This passage from Anthony Wright on the deabte over SB 840 (the single-payer universal health care bill), which passed the California State Senate yesterday, caught my eye.  I think it’s a good lesson on how to deal with Republicans who will lie and lie about how health care is delivered in this country and abroad.  It’s important for every Democrat who wants to move forward on this issue to read this.

over…

In the staid Senate, there was little debate on the measure. Being its fifth time around the block, Capitol watchers expect nothing other than a party-line (or near party-line) vote on the measure.

However, Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, did take the opportunity to attack the nationalized health care systems of other countries.

“There’s no question that we have problems with the high cost of health care, but to say we have the lowest standard of health care, or that we’re at the bottom of industrialized nations is not a true statement,’’ Aanestad said.

Contrary to what Aanestad said, though, the U.S. spends more on health care, but gets less, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The latest numbers show that the U.S. spends $7,800 per capita on health care, nearly twice as much as Canada’s $4,050; the UK spends $3,250. Meanwhile, the US ranks 21st in life expectancy (Canada ranks 7th and the UK ranks 18th), and 23rd in infant mortality behind Canada and the UK .

Aanestad went on to say that the “the only universal health care … (seen) in the US is the outmoded and substandard Veterans Administration Health Care system. Do you really want your American health care to end up in the Veterans’ Administration model?”

Lastly, Aanestad proclaimed that “if I needed bypass surgery, I could not get it (in Canada) because I’m over 60 years old and I would be put on a waiting list because I’m too old to qualify for bypass surgery.’’ On the other hand, in the U.S. “If I needed bypass surgery, I’d have it tonight,’’ he said.

Sen. Kuehl contradicted this statement.

“This notion that waiting lists exists somewhere else, but not in America ? Maybe for the privileged few of us who can get right in. But there are a lot of people in my district – the richest district in the state and the one with probably the highest number of people insured – who are still on waiting lists, whether with Kaiser, or with Blue Cross,’’ said Kuehl, who represents Santa Monica.

“You can’t just run right in and get your bypass surgery,’’ Kuehl said.

Please read and absorb that.  The Republicans are going to lie about health care.  But their problem is that everyone in this country already knows about the current the health care system, and has faced its ineptitude and soaring costs.  It’s easier to lie about something more abstract like Iraq than health care, when everyone knows the deal.  This, of course, is why they always try to shift the debate to health care in Europe, where they can lie with impunity.  It’s easier to demonize the unknown than the known.  They’re of course wildly at variance with the facts on health care in the Western world, and I think Democrats can leverage personal experience with the American system here, and ask, “How can this possibly be the best we can do?”  Kuehl pretty much did just that.  There are wait lists right here at home; everybody knows this.  It can take months to see a doctor, particularly a specialist.  We’ve all had the experience of sitting in the ER waiting forever for what is supposed to be something used in case of catastrophic emergencies. 

They also spend a lot of time on VA hospitals, which not everyone in the country has had a chance to use, and there’s a blurring of lines here.  Mentioning VA hospitals is designed to call up the imagery of the terrible conditions at the Walter Reed outpatient facility.  Except here’s the problem: Walter Reed was an ARMY hospital, and a good deal of the issues with the outpatient care had to do with the fact that they were privatizing the facility.  If you’re strictly talking about the VA system, it’s actually quite good.

Remember, too, that the VA is the only truly socialized health system in the US: they run the insurance side, sure, but also employ the doctors, build the hospitals, and administrate the care. All of which makes the VA a particularly fertile example for liberals because, unlike the French or German or Canadian systems, the VA exists within the America lifestyle context, short-circuiting the weird well-we-eat-more-cheeseburgers retort to arguments about lower medical spending and better health outcomes in foreign countries. The VA is cheaper, more efficient, less error prone, and boasts higher patient satisfaction than any system in the US, and it does so without the reputation for rationing, waiting lines, and low-tech care that erroneously plague other countries. Now, if some of our conservative friends have an answer for that, I’d like to hear it.

There’s more here.  It’d be great for Democrats to line up people who use the VA system and tell their stories, about a successful government-run program that’s completely at odds with the private for-profit system most of us use.  They’ve particularly done an excellent job at keeping down prescription drug prices because they’re given the ability to negotiate; you can “get your meds,” as VA care user Mike Gravel said in Sunday’s debate, cheaper and quicker.

Democrats, all you have to do is SPEAK THE TRUTH.  The people are with you on this issue.  And there are specific ways to demonstrate the viability of a health care system that values treatment rather than money.

A double-shot of Doolittle dirty deeds on the Center for American Progress’ blog.

First, they note a visit by Doolittle to a local elementary school, where he shows that he knows less about global warming that your average junior high school student.

Is the government doing anything to stop global warming?

Answer: Well, there’s a lot of talk about global warming. But the fact of the matter its uncertain as to what the facts really are about global warming.

Committees have been formed to discuss the subject.

I think its way overblown in the terms of the impact mankind actually has. Ninety-eight percent of Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer and Iceland has some of the thickest ice in decades. The earth is a pretty big place and a resilient place.

Did John Doolittle just fail “Are You Smarter Than A 7th-Grader?”  I think so.

The second item concerns a vote by the full house on whether to refer “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D-LA) to the House Ethics Committee, to start a process of possibly expelling the corrupt member.  Of the only 26 members of the House who voted against the resolution, one was John Doolittle.  Even Gary Miller and Jerry Lewis managed to vote to refer Jefferson to the Ethics Committee.  Think Doolittle’s wondering about if the shoe will ever be on the other foot?

Surprisingly enough, considering it’s 17 months out, there’s actually been some measure of news in the California delegation, most of it pretty good for Democrats.  Let’s take a look at the top pickup opportunities for Democrats, as well as the top hold races.  We’ll start with the seats that may be contested (there are only two):

1) CA-37: Not technically a contested seat, but this is the open seat vacated by the late Juanita Millender-McDonald, which will have an open primary on June 26 and a general election (if nobody gets 50%) a couple months thereafter.  There are debates this week (Friday) and next (June 14), but so far this has been a battle of endorsements.  The CA Democratic Party and the League of Conservation Voters have backed State Senator Jenny Oropeza; the Legislative Black Caucus and the CA Federation of Labor of LA County have backed Assemblywoman Laura Richardson.  I do believe that Richardson’s endorsements probably mean more on the ground; of course, there’s also Millender-McDonald’s daughter, Valerie McDonald, who some believe will “split the black vote” and hand the primary to Oropeza.  This is a very safe Democratic seat, so the winner of the primary on the Democratic side is all but assured to be the next Congressman.

2) CA-11 (McNerney): Antiwar advocates were pleased with Rep. McNerney’s vote on the Iraq funding bill.  Former Assemblyman Dean Andal has announced that he’ll run for the seat.  Obviously, the first re-elect is the toughest, so McNerney will have a fight on his hands here, whether against Andal or somebody else.  However, I don’t think that attacking McNerney by attacking Nancy Pelosi, which the NRCC has done in recent radio ads, is going to work, considering the Speaker is more popular than Bush as well as previous House Speakers like Newt Gingrich.

Pickup chances over on the flip…

OK, on to the Republicans.  I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I’m also adding the “Boxer number,” an excellent system for measuring districts given to me by a reader whose name escapes me.  Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is.  If I put “57,” that means Boxer received 57% of the vote.  Anything over 50, obviously, is good.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  John Doolittle’s stayed out of the courthouse thus far, but he’s clearly damaged goods and the GOP knows it.  A number of prominent Republicans have made waves about challenging Doolittle in the primary, including Air Force reservist Eric Egland, a former Doolittle supporter.  Schwarzenegger flack and former Bush-Cheney campaign guy Steve Schmidt apparently has his support.  In the article, he calls Charlie Brown a “Cindy Sheehan Democrat,” which is ludicrous on several levels, but undeniably more effective in that reliably Republican district than we may think.  Doolittle believes that he still has majority support, but then again he thinks rogue Democrats in the Justice Department are conspiring against him.  Charlie Brown still has a better chance against Doolittle than a fresh face.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  Not much new to report here.  David Dreier is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and his name comes up on occasion, but he’s been pretty mum about his low fundraising totals.  Like almost all Republicans, he voted to fund Bush’s war, saying “We cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made.”  I would think a decent campaign could make some hay out of that remark.  Declared Democratic opponent Russ Warner has sent out fundraising letters, but hasn’t been incredibly visible at this early stage.

3) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 9.  Boxer number: 43.  Obviously, the big story is Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s leak (he’s used to those) that Jerry Lewis won’t seek re-election, which would make this an open seat.  Of course, it would still lean to the GOP in this fairly red district, but an open seat will at least give Democrats the opportunity to find a candidate and force the other side to put in some resources.  Lewis’ people have denied the report that he’s retiring.  I previously speculated that Lewis may be wanting out of the Congress to defend himself in a long-dormant corruption investigation, now that the hiring of a new US Attorney for Los Angeles, a fiercely independent former DA, is imminent.  We’re still waiting for attorney Tim Prince to jump into this race.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 4.  Boxer number: 47.  Novak also mentioned Elton Gallegly in his report:

District 24: Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) decided to retire last cycle for health reasons, only to change his mind at the last minute and run. California Republicans continue to wonder what his ’08 plans will be. The congressman may not be sure himself.

Gallegly’s probably safe if he runs, but nobody really knows what will happen.  An open seat means a pretty good pickup opportunity relative to the others.

5) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 48.  What surprised me was that the Boxer number was so high in a district everyone calls “hard right.”  Brian Bilbray has been demagoguing the immigration issue of late, which for all I know works in this district.  Michael Wray, the former Francine Busby staffer who looks to be running here, hasn’t been very visible this month.

6) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 41.  As reported at Trash Dirty Gary, Miller has tried to shift the blame for his ethical troubles by blaming the cities and counties he represents, in a roundabout way.  This tactic was blasted in an op-ed by the Daily Bulletin.

Caught in the fallout from recommending legislation two years ago that would advance the projects of a major campaign contributor, Rep. Gary Miller now says he plans to tighten the process.

Only instead of dealing directly with that issue, the Brea Republican is going to start requiring that all cities and counties that seek federal aid from his office certify that the request will benefit the community, and not a specific individual, organization or business entity.

That’s good. We would hope that government agencies making appropriations requests would be doing so on behalf of public constituents.

But Miller’s attempt to turn things around by putting the certifiction burden on cities and counties seems like political subterfuge, at best.

People are on to this guy.  Now there just needs to be a dynamic candidate who can breathe some life into the Democratic organizations in that district and force Miller to play defense.  Stay tuned…

7) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  Mary Bono continues to focus on tangential issues while voting in lockstep with the Republican leadership.  The Boxer number here suggests that there’s an opportunity if there’s a good candidate.  None has yet materialized.

8) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 45.  Ken Calvert got some negative publicity when he took over for John Doolittle on the House Appropriations Committee, despite his own corruption issues.  Conservative blog RedState vowed to wage war on him, but that hasn’t seemed to go anywhere.  So we’ll see if this gains any traction.

9) CA-25 (McKeon).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 45.  Not much to report here at all.  If Buck McKeon runs again, he’s very likely to win.

10) CA-52 (open seat).  Last month: 7.  Boxer number: 44.  Despite it being an open seat, I don’t expect to see anyone beat Duncan Hunter’s son while he’s serving in Iraq.  He might not actually live in the district (scroll down and you see that Hunter for President press releases describe his son as living in Boise, Idaho), but that hasn’t stopped anyone else, like Brian Bilbray, from winning.

My theory that two pickups would be nice, and three great, still stands.

As usual, if you think I’ve got something wrong or am missing information, enlighten me in the comments.

This is deadline week in the California State Assembly.  Hundreds of bills will be voted upon so that they can be moved on to the Senate.  Obviously, major special interests want to have something to say about which bills pass and which leave.  The best way for them to impact that is through campaign contributions.  And this year, they’ve got a new campaign to which to contribute.

The law bars them from donating more than $7,200 directly to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles). But nothing has prevented teachers, doctors, gambling enterprises, insurers and others from giving much, much more to a cause close to Nuñez’s heart.

Those interest groups wrote checks for as much as $250,000 to help bankroll a ballot measure that would tweak California’s term limits to give Nuñez another six years in the Legislature. Seventeen unions, corporations, utilities and professional associations have donated a combined $1.68 million for a signature-gathering effort to put the measure before voters next February.

The contributions, all made within the last two months, come as lawmakers led by Nuñez are deciding on hundreds of bills of concern to the donors. The groups had already spent a combined $3.5 million in the first three months of this year trying to influence the Legislature, governor’s office and state agencies, state records show.

This is not a problem in and of itself, unless the bills that come out of the Assembly match up favorably with the campaign contributors.  We’ll be watching.  But the appearance is certainly not pristine.

over…

Jay Stewart, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Better Government Assn. in Chicago, said he doubted that union members and corporate shareholders were clamoring for a term-limits overhaul. But the large donations are certain to be noticed by Nuñez, he said.

“Common sense tells you that if you support an issue near and dear to any legislator … to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you’re probably going to get your phone call returned,” Stewart said.

There’s a list of donors here.  A lot of them are trade unions.  We’ve always known that special interest dollars on all sides corrode the trust that people have in their government.  The best way we can change this is to lobby on behalf of AB 583, the pilot program for public financing of elections which will be voted on tomorrow.  However, this won’t impact special interests giving to initiative committees that, in this case, extend the term of service for legislators.  So initiative reform is something that we need as well.

As mentioned a couple times on Calitics, Bob Novak is reporting that corrupt con Jerry Lewis may retire in 2008.  Novak may be a douchebag of liberty, but he usually has excellent inside information from the GOP (you know, like who’s a covert CIA agent and who isn’t).  It started me wondering why Lewis would retire at this point, when the investigations into his practices have slowed to a crawl.  Then I remembered this story I read in yesterday’s LA Times:

As Congress investigates whether U.S. attorneys across the nation were fired or forced out for political reasons, the Bush administration appears to be poised to nominate a respected career prosecutor as U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

Thomas O’Brien, 47, the chief of the office’s criminal division, worked for five years in the district attorney’s hard-core gang division before moving to the U.S. attorney’s office.

“He’s probably the most apolitical person selected to that job for some time,” Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said. “He’s an excellent pick. He’s a career, professional prosecutor.”

The position of US Attorney for Los Angeles, which holds jurisdiction over Lewis’ case, has been vacant since Debra Wong Yang left in January to go to Gibson Dunn, a high-powered Republican law firm that is also REPRESENTING Lewis.  O’Brien appears to be an unlikely pick for an ideological White House – he’s competent, apolitical, and a respected prosecutor – but because the Congress is sniffing around all of these US Attorney threads these days, they may have no choice but to hire someone of his stature:

Carl W. Tobias, professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond, said O’Brien’s nomination would be a healthy sign that the Justice Department is changing its policies.

“My sense of what’s going on is that there is an inclination at the Justice Department to pick these kinds of people to defuse the controversy,” Tobias said. “It seems like it’s going to be much more of a meritocracy.”

And this could be bad news for the thoroughly unmeritorious Lewis.  An independent prosecutor would follow the evidence, and there’s a mountain of it where Lewis is concerned.  He used the Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress as his own personal earmark factory, steering contracts to clients of connected lobbyist Bill Lowery, who has graciously given half a million dollars to Lewis campaigns over the years.

A guy like this as US Attorney in LA could be Lewis’ worst nightmare:

…O’Brien motivates attorneys to be creative and volunteer for cases. When an assistant U.S. attorney passed out during opening statements last week due to a medical problem, O’Brien took over personally. On Thursday, he was in court on the case.

“He came out with that background as a D.A. where you get a file the day before and go try it,” Carter said.

A hard-charging former D.A. versus Jerry Lewis?  That’s no contest.  Maybe it’s better for him to get out of Washington while the getting’s good, and focus more time and money on saving his own posterior.

I know, another post about the open-seat Long Beach-area race that essentially looks at identity politics.  But this is pretty interesting.  The Congressional Black Caucus will not endorse a candidate in the race, which includes two high-profile black candidates, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and neophyte politician Valerie McDonald, daughter of the late Juanita Millender-McDonald.  Apparently, it got heated within the CBC:

The decision, in part, stems from an internal political feud between two of California’s most visible black members of Congress: Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Diane Watson, who split over who should get the Caucus’ backing in the June 26 special election. In the end, the Caucus declined to endorse either one in the Long Beach-area race. Waters favors Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and Watson supports Valerie McDonald, the daughter of the late congresswoman. The dispute over the endorsement was marked by heated exchanges involving Waters and Watson.

The Congressional Black Caucus’ decision was in sharp contrast to the state Legislature’s nine-member Black Caucus, which endorsed Richardson.

Diane Watson is one of the few California legislators to back McDonald, and she was enough to get the CBC not to endorse.  I still think the California Federation of Labor support for Richardson will ultimately be crucial, but the CBC would have been a nice capper as well.

I’ll be covering this race a bit more in my Congressional roundup (look for it next week), but I’d say right now, Richardson has a slight edge over State Sen. Jenny Oropeza because of the labor endorsement and the fact that turnout will be low.

(While this is a national and not a state-focused story, I think everyone on this site will be interested to hear about ways to move toward the goal of universal access.  Think about how this could impact local blogs if so many more people in this state could use the Internet, particularly in those underserved areas.  It would open up the conversation to include everyone.  There’s more at my site.)

This is the “chicken in every pot” for the 21st century.  And as you will see, it’s extremely doable and completely worthwhile for American competition, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.

In short, the FCC is about to auction off a portion of the broadband spectrum.  All the major telcos like Verizon and AT&T are expected to bid on the prime real estate.  But John Edwards has a better idea.  He wants to have the FCC use that spectrum to increase Internet access for all Americans, young or old, rich or poor.  This is the text of his letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

Dear Chairman Martin:

The upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the next generation of American technology.

In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches.  It’s not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is now preparing to auction the 700 megahertz slice of the spectrum.  This “beachfront” band is particularly well suited to wireless broadband because it has wide coverage and can easily pass through walls. 

By setting bid and service rules that unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, you can transform information opportunity for people across America — rural and urban, wealthy and not. As much as half of the spectrum should be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service. Finally, bidding should be anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

I urge you to seize this chance to transform the Internet and the future.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Not only is Edwards asking that the principle of net neutrality be mandated for anyone who buys this spectrum (which is a big victory in and of itself), but he wants a significant portion to be used to wire America.  Ultimately, broadband should be no different than electricity; the access should come standard in any home, and you should pay the way you pay your electric bill.  Additionally, we should be wiring rural areas the way that FDR pushed rural electrification projects as part of the New Deal.  It was actually predicated on the same premise.

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity […]

By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent […]

When farmers did receive electric power their purchase of electric appliances helped to increase sales for local merchants. Farmers required more energy than city dwellers, which helped to offset the extra cost involved in bringing power lines to the country.

Just as FDR worked to bridge the electrical divide in the 1930s, we should be bridging the digital divide today.  Poor and rural areas should be given the capacity to use the Internet, which will open new markets, allow for increased communication and expanded educational tools, and create that equality of opportunity that ought to be a goal.  That a top-tier Presidential candidate is pushing this forward-thinking a policy is very cheering.