, explained in his books, including The Middle East and What Went Wrong, the Muslim nations once led the world in power and civilization. Compared to Saladin and the Muslims, the Crusaders were crude barbarians. This changed during the Middle Ages. As Western Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, it passed Arabia in military power, commerce, wealth, and civilization. Moreover, in modern times, European countries conquered and subjected Arab lands, thereby further humiliating and enraging the Arabs. The ultimate insult and humiliation occurred when Europe and America supported the establishment of Israel, a non-Muslim nation, on the Arabian peninsula. America's subsequent support of Israel, and Israel's defeat of Arab armies in three wars, exacerbated Muslim rage against the United States. These events and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians have provided a fertile field for the growth of Muslim fundamentalism and fanaticism.

Fareed Zakaria, the brilliant commentator for Newsweek Magazine, described Muslim rage in an article entitled Why They Hate Us. He said, "Bin Laden and his followers are not an isolated cult like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians or demented loners like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. They come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West and of America in particular." Zakaria then noted: "Osama Bin Laden has an answer--religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world."

Islam has always relegated women to a status that Westerners consider second-class. In the past, fundamentalist Islam required women to cover their bodies and faces with shawls called burqas. In the book, A History of the Arab Peoples, Albert Hourani wrote about the status of Moslem women and the belief that women had dangerous power. In strict Muslim lands, women have few rights and are prevented from attending school, driving, and voting. Muslim men are expected to avert their eyes from women who are not related. There are many sexual taboos.

In modern times, Western influence has fostered changes in the roles of Muslim women. Muslim men see pictures of American and European women in short skirts, bikinis, or underwear, pushing our consumerist society in sexually suggestive advertisements. Now, with military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, they see female soldiers in military fatigues. It is deeply disturbing to them. I have always believed that you can gauge the advancement of a civilization by the way it treats its women. The more a nation treats women with equality and freedom, the more civilized the country. The more a nation withholds freedom and equality from women, the more barbaric it is.

For terrorists, the freedom of women in the open culture of the West is a source of immense frustration. They cannot buy into such freedom and still practice their religion. Most terrorists are unmarried young men, and their relationships with women are circumscribed by their strict interpretation of Muslim law. The solution promulgated by Osama Bin Laden is to achieve martyrdom by carrying-out jihad against the West. In Paradise, all of their sexual frustration will be alleviated and all anxiety about women will disappear. Perhaps Muslim terrorism is really an acting out of Muslim men's sexual frustration.

Someone once described the War on Terror as an attempt to swat flies with a rifle. Perhaps we would have better luck if we could convince the young male jihadists that their belief in Paradise is nothing more than a fantasy driven by the frustrations and strivings of a desert people. Perhaps they would not commit terror if they knew what seems obvious to me; that there is no such thing as Paradise, and even if there was, they wouldn't go there.

The Democrats' Reforms

The pathetic reforms enacted by the new Democratic Congress are so disappointing and inadequate that Democrats like me have settled into a state of despondent gloom. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should hang their heads in shame. Perhaps we should have been more cynical, but there is a Pollyanna streak in most liberals that causes us to assume that election of Democrats will result in genuine change.

Congress does not have unlimited power, but George W. Bush cannot veto changes in the rules of ethics for the House and Senate. Nevertheless, Nancy, Harry, and their party members failed to do anything significant about Congressional ethics and failed even to address other pressing problems.

The new rules forbid legislators from accepting free meals, trips, and other gifts from lobbyists. However, as reported in the New York Times on February 11th, lobbyists have merely changed such gift-giving into fundraising outings. The Democrats have not only failed to reform the outrageous influence of lobbyists, they have perpetuated the process. Any person with a conscience knows that lobbyists should never, ever, ever, ever be allowed to give money to congressmen or senators either in the form of gifts, donations to campaigns, or fundraisers.

Congress has failed to do anything real about the scandal that allows congressmen and congressional aids leaving Congress to fatten their wallets by becoming lobbyists. The only thing the Democrats could think of to deal with this abuse was to extend from one to two years the period during which congressmen, senators, and aids are forbidden to become lobbyists after leaving office. Wow! Now there’s something! The new rule should be that congressmen, senators, and aids can never, never, ever become lobbyists, period.

The Republicans found a way during their reign in Congress to fatten their friends and constituents with huge amounts of pork in the form of “earmarks.” Earmarks were often inserted into appropriation bills in backroom deals at the last minute. There were no committee hearings on the projects, no debate, no discussion, no committee votes, and no publicity. The earmarks added many billions of dollars to appropriations bills. What have the Democrats done to correct this theft of taxpayers’ money? They have simply required that the names of the legislators who sponsored the earmarks be attached to them. Big deal! I have studied earmarks and it is easy to find out who sponsored them. Senators and Congressmen loudly brag about the earmarks they have gotten for their constituants. The Democrats should have abolished earmarks completely and made all such local pork legislation subject to hearings, debate, publicity, and committee votes.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit was one of the most repugnant pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. It was dictated to Congress by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Under it, seniors got a small drug benefit while pharmaceutical and insurance companies reaped unconscionable windfall profits. When they were elected to take-over Congress, the best thing the Democrats could think of to do was to insist that the government be allowed to negotiate drug prices. They did nothing to take the benefit out of the hands of the private insurance and drug companies which are ripping-off taxpayers for billions of dollars. Every true Democrat knows that the 2003 law should be completely scrapped and that all seniors’ medications should be paid as an added benefit of Medicare. Such a change would actually save the government many billions of dollars.

Finally, the Democrats have not made any effort to get health insurance for all Americans. It is as if the idea of switching to a single-payer system is too radical for our dear Democratic representatives. Isn’t it about time that Democrats stopped being intimidated by Republicans and started standing up for something?