She missed an economic populist opportunity by not mentioning that they cost 10 to 20 times much much more than public military and intelligence men and women do.
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is joining 17 other representatives in calling for an up-or-down vote on Obama's Afghanistan "surge."
Dear Madam Speaker:
We write to urge you to ensure the House will hold a separate debate and floor vote on the President's proposal to escalate the United States military presence in Afghanistan.
The current co-signers are:
Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Congressman James P. McGovern
Congressman Walter B. Jones
Congresswoman Lynn C. Woolsey
Congressman Eric J. J. Massa
Congressman Fortney Pete Stark
Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Congressman Jerrold Nadler
Congressman José E. Serrano
Congressman Michael M. Honda
Congressman James P. Moran
Congressman Michael E. Capuano
Congresswoman Janice D. Schakowsky
Congressman Barney Frank
Congressman Peter A. DeFazio
Congresswoman Schakowsky and others passed TARP legislation with little more than a finger wag's worth of real enforcement. The consequences of that exclusion are not surprising to those of us who know this industry and the status of market regulation. That's why this post belongs in the "better late than never" category. Nonetheless, I applaud Rep. Schakowsky for posting it. I love the sassy-pants personnae and the link to the H1N1 vaccine distribution debacle? I am having a Jan moment.
By Rep. Jan Schakowsky | The Huffington Post, November 6, 2009
This week I had an opportunity most Americans would relish, just as I did. I was able to unload on two top executives of Goldman Sachs who descended from on high to my office because I clearly needed some educating. One was a Vice President and the other their Chief Risk Officer.
I had authored a letter on October 28, along with Congressman Peter Welch, that read, "We understand Goldman Sachs is expected to award its employees $21 billion in bonuses this year...Goldman Sachs is good at what it does, but its profits this year...were supplemented by the generous financial support of American taxpayers. In particular, Goldman Sachs benefited from a taxpayer payment of $12.9 billion from AIG on credit default swaps, insurance lending, and other contractual obligations between the two firms. AIG's payment to Goldman Sachs was, in fact, a taxpayer payment...Should taxpayers be repaid the $12.9 billion before bonuses are distributed to Goldman employees? We believe they should. We therefore urge Goldman Sachs to repay taxpayers the $12.9 billion it received from them through AIG."
The letter was signed "Sincerely" and I let them know just how sincerely I felt about it.
Democratic Metropolitan Water Reclamation District candidate Todd Connor filed his nominating petitions on Monday with a whopping 22,000 signatures--a move that will undoubtedly grab the attention Cook County political insiders.
Candidates for this under-the-radar office need 7,981 signatures--more than required for a gubernatorial candidacy.
Connor, 31, a Progressive Democrat and first-time candidate, was unable to secure official backing from the Cook County Democrat Party regulars but pulled-off an impressive party-like petition drive that will put the slated candidates on notice.
“This grass roots effort highlights the hardworking, energized nature of my campaign. We are educating voters and talking about new ideas ... ," said Connor, a former Navy officer and Illinois Inspector General.
The Cook County Democrats slated incumbent commissioners Barbara McGowan and Mariyana Spyropoulos and newcomer Michael Alvarez.
Backing Connor is an impressive list of progressive politicians: Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (D-4th), U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, State Senator Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston), State Senator Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest), State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago), Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer (D-Chicago) State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), Alderman Tom Tunney (D-44th), former State Senator Carol Ronen (D-Chicago), State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin (D-Evanston), Northfield Township Committeeman Mike Kreloff, Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado (D-Chicago).
Meanwhile, Quinn's primary opponent, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, upped his TV ad buys to more than $1 million, got endorsed on Monday by the state council of electrical union workers, and on Tuesday snagged the pipe trades unions.
My goal was to egg Schakowsky on to sign up with Rep. Grijalva's progressive whip count supporting a robust public option and drawing a line in the sand as a threat. Subsequently I heard no more about Grijalva's count. Till today.
Apparently Grijava got up to 46 representatives to sign on to his whip count. I say up to because we further learn that at that point he stopped counting progressives who would draw a line in the sand. Out of frustration. No quite the opposite. If anything he was doing better with this count than the one months ago that garnered 60 signatures. No instead he began a new count:
The effort was dropped, however, in order to begin a new whip count of the entire Democratic Caucus on support for a public option with Medicare +5% rates (aka, the "robust" public option the Progressive Block had been demanding). This new whip count was begun at the request of Speaker Pelosi, who had challenged the Progressive Caucus to demonstrate sufficient support to pass such a public option.
That count is supposedly over 170 but below 218, 218 being the magic passage number ,of course.
So now we, progressives, are in the interesting position of being on the offensive. (Granted, I must add for those of us staunch single-payeristas, it barely qualifies as an offensive.) Now progressives are spreading out in the house hunting for support.
So now the question is not what can we do to insure that Jan takes a strong enough stand, but what can we do to get the Bill Foster's of the world to promise to support a robust public option, i.e. Medicare +5%, open enrollment etc.?
Indeed, could we even dream of getting Melissa Bean to sign on? So lets try a poll. Pick all you think might support a robust public option.
The open seat in the solidly Democratic and progressive 18th District has attracted several good progressive candidates. But let's face it, the Illinois general assembly is full of good progressives that are powerless on the big issues. Why? Because of current leadership that is almost psychotically dictatorial and past leadership that was so corrupt that it has left our state finances and our social safety net in a shambles.
And year after year this leadership is kept in place by a support system that includes many of these same good progressives. They support it passively with their silence and lack of interest in creating something else, and actively by funneling their money and support to that same leadership.
In some districts yes, we're lucky to elect a Democrat at all. But in the 18th we have the opportunity to elect someone who is not only a solid progressive, but has a history of standing up to the very interests that are strangling our state government and our hopes for reform.
Did you know that in 1986 Jeff ran for State Central Committeeman against the chair of the machine-dominated Illinois Democratc Party -- and won? For that brief four-year period the Committeemen were able to elect a non-machine chair and rebuild downstate and suburban Dem organizations, which helped swing Illinois back into the Democratic column in 1992.
Did you know that in 1988 Jeff ran against Joe Berrios -- Joe "the poster child for conflicts of interests" Berrios -- for what was then the Board of Tax Appeals? Jeff received over a quarter-million votes in that race, receiving strong support from north suburban, lakefront, and majority-black wards and townships, as well as many media, labor, good-government, and progressive-advocacy endorsements. Unfortunately intense machine turnout on the southwest side overwhelmed the good-government forces and put Berrios into the office he holds today.
Ever run for office against a machine candidate? It is an incredible thing to take on and I give tremendous props to anyone willing to do it.
But there are several other reasons why I am supporting Jeff Smith.
By that I mean will Jan cause a mis-judgment by Obama on Health Care because she pulls a punch out of misguided relationship loyalty.
Jan represents a strong single-payer district. If you argue with my belief on that then I will come back with a strong public-option district retort. My point being that interest number one for Jan is her district which is very very progressive.
Interest number two for Jan is her long-term relationship with Obama. Now we pretty much believe Obama to be a centrist Democrat which means he is sometimes progressive and sometimes not at all. A big part of Obama's relationship with Jan is that she is a window on the strong progressive side of politics for Obama. Obama depends on straight progressive talk from Jan. He very much needs Jan to be a strong progressive. If she pulls progressive punches then she will throw off Obama's political calculations.
Jan very much needs to sign the Progressive Caucus whip count demanding strong a public option. To not do so will be a betrayal of loyalty because of a conflict of interest.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who heads the caucus's health care task force, said that some of her more nervous left-leaning colleagues were mistaking Obama's sound political instincts for wavering convictions.
"I may be in a somewhat different position, having a long-term relationship with Barack," she said, "and so I feel confident about his being tough and strong. People were worried, 'Oh, is he caving and just conceding and backing off?' He doesn't do that. He may seek a compromise [on health care at some point] that some people think goes too far, but it is not out of weakness. It is out of reasoned judgment about how far he can go and what is the best and most practical approach."
[edit update 9/20 - (bored makes a point below that I hadn't considered.] by Jeff Wegerson (wegerje)
Robyn Gabel is a progressive. Robyn is a woman. Robyn is a long time friend. Robyn is endorsed by Jan Schakowsky.
Last August 5th I was riding the el home with several others after spending the evening downtown with IVI-IPOers meeting to improve the IVI-IPO endorsement process. On the el was fellow IVI-IPOer Jeff Smith. Jeff was at that moment the progressive heir apparent to replace Julie Hamos who has decided to go for the seat being vacated in IL-10 by Congressional Rep. Mark Kirk. Jeff Smith is a Prairie State Blue blogger. At that moment I was a Jeff Smith supporter. As a progressive blogger my aim is always to get the best possible Democratic candidate elected. That means as progressive a candidate as possible. Jeff Smith is a known progressive quantity.
After the jump I will explain how I know Robyn to be a good solid progressive candidate as well.
Once more all eyes (ok a lot of Illinois eyes) will be on Representative Jan Schakowsky and her fellow Illinois progressive representatives as the leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus conducts a whip count of who will be willing to stand firm for a public option. Firm meaning willing to vote against a bill that does not contain a public option.
Whether a public option is included is less important at this point than whether the progressive block in congress is ready to take on a role of strength that will begin to force the same kind of negotiation from the Obama regime that Blue Dogs and other pseudo-centrist representatives are seemingly able to demand. I say that about the public option because it is widely understood by those of us paying attention, that there are ways to create something called a public option that progressives could end up voting for that would be more name than substance.
The whip count will send a message to to the administration, said CPC co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): "Don't cut deals with some elements of our party or with some elements of the Republican Party without including the progressives in that discussion," he suggested. "So we're going to count our votes, see how many we have and that's the number we're going to indicate to both the leadership and the administration."
... while here Chris Bowers at OpenLeft analyzes the importance of the process for the progressive block. I agree with Chris that Obama and the Blue Dogs need a bill passed so badly that they will be willing to negotiate with the Progressives. I'm not suggesting that the Progressives play politics with health care, hell their backs are against the wall here, they are being forced to stand firm, but by standing firm and threatening to kill the bill they will gain politically.
Indeed, while it would not be in the peoples best short term interest for this bill to die at this time, we (the people) could get a better long term bill were this one to die. In that sense it would be a strong political ploy for the Progressives to knock this bill out of contention. But that is a long term political calculation that requires a political organization amongst the Progressives and a political sophistication that they do not at this time possess.
But for the moment at least, long term and short term political calculations are coincident. It's a very good short term tactic to stand firm now and it furthers the long term political capital of the Progressive block at the same time. It's rare for such a win-win combination present itself to progressives.
The firmer Progressives stand the better this bill will become. Progressives should stand so firm that everyone begins to scream at them that they are endangering the entire health care reform. Louder screams will indicate that the focus has shifted from the Blue Dogs et al and that real negotiations are possible with Obama and them. This is a hugely important historical moment for the Progressive Caucus.
As a Progressive Caucus leader, I hope these same thoughts are coursing through Rep. Jan Schakowsy's mind as well.
Over $64,000 $67,000 has been raised on Act Bluesince this morning for a list 57 congresspeople who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and 18 that took the FDL Pledge to vote against any health care reform bill that didn't include, at the minimum, a robust public option.
Right now this "Progressive Block" is what is keeping the public option on the table -- if they cave it is all over. (BTW I am completely stealing this analysis from Open Left.) Why? Obama needs to pass health care legislation and to do that someone needs to blink. In the past the progressives have been the blinkers so it makes sense to pressure them now. But we desperately, desperately need these folks to keep their eyes wide open.
In an effort to show my appreciation for their resolve I went to Act Blue and threw in a cool $10 each to the only three Illinois congresspeople on the list:
- Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) - Phil Hare (IL-17) - Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-02)
So ... where are the rest of our Illinois Dems? Jan? Mike? Danny? Your buddies are looking pretty lonely there.
Maybe it would help if they knew that there was a crisp 10-spot in it for each one of them if they are willing to add their names to that list (which I think they can do via the FDL Pledge). If you too want to reward those who are standing strong you can do so here:
Congresswoman Jan Schakowksy will be hosting a health care town hall on Monday, August 31 at 8:30 a.m. at Niles West High School Auditorium, 5701 Oakton Street, Skokie, IL 60077.
OK so what would be interesting would be for single-payers to be raucous like the anti-health people with at least a touch of mocking them at the same time as being dead serious about single-payer. We need to counter-balance the drive away from the public option. That's our job as radical progressives. We should be the loyal opposition that Obama bi-partisans with. To do that we need to act like an opposition. Loyal opposition yes, but opposition none-the-less.
So my mind has been reeling with crazy ideas. Some so crazy that they become over-the-top in a place like Skokie, meaning a very Jewish community. I really want to burn someone in effigy. Hitler is my first choice. See what I mean. We could claim that he wanted to dismantle Bismark's universal health care system. Doesn't even matter if it's true or false. But it does matter that it would be being done in Skokie. So my next idea was to burn Scott Harper in effigy for wanting to water down the Canadian Single-payer system. Really all we are looking for here are good media images. A 55-gallon drum with a fire burning an effigy and maybe some Canadian flags (doesn't work as well as burning swastika flags, but hey.)
But there has to be a lot of other outrageous stuff going on as well. Since bringing guns to town halls is all the rage, I thought we could riff off of that. My first thought was cardboard arms in the shape of rifles. You know the right to bear arms. Or, and someday this will really work, a bunch of people, especially men, with totally sleeveless shirts and showing the shoulder with the words stenciled on the arm: "2 Amd Right to Bare Arms".
This could be totally a ton of fun. Add your ideas to the mix in the comments. We don't even need to get in. Outside in the parking lot is fine.
Make a ruckus for single-payer. A big reason for the public option is as a bi-partisan compromise with us the single-payer loyal opposition. Time to put the opposition back into loyal opposition.
The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet reports that Jan Schakowsky and Bob Creamer's son-in-law, Michael McLaughlin, died Sunday while snorkeling near Tulum, Mexico. The accident happened as Jan and Bob's whole family were gathered to celebrate Jan's recent birthday.
We want to assure you that for our continued support, the public option must not be based on a trigger and must be available immediately. Further, the public plan must be on a level playing field and receive the same subsidies as private plans in the Health Exchange. And, it must be connected to the Medicare infrastructure, including the provider and payment system. Allowing providers to opt out of the public option has already created a loss of $91 billion in savings. We cannot tolerate further weakening of the public option.
If health care reform has to fail, then the best way for it to fail is because it loses support from progressives. Obama, should he so choose, could then take up the fight anew next year, without it being a victory for the Republicans.
An emasculated and efeminated public option will in the long run and possibly even in the short run be worse than what we have now. Especially if there is a mandate requiring everyone to put more money into wasteful private insurance coffers that will continue to deny paying for care at every possible turn.
The letter actually includes the taboo words "single payer", reminding everyone that the "perfect" and the "best" have already yielded for the "good".
Dr Quentin Young's influence is being reflected in this amendment initiative. It is not expected to pass, so it simply becomes a marker for the strength of single payer advocacy.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will introduce, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an amendment to the Tri-Committee health care bill. The amendment would replace the private health insurance industry with a single-payer national health insurance program.
In effect, the Weiner amendment would substitute Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) single-payer bill, HR-676, for the Tri-Committee legislation.
The vote will take place the same day it is offered; last I heard on Monday.
The other health care related story I'm following is the Kucinich amendment.
Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack.
The House Education and Labor Committee approved the Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting yes. I don't fully understand the process in the house. There is this committee bill and the tri-committee bill. Do they get merged at some point? I don't know, if you do help me out here.
The other place I could use some help is an analysis as to how practical it might be for a state to enact a single-payer system. It's my impression that a lot of the clout of a national single payer is in negotiations with vendors, like drug vendors. Is much of that lost at the state level?
(geez, this thread has devolved into an ongoing discussion of policy. we've lost our way... - promoted by bored now)
Despite the naysayers who have problems with diaries about who might run for what, the Founding Fathers set us up as a representative democracy, so, before we can talk policy, we have to talk about who wants to risk life (style at least) and huge amounts of money (only Illinois Reps. would think that $2,400 per person and tens of thousands for transfers are 'limits') to draft or administer those policies.
Today, one of the keystone possibilities made her decision to stay where she is. 9th CD US Representative Jan Schakowsky decided to stay where she felt she could do the most good. She told Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times:
She told me a statewide contest "would have been very exciting," but she wanted to take advantage of "this moment in history" to use her House leadership position -- she is part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's inner circle -- to work on pending health care and energy legislation.
As members of the new Populist caucus some local reps have taken a stand by signing and sending a letter to Obama on the need to approach trade agreements in a better way than the NAFTA style agreements. MyDD has the full list and text here. According to OpenLeft the letter is already effecting the desired results with Obama backing off of support to quickly move the Panama agreement forward. I didn't try to find local supporters from other than Illinois, Iowa and Indiana.
Perhaps to no one's surprise, but to the continuing disappointment of millions of progressives who busted their rears and emptied their wallets in 2006 to elect a Democratic Congress with a mandate to end the war, and who contributed with even greater fervor to elect in 2008 a president whose principal early distinction from his primary opponents was his opposition to the war, the House of Representatives yesterday approved a supplemental appropriations bill that continues to fund and arguably escalates the war in the Middle East and Central Asia. The final vote was 368-60, with 9 Republicans joining 51 Democrats in opposition. Some of the reasons to vote no are articulated by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) in her floor speech:
My good friend Colonel Jill Morgenthaler is the Democratic candidate for Congress from the Sixth District of Illinois. She’s running a strong campaign to unseat Congressman Peter Roskam. Those of us from Illinois know how extreme and how wrong Roskam is on almost every issue that matters to our nation – his support of Bush’s failed policies in Iraq, Bush’s giveaways to oil companies, and of course the deregulation that led to chaos on Wall Street.
I'm sure the PSB community was closely following the events in the House of Representatives today. I wanted to share with you Congresswoman Schakowsky's statement on this bill.
I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. On Monday, the House failed to pass a rescue package, and the stock market dropped 777 points - the biggest one day point drop in U.S. history! The impact of that drop wasn't just felt on Wall Street; it was also felt on Main Street. On Monday alone, Americans lost $1.2 trillion in the stock market. Almost 50 percent of Americans are invested in the stock market in some way, whether through retirement accounts or private investments, and they rely on credit and their investments to make ends meet.
This legislation is about protecting people's retirement accounts and pension plans. In the last year, investments have declined by nearly 24 percent, putting the retirement security of millions at risk; I am worried that without this package, they will continue to the downward spiral. This legislation is about making sure that there is enough credit in order for students and families to take out loans to afford to go to college. It is about letting businesses make their payroll. It is about helping people stay in their homes. That is why dozens of groups representing educators, colleges, the homeless, pension managers, and others support this legislation.
I want to make it very clear that I think this legislation is far from perfect - and, like many of my colleagues, I would have written a very different bill. However, I believe that Monday demonstrated that we had to act. Years of harmful Republican policies that pushed for deregulation and tolerated an almost total lack of enforcement, and a misguided philosophy that insisted that an unregulated market can heal all ills, have now led us to the brink of economic collapse. And I am deeply concerned - and hundreds of economists agree - that the failure to act could lead to a major economic depression.
Again, the rescue plan, while still imperfect, has come a long way from where we began. Instead of giving the President $700 billion with virtually no oversight or safeguards, we require Congressional review after the first $350 billion. And this legislation requires equity sharing, so taxpayers would benefit from future growth in the investments they have bought, and it contains provisions to ensure that Wall Street pays back the taxpayers for any losses. We are stopping forms of executive compensation that would encourage executives to take excessive risks, eliminating golden parachutes for executives who take part in the government program, and cracking down on excessive compensation practices for the fist time in history. And we include strong, independent oversight to protect the taxpayer, including two oversight boards to ensure that the Treasury Secretary is acting on good faith, as well as judicial review over the Secretary's actions.
While I would have liked to see the tax provisions paid for by rolling back some of the President's tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and closing corporate loopholes, there are also important tax fixes that will benefit millions of Americans and small businesses across the country. The legislation provides property tax relief to up to 30 million homeowners - extending a new $1,000 property tax deduction for non-itemizing couples through the end of 2009. It extends the qualified tuition deduction for low- and middle-income Americans. It extends the child tax credit, which will benefit millions of Americans with children age 17 and younger. It extends the Research and Development tax credit, which spurs innovation and job growth in the technology sector. And it extends critical renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits to help the green economy take shape.
This legislation also contains critical, comprehensive mental health parity legislation that will bring mental health insurance benefits in line with other medical benefits. I have not held a health care meeting in my district without the issue of access to mental health care being brought up my constituents who have faced discrimination or difficulty obtaining affordable care. I am proud that we are continuing Senator Paul Wellstone's legacy by passing a bill that guarantees equal access to mental health and substance abuse treatment. I also want to thank Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad for their persistence and passion in passing the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.
There is so much more we should do. I am strongly committed to enacting a second stimulus package that will truly benefit the American people. Today the House enacted 7 weeks of extended benefits for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment compensation, with workers in high unemployment states eligible for an additional 13 weeks of benefits. However, I believe we also need to make investments in our highways, bridges, transit systems, and schools; we need increases in food stamps benefits; and we need a crucial temporary increase in Medicaid payments to states. Studies have shown that those are some of the quickest forms of economic stimulus because those benefits and investments are spent quickly
This bill represents unfinished business. I will fight my hardest to make sure that we rein in the excesses of corporate America in the next Congress, and to see to it that this crisis does not happen again.
