Progressive Voters League

The Supreme Court wrapped up oral arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare today. Pundits have been quick to assume that the mandate is done for. Their reasoning: the conservative justices, including moderates Roberts and Kennedy, asked a lot of tough questions.

Despite the fact that questioning is a key part of the Supreme Court justice job description, those in the know are assuming heated discourse is the death knell for Obamacare.

What exactly were these poignant questions warranting a complete media flip-flop on predictions of the ultimate ruling?

Justice Scalia asked the lawyer representing the Obama administration what was to stop the government from forcing people to buy broccoli, if they could mandate health insurance coverage. Scalia then asked, what if people end up being mandated to buy cars? Justice Alito chimed in by asking if people could be mandated to buy burial insurance, since everyone is going to die at some point.

Never mind that the health insurance market is different from any other type of product, since those who are insured must cover the costs of the uninsured, and the economic instability of this set-up was bankrupting the country under the previous system.

Is anyone else disappointed that conservatives elected to our country's highest court are sinking to the same level as conservatives who criticize gay marriage because they think it will lead to people being allowed to practice polygamy or marry their pets?

No productive legislation will ever survive in our country if our elected and appointed representatives continue to dig up far-fetched, doomsday outcomes and apply them as serious possibilities worthy of scrapping entire bills.

A few minutes of listening to Rush Limbaugh is more frustrating than an entire morning with my preschooler's playgroup. The supposed adults in the Republican party are using the "well, your guy says bad things about women tooooooo. Nahnahnah" line to try justify Limbaugh's sexually charged insults directed at Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin are even going so far as to suggest a pro-Obama super PAC should return a $1 million donation from Maher.

Has Maher made sexist comments directed at women? Yes. Are his actions as shameful as Rush's? No. 

Public figures and private figures matter. Anyone who goes into politics or punditry has a thick skin. They have to to survive. Public figures in politics have been taking verbal beatings since the beginning of history. Politicians with the resources of those whom Maher insulted, such as Sarah Palin, have platforms on which to defend themselves. Palin can go on Fox News as much as she wants to fire back at Maher, and she has. Sandra Fluke, a law student who testified before Congress in support of a cause that was important to her, cannot be compared to Sarah Palin. We could, however, compare a prominent liberal politician to Sarah Palin, and then see if Maher's statements are really that extreme and incendiary. Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? No one on the right has ever said horrible, disgusting, sexist things about them, right?

Maher = comedian, Limbaugh = commentator. Maher is famous for his raunchy standup acts. He once hosted a show that was actually titled "Politically Incorrect." He's made a name for himself in the way Howard Stern has. He's never marketed himself as a classy guy, and his only influence on the Democratic party is his personal monetary donation, which he has every right to make.  Plenty of classless men donate to both political parties. Campaign finance laws don't judge based on classiness. Limbaugh, on the other hand, markets himself as the face of the Republican party. Right-wing politicians seek his counsel. He represents the Republican party. No one has asked that anyone refuse his donations, but private companies paying for radio ads certainly have the right to discriminate based on class (or lack thereof) when deciding on which shows to advertise.

When I was a child back in the early 1990s I remember my mom telling me we weren't going to go to Pizza Hut anymore, because the company had hired a very bad man named Rush Limbaugh to be its spokesperson.

I wondered what atrocities this guy had committed to warrant a family boycott of Pizza Hut and all its deliciousness. When I asked my mom, she told me he hated women and girls. Yikes. Ten years and a lot of locally-produced pizza later, I was a young adult who still didn't know much about Rush Limbaugh, except that my mom was not a fan and he had an oxycotin addiction that was suddenly all over the headlines.

Now, as I'm pushing thirty and am a mother of a little girl, a recent news story has driven home the fact that my mother was absolutely right (don't you hate when that happens?). Rush hates women and girls. Why else would he say this about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who  testified before Congress in favor of contraception mandates:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

The criticism of Rush's conduct toward this young woman from such sources as President Obama and Limbaugh's own advertisers has done little to stop the vitriol. Despite having no knowledge of why Fluke requires birth control (it is often prescribed for medical conditions such as polycystic ovarian syndrome) or how often she has sex, Limbaugh is continuing with the personal attacks:

"I'm offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want," Limbaugh said on his radio program Thursday.

He followed this statement by insinuating that women who want contraception coverage should post pornographic videos of themselves online.

"So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," he said. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Pizza Hut booted this guy off the payroll nearly 20 years ago, due mostly to people like my mother who responded with letters, phone calls and dollars. It makes sense that Limbaugh's advertisers are again dropping like flies. If the rest of the GOP hopes to cling to a few female voters, you'd think they'd get to denouncing ASAP, but so far there's nothing but crickets from the right side of the aisle.

A $143 billion tax cut was approved yesterday by both houses of Congress, resulting in a year-long continuation of the 2 percent social security tax savings for most Americans.

President Obama has pledged to sign the legislation as soon as possible, which he has described as a measure to help average workers save approximately $20 per week, based on a $50,000 annual salary.

At the end of 2011, the extension of the payroll tax cut became a heavily debated issue. After circumventing public opinion by opposing the matter, Congressional Republicans eventually acquiesced to allowing a temporary extension. To the surprise of some who predicted they would maintain resistance, many representatives in both parties supported the extension for the remainder of 2012. Final vote counts were 293-132 in the House and 60-36 in the Senate.

In negotiating the deal, Democrats did give in to some demands from Republicans. Once the measure is signed into law, unemployment benefits will only be available for 63 to 73 weeks, instead of 99 weeks. Benefits for public sector workers will also be cut to help offset the costs.

Did Republicans finally get the memo that they need to work in tandem with the opposing party if they want anyone besides those in the far-right to vote for them?