In an interview with Ezra Klein in the Washington Post yesterday Jim Cooper (D-TN) championed his vote for the Health Care Bill, while distancing himself from his own vote in favor of restricting abortion rights with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Before the Stupak amendment, many of my friends had not realized that the government gives a $250 billion annual subsidy to employer-sponsored health care. If you understand today’s system, the Hyde amendment bans direct subsidies of abortion. It does not ban indirect subsidies of abortion, in particular the $250 billion that goes to employer-based health care. The bishops never noticed that. But this is the way education works in a democracy. It’s not easy or simple. But when people begin making decisions, they learn about lots of things they never noticed before.

goldni at Silence Isn't Golden takes issue with Cooper's defense of his vote:

Ignoring the really condescending tone of that paragraph, that's still a bullshit reason. Now, I know that Cooper opposes subsidies to employer-based healthcare. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not private insurance companies offering individual plans within an exchange can still offer coverage for one item that they generally already cover. Not everyone within this exchange is going to receive subsidies from the government, but if even one person receives $1 in subsidies, then the plan they're enrolled in would have to deny reproductive health coverage to everyone, even to those not receiving subsidies.

If everyone was so opposed to these "indirect subsidies" to abortion through employer-based healthcare, then why has there never been any serious attempt to cut if off before, even when the Republicans were in power? Why is there no serious effort to stop it now? What would be the substantive difference between that and what they're proposing in the future exchange? Why has Cooper never couched this argument in these terms before, that the problem is not employer-based healthcare or an insurance exchange themselves but the fact that it could remotely cover this one thing? He's always framed it in terms of the former rather than the latter.

Bottom line--if you're against the government providing subsidies, whether through employer healthcare or an insurance exchange, then vote against the damn bill and stand by what you believe. Don't use the abortion issue to weasel out of it and say, "See, this is better now because we're not providing expensive subsidies" when you still are providing them for everything else. Where's the amendment banning subsidies from being used to purchase Viagra?

Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left (Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment) catches Cooper trying to pull a fast one:

[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

[JIM COOPER:] They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.

(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.

Ah, feel the eliminationism.

Rep. Gregg Harper, a Mississippi Republican, had a jocular interview with Politico's Anne Schroeder Mullins and popped out this little knee-slapper:

Mullins: What in the world does the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus do?

Harper: We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.

Coming from a congressman from a state still renowned for its lynchings and murders not just of black people but white civil-rights workers -- in an era many of us can still remember clearly -- this kind of "humor" is anything but funny.

However, it is the kind of thing we've come to expect to today's Republicans, isn't it?

Not that makes any difference to Blue Dog Democrats like Ben Nelson. As Media Matters notes:

Ironically, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), a co-chair of the caucus, has praised the group for being bipartisan. "Unlike some of the other activities in Washington, Republicans and Democrats reach across the aisle and join hands to work together, not as Republican or Democrat, but as sportsmen and women," he wrote.

Someone should ask Ben Nelson if he enjoys hunting liberal Democrats too, since that's what his caucus is apparently viewed as a venue for.

(Addendum: Somehow I'm not surprised that Harper is a Mississippian who thinks John Grisham is a "literary great" who surpasses Faulkner and Welty. Gad.)

Finally, someone's telling it like it is. These Blue Dogs are nothing but venal malcontents and it looks like even other Congress members are getting fed up:

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.

A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Thursday's call was being hosted by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future to release a report making the case for a strong new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of any health overhaul legislation.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (98)

PLAYS: (258)

Digby took note of this segment on Hardball, and I agree with her assessment about what it would mean for the President if he lost some Blue Dog Democrats in the mid-term election.

I would love to hear anyone tell me why I shouldn't be cheering for that outcome.

Cook said it would "reflect on" the president, but from my perspective it would reflect well on him. And if it happens because he rammed through meaningful health care reform instead of some watered down bucket of warm spit and the administration managed to get unemployment down, I think he will very likely have Morning in America in 2012.

To hell with Rahm and his appease the Blue Dogs at all costs strategy. What good is it if the president fails in 2012? If Cook is right and the Dems maintain their majority while losing a bunch of these reactionary wingnuts, I couldn't be happier. And the Democrat should be happy too because it means they can pass successful legislation for a change.

It wouldn't break my heart either. These Blue Dogs and Liebercrats do nothing but vote against the President anyway, and they give the media an excuse to bring them on to undermine the progressives in the party.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (891)

PLAYS: (1373)

Isn't it wonderful that Raum Emanuel thought it was a great idea to get a bunch of Republicans to pretend they're Democrats? Who would have ever imagined that could have turned out badly? Bluedog Mike Ross decides to see just how many Republican talking points he can squeeze into a several minute segment on CNN's State of the Union.

King: [A]t one of your recent town halls, there was actually a young man -- not quite ready to vote, I don't believe -- who got up and raised one of the big concerns about this bill, and that is spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Ross, I want the same opportunity that you had. Please do not -- don't load me up with debt that I can't pay.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, you voted in committee to keep the process moving, to get the House bill moving along, to keep it moving after you got some concessions. If that bill were on the full House floor tomorrow, based on everything you have heard back home, including the concern there about deficit spending, would you vote yes or do you need additional changes?

ROSS: Well, I think -- I think we'd probably need to see a few more changes, too.

Let me say this, that I'm glad to see all people, young and old, starting to talk about the debt. I've been talking about the debt for nine years. Let's not forget here, it took George Washington to Bill Clinton to put this country $5 trillion in debt. It took the last president to double it. And so, I'm one of those that have said, one of my key principles is I will not support a health care reform bill that is not deficit-neutral, period.

KING: Not deficit-neutral, period. As you know, the president is not on the ballot next year, but all of you Blue Dog Democrats in the House are on the ballot, and the Republican National Committee is already after you on the radio, sir. I want you to listen to a snippet from this radio ad attacking you for voting to keep the process moving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMIC VOICE: He folded like a lawn chair.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross.

COMIC VOICE: He threw in the towel.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross did exactly what Nancy Pelosi wanted him to do.

COMIC VOICE: He caved in, he buckled.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross was one of just four congressmen who cast the deciding votes to advance Nancy Pelosi's radical big government health care plan. Ross backed a plan that will cost taxpayers billions, just days after talking like he wouldn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Such an important policy question facing the country right now, Congressman, but also a very dicey political environment. Can you vote for anything along the lines of what is right now before the House of Representatives and survive next year?

ROSS: John, first, I've got a response ad that I'm running to that ad, and I hope at some point you all will play just as many seconds of it.

I read the newspaper this morning. $57 million has been spent in the last six months, most of it in the last 45 days, trying to scare folks. I saw an ad the other night on TV. It scared the living daylights out of me. But I went back and watched it again. It used the word "could" six times in 60 seconds.

I've laid out -- I've now done 37 town hall meetings on health care reform since April. I'm doing telephone town hall meetings. I'm doing roundtable discussions at hospitals, where we bring in small- business owners, the self-employed, the uninsured, doctors, hospital administrators, and we're listening to them.

I can tell you, I've laid down my set of principles, so I will not force government-run health care on anyone. If there ever is government-run health care, the first ones to sign up should be the president and every member of Congress, including myself. You should be able to keep the insurance you've got today, if you like it, and always choose your own doctor. No federal funding for illegal immigrants or for abortion, and no rationing of health care. I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period.

KING: Congressman Ross, we appreciate your time today.

All I know is months ago it was conventional wisdom in D.C. that the Democrats couldn't take the House, that candidates shouldn't talk about the war, and that the best way to try to win 15 seats was to throw all your money into about 18 of them, and hope for the best. In the end, that's not how it played out.

- Duncan Black, better known as Atrios, in November 2006.

Who boosted Howard Dean into the chairman's spot at the DNC, bringing his successful 50-state policy to fruition in last year's presidential race? The netroots did. And in 2006, who showed Rahm Emanuel that yes, we really could take control of Congress? We did.

Whose fundraising pushed the Democrats over the top in the 2008 Senate races? Ours did. Whose activist base drove the publicity, turnout and dollars in last year's presidential primaries and general election?

Duh.

So what have we accomplished? The war goes on and we've even expanded our presence in Afghanistan. The Bush-era encroachments on civil liberties have not only been embraced by a Democratic president, the Democratic Congress gives him their blessing. And with the goal of universal healthcare within tantalizing reach, we have Blue Dog Democrats - Democrats! trying to obstruct it.

Enough of kicking the Blue Dogs. What can we do to be more effective? Where did we go wrong?

Continue reading »

I watch a video like this - thoughtful doctors pointing out the pressing need for health care reform - and I just have to shake my head at the travesty we have instead. I'm especially furious at the obstructionist role taken by the Blue Dogs, the quasi-Democrats.

The thing is, the Blue Dogs are not negotiating in good faith - that is, they are not trying to improve health care - or people's lives, unless that person is an insurance company lobbyist. It's about money and influence, and how much they're willing to do to get it and keep it. Nice to see prostitution pays off!

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

Many liberal Democrats and advocates of health-care reform were angry about the compromise bill and view the Blue Dogs as being too cozy with drugmakers, hospitals and insurers, and they argue that the conservative Democrats should be more supportive of the agenda set by President Obama and Democratic leaders.

"The Blue Dogs are carrying water for the industry instead of their constituents," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a liberal pro-reform group. "In effect, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans are taking positions that are closer all the time and further away from what most Americans want."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (661)

PLAYS: (2133)

Well, it's about damned time:

Liberal lawmakers who oppose a deal House leaders cut with centrist Blue Dog Democrats have gathered signatures from 57 lawmakers who say they won't vote for the plan.

“This agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies,” the letter says. “We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.”

If Republicans oppose the healthcare bill on the floor en masse, 57 Democrats voting “no” would defeat the bill.

The agreement between four Blue Dogs and House leaders cut $100 billion off of the price tag of the bill. Under the proposal, reimbursement rates in the government-run “public plan” would not be linked to Medicare. It would also reduce subsidies to make a government-run “public plan” more affordable.

Liberals say those changes undermine the public plan by making it too expensive for people to join.

The signers are mostly members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Asian-Pacific Islander Caucus.

So last week the Thune Amendment was thankfully defeated. A group I work with, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, took on the task of defeating this insane legislation, which only had a chance of passing due to the extremism of the NRA/Birther crowd and the ever-present cowardice of the usual Blue Dog Democrats.

I guess they weren't busy enough trying to destroy health care reform or climate-change legislation, so overriding state laws trying to prevent criminals from enjoying the right to concealed carry seemed like a good idea.

Thankfully, the NRA lost a gun battle for the first time in five years, but no thanks to squeamish Blue-Dog Democrats. Take Colorado Democratic Senators Udall and Bennet, for example. They waited to the end to vote, as if calculating which way to go right up until the last possible moment, and then voted with the gun nuts. Interestingly, two Republicans from generally pro-gun states, Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana, didn't feel a need to cave to the Bonkers Wing of the GOP. Nor did some other Democrats from pro-gun states, like Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

In response, a Columbine dad, who suffered what is the nightmare scenario for all of us with children in school, decided to remind these two men about what is and is not leadership in today's Denver Post. It says everything that needs to be said on this issue, as well as a host of others the Blue Dogs continue to practice duck & cover.

Sadly, the biggest threat to rational legislating right now is not from Republicans, who are and should be irrelevant, but from Blue Dogs. These people need to be taught not to fear their big contributors, but We The People.

(**As I stated in the piece, I am working with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.)

The word I'm hearing is that Rep. Henry Waxman kicked the Blue Dogs around over their health care obstructionism and the earlier reports of a deal being dead in the HOUSE is not the case. The Hill is reporting along those lines:

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) says there is "no alternative" but to have healthcare legislation bypass his Energy and Commerce Committee if Blue Dog Democrats don't accept a deal worked out Friday.Waxman is now playing a game of legislative chicken with the Blue Dogs. He's hoping the inclusion of a study on Medicare reimbursement rates in the healthcare overhaul will be enough to placate the centrist Democrats, who say the government program short-changes hospitals and physicians in their rural districts.

If that’s not, the seven Blue Dogs could join with the committee's Republicans to "eviscerate" healthcare reform, and that’s something Waxman will not tolerate.

"I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman told reporters.

"I don’t see what other alternative we have, because we're not going to let them empower Republicans on the committee."

Is there anyone wondering why Waxman took over the EC&C Committee from Dingle? If he hadn't then the Blue Dogs would be running the show. Waxman is an excellent at legislature and obviously knew he needed to get things done.

Hullabaloo has much more:

The truth is that the Blue Dogs are slaves to entrenched power, serving the interests of powerful lobbies rather than the middle-income voters in their districts. Cutting subsidies to 300% of poverty level from 400% would make health care less affordable to working people - and it's only being considered in the House because Blue Dogs want to protect those making half a million a year from a surtax.

Which is why Waxman is absolutely in the right to do this. The Blue Dogs, cheered on by Republicans, are simply standing in the way of progress. You can tell because their arguments lack logic and coherence. They apparently got the President's MedPAC proposal in the bill, as part of a larger deal over reducing regional disparities in Medicare reimbursements, but other measures that reduce costs they resist. And measures that increase costs they favor. They exist at this point to be nothing more than sand in the gears.

At some point, I think you do have to pull the trigger. Matt Yglesias makes the moral case, that good legislation matters more than good process.

The Washington Post's Harold Mayerson rips into the Blue Dogs:

Centrist Democrats' opposition to health reform verges on the incoherent. A caucus (the Blue Dogs) formed ostensibly to promote balanced budgets now disapproves of the proposed taxes that would cover the expenses of the new programs. The congressional centrists say, commendably, that they want to squeeze more economies out of the system, but they oppose giving more power to an agency that would set the payment scales for physicians.

[...] The Republican opposition to President Obama's push for health-care reform, on the other hand, makes clear political sense. If they can stop Obama on health care, as South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint recently noted, it "will be his Waterloo." Why Democrats of any ideology want to cripple their own president in his first year in office, and for seeking an objective that has been a stated goal of their party since the Truman administration, is a more mysterious matter.

Is the additional tax burden on small businesses their concern? If so, good news: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that only the top 4 percent of those businesses would be affected by the surcharge that House Democratic leaders proposed, and that's based on the original proposal, before Speaker Nancy Pelosi altered it to include just the wealthiest fraction of the top 1 percent of Americans. Would such a tax impede an economic recovery? In downturns this severe, it's been broad-based consumer spending and public-sector investment that have revived the economy. Private investment doesn't jump-start a revival of purchasing; it follows it.

But the big picture here, of which the resistance to reforming health care is just one element, is our growing inability to meet our national challenges. Almost all of the major nations with which we trade, for instance, have quasi-mercantilist policies that lead them to champion their own higher-wage growth industries, often in manufacturing. In America alone are such policies considered anathema. In consequence, as the Alliance for American Manufacturing reports in a new book, we shuttered 40,000 factories from 2001 through 2007 -- the years, ostensibly of prosperity, between the past two downturns. The diminution of manufacturing, which employs just 11 percent of the U.S. workforce, may please Wall Street, which looks with disfavor on decent-wage domestic production, and Wal-Mart, which tripled its purchases from China (from $9 billion to $27 billion annually) during roughly the same years those American factories closed, but it poses a clear threat to the nation's economic, and even military, power.

But act on behalf of the nation as a whole, even if it means goring Wall Street's or Wal-Mart's oxen? Perish the thought. Pass a health-reform bill that will cover 45 million uninsured Americans and slow the ruinous growth of health-care spending? Not if somebody, somewhere, actually has to pay higher taxes. Hey, we're America -- the can't-do nation.

As our former president might put it, Heckuva job, Brownies.