"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Is FAIL, Needs to Go

(Proudly cross-posted at OC Progressive)

OK, so today's Mothers' Day. I'm planning to stop by my mom's house shortly and check up on her. But before I do that, I must address this:

President Barack Obama's national security adviser says allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is in the early discussions.

But retired Marine Gen. James Jones says it's very preliminary in a very busy administration.

Jones said Sunday he's not sure if the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be overturned, although Obama has said he wants it eliminated. Jones said the decision to go forward lies with the president.

For now, Jones says, "We have a lot on our plate right now."

Mr. Jones, President Obama, and members of Congress, you just allowed this fine patriotic soldier to be fired. And believe it or not, we've already lost too many thousands of good soldiers simply because they're queer. Now's the time to lift the military service ban. Seriously.

There was no good reason for Dan Choi to be fired, none at all. He was a good soldier. He still loves this country. He served this country honorably. Yet because he showed real courage in coming out, we have to lose him. Why?



Really, why? Because the old timers in the "national security establishment" like Jim Jones are too afraid to allow LGBT people to serve openly in the military? Because Washington politicians are too afraid of doing something that most Americans now support?

Why are we willing to risk our own national security to fire good soldiers that happen to be LGBT? Is the good intelligence provided by an Arabic speaking linguists not really "good" if he's gay? Are the soldiers being protected by a fellow soldier out on the battle field not really "safe" if that solider happens to be a lesbian? Are the lives being saved by an army medic not actually "saved" if that medic is transgender? Give me a break!

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, what are you waiting for? Why should any more soldiers be fired? Why should we continue this ridiculous kabuki dance of forcing LGBT servicemembers into the closet any longer? Haven't we had enough of this BS?

Please, please speak out and demand the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"! Legislation has been introduced in Congress, but now's the time for Congress to stop talking about it and start passing it. And yes, now's the time for President Obama to stop talking about repealing the ban and start acting to actually repeal it.

We can't allow this injustice any longer. We simply can't afford it.

Is Obama Siding With Bush on Illegal Wiretaps?

OK, I'm freaking out again...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Someone please tell me that President Obama does not want to give further immunity to these criminals? And especially not engage in the same behavior?

Update by DCDemocrat: This is Keith Olberman's take on the President's usurping of new and unprecedented authorities. If President Obama thinks his supporters are going to fall in line like a bunch of Bush Automatons, he perhaps belongs to the wrong party. The Democratic Party is the party of thinking and principled Americans:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

EFCA "Dead"? This Better Not Be True!

OK, I'm freaking out now. Yes, it sucks that Arlen Specter refuses to be the 60th vote to allow a final vote on EFCA. However, what I'm more concerned about is this:

Labor spent millions of dollars and put hundreds of thousands of ground troops into the battle to get Obama elected. And yet, if you believe NBC News' reporting,* the White House's priority is not "sticking a finger in business's eye" in order to slightly increase workers' union rights.

* Note: This is, indeed, a major "if." In one way, this story smells - Obama has always been a friend of unions. In another way, this story seems not entirely unbelievable - many of the people inside Obama's administration have often been enemies of unions and the labor movement, and many of them may be happy that they don't have to deal with a union priority and can instead focus on handing over more taxpayer cash to their friends on Wall Street. Also, it's not unbelievable that while Obama supports EFCA, he may not be interested in expending political capital to pass it. On that last score, actions will speak a helluva lot louder than words.

This had better not be true. President Obama needs to speak up and speak now. He needs to reaffirm his commitment to passing the Employee Free Choice Act and giving back to workers their right to organize. All we've been talking about for this last month has been more money to bail out failed billionaire Wall Street gamblers "investors". So when will we working class Americans see our "bailout"?

NBC-WSJ Sez: Vindication?

The new NBC-Wall Street Journal Poll is out, and President Obama has some good news today.

President Obama's Job Rating:
60% Approve
26% Disapprove

Who's Been More Bipartisan:
48% Democrats
20% Republicans
26% Neither

Should Government Intervene:
51% More
40% Less

Are You Willing to Pay More Taxes for Universal Health Care:
49% Yes
45% No

Oops. So perhaps America doesn't want "The Rush Limbaugh Plan" to ruin this nation even more than the Bush-Cheney crew did?

ACTION ALERT: Tell Obama to Keep His Word on Social Security & Medicare!

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher's also reporting this at FDL, so this isn't a "silly rumor" anymore. This is serious, so let's go work those phones & keyboards!

For everyone who thought I was some insane "boy crying wolf" yesterday, this should prove them wrong. Just as I warned and many folks "in the know" had previously reported, President Obama may be open to supporting the creation of an commission that could force some undemocratic, unfair, and unstimulative proposals including cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

However, President Obama still says on the White House web site that he opposes the very measures that supporters of this "fiscal responsibility commission" support, like raising the retirement age and any type of privatization effort. So what are we to believe? We need for the White House to clarify to us and to the entire nation what they intend to do on "entitlement reform".

Please email the White House here or call them at 202-456-1111! And if you need any ideas on what to say, please let my comments inspire you.

Dear White House,

I am quite disturbed by this new report that the White House is considering a very undemocratic proposal that would force Congress into an "up-or-down vote" on legislation that could end up weakening Social Security and Medicare.

Is this true? Is President Obama considering supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare? And is he changing his mind on privatization? We need to know.

My father depends on his Social Security and Medicare to just get by. It would be awfully unfair to "balance the budget" on the backs of seniors and disabled people like my dad, and it would be counterproductive to the President's goal of stimulating the economy. Please, please let us know that the President will not allow the theft of Social Security and Medicare funds in the name of "fiscal responsibility". That would not be responsible in any way, and I hope this is the message we soon hear from President Obama.

President Obama, Please Don't F*ck Up Our Social Security

This frightens me. I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore it any longer. I need to ask this question. Is President Obama considering privatizing Social Security and/or Medicare?

Ever since I read Dean Baker's last HuffPo diary, I've been worrying.

Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. [...]

[...] Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen [baby boomers'] housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes. [...]

In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.

It is especially infuriating that this task force is likely to headed up by economists who somehow could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble. The incompetence of such economists has inflicted enormous pain on billions of people around the world. However, unlike people who fail in other professions, economists who mess up on the job just get promoted so that they can do even more harm.

And if that's not scary enough, take a look at William Greider's story at AlterNet!

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

Oh yes, none other than Mr. "IOUSA", Republican billionaire Peter Peterson, is out on a mission to finish what George W. Bush started in destroying the bedrock American social safety net. And why is he out to take away working people's right to a poverty-free retirement? Bascially, he and his fellow "market fundamentalist" buddies hate The New Deal. They hate the fact that "socialist" policies have kept the American capitalist system intact, so they're out to dismantle our social safety net so they can have their laissez-faire nirvana.

But why is President Obama cozying up to this? Hasn't he promised us that he will protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes, he has. So why are we even talking about this "fiscal responsibility summit" that's nothing more than a radical right scheme in disguise? That's what we need to know.

Now's a good time for us to contact President Obama and our members of Congress, before any "fiscal responsibility" ponzi scheme takes hold. Again, we need to remind them that they work for us, not the "Broder-Friedman media establishment". We defeated Bush's privatization program in 2005, and we can defeat it again in 2009. With so many other crises to tackle, like health care and climate change, there's no reason to rush into the non-crisis of Social Security & Medicare.

We elected President Obama & the new Congress on the promise that they will bring change to Washington. So why should we let Washington change them? Let's remind them who they're working for and what kind of change we want to see on "entitlement reform".

Whither "Bipartisanship"?

It seemed from the start that President Obama really wasn't interested in the kind of raw partisan warfare that defined the Bush Era. After all, hasn't Obama preached "the politics of unity"? But now, it seems like those happy dreams of "bipartisanship" have been dashed.

I mean, wasn't this stimulus bill supposed to get at least 80 votes in the Senate? Wasn't Republican Judd Gregg supposed to be our Commerce Secretary? Weren't we all supposed to get along?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming President Obama for the collapse of "bipartisanship". I just wonder if it was ever realistic for him to think the GOP would immediately cease fire and cooperate. After all, don't they stand to gain more if Obama fails than if this nation were to succeed with Democratic policies?

Am I wrong? Am I being too cynical? Or am I onto something? Will the President need to focus more on keeping Democrats together than bringing in all the Republicans? What are you thinking this weekend?

Let's chat about what "the end of bipartisanship" really means.

Stimulus Deal?

Maybe? Maybe not? I guess there may still be need for negotiation with Speaker Pelosi. Well, at least it's good that she isn't giving up on improving the bill.

Obama Returning West

I guess I'll need to be in Las Vegas some time this spring. It looks like President Obama hasn't forgotten The West.

The Skinny on the Proposed Stimulus Compromise

Here's the latest from Ambinder via Open Left:

The real (but technically fake) conference is almost finished, with House, Senate and White House negotiators -- (the three Republicans, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) -- letting it be known that they've come to accord on at least $790 billion in spending. (ABC News has a precise figure of $789.5) The Republican Senators will pare back some of their preferred tax cuts, and the Democrats will get some of their education / state aid money restored, although both sides will have to sacrifice. The fake (but technically real) conference is slated to begin this afternoon, giving an illusion of broad bipartisan negotiation to the enterprise.

Puh-leese. Again, why are the MSM so obsessed over the "bipartisan" BS? Oh yeah, ratings! Whatever.

The important news here is that a deal seems near. And although the final package may end up costing less than the Senate bill (and maybe even the House bill), the good news is that some of the most egregious corporate fat cat tax breaks passed in the Senate bill will likely be excluded in the final conference bill in favor of more of the direct aid to working-class people included in the House bill. And if this is what emerges in the final bill, I can live with a smaller price tag if more of the aid goes directly to more of us working stiffs.

So let's keep up the pressure on President Obama & the Congrescritters to make it happen!

Not "The Primary Wars" Again!

Ugh. David Sirota just took himself to a new low. He got some ugly hate mail from a few "PUMA" McTrolls... So now he must attack Hillary Clinton and all of us who supported her during the primaries?

Whatever. BTD just made him look like a complete fool. Yay. Oh yes, and I just couldn't keep my piehole shut:

Sometimes, I feel the same way. And before anyone here calls me a "PUMA", let me remind you all that I didn't just vote for Obama last November, but I also donated whatever $$$ I could, called states like Colorado and Florida, and canvassed in Nevada for Obama. I knew he'd make a good President, and even though I ultimately favored Hillary Clinton in the primary, I had no doubt in moving to Obama in the general.
Now with that said, I need to say this. It's a HUGE mistake for us to center a movement around a personality over a cause. Sure, it's nice to look at the Obama Administration and say "change has come". But really, when will we start seeing more change? When will we see universal health care? Real climate solutions? The Employee Free Choice Act? An end to DOMA & DADT?

Honestly, I see President Obama as I saw President Clinton. Like Clinton, I do think Obama has good intentions and I do understand his sympathies mostly lie with us. However, he seems quite susceptible to the same DLC/corporatist influences (like Summers or Geithner) that Clinton was 15 years ago. And if we don't keep up the pressure and encourage Obama to shift left, he'll follow the DLC rightward... Just like President Clinton.

That's what we should be discussing now. How do we avoid the same mistakes we made 15 years ago in not being prepared to fight the radical right when they attacked "Hillarycare" and "tax and spend lib'rulzm"?

Is This the "Stimulus Bill" or "Bipartisan Bill"?

Really. President Obama needs to make a choice, and we need to push him to make the right choice. I've had enough of the "bipartisan" BS and the corporate media idiots chattering on about how success will be mesaured by whether or not John McCain likes the bill. Shouldn't we mesaure success on how many people are saved from financial catastrophe?

Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head today in diagnosing the disease in DC that's causing the stimulus bill to gradually weaken and worsen into nothingness.

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.

Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.

First off, the bill in its present shape is far too little to be very effective. How the hell can an $820 billion package with 40% of it consisting of near-worthless tax cuts be enough spending to fill that $2.9 trillion gap? And secondly, why were the most effective parts of the bill either trimmed down or completely eliminated? Studies have shown that direct aid, like food stamps and state & local government assistance, are the best ways to prevent an economy from failing. So why is President Obama so open to allowing a "stimulus bill" to pass that excludes what's really needed to stimulate this economy?

The problem, as Jane Hamsher pointed out this morning, is that effective provisions of the bill are being forsaken for the sake of "bipartisanship". Why? So Susan Collins and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman can feel good about themselves? So Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can really have their way despite being in the minority? So "El Rushbo" Limbaugh can be "vindicated"?

Bipartisanship should be the means to an end, not some religious cult. There's no reason why aid for the working poor should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why aid for states like California, states about to literally go bankrupt, should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why kids should be deprived of a college education for the sake of "bipartisanship". There's no reason why people should be deprived of needed health care for the sake of "bipartisanship". And no, there's no reason why we shouldn't start investing in better energy choices for the sake of "bipartisanship".

President Obama made a serious mistake in elevating the process over the substance, and we need to correct that. Tell the President not to sacrifice his values for the sake of placating cruel and bloodthirsty Rethuglicans. If you have GOP members of Congress, tell them to stop holding needy people hostage for the sake of "bipartisanship". And if you have Democratic members of Congress, tell them to stand firm in supporting good provisions in the stimulus that actually help all of us in need.

We need real help, not empty rhetoric. We need a bill that puts people back to work, not a bill George W. Bush would be proud of. We need to remind our elected officials in Washington that they work for us, so they need to stop bending over backwards for stupid Beltway Pundits and start doing something for us.

The Price of the "Bipartisan Cult"

I couldn't have possibly said it better than Jane Hamsher at HuffPo & FDL:

The stimulus package is consistently being attacked because not enough Republicans support it. The fact that the bill received no Republican votes in the House, and "only" three Republicans support the Senate version, is sufficient to conclude that it fails Obama's objective of being "bipartisan."

We'll overlook for the moment that two years ago, any bill Joe Lieberman voted for was considered "bipartisan." When Obama sketched out the goals for the stimulus package in early January, he started negotiating with himself by offering "huge tax cuts" as "a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support."

But the biggest ground he gave up to the Republicans was control of the primary objective he set for the bill, that it have "bipartisan" support.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The purpose of the stimulus should NOT be to "show bipartisanship in action". No, the purpose should be putting people back to work and helping working-class people afford the necessities of life. By following the advice of the idiots in the Beltway Insiders' Chattering Class Club and bending over backwards to "be bipartisan" and give the GOP a sharp knife to stab him, President Obama may be undermining his own mandate.

Here's more of what Jane had to say:

If this becomes the template for all future sausage making between the White House and the Hill, progressive interests will continue to be offered up in sacrifice every time the Republicans decide they don't like something so the administration can appear to "rise above it all." And rather than being forced to defend their propositions, dithering "centrists" will continue to be patted on the head for pitching public temper tantrums, holding the Senate hostage and parading before the cameras like a bunch of peacocks until their egos are suitably stroked.

There is no inherent value in bipartisanship, it's the means to an end. If the administration doesn't define what that "end" is and gives the Republicans the power to determine success or failure by a simple refusal to participate, they will continue to do so.

How very true. So again, why do we care how "bipartisan" the process is and how many Republicans get to insert more stupid Bushian sh*t into this bill? Shouldn't we care more about getting a good bill passed ASAP that actually helps people? So go ahead, get as many Republicans as possible to support the best bill possible. But please, let's not forsake our own scruples for the sake of "bipartisanship".

All You Really Need to Know...

About "bipartisanship"...

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

Well, at least Balloon Juice gets it. And yes, I'm back... ;-)

ACTION ALERT: Tell Obama & Congress to Support Family Planning Health Care!

I just found this at TalkLeft. After all the hell progressive/feminist activists raised over needed family planning funds being cut from the economic stimulus package, President Obama may be listening to our concerns after all. And better yet, he may be willing to do something about it!

Women's health advocates were dismayed this week to see the removal of family-planning aid from Congress' economic recovery bill after a push by Republicans to politicize a generally cut-and-dry issue of Medicaid waivers. [...] But the dismay may not last long. A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.

But hey, you know me better than to think I'll just "hope" that Congress just magically includes this in the spending bill next week. No, we need to make it happen!

So what can we do to ensure working-class women can access the health care they need? We talk to President Obama! We call Congress! We take action to make it happen!

It's a shame that so many women have been denied family planning health care for the last eight years simply because Dumbya Bush and his Rethuglican Party have been vehemently opposed to any and all forms of contraception. But now that those @ssclowns are out of office, we have a chance to fix this problem and fully fund the health care that so many women need. Please join me in asking the Democratic leaders in Washington to stand up for the many women who helped put them into office.

President Obama Signs Lilly Leadbetter Act

Good. Equal pay for equal work. What a concept!

ACTION ALERT: Don't Let DC Get Away With Cutting Women's Health Care!

If you're like me, you must be quite irritated right now that President Obama & Democratic Congressional leaders caved into the radical right in tossing needed aid to poor women out of the economic stimulus bill. Well, guess what? We can do something about this travesty!

Sign this petition now, then write your Congresscritters and ask them to support this bill!

Support the Unplanned Pregnancy Prevention Bill
Target: U.S. Congress
Sponsored by: National Partnership for Women & Families
With the goal of moving reproductive rights to the top of the legislative agenda in the 111th Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter, (D-N.Y), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), have reintroduced "Prevention First" legislation.

The measure's goals are lofty - to tackle the unacceptably high rate of unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. Currently, half of pregnancies are unintended and half of those end in abortion. The bill would tackle the problem from several angles, by:

* Increasing family planning funding,
* Ending insurance discrimination against women,
* Improving awareness about emergency contraception, and
* Requiring programs to focus on medically accurate sex education.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the path is clear - empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception. Please sign our petition and urge your elected officials to sign onto this important legislation today!

Why I Hope

(Originally posted at The Liberal OC)

"Marriage isn't a special right. Marriage is a civil right." - Robin Tyler, one of the plaintiffs in the Prop H8 lawsuit currently before the California Supreme Court

Yesterday, something amazing occurred. On a beautiful and sunny Sunday in Southern California, people came to speak up, speak out, come out, and make a difference. And on what was supposed to be a normal Sunday at Saddleback Church, they witnessed today's civil rights movement in full force.

Golly gee whiz, what a mistake it was to tell a concerned citizen that she wasn't allowed to come into church!









Earlier this month, Robin Tyler, her wife, and a few of their friends believed Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren when he said he wanted dialogue with LGBT people. That's why they asked him if they could
come to church this Sunday and show him & his congregation some public service announcements on LGBT civil rights that were produced by gettoknowusfirst.comand allornotatall.org,
their grassroots groups. They figured that since Rick Warren has told the media he was "misunderstood" on Prop H8, that he'd like to clear the air and show his congregation how accepting he and the church really are. But to their surprise, he refused their peace offering and told them he may reconsider some other time.

Even though Warren wears a smile on his face as he says he's not a homophobe, his actions don't match his words. He may have wanted to simply sweep his "gay problem" under the rug in time to bask in the spotlight of being christened as "America's Pastor" at Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration this Tuesday, but Robin Tyler, her friends from all over California, and a number of us local civil rights activists had something else in mind. Warren didn't want us in his church, so we took our message of equality directly to his parishioners and the surrounding community just outside the church.

Warren may not have wanted to turn this into a spectacle, but he couldn't stop what was happening outside. We held our signs. We took over all four corners of the intersection. Oh yes, and we even talked to people outside the front entrance! And did I mention that the local newspapers and teevee stations came with their cameras and notebooks? Oops.

This is the problem we're currently facing. The forces behind Prop H8 want to hide their bigotry behind a facade of "tolerance". That's how they were able to squeak by with 52.3% of the vote last November.

But you know what? The days of "soft bigotry" are over! We will no longer allow them to get away with H8. Now, we must expose them for what they are as we tell of our own message of love and acceptance.

Most voters in California, including many who attend churches like Saddleback, aren't hateful people. Rather, they haven't learned the truth of how there is no "separate but equal" and how thousands of families all over this state are being hurt by this myth being propped up by Prop H8. And once we work our hardest to share with these voters what marriage equality really means, which is protecting and strengthening all families, they will support our movement for equal rights.

So now, let's get that message out! Let's support the good grassroots groups I mentioned earlier. Let's support organizations like Courage Campaign that are already at work preparing a winning campaign to end H8. Oh yes, and let's start to support the great new local groups that are part of this statewide and nationwide civil rights movement.

This is why I have hope today. The beautiful struggle for equality isn't over just yet. Rather, the best is yet to come. No matter what the forces of H8 try to do to us, love and equality and justice will ultimately prevail.

The Homosexual Agenda Post-Warren

There's been plenty of angst lately among progressives regarding how Barack Obama will advance civil rights as President. In particular, the discussion on LGBT rights has been heated since Obama selected known homophobe Rick Warren to speak at the Inauguration. And recently, the discussion has become more complicated with the revelation that Barack Obama may have flip-flopped on marriage equality.

Now I'd rather not dwell upon what Obama should have done in these past decisions. Instead, I want for us to talk about what we must do now to make sure "the homosexual agenda" is advanced on the state and national levels once Obama is inaugurated. We can't dwell upon the past, so we must start planning now to win in the future.

This is what I warned about last month. If anything, the recent fight over Rick Warren and Obama's Inauguration should show us that we can't be complacent in thinking that President Obama and the Democratic Congress will magically pass all the legislation we wants. Pols are pols, so they'll try to find an "easy way out" in delaying votes and/or watering down civil rights legislation.

We can't wait for them to act. Rather, we must act now to push our elected officials to do what we elected them to do. We must tell Obama that words aren't enough, that he needs to use his bully pulpit to push for civil rights. We must tell Congress to pass this legislation and make civil rights a priority. And closer to home, we need to work in the states to repeal marriage bans and end "legalized discrimination".

Obama himself said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." So really, what are we waiting for? Neither Rick Warren nor Washington "conventional wisdom" can stop us now. We can't allow the politicians to tell us to "wait our turn". The time is now for marriage equality. The time is now for workplace equality. The time is now for immigration equality.

The time is now for equality! So if you can, please take the time now to support good organizations like Courage Campaign and ACLU. And if you're in Southern California, please join me this Sunday as we protest in front of Rick Warren's church. The time is now, so let's stop waiting and start acting.

Don't Be Stingy on Our Stimulus

When President-Elect Obama first released his economic stimulus plan, I was underwhelmed. Corporate tax breaks? No undoing of the disastrous Bush tax cuts? Only $775 billion?

Fortunately, the response from Democratic Congressional leaders and progressive economists has been great. They've challenged Obama to agree to a better bill, and now we may have a better chance at seeing a better stimulus passed. Believe it or not, it often takes some pushback and a whole lot of standing our ground to get something good accomplished.

While I may not agree with him on everything, David Sirota made some great points today at Open Left on what progressives need to do to win a stimulus that actually works. We need to stand our ground in saying no to silly "entitlement reform" gimmicks that are only meant to finish what GW Bush started in privatizing Social Security & Medicare. Furthermore, we must also resist "tax relief" gimmicks that are only meant to continue redistributing wealth from the working class to the "American Oligarchs".

Of course, we can't just resist awful "ideas" from the radical right. We must also promote our own good ideas, as A Siegel has done. We shouldn't just settle for "infrastructure spending", but push for "green economy" infrastructure. We can create good jobs and reduce our carbon footprint by developing more renewable energy, building high-speed rail lines, supporting carbon neutral building, and much more. Building green will actually stimulate more green, if you know what I mean.

But is it really all that important to be so ideological when Obama wants to be pragmatic? This is a false dichotomy. The fact is , as Jane Hamsher points out so well, that progressive ideas for spending will be more effective in stimulating the economy than tax cut panders to the GOP. Now this doesn't mean that no tax cuts should be included in the final bill, but it's utterly ridiculous for a $775 billion bill to include $310 billion in tax cuts that only yield a return of about $1 for every dollar spent. This isn't about "ideology vs. pragmatism", but rather about pragmatically utilizing proven progressive Keynesian economics to provide real relief to the American people.

So what should we do to get a real stimulus passed? We need to continue pushing Obama to care less about whipping 80 Senate votes for the bill, and more about achieving more bang for our bucks. We need to keep pushing Congress to pass good legislation. Basically, we need to keep being loud & refuse to give up.

We've already succeeded in having Obama drop corporate tax breaks from his stimulus proposal. Let's keep up the good work! Now, we should push to include good spending in this bill.

Call your local Congresscritters. Write to the Obama Transition Office. Raise some hell until we get a stimulus that isn't stingy to us.