Health Care Reform

Why is that the United States spends more money on health care than every country in the world, yet ranks 37th in overall health coverage? How much money will it cost to provide health insurance for approximately 320 million Americans? The Democrats’ proposed health bill, Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), costs $1.2 trillion and pales in comparison to the already $12 trillion amassed in national debt.

Even though it has been over a year since Obama was elected President, partisan beliefs still keep the White House divided. The GOP and several Democrats recently battled over passage of the Democratic sponsored health bill in the House which passed by a narrow margin of only two votes. The proposed bill proved to be extremely partisan, with only one Republican, Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, voting for passage of the bill.

While supporters are eager to move along into the Senate, opposition forces will attempt to filibuster the proposed health bill. It is difficult to discern the real reason why most Republicans are so vehemently opposed to the bill. One can only assume that the GOP is deliberately obstructing passage of the bill to prevent a Democratic 'victory'. Nonetheless, those in favor of the bill are pushing for action and seek to have the Act signed into law before the year’s end.

One reason that the bill was met with opposition in the House was due to the overwhelming cost that will be forced upon American taxpayers. According to Congressman Burton (R-IN), a naysayer for the proposed health bill, the outcome of passing this bill will increase taxes by about $730 billion over the next ten years. Understandably, many Americans were alarmed by the immediate impact of tax increases amidst a deteriorating economy.

In addition, the Stupak/Pitts amendment, named after Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph R. Pitts (R-PN), raised controversy over the issue of abortion. The amendment prevents government funding from covering abortion under the proposed health coverage. In addition, President Obama maintained that federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. But before the President can sign anything into law the planned health care overhaul must overcome many obstacles.

Overall, the fate of health insurance in the U.S. is yet to be determined as opponents of the proposed bill seek to halt its progress through delayed legislative proceedings and extended speech making, subsequently drawing out the process of passing the bill along to the Senate. Having barely eked out of the House with the minimum required number of votes, the proposed bill faces an even more hostile crowd in the Senate where the approach to health care reform differs from that of Congress. Many analysts predict the bill to fail once it reaches the Senate because the Democrats do not hold as much swaying power there as they do in the House. The bill may succeed in the Senate, but not before undergoing amendments. As a result, the House and Senate will need to convene thereafter in order to compromise over a unified bill for President Obama to sign into a law.

PARTISAN BICKERING

I absolutely despise partisan politics, albeit an ubiquitous component of U.S. legislation. The political culture in the United States is a war of attrition conducted by two rival parties bent on dominating the political landscape. The Democrats and Republicans vie for power in not only the House and Senate, but at the state level, too.

Sensationalist dialogue erupted in every news forum following the gubernatorial election results on Tuesday, November 3. The same story was regurgitated over and over, merely spewed out in a different manner more akin to the appropriate medium be it radio, television, or newspaper. Victory for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia! A Democratic miracle happens in New York’s 23rd Congressional district! All the rage over how long Obama’s coat tails are. Meaningless babble to determine if the Democratic administration in the White House can extend its reach to the state legislature, or if the Republicans can regain power from the ground up.

The main point to take away from these reports is that the majority of Americans are more concerned with job security, unemployment, and economic stability than party affiliation. No matter if a state previously dominated by Republicans is now Democratically controlled, or vice versa. The issue universally represented in every state election still to come is that Americans expect their representatives to comply with their demands. As Charles Babington of the Associate Press writes in his Voters' memo to politicians, "We're angry and fearful, mostly about jobs and the economy. We want tangible solutions, not partisan bickering or intraparty spats. And we'll vote either party out of office if we don't think you're listening."

Are Halloween costumes more than just a holiday fad?

Ah, the infamous orange jumpsuit… Simultaneously, a prison garb, Halloween costume, and a protester’s fashion statement. Following the Abu Ghraib scandals and controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay, the orange jumpsuit underwent a fashion makeover and transformed from a mere Halloween gag to a stylish political mockery. Can a Halloween costume actually have a detrimental effect on society worthy of taking offense? How far will a person push the limits of his/her costume before they become offensive to someone else? The orange jumpsuit continues to evolve and proves to be exceptionally versatile since developing into the latest Halloween craze, a gross depiction of an “illegal alien.”

The “illegal alien” costume idea stems from a similar line of Halloween attire that mock anything and everything from over-size sombreros and ponchos to fake beards and a turban. During Halloween time people always find it as an excuse to play dress-up and mock another’s religion, ethnicity, or culture.

Naturally, many spoke out against the costume claiming it is racist and simply perpetuates a false stereotype of immigrants. Chicago’s own Jorge Mujica, affiliated with the March 10th Committee, condemns the costume because it presents a mockery. The Coalition for Humane Immigrants has taken the offense a step further by petitioning major retailers like Target to stop marketing the costume.

Apparently, the pressure from outraged customers and immigration reform organizations has successfully halted sales of the costume at Target. However, other prominent corporations including Walgreen’s, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com have yet to publically declare their position towards selling the costume.

After 9/11 people began parading around wearing Osama Bin Laden costumes and fake terrorist uniforms during Halloween. Imagine a Muslim person answering the door to a bunch of youths dressed up as terrorists. How would this person respond to such a shock? HA! The Muslim would laugh off the insulting masquerade, and hand them some candy. Or, do the adolescents and their parents, or better yet the major Halloween retailers need to be taught a lesson about insensitivity and offensive costumes?

Whether or not a person can take a joke is arguably irrelevant within the context of Halloween. Will allowing controversial costumes like the “illegal alien” to stay on the market perpetuate the existence of degrading stereotypes? Or, can we just ignore the insult and enjoy some candy?

Abandon all hope ye who sit here; Governor's seat plagued by corruption

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Union League Club of Chicago
BREAKFAST @65 WEST
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Forum
Moderator: Chris Robling

Reema Ahmad, the Government Affairs Coordinator, and I recently attended an Illinois Gubernatorial candidate forum at the Union League Club of Chicago, just down the street from CAIR-Chicago’s Jackson Boulevard office. The event provided an introspective observation of several leading contenders on the campaign trail for Governor, one of the most powerful and absolutely crooked positions on the Illinois legislature. This particular presentation exclusively featured the prominent Republican candidates, namely Adam Andrzejewki, Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, Dan Proft, and Bob Schillerstrom. The Democratic Party’s candidates will participate in a similar forum at the same location in a couple of weeks.

Illinois regrettably has an infamous reputation for being one of the most corrupt cities in the United States. It is no coincidence that Chicago is depicted as Batman’s Gotham city. The rampant fraudulence runs from the heart of Chicago all the way down to the capital in Springfield, infecting the entire Land of Lincoln. The current path to Governor is inundated with corruption scandals, lying, bribery, and every other foul mannerism that accompanies a high-ranking seat in the Illinois government.

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich, succeeded by interim Governor Pat Quinn, was recently removed from office amidst corruption allegations. He may soon undergo impeachment for a number of crimes, namely for attempting to auction off the vacant Senator seat left by current President Obama. As the candidates took to the podium promising a revolutionary change in Illinois politics the audience struggled to maintain a sense of objectivity due to the large elephant in the room, not the GOP mascot, but an obvious embodiment of a still fresh wound inflicted by Blagojevich and the incurable disease of corruption. The candidates faced off against one another during one of the most tumultuous eras in Illinois’ history. It was clear no one wanted to suffer another political scandal that has plagued the state of Illinois.

One of the main topics addressed in the forum and repeatedly discussed by candidates was the idea of “transparency of government” which stipulates openly displaying local and state finances for public scrutiny. This policy reform would allow Illinois taxpayers to view how their money is spent, specifically revealing how much and where the bulk of the state’s resources are being allocated. While a few of the candidates touted to having already exhibited their own finances on their campaign websites, others disagreed with the notion that their personal assets need to be publically disclosed in order to validate their candidacy.

Clearly, the most significant issue of the debate was the enormous budget deficit of Illinois, which according to provisional Governor Pat Quinn’s website currently stands at $11.6 billion for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. One of the questions during the Q/A session asked how could any of the candidates even attempt to balance the budget without raising taxes? The subsequent answers given by each candidate encompassed the several important policies in relation to balancing the state’s budget including education funding, changes in taxation, job creation and security, Medicaid and pensions.

I mistakenly may have heard that every candidate said they would never think of raising taxes, rather they would erase the debt through spending more intelligently. Also, some candidates even proposed cutting taxes which would grant businesses more incentives for coming to Illinois, and more importantly staying here to provide jobs. This topic penetrated deep into the hearts of those in attendance who have struggled to pay their bills and remain fearful of losing their jobs, if they already have not lost them. This debate would ultimately make or break an audience member’s support for a particular candidate.

The candidates ranged in terms of age and experience, and all were fairly wealthy middle-aged Caucasian males, not too unlike the audience. Also, the fact that these were Republican candidates vying for power over the Governor position in a majority Democratic administration was not left unmentioned. Every candidate proffered an obvious Republican style reformation to corruption, almost implicitly stating that those currently in power, or more importantly Democrats, were to blame for the current political humiliation and economic hardships afflicting Illinoisans.

Overall, the event provided first hand experience in political campaigning at the state level as opposed to the national arena which is more familiar to the average American. Prospective constituents obtained the insight to discern who among those candidates participating in the forum will lead the charge in most effectively alleviating their political and financial woes. More importantly, the audience aimed to be vigilant in preventing the past from repeating itself and clouding their present judgment. Republican or democrat, Illinoisans do not want to be duped and inveigled into electing another typical crony Governor like Blagojevich.

CHAUVINISM OR PATRIOTISM?

The USA PATRIOT Act, or Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, is up for revision yet again. On December 31, 2009, three of the Act’s controversial provisions will sunset or potentially become reauthorized for a prolonged period.

Will the Obama administration recognize the PATRIOT Act’s immediate significance to the American public or circumvent the issue as the health care debate and foreign policy are deemed higher priority?

Capitol Hill has been holding its breath over the issue and at the forefront of the approaching sunset stands Section 215.

Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required federal law enforcement agencies to provide a substantiated formal request for any wiretapping devices used in counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations. Those restrictions were eliminated immediately following passage of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the Act permits federal law enforcement agencies limitless access to personal property (e.g., computers and laptops, telephones including mobile devices, private banking and financial statements, as well as library records).

Nowadays, wiretapping methods are legally implemented without disclosure meaning the alleged enemy will never be informed of the investigation. Consequently, Section 215 of the Act is arguably in violation of the 1^st and 4^th Amendments, specifically freedom of speech and association, and rights to privacy and personal property.

The extent to which one will or already has been affected by the PATRIOT Act remains unspecified. As technology and daily life continue to become fused together, the capacity of Section 215 to infiltrate one’s livelihood becomes painfully obvious.

Here we go again...

Surely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did not intend on peeling the scab off of a healing wound when he spoke last Thursday at a conference in Washington D.C., but his comment drawing a contrast between being Muslim and being "good" has done just that.

When questioned by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg about groups within the Republican party that play on conspiracies surrounding President Obama, Graham expressed his disdain for some fringe elements of his party and conservative media. He denounced Fox News host Glenn Beck as a "cynic" and called the birther community, who question the president's U.S. citizenship, "crazy."

After discounting the claims that Obama was born outside of the United States, Graham went on to insist President Obama "is not a Muslim. He's a good man."
SEE: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183074001?bctid=42981023001

While it is outrageous - to say the least - that such broad ranging contrasts may be drawn between one’s moral composition and their religious affiliation, comments such as Senator Graham's are not new among our elected officials.

Americans were just beginning to heal from the alienation they endured last year when Islamophobia flared-up during the Presidential election and Americans across the nation accused Obama of being a Muslim, implying that this is something antithetical to being American.

Such views were also expressed by presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, nearly a year ago today at a campaign rally at which one of his supporters stated, “I don’t trust Obama… he’s an Arab!” McCain responded, “No, ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with. He’s not [an Arab].”
Read: http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2008/10/identity-insults-and-democracy/

In a country composed of individuals from numerous ethnic backgrounds, faiths, and lifestyle decisions, it is deeply saddening to observe such blatantly discriminatory and ignorant comments made without a second thought by those representing us in government.

We have not yet arrived at the post-racial society many claim President Obama's election embodies in the U.S. today - though this ideal is not beyond the scope of reality one day.U.S. Senators and others entrusted with shaping public opinion, must challenge bigoted and un-American sentiments and serve as the enlightened vanguard that guides our nations toward peace and prosperity for all.

Threats to Obama Continue

By Nadia Ahmed

President Obama has been in office for approximately ten months. That is not nearly enough time to change the nation from the topsy-turvy state it was in, to a perfect utopian country in which everybody is at peace with each other and all is well.

If people have problems with Obama’s proposed policies towards health care, education, immigration, or abortion, they should voice that opinion. They should articulate their arguments, hold debates, or possibly join organizations that fight for their desired causes.

What Americans should not do is what Arizona pastor Steve Anderson did on August 22, 2009. Anderson publicly declared his wish for Obama’s death, claiming that Obama is set out to destroy the country and that his death would “save the nation.”

Anderson furiously preached to his congregation, “Why should Barack Obama melt like a snail? Why should Barack Obama die like the untimely birth of woman? Why should his children be fatherless and his wife a widow?” He goes on to say “Well I’ll tell you why…” and ends with a distasteful comment on Obama’s views towards abortion.

Anderson’s words are malicious and downright dangerous. They provoke more anger and mistrust within a nation that is already hotly divided. He is also inciting hate within his congregation – a group of people who believe his words and are willing to act on them.

Even if one’s views on homosexuality and abortion rights differ from those of our leaders, using such language is despicable, and possibly a sign of racism. How many of our previous presidents had Americans calling for their death? Has Obama even been in office long enough, or done anything substantial enough, to arouse so much anger?

Everyone has different opinions. Our job as Americans is to express our views— sensibly and respectfully. President Obama has at least three more years left in office. Let us make the most of these years and work together, discuss issues rationally and civilly. We don’t have to always agree – the beauty of a democratic system is that we are entitled to our opinions and granted free speech – but we do need to adhere to that self-same system that gives us our rights when it comes to our elected government and leaders. Disagree all you like, but at least have the dignity to respect the individual elected by a considerable majority of Americans to be our President.

Nadia Ahmed is a Communications Intern with CAIR-Chicago

Health Care Reform Prompts Expressions of Hate

Disagreements about the future direction of America’s health care system have some Members of Congress facing discrimination over more than just their views. Recent health care tensions have given rise to an outbreak of hate crimes against representatives who support reform. According to CNN.com, African-American Congressman David Scott of Georgia “received death threats and found Nazi graffiti outside his office.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution explained that the escalation of negative calls, letters, and racial slurs was after an argument Scott had with a citizen who opposed health care reform at a town hall meeting. The CNN.com report also profiled some of the hate mail Congressman Scott received, such as a cartoon of Barack Obama, depicting the president as a clown with a swastika on his head in addition to a swastika painted on a sign outside his office suggesting that those who support the reform policy promote a Nazi socialist state.

Unfortunately, Congressman Scott’s situation is not isolated. Democratic Congressman Brian Baird from Washington has also reportedly received death threats that convinced him to cancel several public appearances. The Atlanta Journal Constitution also reports that, “Brad Miller of North Carolina, has received death threats for his support of health care reform. Two other Democratic Congressmen, Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Frank Kratovil of Maryland, were hanged in effigy by protesters opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care reform.”

These prejudiced attacks serve as perceptible evidence of the passion and anger the health care topic has stirred up in Americans. But, their significance spans far beyond the political realm. Threatening our elected officials with racist symbols and hate mail in lieu of the legislation they support sets a disturbing precedent that must not spiral out of control. Turning a blind eye to these acts could condone hate as an acceptable way to express one’s discontent. Hate crimes could grow in popularity and receive less severe prosecution if the government does not aggressively fight against these incidents now. Congressman Scott himself acknowledges the “hate and racism bubbling underneath the surface” in America and wonders if the health care debate will be the catalyst for its ultimate release. The popularization of hate crimes would be dangerous for minority communities of all ethnicities and religions in the United States who already suffer from persecution. It would ultimately cause Americans to take one giant step backwards in their fight for equality.

Going forward, the amount of media attention these hate crimes are receiving serves as a dilemma for the Republican Party. Huffington Post comments that despite the media attention, the GOP now, “risks being perceived as tolerant of an angry mob-like mentality that freely throws out charges of Nazism against the President of the United States,” proving they are also knowledgeable of the potential downfalls of these expressions of hate.

The country is approaching a defining ethical moment. As citizens, and active participants in forming the policies of our national government, it is important to not let freedom dissolve into displays of bigotry and hate. Spokesman for Representative Betsey Markey from Colorado leaves Americans with this advice, “Even as tempers flare on both sides of this debate, we need to remember that we are all Americans and we all want the best care for our families and our loved ones. And to that end we need to have a respectful and constructive conversation about one of the biggest issues that our country is facing."