CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope: U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (1952)

Source:CBS News- U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) talking to The Longines Chronoscope in 1952.

Source:The New Democrat

John F. Kennedy, at this point was Representative John F. Kennedy who was completing his third and last term in the House of Representatives. And was running for Senate against a moderate-conservative Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Jack Kennedy, was only thirty-five at this point and would become one of the youngest people ever elected to the U.S. Senate at thirty-five. JFK, served a total of fourteen-years in Congress both in the House and Senate and yet he was forty-three when he left Congress for the presidency in 1961. He is someone who wanted to move up quickly in American politics and not stay in one office for very long.

The House, was too small of a platform especially if you’re last name is Kennedy. So it’s a little hard to believe that JFK would’ve been someone who would’ve spent 20-30 years in the House even if it meant being Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or serving in the Democratic Leadership. I think JFK like his brother Ted, would’ve made a terrific U.S. Senator if he wanted it and served four, or five terms in the Senate after the House and completed his Congressional service and even public service in the Senate. And perhaps would’ve ended up chairing a couple of committees and maybe even becoming Democratic Leader in the Senate.

Jack Kennedy, didn’t have a very good record in the House. He was bored there and had a hard time dealing with being one of 435 Representatives there and a back bencher at that. And wasn’t a very serious Representative who missed a lot of floor votes and committee hearings and not known for passing any legislation. He wasn’t much better as a Senator at least in his first term. But he writes a book Profiles in Courage in 1956, he marries Jacqueline Kennedy and his name is always in the news and starts to draw a serious following in the Democratic Party and becomes serious as a U.S. Senator. Which is how his name starts to get floated around as a possible presidential candidate. Who almost becomes Adlai Stevenson’s vice presidential nominee in 1956. And after that he when he puts most of his focus into becoming President of the United States.

The New Republic: The Long March to Medicare

Source:The New Republic- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) signing Medicare into law in 1965.

Source:The New Democrat

The fiftieth anniversary of the most successful government health insurance program in the country, if not the most successful health insurance program period. No other health insurer has provided more health insurance to more Americans than Medicare. And perhaps to more people in the world than Medicare. My issues with Medicare is not that the program exists at all, which is the libertarian argument against it. Or that it is a government-run health insurance program. But my issues is with how the program was set up. And the reason why it was set up, is because that is the best that Democratic Congress with Republican help from the minority could come up with in 1965.

We are a huge country that is between two of the largest oceans in the world. And that is just the mainland United States and back in 1965 we were a country roughly one-eighty-million people or so. And today we are pushing three-hundred-twenty-million people. And yet we set up two new huge health insurance programs that are to be run by one central authority in this huge country. Instead of bringing in the states to run their share of this program for their state. Or to create one health insurer that everyone could be eligible for. Not forced on them, but have a new public health insurer that everyone could sign up for and pay into if they choose to. Along with putting money down along with their employer so they are guaranteed health insurance in their senior years.

The original Affordable Care Act of 2009-10 that was passed by the House of Representatives in fall of 2009 had a public option in it for Medicare. Meaning people under Medicare age could sign up and pay into Medicare before they retire and before they are 65. That amendment was taken out of the Senate in the early spring of 2010. So the final bill that was passed on March of didn’t have the public option in it. So Medicare is still the largest health insurer in the country if not world and yet it only covers seniors. The least healthiest population of the country and makes it very expensive to run and pay for. You give middle-age and young adults and their kids the option to be part of Medicare and you would see millions of Americans sign up for Medicare. Which would bring down the costs of Medicare, because you would have young healthy Americans as part of the program.

Yes Medicare has been a very successful program because it has guaranteed health insurance to millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. Or would’ve ended up moving to the poor house, or having to sell everything that has value to them in order to get health care in their senior years. But this program could be so much better and so much more cost-effective and not so top-down. And allow for middle-age and young adults to cover themselves and their health insurance through Medicare. As well as similar to Medicaid bring the states in and allow for them to set up their own Medicare program where all of their citizens would be eligible for instead of just their seniors. And we wouldn’t need a Medicaid, or a Children’s Health Insurance Program, because those customers could take Medicare. Which is a much better program anyway.

USA Today: Senator Tom Coburn: 'A Deficit of Debt Discussion'

Source:USA Today- former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) 2005-13.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The 2016 presidential race is beginning in earnest with new candidates entering the crowded field weekly. The Republican Party boasts a host of compelling and well qualified aspirants, many of whom I have known and served with for years. They bring a wealth of experience and policy savvy to a nation sorely in need of a rebound following the many failures of the federal government during the Obama presidency.

Yet despite their numbers, none of them is addressing in a meaningful way the greatest threat to our republic: our gigantic and rapidly growing national debt.  America’s cumulative borrowing is rapidly approaching $20 trillion, while the federal government's unfunded liabilities (future expenditures minus future tax revenue) now exceed a whopping $127 trillion — better than $1.1 million per taxpayer.

That’s not merely unsustainable; it’s suicidal.

Following a similarly risky path, Greece has now defaulted on its obligations, sending a shock wave through financial markets around the world. This was a crisis that could have been avoided through sound fiscal policy, but the Greek government has for years lacked the political will to do what it takes to secure that nation’s financial health. The nightly news showcases the unfolding Greek tragedy as though it were another TV reality show. A country on the verge of collapse, full steam ahead on a similar trajectory as the American economy — and journalists are largely silent.

Closer to home, Puerto Rico teeters on the edge of financial ruin and risks enormous damage to municipal bond funds and other instruments relied on by millions of Americans to help protect their long-term financial security.

Let’s be clear: The United States must end the cycle of endless and unsustainable debt that we’ve seen elsewhere around the world, or it will face the same fate as other nations before us." 

From USA Today 

"Both parties have equally participated in abandoning the limited role of the federal government," says Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), whose new book, The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting Our Economy, argues that Republicans and Democrats together have brought the U.S. to the brink of fiscal calamity.

First elected to the house in 1994 as part of the "Republican Revolution," Coburn is a staunch fiscal and social conservative, who's been outspokenly critical of members of his own party for compromising their principles out of political expedience. Coburn has publicly taken former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to task for lacking leadership and resolve during his battles with the Clinton White House to cut spending in the mid-90s.

Coburn, who's known in the senate as "Dr. No" for vetoing almost all new spending initiatives, says the federal budget is rife with "waste, fraud, and duplication." In 2006, Coburn co-sponsored legislation that created USASpending.gov, which makes publicly accessible a list of all recipients of government funds. In 2010, Coburn was instrumental in getting the Government Accountability Office to undertake researching and documenting wasteful government programs.

A supporter of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Coburn was a co-author of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and he supported a 1996 law requiring that "V-chips" be placed in all television sets to allow parents to block programming deemed unsuitable. In 1997, Coburn criticized NBC for airing the Holocaust-film "Schindler's List" on the grounds that it included "vile language, full-frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity." NBC characterized Coburn's views as "frightening."

Source:Reason Magazine- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) talking to Reason Magazine in 2012.

From Reason Magazine

This is the main reason why I wish Senator Coburn at least finished his last term in the Senate. But he is dealing with serious health issues right now and it's easy to see why he stepped down. But he was one of the few people in Congress that actually understood the threat of the national debt to the American economy, but also knew what to do to actually fix those issues. That you weren’t going to get our debt under control simply by cutting programs and benefits for people in poverty. Or raising their taxes. That you had to look at entitlements, tax reform, the military budget and economic growth and get more people working. Which is where infrastructure and tax reform come in.

This is also one reason why we need a real third-party in America. A party that could speak to forty-percent of the country that doesn’t like the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party. A party that could get twenty-percent or more of the popular vote and perhaps even win some states. And challenge Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Like the old Ross Perot United We Stand movement. A real Independence Party that at the very least could at least bring Democrats and Republicans to the table when it comes to our financial issues. And move them away from their talking points and their partisan attacks. Right now, Democrats don’t want to talk about the debt and deficit. Other than taxing the rich and hoping that revenue doesn’t leave the country.

Republicans, like to talk about debt and deficits. But the problem is that’s all that they do. They say vote for them and they'll cut wasteful Washington spending. But won’t lay out where’s the waste in the Federal budget that they would cut. They say if you cut business taxes and regulations that would jumpstart economic growth in America. And that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Which technically is true, but the huge factor that they leave out is that we have a substantial corporate welfare budget. All sorts taxpayer-funded subsides that the Bowls-Simpson Debt Commission that Senator Coburn was a member of in 2010 called tax expenditures. But you don’t tend to hear Republicans talking about cutting corporate welfare.

As long as the two parties and their bases that are in charge of the Federal Government essentially hate each other, we are not going to get a real debt reduction plan out of Congress and singed by the President whoever that President is. Why? Because what we need to do to fix our financial affairs will mean real sacrifices. And the longer we wait the more sacrifice there will be for more people.

A tax code, with lower rates, including on business’s. But where a lot of the loopholes are gone.

A military budget that won’t be responsible for financing the national defense of other developed countries.

An entitlement system, where people who are wealthy will be expected to pay more. And where everyone who can will be expected to work longer.

A public assistance system, where people collecting public assistance who can and aren’t disabled will be expected to work their way off of Welfare all together.

And no presidential candidate wants to ask Americans to do these things right now. Because it would mean risking votes from people who depend on all of these government benefits right now for their way of life. Which is a big problem with our Federal budget right now. That it is mostly about military and financial subsidies for people who can’t seem to live without them. Instead of creating a society, an economy and public assistance system where people are empowered and expected to be able to take care of themselves. Unless they are physically, or mentally disabled.

The Michael Parkinson Show: Diana Dors, Kenneth Williams & Desmond Morris (1971)

Source:Anorak- English Muffin Diana Dors on The Michael Parkinson Show in 1971.

Source:The New Democrat

“Diana Dors, Kenneth Williams and Desmond Wilcox on Parkinson show 1971”

From Anorak 

From every interview I’ve seen of Diana Dors at least from the 1970s, she reminds me a lot of another great actress who was also as cute as a button, a very big button, but she reminds me a lot of the great Shelley Winters.

Diana and Shelly Winters always had something funny to say and had an opinion on everything and who also had great comedic timing.

Again, as I blogged before, I wish Diana was around a lot longer. She’s only about 40 when this interview was done in 1971 and only had thirteen years to live at this point. Also without BBC and other British television networks, we would’ve had a hard time seeing her doing anything at least in America. Because she stopped working here and rarely came back.

Desmond Morris, was social biologist who studied human behavior. And what he was talking about in this video was how people behave and look in the act of sex. And trying to fit his demonstration in why some women are as he put it sex bombs, or sex symbols. Talking about how people’s eyes tend to close and their lips get bigger in the act of performing sex.

With Diana, making the crack that this happens to her all the time. That her lips get bigger. But there’s lot more to Diana Dors in why she was a goddess, or I prefer English Muffin and great English baby-faced goddess. Who was born as a baby obviously, but never lost her baby face even after she got a bit more plump in the 1970s. Which if anything might of just made her cuter.

Diana Dors, reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters as far as stature and personality. Someone who was very adorable obviously. Who was very versatile as an actress, who was also a hell of an actress and someone you wouldn’t forget if you saw her. With a great personality and sense of humor who could always drop the humor and make people laugh. And pull jokes out of nowhere even when others were talking.

Diana had a tendency to steal the show even when she was on with other comedians, like you see in this interview. But as Desmond Wilcox put it, she was sex bomb, or as we say in America a bombshell. Diana, was a hot, baby-faced, goddess with a great body that guys dreamed about. And again it would’ve been nice if she was around a lot longer.

C-SPAN: 'President Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Press Statement'

Source:C-SPAN- President William J. Clinton: after signing the 1996 Welfare to Work Law.

Source:The New Democrat

"A very brief statement from President Bill Clinton, about his signature of the 1996 Welfare to Work Law. That passed Congress with a bipartisan vote."

From C-SPAN

The 1996 Welfare to Work Law, I believe is the best part of the Clinton Presidency. Along with moving the Democratic Party back to the Center-Left and making it a national party again. That can win outside of Washington, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the traditional McGovernite and more social democratic areas of the country. Because the Welfare to Work Law, gave millions of Americans who probably only knew Welfare as far as any income that was coming into their homes, the opportunity to go to work. To finish their education and get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work is really about.

The only way to cut poverty in America, is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to move up the economic ladder and become economically self-sufficient. That gets to things like education and job creation, as well as economic development and infrastructure in low-income communities. You can give someone on public assistance the biggest public assistance checks that you possibly can that American taxpayers are willing to subsidize. But as long as people on public assistance are collecting those checks and can’t support themselves without those checks, they’re on Welfare and living in poverty.

So to actually move people out of poverty, you have to empower them to get a good job. And tell them that they can’t stay on Welfare indefinitely and use that time to improve themselves and prepare to become members of the American workforce. That means childcare for their kids, requiring parents who are no longer involved in their kids lives to pay their child support payments. Encouraging employers to hire and train people who are on Welfare. And making education and job training available to people on Welfare so they can finish their education and get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

As President Clinton said many times, the Democratic Party should be the party that is about opportunity, empowerment, liberalization, liberation. Liberalization and liberation being my words, but that we should be a party that is about using government to empower people. Using a limited responsible government to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom who are struggling to work their way up the economic ladder and be able to live in freedom. Like most of the rest of the country. Not using government to make more people dependent. Or saying that people who are low-skilled and have kids can stay on public assistance indefinitely simply because they are low-skilled and have kids. As if they are disabled, or something for those reasons. Welfare to Work, is a big part of that.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: 'Your Right to Die Isn’t Enough'

Source:The New Republic with an article about euthanasia.

Source:The New Democrat

Euthanasia, is a tough issue for me. We’re not just talking about suicide here, but someone getting legal help from not just someone else to kill them, but getting that help from someone whose sworn to protect life. And do whatever they can to save people who are hurt. And in many cases where their life is at risk and they can die if they don’t get the proper medical treatment.

But I’ve never said that I believe in an absolute Right to Life. Besides, my definition to Right to Life, is a bit different from let's say a devout Catholic, or Evangelical. My Right to Life is about the individual. That they’re responsible for the management of their own life and held accountable for good and bad exactly how they live their life and the impact that they make on others. My Right to Life, or belief in it, is conditional, to be blunt about it. That once a person becomes a person, meaning they’re born, they’re responsible for their own life and can live their own live anyway they choose. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

And because of this as a Liberal, I can say, you what this is your life. How you decide to live is up to you and you’re going to be held accountable for exactly how you live for good, bad an in between. Which is why I can say as a Liberal that I believe physician assisted suicide, should be an option for people who are terminally ill. Or in such bad shape that it’s just not that they’ll never recover, but they’ll be in some type of horrible pain regardless of the amount of medication that they have access for the rest of their lives. But I’m a Liberal, not a Libertarian, or an Anarchist. And I believe there also needs to be rules in place for exactly how physician assisted suicide could be carried out. To protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

One, a patient who is in real bad shape physically and suffering a lot, or not, whether they’ve essentially been given a death sentence from their doctor, or not, would need a doctor’s written consent to be put to death. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to deliver this procedure, especially if they’re against it.

Two, someone who is contemplating physician assisted suicide, needs to either facing a death sentence. Meaning they’ve been told they only have a certain amount of time to live and they’ll be in pain for the rest of their life. Or, they’re such in bad shape that they could theoretically live a natural life in years, but will be in serious pain for the rest of their life.

Three, the patient is in solid mental health and think clearly and knows exactly what they’re doing. That they’re in the best mental health that they possibly can be. So they don’t make a horrible mistake that they’ll never recover from.

Four, they’re 21, or over. Minors, should not only be able to make this decision for themselves, but not even be able to make this decision with parental consent.

Five, that the patient informs their family that they’ve decided to end their life. So they know what’s going on here with their relative. Even if they are not physically and emotionally close with that person.

Again, physician assisted suicide, should be a tough issue for anyone whose either on the fence on it, or thinks it should be an option for people. Because we are talking about ending the life of someone who hasn’t even been accused of hurting an innocent person. But for me at least as a Liberal, the Right to Life belongs to the individual. And they have that right until they lose it. And for me that even includes the right to take that life under the conditions that I’ve laid out.

The New Republic: David Dayen: 'Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley Failed Their Black Lives Matter Test'

Source:The New Republic- Governor Martin O'Malley: at Net Roots Nation in 2015.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jose Antonio Vargas interviews Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Presidential Town Hall featuring Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders."

Source:Net Roots Nation- I guess this is where Governor O'Malley, gets into trouble for saying all lives matter. 

First of all, it's great to hear a politician go to a political group and event and tell them what they don’t want to hear. Especially when they are right and knowing that it might hurt them for speaking the truth. Which is what Martin O’Malley did at Net Roots Nation when he said: “all lives matter”, instead of Black lives matter. Which is what the Far-Left wing of the party wants all Democrats to say. As if it is not obvious enough that Black lives matter. As if anyone is arguing that Black lives don’t matter. Which no offense, is a borderline brain-dead thing to say and imply. Which is one reason why people who are pushing this Black lives matter theme, are on the Far-Left. Senator Bernie Sanders, instead of saying Black lives matter, instead dodged the question and tried to get back on economics.

Again, all lives matter. And to even say that is an idea of how stupid this whole discussion is and some of the people in the whole so-called Black Lives Matter movement are acting. Instead of talking about the challenges and issues that the African-American community are facing and offering solutions to discuss them, they pull out a straw man that no one can disagree with. None of the Democrats running for president are running to be president of this American group, or that one. They’re running to be President of the United States. Which covers the whole nation, even if they win the Democratic nomination, elected President and don’t win every single vote and state in the country. They’ll still be President of the United States. And not the Caucasian President, or African President, Asian President, Latino President, or any other President of one group, or one group.

Republicans and for good reason, all the time get accused of creating wedge issues to divide the country. And try to make Democrats look like they don’t love America as much as Republicans do. And you know the issues. It was crime in the 1970s, followed by abortion, pornography, homosexuality and other issues. But the whole so-called Black Live Matter movement is doing the same thing, but from the Far-Left. And if you don’t say Black lives matter and instead say all lives matter, regardless of race, or color, they imply you don’t care about the African-American community and minorities as much as they do. Which is really stupid and also insulting. Instead of saying Black lives matter, as if people believe they don’t, they should be addressing the issues and offering solutions to those problems.