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.
Today, 57 Democratic members of Congress signed a letter to House leadership stating that the Blue Dog compromise on the public option in the Energy and Commerce Committee was "fundamentally unacceptable." Here is the full text of the letter, which includes a clear line in the sand:
Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Missing from the list of signatories? Any single Member of Congress from Connecticut, including Progressive Caucus member Rosa DeLauro.
August will be a long month of citizen lobbying, insurance industry spending, and message maneuvering on health care thanks in large part to the delay of the House floor vote that was also a key part of the Blue Dog compromise. There is still a long road ahead, but what happens in August will be key.
All of Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy - will be in their districts next month. They will certainly be hearing from the insurance industry. They need to hear from their constituents too. Ask them to pledge to vote against any legislation that does not include a strong public option.
Ending months of speculation over whether he'd seek the congressional seat once held by his father, state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney on Wednesday said he will not challenge U.S. Rep. Jim Himes next year....
But he wouldn't rule out a possible campaign for statewide office next year.
"I think our state is run incredibly well by Gov. [M. Jodi] Rell and I support her tremendously, but if I have an opportunity to stay at home, be the father I want to be with my kids and help people out in Connecticut in public office, that's something I'll look at," he said.
McKinney had been heavily courted by national Republicans, and his potential run was supported by Chris Shays. The bench for the GOP in CT-04 now looks like it includes names like New Canaan resident Will Gregory (who mentions his Eagle Scout award in his website bio), conservative State Sen. Dan Debicella from Shelton, and first-term Greenwich State Sen. and George W. Bush fundraiser L. Scott Frantz.
Any challenger will need to come out of the box strong, because they will face a huge fundraising challenge.
Update: Other potential Republican names include State Sen. Toni Boucher from Wilton and former Bridgeport State Sen. Rob Russo.
As you may have suspected, the Medicare-style public option that you thought you were fighting for isn't the same "public option" that's coming out of committees in the Senate and the House. Not even close.
In a must-read diary at the Physicians for a National Health Program blog, Kip Sullivan describes how Congressional Democrats, and even some progressive groups, are using a classic bait-and-switch to redefine the public option and sell us a useless watered-down version:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the "public option" proposed in the House "tri-committee" bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The "public option" proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the "public option." [...]
Obviously the "public option" in the Senate HELP committee bill (zero enrollees; 34 million people left uninsured) and the "public option" in the House bill (10 million enrollees (maybe!); 17 million people left uninsured) are a far cry from the "public option" originally proposed by Professor Hacker (129 million enrollees; 2 million people left uninsured).
Go read Sullivan's diary to understand how the original public option is nothing like what's coming out of Congress, including the one drafted by the Senate HELP Committee.
As the August recess looms, the state of health care reform in the House of Representatives is changing by the minute.
Today, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman appears to have possibly called the Blue Dogs' bluff and set the stage for passing the House health care legislation before the recess without the right-wing Dems in his committee getting to vote against it.
Also today, the ranks of progressives in the House who are standing tall and saying they refuse to vote for any legislation without a robust public option - on the floor, or after it comes back from conference - is growing.
Minutes ago, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who had previously refused to commit to voting against any reform-in-name only bill without a public option, changed her tune dramatically:
I have always been a strong supporter of the public option (including co-sponsoring single-payer) and pledged to you several weeks ago to fight like heck to make sure a public option will be included in any health care reform bill. But, having watched the debate evolve over the last week or so, I want to make sure all of you know that I have decided I will not vote for a health care bill in the House that doesn't include a real public option and I Pledge to uphold the public option principles agreed upon by the Progressive Caucus.
And here's Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), saying largely the same thing in a statement today:
"I'm not going to vote for any House bill that doesn't include a robust public option without any triggers or coops -- that's a must-have for me. I also believe that it's vital that there be a vote on the bill before the August recess. Delaying will only give entrenched special interests time to do everything they can to defeat it."
We specifically asked if "House bill" also meant conference report, and she indicated that it did.
Meanwhile, Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, and Chris Murphy - still have not stood up to declare that they will vote against meaningless reform-in-name only.
Christopher Fountain, a conservative real estate agent from Greenwich, is reporting on his blog that State Senator Scott Frantz is considering a run against Congressman Jim Himes in 2010.
According to Fountain, Senator Frantz is "bored to tears" in the State Senate. This, of course, is a great reason to seek higher office. Frantz's boredom comes on the heels of his unsuccessful attempt to repeal the estate tax and his vote against marriage equality. The senator is also well-known to progressives in his district for his ridiculous claims about the size of Connecticut's state workforce, so ably debunked here by MLN's own thomashooker.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I relish the idea of Himes running for reelection against a hedge fund manager from Greenwich who inherited most of his wealth and his business, and finds serving his constituents boring. I just hope his ads end in Paid for by Give Scott Frantz a Funner Job Committee.
As Rahm Emanuel unilaterally declares a public option not to be a necessity for the Obama administration (for the second time in two weeks), and President Obama himself finds himself walking back his chief of staff's comments from halfway across the globe, the need for a progressive bloc in the House of Representatives who will stand together and pledge to vote against reform-in-name only, making a real public option a necessity for any health care bill's passage this year, gets only clearer and clearer.
In CT, Joe Courtney is the latest Connecticut Representative to refuse to commit to voting against any health care plan without a workable, robust public option. Campaign Silo has the audio from his appearance last week on WNPR's "Where We Live":
This echoes Courtney's recent comments at a town hall meeting with constituents in DC, where he also refused to commit to vote against a health care bill without a public plan.
Our representatives need to know that at this point in the legislative process, voicing "support" for a public option means very little. What we need desperately are Democrats committed to real health care reform - like Jerry Nadler in New York - with the courage and the conviction to say loud and clear that a bill without a public option will be dead on arrival in the House.
Joe now joins Rosa DeLauro in refusing to be part of this effort. Apparently "Where We Live" will be hosting Rosa and the remainder of the Connecticut House delegation in the coming days and weeks (Chris Murphy was on yesterday), so constituents can continue to call in.
Here's how the citizen whip count of targeted progressive representatives (specifically, whether they will pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters) stands as of today. You can contact your representative using the info here and report their response using the whip count tool here.
Previous "Whipping the Public Option in CT" posts:
("The CT #healthcare09 delegation arrives in @jahimes office." by CCAG via TwitPic)
Today, Beau from CCAG is twittering the huge Health Care '09 rally and lobby day live from DC. You can follow CCAG's twitter feed all day here, photo updates here, and video updates here. This is by all accounts the largest national healthcare reform lobby day in history, and it comes at a crucial time. You can follow CCAG on twitter throughout the day for updates on meetings between Connecticut voters lobbying for meaningful health care reform - including a robust public option - and their representatives.
While most recent attention - and pressure - on healthcare legislation has been focused on the opaque workings of Senate committees and the huge egos and twisted priorities at work therein, this week Firedoglake and nyceve from Daily Kos launched a public whip count of progressive Representatives asking them for a firm commitment to vote against any health care "reform" legislation that does not include a public option that is "1. Available nationwide, 2. From day one," and "3. Answerable to Congress and the voters."
As Ben Smith from Politico points out, public whip counts like this are one of the most powerful tools available to online activists who want to influence legislation:
Legislative vote counts are one of those things that the Web can transform. They're typically closely held - counting is an insider's art - and deliberate ambiguity is a key negotiating tactic. Legislators who would prefer to vote no, for instance, might be willing to be the last vote, for a price. So while this has the effect of pushing members toward Obama's position, it also shines a spotlight on members who might prefer to stay uncommitted, or to wait for details and compromises.
Getting only 40 progressive Representatives to commit to voting against meaningless "reform" legislation without a public option may be the best way to force the Senate's - and White House's - hand on the public option. The Firedoglake whip count tool is here, but it only targets 100 progressive Representatives who they believe to be the lowest hanging fruit. Only one Rep from Connecticut - DeLauro - is on the list, and she has yet to respond. Yet Connecticut has 5 Democratic representatives who are all signatories to the Health Care for America Now "core principles" -- 3 of whom were elected to replace Republican incumbents in 2006 and 2008 based in large part on their support for real health care reform.
There's no reason not to ask CT's entire House delegation to commit to oppose meaningless reform-in-name-only that does not include a workable and robust public option. Contact your Rep at the phone number below and ask them to pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide, (2) on day one, and (3) accountable to Congress and the voters, and report any response to the FDL whip count tool here.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
I am reprinting below, in full, with the written permission of the publication, Fairfield County Weekly's recent editorial describing how Congressman Jim Himes was ambushed by right-wingers in Southport recently (isn't that John McKinney's hometown?), and takes them to task. Very refreshing to see that not all journalists in the Nutmeg State are mindless right-wing ideologues like Ken Dixon.
MLN is powered by