It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. [emph mine]
Jeff Merkley, today:
Today, we have taken a long stride forward in our decades-long effort to provide affordable, accessible, quality health care to every single American. Thirty million Americans will gain access to affordable health care. Millions more will benefit from insurance reforms that end the insurance practice of rejecting citizens with pre-existing conditions and of dumping citizens off policies after they become sick or injured. And virtually every citizen will benefit from the investment in health clinics, disease prevention, and disease management.
This legislation is not all I want it to be. It does not contain a national public option to increase choice and competition. It is imperfect in many other ways as well. But this bill brings peace of mind to Americans struggling to secure affordable health care. This bill attacks runaway health care inflation. This bill establishes that in the United States of America, health care is no longer a privilege, it is a right. [emph mine]
How do you define "critical" or "essential?" How about, as the President has been madly backpedaling on all week, "must have?" If there were similar statements of decision-rule rhetoric from Senator Wyden I'd print those too--but the best he ever did was "urge" its inclusion to Reid, which he actually did. At least from that standpoint, Wyden's vote to pass this doesn't really violate any lines in the sand that he has drawn. Also, I don't have a statement from Wyden at this point.
The scene now shifts, however artificially, to the House--where 60 members including Oregon's Earl Blumenauer have said any such proposal that has no Medicare-based reimbursement for a public option, is "unacceptable." Of course, they said that before the House passed a negotiated rate bill--but surely a bill that even lacks any kind of national option is even more unacceptable, and thus finally a line that must be drawn to protect the public. Louise Slaughter and two others have made noise about seeing their committments through, but they are not exacting drawing hails of approval.
This is what many people are defending, often against their better judgement. You can blame the GOP all you like--they don't have the votes. You can blame the centrists, but they did the exact same thing progressives did, but one thing more: they didn't fold before the negotiation even began. Jane Hamsher is taking an extraordinary amount of heat for daring to suggest that even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders--who I think is awesome--should be careful about his vote, lest he find himself negatively held accountable for it. It doesn't have to be a knock on the guy's ideology or principles or good heart, to say that if he won't fight for those principles when they are needed most, you're left with pretty speeches. Heard that one before?
The change wasn't indentured health care. "The change" was no more passing craptastic bills written and designed for the plutocracy, that manifestly ignore and deride programs that are broadly popular and actually good policy. No more "getting a win" for political victories and dollars. And no more rolling over so that next election season doesn't have any hard votes. If y'all aren't going to change what you're doing, I will.
Hey, just got a little note from my friends at Organizing for America! They want you to act, and act now:
Your senators are fighting hard for health reform. Please call today, thank them for their work, and let them know we need them to keep fighting.
According to our records, you live in Oregon. Please call: Sen. Ron Wyden at 202-224-5244 Sen. Jeff Merkley at 202-224-3753 Just dial the numbers above, then tell the staffers who answer where you live -- so that they know you are a constituent -- and that you support reform.
All well and good--except there's the little problem of the bill itself, which after serial dessication by Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and--let's face it--Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, has become a rotting carcass whose primary function will be to force 30 million people to buy crappy insurance from private companies, at unaffordable rates that have been pre-guaranteed by the insurance companies to double in the next decade (and will because there are no cost containments in the bill except those designed to reduce covered benefits), with annual benefit caps and prices 3x for seniors what younger people will pay, and no substantive attempt to prevent recisision from continuing apace. Howard Dean explains why, and Darcy Burner goes into more detail.
So thank you to OFA for providing the numbers and getting me off my duff and onto my phone for a few minutes. I've called both Merkley and Wyden, expressed a firm desire to see them both vote NO on any bill looking remotely like this Liebercare monstrosity--and promised them neither will see my vote or support again if they vote to foist it on us.
And yes, I am serious. Deadly so. A yes vote on this bill, as it stands, will be a significant disaster for the Democratic Party--and I can guarantee the death knell of my support for Oregon's Senators, regardless of what other good they might do. It's that important. Please join me in telling Merkley and Wyden No, No, HELL No.
Haven't seen this come up in the OR blogosphere, although HuffingtonPost had a pretty up-front treatment of it and the Register Guard repeated the comments in a piece actually more about Ron Wyden--but while Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson discuss the new reform mashup bill to be unacceptable from the right, our own Jeff Merkley has some problems with the new deal, specifically the Medicare buy-in, from the left:
"The basic challenge for Oregon is that a program that expands Medicare using existing Medicare rates would be of very little use in our state," the senator told the Huffington Post. "And the reason why is because the reimbursement rates are so low in the state of Oregon that doctors aren't taking additional Medicare patients... They can fill their agenda and their schedules with higher-paying patients."
One of the leading young progressive voices in the party, Merkley would not discuss how the Medicare buy-in provision will ultimately affect his position on reform, saying he had to wait for more details before making up his mind. But his objections complicate the notion that Senate Democrats now stand on the doorstep of historic legislation. The Oregon Democrat said he is going to work to make sure his state and others aren't disadvantaged by the newest wave of health care reform compromises. Medicare expenditures by the federal government, he noted, are 25 percent more (per person) in California and 38 percent more (per person) in Florida than they are in Oregon.
"We must succeed in repairing this broken system. But it doesn't get repaired by creating a major program that does not help states like Oregon," Merkley said.
Merkley complained about other aspects of reform negotiations, adding that many questions remain unanswered. The senator said that he was "enormously frustrated" by the unwillingness of his party's more conservative members deal with its progressive members on a public option for insurance coverage.
Some interesting stuff in there. Let's talk about it a little, below the fold...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that the bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public health insurance option that individual states could decline to participate in.
"The public option, with an opt-out, is the one that's fair," Reid said. He said his decision was supported by the White House and by Senate Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Don't believe me? I don't blame you. But unless it's the cruelest parody video in history, here's the proof:
This hoped-for but still somewhat unexpected turn of events creates an entirely different, MUCH more positive dynamic for health care reform than just last week, when the PO-less Finance bill was still passed with full Democratic panel support. Evidently they were promised that things would improve with the merged Finance-HELP bill, but given the way things have gone with promises and deals over the years, you could forgive anyone for skepticism.
But now, assuming the House is able to follow through on its version, that is even stronger than the Senate bill, the likelihood that some form a of a real, nationally-based public option will be in the final legislation is now near 100%--and anyone who has been following this story during 2009 has to understand just how remarkable it is to be able to make that statement. The PO was dead a number of times, and it clearly did not have strong backing from the White House or the "sensible" members of the Senate. They had to be pushed to where we are now, and frankly, I'm not sure anyone can even remember the last time a legislative process was significantly pushed to the left.
One thing to note is that the version in the Senate bill will indeed include a state-based "opt-out;" that is, under some as-yet undetermined process a state could decide not to allow its residents to avail themselves of the public option in any health exchange. But as many have said, Medicaid is opt-out, too. So was the stimulus bill, and so are highway funds. The opt-out record for all three? Zero, despite much blustering and threatening otherwise.
No statement has hit my email box yet from Senator Wyden on this momentous accomplishment, but that's not necessarily meaningful. If and when something comes on, I'll append it. But Senator Merkley--who has been a very strong supporter of the PO, and helped put together the HELP Committee version of the bill that will be supplying much of the terms for the Senate configuration of it--is on the ball:
It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. States may choose to opt-out based on their individual needs and the input of their citizens, but this provision will ensure that most Americans will have the choice between private insurance or a public plan that operates on a level playing field. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue and takes us one step closer to action by the full Senate to finally pass health care reform and fix our broken system.
OK, I'm not 100% sure what to make of this video, just released by the Merkley folks, and featuring the Senator himself on camera, arguing the merits of solving the health care crisis. It's fewer than two minutes long, so give it a scan and then I'll comment:
I have to say that as it began, it seemed like a clever idea to tie the complex health care mess to the convoluted and seemingly intractable problem of a scrambled Rubik's Cube. Wow, I thought--Jeff's going to sit there and play with the cube while talking about how to fix health care! Amusing, breezy and informative!
...and then he set about working to solve it. No, not health care, the cube--he started to turn the sides around and attempt to put the colors together. OK, I thought, maybe the joke is that he'll try to solve it for a few seconds, then throw up his hands and say, "See how hard it is?" But he kept going, and it became clear that he really was trying to solve it--and of course that meant he was going to succeed, and do so in less than 2 minutes, apparently, since they wouldn't film him giving an extended try but failing.
...except then they started speeding up the videomotion, meaning that he CAN solve it, just not in two minutes. And while doing so, the three espoused tenets of fixing health care--extending access, strengthening coverage and lowering costs--are bullet-pointed on a sidebar.
...but that's pretty much all the explication there is: if you want to solve health care, just do these three things! I kept waiting for him to go into some kind of detail, but it doesn't happen. And it's not like there was no time; for several seconds after the voiceover stops, Merkley's still leaning on his desk, flipping those cube-sides at Chaplinesque speed.
And when he finishes, it's a mildly triumphant moment, but I was left with the sarcastic sense of "oh, it's just THAT easy, huh?" After watching, I'm no closer to understanding how he suggests we break the health care Rubik's Cube, or for that matter how he solved the cube itself.
I get the sense that Merkley's staffers took a cue from the truly clever (and much rarer) ability of Senator Franken to draw the United States freehand while simultaneously talking politics. Now that had wow factor! Merkley's clip is cute, and it's interesting to know he can solve a Cube. The message that we actually CAN do this if we have the requisite resolve is right on. And there's no doubt that he's carried a ton of water for serious health care reform, particularly a robust public option. So I'm not trying to be critical either of Merkley's committment to the issue, or the unconventional, lighthearted way to get his message across. I'm just not sure it's very effective, informative or value-adding. At least reference other sources where you can get some details--or offer viewers an action item, to call their representatives or to step up discussions about health care and the PO with friends and family.
Maybe next time he can describe how our daily activities are interconnected to the global environment, while completing an entire Jenga stack, as a way to advocate for the climate bill. Perhaps Merkley keeps a bunch of brain games in his office, to distract lobbyists while he gets actual work done?
It's an extreme rarity when Oregon's entire Congressional delegation finds a way to vote in unison on any bill that's not blandly symbolic, splashily ceremonial or a blatant pander to a constituency no one dislikes. Obviously in this hyperpartisan age, it's a foregone conclusion that they won't all vote the same way, as long as there's an Eastern Oregon Republican thrown into the mix with our six Democratic representatives. But even with the Ds, and even just the House Dems, somebody dissents from the group for one reason or another from time to time.
Not yesterday. In a capitulation to the GOP fringe notable even in this Season of Caving for its speed and sense of political repulsion, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed bills banning any federal funding for the non-profit community group ACORN. In the House just 75 Members stood up to defend the truly massive sums being doled out (about $3.5 million per year--million with an M), and in the upper chamber there were only seven votes opposed to the funds cutoff. Naturally, all 82 legislators were Democrats; if there's one group that knows how to fall in the line with the bell rings, it's the Congressional GOP.
But in one of the more shameful, cowardly, politically-eskeert votes I can recall, not a single one of those 82 lawmakers were Oregonians:
Earl Blumenauer? Fuck you, ACORN.
Peter DeFazio? Suck it--I might run for Goobernor!
David Wu? I may be from a minority community, but it's the overachieving one
Kurt Schrader? Don't look at me--I'm the new guy!
Ron Wyden? I couldn't--what would Chuck Grassley say?
Jeff Merkley? File this turkey with his Yea allowing loaded guns in parks.
Greg Walden? Well, natch. You get a pass as a lost cause...
Well, now wait--why is this such a bad vote? Isn't ACORN that group that commiitted massive voter fraud, getting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to vote for Obama last election? Don't they tell people in child prostitution rings how to evade the law? Aren't they just some nefarious underground cabal of Chicago style "community organizers?"
Below the fold, I'll let Glenn Greenwald lay it out for you.
The rubber is beginning to really hit the road when it comes to health care in Congress; recess is over and the Baucus Caucus finally came out with a bill to mark up. It appears the rest of the Finance Committee--including our own Senator Wyden--either want to mark it with a bunch of changes (Democrats) or with a big red F (Republicans, even Olympia Snowe).
Both of our Senators have elucidated serious issues with the Finance bill, not quite as directly as Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia--who essentially declared it a dead letter and ripped the "co-op" compromise to shreds in a letter to the Gang of Six--but by attacking what the Baucus Suckus plan lacks. And for each Senator the complaint is different.
Jeff Merkley, for his part, continues to be one of the more repetitively vocal members of the chamber when it comes to support for a robust public option. His insistence has not wavered throughout a long summer of angst-ridden tea-leaf reading over whether the PO would survive the deliberative process. His refusal to sit quietly on the back bench and let the seasoned pros handle things is enormously welcome, and a big poke in the ribs to doubters (like me) who thought the key word for Merkley's first term would be "languid" rather than "loud and liberal."
Yesterday he took his advocacy to the airwaves, hitting not only The Ed Show, but also CNBC. Here's the latter clip, first:
And now, chatting with Ed Schulz:
If you like, you may consider my relegation of Senator Wyden's media efforts below the fold as some kind of "punishment" or commentary on his behavior on the health care issue. That doesn't mean it would be true (but it doesn't mean it would be false, either). What it definitely means in part, at least, is that with two vid clips, the top of the fold is already pretty big....
It's tough to maintain the proper amount of mojo in order to keep up a political blog like this one--at least, it has been for me since at least the November elections. I got heavily involved in politics when Bush was "elected" in 2000, and got particularly engrossed in 2004 when Chimpy was again put into the Oval Office. I felt like I had to do something, to try and effect change and get better representation at the federal level. Well, that's happened for the most part, and sadly many of us have discovered that's not enough (or at least not for the current crowd of pathetic sheep and cowards we've elected on the Democratic side for the most part).
That post-elation disappointment and ennui persists with me today, but sometimes you get a little boost from unexpected quarters--like the Washington Spectator, an indy-insider rag in the capital which I have actually not perused before, despite being around for the last 35 years. My initial impression of them is wildly favorable, given this as my introduction (via a reprint at Senator Jeff Merkley's home page):
The Huffington Post got it right. Sort of. “Senator Calls Out Frank Luntz from the SenateFloor” read a June 10 headline on the national Internet news site. Huffington Post’s political reporter Sam Stein had seized on a short speech that Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley made on the Senate floor, attacking veteran Republican consultant Frank Luntz for circulating twenty-five pages of talking points to be used against any health care legislation the Democrats might offer up.
If the Huffington Post was close, the more obscure Loaded Orygun was spot on. The regional Internet site that “delivers the straight scoop on news, politics and other cool happenings around the state of Oregon” focused on what editors call the “so what” of a story: a senator with four months of seniority had stepped up to the lectern in the Senate chamber and attacked the minority leader who had been a member of the club for twenty-five years. And pulled no punches.
Loaded Orygun blogger “Torridjoe” was so taken with Merkley’s three-minute speech that he apologized for his earlier lack of enthusiasm. “The word ‘milquetoast’ got a lot of use on Merkley, by me as much as anyone,” Torridjoe wrote.
“So, so wrong.”
He went on to praise Merkley for “a devastating critique of both Frank Luntz for offering health reform-killing talking points designed to scare … and the Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, for taking the points and running with them.” [emph mine]
As I type this piece, I realize there may be a certain stench of self-congratulation at work, but there are a couple of reasons I'm bringing it up besides shameless aggrandizement. First of all, to have any established media source not only reference, but cite and quote "an obscure regional blog" like LO is rare indeed. Shoot, half the time when a blog as influential as DailyKos or FireDogLake comes up with original material, they don't get proper mention. So at the top of my talking points is a big thumbs up to the Spectator for a) researching their subject, b) utilizing nontraditional, local sources, and c) actually crediting those sources for their efforts.
The other main reason I bring it up is the amusing irony of WHICH LO post about Merkley ended up getting cited--the one where I most emphatically admit my error in thinking Merkley would be a silent, soft pillow on the backbench of the Senate. It's not clear whether the author is aware of my strong advocacy for Steve Novick (although he does reference and IMO accurately characterize the primary in the article), or whether it simply struck him that a homestate observer who had previously thought Merkley was a milquetoast, had changed his tune after this. Regardless, after all of the negative ink I've spilled on Merkley in the past--much of which I still stand by as a proper reflection of the time--it's funny to me that the one time my writing about Merkley gets noticed, it's for my mea culpa.
And--yeah, OK--the whole piece is a pretty good feature on Merkley, noting approvingly the Senator's push for a strong public option. So you have my permission to read the whole thing, not just the parts that mention me. It's nice to be noticed, nicer still to be noticed for being right. Maybe this will stanch the ennui for a couple of weeks...
In this topsy turvy world I find myself in, where I've spent the last couple of months holding Senator Wyden's feet to the fire on health care while repeatedly praising my weak 2nd choice of 2008, Jeff Merkley, here's another round: while Barack Obama and Harry Reid try to hint Wyden into dumping his Health Americans Act, Merkley is back from recess with a renewed committment to substantive reform, and wants you to know about it. So in full, Merkley's statement (and note once more his strong advocacy for a full and robust public option, which I call FRPO):
At the beginning of July, I held town hall meetings in Umatilla, Polk, Clackamas, Linn, Marion, and Multnomah Counties. At each meeting, the most prominent issue of concern was health care.
People of all walks of life are paying dramatically more for health care than they used to. These high costs are hurting our families and our small businesses. Last year, we spent 17 percent of our gross domestic product on health care; in the last nine years, costs have doubled for the average family. In May, Oregon’s largest insurer announced that the average small business premium was going up 14.7 percent -- on top of a 26 percent increase last year. Health care costs are an increasing drag on our economy and the pocketbooks of working families.
In my role on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, I’ve been working with my colleagues on a plan for health care reform that will lower costs, provide consumers with more choices, and increase competition.
The change would work like this: Americans who are happy with their current health plan can keep it. But if you don’t like your plan and you want to look at other options, we’re going to make sure you have a choice of quality, affordable health plans. This will lower costs and it will also force insurance companies to provide better services to their customers.
One of those options will be a community health insurance plan offered by the federal government. This public option will be an additional choice to increase competition, lower prices, and keep insurance companies honest, so families won’t be entirely at the mercy of the insurance companies. Most Oregonians I’ve talked to – and about three-quarters of Americans according to the polls – like the idea of having a choice of what type of plan they want rather than having the federal government make that decision for them.
Over the next few months, we’ll be engaging in a nationwide discussion about the direction of health care in our country. We’ll have before us a choice between a system that gets more and more expensive every year, leaves middle class families one pink slip from losing their health coverage, and makes our businesses less competitive, or an improved model that increases health care options, expands care, and lowers costs. I don’t think we can afford to do nothing.
We have a once in a generation opportunity to remake our health care system for the better. I invite you to contact my office and talk to your friends and family about your opinion because we can only enact real change if you make your voices heard.
Two interesting and potentially game-changing happenings went down yesterday, both of which would seem to be positives for the drive to see a full and robust public option (FRPO) included in any health care reform bill that passes Congress. Plus I've got news of a demonstration in Portland that goes even beyond that, and continues to press for action on a single-payer plan.
First, the President made front page news in The Oregonian this morning, by commenting at some length on the health care bill being carried by Senator Ron Wyden. Obama was as usual polite and mostly glancing in his criticisms, but he was indeed critical of the plan:
"There are a lot of good concepts to what Ron's proposing," Obama said. But despite his professed agreement with "90 percent" of Wyden's thinking, he said parts of the plan are too "radical" for the country.
Wyden argues that linking health care costs to individuals will promote competition and drive down costs. But Obama said that is too sharp a departure from what workers have known -- and become comfortable with -- for generations.
That fundamental shift, along with the major changes in the tax code that Wyden proposes, are too "radical," Obama said, when aligned with all the other changes that must take place to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans who don't have it.
The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system."
A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."
Oregon does have one Senator who's willing to come out and stake his claim for a full and robust public option (FRPO)--junior Senator Jeff Merkley. In this video recorded today at Pioneer Square outside KGW's new studios there, Merkley affirms his support for a public option, one that competes directly with private insurance and cuts costs using Medicare-style bargaining rules with providers. He also takes time to parry some of the built-in skepticism of his interviewer, who seems awfully concerned for the health of private insurers (as opposed to say, the insured or those who would like to be). Watch the video, below:
Here's where Dr. Howard Dean, former head of the DNC, stands on health care reform. Keyword? Robust:
Here's what it boils down to, according to the physician and former governor:
If Barack Obama's healthcare plan gets changed to exclude a public option like Medicare, then it is not healthcare reform. Legislation rises and falls on whether the American public is allowed to choose a universally available public option or not.
Dr. Dean's outstanding progressive group Democracy For America wants you to Stand with Dr. Dean, and demand real reform from your representatives--reform that includes a robust, national public option, because as the good doctor says, without that it won't BE reform. Sign the petition, and then because you're good, active Oregonians, please email (not call, we want it in writing!) our Senators and ask them these specific questions:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
Why is this important? Because they're tallying up the responses nationwide, in order to get a clearer picture of just who does and doesn't support true reform in Congress. OpenLeft is leading the charge (and their article is worth its own read for the updates on secretly meeting "centrists" and Blue Dogs looking to cut the meat out of reform), and the 50 State Progressive Blog Network--Loaded Orygun being Oregon's representative--is doing the local legwork.
As you can tell from the tally board at Stand With Dr. Dean, all of Oregon's Democratic House Members are considered to be on the train to real reform, as is Senator Merkley. The "unknowns" are Greg Walden--who let's face it, probably is a No--and Senator Ron Wyden. If you've been reading LO lately you know that Wyden's been all over the map on the issue, claiming support for a public option but being coy about the terms he'd support and whether he'd fight to keep his own, option-less plan ahead of any bill with one. So really, the big key for Oregonians is to get a clear statement of principle from Senator Wyden on the issue.
I'll make a formal email request of the Senator's staff myself, but there is strength in numbers, and they deserve to know how important the true character of reform is to their constituency. So please please please make your own inquiry--and then report back here in comments with whatever answer you get. BE POLITE! As much as I find myself disagreeing with his positions on this issue currently, Ron Wyden is NOT THE ENEMY. Be respectful and give him the opportunity to explain himself to you, as he should be duty bound to offer.
Sen Ron WydenD OR Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know Contact information: Phone: 202-224-5244 | Fax: 202-228-2717
We'll start with the disclaimer: Jeff Merkley has a long way to go with me, albeit due to lack of experience rather than adverse evidence so far, before I can offer a fully positive assessment. But it has to be said that nearly anyone who was a strong Steve Novick supporter in the primary, felt that way at least in part because of Novick's perceived superiority in calling a spade a spade, being unafraid of toe-treading, and cutting sharply through the partisan crap that most Democrats tend to shuck and apologize for when attacked with it. The word "milquetoast" got a lot of use on Merkley, by me as much as anyone, to make the negative comparison with Novick.
So, so wrong. Look, we all know whoever it was, the guy was going to be 95th+ in line among the clubby clubbers of the US Senate, not exactly Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer down at the gym (although Jeff's got a nice in with Chuck, obviously). The role, at least for this session and maybe another couple, was to represent populist Oregon in the broadest sense, and to be frankly loud about it.
Watch this video and honestly ask yourself, Novick lovers: could you possibly have asked for more from Steve here than what Merkley gives you for his floor time? Not only is he raising his voice and getting all uppity--we already knew he could get excited at odd times--he's doing it with a devastating critique of both Frank Luntz for offering health reform-killing talking points designed to scare...and the Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, for taking the points and running with them:
This is the perfect note to sound, and while HuffPost (h/t) focuses on him calling out Luntz, I think it takes more balls to directly point to McConnell and literally call him "irresponsible"--and imply that McConnell's entire rhetoric on the issue is dictated and dishonest. Which of course it is, but to have that (nearly) said, by a freshman from a small state? You GOTTA love that. And wouldn't it be great to have ALL likeminded Democratic Senators repeating these talking points over the next few weeks?
Opponents of reform are just that--interested in killing it
They will use fear-based language to try and kill it
They will not engage substantively
This is basically the case that should be made for reconciliation, and against the preposterous "70-vote" way espoused by Merkley's senior partner. Here's hoping Merkley and other reform-committed Congresspeople keep making it.
What? Me pimping Jeff Merkley's efforts to gain financial regulatory reform in a number of areas, TWICE in one week? Unbelievable. Must be because the guy's one of the very few in the whole Senate who is continuing to press populist themes amongst the various financial-sector issues crying out for re-address. Here's a turn Merkley took on Fox Business News, the slightly less blatantly nutty of the Fox stable. Note how the talking head repeatedly presses Merkley on the idea of "telling companies how to run their business:"
Nice job, although I only wish Merkley had responded to the baiting with something to the effect of, "Yes, we'd like to tell the credit card companies how to run their business--because without our help, their inclination, apparently like all financial institutions, is otherwise to take as much as they can, as fast as they can. And, Ms. Talking Head, I wonder if you'd be sitting there if the US government hadn't 'told TV networks how to run their business,' when they declared that discriminating against women in the workplace was illegal."
"President Obama is absolutely correct to end the tax subsidies for companies that ship jobs overseas," said Merkley's spokeswoman, Julie Edwards. "It is simply wrong that multinational corporations can avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes by shifting profits from one foreign operation to another. For too long, these companies have been allowed to shirk their tax responsibilities by keeping their funds offshore, while at the same time claiming huge income tax deductions on those overseas operations."
I was right during the 08 campaign, that the general timidity of the body was calling out for a bit of a bomb thrower, someone to keep sticking the rational desires of regular Americans into the craws of the elite-protectorate that currently dominates the Senate. What I was apparently wrong about, was Jeff Merkley's ability to be that thrower. For a freshman, he's doing a fine job rousing the rabble. I look forward to repetition and continuation!
In a not entirely unexpected development, the Senate today told struggling homeowners to fuck off, refusing to back what's known as "cramdown legislation," allowing homeowners the opportunity to renegotiate their residence mortgages. If it seems like that's what we did for the banks, but are blocking for regular Americans, give yourself a star. Don't you wish you had a well-paid lobbyist to shower money on Senators GOP and Democrat alike, filling their heads with talking points? Yeah, me too.
I mention this to reflect my personal frustration with the ongoing timidity and balllessness of the US Senate, which apparently still hasn't received a copy of the 2008 election results in its members' mailboxes.
Sen. Durbin's bill got just 45 votes--not even a majority, much less the perennially "needed" 60--and featured 12 Democratic Senators voting with their campaign accounts rather than their brains. Why else would any sane politician vote against something so obviously logical and popular? Perhaps if the outcome had been forseen to be closer, some of these turncoats would have gone with the team, but this is one issue that should have easily resonated and sustained whatever nonsense the GOP threw at them in an actual filibuster.
Thankfully our two Senators were both on the side of angels, and in particular Jeff Merkley has been pushing for this bill on a number of occasions--for good reason; Oregon is one of the harder hit states. Here's what he said about it last week:
Senator Durbin has been at the forefront of the fight to put together legislation that will stem the rapidly rising foreclosure rate. Congress has an obligation to come together quickly and take action to help families stay in their homes and should take up Senator Durbin’s bill [this] week.”
Foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2009 jumped 24 percent over a year earlier and 9 percent compared to the last quarter of 2008, according to RealtyTrac. The number of households that received a foreclosure filing in March was more than 12 percent higher than the next highest month on record.
Oregon has been hit especially hard by increased foreclosures. One in every 446 Oregon housing units received a foreclosure filing during the month of February, the ninth highest state foreclosure rate in the nation. Deschutes County reported the highest county foreclosure rate in the state for February at 2.6 times the national average, with one in every 167 housing units receiving a foreclosure filing.
A reader reminded me that there is now polling out on our new President and Senator in Oregon to go with regular updates on our current Upper Houser and Goobernor. I'm glad he reminded me, because they've been out for almost three weeks now--and while I'm not denying any existed, I sure can't find any mention of the results as published by Survey USA on March 27th.
Regular LO readers will recognize the formats; they're the same questions repeated generally every month for the Governor and Senate offices in the state, as well as the President. They're not very good for embedding, because the crosstabs are long and the simple pie chart is not interesting. But I'll link them, and you can peruse them to your heart's content.
We'll start with President Obama, who won handily with 57% of the vote in Oregon, not shabby but not among his best states, either (Washington gave him 58% for instance). We'll call his support solid, at least in late March: he currently has a 62% job approval rating, with just 31% dissenting. Two thirds of women approve, as do two thirds of young voters.
Even Republicans in Oregon are relatively hip to Obama; he has a 30% approval rating with self-identified GOPers. Indies are favorable at 56%, but are notably warier than Democrats. Liberals in particular are ga-ga, 97% approve. (As a fairly left liberal I'd have to say boiled into a single answer I'd respond with "approve" as well, but I feel definite sympathy with the 2%--especially on the handling of Wall Street and Bush torture.) Moderates approve at a 65% clip, and his appeal is essentially the same whether you answered in Portland or anywhere else in the state.
So the honeymoon's still on in Oregon for BO; he won the state easily and has retained some new admirers it seems. In the face of a severe state recession it will be interesting to see how long that approval lasts at 60%+ levels.
Senator Jeff Merkley, joined by fellow Oregon Senator Ron Wyden and also left-of-center Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, sent a letter to Secretary Geithner Tuesday, calling for assistance from Europe in the current economic crisis, ahead of the G-20 economic summit meeting.
I don't suppose there's much wrong with that per se; it is after all a global crisis that will require international cooperation. Everybody has their own troubles politically, sure, but as the President has made clear personally to Europe, there is a desire and an expectation that they will spend a little more and spur some investment. So far the response has been tepid, but it's the right thing to ask.
That's not actually what Wyden, Merkley and Brown are asking Geithner to call for, however--and I was surprised to see what it was:
We...ask that at the upcoming meeting of the G-20, you make every effort to secure the relevant international participation in any and all efforts ultimately pursued by the U.S. government to recoup the AIG bonuses. Moreover, we strongly encourage you to secure commitments from your foreign counterparts that their governments will participate in U.S.-led financial institution bailouts where monies will flow to companies or persons in their jurisdictions.
Wow. Did they just ask Geithner to tell Europe they need to cough up more dough--not to stimulate their own economies, but to bail out ours? And they're basically asking foreign governments to tailor their judicial systems towards ours and somehow force their nationals to give back bonuses that Congress already approved--which is usually a big diplomatic no-no.
Am I the only one who thinks this shows rather a bit of chutzpah? Is it really fair to say that a number of foreign executives are responsible for the bringdown of the economic system--as opposed to the system that everyone winked at that they merely profited handsomely from? Obviously they're not heroes, but it's kind of like blaming a Roman centurion for Caesar's brutality.
I hate to say it, but for me this recalls Bush mired hopelessly in the disaster called his Iraq policy, still brusquely pushing allies for assistance in money and personnel--as if he had the slightest bit of credibility and good will to expend to get that generosity extended.
Presumably the Obama administration has a deep well of good faith to start with, but even if there's a solid reason they should be somewhat responsible, I really hate the optics involved in telling Europe they should help fix the fuckup that we created, and which is making their own economies harder to manage. Perhaps a note to Secretary Geithner asking him to tell Europe "Sorry, we're working on it, and you could help by doing what we do to get moving again" would be more appropriate under the circumstances?
The bill has passed! Yay! So has the Ensign Amendment, which basically repeals DC's tough gun control laws. Boooo. The Democrats basically sold out DC on that one in order to get them a House Member. One imagines they will try to have it removed in conference when it passes the House, but that's the GOP's one lever left before any court challenges...and with so many Dems on board, it may take the new House Member him/herself to get it fixed in 2011...
The call has gone out for contacting Senators regarding a particularly virulent poison pill by archconservative John Ensign, regarding gun control in DC, always a rallying topic for Republicans. Note that both our Senators are likely to vote down the amendment, but a call couldn't hurt--and if you'd like to try advocating to other Senators, not a bad idea either:
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has added a gun amendment to the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160). The amendment is flawed, dangerous and unnecessary. One minute of your time could make the critical difference between a "yes" and "no" vote on the Senate floor!
Call toll-free 1.888.999.6775 TODAY, Thursday, February 26
You will be transferred to your senators' offices. Tell them you are a constituent who wants the senator to vote NO on the gun amendment DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 160).
----
About a year or so ago, the young and energetic folks at DC Vote dropped me an email and asked to meet with me. "Huh?" I thought. First, why is DC Vote coming to Oregon, and secondly why are they calling me? Sure I lived in the shadow of DC for over 20 years and the whole taxation-without-representation thing has been a burr in my saddle of political morality for a long time...but what did LO and Oregon have to do with it?
The answer: Gordon Smith. Along with 40+ of his Republican Senate friends, he had consistently blocked passage of any bill to give DC residents Congressional representation. The current effort plans to give DC one House Member, balanced with one extra seat in Utah--which strongly believed it got jobbed out of an extra electoral vote (and thus House seat) in the 2000 apportionment. Note that this clever balancing act got the powerful Orrin Hatch on board, but it wasn't enough--and even if it had passed, would President Bush have signed it?
So DC Vote was coming to me to highlight yet another issue where Smith was not exactly supporting the efforts of greater democracy and fairness. They were pretty close, just a few votes away--and defeating people like Smith was the best path to victory. I liked their approach, definitely agreed with their thesis--so I did them the solid and wrote it up as one more reason to get rid of Gordon.
Fast forward to the 111th Congress, now newly decorated with additional Democrats--including Jeff Merkley, replacement for the aforementioned obstructionist Smith. And the results for the District? The bill is on the floor this week, working its way through various poison-pill amendments, and appears scheduled for a cloture vote today. It's already passed one such vote with 62 Senators, so prospects look optimistic.
One of those 62 votes, you may correctly guess, was cast by Junior Senator Merkley (one of the others was cast by Wyden, a consistent supporter of the bill). As his office told me:
For far too long, the residents of the District of Columbia have not had full representation in our government. The Senate took a huge step today towards rectifying that situation and I’m honored to have played a small part in bringing equal treatment to DC.
The DC Vote people had their own thanks and kudos:
We really appreciate SenatorMerkley’s support for the DC House Voting Rights Act. He and his colleagues in the new 111th Congress have really stepped up to the plate on this issue. Thanks to their “yes” votes on cloture, we’re a huge step closer towards full democracy for DC residents. Sen. Merkley voiced his support for the issue when DC Vote staffers were out in Oregon last spring and we’re thankful to him for his continued support now that he’s a member of the Senate.
Elections matter. No really, they do. Congratulations to both Oregon Senators for championing representation for ALL American citizens.
The mind reels at the possibilities. Here's the staged picture of Lord Voldemort Vice-President Cheney shaking Sen-Elect Merkley's hand as part of his swearing-in ceremony:
Think Joe Lieberman's direct attacks on Democrats and the Democratic Party were specifically limited to President-Elect Obama? Well, we know there were also kind things said about Republican Senators Norm Coleman and Susan Collins, but now via WaPo comes more info about who ELSE Joe was working to get elected in 2008. And there's another layer of quotes and reportage indicating that despite all this (although WaPo reports Merkley was unaware of the donation to Smith at the time), Oregon's newest Senator actually voted to reward Lieberman. Here's how it went:
Having ridden the wave of support for President-elect Barack Obama, Udall and Merkley spoke out in favor of the spirit of reconciliation and moving on from the campaign, in which Lieberman was one of the highest profile supporters of the Republican presidential ticket.
But no one in the room knew, as Merkley spoke, that Lieberman had supported Merkley's opponent, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
...not even Merkley knew of Lieberman's backing of Smith in their critical Senate race, until Capitol Briefing alerted his staff today.
"We were surprised to hear this news, but it's time to put the election behind us. Jeff Merkley is looking forward to working with all his new colleagues on an agenda that will put our nation back on track," said Julie Edwards, spokeswoman for Merkley.
As WaPo points out, Smith maintained a money edge throughout the election campaign, and lost by over 50,000 votes--so that wasn't exactly money well spent. (And you have to wonder, how many people or groups who contributed to Joe's Wallet for Weasels would appreciate the idea that their money was going to people like Smith and NY's even more odious Rep. Peter Kin?)
But it illuminates the situation perfectly: if Lieberman had his way, there would have been one fewer Senator (at least) deciding his fate in caucus last week. Beyond the implications for the the Party, the senior Congressional circuit and in fact the country, Oregonians now must mull over the idea that Holy Joe actively sought to saddle us with Gordon Smith for another six years. Ready to kick him in the jewels yet?
Apparently Merkley still isn't, as the quote above implies--but another quote offered by spokeswoman Julia Edwards hints yet again at the likelihood that after all the outrage and bluster expended in his speech, he went ahead and voted to retain Holy Joe anyway:
Edwards...has said that Merkley also expressed how much Lieberman's actions in the presidential race angered him. He did not encourage other Democrats to vote one way or the other, but did talk about moving on from the bitter fights of the campaign. [emph mine]
It seems awfully disingenuous to suggest that talk of "moving on" isn't some form of encouragement to the other Senators to allow Lieberman to retain his chair, but it also constitutes a confirmation that indeed during the caucus--not just afterwards, but before the decision had been made--Merkley in the end essentially spoke in favor of retaining him. As you may recall, both AP and Politico asserted that Merkley did not oppose him, with AP explicitly correcting the record to state it, with Politico claiming he spoke in favor but then removing his name from a group of other Lieberman supporters who spoke on his behalf.
And so despite attempts by supporters to claim that Merkley was speaking of moving on after the caucus, or that he was simply quoting Harry Reid's desire to do so, his office explicitly confirms that Merkley indeed did offer statements within caucus that should be construed as positive regarding Lieberman's fate.
As a final aside, late last week Sen Brown of Ohio revealed that he is the fourth known Senator to vote against retaining Lieberman. joining Sens. Sanders, Leahy and Boxer. While there may have been some pledge agreement uttered in caucus, it's clearly broken now, and no real rationale exists for Merkley to keep his vote private from the rest of us--unless he voted to keep him and doesn't want to blow the impression that he actually voted against.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
