(I wonder what that +5 would be with a more forceful salesman - promoted by Zappatero)
There has been a lot of discussion here about our Blue Dog Democratic Congressional members. One of the targets has been John Salazer who represents CD-3. John has been the only Democrat elected to a Congressional office in his district in a very long while. His district has a Cook PVI of R+5, and there was a lot of pressure from some of his donors and constituents for his "Nay". But, true to Democratic priniples, John did the right thing and voted "Yea". Today, DavidNYC thanked him publicly on the KOS Front Page. I think we should also thank this man for his support of this very difficult vote and am doing so both here and by other means:
Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives. In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website. That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority. Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:
CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
Wow. Blue Dogs can go to heaven! Deficit reduction AND major health care reform. $129 Billion in savings can buy a lot of dog biscuits.
Surely, that old Blue Dog John Salazar would jump at the chance to take a bite out of this one. Let's give him a treat and let him know how we feel, just in case he's not sure:
"It cost PhRMA $14 billion more," Pelosi said. "Fourteen billion dollars to help us keep our coverage, but taking it out of PhRMA."
Pelosi also cut tens of billions more by expanding Medicaid coverage, which is less expensive than most other health care, and billions more trimming subsidies to help people pay for coverage.
The irony here is considerable. Blue Dog Democrats, PhRMA's favorites, demanded the more expensive public option, which the drug makers then had to help pay for.
How did Salazar balance his desires for big, fat campaign contributions with the improvements to health care that would be provided by reform? This being the US Congress, we'll probably never know, but it'd be nice if a United States Congressman would explain it someday.
It's official. The Blue Dogs' fundraising slowdown was not just a symptom of the dog days of summer. Newly released public disclosure forms indicate that over September, the coalition's PAC took in its smallest monthly total yet this year.
Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group's political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.
Now that the Blue Dog money has stopped, will John Salazar stop representing the corporate interests that led him away from his district, away from base Democratic principles, and unable to even answer "Democrat" when was asked by the video-guerilla-blogger Mike Stark?
The Blue Dogs aren't "voting their districts". Their fiscally conservative arguments are hogwash. And they've been ignoring the needs and wishes of their constituents throughout this whole process. The looming lack of big-time money should free them to really do what's right.
Then their hometown voters will probably send them back to DC for that nice, fat, cush, government job they don't seem to need or want.
As a constituent of Salazar's I'm familiar with his somewhat blue dog ways which is why I found this press release to be somewhat of a pleasant surprise. He has actually gone on record as supporting the public option (if it came to a vote anyway).
I thought he was probably going to support any health care bill, but here he has finally stated that he would vote for a public option.
I just wrote him to ask him to join the progressives in signing that letter to Sebilius ;)
These separate PDF's contain an analysis of the improvements in health care coverage and how the lives of the citizens in each of Colorado's congressional districts will be improved by the pending House health care bill:
And if you're congresscritter still doesn't get it, make sure they see these one way or the other. How John Salazar's district will look below the fold:
A whopping 80% of Democrats in his district favor creating a public option -- which Cooper opposes. And only 16% approve of his handling of health care.
Jim Cooper is Mr. "fiscal purity" who nonetheless flipped and cast a vote for the $108 Billion European bank bailout to get them off the hook for their toxic assets. But he won't lift a finger to help solve the health care crisis in Nashville right now.
The Blue Dog caucus in Congress is looking major losses in the 2010 elections. They thought they were playing it safe by catering to their corporate benefactors and mouthing platitudes about health care. Instead they, and Barack Obama, have created fissures in their base and sown doubt among those who put them in office for easily discernible reasons.
Now is the time for a little leadership and a little daring (if it's daring to go with 70+% of the electorate) in our representatives. It looks like John Salazar is playing it safe and trying to guarantee the corporate donations to his campaign fund.
What he won't be guaranteed of, if he ignores the will of the voters, is getting those same votes next time out. And what he'll most likely guarantee is getting sent back full-time to work on his farm. He might be OK with that, but then he'll have to pay through the nose for health care like the rest of us -- and contemplate what he should have done while in office.
One of the natural disasters that affects the Western U.S. is, of course, wildfires. I hope most readers know by now that our 20th century forest management policies had negative impacts on overall forest health. Today's forests are too overgrown - an unhealthy condition for the focus of this post: climate change.
We show that increases in temperature cause annual mean area burned in the western United States to increase by 54% by the 2050s relative to the present-day ... with the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains experiencing the greatest increases of 78% and 175% respectively. Increased area burned results in near doubling of wildfire carbonaceous aerosol emissions by mid-century.
Fellow Coloradans: that 175% increase is going to happen in our backyard.
Twenty-one freshman Democratic House members have signed a letter opposing their leadership's plan to raise taxes to finance a healthcare overhaul.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) circulated the letter, saying that the income surtax on the wealthy would place an undue burden on small businesses, some of which pay taxes in the same way as an individual. The letter had 22 signers, all freshmen except for Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), who is in his second term.
In a surprising twist of "inside the belt way" politics, we now have the blogeratti of DC thinking they know what's going on when it comes to a rural Colorado congressional district*. Usually we have a problem with "inside the belt way" traditional media. I suppose we're now coming full circle with bloggers.
What's next, is Mike going to try to wrestle him to the ground? Some commenter at FDL called it spin that Salazar represents his district in being so conservative. But, just before his first election to congress in 2004, Republican registration in the 3rd district was almost 37%. Dems only made up 33%.
Now, D = 33%, R = 35% These are according to Colorado Secretary of state numbers. I guess that Obama wave missed CO-03.
He clearly has a lot of republicans that support him. We may not like Salazar's conservatism, but we're not his constituents and neither is Mike Stark or Jane Hamsher.
Now if they could get past the CNN headline it seems these Blue Dogs are worried about the rates rural doctors get from Medicare. I don't think that's any big surprise to rural Coloradans.
"What we are saying is if there is a public option, it can't be based on Medicare rates unless the regional disparity in Medicare rates is fixed," said Ross, who also planned to press for more controls on government spending on healthcare and more savings from changes to Medicare.
They're worried about there being even fewer doctors in places like Alamosa and Craig. And it's not like they're saying no public option, no way. They're saying certain things need to be addressed so they can support it.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these Blue Dogs are just doing exactly what PHARMA, AHIP, and the AMA want but are doing so by feigning concern for rural doctors. Until we have more evidence, I'm taking them at their word. The article also says:
Pelosi repeated her pledge earlier Thursday that a government run health care plan would be included in the House bill. Ross said conservative Democrats have major reservations about how a public option would work. In the letter and in the meeting, the conservative Democrats stressed they did not want a "Medicare-like" structure for a public option.
So whatever pressure they think is being applied it doesn't seem to be budging Pelosi.
The Blue Dog caucus is his largest contributor at $10,000. The second largest donation number comes from health care professionals -- with $6,500 in PAC money and $2,400 in individual contributions totaling $8,900. Not record-breaking but enough to scare away the competition, I'd say.
The PAC stuff is SOP in our nation's capital. WalMart gave him $5,000. If they could outsource their greeters to China I'm sure they would. Medibanc does EMS billing, they gave $4,800. Is EMS billing a major issue in John's district? The National Association of Retail Druggists gave $4,000. There's more, go look.
We all know where (most of) the Blue Dogs stand on the various health care reform bills that are making their way through congress. We know what those corporate and PAC donations are mostly paying for. We know what Labor wants, but Democratic politicians in Colorado love to play against their labor base. Can Blue Dog Democrats pay other Democrats to vote against Democrats? Or their own constituents? Or their district?
Deficit Neutrality with focus on cost rather than revenues
Delivery System Reform which seems to address the cost issue again
Small Business Protection which addresses employer mandates
Rural Health Equity addressing the paucity of care in many rural areas
Bipartisanship which calls for engaging Republicans [I don't know how this can be done with the Party of Nope, but perhaps someone can offer enlightenment on this]
They are also concerned about a Medicare-like option because of the lower reimbursements offered and would like to see "sufficient" time for debate before voting.
At least they didn't oppose it outright, but I wonder how many would be primaried had they done so.
Two articles from the ProgressNow Daily News Digest caught my eye this morning. The first is about additional clean energy development in Colorado. The other puts violent speech from a Con politician on display.
I'll start with the clean energy story: potential development in the San Luis Valley that is being looked at by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as part of an effort to build solar power infrastructure on public space in six Western states. Unlike Rep. John Salazar, who would rather condemn the planet to thousands of years of harsh climate than stand up to oil and gas corporations, Sec. Salazar's Interior Dept. obviously understands the dangers involved. And while Sec. Salazar might have a level of political cover that Rep. Salazar doesn't enjoy, one need only look at Rep. Markey's principled vote and courageous stand against Colorado's most extreme politicians to understand that that political cover isn't necessary to act.
Some details:
Salazar said he has signed an order setting aside more than 1,000 square miles of public land for two years of study and environmental reviews to determine where solar power stations should be built.
Parcels include 10,000 acres that sit on the east side of U.S. 285 between Antonito and the state line and just under 6,000 acres west of Romeo. A fourth parcel covers 4,000 acres northeast of the intersection of U.S. 160 and Colorado 150.
Salazar vowed to have 13 ''commercial-scale'' solar projects under construction by the end of 2010 on lands that have what he called excellent solar energy potential and limited conflicts with wildlife, other natural resources and land users. He set a goal for the projects to produce a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.
Melissa Bean's amendment says that as long as banks start paying back their loan money, which they can do with their loan money, they are no longer subject to the limitations imposed by the Grayson bill.
Here are the [Colorado] Democrats who voted to give the banks the loophole they wanted. From Open Congress:
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2]
Rep. Betsy Markey [D, CO-4]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]
The actions of our leaders these last few days is enough to make one give up entirely on the process....
Here's a Post story about the trials and tribulations of poor ol' John Salazar in regards to Obama's Budget.
What's disturbing about this piece is even after nearly 30 years of failed Republican economic policy, the fictitious frames conjured up by the GOP still are still in the place.
First off--fiscally conservative. This phrase means nothing. It means less than nothing when attached to anything Republican, who via Reagan and Bush account for at least 70% of our $11 Trillion nation debt.
And who is it that doesn't want a balanced budget?
And how bad one must fail before papers stop quoting you? Seeing someone from the Heritage Foundation trying to chastise ANYONE about principles is like quoting Bernie Madoff on how to run a hedge fund.
This article being produced also validates what we Kos Krazies are doing. If Progressive Democrats weren't around Salazar would be navigating his way somewhere between what John Boehner and Eric Cantor believe.
ProgressNow Applauds Sweeping Colorado Support For Employee Free Choice Representatives from across the state agree to co-sponsor Employee Free Choice Act introduced today
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, March 10, 2009 CONTACT: Michael Huttner, Executive Director at 303-931-4547
DENVER--ProgressNow, Colorado's largest progressive advocacy organization, today applauded introduction in Congress of the Employee Free Choice Act and thanked Colorado congressional representatives who signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation.
"In this time of economic crisis, America is turning its focus back to the people who matter most to American prosperity: our working families," said Michael Huttner, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado. "Employee Free Choice is central to President Obama's economic recovery plan, leveling a playing field that has been tilted against working families and toward corrupt CEOs for far too long."
Congressional representatives from across Colorado, representing diverse constituencies and backgrounds, have come together to co-sponsor Employee Free Choice. Rep. John Salazar represents Pueblo steelworkers, major energy producing areas of the state, and important tourist destinations. Rep. Diana DeGette, a civil rights and employment law expert, represents Colorado's financial hub and most important job market. Rep. Jared Polis is a successful businessman with a long history in startup enterprises. Similarly, Rep. Ed Perlmutter is an seasoned corporate attorney who understands what American business needs to be competitive. Rep. Betsy Markey, another successful businessperson, represents areas of Northern and Eastern Colorado that have been hard-hit by the economic crisis that began during the Bush administration.
"All of these diverse representatives have joined in unified support for Employee Free Choice," said Huttner. "They understand the importance of giving American workers a stake in their future, and they know this bill will make America stronger and more competitive in the global economy. We want them to know that the people of Colorado are behind them, and won't be fooled by dishonest attacks from corrupt CEOs and their mouthpieces on the right."
Normally, I don't talk about labor stuff, because it's not something that I have a lot of expertise on. That said, today is the day that the Employee Free Choice Act is being introduced in Congress. If those four words sound familiar, it's because last weekend Dave Canter (along with some other folks) challenged some of our people in Congress to support the bill.
Basically, what the bill does is make it easier for people in a workplace to get together and form a union. Once they do that, they can then negotiate with their employers to get better wages and benefits, which then allows them to lead a better life.
Here in Colorado, Betsy Markey & John Salazar (amazingly enough) are already on board as co-sponsors. I'm hearing reports on Pols that Jared Polis has just agreed to become one as well, so that leaves Ed Perlmutter alone among the representatives. If you want to write his office or call his people, you can -- just let them know that you think that this is a bill worth fighting for and in his case, worth co-sponsoring.
If you want to know more about the bill, you can find out more at the SEIU website.
Please give Ed Perlmutter a call as well:
Phone -- 202.225.2645 (DC) or 303.274.7944 (CO)
RSS Feed
