For now, this health care bill seems to be the best we’ll get out of our dysfunctional national government.  It does expand Medicaid coverage, it does set up new health clinics, it does expand insurance coverage in some helpful ways.  But it doesn’t address at all some fundamental problems in our system.

In that sense, it is like a band-aid.  Instead of just patching up the system, though, we need to completely rework it.  The idea of making profit off of someone’s sickness – off of keeping someone else sick instead of treating them! – is fundamentally flawed.  And the bureaucracy of the insurance companies, among other factors, inflates health care costs to a ridiculous point.

So, as most of you reading this probably agree, the solution is single payer.  And we’re not going to get that at the national level.  Just like they did in Canada, we’ve got to take it to the states.

In Pennsylvania, we’ve got a supportive governor, a supportive Democratic Party, and strong bipartisan support in the legislature.

And, according to the people who are at the top of this campaign, the passage of the health bill in DC isn’t stopping us.

So, politically, HR 3590 is a feat; policy-wise, HR 3590 is rife with problems, challenges, and opportunities.

Washington’s election year “spin” aside, HR 3590 does not deal fundamentally, systemically, or expeditiously (2014 implementation date) with questions of “affordable, comprehensive, quality, healthcare for all” even close to the degree that PA’s HR 1660/SB 400 tackles those questions.

Moreover, while the national healthcare bill funnels nearly a trillion dollars to buy or subsidize insurance for the uninsured in the profit-first market, and compels (through threat of fines) the purchase of more insurance in the same Blues-monopoly market, HR 3590 does nearly nothing to address the problem of underinsurance – either for the newly insured or for those who are currently insured.  Insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and incidence of medical bankruptcy will continue to escalate under HR 3590.

We citizens of Pennsylvania cannot afford to wait until 2014.  Nor will we ignore the obvious shortcomings of HR 3590 or the new policy opening presented by this political breakthrough.

Taking action on this has become more urgent than before.  If states are to establish insurance exchanges by 2014, that means that they will already by making major changes to their health care system then, and support for single payer could seriously wane.  Combine this with the fact that supportive Governor Ed Rendell is not up for reelection (although pretty much all of the Democratic candidates support the legislation) in 2010, and you start to get an idea of what is needed.

So what can you do?

Well, the one organization really pushing for this is HealthCare4AllPA.  If you’re not in Pennsylvania, please donate to them and tell any friends or family or colleagues in PA about the important work they’re doing.  Also, check out similar national organizations and organizations in other states, including (but certainly not limited to) Montana, California, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.  (If you’re in PA, this page will also help you find other groups in PA and local groups.)

If you’re lucky enough to be in Pennslyvania, there are several steps you can take.  See if your representative and senator supports the bill.  Email them.  Call them.  Lobby them.  Circulate petitions around your neighborhood and then deliver them to your legislators, like I’m in the process of doing.  Write a letter to the editor.  There are so many options!  Some are easy and only take five minutes, but if you want you can also give hours upon hours of your time to this worthy cause.

No matter where you live, no matter how you live, this is worth your time.  The states are where fundamental health care reform will come from, and here in PA we’re lucky enough to be closer than most.  Without your help, though, this will never become a reality.

Here are events going on, on Saturday:

Washington, DC

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Puerto Rico (this is asking people to put candles in their windows all weekend – do it wherever you live!)

Hawaii

Five Days of peace action in New Jersey leading up to the DC march

North Country Peace Group in New York

Philadelphia

Chicago

South Dakota

Seattle (Sunday)

Washington, DC

To get excited, check out these videos of Cindy Sheehan’s launch of her new project, Camp OUT NOW.  It is an encampment on the national mall that will remain there until our troops are out of the Middle East and veterans are getting fair treatment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oExYq4iIio&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUx1a2Bgfgw&feature=player_embedded

A lot of people are hoping that the antiwar movement will be reinvigorated this weekend.  I’ll be doing my part to make sure that comes true.  Will you?

[I am] a passionate pacifist and anti-militarist. I am against any nationalism, even in the guise of mere patriotism. Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as did any exaggerated personality cult.

Where are our Einsteins today?  It seems that even ordinary citizens with in an interest in politics bare a greater resemblance to James Carville than Einstein or Martin Luther King or John Steinbeck.  Radicalism has waned in politics, and although moderation is frequently what uncreative thinkers in the media salivate over, this is a terrible shame.

Less radicalism means less ideas on the fringe of mainstream politics and less people radically involved in politics.  Now, the “fringe” is often derided as a place that not many people want to be and of those people that are there anyway, many are crazy.  That’s an unfair characterization.  Before an idea reaches mainstream acceptance, it must pass first through the fringe – in fact, almost every good idea in politics first emerges from some fringe before it reaches mainstream acceptance and then possibly societal acceptance.

Founding Father John Adams understood this idea.  He realized that it was not bullets and combat that made independence from Britain inevitable, but a radicalization of the people of the American colonies.

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Unfortunately, today there are few prominent and openly radical leaders – like John Adams and George Washington and Ben Franklin were in the early 1770s – in the political world.  We have let ourselves be consigned to a surprisingly partisan world, in which the two major political parties and a sympathetic media, for the most part, determine what is acceptable discussion in politics.  One of the great radical leaders of our time, Noam Chomsky, does a good job of summarizing what is wrong with this in his famous lecture “Manufacturing Consent.”

Perhaps this is an obvious point, but the democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish it to be perceived. Leaders of the media claim that their news choices rest on unbiased professional and objective criteria, and they have support for this contention in the intellectual community. If, however, the powerful are able to fix the premises of discourse, to decide what the general populace is allowed to see, hear, and think about, and to “manage” public opinion by regular propaganda campaigns, the standard view of how the system works is at serious odds with reality…

…The mass media are not a solid monolith on all issues. Where the powerful are in disagreement, there will be a certain diversity of tactical judgments on how to attain generally shared aims, reflected in media debate. But views that challenge fundamental premises or suggest that the observed modes of exercise of state power are based on systemic factors will be excluded from the mass media even when elite controversy over tactics rages fiercely.

The significance of Einstein is that when figures as prominent and well-respected as him are vocally in favor of radical ideologies like socialism, they can get through a media blackout and radicalize and mobilize the population.  That’s what Cassiodorus was talking about – there were proudly radical intellectuals, which meant there was a large section of the populace that was proudly radical, as well.

Just read some of Einstein’s famous essay “Why Socialism?” – it does not offer the same creed of compromising with those in power and bending to their prejudices in order to succeed as “Taking on the System.”  That may be an unfair comparison, but Moulitsas is often portrayed as some kind of radical on the fringe of acceptable political debate (in fact, “radical” is in the subtitle of his book).

Another unabashed radical in today’s political discourse, Chris Hedges (a man who recently called for a return en masse to socialist philophies and the Green Party), addressed this idea in his most recent column from a slightly different angle.  Liberals in particular, he says, have been neutered by the ruling political class, and that is preventing any sort of useful rebellion, like the kinds seen in the late 1800s, early 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s, to name a few notable times.

Those in power have disarmed the liberal class. They do not argue that the current system is just or good, because they cannot, but they have convinced liberals that there is no alternative.

And Glenn Greenwald – who is not a particularly ideological commentator, but is radically in favor of the rule of law and civil liberties (shouldn’t that be a contradiction?) – delved into this idea recently, paying particular attention to how political consultants have influenced the Democratic Party.  And since the progressive “movement” has voluntarily and stubbornly attached itself to the Democratic Party, that has a tangible and negative effect on progressive change.

Whether one agreed with their original view or their election-year view mattered little; what was clear is that they were poll-driven opportunists with no core beliefs who were eager to shift with the slightest change in wind.  That — far more than any specific position on war and Terrorism — is what makes Democrats appear to be weak losers, and it’s what they’ve been doing — and what the Carville/Greenberg faction — has been urging  for years and years.

That’s the same mindset that led Democrats to pretend to want to end the Iraq War so that they could win the 2006 mid-term election by exploiting anti-war sentiment, but then, once they won, continue to fund the war without limits or conditions because they were politically afraid to follow through on their alleged convictions (and like clockwork, there, in 2007, was Democracy Corps predictably warning Democrats not to equate opposition to the war with a desire for Congress to actually end the war).

At the same time, powerful Democrats have been playing to radical desires for peace and other things without actually making radical change, and playing the game of the power structure by limiting radical thought through their influence on media and political discourse.  This would not be much of a concern for radical and progressive activists if progressives (and unfortunately, many radical or formerly radical activists) hadn’t made themselves dependent on the Democratic Party.  If the Democrats don’t support radicalism at all (and one wouldn’t expect them to, since those in power rarely do, except radicalism that keeps them in power), then the progressive foot soldiers supporting the party naturally won’t either.

And let me make myself clear.  That is not a good thing.  This disappearance, or at least extreme marginalization, of radicalism is unhealthy for politics.

Howard Zinn adressed this in a broad sense when, in response to MoveOn and other progressive organizations congratulating Democrats on a meek and fruitless effort to end the war in Iraq in 2007, he wrote,

When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.

————————————

Things do not change in a positive direction without radicals.  They are one of several important ingredients present in any large shift in policy.  There were the populists and Greenbacks and Socialists and progressives that ended the Gilded Age through reforms like initiative and referenda, anti-trust actions, regulation, and so on.  There were the hippies and yippies and followers of Martin Luther King and followers of Malcom X and Black Panthers that affected some mighty societal and political changes that we’re all very aware of.  Today, that ingredient is missing, in a sense.  Before her tragic passing, Granny D had something to say about this:

A century ago, the ordinary people of America joined together to tie down the giant. The antitrust laws and environmental laws and the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain for wages and benefits all joined to nurture the restoration of a great middle class — always the bedrock of democracy. The robber barons, the great giants, remained tied down, no longer free, liberated, to do as they pleased in crushing us with their great wealth and political power. And so it was for a time.

And now, loosed again, these giants have taken over our television networks and most of our newspapers, turning them against our interests and against the truth itself. These giants send our young people off to fight their commercial wars — great profitable ventures.

Despite this seemingly desperate message, Granny D kept her head up.  She did not do so because she was willingly ignorant of how hopeless her situation was, but because she really believed, as do I, that positive change is possible.  If they could do it during the Gilded Age, we can do it now.

Yes, let’s continue our efforts to reform our government, most especially with campaign finance reform. But, with revolutionary new tools, we are capable of redefining democracy at a critical moment. Let us not be shy about it for time is short. We stand for love and fairness in the world. That is not gentle work, nor is it painless or bloodless, as so many people around the world know.

I definitely agree with this, as do most of the people reading this, probably.  But the question remains of how do we get from sitting on our rear ends and whining to creating change.  Traditional protest has become ineffective, say some, at achieving any sort of ends we would have in mind.  But Howard Zinn once again has something to contribute on this topic.

The responses are never adequate, until they build and build and something changes. People very often think that there must be some magical tactic, beyond the traditional ones–protests, demonstrations, vigils, civil disobedience–but there is no magical panacea, only persistence in continuing and escalating the usual tactics of protest and resistance. The end of the Vietnam War did not come because the Left suddenly did something new and dramatic, but because all of the actions built up over time.

Of course, there’s no reason to stop people from protesting creatively, but the overall message is that the ineffectiveness of traditional forms of protest is greatly exaggerated.  Even with regards to the Iraq war, which is rightfully lamented as having an unfortunately small movement opposing it, the effect of protesters is there.  Noam Chomsky contended in a lecture called “Crises and the Unipolar Moment” that he gave in October,

The Iraq War – there was massive protests before it officially started, and I stress “officially” because your candidate for president of the, presidency of the EU, and his colleague George Bush knew that they were already…start[ing] the war when they were putting on a show about wanting diplomacy and so on.  But before it was officially started – March, 2003 – there was a massive international protest.  I think that’s the first time in history that an imperialist war has been massively protested before it was officially begun.  And it had an effect.  The United States could not use – the United States and Britain – couldn’t use the tactics they used in South Vietnam.  There was no saturation bombing by B-52s, there was no chemical warfare – horrible enough, but it could’ve been a lot worse.

And furthermore, the Bush Administration had to back down on its war aims.  Step by step, it had to allow elections, which they didn’t want to do; mainly a victory for nonviolent Iraqi protest.  They could kill insurgents, they couldn’t deal with hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, and their hands were tied by the domestic constraints.  They had to abandon…officially, at least, virtually all the war aims – I mean, as late as November, 2007, the US was still insisting that the Status of Forces agreement allowed for an indefinite US military presence and…privileged access to Ira[q]’s resources by US investors.  Well, they didn’t get that on paper, at least.  They had to back down…Iraq’s a horror story, but it could’ve been a lot worse.  So, yes, citizen protest can do something…we know that from this and many other examples.  When there’s no protest and no attention, the power just goes wild. Like in Cambodia, Northern Laos.

The frequent feeling of desperation, however, may come from our willingness to believe what we are told.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can contribute to bouts of hopelessness.  A lifetime ago, in September 2009, I went to a protest of a video game military recruiting center, then did some amateur reporting about it online.  I cited an article in which a military spokesperson said that there were going to be no more recruiting centers like this for economic reasons.  When I posted this, David Swanson saw it much more clearly than I had, and said,

for godsake we’re shutting the place down thanks to your work, and you quote their nonsense about an economic motive???

as if they didn’t knwo the cost all along??

as if they don’t want more recruits??

CLAIM VICTORY. It is nothing else. They will not announce our victories for us.

I had bought the military’s excuse, when in reality they’re probably closing the center because of the awful press it gets them.  It’s just one of these places, and they were all over the newspapers, TV, and internet (not to mention, a Frontline special that I almost made it onto) just because a few hundred angry, disgusted people showed up.  That’s people power right there, something that is mostly ignored by the media.  The important conclusion of what Howard Zinn was saying when I quoted him earlier is this:

If you listen to the media, you get no sense of what’s happening. I speak to groups of people in different parts of the country. I was in Austin, Texas recently and a thousand people showed up. I believe people are basically decent, they just lack information….

And there are people taking action against the warfare state, the corporate state, poverty, corruption, and all kinds of other things all over the place.

Cindy Sheehan, for instance, is one of the great dissidents of our time.  Her latest project is a permanent encampment on the National Mall that will be opening this week.  And closing once our troops are out of the Middle East and getting fair treatment from the government.  And it’s not just political celebrities that are doing this.  Some of the best resistance comes from everyday people like you and me who are fed up with being dehumanized and taken advantage of.

In fact, there is going to be a large peace march in Washington on Saturday, March 20 (and complementary demonstrations in San Francisco and Los Angeles).  If you haven’t joined these people in their resistance yet – if your political action is limited to blogging or donations or calling your congressperson – then there’s no better time than that.

It’s not even necessary that we all become leaders.  Some of us, however, need to take the plunge and get behind people like Cindy Sheehan, or else the ideas of people like that will never have mainstream acceptance, and they will never be adopted by government or society.  Although it is funny, the following video offers a valuable lesson on how leadership and movements work.

————————————

Howard Zinn, Granny D, Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson – these are all (at least) somewhat prominent radicals in our world today.  This seemingly goes against everything I said about Einstein and the lack of radicalism in our political discourse.

It is true that these are some great dissidents, but they are not quite the same as the towering cultural figures that John Steinbeck and Albert Einstein were.  Along with that, there is the problem of these people being consistently marginalized and not being backed up by large enough political movements to counter that.  Instead of cheering on Cindy Sheehan and working for her campaign of radical dissent against Nancy Pelosi, many progressives – the same exact ones who are attached to the Democrats – wrote her off for not being loyal to the Democratic Party.  It was not only the party leadership that did this, but many ordinary people who are also progressive activists.

In an interview with Bill Moyers a few months before his death, Howard Zinn said,

I think there are people like [the protesters of yore] today. But very often, they’re ignored in the media. You know, or they appear for a day, you know, on the pages of the Times or the Post. They- and then they disappear. But, well, you know, there are those people recently who sat in Chicago in this plant that was going to be closed by the Bank of America and these people sat in and refused to leave…But there are people — there are people today who are fighting evictions, fighting foreclosures. And, you know, very often, there’s a superficial understanding of a passive citizenry today, which is not true…the media are not covering them very well.

So maybe there are a few incarnations of Einstein out there today.  But, like Zinn says, having a radical action in the news for one day is not the same as having a large and consistent radical movement.  We as activists must not be afraid to be radicals.  And we as radicals must commit ourselves to being activists.  That is how we create a culture in which figures like Einstein can emerge, because right now there is no powerful and famous figure like Einstein doing it for us.

The main topic of the interview was health care.  Earlier in the week, of course, Kucinich said that he was willing to be the deciding vote against this health care bill.  However, on Democracy Now! the Congressman said that his vote was not by a long shot a guaranteed “no:”

AMY GOODMAN: Is anything that would cause you to support the bill at this point?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I mean, it’s—we don’t have the vote yet. The ball is still in play. The White House could decide that in order to pass the bill, they need to put public option in it, a meaningful public option. That would certainly get my attention. Or they could decide that they also want to protect the right of states to proceed with single payer, and not some place far into the future, but do it now. I mean, you have movements in Pennsylvania and in California, in my own state of Ohio, for states to be able to take responsibility for healthcare. I mean, create the possibility now. Let the momentum go in many different areas. But to say 2017 at best, and then it’s an if-come waiver to not permit the states to have legal protection against challenge by the insurance companies?

I should just mention here that I’m involved with the movement for single payer in Pennsylvania, which is currently supporting a bipartisan bill (with support from the governor and the state Democratic party, as well) in the state legislature.

There are two things that Kucinich is demanding, and apparently trying to get by building up pressure, from the health care bill.  It remains unclear if he would vote for a bill with just one of the two.  One is, of course, a strong public option, a subject which has been covered to death.  The other is a way to change ERISA so that it does not interfere with implementing single payer systems on a state by state basis.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, President Obama says that the Senate bill does include single-payer language. He was talking about a provision by Senator Bernie Sanders which would allow states to use federal money to set up a single-payer system years down the road. What do you think of that?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, it provides for a waiver; it doesn’t grant the waiver. And it takes effect 2017. But by then, we’ll already have a system in place that will be very difficult to move out of. And it doesn’t cure the attack that insurance companies can make on state plans using the Employee—the ERISA Act. And so, my amendment that was passed in committee would have protected states from illegal challenge by insurance companies. The Sanders amendment doesn’t do that, so you still have the problem that, no matter what reforms are enacted, can be knocked out. I mean, I talked to the President personally about this. I’ve met with the President three times on this bill. The White House knows my position.

He was also asked to directly respond to what Markos Moulitsas said of him on the MSNBC show Countdown:

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Congressman, on the issue of healthcare, you’ve come under intense criticism by some commentators. Earlier this week, Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the website Daily Kos, appeared on MSNBC and slammed you for threatening to vote against the Democrats’ healthcare reform bill.

MARKOS MOULITSAS: [I’m going to hold] people like Dennis Kucinich responsible for the 40,000 Americans that die each year from a lack of healthcare. And I don’t care if you’re a Republican or you’re a conservative Democrat or you’re somebody like Dennis Kucinich. The fact is, this does a heck of a lot for a lot of people. And like I said, it’s not perfect, it definitely needs to be improved, but it’s a first step. And God knows, it’s taken us a long time to even get our toe in the door, given the corporate interests that are arrayed against any kind of real reform. So I think this is a first step. It’s definitely not the end of the path. It’s not the ideal solution. But we are—our foot’s in the door. And if somebody like Kucinich wants to block that, I find that completely reprehensible.

And he’s elected, not to run for president, which he seems to do every four years. He’s not elected to grandstand and to—and to give us this ideal utopian society. He’s elected to represent the people of his district, and he’s not representing the uninsured constituents in his district by pretending to take the high ground here. What he’s doing, he’s undermining this reform. He’s making common cause with the Republicans. And I think that’s a perfect excuse and a rationale for a primary challenge.

And just one note here.  It has been pointed out that it’s too late to mount a 2010 primary challenge to Kucinich.

Kucinich said:

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, I brought the issue of single-payer healthcare before three separate meetings of the Democratic Platform Committee. I brought it into two presidential campaigns to raise the bar about what’s possible. Now I made a compromise when I backed the public option and voted for it in committee. I also had an amendment passed that would protect the rights of states to proceed with a single-payer approach at a state level. Each step along the way, I’ve shown a willingness to try to work with the White House so that we can have meaningful healthcare reform. I signed a letter, along with seventy-seven other members of Congress, saying that I would not vote for the bill unless it had a robust public option. At this point, I’m the only one left standing who has kept that pledge.

I think that we have to ask ourselves why we would have a circumstance where, you know, a week or two before a vote would come, that it would be said that this is going to come down to a single member of Congress, who stands for healthcare for all, Medicare for all, who stands for a public option, who stands to protect right of states, to pursue it, and yet, we should sweep all that aside in favor of a bill that gives the insurance companies a lock on health insurance in America, privatizes the health insurance—$70 billion-a-year subsidy to the insurance industry.

Kucinich has reiterated these ideas elsewhere, such as ABC’s Top Line (skip to about 4 minutes into the video).

“You know, this thing isn’t over. They know what they have to do to get the votes and if they need my vote badly enough I suppose they have to think about a robust public option and about the [Employee Retirement Income Security Act], addressing the ERISA preemption which would in effect, protect states from a tax by insurance companies if the states want to establish a single-payer system.”

“I think that the Democrats ought not to be fronting for insurance company interests, and frankly every time they lay a bill out insurance stocks go up. I mean, how — how would that happen?” he added. “I mean, we have to have a bill for the American people and if the administration wants to change its position, I’m all ears.”

Before health care, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez asked Kucinich about the symbolic resolution on Afghanistan that he introduced and was subsequently voted on, about which he said,

I felt, after a eight-and-a-half years, we had waited long enough to have the debate, and so I used the War Powers Act to create the debate.

I’m glad there was a debate. Now Congress has taken responsibility. The debate didn’t turn out the way I would have liked it to, but at least we brought it into the public’s awareness that Congress has now entered into essentially affirming the Obama administration’s policy on Afghanistan.

The Citizens United decision and the death of Granny D were both mentioned, as well.

What an amazing woman, who lived her life with great passion and commitment to the highest principles of our country. Her commitment to seeing real campaign finance reform, you know, has really been a central part of a movement that tells us we have to change the way we finance elections in order to reclaim our government.

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

Now, here there is no differentiation from Republicans and Democrats (perhaps, fittingly).  But if you go to this website, the names in italics are Republicans and the normal lettering is Democrats.

The people on the above list voted to continue the growth and proliferation of one of the most destructive forces in our nation today.  Military contractors, war profiteers, corrupt political cronies, the worst of the worst lobbyists – all of these and more are what make up the military industrial complex.  Until we end our modern day empire and stop spending more on our military by far than every other nation on earth, we will not rein in these problems, or probably any other major problem, for that matter.

And those brave representatives who were willing to go against the President, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, both parties’ leadership in the House, and the military industrial complex were:

Baldwin
Campbell
Capuano
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Paul
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Serrano
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velázquez
Waters
Watson
Welch
Woolsey

Also worth listing are the 19 cosponsors, along with the original sponsor Dennis Kucinich:

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 3/4/2010
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 3/4/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 3/4/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 3/4/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 3/4/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 3/9/2010
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 3/4/2010
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 3/4/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/4/2010
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 3/4/2010
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 3/4/2010
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 3/4/2010
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 3/4/2010
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 3/4/2010
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 3/4/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 3/4/2010
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 3/4/2010
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/9/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/4/2010

One representative in particular that deserves the limelight for this (other than Dennis Kucinich, of course) is Patrick Kennedy, who was breathing fire and righteously condemning the press on the floor of the House for their terrible irresponsibility:

<iframe src=”http://widget.newsinc.com/single.htm?WID=2&VID=75615&freewheel=69016&sitesection=ndnsubss” height=”320″ width=”425″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″></iframe>

These people deserve praise for their decision to stand up for peace in Congress!  Here’s a tool from the House website to write to any representative that you wish to:

https://writerep.house.gov/…

If you want to write to yours (like mine, Democrat Allyson Schwartz of PA-13) for voting against this or if you want to praise a representative for supporting it, please do so!

And while you’re at it, why not join me on March 20th at the peace march in Washington DC?  I’ll be with the World Can’t Wait people, carrying an American flag with the stars in the shape of a peace sign…