Evoking a famous Seinfeld episode, today Congressman Earl Blumenauer has posted an open letter to his House colleagues via HuffPost and Kos, essentially telling them "No soup for you!" if they persist in attempting to delay health care reform for no other reason than to see it killed:
Senators who are filibustering and throwing sand in the gears to delay health care reform desperately need a reality check. It is ironic to me that members of Congress enjoy some of the best health insurance in the world through our government-administered health care, and yet so many are working overtime to deny quality care to Americans - using scare tactics to claim the "government is going to take over their health care."
Well, for those Representatives and Senators who are so terrified of a government take-over, I say to them NO access to government run programs for you.
Members of Congress should not have access to taxpayer-funded healthcare when they are actively denying these very people quality care of their own.
So for the 150 members of Congress who qualify for Medicare, a single-payer government insurance plan, you get no access. For all members who are eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, no more. And no more access to the attending physician in the Capitol, either. Not until we pass the health insurance reform that millions of Americans so urgently need.
All I can say is, A-Freaking-Men. There's nothing more frustrating than watching or listening to (typically) some Republican claiming that the taxpayer can't afford public health care, or that government care is so poor or fundamentally evil--at the same time they are getting their own health care from the government, at little to no personal cost. Whether it's health care or pay raises or tax deductions, these "For me but not for thee" hypocrisies are one of the clearest illuminations of where their hearts truly lie when it comes to public service: dedicated to beating primarily for themselves, their cronies and their better-heeled contributors.
So it's high time someone called them out on it, and while it has certainly been brought up before in other venues, an actual Act before Congress is the most direct put-up-or-shut-up way to express it. Call up Greg Walden and ask his staff: does he receive health care through the federal government in some fashion? If so, why does he believe he's entitled to suck off the public tit, but it's wrong to give that opportunity to non-Waldens?
In the Senate there's something similar that has cropped up, ironically produced by two of the more egregious delaymongers as a way to highlight Senators' true reticence to admitting their double standard:
Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are preparing an amendment to force members of Congress into any public option health plan that becomes law, frustrating at least one Senate Democrat who wants to join the effort.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said he is trying to co-sponsor the amendment - but that Coburn and Vitter won't let him. Coburn and Vitter are planning to offer the amendment during the Senate floor debate on healthcare reform.
This got resolved earlier today, when Brown asked for unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor. Either somebody in the GOP forgot to object, or they decided not to press matters. That's opened the door for Senators Dodd and Mikulski to join them; every member of the public option caucus--which is still likely a majority of Senators--should sign on and make an issue of Vitter/Coburn's attempt to be cute and difficult.
That's sort of a different angle on things; it uses the public option as a threat, whereby if it's included it will force Members of Congress to change their health care plans. That obviously goes against President Obama's prescription that if you like the care you have, you should be able to keep it. Vitter and Coburn confuse availing oneself of the OPTION to receive public care, with compulsory enrollment (something the insurance industry wants more than anything else--individual insurance mandates).
Blumenauer's bill is much more direct and logically grounded; it simply asks for consistency: if you think government health care is such a disaster, stop perpetuating it by taking advantage of the care you're currently being offered--care that you are simultaneously denying to Americans who are literally DYING for want of it. If it's so bad and destructive for us, it must be bad for them too. We're just thinking of you, Congresspeople! (Hey, maybe I'm not sincere when I say that, but you should be used to baldfaced insincerity by now).
We can all blame Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer for giving Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin and the rest of the lunatic wing of the Republican Party their fodder for the biggest and most absurd summer episode surrounding health care reform: "death panels." Were it not for his totally wrong-headed and foolhardy notion to improve the quality of care for millions of Americans as part of the reform bill, the phrase might never have entered the political lexicon as it has.
Obviously I've got tongue in cheek to "blame" Earl for any of the subsequent madness that highlighted just how deep the crazy runs in parts of the GOP right now, and how poorly the media handled the entire episode, but the man himself offers a somewhat lighthearted up-fessing in Sunday's New York Times--perhaps an ironic display of column-inch gratitude via pillory, for Blumenauer indeed finds fault within:
The news media was a particular culprit in this drama. This was not just Fox News; seemingly all the national news organizations monitored any meetings they could find between lawmakers and constituents, looking for flare-ups, for YouTube moments. The meetings that involved thoughtful exchanges or even support for the proposals would never find their way on air; coverage was given only to the most outrageous behavior, furthering distorting the true picture.
My office quickly produced testimonials from 300 respected professionals and organizations to set the record straight. Articles followed about how Republicans themselves had supported such provisions. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org as well as national organizations like the AARP pushed back on the lies.
It didn’t matter. The “death panel” episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel.
I think there are some key points to highlight here that Blumenauer is savvy to catch: We all know that the media will gravitate towards controversy and conflict, but it is impossible for them to simultaneously blanket coverage with discussion of a false concept like death panels... and also try to weakly correct the record on the facts. Furthermore, it's not about Fox News specifically, although they're a prime and most ethically liberated example--all of the networks and cable news outlets operate in the same fashion.
Blumenauer also directs specific criticism at specific other Members of Congress, which seems rare in a non-campaign context:
There was a troubling new dynamic: People like Senator Chuck Grassley, a Iowa Republican, were now parroting these falsehoods in their town meetings and letting it drive their policy decisions. (Mr. Grassley: “We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on Grandma.”) When the most extreme elements peddling false information can cow senior members of Congress into embracing their claims, it does not bode well for either policymaking or for the Republican Party.
ON Sept. 9, President Obama spoke about the health care reform plan to Congress. Although his speech was more thoughtful and less partisan than much of what I’ve seen from presidents in my years in Congress, it was greeted by the call of “You lie!” from a backbencher from South Carolina, Joe Wilson. The accusation came as President Obama was attempting to debunk the many myths about the health care bill; Mr. Wilson’s outburst was the culmination of the summer’s frenzy, of everything that my end-of-life provisions had unwittingly set in motion.
The resulting support from the right wing and the inability of Republican leadership to acknowledge Mr. Wilson’s behavior as crude, unprecedented and inappropriate is telling. The Republican Party has been taken captive by these tactics, the extremists and their own rhetoric.
Joe Wilson's an easy target and he's also in the same chamber as Blumenauer, so there's probably little risk in calling him out. Grassley is another matter, and while I have no problem with the direct aim taken at the way the Senator has conducted his official business, it's a direct challenge from one legislator to another that essentially says: this guy lied like a rug about my amendment.
And yet even so, the phrasing is curious: extreme elements of the party "cowed" Grassley into peddling fearmongering bullshit about HCR, as if he were a hungry bird. So too is Earl's conclusion oddly hopeful in the face of all past experience--even that ruefully detailed in this account: maybe somehow after all this Congress can still come together, and we can take care of the nation's problems as a united government. Ha! In a piece that might be subtitled, "Sorry for thinking the wackjob right wasn't capable of demonizing my harmless amendment," you wonder if he's actually learned the lesson.
A small morsel of Friday political amusement, as I continue to recover from an accident involving rain, embedded rail lines on Portland's Central Eastside, and a motor scooter: check out the lead to the latest missive received via email from our friends at the Oregon GOP, as expressed by ORP Chair Bob Tiernan:
“The House vote on Saturday is disappointing for Oregonians as Nancy Pelosi, Kurt Schrader, David Wu, and Peter DeFazio ignored the concerns of voters and rammed a trillion dollar 1,990 page government-run health care bill through Congress, ignoring pledges of transparency and bi-partisanship. Oregonians for generations will be forced to deal with the consequences of this legislation that increases health care costs, increases taxes on small businesses and the middle class, cuts Medicare and puts a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor.
“Last Tuesday, the American people made clear at the polls that they oppose bigger government, more spending and higher taxes, but this is exactly what they are getting with this new government-run health care legislation. Kurt Schrader, David Wu, and Peter DeFazio chose to vote with their liberal buddies in Washington rather than in the best interest of their constituents back home, and this vote will not be forgotten by Oregon voters in 2010,” Chairman Tiernan concluded. [emphs mine]
Blah blah, ho hum, totally expected--the ORP is trying to make the case that those liberal overreachers from the Democratic side of Oregon's delegation are running afoul of their constituents, and risk their elephantitis (on several levels) in the next election. As an aside, is it just me, or does the use of the phrase "liberal buddies" conjure an image more reflective of a beginning swim class? "You can't swim in section 2 without a liberal buddy!" OK, maybe it's just me.
But anyhow, what might the discerning reader notice from this screed? Isn't someone missing? Don't we in fact have FOUR Democrats representing us in DC? They've got Schrader on there, natch--he's by far the most vulnerable member of the federal delegation, although that's doesn't necessarily mean he's truly vulnerable (and now would be a good time to offer published thanks to Schrader for getting the daily double "No on Stupak, yes on HCR" vote right). DeFazio's there too, and I'm sure despite the flameout of Sid Leiken they'll come up with someone to challenge him. David Wu isn't necessarily anyone's favorite in OR-1, but his district keeps getting bluer and legitimate challengers from the right fewer (Perhaps you could move one district over and try again, Mike Erickson!)
Of course, the Congressman-Who-Apparently-Shall-Not-Be-Mentioned is Earl Blumenauer, OR-3 and the LEAST vulnerable member of Congress from Oregon, even more so than Greg Walden. Is this by accident? I suppose it's always possible, but that's a harder case to make when he omits Earl twice in two paragraphs.
No, there's likely a more calculated reason he's not there, and I've already mentioned it: there's not a chance in hell Earl is losing his seat next year, not even if Brandon Roy retires and declares as a Republican. (Joel Przybilla, maybe!) The email, while in newsletter format--there are pictures of Walden with the troops, and reprints of the latest Gallup claiming a generic GOP voter advantage nationwide--is at its root a fundraising vehicle, but there's no vehicle the Republicans own that can drive Blumenauer out of office.
And they know it, apparently. Maybe I should applaud their sense of reality, but it's a rather striking thing to not even TRY to fundraise off the votes Blumenauer casts. Obviously they think they can't say about his constituency what they're trying to say about the others--that they'll be upset about the House vote for health care reform. And just as obviously, they're almost assuredly correct.
But is there any evidence that they're fundamentally closer to being right in the other three districts? All three are Democratic-leaning in their registrations, Schrader at +23,000, DeFazio at +39,000, and Wu now at a whopping + 57,000 according to last month's tallies by the Elections Division. (Of course those are not locked-in votes for the Democrat, but they're even less locked in for a Republican). And if they simply follow the mood and inclinations of the greater national electorate, they're much likelier to be on board with the Dirty Three, than they are upset with them.
I guess admitting 12 months out that you're probably screwed in all four districts was just too much to face for Tiernan and the GOP--but they've already come to terms with the idea that Oregon's largest city and country are not only infertile ground, they're fields not even worth rhetorically tilling. It's a start.
It's hard to get truly excited about the fair-to-middlin' health care reform package now pending final debate and a vote later today, because it really stood just a few cruel Blue Dog votes away from producing an ironically cheaper (and more effective) bill they couldn't support. Kurt Schrader in the 5th echoed the refrain from other Western/rural Democrats who complained that Medicare +5% provider reimbursements under the public plan would penalize the more efficient Oregon providers, who get much less than doctors in other states for the same services.
It's a fair argument--but it's also something that can be dealt with; Congressman Blumenauer last month reached an agreement to insert into the current bill a call for study of Medicare rates prior to 2013, with its recommendations to be taken by the developers of the public plan, the idea being to geographically adjust provider rates more fairly, and begin rewarding efficiencies rather than paying less as a "reward."
So it's fixable, and even if it's not let's be honest--Oregon providers are not out selling Street Roots, they'll continue to get by on Med+5, and for that generous gesture the reward will be nearly $100 billion in savings for the entire nation, plus a much better potential reach for the public plan and an easier path to immediate stability and success. In short, it's not really a good reason to oppose the more robust plan...but out Med+5 went to appease the Coalition of the Fiscally Ironic, and Schrader appears to be nominally on board this weekend for the final vote.
Not so the Coalition of the Indignantly Inappropriate, led by Bart Stupak and a small group of other pro-life Democrats who are almost literally holding the entire health reform bill hostage in order to indeed literally strip women of their prior health care rights. If you can believe it--and really, I still can't almost--what they are demanding be voted on would not only bar the public plan from covering abortion, it would bar any PRIVATE provider that wanted to participate in the exchange from doing so as well. Women who are covered today, may not be covered tomorrow if Stupak gets his way.
And why did he get his way, exactly? That part may burn me up the most: the whole idea was that the bill would hit the floor clean, without amendments. Anthony Weiner had to graciously fall on his sword for the Speaker, agreeing not to have the single payer amendment heard on the floor--explicitly so that poison pill amendments like Stupak's could be blocked out of fairness.
Single payer proponents--progressives--once again are told to suck it up for the team...and then the very same leadership turns around and gently cups the balls of the Blue Dogs, giving them whatever they want to get their votes. It's disgusting, and it Makes. The Base. Stay. Home.
Blumenauer, for his part, is not going to let that happen:
I am deeply troubled by any Congressional action that restricts a woman’s right to choose. This amendment is an unfortunate shift from the status quo on federal abortion policy that will disproportionately impact low-income women. There is no room for government involvement in the personal and difficult decisions around women’s reproductive choices. To force insurance companies to deny a woman access to a legal procedure would be a very disturbing step backwards.
Good for you. As I said, I think all four Democrats in Oregon are on board with the bill at this point, and in any case the only waffler has a filled voice mail box in DC and no answer at the state offices. So about the best you can do is sit back and hope that Stupak's gambit with fire (remember all 177 GOP Reps will happily vote for his amendment) falls short, and then they'll be able to wipe their diapers and vote for the bill. Heaven help us for the small favors we desire.
Change is not easy and people have a lot of questions about what Congress is considering. I would like the opportunity to talk with you about where we are in our efforts to reform health care to make sure you know what it would do for YOU. I would also like to answer your questions and hear your concerns. I am holding TWO Telephone Town Halls next week so that we can discuss what reform means for you and your family. I hope you will join either event on: - Tuesday, August 11th from 6-7pm - Friday, August 14th from 1-2pm If you want to join the Telephone Town Hall, sign up and BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER so we can call you (the call will be free).
Update, 3:30pm--
Now with a link to all of Congressman DeFazio's many events this month!
You may have heard about the coordinated effort to disrupt public events of Congresspeople during the August recess, particularly to project on them a negative opinion on health care reform. Despite how pathetic and white-flag-waving that is, to essentially admit you've got nothing on the merits and can only hope to influence by shouting your Member down, there is certainly the dangerous possibility that some Congresspeople may actually be swayed or intimidated by this, so it is absolutely IMPERATIVE for less demonically warped citizens to offer a counter balance--not only among those of us who support serious reform, but simply to make sure that the crazies don't win and shut down reasonable debate.
But I have no idea where my Congressperson will be! you may be saying. Yeah, that's a problem; typically the traditional media only see fit to mention such events in the past tense, when it's too late. But Members aren't always dilligent and timely about their notifications, either.
In that interest, one of the heroes of the reform campaign, Firedoglake, have set up a Public Appearances spreadsheet where you can not only find out where they're appearing, but add your own reportage of events as you learn about them. I checked the list this morning and found not a single Oregon member represented, so I'm working on doing something about it. I now have all scheduled events to date listed in the spreadsheet for Mssrs. Wu (OR-1), Blumenauer (OR-3) and Schrader (OR-5). I promise to give DeFazio's (OR-4) office a call, and even Greg Walden's (R, OR-2) if I get a chance.
But to make it even easier for you, below the jump I'll reprint them here. And if you feel wild and crazy, as you hear about more events you can add them in comments too...get active! This issue is just too important to let go. If you've never gone to a town hall event, now is the time. Please.
Amongst the good-news back-patting from Congressman Blumenauer in my e-box yesterday morning--well deserved pats on the 1,300 expected jobs to flow from federal funding of the Portland Eastside Streetcar--was a trenchant analysis of where the minority party is today: a rump party with little in the way of traditional credibility, ideas, sense of purpose or bipartisanship:
There is an interesting situation developing for the national Republican Party. There are fewer of them, they are more hard-edged, andit is harder for us to make the bipartisan progress that was such a part of my early political career in a different era of Oregon politics with Tom McCall, Wendell Wyatt and Mark Hatfield. The combination of driving Arlen Specter out of the party and the repudiation of the Republican negativism is an interesting microcosm for the challenging political environment in which I work.
For the Republican Party, there is a complete breakdown in the legislative process as Republicans have basically taken the advice of John Boehner (R-Ohio), the minority leader in the House, who's telling his people to be communicators (talkers) instead of legislators (doers). It's not really funny, although there is a hysterical article in the April 24 issue of Rolling Stone that captures in a wickedly satirical fashion the sad reality of the Republican approach. It means that it's harder to get where we need to go and it provides an unrelenting overlay of not just negative commentary but viciously misleading commentary on the economic realities we face, the opportunities and challenges of climate change, and how we are going to get the economy back on its feet as soon as possible. I find this a very troubling development for the long-term integrity of the political process. [emph orig]
"An unrelenting overlay of not just negative commentary but viciously misleading commentary...," and that, moments after singling out the highest officeholder of the opposition in Blumenauer's club as their director of (non-)communications. One assumes Boner is free to take it personally.
And then he notes something that, in the wake of the Specter shenanigans had left me somewhat bummed but now I see should bring a measure of sanguinity:
Luckily the President is reaching out, and in the House we have such a broad and diverse Democratic caucus that we actually are far more representative of where America is than the Republicans. We have liberals, progressives, conservatives, blue dogs, new dogs, Blacks, Hispanics, and women in key leadership positions. This is the face of America. The House Democratic legislative process is not easy and it's sometimes not pretty. At the end of the day, the budget resolution is very significant because of what it is and how we got it; without a single Republican vote and no constructive Republican input. [again, emph his]
Earl knows exactly which parts of his piece to highlight. In response to a regional rump party that has shed all but its core, sometimes short-of-reality constituency, is there both a political and social obligation to naturally broaden the "other" side to include more perspectives? Even if there isn't, perhaps it happens organically anyway, as the party struggles with a new member to the right of Joe Lieberman, who surely will bond with his equally soul-free accidental Democrat and attempt to form a 2-man majority in the Senate.
But back to Earl's point--he's right: the diversity of mainstream, sensible-if-not-agreeable political opinion in the US is now within the confines of the Democratic Party and its independent allies. Is it time to press forward as they did with the budget, "suffering" through lack of Republican support to pass an honestly terrific plan, with the right priorities FINALLY being addressed albeit not perfectly? Can we dispense with the pretense that the GOP is serious about offering input, and just put the whole calendar under reconciliation? Or can we dig up Tom McCall?
From Rep. Blumenauer's office, submitted for the moment without comment, because I'm not sure what I think of the idea (although of course attempting to recover money spent as bonuses, I'm all for)...a proposal to tax those AIG (and other bailed-out companies') executive bonuses at 100%. Comment/discuss:
Today, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee announced his bill that will impose a 100% tax surcharge on bonuses received by highly-ranked employees at taxpayer subsidized financial institutions.
Specifically, Blumenauer's states that any highly ranked employee of a subsidized financial institution who receives a bonus, including any amount of deferred compensation or other compensation, after the institution received funds authorized under the TARP program shall face a tax of 100% on the amount of that bonus effective as of December 1, 2008.
"Across the nation unemployment is at an all time high, and in my home state of Oregon it's even worse. Funds provided under the TARP Program were intended to provide stability to the financial system to prevent further pitfall, not to pad the pockets of corporate executives," said Rep. Blumenauer. "I strongly support President Obama's efforts to pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole. It's time for Congress to take action in holding these executives accountable and to increase oversight of these programs. As a member the House committee with jurisdiction over tax, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Ways and Means committee and in Congress to claw-back these ill-gotten bonuses; and that's why I am filing this legislation to impose stiff taxes on these types of compensation arrangements."
I receive lots of stuff from our Congresscritters, and a lot of it is either pro forma or mostly symbolic (like today's "praise" from Rep. Earl Blumenauer regarding President Obama's submitted budget)--good to get, sometimes interesting...not usually newsworthy enough for its own post.
But I got something a couple of days ago that I'm still pondering--the list of "funded requests" from Blumenauer's office that went into the giant omnibus spending bill known as the Fiscal 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (HR 1105), the one that's been held over since last year in order to wipe clean the stench of conservative obstructive shenanigans. On one level, the transparency of the press release is a truly wonderful thing--how many Congresspeople willingly notate and highlight all of the special projects they've requested for their constituents in one of these giant spending bills? Most are worried about having the list seized upon and trashed as a butcher's bill of pork, I would suspect.
That said, I'm going to seize upon the list and reprint it in full. But you decide: is it proper and necessary spending? Is it pork? Or is it some of both--in which case, how do you decide the difference?
As to the list itself, it's not clear whether any ordering was intentional; it's set up by sub-bill, basically separated by Cabinet agency but not apparently by cost. I'll show the HUD requests above the fold, not only because they are first on his list but because they also include some of the more notable and high-dollar requests. If I would offer one comment on the list, the ones I'll show you above the fold are probably those that most progressives at least will cheer. Click down below, and you might see some that leave you scratching your head. And one other thing: Blumenauer's office didn't sum up the requests; at the bottom of the list I will.
-----
Rep. Blumenauer's Funded FY09 Appropriations for Oregon:
T-HUD South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall Light Rail Project--$81,600,000
This project would fund the 8.3 mile TriMet light rail extension from downtown Portland to the Clackamas Regional Center. The project is authorized in SAFETEA-LU and is included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget.
T-HUD Streetcar Loop, Portland, OR--$45,000,000
This funding would create a new streetcar loop that connects the existing streetcar line to the Lloyd District, the Central Eastside, and OMSI. It would also fund the purchase of new streetcars manufactured at an Oregon-based and Oregon-owned company.
T-HUD Columbia River Crossing, OR--$3,325,000 The Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River and its approaches cause the worst traffic congestion in the Portland/Vancouver metro region and are one of the key bottlenecks on the I-5 trade corridor. The Columbia River Crossing project will significantly reduce congestion and improve safety while increasing mobility, reliability, and accessibility for all users. This funding, if secured, will be used for preliminary engineering to support any of the bridge options currently under consideration by the region.
Just got this from Earl's office. I'm going to reserve comment on it because the figures, allocations and totals are all preliminary, subject not only to amendments, conference reports and even veto-rewrites, but also to further detailing of just what's in the thing at the moment.
But this is what they have so far. I'm hoping to get a chance to chat with Rep. Blumenauer about the list and the current/potential distributions to Oregon, so if and when that happens I'll return to this. But for now, it's worth it to scan the numbers and get a sense of where the money will be going:
Oregon could receive more than $2.1 billion in funding over two years from the proposed American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to information released by the House Appropriations and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
*This figure does not include the funding passed along to Oregon residents and businesses through the tax provisions approved this week by the Ways and Means Committee, of which Rep. Blumenauer is a member.
See the following table for a detailed breakdown of the funding:
Type of Funding Amount
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund $747,154,000
Title I (Education) $130,618,000
Individuals with Disabilities Act $149,451,000
Education Technology State Grants $9,121,128
Education, Modernization, Renovation, and Repair $209,934,000
Pell Grant Maximum Award $279,413,147
Head Start $7,240,010
Child Care and Development Block Grant $22,510,354
Employment & Training $33,013,081
Community Services Block Grant $7,973,094
Low-income Home Energy Assistance $12,111,452
Elderly Nutrition Services $2,743,104
Preventative Health and Health Services Block Grant $2,179,063
Highways and Bridges $349,351,566
Transit Capital Grants $68,309,581
Fixed Guideway Modernization $15,128,906
Clean Water State Revolving Fund $65,574,135
Supplemental Security Income $36,600,000
Emergency Shelter Grant Program $15,000,00
Byrne-Jag Grants $33,285,576
TOTAL $2,181,711,197
*Source: House Appropriations and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
For a detailed breakdown on how much particular Oregon school districts will receive in Title I, Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Education Modernization, Renovation and Repair funding, go to:
Joining Peter DeFazio among 95 Democrats who voted no on the bailout bill was the Third District's Earl Blumenauer, who released this statement late Monday:
In a moment of historic import, Congressman Blumenauer has voted with the House of Representatives to reject a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. Congressman Blumenauer has made clear that we must protect Main Street from the crisis on Wall Street, and is determined to work towards a better solution.
“It was hardly a surprise that this bill went down to defeat," said Congressman Earl Blumenauer. “It was, at the core, not the best bill. I am convinced that it would have passed if it were paid for with a fee on the finance industry to pay for its own bailout, and if homeowners were given the same bankruptcy protections as rich people’s third and fourth home, and business properties.”
The biggest issue, Congressman Blumenauer notes, is what lies ahead. We need to address how much the government fixes and why we should fix it, he says. This is a time to strengthen corporate responsibility and have less, not more, demands on the taxpayer, he says, warning that there may be other bubbles waiting to burst.
“This bill was weakened in order to get Republican support, yet only one third followed their leadership and supported it. We have a choice: Either Republicans step up and support their leadership and their President on this weak bill, or we pass a stronger bill and pick up support from people like me, solve the problem, and protect the taxpayer. Those are two very clear paths, either one of which is possible. However, I know that I choose more protections for the taxpayer.”
Blumenauer joins DeFazio in the vanguard of Democratic House incumbents who voted against the bill, but DeFazio--who proposed a transfer tax alternative to little hearing last week--has truly jumped into the vanguard. In addition to being one of the first to make a statement laying out his clear disappointment with the compromises made for sham gains, he has become something of a national spokesman so far as an opponent. NPR aired their interview with him this evening on the national show All Things Considered, and CBC also did a segment with him {mp3} in which he flatly says he couldn't trust Paulson, who would get too much power and had spent his "whole life" among people who now need major bailout.
{ some transcription/text below, but def. listen to those clips--they're hot!}
This latest in my continuing series of diaries on Oregon politics will discuss the current status of Oregon's political landscape by using voter registration as a guide. With this model, we can see clearly how strongly the Democratic party is positioned for this fall.
In order so that those of you who have been reading my Oregon politics diaries can understand who these people are I have been talking about, I present the following entry. For brevity's sake, only statewide and congressional candidates will be discussed.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
