The Washington Post has an article and interactive poll showing all members of congress, how they voted on the health care reform bill November 7, 2008, how much money they've accepted from the health care industry, the percentage of uninsured in their districts, and how they intend to vote on the final health care reform bill now coming before congress.
WAPO has Jim Himes as "undecided" on the final vote. Yet Jim has responded to me that WAPO has it completely wrong, that he'll be voting for the bill, and that he's
"I will not be running for Governor," Shays told Capitol Report. " I would love to be part of the debate. I believe I would win. And I would dearly love to serve and help get our State out of the huge mess it is in. But Betsi and I simply can't make it work financial. After quitting my job to run for Governor and serving four years in office we would be nearly bankrupt, the very problem I would be helping to get the State out of."
Note that Shays didn't say anything about running for Congress in this interview. My hunch is that he's still contemplating jumping into the 4th CD race against Jim Himes, because funds raised for that race can be used to pay off that $243,000 campaign debt he was left with due to the alleged embezzlement by his former campaign manager, Michael Sohn.
"I gave serious thought to running again to pay this off," said Mr. Shays, who has kept his campaign running in order to raise money.
Money raised for a bid for Governor could not be used to pay off the Congressional campaign debt.But if he runs against Jim Himes for his former seat in the 4th CD, any funds raised for that bid could be used to pay off his outstanding debts. With Russo and Debicella running behind Himes in polls, Shays comes in with instant name recognition.
But on the other hand, in an environment where the voting public are worried about deficits and fiscal responsibility, I'm not sure how you play the "I'm The Guy To Remedy The Nation's Financial Woes" card against a guy who actually understands the way financial derivatives work and is helping to write the legislation to regulate them, when you're constantly talking about how broke you are and your former campaign manager ripped off your campaign to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars without you having a clue.
Chris Shays has taken over Dick Blumenthal's role of Hamlet in CT State politics as he's dithering between running for Governor or challenging Jim Himes for the seat he lost in the 4th CD back in 2008. Either way, he's taken the first step towards re-establishing Connecticut residency, by putting down a deposit on a condo in Bridgeport.
Neil Vigdor had a piece yesterday where Shays continues his waffling and throws in a dig at Congressman Jim Himes, the guy who beat him:
Declaring that his number one focus is on a prospective candidacy for governor, former Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., won't rule out running for his old congressional seat this year.
"I've left both options open, but what I'm looking to do is see if I can run for governor," Shays said...
The Capitol Hill veteran has generally avoided publicly commenting on the man who unseated him in the 15 months since -- until now.
"My view is given the job that Jim has done, that if I were to run against him, there would be a strong likelihood that I would be able to beat him," said Shays.
Maybe he's speaking based on results of the internal poll released by his former deputy Chief of Staff Rob Russo, one of several GOP candidates in the 4th CD, which included Shays "as a baseline". The poll, conducted by Western Wats, showed Shays beating Himes 52-33 in a theoretical matchup. Russo trailed Himes 43-30.
Shays, however, seems to be leaning more towards the Governor's race. He says he plans to make a decision soon:
"I would love to campaign for Congress," Shays said. "I would love it. But if it didn't make sense for me to run for governor, I'm not sure (it would for Congress)."
Shays said he plans to make up his mind on the governor's race by the end of the month, factoring in two major variables.
"Do I have a strong base in the district I used to represent for 21 years?" Shays said. "Given that my primary opponents are both millionaires, will I have a strong grassroots organization to counter $10 million?"
Now call me cynical, but I think there's probably third variable in play here, and that's the
$243,000 outstanding campaign debt from 2008 due to the alleged embezzlement by former campaign manager Michael Sohn.
Although Shays says:"Michael is responsible for restitution of the funds that he embezzled and for paying the legal costs resulting from what he embezzled," he's got to be facing the reality that there's no way a guy who lived the high life on the campaign might well spend time in the Big House for it is going to be able to do that. And there's that very telling quote Shays gave to the
New York Times back in May when the embezzlement story first broke:
Adding to Mr. Shays's problems...is that he cannot solicit money from any donor who gave him the maximum amount allowed during the previous campaign, $4,600 per individual donor.
"I gave serious thought to running again to pay this off," said Mr. Shays, who has kept his campaign running in order to raise money.
Given how late in the game he's coming to this, I seriously wonder how much of Shays' new found enthusiasm for running for office is due to the financial albatross hanging around his neck.
Apparently life at his Maryland Shore Dream Home isn't all it was cracked up to be, because Chris Shays seems to really want back into CT politics. So badly he can't decide what to run for. First it was governor. Now, according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, he's contemplating a rematch of his 2008 battle for his old 4th CD seat against Congressman Jim Himes.
Former Connecticut representative Chris Shays (R) is considering a comeback bid for the 4th district seat he lost to Rep. Jim Himes (D) in 2008, according to sources familiar with his thinking. Shays has spoken to several of his former colleagues about the possibility although it's not clear how close he is to making a go/no-go decision. ...In 2004 and 2006 beat back serious and well-financed challenges. But, with President Obama on the top of the ticket in 2008, black turnout in Bridgeport went through the roof and delivered Himes a 51 percent to 48 percent victory...It's not immediately clear whether Shays could clear what is a crowded field that includes a current and former state senator if he decided to run. Should he get into the race, Shays would be the ninth eighth former Republican member of Congress running in 2010 for his old seat.
Given Russo and Debicella's lackluster fundraising, Shays might rally the GOP base. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty hard for a guy who struggled to pay off his outstanding debt because his longtime campaign manager allegedly embezzled the money to run as Mr. Fiscal Responsibility.
Forgive me for making a separate post, but I wanted to take issue at length with Congressman Himes' vote against the new jobs bill (HR 2847, December 16) that Congress barely passed. His office issued this explanation (as Jonathan Kantrowitz posted):
The Congressman voted against a $75 billion Democratic spending plan which largely expanded programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While the Congressman shares many of the priorities contained in the legislation, he was unwilling to authorize additional spending when over $545 billion, or more than two thirds, of Recovery Act funds are still being spent. This bill uses remaining funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for this expansion. The Congressman believes that TARP funding, which was regrettably requested by President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulsen, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke as critical to averting financial meltdown, should not be used for anything other than debt reduction unless the money is distributed through the full appropriations process.
"As many sectors of the economy begin to show clear signs of recovery, we need to get our fiscal house in order," said Congressman Himes. "The simple facts are that we have to pay our bills, and the only long-term path to continued improvement is to replace public spending with private-sector job growth."
I have to point out that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman takes the opposite point of view, and has for months. He has steadfastly pointed out, and I agree with him, that the initial stimulus bill was far too small. Though Congressman Himes suggests that the economy is "showing clear signs of recovery", I would suggest he focus on the nearly half a million new jobless claims that were made this week, and the double-digit unemployment rate. As Krugman has pointed out, we are in for years of subpar growth and unemployment and underemployment rates that are painfully high. Krugman put it starkly just a week ago:
I don't think many people grasp just how much job creation we need to climb out of the hole we're in. You can't just look at the eight million jobs that America has lost since the recession began, because the nation needs to keep adding jobs - more than 100,000 a month - to keep up with a growing population. And that means that we need really big job gains, month after month, if we want to see America return to anything that feels like full employment.
How big? My back of the envelope calculation says that we need to add around 18 million jobs over the next five years, or 300,000 jobs a month. This puts last week's employment report, which showed job losses of "only" 11,000 in November, in perspective. It was basically a terrible report, which was reported as good news only because we've been down so long that it looks like up to the financial press.
Unless, that is, our Democratic congress joins with Barack Obama and passes substantially greater job stimulus. Congressman Himes has taken the very disappointing position of the minority Republicans that the key economic problem is the deficit, while Krugman, whom I respect above all economists, has pointed out that the deficit is not the problem; the dismal job situation is.
I met Frank Farricker at Democratic first selectman Lin Lavery's rally at Armstrong Court in Greenwich on Saturday and asked him more questions about Republican First Selectman Peter Tesei's handling of Greenwich's stimulus request. Frank shed more light on Tesei's abysmal handling of the request, which resulted in the town's being awarded just $4 million, a fraction of what other municipalities received.
I asked Frank Farricker why he was invited by Tesei to that last-minute Christmas Eve 2008 meeting on the stimulus, when Frank isn't a selectman or in line to participate. Farricker, a former candidate for first selectman in 2007, serves on the town's Planning & Zoning Committee. In fact, according to Farricker, it was he and not Tesei who called that meeting. Farricker had received data from a friend in state government about requests from other towns and Farricker was appalled that Greenwich was missing out on a lot of potential federal funds. He called Tesei and urged him to submit a bigger request. According to Farricker, Tesei had asked the head of the town's public works department to put in a request, and it came to less than $4 million. In contrast, Bridgeport's mayor Bill Finch requested over a billion dollars from the bill, and had already submitted his full detailed request.
Back in June, Sen. Dodd told the MLN community that he was going to fight for the public option throughout the entire legislative process:
As I said, it remains to be seen whether we can pull together the votes to make that happen. But I've learned in my time in Washington that compromise is important, but it's always worthwhile to stand your ground on the issues that matter most. That's how we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, credit card reform, FDA regulation of tobacco, and many other issues I've worked on over the years. We can't give up on a public option even if it is an uphill battle. And so I won't. And I know you won't, either.
But we have come too far, and worked too hard, to settle for "pretty good." And that's why I plan to take a stand.
First, and let me be very clear about this: I am going to fight for a strong public option. The simple, undeniable fact is that a public option will save money - and it will introduce more choice and competition into an industry that badly needs both. It is the single best way to keep costs low for middle class families - and keep the insurance companies honest. And I am by no means ready to back down on making that argument.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks -- and the fight is by no means close to being over -- this is a significant victory for Senator Dodd. All along, the conventional wisdom was that the Finance Committee's health care bill would have precedence over anything coming out of Sen. Dodd's HELP committee in the merging process. That conventional wisdom has been debunked, and President Snowe and Vice President Baucus are now less relevant to the process than ever -- and progressives in the House and Senate more relevant.
CCAG has a post up urging constituents to thank Sen. Dodd for his leadership on the public option fight.
In the House, the language of the merged bill that will come to the floor is still largely uncertain. Steny Hoyer says it could emerge by the end of this week, and hinted to reporters this morning that it may include a public option with negotiated rates, not Medicare +5 rates:
Though the robust public option has a great deal of support among Democrats, Hoyer asks rhetorically "What additional numbers can you add by going to negotiated rates?...[W]e don't have that exact number. But certainly there are people who want the negotiated rates who would add themselves to the number [that support a robust public option] that is anywhere between 200 and 218 at this point in time."
It seems clear that John Larson's declaration last week that Democrats "had the votes" for a "robust" public option was either premature or imprecise - since whether to include the Medicare +5% public option, largely considered the most "robust" plan under consideration, is still being debated.
One more update: while Jim Himes' office would not confirm his position on the Medicare +5% public option last week, his name has been absent in the most recent target lists, and his office has apparently privately indicated to others that he would support Medicare +5% if it came to the floor.
Friday Morning Update: Politico reports that Speaker Pelosi is conducting a "public" whip count of the entire Democratic caucus on the Medicare +5 bill this morning, "behind closed doors in the Capitol basement."
---
Roll Call reports that House Democrats have are confident they have the votes they need to pass a "robust" public option:
House Democratic leaders sounded bullish Wednesday after launching an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a "robust" public insurance option in their health care bill.
"We think we have the votes now," Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) told reporters. "We have the votes to pass a robust public option."
Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out, and Democratic aides said Members were still being whipped at press time and did not release a tally.
If true, this is encouraging news for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that progressives in the House led by Speaker Pelosi have stood their ground, helped by the fact that the "robust" public option reportedly came back scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit more than any other plan:
This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month....
Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.
The whip effort described by Larson is an internal one, making it difficult to discern who the holdouts in the Democratic caucus are. And as Larson points out, the count is still ongoing, making this one of the very last moments in the process in which pressure can be effectively applied before the House bill goes to the floor.
Open Left has attempted to compile a list of Democratic targets in the House on the "robust" public option -- Representatives who are deemed to be undecided or either "leaning" yes or no on the matter.
While the provenance of the Open Left target list is unclear, it's all activists have to go on at this point. The only "undecided or leaning" name from Connecticut on the list (pdf here) is Jim Himes. While this does not at all signify that Congressman Himes would vote against a "Medicare +5" plan, he did seem to indicate in his op-ed on health reform in August that his preferred approach was the "level playing field" public option.
Reached for comment today, Rep. Himes' Communications Director Liz Kerr confirmed that he is still undecided on the Medicare +5% public option:
"The Congressman, as he has stated before, supports the inclusion of a public health insurance option that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies. He is still studying this specific proposal."
We are at the point in the process where every lawmaker's opinion and every moment counts in order to makes sure the House passes the strongest possible bill going into the inevitable conference committee compromise.
If you want to urge Rep. Himes to support a House health care reform bill with the robust Medicare +5% public option, you can call his DC office at (202) 225-5541.
The economy is suffering, budgets are under pressure, and Greenwich enjoys no immunity to the downturn. Hard times mean that Greenwich cannot afford to pass up any source of funds. Yet Greenwich first selectman Peter Tesei did just that, dropping the ball repeatedly on the town's requests for federal assistance, and ultimately costing Greenwich tens of millions of dollars in federal aid it should have received. Not only was Mr. Tesei the last first selectman and mayor in the fourth congressional district to apply for federal stimulus funds, he was also the last municipal executive in the entire state to submit a funding request. Hard against the deadline to apply for stimulus funding, Mr. Tesei's foot-dragging precipitated a last-minute meeting with congressman-elect Jim Himes on Christmas Eve to submit the town's request. Mr. Tesei interpreted the criteria for stimulus projects so narrowly that he brought to the meeting a proposal totaling only $17 million. In contrast, the city of Bridgeport, with twice the population of Greenwich, had already applied for $868 million in stimulus funding. Stamford, with close to double Greenwich's population, had formally requested $414 million. Westport, with half our town's population, asked for approximately $100 million.
About 130 people showed up to Greenwich's annual Democratic Town Committee picnic.
Jim Himes told the audience that he was proud that the congress and President Obama were finally addressing the need for health care reform. He also excoriated school superintendents for refusing to broadcast President Obama's speech live on Tuesday. It was good that the town of Greenwich's Democratic Board of Education members were in the audience and were forced to listen to that criticism, because they all supported the superintendent's decision to refuse to broadcast the speech live.
First Selectman candidate Lin Lavery followed, and emphasized that she will pay far greater attention to our school system that past first selectmen and the current Republican first selectman Peter Tesei. She also slammed the superintendent and the BOE members for thinking that it was acceptable to block the president of the United States from speaking live to the town's students. She and selectman candidate Drew Marzullo hit Tesei for the heartless way in which he fired several long-time town employees, having them escorted from town hall by police officers without giving them any time to say goodbye to their former colleagues.
Dick Blumenthal, attorney general and town resident, gave a strong endorsement of Lin Lavery and Marzullo.
There is a Democratic primary on Tuesday for town tax collector. For many years Lou Caravello, a registered Democrat, has served as tax collector. But Lou, who is often referred to as the "mayor of Cos Cob", a neighborhood in Greenwich, is retiring. He has endorsed a former Republican Rick Novakowski, who just a few short months ago was working assiduously against Democratic candidate Ed Krumeich, and backing Republican Peter Tesei for first selectman. Now Novakowski wants Democrats to punch his meal ticket. While it seems odd that Caravello is backing him, Caravello is one of that all-too-common breed of Greenwich Democrats who are really Republicans, back Republican policies, and secretly, or not so secretly, support town Republicans. Our BOE members also fall into that group. Hence their backing of the move to censure the president of the United States.
Novakowski, facing a see of people with "Bill Grad for Tax Collector" stickers on them, said that he had lost his health insurance when his wife, an employee at Greenwich Hospital, lost her job, and that he was thankful that congress passed legislation making COBRA insurance affordable. He also praised President Obama for championing health care reform, and said he was proud to have voted for him. Novakowski talked about the importance of listening to others, and suggested that Democratic support would grow in Greenwich provided they continued to try to listen to others....? Sounded very much like a recently converted Republican talking like he was still more Republican than Democrat. Novakowski has stated that if he's defeated in the Democratic primary, he will run as an independent in November.
Novakowski was followed by (real) Democrat Bill Grad, who stated that he'd worked as a Democrat for many years, including serving as a Bill Bradley delegate to the national convention. If all things are equal in your mind, he said, give me the benefit of the doubt on my work for the Democratic Party. Grad also drew a contrast with Novakowski in their educational backgrounds. While Novakowski only attended, but did not graduate from, what is now Norwalk Community College, Grad is a graduate of Princeton University with an MBA from Stanford. He said he thought he's a good businessman (he created a long distance telephone company, which he subsequently sold), and rattled off several Stanford graduates who were also prominent in business, including Tiger Woods.
Grad sought to humanize the race, congratulating Novakowski for being civil. He also pointed out that both of their wives shared a first name and middle name. Grad recounted how his wife knew him at the age of thirteen, but that she didn't like him. Novakowski's wife remembered knowing him from the age of three. He also knew his wife at the age of thirteen and she liked him. It was a gentle and gracious moment.
Denise Napier spoke, and told the audience that the state's portfolio had suffered a 17% decline over the past year, one of the worst declines ever. Yet she put it in context by saying that many endowments and 401K plans had done far worse. She mentioned that some hedge fund managers in Greenwich had seen their incomes decline from $100 million to $10 million in the last year. She said that many of us would be quite happy to make do on $10 million. But, she pointed out, that decline means that the state has lost $4.5 million in taxes from that individual. We appreciate the importance of Fairfield County, and we understand that those hedge fund managers are very important to funding our government.
Ned Lamont gave one of his usual stem-winding speeches, and slammed Jodi Rell. According to Lamont, "it's hard to get where you need to go if you don't know where you're going." He criticized Rell for not appearing to want to be governor.
Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy was scheduled to speak, but didn't show up.
Late in the day, gubernatorial candidate and state senator Gary Lebeau showed up and spoke to a thinning crowd.
Ms. Leslie Moriarty, Vice Chairman
Ms. susan Elllis
Ms. Natalie Queen
Mr. Jonathan Cohen
Ms. Nancy Kail
Dear Democratic Board of Education Members of Greenwich,
Newly installed schools superintendent Dr. Sidney Freund has come to the shameful and indefensible decision that our students should not be permitted to view the address to our nation's students by United States President Barack Obama as scheduled on Tuesday, but to indefinitely postpone it. This is not Alabama, or some other ignorant Southern backwater community, but Greenwich, Connecticut. Congressman Jim Himes has called the decision to refuse to show the broadcast to students on Tuesday as a "disservice" to our young people, and state education superintendent Mark McQuillan has also condemned moves by local superintendents to postpone or cancel viewing of the president's broadcast. Dr. Freund mentioned that he thought it was possible that President Obama's address could be politicized. But his decision to censure the address to our nation's students is itself a blatant politicization, and an implicit endorsement of the right-wing campaign to prevent the president of the United States from communicating with our youth, just as previous Republican presidents have done.
It is clear that Dr. Freund's excuses regarding needing time to arrange technical equipment and develop discussion material are simply smoke screens aimed at diverting attention from what is actually his political decision to snub the president of the United States. As quoted in Greenwich Time, he had at least a week to iron out any technical and scheduling difficulties associated with the address, and the school system was able to show President Obama's inauguration live in January with little disruption or technical difficulties.
You have been elected to seats on the Board of Education specifically reserved for Democratic members in order to make sure that Democratic voters and residents have their voices heard on that important body. I harbor no expectation that your Republican counterparts will do the right thing regarding this issue. The question now is whether you will take your responsibilities as Democratic members seriously and stand up against this shameful decision by the superintendent who reports to you.
It's time to make a stand and overrule Dr. Freund who reports to you. You might find doing so distasteful, but permitting this shameful decision to stand would be even worse.
You occupy Democratic seats on the Board of Education. It's up to you to speak out as Democrats and Americans and to act. Doing nothing is not an option.
While making the rounds of Town Hall meetings throughout Fairfield County, Congressman Jim Himes expressed strong support not only for health care reform, but also for the public option. His general support of the public option is encouraging and important to getting the bill passed.
What's confusing, however, is that Himes tends to withhold full support for HR 3200 because he says it doesn't do a good job of cutting costs.
"The bill is lazy and long-term untenable in respect to cutting costs," he said. "We have not taken up the hard and terribly necessary work of figuring out a way to create a system that incentivizes citizens to be healthier and incentivizes the whole process to keep us healthy. Right now, everyone is paid to fix us when we're broken. Nobody is paid anything to teach us how to be healthy."
Actually, HR 3200 includes a number of measures aimed specifically at what he's talking about. In the Kaiser Foundation's summary of the bill, it lists several "cost containment" measures as well as prevention/"quality" measures. Here are a few:
Modify provider payments under Medicare including:
- Modify market basket updates to account for productivity improvements for inpatient hospital, home health, skilled nursing facility, and other Medicare providers; and
- Reduce payments for potentially preventable hospital readmissions. [...]
Develop a national strategy to improve the nation's health through evidenced-based clinical and community-based prevention and wellness activities. Create task forces on Clinical Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services.
Improve prevention by covering only proven preventive services in Medicare and Medicaid. Eliminate any cost-sharing for preventive services in Medicare and increase Medicare payments for certain preventive services to 100% of actual charges or fee schedule rates.
There are several more such items listed, but these never seem to come up in any of Congressman Himes' discussions. It's commendable that Himes would like to see more cost-cutting and prevention measures in the bill. But I wish he would share some of his cost-cutting ideas with us rather than give the impression that bill contains no cost-cutting or prevention measures at all.
Following is a comment I posted at Connecticut Local Politics, which, as usual, is being "held for moderation". Of course, the original posting that quoted a highly distorted and dishonest report by Teri Puhl was published right away. I think it's important to get the truth out, so here it is:
This report is a pack of lies. First, Teri Buhl did not attend Lawrenceville Prep with Jim Himes, because Jim Himes never went to Lawrenceville Prep. He attended and graduated from a public school, Hopewell Valley Central High School in New Jersey. Second, the strong majority of the audience was in favor of health reform and the public option. I was there, sitting half way up on the middle isle on the right side. No one who attended that meeting could suggest that the anti-reform people were in the majority. It was a clear lie. And the audience inside was closer to three hundred people counting all those standing in the back. It was also not true that anyone packed the venue. Lots of people showed up early enough to get in. The person at the front of the line to get in was against reform. That woman, who had a nametag with "Ann" on it, started out by defacing an entire sheet of stickers that said "I support the public option". Real class act! And according to Greenwich Post reporter Ken Borsuk whom I spoke with as we were leaving the meeting hall at the end, the crowd outside numbered about a hundred and were evenly split between supporters of reform and those against. So most of the people who wanted to get in did get in.
Furthermore, I went outside afterwards to the front of Town Hall where Congressman Jim Himes came out to address the crowd. There were not eight police officers out there. I could see the gathering clearly, as I stood to the left of the main entrance about ten feet away from the steps. There were about fifty people remaining, most of whom were against reform. There were three police officers: two who were stationed at the front door of Town Hall, and had been stationed there since before the meeting began, and one additional officer who stood at the back of the crowd. The suggestion that Jim Himes was somehow protected by a phalanx of cops is a lie, although that sort of dishonest reporting is the hallmark of Greenwich Time's Neil Vigdor, who reported that. There certainly was a need for police officers, however, because the people in the crowd were ugly and bent on trying to harass and intimidate anyone who disagreed with them. When Congressman Himes came out to talk with them, they yelled insults, shouted him down, and generally acted like the low-life thugs they were. They frequently refused to permit him to answer their questions, and shouted him down when he tried to. It was a thoroughly disgraceful display by people whose behavior treaded the line that could have had the cops putting them in handcuffs.
Norwalk townhall on the left, Greenwich from Monday night on the right.
Here's a couple of typical news reports on the level of debate seen thus far. Because these things are just a collection of soundbites you get these type of mixed messages:
Congressman Jim Himes hosted the second of three meetings this week to discuss his stance on the highly controversial "public option" issue and answer questions from his constituents.
"My vision of the public option is an additional competitor providing more choices in what is largely an uncompetitive market right now," he said.
A packed auditorium was split on this debate; many questioning if the government should tackle individual problems within the health care system rather than enact a sweeping change.
"To monkey around with such a portion of our economy, in such a wholesale fashion, just doesn't make economic sense," said Winthrop Baum of Fairfield.
"If we get this wrong, the damage is really catastrophic and irreversible," said Rep. Himes. "This economy, this country, this government, this private sector can not sustain another two or three years of 10-11 percent increases in health care costs."
I attended the just-completed health care town hall meeting at Greenwich Town Hall attended by roughly 300 people. To summarize Congressman Himes did a very admirable job of explaining the problems with our health care system, explaining what health care reform is necessary, what Congress is debating, and what he intends to vote for. I'd estimate that about 40% of the people in the meeting room tonight were anti-health care reform. They started out interrupting, throwing out catcalls, and being rather disruptive. But Congressman Himes answered questions thoroughly, he used data, he explained his positions clearly, and by eight o'clock at the end of the hour and a half session, all participants were much more subdued, and it appeared that many of the anti folks in the audience had their fears calmed. Of course, you never know with these tin hat types, but the mood in the room certainly became more calmed as the meeting went on and I will have to credit Jim Himes for soothing the fears of many in attendance.
Himes made the following points:
In his introduction he pointed out that the average American family now pays nearly $15,000 either directly or indirectly for health care coverage, and in ten years it is estimated to rise to #30,000.
He stated that we cannot reform Medicare or get our fiscal balance under control without reforming our nation's health care system.
He stated that reforming our health care system and giving every child the opportunity to see a doctor is a matter of morality.
Disturbingly, however, Congressman Himes repeatedly referred to Medicare having $30 tn in unfunded liabilities in terms of the present value of promised care over the next 75 years. He also stated repeatedly that reforming Medicare will be difficult, involve difficult choices, and demand that services to Medicare beneficiaries be reduced in the future.
Hearst Newspaper Company Senior Vice President Lincoln Millstein continues to slime Democrats in his Greewich Time blog, "Lincoln's Log". Let's keep this straight: Millstein is one of just four senior vice presidents in the entire company, and he reports to the company president. He is also the Senior VP responsible for all digital media at Hearst. Yet he promotes his own blog on the online edition of the newspaper for which he's responsible. And he still continues to mislead readers by not clearly identifying himself. The front page of his blog only says, "Lincoln Millstein offers his unique views and insights on Greenwich and its community". No mention on the front page that he's a senior executive, senior, in fact to everyone working at Greenwich Time.
He writes a very twisted version of the truth:
"(In a previous post, I was lambasted for referencing dictator Chang Kai-shek's regime, under which I spent my formative years, because he built both good schools and police stations."
No, I lambasted him for comparing the government and political system of Greenwich to the repressive regime of Chang Kai-Shek. He was not criticized for saying that Chang built good schools and police stations. That speaks volumes about the low standard of journalistic ethics with Millstein and Hearst. His suggesting that our town government in any way was equivalent to Chang's repressive dictatorship was highly insulting. But Millstein doesn't seem to think insulting our town's government in that manner is a problem.
The funny thing is that he is also writing critically about the town's educational system, which their education beat reporter Colin Gustafson refuses to criticize. Now how is it that a senior VP is writing about education in Greenwich Time when the paper has its own education reporter? Talk about making his own employees look bad. Is he sending Gustafson a message? If so, it's a lousy, very public way to embarrass one of the newspaper's reporters.
He writes:
School board issues self-congratulatory report on latest test scores (what's more important is not whether scores go up or down in one year or another. How we compare to the rest of the state is more important. I will follow with a detailed analysis in a separate post ...)
He says that comparison with other towns is most important. But shouldn't that message be conveyed by the GT publisher or editor to Gustafson? Why is Millstein trying to show him up? No class, that's for sure. Colin, get your resume together.
Why Hearst permits a senior executive to write a blog insulting local political leaders, while continuing to mislead readers by not pointing out clearly his position in the organization is inexplicable. The only answer is that the organization has no attachment to journalistic ethics.
While progressives are working hard to fight for health care reform, Connecticut GOP members are doing their part to protect the outrageous profits of America's insurance companies.
In this case, it's through an online petition, which I found on the Ridgefield RTC's website (sourced from the OurCTGOP.org website -- and I'm not sure how long it's been circulating). The petition is pretty clever, actually. These GOPers paint a negative picture of reform, try to make their views sound bipartisan and sensible, and get locals to sign it. Here's a sampling ...
Our government has recently taken remarkable steps into the uncharted water of private industry with the take over of GM and Chrysler; are we certain that we want to also get into the health insurance business? There is certainly debate going on about what impact this will or will not have on the existing insurance companies. Will the government crowd out the private insurers with which many of us are happy?
The problem is anyone with half a brain knows that our government is already IN the health insurance business. We insure seniors, kids, veterans and the poor -- and we do it more economically than private companies.
What's more, 77% of Americans WANT a public option. The petition has other misleading claims (point them out in the Comments section and earn yourself a gold star*).
Essentially, the petitioners underlying message is health care reform is really scary, and ...
... please do not vote in favor of the House bill as it stands now; rather allow more discussion and a full analysis of the issues and solutions that are required.
Among the petition signers are Republican State Senators Toni Boucher and Dan Debicella (who recently announced plans to run against Himes in 2010). It's odd, too, that they're not petitioning any of CT's other Democratic Congressmen.
I hope Jim Himes realizes that, no matter what he does in Congress, he'll never win the votes of this crowd.
(Update ctblogger): Why on earth would Jim Himes agree to participate on this panel?
This email from the chairman of the Ridgefield RTC was circulated to his flock.
From: "RRTC Chairman"
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:37:49 -0400
Subject: HIMES IS NOW COMING TO OUR EVENT
RTC,
KUDOS TO ALEX!!!
Congressman Himes has committed to come to the event.
President of the Fairfield County Medical Association, Dr. Claudia Gruss
State Senator Toni Boucher (representing Ridgefield and the 26th District)
State Senator Dan Debicella - Ranking Republican on CTY Public Health Committee-(representing Shelton and the 21st District)
Given this nonsense (and the fact that the looney Ridgefield teabaggers would certainly be in attendance) why on earth would Congressman Himes agree to participate in this sham of a forum?
Central to the Blue Dog/insurance industry/Republican-led efforts to kill health care reform has been their strategy to delay until the fall the House and Senate floor votes President Obama originally wanted before August. By playing for "more time", and by assuming the on-the-ground reality we are seeing now - the rabid response of the right wing against any health care reform in August town hall meetings - the Blue Dogs fully expected the terms of the national and local debate to shift against health care reform the longer the process was drawn out.
Delay was so central to their strategy that when, as part of the Waxman-Blue Dog "compromise" in the Energy and Commerce Committee, a floor vote in the House was delayed until September, Blue Dogs proudly declared "victory":
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) said she believes the Blue Dogs have scored a major victory by getting leaders to back away from their goal of having the House vote on a healthcare bill before members return home for the month of August.
"We've achieved the victory of not having a vote on the House floor that will give every member a chance to digest what's in the bill, whether it's in a markup that occurs in Energy and Commerce or whether it's as the bill exists right now," she said. "It is because of the Blue Dog Coalition that there is no floor vote before the August break."
The Blue Dog "victory" was to kick the can down the road, wait for Obama's approval ratings to fall back to earth, and allow the teabaggers, the insurance industry, and the Blue Dogs' right-wing allies in the Republican party to attempt to shut down democratic debate and beat the crap out of progressive members of Congress for an entire month.
Speaking to the editorial board of Greenwich Time and The Advocate, the first-term congressman said there have been several major instances where he has broken with his party's leadership since taking office in January.
Chief among them, Himes said, was his siding with Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House who want more time to digest a sweeping health care reform bill before it comes up for a vote.
"If something as important as health care reform can't stand five weeks of scrutiny and debate, then we probably should go back to the drawing board," said Himes, who defeated 21-year incumbent Chris Shays in November.
We have had 15 years since Joe Lieberman helped kill the last failed attempt at health care reform to digest the issues at hand.
And while self-described "centrist" Democratic representatives - including those who could not have been elected without the hard work of progressive activists - are busy happily applauding every day that goes by that more and more of their constituents lose coverage, go bankrupt, and die due to lack of health care reform, the national debate on this issue is meanwhile rapidly being digested and excreted on their heads by an organized right-wing effort of which they are at best an unwitting ally, at worst an active participant.
I only hope every Democratic Representative who shares these sentiments will truly enjoy the enlightening "scrutiny and debate" that crazed right-wing mobs are bringing to their town halls this month, thanks entirely to their painfully disappointing refusal to stand up and lead on this issue.
(Op-ed edited to meet Fair Use requirements. Use link provided to read the entire piece. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
Jim Himes has gone on record with his views regarding health care reform. Here is his oped that was carried in Greenwich Time today:
Health plan good start but must control costs more
By Jim Himes
...Health care reform must have two primary goals: provide Americans with stable access to high-quality care, and substantially reduce the costs in the system. Fail in the first goal, and we will continue to live with the moral and economic costs of a broken system. Fail in the second, and we will simply accelerate the unsustainable trajectory of this system.
The reform proposal being discussed in the U.S. House of Representatives does well on the first goal. It would cover almost all Americans, and provide subsidies to those households unable to afford it...
The public option has been the subject of much debate. Properly structured to assure a level playing field, a public option will provide much needed competition for the insurance companies and help bring down costs nationally..
Unfortunately, the proposal before the House is weak on the second key goal: cost reduction...
We must revisit our current fee-for-service, volume-based model, in which every provider at every step has powerful incentives to order test after test, procedure after procedure, with little regard for what is actually effective.
Instead we should reward hospitals and doctors who deliver higher quality health care. Doctors and patients need access to the best information and evidence on effectiveness. True health care reform must encourage proven best practices...
It's clear now that the top-down Republican strategy on health care for the month of August (a strategy made possible in part by the Blue Dog "victory" of delaying floor votes on legislation until September) will consist of organized and potentially violent disruptions of town hall meetings scheduled by members of Congress with their constituents in their districts.
On Friday, ThinkProgress posted a leaked "best practices" memo (PDF) written by Connecticut right-wing activist Bob MacGuffie based on his experience taking part in such an organized disruption of a Jim Himes town hall meeting in Fairfield back in late May. The memo includes such advice as:
- Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: "Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
- Be Disruptive Early And Often: "You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early."
- Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate: "The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."
As ThinkProgress notes, the tactics outlined in this memo are being used in an organized assault in congressional districts across the nation, led by organized and very well-funded right-wing groups.
And even Rep. Himes, via Twitter after the event, seemed to voice some doubts about the nature of the tough audience he faced:
Town Hall meeting in Fairfield. People very worried about cap and trade. Some anger in the room. Hard to tell if organized or organic.
A few weeks later, on July 14th, MacGuffie described again disrupting a Jim Himes constituent event, this time in in Trumbull, while being videotaped by a "grassroots leader" of Rob Simmons' favorite right-wing activist movement, "Dump Dodd":
"About a dozen of us packed a meet-and-greet staged by our congressman, Jim Himes on Sunday in a supermarket in Trumbull, CT. The link below was posted by another grassroots leader as he filmed me giving Himes a reality check. All those voting for the socialist national agenda should receive a similar treatment. Watch for appearance announcements from your reps and give them a similar reality check. They need to go back to their caucus relating the same treatment from their constituents."
Whether through organized channels or merely through the broadcasts of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, Connecticut's fringe right-wing activists - the teabaggers, DumpDodders, birthers, and others - all seem to have gotten the same memo: attend these events, yell loudly, disrupt, intimidate, and above all, avoid anything approaching intelligent discussion or debate.
The fruits of those tactics were visible today in Hartford, at a Chris Dodd event on health care, as CT News Junkie reports:
Following the event Dodd conducted an interview outside the warehouse and at its conclusion he spotted the handful of protesters across the street and turned to his staff to ask who they were. As he pulled out of the parking lot Dodd pulled up to the protesters and asked if they wanted to discuss the issue with him.
Jim Bancroft, one of the protesters who is part of the Dump Dodd and Tea Party movements, said Dodd asked if he wanted to talk to him and [Bancroft] declined.
Bancroft, who is currently uninsured and on disability for a back injury, said if he needs medical attention he will pay for it himself. Estelle Stevenson, another protester who was standing next to Bancroft, said she has health insurance with a $5,000 deductible and had to refinance her mortgage in order to pay her insurance bills.
Those are two individuals who sound like they would benefit greatly from the heath care legislation that Sen. Dodd got through the HELP committee. And despite the fact that they were protesting the event, Sen. Dodd still made the effort to go across the street to try to talk with them about it. But the marching orders had obviously already been given and received.
For the next year or so, Connecticut will likely find itself a national epicenter of teabaggers, DumpDodders, and birthers engaging in mob tactics like those outlined in the memo above. Instead of writing articles about the "tough crowds" at these events, reporters and analysts would do well to avoid getting played and instead focus on the use of these tactics and the people responsible for them.
And Members of Congress who want to avoid getting played themselves would do well to cancel any currently scheduled town halls they have in their districts, if this type of organized disruption is what right-wing activists are intent on turning those events into.
***
Update: TPM spoke to MacGuffie today, and has more on how his memo was widely distributed to right-wing activists across the country:
MacGuffie and four friends lead a group called Right Principles, described as "a communication and organizing platform so those for whom our core beliefs...ring true." Despite his connection to Freedom Works, MacGuffie insisted to me that his group is unaffiliated with the wealthy conservative interest groups that have fronted the right wing tea party events.
But his memo nonetheless found its way to hundreds of tea party activists, including the very organizations MacGuffie insists he's unaffiliated with....
MacGuffie's memo was posted to the Tea Party Patriots' list serve, which is hundreds of members large, and includes representatives from not just small protest groups, but also major anti-health reform organizations such as Conservatives for Patients Rights, and Patients First, Patients United Now (an affiliate of Americans for Prosperity), and, yes, Freedom Works.
MLN is powered by