Future of PL and Future of the Nation

First, a note on important posts coming up. As requested, there will be a post regarding the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance, one on Afghanistan specifically, and one on war policy conceptualization. First however I will post comments on the State of the Union, noting in particular where Obama seems to be hedging/pivoting, and where he is not, referencing a question posed: from where exactly is Obama governing?

For now though I thought I would be right up on the news cycles, drawing attention to a (9 hours ago) fresh off the press CNN/Opinion Research Poll that deals with the health care legislation options. It will, in some clear measure answer some of the questions I've asked earlier about what it is the American people actually want by this "change" they have supposedly been voting for. And whether or not Massachusetts has signaled some significant shift on health care opinion.
Here's the rundown:

38% "generally favor" legislation that Congress has been considering
58% "generally oppose" the same legislation

While I would be someone who "generally favors" Congress' considerations, I can see it as reasonably possible that some disenfranchised liberals would fall into the "generally opposed" category, especially because it's only recently that I've even come into that general favorability myself.

48% thinks Congress should start over on health care
30% thinks Congress should continue with what they've got
and only 21% thinks Congress should just stop with this health care stuff

This is good news! Only 21% of people in the nation seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with health care, so if Congress passes something, they will be (hopefully) satisfying 80% of the public.

The rest of the poll doesn't do a good job of answering the important questions I've posed after all... The problem inherent in the whole thing is that Americans want a very large diversity of things with regard to health care, but mainly they want something positive to happen, and to conclude, 51% seem to look quite kindly upon the idea of health care reform that does substantially increase the number of people covered, as opposed to a health care bill that only changes industry regulations. What this doesn't say is how the American people would like more coverage to happen. What a mess.

Senate Democrats in particular aren't showing leadership on this issue, mainly because they're running terrified of what to do when the American people don't seem to know either. In the House, apparently, there is a growing consensus, particularly in the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) that if the Senate can jump onto the reconciliation bandwagon, a few minor changes can be made to the Senate bill without branding the entirety of health care under reconciliation... this would circumnavigate the so called Byrd Rule which governs what is "budget" and not. In that regard still, health care is a stretch, y'all. Good luck to the House, but the Senate will always be the big dog on the hill : (.

This might be an appropriate time to rail against whoever the hell decided that we'd have a powerful bureaucratic Federal Government with silly checks like every state gets the same representation regardless of population in arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world. Imagine if all of Europe was a country (becoming less and less difficult as time goes on) and a country the size of Luxembourg or Greek Cyprus has as much power (literally EQUAL power) to a country the size of Spain or France. This is a rough estimate to the relative differences between the populations of Wyoming and California. This is a 1 to 70 difference; one person in Wyoming has the same voice as 70 people in California, and most importantly receives 70 times more federal funding. I'll have a longer rant to this degree in the future as well. There is an easy way to dramatically improve our legislative body without significantly revamping it, (though that's what we're owed by now as our old creaky system approaches 225 years of age) including our voting system, voting days and much more... but that is a subject for another day.






In closing I just wanted to make a somewhat unrelated additional note. I would like to remind my readers that in one (twisted?) way it is a damn good thing that the Democrats are scared of what happened in Massachusetts. No, I don't mean because they'll get their act together. I mean I'm glad Democrats and Republicans are still scared to death of the whims of the voter. It means that they are not comfortable enough with their position and power to brush off the (alleged) feelings of the people, and that corporate money can only go so far with an angered public. How wonderful that we live in a country where every once in a while we get to remind our leaders that even the most powerful among them must beware the ire of the temporarily all powerful voters. That reminder, though in this case provoking a truly misguided reaction by the leaders, is almost enough to be proud of the capability of the American people to defy expectations and terrify the establishment, even if that reminder is represented by a Republican being elected in Massachusetts.

Almost : ).