Tag Archives: Pete Stark

Using Stark Language

Leave it to Pete Stark (CA-13) to tell it exactly like it is.

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats ”just want to cause trouble,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

”They’re for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they’re just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process,” Stark told reporters on a conference call.

Most of the legislative process involves posturing.  The Blue Dogs want something for their districts, liberals want to represent their constituents, et cetera.  When someone like Stark cuts through the posturing and lays out its consequences, it’s quite revealing.  He’s one of the few people who can say this.  He also in the same interview called co-ops the equivalent of a “medical unicorn”.

Rebuilding our Environment

While Arnold is trying to slowly deconstruct California’s environmental regulations, there is still progress in the right direction.  In fact, just last week, I was reminded of the changes to come.

Locally here in California, all sides came to an agreement via a court settlement on how to handle the widening of Highway 50 near Sacramento. The widening will be used to add an HOV lane, but the settlement provides what should be a model for moving forward on road projects. Namely, it includes a provision requiring CalTrans to help fund the building of an additional light rail line between Sacramento and Folsom along Highway 50.

The project would increase the availability of green transit options and is expected to significantly increase ridership, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the light rail system.  Not a bad start for a local change.

But California leads on big ideas as well, and Rep. Pete Stark is nothing if not a bold thinker.  Last week he introduced the Save Our Climate Act, a carbon tax bill. The bill focuses on high carbon emitting fuels. A quick synopsis of the bill:

The Save Our Climate Act imposes an initial tax of $10 per ton of carbon content on fossil fuels when they are initially removed from the ground or imported into the United States, resulting in approximately a 2 cents per gallon increase. The tax will increase by $10 each year, freezing when a mandated report by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Energy determines that carbon dioxide emissions have decreased by 80 percent from 1990 levels.  The 80 percent level is the reduction estimated by the International Panel on Climate Change to be necessary to prevent the catastrophic consequences anticipated from rapid climate change.

While some speak of being green, and are transformed by the media into some sort of green icon, others are actually working towards making change happen.  California is looking into the barrel of the gun on climate change. We already face the specter of mass water rationing  unless we get a great deal of snow in the Sierras, and there is no silver bullet to our water issues.

Increased public transit and carbon taxes are both important solutions for climate change. Hopefully both of these plans will be acted upon soon.

Yes, Having A Democrat Running A Democratic Committee Would Be A Catastrophe

Howie Klein notes that the next in line for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, should Charlie Rangel succumb to his ethical struggles, is progressive Pete Stark.  This has many on Capitol Hill in a tizzy: including those who should have the loudest voice in determining Democratic chairmanships, anonymous operatives and industry lobbyists.

Next in seniority to Rangel is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif., who is given virtually no chance. “The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman,” said a Democrat close to leadership. From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die “for the president’s amusement” to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a “little fruitcake,” Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said. “The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day,” an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would “go nuclear. It would just be open warfare.” A more viable pick might be Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., who is next in seniority, although sources cautioned the cerebral Levin may be too deliberate for the high-profile job. Levin also appears to relish his duties at the helm of the trade panel. He is also seen as very much in tune with the labor movement, although industry sources said Levin was someone they could work with, as opposed to Stark. Also, the Democratic Caucus still largely respects the seniority system, the Democratic strategist said. “If you make the decision that Stark is too out there, then I don’t see how you go over Sandy,” he said. “He’s been a loyal member, and nobody would doubt he’s got the intellectual and legislative expertise for the job.”

As Matt Stoller notes, there are NINE anonymous sources in this article.  You’d think the people who presume to control Congress and who gets selected for particular committees wouldn’t be so cowardly, would you?  But of course, they just want to be behind the curtain, impervious to political pressure.

As a contrast, Pete Stark is open and honest about his views.  He has paid his dues and he’s next in line for the job.  His “radical” policy ideas include making health care accessible and affordable for every American and opposing a giveaway to the financial services industry.

Howie explains the double standard at work here:

Do you recall any of the Inside the Beltway types viewing a Republican appointee to any job thru the lenses of how that person might be accepted by working families or by organized labor? Or did I miss the issue where CongressDaily suggested that Elaine Chao might be the world’s absolute worst Labor Secretary because she loathes working people and doesn’t recognize their aspirations as legitimate or worthy of her attention?

Did anyone ever question whether one of Congress’ biggest corporate shills on environmental issues, Dirty Dick Pombo, would be unqualified to be Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee because he was unanimously loathed by every single environmental group in the country? And what about that issue of CongressDaily– or any other daily– that pointed out that maybe Joe Barton (R-TX) shouldn’t be chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce because the $1,315,660 in legalized reported bribes he’s taken from Big Oil over the years is far more than any other member of the House, more even than notorious Big Oil puppets like Don Young (R-AK- $964,763), Steve Pearce (R-NM- $804,815), Tom Delay (R-TX- $688,840), and Pete Sessions (R-TX- $582,264), and that all the green energy groups feel that Barton is an integral part of the energy problem in our country and decidedly not part of the solution? No, I must have missed it too.

Indeed.  This might be a good time to contact the Speaker and tell her that Democrats up for Democratic committee chairs shouldn’t be subject to a veto by industry.

Bailout Fails in the House – California Progressives Organizing for a Better Solution

Goal ThermometerCalifornia needs more progressives in DC – contribute to the Calitics Match to make it happen!

While the traditional media is focusing on the spat between the House Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, credit also goes to progressive Democrats who refused to go along with a huge giveaway to Wall Street that lacked accountability and repayment guarantees. Some of them have given statements explaining their votes.

Hilda Solis:

Today, I voted against H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), compromise legislation to bailout financial institutions saddled with large debts. I am very concerned about the credit crisis created by the housing market meltdown and while I appreciate efforts of the Democratic leadership to work in a bipartisan fashion to improve the Bush Administration’s proposal, this legislation lacks needed taxpayer protections and assistance for Main Street families like those in the Congressional District I represent.

“I cannot in good conscience, vote for legislation that gives $700 billion to the same firms that helped cause the current financial crisis through irresponsible lending without providing meaningful help for homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure. In the 32nd Congressional District, housing foreclosures have nearly tripled in the past few months, with over 2,300 homeowners currently going through the foreclosure process. The impact of such widespread foreclosures on our local economy and community is devastating.

“Unfortunately, this legislation will not help the families who are stretching paychecks and trying to hold onto jobs without additional steps to stabilize our housing market. It lacks needed reform of bankruptcy laws to allow consumers to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage in bankruptcy courts to help keep their homes. Homeowners on Main Streets should have the same rights to renegotiate their loans, especially those for their primary residence, as Wall Street.

Pete Stark:

President Bush tells us that we face unparalleled financial doom if this $700 billion bailout is not approved today.  He and his Treasury Secretary – a former Wall Street fat cat – tell us that we have reached the point of “crisis.” That is a familiar line from this President.  It sounds like the disastrous rush to war in Iraq and the subsequent stampede to enact the Patriot Act.   As I opposed the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, I stand in opposition to his latest rush to judgment.

“We are not in a sudden crisis.  It has been building over the past 8 years of the Bush Administration. Lax oversight of the financial industry ballooned into a house of cards….

“The bill before us today is basically the same three-page Wall Street give away first put forth by President Bush.  The fig leaf adjustments are not enough to outweigh the fact that no one knows if this bill is what’s needed.  I’m not willing to make a $700 billion gamble that President Bush is right after 8 years of seeing all that he’s done wrong.

Matt Stoller has the progressive bailout plan authored by Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, which I blogged about a few days ago. The key points of their plan:

  • A 0.25% tax on all stock trades and “exotic transactions” such as derivatives trading as a kind of “progressive PAYGO” to ensure that the taxpayers won’t be paying the costs of the bailout.
  • Equity shares in any companies that benefit from the bailout
  • “Major bankruptcy reform” including homeowner renegotiation of mortgages. Obama undercut progressives on this when he said bankruptcy reform didn’t need to be part of the package, perhaps a telltale sign of how unprogressive an Obama administration might be. But it’s still a necessary part of any financial solution.
  • A detailed list of new regulations to protect consumers and provide more stable, responsible regulation of the financial industry to prevent a recurrence of this crisis.

If we want to ensure that we have more and better Democrats to push progressive economic policy in the Congress next year, we need to help them win this November. Join our Calitics Match and help send Charlie Brown and Debbie Cook to Congress, and Hannah Beth Jackson, Manuel Perez and Alyson Huber to Sacramento.

UPDATE by Dave: On the flip, a list of the ayes and nays among out Congressional delegation.

Democrats:

Aye

Berman, Capps, Cardoza, Costa, Davis, Eshoo, Farr, Harman, Honda, Lofgren, Matsui, McNerney, George Miller, Pelosi, Richardson, Speier, Tauscher, Waters, Waxman

No

Baca, Becerra, Filner, Lee, Napolitano, Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Schiff, Sherman, Solis, Stark, Thompson, Watson, Woolsey

There’s almost no rhyme or reason to this.  The CW is that No was an easier vote in close races, but the only close race on the Dem side in California, Jerry McNerney, resulted in a yes vote.  You have progressives on both sides of this.  You have Bush Dogs on both sides (Costa and Baca, for example).

Republicans

Aye

Bono Mack, Calvert, Campbell, Dreier, Herger, Lewis, Lungren, McKeon, Gary Miller, Radanovich

No

Bilbray, Doolittle, Gallegly, Hunter, Issa, McCarthy, Nunes, Rohrabacher, Royce

Paging Russ Warner… this is a gift for you.  Dan Lungren and Mary Bono Mack might have some trouble, too.  At the same time, depending on the short-term economic circumstances, this could rebound back on those intransigent Republicans.  So the political fallout is completely unclear to me.

CA Lawmakers On The Bailout

There are conflicting reports on a bipartisan deal on the Wall Street bailout, but I want to focus on a couple of our Democratic lawmakers who are doing a great job on this so far.

Brad Sherman, who has been a leading voice against the piece of crap Paulson plan, reports that phone calls are running 300 to 2 against the bailout.  His plan calls for a much smaller price tag, along with homeowner aid.  Sherman notes:

Interpreting the twisted political ways of Washington, Sherman said the plan is so unpopular that the only way it will pass is if Congress pushes it through this weekend — before members return to their districts and realize how hated the bailout is.

In addition, Pete Stark wrote one of the great Dear Colleague letters today, calling out the Treasury Secretary for his unnecessary fearmongering.  I’ll put it on the flip.

It is unacceptable for Democrats to carry this bill forward and be stuck with the political consequences.  It’s completely unclear whether or not it will work, and without serious changes it’s basically a gift to Wall Street executives with nothing for those who are struggling.  Keep the pressure on by letting your lawmakers know that they need to be showing leadership like Reps. Sherman and Stark.

…UPDATE: Asm. Ted Lieu has a good statement too, connecting this to the need for the Governor to sign AB 1830, the mortgage bill.  I’ll also put that on the flip.

Dear Colleague:

Many years ago, I was the Chief Executive Officer of a retail California bank, with assets approaching a billion dollars.  I feel compelled to comment on the part of our financial system upon which ninety percent of our business and individual constituents rely.

The independent community of savings banks and credit unions are safe, sound, and liquid.

Yes, they may be suffering from higher delinquencies due to local economic problems – unemployment, lower home prices, natural disasters, etc. – but that, for the majority, results in lower profits, slower growth, and higher credit standards for potential borrowers.

For those of us who believe in a market economy, those results should come as no surprise.  It should also come without question that the proposed bailout will only help reckless speculators who have been caught on the wrong side of the come line.

Yesterday, a colleague said that he was worried that banks had to pay close to six percent for “Fed funds” (day loans between banks, usually available at one to two percent, to adjust cash requirements.)  Well, dear colleague, Duh!  Whilst one bank paid six percent, another bank earned six percent.

Another colleague attributed to Secretary Paulson a comment to the effect that absent his bailout, folks wouldn’t be able to get cash at ATMs.  That is irresponsible rumor mongering hogwash.

Please, friends, whatever you decide about the “bailout,” (and I intend to ignore/oppose it in any of the forms suggested thus far) I ask you not to create fear and incite the public to unwarranted hysteria, which actually could hurt the economy.

Sincerely,

Pete Stark

Member of Congress

… here’s Ted Lieu’s statement:

For months now, California has been playing a leading role in finding solutions to the mortgage meltdown and credit crisis.  In the Assembly we know this is not a problem that happened overnight and we know that there won’t be any magic solutions that will happen overnight.  That is why my colleagues and I are urging that the Bush Administration’s Wall Street Bailout be done not just in a timely manner, but also done right.

Let’s set aside for now the chutzpah of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for demanding the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the free world, demanding that he should get unfettered discretion to spend this largesse, and demanding that all of this be done in less than a week.  The question we should ask is, why should we trust him?  Secretary Paulson saw this crisis coming, it is on his watch, and he has repeatedly failed to act in a timely manner.  Remember Paulson’s “Hope Now” solution to prevent foreclosures that he hyped at the beginning of this year?  I, consumer groups, and countless others repeatedly warned that Secretary Paulson’s plan did virtually nothing to resolve the problem of unsustainable lending and uncontrolled foreclosures.  He proceeded with window dressing when fundamental reform was needed.

Secretary Paulson is now demanding that his last-minute bailout plan be jammed through in less than one week with no conditions.  There is no logical reason why the bailout plan cannot both be done in a timely manner and include fundamental and much needed reforms, such as banning the predatory practices that led to this crisis, fixing executive compensation, and helping homeowners facing foreclosure.

The nation’s financial crisis has many moving parts and every level of government has a role to play.  For our part, the California legislature recently took a leadership role in developing solutions to this crisis by passing AB 1830 on a bipartisan basis to reform predatory practices and products in California’s mortgage industry.  I call on Governor Schwarzenegger to demonstrate leadership on the issue and sign AB 1830.  Maybe he can also send a copy to his friends in the Bush Administration. Language similar to AB 1830, incorporated into the Wall Street bailout plan, would greatly improve the plan.  

The Health Care Reform Coalition Has Its Epiphany

(Not totally a local issue, but it involves a lot of local players, and continues on a subject that gets a lot of attention around here, so I thought I’d share.  Reprinted from my site.)

There’s something of a consensus that Netroots Nation didn’t offer enough adversarial panels and instead largely consisted of bloggers agreeing with one another.  But that’s not true.  I personally witnessed the most adversarial panel of the weekend, and it was spectacular, because finally, both factions of the debate about health care policy on the left were able to come together and understand the political contours of the brewing fight in the Congress.

over…

The panel was entitled “Time for Action: How the Netroots Can Lead on Healthcare Reform,” and was put together by Eve Gittleson, who blogs at Daily Kos under the moniker nyceve.  There’s a good liveblog of the panel here, but what you need to know is that Gittleson stacked the deck.  She had some great health care activists who are doing great work in different areas of the space: Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH a New York cancer surgeon; Hilda Sarkisyan, whose daughter, Nataline, died after being denied a liver transplant by Cigna; Rocky Delgadillo, Los Angeles City Attorney, who is pursuing civil and criminal investigation into insurance practices; Geri Jenkins, RN a member of the Council of Presidents of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.  And then Ezra Klein, associate editor for The American Prospect and a health care policy guru, appeared at the end of the panel.  The aforementioned speakers were all powerful advocates.  Sarkysian, whose family HAD health insurance and still couldn’t get their daughter what she needed, said bluntly “This is not a good country anymore.”  Del Priore discussed the need for doctors and patients to handle questions of care and the need to arrest insurance executives for their crimes in denying coverage.  Rocky Delgadillo outlined the schemes, like rescission (even based on spousal applications), that insurers are engaging in to maximize profit at the expense of patient care.  He also mentioned how California regulators ignored a million-dollar fine to Blue Cross because they feared they would lose the case if it went to court, which is just unbelievable.  And Jenkins argued that the insurance industry will play no role in reforming health care, and we need to move immediately to a not-for-profit system.

Good points all.  And then Eve turned to Ezra:

Eve: Ezra, why does HCAN want to condemn Americans to this kind of system? I get confusing emails from Elizabeth Edwards and MoveOn talking about the atrocities of the insurance industry, then marginalizing the only viable solution. Can you explain this new Edwards HCAN initiative, the TV commercials, etc. . . What’s it all about? What are they trying to do? It seems there are three initiatives on the table–676, Wyden  and HCAN.  What’s wrong with Wyden and Edwards? And a follow-up…what can we realistically expect from President Obama?

I hope you don’t mind that I’m sand-bagging you. I love you, really, Ezra. I just don’t agree with you on this point.

This apparently startled Mr. Klein.  But for him to not know the position of Eve and the CNA and an activist like Hilda Sarkysian speaks a lot to his cloistered state in Washington.  Because I know all about this fight.  I made one positive comment about HCAN upon their launch and took massive amounts of crap for it.  I was called a defeatist and admonished for not being true to the cause.  My only point was that having an organization with $40 million dollars to spend on calling out health insurers on their garbage is going to be tremendously helpful to whatever reform we get through the Congress, and furthermore I didn’t see them having much of a place at the table in the policy debate.  In other words they were finally an organization concerned with moving public opinion and playing the health care debate out on political grounds rather than policy grounds.  And on the panel, Klein echoed the importance of politics over policy:

You can take a lot of approaches to health reform. You can emphasize policy, politics, principles, or some mix thereof. Judging from the panel, Health Care for All, and the California Nurses, could use a bit more politics in their approach. It was a panel about “health reform” — not care or policy, but “reform” — at a conference of engaged politicos that never mentioned the Senate, or votes, or the conditions required for presidential signature.

There was a lot of talk about “fighting” insurers and other special interests, but not much about what that fight will look like, or where it will take place, or who decides the winner. My argument, was that, for reformers, insurers aren’t the real enemy. Setting them up as the opponent actually gives them too much credit. Insurers are stupid, profit seeking beasts — the enemy is American politics, and in particular, the structural feature of the US Senate that have repeatedly killed health reform in the past. No matter what your policy preference, that’s where your organizing has to be focused, because that’s where the actual fight happens: In Congress. Not on panels, or on blogs, or among the Left. In the US Senate, where you have to get to 60, or at least figure out how to get rough Democratic unity for using budget reconciliation and then convince Kennedy and Carper to vote “aye” on the same bill.

This is basically the same argument Ezra makes continuously on his site, but it appeared to hit the audience like they never heard it before.  And considering that it’s largely the correct analysis, it was generally well-received, I thought.  I spoke later with Eve, who told me that she had a conversation with someone from HCAN and “they are not the enemy.”  What a concept – all elements of health care advocacy on the left working together, for a change, toward a common goal.

Now granted, this week they all had a big juicy target.  AHIP, the health insurance lobby, put together a fake grassroots front group called The Campaign for an American Solution.  Of course, that “solution” involves funneling more cash and customers to the same broken insurance system we have now.  Now, who was the very first group to coordinate a counter-attack on this front group on the first stop of their listening tour in Columbus, OH?  That’s right, HCAN

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after Politico reported the health insurance industry is launching a health care reform campaign next week, the progressive reformers are firing back.

Health Care for America Now announced Friday that it plans a news conference and a rally next week to counter the insurance industry’s Campaign for an American Solution, which launches in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion among uninsured locals.

“They’re pretending that the health industry represents the American public, and we need to make it really clear to them and the public that all they represent are their own profits,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care Now.

Indeed they did attend the launch, and got to ask some tough questions, confronting the head of AHIP and asking her how an insurance industry group could possibly be objective in pushing for lower rates and higher quality coverage when they are concerned solely with the profit motive.  It got heated, and I’m glad they did.  And all of a sudden, Daou’s Triangle started closing.  Rep. Pete Stark came up with a great quote:

“America’s Health Insurance Plans’ new ‘Campaign for an American Solution’ rings as true as the tobacco industry’s efforts to end smoking. There is nothing grassroots about it. It is designed, financed, and coordinated through their Washington trade association with the singular goal of protecting their profits.

“I hope it is true that these companies intend to be a positive force in health reform efforts, but I tend to be cautious when the fox starts drawing up plans for a new henhouse.”

HCAN called up the hotline for the Campaign for an American Solution that they set up for the public to provide input… and they got an answering machine.  They’ve trickled this out one by one and pretty much ruined the launch of AHIP’s front group.  That’s REALLY important for the future of health care reform.  Because on the policy the views are far closer on the left than most people imagine.  Everyone knows that whatever system is ultimately put forward can be paid for in a far better manner than the current wasteful, inefficient system.  So expense should never be a deterrent, meaning we can build whatever system we choose and it is extremely likely to go revenue-neutral very quickly once we eliminate the shoddy budgeting of the current broken system.  We know that health insurers will not jeopardize their profit margins unless they’re forced to.  Once you recognize these two realities, the policy goals become fairly clear.  The political goals have to include attack dogs pushing back on the false memes of the right and the insurance industry, and pressuring the Senate to do the right thing.

Now Obama’s plan includes some better regulation toward insurers (including guaranteed issue and community rating) and a public option to compete with the private insurance market and take the step toward a sequential single-payer.  (His latest addition to the plan, a tax credit for small businesses who offer quality health care, is borrowed directly from the Clinton plan, raising hopes that eventually he’ll just borrow all of it, as he should).  Despite this being a fairly modest set of reforms, McCain and the right are going to denounce it as government-run “Hillarycare” anyway.  So it’s vital to have a broad coalition to give as good as they’ll get from the right and give the lawmakers backbone to push the policy forward.  Matt Stoller writes:

Coalitions are strange beasts, with multiple moving parts, but they are also the only way anything gets done.  A coalition has a core of organizers behind it, and a variety of groups out in front who each take different roles.  Some people can talk to Republicans, some people can talk to Democrats, some people threaten, some people cajole, some people talk to businesses, etc.  HCAN is driven by labor in the form of SEIU, the NEA, AFSCME, and United Food and Commercial Workers, as well as groups primarily funded by labor such as Americans United for Change and the Campaign for America’s Future.  It is also driven by direct mail and Foundation based organizations,  such as La Raza, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, and the National Women’s Law Center.

Stoller goes on to make the point that HCAN should broaden their mandate and make this a fight about general health, and I agree.  Going after convenience stores that sell fatty, sugar-laden food to kids sounds like it could be a part of their mandate.  The farm bill, the transportation bill (more mass transit and more livable, walkable cities means healthier lives), and others could be brought onto the field of battle.  But the larger point is that coalitions of this nature are built because they work.  And the benefit is that they give lawmakers breathing space to do their job and the spine to do it right.  This moment in health care demands that everyone understands the political spade work necessary to reach the desired outcome.  So out of the ashes of that contentious NN panel came something pretty special.  Groups across the center-left ideological spectrum working together to end the health care crisis in America and restore treatment as a basic human right.

California’s Capitulation Caucus

The following California Democrats caved on retroactive immunity and disregarded their oath to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic”:

Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Pelosi, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Ellen Tauscher

Pete Stark did not vote. This is the list of those who are potential targets of the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity which as of now has raised $310,673 to, “fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps.” This money isn’t going to send thank you cards to the members who did defend the constitution, this is primary money and cold cash to dump Steny Hoyer from leadership (Rahm Emanuel also capitulated).

As the battle moves to the Senate, all eyes are on Barack Obama nationally and Dianne Feinstein locally [(202) 224-3841].

As for 2010 primaries, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Carole Migden’s 3rd place finish showed that entrenched politics matters less in a modern media environment. Ellen Tauscher is again practically begging to be primaried and in that district she’s walking on thin ice. Joe Baca deserves particular scorn as the only Californian to sign the Blue Dog letter to Pelosi pushing capitulation (and a primary of Baca could probably receive significant institutional support from former members of the Hispanic Caucus). McNerney has outdone himself in contracting a full-blown case of Potomic Fever during his first term, every time he makes a move I think about asking for a refund. And Harman and Berman voting to cover-up warrantless wiretapping isn’t going to do much to quell the rumors that they are pushing this because they are worried about their own culpability on the issue.

If you live in one of this districts, please call your member and ask them why. Comments and diaries with responses are highly encouraged.

Dying For Coverage

Advocacy group Families USA has put out a shocking report (PDF), “Dying For Coverage,” detailing how Californians are impacted by a lack of health insurance.  The number “47 million” that designates Americans without health insurance is too abstract and detached from meaning.  Californians are dying because of their inability to afford or acquire insurance.

• Families USA estimates that more than eight working-age Californians die each day

due to lack of health insurance (approximately 3,100 people in 2006).

• Between 2000 and 2006, the estimated number of adults between the ages of 25

and 64 in California who died because they did not have health insurance was

nearly 19,900.

•Across the United States, in 2006, twice as many people died from lack of health

insurance as died from homicide.

The factors that lead to death include: 1) a lack of preventive care and screening, 2) unnecessary delays for medical care because of affordability concerns, 3) no access to care outside an emergency room, and more.

Some of our Democratic members of Congress have commented on the report.

“This new Families USA study highlights a sad statistic that more people in our country died from lack of health insurance than from homicide between 2000-2006,” U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said today. “In California alone, nearly 20,000 people in that time frame died because of being uninsured.”

“Our nation has more people in jail than anywhere else in the world in its effort to combat crime,” Stark said. “Yet, we allow 47 million people to go without health insurance-which translates into going without needed medical care-each year. It’s time to take action and combat the real killer in our country-the lack of universal health care.”

“It is appalling and irresponsible that more than eight working-age Californians die due to lack of health insurance each day,” U.S. Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) said today. “In California , 60 percent of the uninsured are Latinos, which means that nearly five Latinos die each day because we cannot ensure access to quality, affordable health care.”

“I am fighting in Congress to improve the health of communities of color and strongly support improving access to health care for all populations,” Solis said.

When Republicans talk about “cost control” in medical care, they want a world very much like this.  They believe that the problem with health insurance is that people have too much of it.  They would rather it be limited and used only when necessary, and they would rather Americans hold out and comparison shop when they are ill or infirm.  In other words, the conservative vision of health care aligns with the for-profit insurance company vision which directly leads to 8 dead Californians every single day.

As we pick up the pieces from the failure of health care reform from earlier this year, this powerful report shows the dire need to repair the broken system and ensure affordable care for everyone.

October 25, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s not-the-fires Blog Roundup is on the flip. I thought about doing the fun categorization thing, but (a) there aren’t all that many posts, and (b) I’ve gone through right around 1,000 posts just for blog roundup in the last 2 days, not counting any reading I’ve done on my own account. My eyes are a little glazed over. So, it’s just a link dump.

Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

P.S. No new blog roundups until at least Sunday evening, maybe Monday.

October 23, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Read This

Southern California is
Burning

Republicans Renew Dirty
Tricks Campaign While Socal Burns

Dem Leadership Fails
(Peter Stark and Us)

Local

The Rest