"It is really historic. It's transformation. It's momentous."

The health care bill that will usher in Obama's own special brand of reform is gaining momentum in both houses of Congress.

At a press conference earlier today, Speaker Pelosi gushed about all the goods things that are to come with this legislation, which has been approved by both the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.

The Senate is already working on similar legislation, which has gotten out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee by a narrow margin.

Obama claims that the bill will change everyone's lives for the better, giving us all access to better and cheaper medical care, but at what cost? The legislation is supposed to cost $1 trillion to enact. Where would we get that money? From taxes. Now, for the people who follow Obama religiously and agree with the statement, "because everyone deserves some of what you've worked hard for," raising taxes for the higher income earners is not a problem. But of course that's not the end of the story.

Even HuffPo has problems with ObamaCare.

"We need to evaluate the message more than the messenger. The Republicans are
currently the 'bad guys.' They may oppose the President's Plan largely on partisan grounds. Nonetheless, when they say this Plan will not work, that statement (regardless whose mouth it comes out of) is true. Whether it is CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf or Rush Limbaugh saying that ObamaCare will fail, both are right."

There is a lesson here. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Listen to the people. Leave the people alone. Don't trip acid. Pick one- they're all applicable here.

What's the rule of law got to do with it?

More speculation abounds concerning Obama's prospective pick to replace Justice Souter when he retires next month. I've heard names like Elena Kagan, Ruben Castillo, and even (*gasp*) Janet Napolitano. It's really sort of pointless to wonder about who specifically it will be, since there are so many from whom he could choose.

So what is he saying about the type of person he is looking for?

He told C-SPAN recently,

"I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don't feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people."

Well, that's nice that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a person solely based on a physical characteristic. While in the end, he may favor affirmative action anyway, he's so far claiming that it won't be his primary motivation.

He also said,

"What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works. Those criteria of common sense, practicality, a sense of what ordinary Americans are going through every day -- putting that in the mix, when the judges are looking at cases before them, it's very important."

Ok... Now the Constitution doesn't say much about the requirements to be Supreme Court Justice. In fact, it doesn't anything, other than they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." So, while there's no official specifications, there's a rather large precedent of Justices who are well-educated, knowledgeable about the legal system. And, well, they're usually hired to follow the Constitution. It's alarming to see that in all of his speeches about choosing someone of the people, judicial restraint is not among the first things out of his mouth.

How does that bode for us, with Obama choosing for us a "citizen's citizen" to sit on the bench? Conservatives are terrified that he'll nominate a liberal who will do all kinds of dastardly things, like reaffirming Roe v. Wade and legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberals wonder if he'll seat a moderate who will swing with Kennedy and overrule Roe v. Wade (because those issues are the most important for our country). Me? I'm afraid that he'll appoint someone who embodies what he means when he says "different times call for different justices."

Let me play devil's advocate: He's gay.

I was admittedly less than thrilled at my choice of candidates last November. I ended up going with Bob Barr (and am now disappointed after discovering he introduced the DOMA). But there were some things that Obama was saying that I was excited about. Of course, I naively thought that he might actually follow through on his promises. Oh me of too much faith.

Despite Obama's claim to reverse the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy instigated by the Clinton administration, he's pushing it off.

From his candidate website:

Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Add to that "more than 50" Lt. Dan Choi, who has been discharged for being gay. In a time where more and more people are ok with or just don't care that people in the military are gay, even openly gay, why do we still have this policy?

John Oliver has the answer.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Dan Choi Is Gay
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Whatever happened to transparency in government?

The long-awaited photos depicting detainee abuse from 2001-2006 during the course of the Iraq War may not be released at the end of the month. Obama wants his lawyers to object to their release.

"Last week, the president met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the [Defense Department] photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court. At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... [Obama] strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Wait a minute- Obama thinks that pictures taken of potential prisoner abuse in the course of a war we shouldn't be involved in would be inflammatory? Really? That's some good thinking.

For a president who campaigned that he would change the cloak and dagger moves of the previous administration, he's doing a pretty good job of, well, not doing that.

A little dose of reality to penetrate the Obamalove

Of course, we know that by now, he's already spent the money he saved, so...

h/t my friend Cindy, who helpfully posted this on facebook

Our fearless leader helps us out. Sort of.

In the midst of our non-recession, and even as he signs away more of our tax money to a social program, our president decides to throw us a bone. And what is that bone? He's cutting out $100 million from his budget.

Brad from The Liberty Papers illustrates for us:

Well, the Tea Partiers must have had an impact, because Barack Obama is about to go on a cost-cutting spree. With this quick 90-day window to identify $100B of cuts to make across his cabinet, he’s showing that he really does hear our pleas for fiscal sanity.

Oh, wait, did I read that wrong? Yep, it’s NOT $100B, it’s $100M. That’s not even enough to be a drop in a bucket!

Reason puts it in perspective:

Imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Expect petulant politicians, like spoiled children, when these “cuts” are identified, to scream and whine — “But we wanted our latte!”

How kind of Obama to help us out and cut some money... only to spend it again, and more, on a social program that would be better off having private funding.