The Progressive Caucus sent Speaker Pelosi a letter to remind her of the requirements for the largest caucus amongst the Democratic Party in the House.  It must include a robust public option. A snippet:

Madam Speaker, the Congressional Progressive Caucus stand united to provide high quality, affordable and accessible health care choices for all Americans. A majority of our members prefer single payer. Nonetheless, we stand solidly behind our criteria for a robust public otion. We cannot support anything less.

It’s good to see the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party stand up for progressive values every now and again.  The Blue Dogs get a ton of attention, but when it comes down to it, they number fewer than the Progressives.  Progressives have the support of the vast majority of the activists who are doing all of the hard work to win a solid health care reform package. The Blue Dogs have…um, some bucks from the insurance companies?

You can catch the full letter over the flip.

Progressive Caucus Health Care Letter –

Mark DeSaulnier has had a rapid ascent through the state legislature and now, potentially, into Congress.  Within three years, this former restaurant owner won elections to the State Assembly (in 2006) and the State Senate (in 2008), with a Congressional primary scheduled for September 1.  Prior to that, he was a 3-time member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the California Air Resources Board.  A former liberal Republican in the mold of Edward Brooke, DeSaulnier switched parties several years ago and compiled a liberal voting record in the State Legislature.  His first ad of the campaign covered the topic of health care, and I asked him about this and several other issues in an interview conducted last week.  Having taken place before the crucial budget vote, I spent a good deal of time asking DeSaulnier about that, and you can see his responses here.  Depending on your perspective, he either did or did not fulfill the promise to vote against “most” of the budget, by the way, voting no on 11 of 26 bills, including all of the more controversial ones.

I’ll pick up with a paraphrased transcript of the rest of the interview below:

DD: So, other than the budget, how’s it going with your campaign?

Mark DeSaulnier: Well, this is a tough campaign, with a big field and a lot of good candidates.  The polls we’ve done show us winning.  We’ve got 70% of the money that we need to compete, and a lot of great endorsements.  I would say we have the most local endorsements inside the district.  And we’re going to be able to put together a great ground campaign, with people I’ve worked with for 20 years in the district.  I think we’re going to be concentrated in Contra Costa County, where we can post a big number.  I think we’re putting ourselves out there as the local candidate, who has represented the district for a long time.  And we have people out there walking and phoning, putting forward that message.

DD: As long as we’re on California, obviously you’ve seen the dysfunction at the local level.  What do you think you can do at the federal level to remedy this situation?

MD: You know, I read a lot of Paul Krugman, and I agree with him that we’re going to need a second stimulus package.  And I think we need it sooner and not later.  I think we can take what’s been learned from the stimulus package that we’re doing now.  I think the problem is that the banks like Citi and Bank of America aren’t lending, and so we need to require the banks to lend, with relief for the credit worthy who are falling behind on their payments, and more money out to the credit unions who have done a better job handling this crisis.  Next, I think we have to do some sort of fiscal stabilization.  I see it in this state, people who need to access the safety net go up when the economy goes down.  And so we have to break that cycle, and I think we can by providing some relief.  Finally, we should say that we can do things more efficiently.  There shouldn’t be this silo mentality.  I’ll give you an example.  We put together these “one-stops,” places where you can go for unemployment and job training.  And people tell me that you have to get out of one line and pick up a phone in the office to get your unemployment benefits.  That just doesn’t seem like good government to me.  And I think we have an opportunity to make government work better.

DD: Let’s move on to health care.  Seems to be a big issue for you.  What are the principles you carry in this debate?

MD: To me, the gold standard is single payer.  We have the problem of getting health care to those who need it, and also how we get control of costs.  I think the public option is the first step, and if we do it right, it could be, and really I think it should be, single payer.  The question is what are the Democrats willing to give up to get moderates on board, and I think there have to be some lines we cannot cross there.  In the end, it has to be about flexibility and more choice.  That’s the way you’re going to sell this thing.  It’s telling that the moderates want firewalls in their plan, they don’t want the people to have more choice, they want to preserve something for the insurance companies.

DD: Will you commit to not vote for anything that doesn’t have a quality public plan available on day one, not a trigger, open to everyone, and with the kind of rates necessary to force the insurance companies to compete?

MD: Yes.  I think as liberals, as progressives, something we don’t do a lot but which we can learn from Republicans, sometimes we’ve just got to say no.

DD: Congress has started to debate the regulatory reform ideas put forward by the Obama Administration, and they’re getting a ton of pushback from the banking industry, particularly on the concept of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  It’s the same way on a lot of these issues, the banks just won’t relent.  How do we solve this problem?

MD: Honestly, the politics will never get totally fixed without a public finance system in this country.  And then people say, “why should we pay for elections?”  The truth is that the average American is paying disproportionately already, when the giveaways to businesses and corporations are factored in.  They buy elections fairly cheaply, and they get the rewards.  So that’s something we have to pursue.  As far as your question, yes, I think we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, in fact I think it should be cabinet-level.  A Secretary of Consumer Protection.  The point to all of this is that if middle income people don’t have wealth, democracy ends.  That’s just the bottom line.  And one way to ensure that is by protecting consumers, so you don’t see all their wealth go into someone else’s pockets.  Inequality is just killing us right now.  Kevin Phillips wrote about this years ago, in Bad Money, and he was very prophetic.  I also think that you can’t reform the financial system without holding people accountable.  And so I would involve the Department of Justice right at the beginning.  That’s the only way to really ensure it doesn’t happen again.

DD: You mention inequality, it’s something Democrats don’t talk about enough.  A recent Wall Street Journal story talked about the top 1% earning 35% of all the compensation in the country.

MD: It’s stunning.  And our tax structure, by the way, rewards the accumulation of wealth, not work.  This happens when you get a financial services economy, which is completely not sustainable.  We don’t have manufacturing, we just have this financial services giant, and it trades in bubbles.  So one way to reduce that inequality is to retool the financial services sector, make it smaller, make it more boring.

DD: OK, last question.  I wanted to ask you about SB375, the smart growth measure that you played a big part in passing last year.  This bill doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it really offers a blueprint to how to achieve smart growth policies with the statewide authority working in concert with local communities.  Do you plan to scale that up if you make it to Congress?

MD: Oh, absolutely, and this is where I think my background really suits me to replace Ellen Tauscher.  I chaired the Transportation Committee in the Assembly as a freshman, I think the first person to do that.  I spent ten years on the California Air Resources Board, and I co-authored SB375.  I’m pretty sure there’s a companion bill in Congress right now.  Doris Matsui (CA-05) is carrying it right now.  I have honed in throughout my career on the changing transportation and mobility side of the energy issue.  We accomplish this, in part by reducing miles, and also finding new energy sources for transportation.  We need more transit, and a move away from single-occupancy vehicles and long commutes.  It’s about bringing the work space closer to the living space, and creating livable communities.  So I think I’m naturally suited  for such a task.  I’d like to get on the Transportation Committee if I get to Congress.

DD: Thanks for your time today.

MD: No problem, thank you.

The race in CA-10 for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher features three lawmakers with long resumes at the state level.  And then there’s Anthony Woods, a young man with no prior history in elected office, but festooned with what Benjy Sarlin of The Daily Beast called the best political resume ever.  Woods is an African-American product of a single mother who found his way to West Point and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  He is a two-time Iraq war platoon leader who returned all of his men home safely and received the Bronze Star.  He is someone who, after returning home, was dismissed from the Army for challenging its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.  But politicians don’t vote with their resumes.  They must have the conviction to vote with their principles.  I actually conducted the first interview with Woods back in April, and since then others have taken notice.  So I thought I’d return to Woods and ask him about some of the key issues facing the Congress in the coming months.  A paraphrased transcript of the conversation, executed last Wednesday, is below.

DD: Thanks for talking to me today.

Anthony Woods: No problem, thank you.

DD: So how’s it going on the campaign trail?

AW: You know, it’s really exciting.  We’re reaching that point where we’re really building some critical mass.  As you know, I did pretty well in the last fundraising quarter, we’re going to have enough money to compete with some experienced lawmakers.  The Human Rights Campaign and the LGBT Victory Fund just endorsed me, which is very exciting and shows their commitment to this campaign.  We just had a great grand opening of our office with 50 volunteers from across the area.  I’m holding a town hall meeting in Fairfield (this already happened -ed.) coming up and we’re really starting to see a path for this to happen.  It’s great.

DD: OK, well let’s start with the biggest issue on everyone’s minds right now and that’s health care.  The way it’s looking, if you’re elected you might get a vote on this.  What are your principles for this debate, and how would you like it to go.

AW: Well, I’ve been getting more concerned every day.  At first, I was thinking that Congress gets it.  They’re going to do something to deal with the health care crisis in this country that I see talking to folks every day.  But as we get into it, they’re moving further and further away.  First of all, they should have started the conversation at single payer so that if they had to move to the center they would have been coming from a better place.  What we have are two issues: access and cost.  Clearly the system right now is broken on both fronts.  50 million people go without health insurance and the costs are skyrocketing.  And the Congressional effort looks to be falling short.  I’m very concerned that there may be no public option.

DD: OK, so will you take a stand right now and say that if the bill before you has no public option that’s available the day it’s introduced, you won’t vote for it?

AW: I don’t know if I’d exactly go that far, but here’s what I would say.  I think there has to be a public option that’s efficient and effective.  And if the Democrats have some bold leadership, they can do it and do it right.  What we need is some competition in the individual marketplace.  If people have to buy insurance, we have to give them a choice that’s affordable.  So that’s my first priority.  And if the bill before me doesn’t have that, yeah, I’d have trouble voting for it.

DD: You say it’s about bold leadership, OK.  Right now, about 90% of all private insurers offer abortion coverage as part of their health care plans.  If a public option is supposed to compete with the private insurance market, doesn’t it have to offer the same kind of baseline coverage that private insurers offer, especially if they are legal medical services?

AW: I think so.  I am pro-choice, and I don’t believe in limiting the right to choose.  And if you’re giving someone health insurance who has had trouble affording it, if they have to make the difficult choice to get an abortion, they need the same kind of resources that you could get on the private market.  So I would agree with that.

DD: OK.  I want to talk about the F-22.  As you know, the Senate just voted down funding for additional funding for F-22 fighters that were designed for the Cold War and have never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan and are apparently vulnerable to rain.  What’s your reaction to that, and then I want to get into the military budget more generally.

AW: I support stripping the funding.  My view is that if the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President all say we don’t need them, we probably don’t.  And regardless of the impact on jobs, we should listen to that.  I think we need in procurement a short-term view and a long-term view.  We should obviously be prepared to defend the country, but we should be prudent with those funds, because it is real money.

DD: The F-22 funding and some other funding may stop, but the military budget will increase this year.  And we still spend more on military activities than any other country on Earth combined.  How can we continue to do that, isn’t it unsustainable?

AW: My deployments in Iraq taught me that the military cannot be the solution to all of our problems overseas.  Because we have this mindset currently, we’ve created a situation where the military is providing resources that other agencies could provide.  We shouldn’t have the Defense Department doing the work of the State Department or NGOs or US AID.  I think if we shift some of that burden, it will actually make the troops safer, because we can focus resources on protecting them and providing them the equipment they need, instead of making the military the sole solution to every problem overseas.

DD: I want to tell you about a story I saw in the Wall Street Journal.  It showed that the top 1% of wage earners in this country, the executives, the wealthy, are now earning 35% of all compensation.  How do you react to that?

AW: Wow.  That says a lot.  You know, these are tough times, and when you see a tiny fraction like that benefiting from the resources of this county, I think it says that they need to sacrifice.  We’re in a situation where we implemented tax cuts in the middle of a war.  We’re trying to figure out how to pay for health care.  And the top 1%, they’re doing pretty well.  I think we need some shared sacrifice.

DD: Why do you think it’s so difficult for Democrats to simply say what you just said in that way?  Even the surtax they’ve come up with in the House to pay for health care is getting dismissed.  Why can’t we just make the case that America is worth paying for, especially for those who use the public commons so much?

AW: I really think it starts with people who are willing to say that.  And it’s why I want to be there representing this community in Washington.  My opponents are mostly the same politicians who we keep sending to Washington again and again, and I think we need someone who isn’t afraid to say that, you know, the country has provided a lot to a small group of people, and they should give a little bit back.

DD: OK, let’s move on.  The foreclosure crisis is still hitting California hard, and so far the solutions that have come from Congress hasn’t worked.  What are some of your ideas to keep people in their homes?

AW: This is something I hear about from people every day when I’m campaigning.  In California, we had a moratorium on foreclosures for a while, and I think that’s part of the equation, but if you don’t provide loan modifications for people, eventually that’s not going to be enough.  The immediate crisis we have is that people are losing their homes, so we need to make the necessary adjustments to allow people to refinance.  After that immediate crisis, I think we have to clean up the regulatory environment, both in the mortgage market and also in banking.

DD: I’ve heard an interesting proposal called “right-to-rent,” where people facing foreclosure can pay rent on the home for a number of years, they get to stay where they are, the banks have a revenue stream and don’t have to deal with a blighted property, and the community gains from not having foreclosed properties on their block.  What do you think of that?

AW: Sounds good.  A lot of people are suffering right now.  And it’s traumatic to uproot yourself and have to leave your community, to have your kids leave schools.  So anything that keeps folks in homes and communities sounds like a smart idea to me.  It’s certainly better than what we’re doing.

DD: But how do we institute something like that when the banks, in the words of Dick Durbin, “own the place”?

AW: That’s a tough problem.  You know, the healthiest banks right now are the ones who separated investment and lending.  And I think that most people I meet are frustrated to see the banks get us to this point.  They want common-sense regulatory solutions to change that environment.  I think the banks will have a real problem on their hands if they keep pushing and pushing, and people don’t see a change in their daily lives while the banks rake in tons of money.

DD: OK, but what’s the theory of change?  How do we get all this done?  When you have a situation where special interests rule and campaign contribution money means more than constituents, how can we fight for progressive outcomes in a Congress that appears to care more about the next election?

AW: Well, I think we have to elect people who are accountable to the ones who sent them.  For me, I will give as much access to everyday people as possible, and let them shape my agenda rather than special interests and lobbyists.  And I think we need to elect more people who have this philosophy.  We’re going to have to do it one representative at a time.  And I think that’s one of the reasons why my campaign is taking off.  We cannot expect different results with the same politicians dealing with the same problems year after year.  So I don’t know if we can deal with everything at once, but we’ll have to do it one representative at a time.

DD: OK, last question.  Obviously, here in California, we’re looking at a terrible budget and lots of structural problems.  What can be done at the federal level to perhaps help the state out of this mess?

AW: Well, just looking at the state budget deal, it’s basically more of the same.  There’s a crisis of leadership in Sacramento, and it produced a budget full of accounting tricks that just kick the can down the road.  It’s clear that the system is broken, and that’s why I’d prefer a Constitutional convention and at the least getting rid of the 2/3 rule for budgets.  California is such an important economy, it’s a big chunk of the country, and when we aren’t doing well, the country suffers.  At the federal level, I think we need smart investment.  The state is a donor state, it doesn’t get back in funds what it pays in taxes.  So I’d like to help reduce that.  And also, we can take advantage of the resources and opportunities in California.  This state has the chance to be a new energy leader, through wind and solar.  And so I’d like to see those kinds of smart investments in California.

DD: Do you support a second stimulus, focused on state fiscal stabilization funds to save those jobs that rely on state spending?

AW: I think we’re having a hard time distributing the funds from the first stimulus.  So I think we have to give it some time to work.  But we are definitely at a crisis point in this state, I see it every day, so I think we need to monitor the situation.  And we have to make sure there’s a safety net in place for the people of California.

DD: OK, great, thanks for taking the time to talk to me.

AW: Thank you.

We have less than 50 days until the special election in the 10th Congressional District to replace Ellen Tauscher, who resigned to take a job at the State Department.  The candidates include local members of the legislature, the state’s Lieutenant Governor, and several candidates with interesting resumes.  There’s even word that New Age guru and Oprah pal Marianne Williamson may get into the race, although she doesn’t have much time to make her decision.  The 2nd quarter fundraising totals revealed some interesting outcomes, and the campaign staffs have debated who has the most local support and the most endorsements.  There’s even a burgeoning controversy about Ellen Tauscher’s presence on Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s mailers, which may violate the Hatch Act now that she works in the State Department.

We’ve heard a lot about strategies, funding and endorsements, but a little less so about where the candidates stand on the issues.  So I’m making an effort to interview all the Democratic candidates in the race, to discuss their views on the type of vexing problems that the country faces which they would be expected to deal with in Congress.  The first candidate to respond was Adriel Hampton, the former Political Editor at the San Francisco Examiner and an investigator in the SF City Attorney’s Office.  What follows is a paraphrased transcript of the interview I conducted last week.

DD: Thanks for taking some time to talk with me.

Adriel Hampton: Thank you for contacting me, this is great.

DD: How are things going with the campaign?

AH: Things are good.  I kind of feel on the razor’s edge here, where I could either do really well or crash out.  Obviously, (Anthony) Woods and I are the underdogs, while the elected officials are duking it out.  Woods focused on fundraising and did a pretty good job, while I focused on building a volunteer organization.  I’m working on voter ID in a distributed way using volunteers, and I’ve dropped 8,000 pieces of literature, half of it myself.  I have two little kids, and I’ve been canvassing basically every night after they go to sleep since April.  I got a designer in Los Angeles to deliver sharper literature, with a better printer, and I’m starting some targeted PAC fundraising among peace groups and progressive organizations.  I think Anthony and I are running a bit to the left of the field.  And then you have the possibility of Marianne Williamson getting in, and she has a major public profile as well as having worked with Kucinich in the past.  I think she takes votes from everybody a bit, but certainly (Assemblywoman Joan) Buchanan.

I’ve just been trying to build a consistent presence on the ground, through appearances and volunteer events.  The other campaigns have big staffs, especially (Lt. Gov. John) Garamendi.  (Sen. Mark) DeSaulnier has the Democratic club circuit down, and Garamendi is kind of running an air war.  But the poll he put out showed an 80% name ID and only 24% of the vote.  I’ve been campaigning everywhere, all over the district, and we’ll see how it goes.

DD: Let’s get into the issues.  I’ve been looking at your 12 ideas to change the nation, and right at the top is economic reform.  Could you talk about that a bit?

AH: Absolutely.  I got into this race to discuss economic issues and taking on Wall Street.  In fact, I was strongly considering running a primary against Ellen Tauscher, I have been critical of her since her vote to authorize the Iraq war.  Then I learned about how she was one of Wall Street’s biggest friends.  I’m running as an economic progressive.  A big problem with the Democratic Party is that they consistently fail everyday citizens on economic issues.  In many ways, they’re just as corporate as the other party.  I was active in the grassroots against the Bush bailout.  Obama brought in some of the same people responsible for taking us down that road with Wall Street.  I supported the stimulus, and the opportunity for New Deal-type spending, but I think we need to go further and break up the political power of Wall Street.

DD: You mention supporting credit unions.  How exactly would Congress be able to do that?

AH: I think we can favor them with an FDIC guarantee, promoting them as an alternative to the global banks.  During the financial crisis, the banks outside the big national firms tended to do better.  And so I think we should encourage that more local approach.

DD: There’s been a lot of talk recently about bankslaughter, this idea that we could add a new crime to hold bank managers personally responsible for behaving recklessly or in a negligent way.  Do you support bankslaughter?

AH: I would tone down the name to enact popular support!  But you know, when you see someone like Angelo Mozilo, he certainly engaged in what I would call a dereliction of duty.  I don’t have a problem with holding bankers personally responsible for failing to hold to certain consumer protections.  What I’ve seen is that the grassroots folks who are not necessarily active in politics are very receptive to this.  They want to see some accountability.  And I don’t want to harp on Obama entirely about these issues, he needs a progressive Congress as well to push this through, it’s not all on him.

DD: OK.  Another one of your 12 issues I read kind of surprised me, it was about conscience clauses.  As it turns out, there was a federal ruling recently saying that pharmacies must dispense the Plan B pill and cannot use their religious beliefs to deny women legal medical aid that they seek.  How you do respond to that?

AH: I am not for restricting access to the morning after pill or abortion information.  All I’m saying is that there has been a robust system of jurisprudence around reasonable exemptions.  You cannot fire disabled people because they cannot perform one task in a job, you have to make an exemption.  If a pharmacist doesn’t want to provide those pills, some other pharmacist can in their place.

DD: But some people live in rural areas where they have no other choice but one pharmacist for possibly hundreds of miles.  If that person doesn’t want to provide legal services, shouldn’t he find another job?

AH: Well, I’m for reasonable accommodation, not blocking access to health care.  I believe in allowing people to exercise their individual liberties as long as they don’t infringe on others.  I’m willing to talk about the nuance of issues like this, to see if we can come to an understanding.

DD: The biggest issue in Congress right now is health care.  Where do you stand?

AH: Well, I’m for single payer.  Pete Stark, up here in the Bay Area, decided to vote against that cap and trade bill because it was too weak, and conservatives now love him for it.  But I don’t think that should come into account, and I don’t think the grassroots should give up.  Some of my opponents say we should get what we can get, but we might lose the momentum for reform if we do that.  But I understand that we have to treat those millions of people who are suffering right now without health insurance.

DD: Let me ask you this, would you agree to refuse to sign any bill without a robust public option that is available immediately and can use Medicare bargaining rates to drive down costs?

AH: You know what, I would.  I would not vote for anything that didn’t severely change the insurance system.  I’m not a violent person, but the system is so violent right now that I feel the need to do violence to it.  And the same with war funding efforts without drawdowns and timelines, I couldn’t vote for that.  I know that the ads would kill me, defying the President.  But I think it’s important to talk about the issues, meeting as many people as I can, going right to them and explaining myself.  There have to be lines in the sand.  We have a radical right-wing party in this country that is almost insane.  And the Democrats are playing down the center.  We need some organizing from the left.  Just imagine someone like me, a regular guy, expressing the beliefs of Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.  I’m not afraid of the word socialist in certain respects.  I think there’s a role for government in equalization, to provide an economic bulwark against death, disease, and poverty.  And I get that regular people in the insurance industry may suffer, but are they worth the struggle of 47 million uninsured?  At least we can start these debates on the left, I think it would result in a better outcome.

DD: Obviously at Calitics we’re focused on the budget issues.  What help do you think the federal government could provide to help get some systemic reform here?

AH: Well, I voted all No on May 19, because I didn’t see any serious reform efforts in there.  One benefit of the problems now in California, which are tragic, is that I hope people are waking up.  There’s such a right-wing influence in the media and the popular consciousness.  As it turns out, California’s taxes are not progressive.  I just think there’s a rage on the populist level that can be tapped by progressives.  Everyone in this race is a strong liberal, but I think I’m the only progressive, fighting for progressive taxation and labor rights.

DD: So what reforms can we get out of Congress?  Some want the Feds to provide loan guarantees to the states, or they can condition a second stimulus to real budget reform, or even take Medicaid out of a state/federal partnership and into the realm of a purely federal program to smooth out outcomes throughout the country.  Where do you fall?

AH: Probably along the lines of more extreme reforms.  I appreciate Calitics’ reporting on this.  The loan guarantees sound like a good idea.  I could live with centralized funding of Medicaid with local administration.  And I’m for carrots and sticks in any stimulus funding, the idea that if you bail out a state, they have to have additional guarantees.  Overall, I’m for structural reform.  One of my opponents, Sen. DeSaulnier, is pushing a Constitutional convention.  But we all need to stay on top of that.

DD: One final question, with respect to Iran.  You wrote in your 12 points to change the nation that “I will oppose, by any means necessary, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon.”  Obviously, a lot has happened since you wrote that.  Are you revisiting this, and how can we engage with Iran now given the scenes of repression?

AH: Iran is one of the most difficult issues we have right now.  We shouldn’t forget the amazing turnout in their election, almost 85%.  What did we have for the special election, 25%?  We shouldn’t really be in the position of telling Iran what to do.  And you cannot give a state democracy, the people have to want it for themselves, things have to happen.  Military intervention in Iran right now would be terrible.  And we have to be careful, because the students over there are already being scapegoated as US puppets.  It’s also an open question whether Mousavi has clean hands, or if he’s just an outlet valve for the current system.  But I still believe we have to have negotiations.  I think Woods and I are the only two who said that at our last forum.  Garamendi was talking about banning the import of refined oil.  That would only hurt everyday people in Iran.  So I think we need diplomatic relations and a strategic dialogue.  I’m not happy about dealing with Ahmadienjad, but you have to play the hand you’re dealt.

DD: OK, thanks-

AH: Can I add one final issue?  I am the only candidate in the race who supports the full legalization of marijuana, I think Woods supports decriminalization.  We’re seeing a modern prohibition movement, and that leads to inefficient and dangerous outcomes.  We have a highly regulated alcohol industry, and I think we could do the same thing with marijuana.  I don’t smoke, but people like me, squares, need to say, “what is the policy benefit of continuing the drug war?”

DD: All right.  Thanks for your time.

AH: Great, thanks.

The past couple days on Calitics, we’ve had Jason Rosenbaum detail grassroots efforts over Dianne Feinstein’s confusing comments about and reticence to sign on to comprehensive health care reform.  First he highlighted Health Care for America Now’s petition urging Feinstein to get on board with health care reform.  Then he deconstructed Feinstein’s official statement on health care, which was unsatisfactory.

Feinstein is an important part of this debate.  She doesn’t sit on any of the relevant committees, but she has cachet in Washington, and with real health care reform coming down to just a handful of votes, her views will be crucial to the debate going forward.  At a time when 85 percent of respondents to a Field Poll support a public health insurance option to compete with private industry, Feinstein must not be allowed to ignore the will of her constituents, as she did in her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

Fortunately, practically every progressive organization in the state and even the country is hammering Feinstein for her naysaying, and demanding that she stay true to the principles she laid out, including controlling costs, expanding coverage and stopping the bad practices of the insurance industry, by endorsing a public health insurance option as part of any reform package.  In addition to Health Care For America Now, MoveOn created an ad and drove phone calls to Feinstein’s office.  Today CREDO Mobile joined the fray with a petition asking her to support the public plan, and the return receipt after you sign offers a one-click retweet of a Twitter message to spread the word, which is innovative.  The Courage Campaign also has a letter calling on DiFi to stand with the President and support a public option.  Courage Campaign also offers one-click forwarding of the message to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace (MySpace still exists?).

Health care reform is the make-or-break issue of this year, and Dianne Feinstein needs to hear from every one of her constituents about it.

(In addition, Firedoglake is whipping the public option in the House, with the goal of finding 40 Democrats who will commit to opposing any bill that DOESN’T have a strong public option contained in it.  Presuming that all Republicans will vote against any health care reform, this would have the effect of changing the incentives in Congress, currently tilted toward what the most conservative elements of the Democratic coalition would accept, and move them instead toward what the liberal base of the coalition will demand in exchange for their vote.  There are lots of California Democratic House members on their list, so head over and get to the phones!)

I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.

How many times have you said or thought that? Plenty, I’ll bet. If you are like ACORN member Tamecka Pierce from Florida who suffers from lupus and serious gaps in her health care coverage, it’s a regular thing.

If you are like the ACORN members I speak with regularly, the mother who worries about her son’s asthma medicine, the partners who worry if their uninsured husbands get injured on the job, the families who face discrimination in the ambulances on the way to the hospital where a lack of insurance can take us 20 minutes farther away to a hospital that will provide care, then you know.

You are also sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Well, you aren’t alone.

Faced with a generational opportunity to fix America’s broken health care system thousands of people are joining together with Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and gathering today, June 25th, in Washington, DC. We are union leaders, healthcare workers, moms and dads, faith leaders, students, advocates, and over 900 ACORN members from around the country all coming together in the largest healthcare rally in American history! We are calling on Congress to pass a quality, affordable healthcare bill.

The sick and tired are going to halls of the well-insured and well-cared-for and telling them that now is the time to reform our healthcare system and provide quality, affordable healthcare to all Americans.

Today we are sending one clear message to our elected officials in Washington: We’ve fought too hard, come too far, and have waited too long for Congress to do too little. This fight is about quality care that people can afford, and that means a package of comprehensive benefits that gives all of us the care we need. We won’t settle for anything less.

We know the enemies of health care reform are working hard to defeat any meaningful reform. And they are being sneaky. They have to be because 72% of Americans support the centerpiece of health care reform: the Public Health Insurance Plan, the so-called “public option”. Opponents of reform say things like, “It’s too expensive.” “Now isn’t the time.” Or they rally behind the idea of buyer co-ops or state-by-state solutions. My friends, these are all stalling tactics aimed at derailing the centerpiece of any meaningful reform. Simply put, we need a robust public health insurance option and Congress needs to make it happen right now.

Because not only are we sick and tired of being sick and tired, we’re sick and tired of excuses, we’re sick and tired of delay, and we’re sick and tired of false solutions. The time is now, the momentum is with us. Now its time for us to fight and win.

You may know that health care reform is in a fair bit of trouble.  The defenders of the status quo in Washington, often a bipartisan lot, want to deny consumers choice, force them into a market monopolized by private insurance companies who have shown through their actions over the past several decades that they are concerned about profit and not people, and scream that we cannot afford giving all our citizens high-quality and affordable health care, while spending trillions on banks and military weapons.  It’s the tragedy of the bipartisan elite consensus that currently rules the roost, and not even the greatest economic crisis since the Depression has so far been able to dislodge it.

The bipartisan elite consensus that governs this country is quite simple. First, deficits and high taxes are always the basic cause of economic stress or the biggest threat facing a recovery, no matter the circumstances. (The corollary is that cutting taxes and spending are the ultimate answer to every economic challenge.) Taxes on the wealthy (excuse me “the most productive”) must be kept as low as possible, the military cannot be subject to any budgetary constraint and the national security state cannot be held accountable, business and industry must always be given top priority and all other government expenditures are legislative bargaining chips regardless of their impact on the lives of average Americans. Nobody questions that consensus or even suggests that some other set of priorities might be useful from time to time.

This consensus flies in the face of known public preferences, both in this state and around the country, for a full overhaul of the broken health care system that turns lives into data points on a balance sheet.

The health policy survey of 1,207 registered voters showed that 88 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of nonpartisans and 55 percent of Republicans agree that the health care system either needs significant restructuring or should be completely rebuilt.

“There is bipartisan agreement that the health system needs some fundamental changes, and there is greater impatience that this should be done now,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll.

The poll, funded through a grant by the California Wellness Council, comes as President Barack Obama is calling for overhauling the health care system.

His insistence on a government program to compete with private insurers is infuriating some conservatives, who fear such a plan would drive insurance companies out of business. It is also drawing scorn from some liberals who want a single-payer, government-run program.

But 85 percent of respondents to the Field Poll said they support the general concept of allowing people a choice between privately run and government-run health plans.

“They’re not necessarily endorsing the public plan or saying that they would choose it,” DiCamillo said. “They just like having alternatives. The introduction of a public plan is supported because it would provide greater choices.”

You cannot get Americans to agree with 85% consensus on whether the sky is blue.  But this they understand: the system is broken, the pharmaceuticals and the insurers and the HMOs cannot be trusted, and choice to force them – through could old market economics – to compete on price and quality is deeply desirable.  Later in the poll, Field finds differences on how to pay for reform, an outgrowth of the Two Santa Claus Theory.  But giving people a policy they can support will certainly allow them to swallow the mechanisms for paying for it.

So at this point we need to ask our legislators if they support what 85% of Californians support – a robust public option to compete with private insurance in the health care system.  Frankly this is the very least we should have, but without it, we cannot call anything coming from Washington real reform.  Open Left and DFA have created a whip tool.  Simply put, we need to email our Senators – and the Senate is where health care will be won or lost – to answer four specific questions about whether or not they support the public option:

Write a short note in your own words on why you support a public healthcare option:

A public healthcare option is crucial to controlling costs, the heart of the healthcare crisis.

A public healthcare option will keep private insurance honest.

Then ask your Senators these four questions:

Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?

Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?

Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?

Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?

Conclude by reminding your Senators that you are a constituent, and you expect answers to these questions in writing, via email.

Right now health care reform is reeling.  We need this whip count to know where everyone stands and put pressure on our lawmakers to adopt the position of 85% of the public.  Please take action today.  You can see where Sens. Boxer and Feinstein stand here.  This is the most important domestic policy of this generation, and we cannot wait another year to get it right.