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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
The focus has been on the amusement part of these remarks, as a means to distract the nation from what is the very true underlying point. We spend billions to destroy, but won't spend a fraction to protect our children. It's disgusting and pathetic. And to that, I say, right on!
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry's 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she's still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, "moderate" Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she's still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she's being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I'll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new "when the chips are down" scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA's congressional delegation, in descending order.
I'm guessing that at tonight's Calitics' Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house -- wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
...who just signed on to a letter to the President vowing not to appropriate any more money to the Iraq debacle for anything other than a fully funded withdrawal. Kudos to these 12:
Lynn Woolsey
Barbara Lee
Maxine Waters
Ellen Tauscher
Diane Watson
Bob Filner
Hilda Solis
Grace Napolitano
Linda Sanchez
Mike Honda
Pete Stark
Lois Capps
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) voted against the 4 month Blank Check, just like he has in every previous Iraq War funding measure. Rep. Stark has been right on Iraq from Day 1.
And by the way, what is four months really going to do? I listened to Bush's presser this morning, and it is clear that come September, it'll be more money into a civil war. If we are doing well, well ... um... the pigs can keep on flying. If we aren't it's because the terrorists have objectives and they new our resolve in September would be weak. No, as disastrous as it will be if we pull out, it will be more disastrous if we wait there, helping terrorist recruitment for the day that we eventually pull out. It is now clear that we are refereeing a Civil War for which we couldn't pick a winner even if we wanted to.
This is more of a national story, but considering the importance of the health care debate in California, I think this is a significant development.
WASHINGTON, April 16 - AARP, the lobby for older Americans, announced Monday that it would become a major participant in the nation's health insurance market, offering a health maintenance organization to Medicare recipients and several other products to people 50 to 64 years old.
The products for people under 65 include a managed care plan, known as a preferred provider organization, and a high-deductible insurance policy that could be used with a health savings account.
When the new coverage becomes available next year, AARP will be the largest provider of private insurance to Medicare recipients. In addition to the new H.M.O., AARP will continue providing prescription drug coverage and policies to supplement Medicare, known as Medigap coverage.
William D. Novelli, the chief executive of AARP, said, "In launching these initiatives, we are driven by our mission to create a healthier America."
This is the equivalent of the Sierra Club buying an oil company.
Forget ArnoldCare, Rep. Pete Stark wants to go BIG.(h/t to Josh Richman)
Stark's plan would basically expand MediCare (and redub it AmeriCare...how patriotic) by um, basically doing what Arnold wants to do. However, Stark's plan would leverage the existing MediCare infrastructure. Americans would either be covered by employers or AmeriCare. The plan would be funded through employer contributions and other government revenue. And check out this doozy:
In 2007, {a Commonwealth Fund study} suggests Stark's legislation would cost the federal government $154.5 billion - less than the price of the Bush tax breaks for the top 20 percent of wage earners. But AmeriCare would save households $142.6 billion, state and local governments $57.4 billion and private employers $15.2 billion. As a result, its net impact on health care costs would be a $60.7 billion reduction in overall spending.
First, let me say that I appreciate the efforts of those in California that are trying to get us universal health care. Especially Shiel Kuehl. Single payer is ultimately where we are going to end up, but in the interim, we'll need some stepping stones. The federal government has advantages due to the size and the national economy that make these things more workable there. That's why Rep. Stark's plan is so important.
Over the flip, you shall find Stark's press release.
Yesterday, the tubes were buzzing with word that Pete Stark doesn't believe in a "supreme being". Call him a non-theist, an atheist, or whatever, but Stark is just being honest about his personal faith (or lack thereof).
In response to the initial stories, Stark commented to the LA Times this morning:
"When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Stark said. "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services." (LA Times 3/13/07)
You can't help but praise Stark for speaking honestly on a subject that many choose to play the role of good politician. But that has never, ever been Pete Stark's style. In fact, back in 2003, the SF Chronicle tried to get a primary challenge to Stark with an editorial challenging his fighting back against Republicans.
And there was the time he accused Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., of being a "whore for the insurance industry." Stark once brought up President Bush's personal battles with alcohol during a debate on federal funding of faith- based programs. (SF Chronicle 7/23/03)
Oh, heaven forbid he call a spade a spade. Nancy Johnson is a whore for the insurance industry. ANd guess what, President Bush
So, this country would rather have a president who's been passed out on his buddy's couch rather than a guy who doesn't believe in a 2,000 year old book? Apparently so, as only 45% of voters would consider voting for an athiest...but recovering alcoholics get a pass. Religions do not have a monopoly on morality.
Pete Stark has been a leader on health care issues for his entire tenure, and always a fighter for progressive causes. This doesn't change anything. This is one man speaking honestly. And for that, I applaud Rep. Stark.
