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).
Noted Oregonian and former nine-term Congressman Les AuCoin, the man who flipped Oregon's 1st District (now held by David Wu) for the first time in state history, accomplished author and liberal activist, is moving! Well, not physically, and he's actually already moved...his blog. AuCoin and his photographer wife provided an excellent on-the-ground series from their work to elect Obama in Ohio last year, and of course he is well able and qualified to comment on both national and local politics throughout the year. His output is steady if not profligate, always thoughtful and even-keeled but still principled and committed.
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.
I think by now we all know who the "Tea Party" name refers to--the dupes who were organized this year by Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Fox "News" to protest, well, nearly everything they can think of that is irritating their shorts. And by now we all also know what unfortunate sexual reference they chose as a moniker--"teabaggers." (google it if you still don't know).
Although it likely would have happened anyway, it was in fact members of that little group that began referring to themselves as such--which is why it became extra-super-funny. Now it's mainstream, a fact that the teabag-loving blog RedState seems to abhor now that it's a term of ridicule rather than pride.
(photo linked from and credit to the Washington Examiner, who also get the h/t for pointing me to Earl's comments)
So they're upset enough about the danged liberal media using it gleefully (I have to say, David Shuster took it to new heights--count the entendres)...but they've reached Official High Dudgeon with the claim that our own President has used the phrase.
Putting aside the argument about who began using the term first, or whether it's now appropriate/tasteful to continue using it, there's an Oregon-specific angle to RS's nonsense: Obama didn't actually say it. Who did? Earl Blumenauer, Oregon-3rd:
According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
It's not exactly surprising that they'd overlook this pretty basic, easy-to-confirm fact; why excoriate some liberal West Coast Congressman, when you can simply attribute it to the President and get even more outraged? (Another example from the RS article would be the allegation that Obama advisor Kevin Jennings is a "pedophile," when in fact he wasn't even accused of that by the people who were trying to get him fired!).
I guess what also is not surprising is that they don't dare affirm Blumenauer's point, which is that Democrats who claim they're saving themselves from teabagger ire by going soft on Democratic principles, are kidding themselves. (Or perhaps more darkly they're just using it as an excuse to keep the healthy care industry money flowing to them). Focusing on Earl's message does them no good; it only highlights their radical impotence. So instead, much better and more motivating to focus on nomenclature. It's not that you're a bunch of clueless, angry protestors--you're being personally maligned! To the mattresses! Let's do some teabagging! (Oops, now I've done it too. Bring your worst, RedState!)
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.
well, thanks to a quick return of my voicemail, we can correct this erroneous story forthwith: according to Schrader spokesman James Atkin, the story I just reported is NOT accurate, and in fact the opposite is true; Schrader opposes Med +5 in favor of a negotiated rates option that he believes will in fact be the presented version on the floor. The reason given was the standard complaint that rural providers would be badly hurt by such a plan. When asked whether he was OK with his favored plan costing taxpayers $85bil more than a Med +5 alternative, Atkin demurred on the basis of floor fights yet to come. So to repeat: this story is NOT confirmed; in fact it is directly contradicted by the Congressman's office.
---------------------
In light of the fact that freshman Congressman Kurt Schrader (OR-5) has to this point maintained virtual media silence on his views regarding the public option alternatives swirling about in the House, I think this is important news to relay: what I've discovered from a source with knowledge of one of the various whip counts being performed within the caucus recently is that Schrader has signed on to support the most progressive alternative currently being floated--the so-called "Med +5" option that pegs provider reimbursements to Medicare rates plus 5%.
Until as late as this past Friday, target lists being used by progressives to pressure individual lawmakers still included Schrader as an unknown on the subject. (In fact, his appearance was rather conspicuous by the various misspellings of his name in the appeals.) Last week Carla Axtman at Blue Oregon posed the question as well--sparking a bit of an intra-editor squabble over whether he did, or didn't. As it sussed out, Schrader has long been publicly supportive of a PO in general, but has remained mum on what types of POs he would support--such as Med+5.
Earlier this morning, however, newer target lists being circulated did not include Schrader. I asked around, and one person with knowledge of one of the whip counts indicated that Schrader was now listed as a "yes," I have made a call and left a message for Schrader's communications staff to confirm the information, but I trust my source and am willing to say with that caveat that Schrader appears to be on board.
Obviously that's excellent news, and it brings the House one step closer to a truly robust alternative for the public option. But as Carla does, I can't help but wonder why it's such a big secret, or why he alone among Democratic Reps from Oregon would be hesitating in his support. Hopefully we'll get a confirm from his staff, and can bring his laudatory decision to the forefront.
In what very well may be the first time Greg Walden has appeared in video on Loaded Orygun--as well as the first time for a Greta van Sustern clip--we bring you an issue which really should transcend partisan boundaries: adequate time to read pending bills before voting.
I have a bit of a different take than where I think most of the heat for this is coming, however; at the disrupted town halls this summer the chant of "Read the Bill!" was designed to intimidate Congresspeople and shame them into admitting they hadn't, in fact, gone through the whole text. It would be nice if the Members read them beforehand, sure--but the reality is that staffers and advisors exist to assist with helping their bosses understand legislation, and frankly most Members (like the rest of us) aren't necessarily adept at reading legislative language, which is crafted in boilerplate legal-ish language that often reads like an Old English schoolbook.
I'm never going to be optimistic that giving more lead time will actually force more Members to read the bills. What it WILL do, however, is give the rest of US time to read them--and in the age of the internet, that can be a valuable tool. Ordinary citizens and subject experts on the topic in the bill have already proven highly useful in this regard, pointing out odd snippets and codiciles and getting them into the public discussion.
So despite the fact that I don't necessarily find Walden's motives pure, I can't much argue with the concept. Here's what he had to say last night:
OK, I'm kidding about the "very important" part, but I did think this was of nominal interest as I scanned the House docket for today, courtesy of DailyKos/CongressMatters:
H.R. 2741 - To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project (Rep. Walden - Natural Resources)
H.R. 2971 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office" (Rep. Blumenauer - Oversight and Government Reform)
OK, last item first: remember when I was saying last week (during a rant about the shameful cowardice our representatives showed with regard to ACORN) that you almost never see the entire House delegation from Oregon lean the same way on a bill? There was a reason I made an exception for symbolic or "no-brainer" bills, and it's exactly the kind of stuff we're talking about here--purely aesthetic measures that only someone with a political death wish would take exception to. Blumenauer proposed it, and the other four Reps are co-sponsors, so there you go. For five minutes, unity!
So the PO in NE will now be known as the MLK PO--and given that it's located at 6th and Killingsworth, the same people who avoid MLK Boulevard based on a fear of crime will probably add the PO to their list of places not to go (whether their fears are founded or not).
The other bill, 2741, I confess I don't know a lot about. From what I can tell, it's what--if it were a Democrat sponsoring it--Walden might call "pork;" the bill authorizes Interior to "participate" in Hermiston's water reclamation project. And by participate, I mean pay for--up to 25% of the total costs, it would seem. I'm not against it per se; I'm sure that Hermiston could use the help. But given that it's in Walden's district, and there are no other cosponsors--not even in his own state--call me skeptical. Anyone else have some insight, either on the bill or on the project?
Anyway, thought it might be interesting to see the kinds of things that REALLY takes up a Congressman's day--not all that difficult health care, climate change and budgeting stuff. Post offices and recycling plants--that's the real currency of the House, and our guys are trading on it every day, ostensibly for our benefit. I know I'll sleep better tonight-- secure in the knowledge that we're one step closer to our goal of not having a single federal building left in America that has not been renamed for someone dead and famous. Take us to DefCon 5, Commander, and stand down the missiles!
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 neverending search among the more disgruntled Democrats of Oregon's 1st Congressional District for a primary challenger to incumbent David Wu, has yielded its first official contender for 2010 (that I'm aware of): Naval reservist David Robinson (no, not this guy, a different one).
What do we know about Mr. Robinson? Not a whole lot--so let's have the announcement he made this morning at the WashCo courthouse do his talking:
I moved to Oregon a decade ago and quickly fell in love with our state’s people and its natural beauty. My many childhood vacations to visit family here exposed me early to all the beauty and promise of this state – I knew then I would make Oregon my home. I have traveled all over this great state: skied our mountains, hiked our trails, climbed our rocks and cliffs, surfed our beaches, and took advantage of the great roads and byways to run and bike. I have met our vintners, foresters, farmers, fishermen, scientists and engineers, educators, healthcare providers, and the many other people who make our state a great place to live. I am proud to call Oregon my home.
I have served our country all my adult life. Like many of your sons and daughters, I enlisted in the military – the Marine Corps – shortly after graduating high school. The Marines Corps led to an appointment at the Naval Academy. After graduating from the Naval Academy and being commissioned an officer in the Navy, I served our country both here and abroad. I continue to serve our country in uniform, and I serve our community. Oregon is a leader in this country – leading the way in providing opportunities to sell farm goods close to home; in getting people out of their cars, onto mass transit, and onto foot/bike paths; and in ensuring renewable energy. However, our country and our state face significant challenges.
The Bush White House and the old republican congress left us and our children with a staggering debt, huge economic problems, two wars, an education system in tatters, and business policies that are good for nobody in this state or in this country. These challenges require serious consideration, debate, and answers. We need knowledgeable, experienced, and proven leaders to craft solutions for today and for a prosperous future. We need real leadership.
Without real leadership here and in Washington, our state will not realize our full potential. With real leadership, we can ensure a strong, healthy, and prosperous future for ourselves and our children. We need real leadership. We deserve representatives who are respected, engaged, and responsive to our concerns and needs, who understand the challenges we face in this new century, and who understand the complexities of our country and the world. You deserve representatives who listen to you and give you straight answers.
Today, I am announcing my candidacy to be your next congressman. I look forward to traveling the Oregon First Congressional District to hear your thoughts, opinions, and suggestions, and to share my vision, a democratic vision, for the future.
A couple of curious things strike me in these comments. First, you rarely hear about folks jumping across armed services, but Robinson was a Marine before attending the Naval Academy and switching to sailorhood. Secondly, while word I received of his pending announcement mentioned work coordinating an oceanographic conference for the White House during the Clinton years, there's not a single specific statement of qualification for office in the announcement. I don't need a resume', but I've gotta know why Robinson would be a competent and compelling legislator, in some way. I didn't get that.
Alternatively, if the approach is not that Robinson is the right man at the right time, perhaps a fruitful angle would be attacking David Wu for being something of a cipher in office, a tenure almost assuredly most notable for his "Klingons in the White House" floor speech two years ago. And the code word "leadership" definitely figures prominently in Robinson's announcement, but it's awfully oblique if he means to say the leadership deficit is Wu's. The only person Robinson actually names is George Bush, who by 2010 just MIGHT be rather old news.
Unfortunately for Robinson, while few seem to be aware of Wu's legislative accomplishments or a compelling reason to keep him as their representative, one waggish comment that has stuck to him is being the Congressman from Beijing. Whether there's truly a cabal of Chinese business interests and politicians backing Wu, he has no trouble raising money--and over half of it is PAC dollars, split fairly evenly between unions and corporate lobbying groups. As much as Robinson will have to find the right rhetoric, he's also going to have to figure out where to get the dollars to compete. Wu has lots of experience defeating underfunded novice candidates; Robinson is going to have to prove quickly that he's different in some way. I'd love to see it happen; stay tuned.
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.
Daily Kos' mcjoan got herself a bit of a scoop the other day, somehow getting her hands on what is normally a private list--an insider's Congressional whip count, this one from the House Congressional Progressive Caucus on health care reform, pledging to vote AGAINST any bill without strong reform principles. I noticed a key Oregon omission from that list, and asked--with reply--why that was. Meanwhile, over on the Senate side the GOP's primary goal of slowing down health care to kill it is being given a boost by none other than our senior Senator. We'll take a brief look at both, below. {really, go below!}
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.
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.
By now the story of the stimulus bill and House Republicans' doubleshot of unanimous negative energy on same are well known points of discussion in the blogosphere. Correctly, traditional liberal groups and their allies are making note of those Members and not only mounting accountability campaigns, but are also tracking their statements and attempts to have it both ways--voting no, but then taking credit for the benefits that come into their district, for their constituents.
In Oregon we only have one such Republican to discuss, and it's Second District Congressman Greg Walden. He's entrenched, he's usually weakly opposed--get used to it. Until the DPO and the leaders of the 2nd CD Democrats find and properly fund a meaningful challenge to Walden, he will continue to be the Anomaly of the East, clinging to the now-powerless seat he holds.
But there were actually two Representatives who voted against the stimulus, although the Democrat did vote Yea on the original House version (Walden was a big Nay on both that one and the much-watered-down Senate compromise bill last week). Pete DeFazio played the role of populist in (safely) voting down the stimulus conference bill, larded as it was with tax cuts and nonbudgeted items that should have been normally budgeted, like AMT reform, instead of more directly stimulating activity.
So they both voted No, had totally different reasons for doing so, and in the end probably won't suffer materially from it. There is some risk for Walden however, and we'll talk about that below.
The House just approved Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)'s amendment to add $3 billion in transit capital funding to the stimulus. They approved it on a voice vote instead of a roll call.
According to Nadler's floor speech, 1.5 billion will go to the transit capital formula program, which goes to all states, and 1.5 billion to the new starts program. The AFL-CIO and environmental organizations will "score" this amendment, he said, meaning they'll factor members' votes on this issue into their scorecard ratings for each Representative. Since it was a voice vote, though, we don't know who opposed the amendment, making that impossible.
John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the Tranportation Committee and the House's leading pro-transit Republican, called this "an amendment we have to support." The Appropriations committee, he said, "took one of the most important parts out: that's the rail and transit." Transit infrastructure creates jobs, he said. "Support the Nadler amendment!"
There wasn't a roll call, as the article notes, so it can't be said definitively that the Oregon delegation (minus Walden of course) was unanimous in actively pressing for this amendment. But there's little doubt that Blumenauer and especially Peter DeFazio were instrumental in leading the fight in the House to restore some of the money. We noted DeFazio's push on Rachel Maddow last week, and thanks again to our friendly Kossack above, we've got more video from DeFazio on the floor today in support of the amendment:
And if you want more information on WHY transit got shafted, this piece from Talking Points Memo gets an explanation from Transpo Sec'y LaHood: to pay for the tax cuts. Ugh. Even ugh-ier would have been if Rep. Flake's amendment to completely eliminate Amtrak funding had passed, on the basis of it "not turning a profit." Thankfully someone pointed out all of the non-profit Americans reap from the building highways and bridges, same as transit. Why do Republicans think government somehow can become a net revenue center? Absurd. Anyhow, no one wanted the Wrath of Biden quite this early, so the amendment failed. I think many of us would like to see it DOUBLED, but perhaps next time.
Nonetheless, $12b is better than $9b, and it also speaks well of our delegation to not only be on the right side of the issue, but to actually lead others in Congress to the right side as well. Kudos.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
