by David Safier
It's possible some of the Blue Dogs are taking a principled stand by putting roadblocks in the way of health care reform. I personally doubt it, but it's possible.
Some, though, simply don't have a principled leg to stand on. Like Mike Ross of Arkansas. He's a former pharmacy owner — nothing wrong with that — but he also has a personal pipeline running from the health care industry to his reelection committee.
"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.
Ross is not alone.
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.
But Ross may be the most favored of the bunch.
Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.
A principled Blue Dog would have to feel a little dirty joining in the health care fight with the likes of Mike Ross. And seeing all those health industry dollars flowing into the Coalition's PAC? That would be the kind of thing I would expect a principled legislator to distance him/herself from.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rex, we’re going to have to disagree on this one. I’ve explained my position. Still, let me make one more attempt to explain why I won’t cut Giffords any slack on this issue, while I’ve cut her plenty of slack over her tenure in the House.
The closest analogy I can make is to civil rights legislation. Should I have cut slack to a legislator who was waffling on whether we should have equal rights for all people while congressional leaders and the President were scrambling to find votes, or who said the societal costs of giving minorities equal rights are too great, so we should give them a few more rights and see how that goes? I think it would have been immoral for a congress person to play games like that, and I hope I would have made similar statements calling out those legislators as I have made calling out Giffords here.
My positive statement a few days ago was an expression of hope that she was moving toward making a clearer statement on her position, based on the fact that she had used the term “strong public option.” But she has not defined what she means since then and has continued to speak in broad abstractions, so I believe my hopes that she would take a clear, strong stand on health care were misplaced.
You may have the last word on this.
My apologies, David, if I was wrong about who you supported for Congress in 2006. I had heard you were a backer of a candidate who lives in LD26 with you and I. Clearly, I was speculating about your position based on what I had heard and/or assumed. Sound familiar?
Having met and spoken with you a few times, I know you are a very intelligent guy, as you state above. However, please understand my confusion and frustration when you shift from praising someone for moving in a direction you support to (a mere five days later) accusing her of playing politics, impugning her motives and claiming she does not want to be part of a solution to the health care dilemma. That is a pretty big leap in less than a week and that is my issue with you, plain and simple. I also do not like “guilt by association” arguments because they are intellectually dishonest.
More often than not, I find myself nodding in fervent agreement when I read what you write on this blog and in the Northwest Explorer. My hunch is that you are usually in agreement with our congresswoman votes, too. Cut her some slack, or at least be consistent in how you talk about her.
Rex, you’re wrong to say I supported another candidate over Giffords. I actually supported no one in that first CD-8 primary — I couldn’t make up my mind — and my vote, which will remain private, was one of the few times I couldn’t make up my mind until literally the second I marked the ballot. I’ll say that, at the very least, she was one of my top three choices. And I supported her strongly through both of her general campaigns. Believe me when I say, I don’t at all like attacking a fellow Democrat. I do it only because of the importance I attach to this legislation.
Here’s what bothers me. Gabby is intelligent, and so am I. If she wants to, she can state her position on health care clearly in a way that I can understand. But all that’s clear to me is, she wants to leave her position on health care vague. The only reason to do that is to play politics. She’s hiding behind a bush waiting until it’s safe to come out, or maybe she wants to use her vote as a bargaining chip. Either way, that’s politics.
Why should I care? Because legislation is created by momentum. If Giffords came out for the kind of public option Grijalva supports, that would be one more voice for what I hope will happen, and it will mean that much less compromise in the final legislation. Her voice, and a few other moderate Democrats who might be brave enough to join her, could convince others to take a stand. The longer they duck, dodge and delay, the more chance the health care bill gets watered down further.
And if her position is more moderate than Grijalva’s, that’s her choice, but I would like to know what it is. I would disagree with her openly, but that’s what people do, like you and I are disagreeing here. That’s what open dialogue is all about.
To sum up, if Giffords and I agree about health care, I’m upset that she’s not helping pass the kind of legislation we both agree on by taking a strong stand. If we disagree, she should be willing to state her beliefs and take the heat from people like me instead of trying to keep everyone half happy.
Right now, no matter where she stands on health care, she’s part of the problem.
I’ve cut Gifford lots of slack in the past, even done a bit of apologizing for her when we didn’t agree. But some issues are too critical for that. For fear of sounding overly dramatic, people’s lives are at stake here, and you don’t mess around and look out for your own self interest at times like that. You roll up your sleeves and do everything you can to help.
David, I don’t know anymore about Giffords’ positions than what she has said publicly, but neither do I make assumptions about her motives and accuse her of “playing politics” five days after praising her for what she HAS ACTUALLY said. It is clever of you to try and put the onus back on me, but it is your own words that are the subject of discussion here. There is every possibility that I will disagree with how Giffords votes in the end, but all I see in this post and the other comments is speculation and, on your part, inconsistency.
Most voters, myself included, will wait to cast judgement on any elected official until they have cast a vote. I recognize and respect the fact that you supported another candidate for this office in 2006 and that you are to likely to the left of Giffords, but at least be fair, consistent and patient before you cast aspersions on her character, which is what you ARE doing when you accuse her of “playing politics.” She has done an admirable job in office and I think both of us have agreed with the vast majority of the votes she has cast as our representative. No, she is not Raul Grijalva, but keep in mind that he endorsed her three years ago over the other Democrats who sought this office.
Well, Flounder, one thing is for sure: she wants to get re-elected. We, her constituents, have an obligation to help her understand what we need in order to support her re-election.
Since Giffords was trying to force the Pentagon to spend money on airplanes they did not want, we know that the strength of Giffords’ “fiscal conservative” proclamations are extremely weak, especially in the face of a potential campaign contribution. Since the public option is about the most fiscally conscious thing still on the table, especially for how it will help us working class citizens, I just think Giffords’ history of selling out to big business doesn’t bode well going forward in this debate.
Rex, maybe you can clear this up for me. What does Giffords mean when she says “strong public option”? Grijalva lays out his stand in bold letters in the video I posted last night. Does Giffords’ “strong public option” have “Medicare as its provider network” as Grijalva says it must? I have been told this is a critical point [Truth in advertising: I’m not a health care expert, so I depend on others, like, for instance, Rep. Phil Lopes, who, along with Grijalva, says a public option must work like Medicare]. If Giffords believes in another definition of the term “strong public option,” she should make her definition clear. My understanding is, she has stated that she doesn’t want to use the Medicare model.
You quote me as saying, “the proof will be in the way Giffords talks and votes in the next few weeks.” I don’t see how I’ve contradicted myself there. Since she hasn’t had an opportunity to vote, I can only go by her words. Using the phrase “strong public option” as a buzz phrase to please people like me isn’t enough. Her words as I read them are still overly general, and filled with caveats.
If you know more than I do about Giffords’ stand, I would love to be enlightened. And if Giffords’ staff can help me on this issue, I would appreciate their guidance as well.
Francine…chill…I’m just asking David to be consistent and evenhanded in his approach to this issue from one day to the next. Go back and read what he wrote (http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2009/07/promising.html) on July 26th. Contrast those words with what he wrote above. You are always the soul of consistency, so you’ll see why it’s frustrating to read him attack Giffords in pretty harsh terms five days after he lauded her.
Also, please define how Giffords has “danced around the issue.” Everything I have read from her points to a clear and understandable position on health care. Moreover, her association with the Blue Dogs is consistent with the approach to governance she has taken since serving in the Arizona Legislature. Frankly, one of the things I have always admired about Gabrielle Giffords is that I don’t have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out where she stands.
Rex, calm down. I received a letter today from Gabby – widely distributed, I’m certain – in which she says directly that she is a member of the “fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats”. For someone to ascribe to her the views of this group which she – not David, but Gabby herself – says she is part of is quite reasonable, in the circumstances. You might wish to encourage Gabby to speak out, unequivocally, whether there are times she disagrees with the avowed positions of the Blue Dogs.
My position on the health care issue is very simple – each and every American is entitled to insurance as good as the congresspersons provide for themselves. The beauty of this system is that it greatly minimizes administrative costs – a very good thing for one who is fiscally conservative – and provides quality care by annually providing options for members of Congress and retirees. Another plan that is worthy of embrace by fiscally conservative congresspersons would be medicare since the administrative costs are very low and carefully controlled.
My sense is that Gabby has danced around the issue and there are many of us who really believe that her fiscal conservatism would be best expressed by embracing a plan that doesn’t give away the farm to the Health insurance companies and the drug companies. I particularly call your attention to the position of the drug companies that they will not accept any restraints on their price setting nor bargaining for better prices for groups – which, you may recall, is what they foisted on the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.
So, I will defend David’s position since my perception, gained directly from what she herself has said and written doesn’t make her appear like a part of the solution.
It is strikingly unfair, David, to say that someone is “playing politics” when they haven’t even cast a vote yet. On Tuesday, Giffords spoke out against the rising cost of health care and specifically tied those costs to problems borne by her constiturents. You say that you will “continue to suspect Giffords’ motives,” but you cite no credible evidence as to why any of us should buy into that very serious charge. You also contradict your own words (see below) from just last week!
Here’s what Giffords said on the House floor on Tuesday:
——————————————————————————–
I rise today to address the single most important domestic issue that faces our country: reforming our broken health insurance program.
Now we spend too much, we receive too little and we’re left worrying that the insurance that we have won’t be enough.
Nationwide, premiums have doubled in the last nine years, increasing three times faster than real wages.
Arizona’s Eight Congressional District is especially burdened: in 2008 we had over 950 personal bankruptcies due to health-care problems.
We can’t perpetuate the status quo.
Arizonans need reform that protects us from being denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
We need reform that guarantees care if we lose our job or if we move.
Arizonans need reform that fosters competition and delivers us, the customer, the lowest cost and best service.
Arizonans need reform that puts the power back into the hands of patients and doctors.
We can do this and we must do this.
If you like your plan, you should be able to keep it and your costs should down, not up. There are savings to be had in our current system and we must focus on squeezing out every drop.
——————————————————————————–
The link to this statement is: http://giffords.house.gov/2009/07/us-rep-gabrielle-giffords-statement-on-the-need-for-health-insurance-reform.shtml
I certainly recognize that there are some “general” opinions in this statement, but that is to be expected when legislation is still being crafted. Nevertheless, I trust Giffords to ultimately vote with the best interests of her constituents in mind because these “general” opinions also speak to certain core values. Calling her “part of the problem” and basing your arguments on guilt by association doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because you are mostly engaging in speculation.
David, you said in an earlier post on July 26th (“Promising”) that “the proof will be in the way Giffords talks and votes in the next few weeks.” Now, five days later, you are impugning her motives and questioning her sincerity by saying she is “not part of the solution.” What gives?
Rex, I wish I had the same confidence in Giffords’ stand on health care as you. Other than her one statement that she is for a “strong public option,” most of her pronouncements are general and filled with caveats. I simply don’t know where she stands, and what I do know concerns me.
Giffords, I believe, is on record saying she is against a Medicare-like public option. I take that to mean that she doesn’t want the kinds of cost controls that are part of Medicare. She may even mean that the “public option” should be controlled by the health care industry, not by the government, which some people are proposing. Either of those limitations would make a health care bill a shadow of what we need.
I will continue to suspect Giffords’ motives until she makes clear, definitive statements about her stand on the legislation. A fair number of Blue Dogs didn’t sign the letter the group sent out about health care, but Giffords did. That puts her in the camp of those who signed, along with Ross, unless she says differently.
I honestly think Giffords is playing politics with an issue that is too important for politics as usual. That makes her part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I think the biggest dirtbag I have heard of so far is Dan Boren:
“One of the most recalcitrant Democrats in the health care debate said on Wednesday that his skepticism about a public health insurance option was driven by concern for the health of private insurers.
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Meeting,” Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said that he generally agreed that a government-run insurance program could effectively lower costs for consumers.”
http://is.gd/1WTg5
David, this is a post that doesn’t stand up to your usual standards. Giffords had a column in the Star recently in which she clearly enunciated her views about health care, including the need for a strong public option. Asking her to “distance herself” from one of dozens of colleagues who happens to be in one group they both belong to is trivial and pointless. The voters in this area care about what she stands for and how she votes. Your post implies that Ross could influence the way Giffords acts or votes because they are both Blue Dogs, which is just nonsense.
What we are seeing in this health care debate is a natural consequence of the broadening of the base of the Democratic Party and our electoral successes around the nation. I am proud that our party is as diverse as it is because that testifies to our strength and ability to compete all over this country, not to mention our ability to sustain real change. Progressives, Blue Dogs and Democrats of all stripes should be ecstatic about the heterogeneous composition of our party, especially since there is so much that we agree upon at day’s end. The contrast with the increasingly narrowing base of the GOP should also give us cause to feel both elated and confident.
It’s only shameful if one changes one’s position based on the money. It’s to be expected–and it’s the way things are supposed to work–that politicians receive contributions from those who favor their positions.