Lungren And Norquist-- Not The Most Popular Corporate Shills In The Sacramento Area

In 2008, the presidential election results in Dan Lungren's northern California district were very close. It was, in fact, Obama's closest margin of victory in the state. Unlike Gore or Kerry, he took CA-3, but just barely, 49-49%! And Dan Lungren, on of the state's most disliked incumbents scraped by with 50% of the vote. The following year Lungren drew a far better-financed opponent Ami Bera, who again held him down to 50%. After redistricting, Lungren will face Bera again-- and in a slightly bluer district. And next year Bera, a medical doctor, should have no problem making sure the district's hard-pressed seniors are aware that Lungren voted to replace Medicare with an inadequate voucher program. The Democratic staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has all the facts and figures. The Republican proposal Lungren voted for would have disastrous impacts on seniors and disabled people in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. Here's how; this is what it would do to residents of CA-3:

• Increase prescription drug costs for 7,900 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $77 million for drugs over the next decade.



• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 109,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district. The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and

younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:



• Deny 570,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.



• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 127,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.



• Require the 127,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $29.7 billion for their retirement-- an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual-- to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.



• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 71,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 444,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.

This district has 127,000 individuals who will enroll in Medicare for the first time between 2022 and 2032. Under the Republican plan Lungren backs and voted for, their cumulative out-of-pocket costs for Medicare coverage during their first 20 years of program eligibility would increase by $41.2 billion compared to their costs under traditional Medicare, an increase of 235%. And Lungren's Medicaid cuts would be catastrophic for district residents as well. Were Lungren's plan ever to become law, Medicaid’s guarantee of coverage would be eliminated, Medicaid would be turned into a block grant program, and the federal contribution to Medicaid would be reduced by nearly $800 billion over the next decade. Other changes voted for by Lungren would allow states to eliminate coverage for seniors, individuals with disabilities, children, pregnant women, and others currently enrolled in Medicaid. These changes would have a profound impact on Medicaid’s ability to provide health coverage to millions of Americans and in the 3rd CD, these provisions could:

• Reduce coverage for 17,900 dual eligible seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to supplement their Medicare coverage or pay their Medicare cost sharing.



• Jeopardize nursing home care for 1,100 whose expenses are paid by Medicaid.



• Impair the health care of 63,000 children, including 2,300 newborns each year, who receive coverage under Medicaid.



• Cut payments to hospitals for 18,000 emergency room visits paid for by Medicaid each year.



• Cut payments to hospitals for 5,900 inpatient visits paid for by Medicaid each year.



• Reduce jobs and hurt economic growth by eliminating $1.5 billion in Medicaid spending.

But these are hardly the only reasons so many people in the district dislike and mistrust Lungren-- and why so many are ready to replace him. Many are uneasy about the dangerous, unsecured chemical facility in the area, the Dry Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which Lungren has helped out with numerous loopholes to prevent them from securing the facility, even though it puts his constituents at an unacceptable risk.

Lungren led House Homeland Security Committee Republicans in voting to kill amendments that would have closed security loopholes and required safer chemicals at the Dry Creek wastewater plant near his district.



Though he promised to return to Congress to keep the country safe from terrorism, Lungren’s primary accomplishment is a giveaway to chemical companies more interested in short-term profit than protecting the lives of Americans.

And, not unlike what happened last week to New York freshman congressman Chris Gibson, Lungren's constituents also told him they had had enough of his fealty to Grover Norquist instead of to them. Lee Fang:

On Wednesday, a constituent in a town hall meeting challenged Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) about his loyalty to Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist and noted corporate lobbyist. Politicians who sign Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform pledge, a popular commitment among Republicans, promise never to vote for anything designated as a tax increase by Norquist’s organization.



During the meeting, held in the Sacramento suburb of Carmichael, a young woman asked Lungren why he took Norquist’s pledge when he should only pledge an “oath of office to the Constitution.” Lungren seemed dazzled, and first misinterpreted the comment as an accusation that he opposes the Constitution. The constituent asked the question again, only to hear Lungren sneer that she hasn’t “been reading the newspapers.” A few in the crowd yelled “answer the question!”

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) On The Role Of Government

As I've said before, when Democrats and left-leaning independents decided to show their disappointment in Obama's timidity to fight for working families and their anger with DEmocratic acquiescence for going along with right-wing framing that benefitted the ruling elites over ordinary Americans, dozens of conservative Democrats-- including more than half the slimy Blue Dog Caucus-- lost their careers. That wasn't a bad thing. Unfortunately, the tsnami also took down a handful of progressives who had been standing and fighting. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was one of the good ones we lost. NH-1 is a 50/50 swing district and last year, New Hampshire swung way to the right. A worthless Tea Party sick-up, Frank Guinta, beat her 121,655 (54%) to 95,503 (42%).



Carol has originally beaten incumbent Jeb Bradley in 2006, also a midterm, with a close and unexpected 100,899 (52%) to 94,869 (48%) vote. In 2008, in a rematch with Bradley, Carol won reelection with 176,435 (52%) to 156,338 (46%), Obama winning the district with 53%. If you look at the numbers, what you see is Democrats and left-leaning independents staying how. BIG mistake. Republican turnout from 2008 dropped off by almost 35,000 votes, better than normal for them. Democratic fall off... fell off the cliff-- down almost 61,000 votes for Carol. Voters made their point but it was like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The New Hampshire legislature is a far right extremist operation now that is horrifying voters (and stay-at-homes) and Guinta has been a lockstep, anti-family shill for Big Business, Cantor and Boehner across the board.



Carol is running for the seat again. You can contribute to her campaign here. This week she did an OpEd on the virulent and hihilistic Republican Party attack on government itself. Please take some time and read what a dedicated public servant-- unlike Rick Perry, Carol hasn';t enriched herself while working for the people-- has to say about the legitimate roll of government in the lives of American citizens.



Our Government, Ourselves



by Carol Shea-Porter



While political discourse has taken a dive in terms of civility and substance, actually something far more sinister and frightening is occurring. There are people who are attacking the basic structure of our government and our faith in it. A few are even talking openly about secession because they truly do not believe in our government and our way of life. (We have always had those people, but they were not politically powerful until now.) But most are being absolutely irresponsible, trying to foment--and gain from-- a deeper anger.



In our past, most politicians for office publicly supported our system of government, and believed we could stand together and solve severe problems. Candidates tried to inspire, or at least tried to be careful to attack the opponent or the platform, not the government.



That has changed.



The attacks are damaging an already fragile trust, and many Americans and the world have responded by becoming increasingly convinced that America’s best days are behind us. Confidence and faith in our ability to solve problems are absolutely essential if we are to move forward, but we have irresponsible politicians (and some media and special interest groups) tearing at that faith and trust. Incredibly, a couple of them are running for president.



Here are some examples of how leaders in the past talked about our country and our problems. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at his First Inaugural, “This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper … The only thing we have to fear is fear itself … which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”



It was a buoying remark, a call to hope and patriotism, helping people through the dark days of the Depression.



Remember George W. Bush’s talk to the nation after 9/11? “We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers-- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people …”



On Jan. 9, 1961, President-elect John F. Kennedy said, “Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us-- and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state, and local, must be as a city upon a hill-- constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”



Are these current politicians and influential public figures “aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities?”



One of New Hampshire’s members of Congress told the tea party that the federal government was taking away all their individual freedoms. And two tea party presidential candidates also have made inflammatory remarks about our government.



The Hill reported that Michele Bachmann “likened America to the sinking Titanic,” and said, “We have gangster government.”



Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation … And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”



This is not responsible leadership. These are outrageous comments, meant to denigrate our federal government.



The interesting thing is Bachmann has sought and received earmarks and Stimulus Act money from the “gangster government” (that would be U.S. taxpayers) and Perry brags about all the jobs in Texas that came from United States Oil and United States defense dollars.



There are other reckless leaders. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, got almost every single Republican in Congress to sign his no-tax pledge even though he was clear about his intention to hurt our ability to administer this great nation. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”



How can this great country recover and grow with this kind of attitude? How can we pay our bills and invest in technology, infrastructure, and medical research with this blind vision? How can we handle natural disasters like Katrina or attacks like 9/11 if we drown our government? How can we educate or defend ourselves, if we drown the major sources of government funding?



Harry Truman said, “No government is perfect."



We the people have to keep striving, but we need leaders who encourage progress, not defeat, and confidence, not despair.

"We Are Your Constituents-- Not Grover Norquist"

After Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand left the House to run for the open New York Senate seat, she was replaced by am even more conservative Democrat, Scott Murphy, in a special election. Last November Chris Gibson beat Murphy 130,176 (55%) to 107,077 (45%), winning in 9 of the 10 counties in the upstate New York district that had voted for Obama over McCain 51-48%. (In 2008 Gillibrand had won ALL 10 counties.) The only county that voted to retain Murphy was tiny Essex. The drop off across the district was gigantic. Democratic voters just didn't come out to vote in NY-20 in 2010, primarily because Murphy's adamantly conservative voting record was very much in line with the GOP so... why bother? It didn't make Republicans vote for him... they had an even more extreme candidate of their own; and it didn't make Democrats vote for the Republican. It just held down the Democratic and left-leaning independent turn-out.



Gibson has been a lockstep clone of Boehner's and Cantor's, a sure vote for obstructionism on every single thing President Obama has tried to accomplish for the economy. He may not be as dangerous a sociopath as Ann Marie Buerkle in Syracuse, whose ghastly record we looked at Thursday-- but he votes as through he's representing a bunch of backward, ignorant southerner bigots instead of a moderate Northeast district.



Gibson, an eager supporter of the Satan Sandwich and of Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicare, has been angering constituents by promoting a dangerous nuclear plant and waste reprocessing facility in the district. But Grover loves him. As you can see in the video of a Gibson town hall meeting this week, his affair with Norquist is infuriating his constituents. And-- probably not counting the deepest red bowels of the Old Confederacy-- this is happening everywhere in America.

Is Grover Norquist What's Wrong With America?

Few people outside of central Florida's 24nd congressional district have ever heard of Congresswoman Sandy Adams, a doctrinaire right-wing fanatic and member of the House Tea Party caucus. She's in Washington to vote against everything... except for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No list of the worst Members of Congress would be complete without her-- and last week, her constituents let her know they've been watching her dismal performance. Blue America's first endorsement for the 2012 cycle went to Nick Ruiz, a former Green Party candidate who joined the Democratic Party and is now mounting a serious progressive campaign against Adams. He wasn't at Adams' acrimonious town hall meeting in Port Orange Thursday night but he told us that her ideological extremism has been bad for the district.

"Our congressional district, like most of America, is made of hard-working people that need government to work for them. Most citizens are not responding favorably to ideologues like Sandy Adams because the Republican plans Sandy presents don't help most people. However, her plans fit real well for the upper 1% of Americans she seems to know so well. Our district rejects such a narrow prescription for America-- and I am glad to bring that voice to Capitol Hill in 2012."

Adams is like a zombie who endlessly repeats right-wing talking points. Rather than participating in discussions of problem solving with her constituents, she parrots mindless focus-group tested Boehnerisms like "I don't believe we have a tax problem. We have a spending problem" and peppers her pronouncements with charged anti-government, class warfare phrases straight from Fox and Limbaugh like "failed stimulus," "job-killing taxes," and "government takeover of health care." And she's far from alone. Her town hall meeting in Port Orange could have been basically anywhere in the country where a teabagger was elected last year. This week, the Washington Post took a look at how Democrats are striking back against the zombie-ism that has infected the Republicans in Washington. The Post story featured another mindless teabagger, this one from Illinois, Randy Hultgren. He tried vomiting out the same catch phrases Adams had. His constituents weren't amused.

“We have clear information that... tax cuts, especially to the super rich, has not increased any more jobs,” one man told him. “I want to know under what conditions you would be willing to consider increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford it?"



“I just have one question for you tonight,” said another. “Did you sign Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes?”-- referring to the promise that has been signed by most congressional Republicans, including Hultgren.



“Don’t you have the confidence in your own ability in Congress to make up your own mind? You need Grover Norquist to tell you?” the man continued.



It is a scene that has been repeated at town hall meetings across the country this August as Democrats make a concerted effort to use this month’s congressional recess to change a national narrative on taxes.



For years, it has been Republicans who have wanted to talk about the issue, winning elections promising not to let government take more from voters.



But since the showdown over raising the debt ceiling, Democrats have been unusually eager to embrace tax increases, gambling that voters will see the Republican refusal to consider higher taxes for the wealthy as recalcitrant and out-of-touch.

Voters are starting to wake up to this everywhere in the country. A random letter to the editor yesterday in Spokane's Spokesman-Review:

Cathy McMorris Rodgers has proved that she is nothing more than a puppet dancing on strings. Those strings are being pulled by the leadership of the tea party. They include people like David and Charles Koch, oil billionaires who fund many of the radical right wing’s unscrupulous activities that allow them to accumulate more wealth.



They also include Grover Norquist, who through his signed pledges forces politicians into a corner and makes it impossible for them to vote in the best interest of the country as a whole or think on their own. (Norquist was also tied to the Jack Abramoff money laundering  scandal.)



Tim Phillips is also a tea party leader who years ago was paid $380,000 to “mobilize religious leaders and pro-family groups” to push energy deregulation in Congress that soon led to an energy crisis and economic meltdown. Sound familiar? Are these wealthy individuals the people you want your representative answering to? Do they identify with the majority of people in our district?



Cathy McMorris Rodgers, start doing the job you were elected to do. Represent the people of your district and not the wealthy elite.



John C. Eagle

Last week Warren Buffett's NY Times Op-Ed, Stop Coddling The Super-Rich served as a wake-up call to many who accepted the right-wing ideology being spouted by tools like Adams in Florida, Hultgren in Illinois and McMorris Rodgers in Washington. It sets up a debate between those who embrace Grover Norquist's goal of shrinking the government (and drowning it in a bathtub) and those who feel there is a robust and crucial role for government to play in balancing the immense power of wealth against the greater good of society.



Less than half a dozen Republicans in Congress have refused to sign Norquist's anti-government pledge. Norquist is basically a sleazy lobbyist, a crony of Jack Abramoff's who managed to get away without a prison sentence. He takes around a quarter million dollars a year from the Republican Party front group, Americans for Tax Reform, and also works as a free-lance lobbyist, pushing every sort of crooked operation near and dear to right-wing extremists' hearts, from stealing from American Indians to overthrowing foreign governments that put their people's interests before corporate interests. A notorious closet case-- and member of the board of the self-loathing anti-gay gay group, GOProud-- Norquist is one of the primary behind the scene's string pullers who has turned the Republican Party into a dysfunctional, treasonous mess that is threatening the social cohesion of the United States while worthless predators, like Norquist and his followers, enrich themselves.