A Look At Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Duplicity
She has supported appointing right-wing judges to federal courts. She supported a bill to strengthen the government’s wiretapping powers (FISA). She has opposed the Employee Free Choice Act. And now, she has expressed her pessimism towards President Obama’s healthcare plan. How much more duplicity shall we expect from Dianne Feinstein in years to come?
As the US Senator turns 76 years-old on Monday, many Democrats continue to ponder about Feinstein’s many contradictions. How can someone with such an open-mind towards gay rights and a love for the environment can also be so vehemently pro-business? She has been criticized as being the new Joe Lieberman – the type of Democrat that stands staunchly next to conservative Republicans as they cast their vote against the interest of the American people.
Healthcare advocates believe that Obama’s healthcare plan will benefit millions of uninsured Americans and bring much needed relief to people struggling to pay health insurance premiums. But fear-mongering by right-wingers may be working as they continue to say that this legislation will leave the country with a monumental amount of debt that will never go. Now, instead of having all Democrats united behind the president, we see Feinstein, once again, siding with the business interests.
She made this clear on Sunday when she told CNN that the president may not have “enough votes” for his healthcare reform bill and that due to California’s current budget deficit she can’t see herself voting for the bill because it would affect the hospitals in the Gold-less State.
Feinstein’s quote on CNN:
“We have an enormous health care industry, 350 hospitals. University of California alone has 34,000 health care workers, has health care worth $4 billion a year. So it’s complicated. Additionally, the state is in a state of financial catastrophe. I think that’s clear. So, if you change the Medicaid rate, for example, it has an impact on California between $1 billion and $5 billion a year. Now, how could I support that? Because it would take down the state.”
Feinstein expressed her preoccupation for the hospital industry, but she offered no words of consolation for the patients who get stuck with medical bills. Labor groups have faced a similar situation with Feinstein’s wishy-washy position on EFCA. She will vote for the bill as long as employers are protected.
Ironically, Feinstein is where she is today after the death of a pro-union and very progressive politician, Harvey Milk. The murder of the first openly gay politician, a man who fought for the people, changed Feinstein’s destiny on November 27, 1978. Rumor has it that she was going to resign that morning, but instead she became the new acting mayor after George Moscone was also killed in the hands of the contradicted, Dan White.
So perhaps, we should ask Mrs. Feinstein: “How would Harvey Milk vote on EFCA?” And, “how he would vote on the healthcare reform bill?” Would you, Senator, be able to side with Milk? Would you?
You can visit Dianne Feinstein’s contact page and give her a piece of your mind.