Does The Government Work For Billionaires-- Or For The Rest Of Us-- A Guest Post By Daniel Biss

Daniel Biss practically was just a kid when DWT started covering his ideas about what could be accomplished in politics. When I first met him, in 2007, he told me that folks in Illinois "believe government is capable of benefiting people. The Republican Party functions as if government has to be kept out of the way." He's an intellectually rigorous mathematician, trained at MIT, now a state Rep with a great record of accomplishment, and a candidate for governor. His two opponents are hereditary billionaires with powerful names-- if not minds-- who can spend whatever they want without blinking an eye in an attempt to buy the race. Daniel's a middle class guy like you and I and he can't write himself a check to finance a political campaign. All he's got is what's in his mind... and heart. I asked him to re-introduce himself to DWT readers. If you like what he has to say, please consider chipping in what you can at the Blue America gubernatorial page, accessed my hitting the thermometer below.

No Time For Half Measures
-by Daniel Biss

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. Amidst the fear and chaos of the Trump administration, and having lost control of many state governments, it’s time to reassess our priorities and ask where we went wrong. It’s time to ask whether we represent the middle class or the billionaire class, and whether we’re going to fight for progressive reform or just defend the status quo from attack.

I’m a progressive serving my seventh year in the Illinois legislature and I’m running for governor to fight for middle class families like mine. My opponents? A billionaire and a multi-millionaire, neither one of whom has ever held public office. The winner of the primary will take on Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, a private equity billionaire whose foray into politics has been an utter disaster for our state.

In this primary, and in primaries across the country, we are taking on this great challenge of defining our party’s values-- especially as we consider the future of healthcare.

I believe that healthcare is a human right. It’s something everyone deserves-- regardless of pre-existing conditions, citizenship status, or ability to pay. For me, believing that healthcare is a human right means fighting for a single-payer system in the Illinois. It’s right there on my website, and it’s been part of my platform since I launched my first campaign in 2007.

My opponents take a different view. While we agree that the federal government should move toward single-payer, we disagree about the role state government should have in these efforts. In other words, they want someone else to fight this fight for them.

The truth of the matter is that the best way to move the federal government towards single payer is to enact it at the state level first to build a movement of people across the country united around a shared vision of universal healthcare and armed with examples of success. We can’t just sit around and wait.

This is no time for half measures. It’s no time for concessions, and it’s no time to accept the status quo. This is a time to stand up for our values, to demand that our state government reflects our needs, and to rebuild our party from the ground up.

It’s larger than healthcare, and it’s larger than Illinois. It’s about deciding who the Democratic Party works for, and who our government works for. Does it work for billionaires, or for the rest of us? Does it respond to corporate greed, or people’s needs? And does it cling to the status quo with a tired machine playbook, or innovate and improve when we demand it?

And so we have a choice in March-- about who will be the Democratic candidate for governor in Illinois, but also about who our Party and government represent. But we also have a lot of choices before then. Every day, we have an opportunity not just to resist Trump’s disastrous attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act but also to demand universal healthcare in Illinois, and to build a movement powerful enough to take our state back from the billionaires who have failed to represent us.

Don't Let The DCCC's Crooked Candidates Fool You About Medicare-For-All

So... as we discussed over the weekend, the DCCC and the Beltway consultants are telling their client candidates in tough primaries to just lie about healthcare. They tell the conservatives they back that the words "Medicare for all" don't really mean anything and that it's OK to use them as long as they don't get tied down in a pledge to sign onto John Conyers' H.R. 676, the actual very specific Medicare-For-All bill. Yesterday I sent a very simple e-mail to all the Blue America-endorsed House candidates, the candidates we're in the process of vetting and a few other random Democratic candidates. This is the entire e-mail:

Subject line: can you answer a yes or no question for me?

Will you sign on to John Conyers' H.R. 676, Medicare For All, when you take your seat in Congress in 2019?

All I want is a yes or a no, although if you want to include any explanation besides that, feel free. I'm writing a post about it. Thanks

The only difference between most of them was the number of exclamation points included after the "yes." Here were the responses that came in:

• Dotty Nygard (CA-10)- "Yes"

• Stephen Jaffe (CA-12) "Yes and Yes"

• Ricardo Franco (CA-22)- "Yes! The serious issue of healthcare in our nation requires bold solutions. I would be happy to support the bill which would lower healthcare costs and expand coverage.

• Wendy Reed (CA-23)- "YES !!!!!"

• Katie Hill (CA-25)- "Just answered this in my FB live town hall.

"Not in its current form. My main issues:

"1) Reimbursement rates: HR676 requires a Fee for Service pay model, in which this Act requires not only “a uniform national standard” but to “be compensated at a rate...regardless of geographic region.” Meaning a doctor in California will have to see many, many more patients to make a living compared to a doctor in the Midwest.

"2) Transition time: it allows for only 1 year of time to implement. Having been very involved as the ACA was implemented over 4 years, I know 1 year is totally unreasonable, and 10 is a lot closer to what it would take.

"3) It literally outlaws insurance companies, and forces private companies to turn into nonprofits. It will be taken to court immediately, and almost certainly be struck down, throwing out everything that's valuable with it.

"Anyway, from implementing the ACA to countless other federal programs, I know all too well that the devil is in the details... and there are a lot of details here that need to be ironed out.

"Bottom line for me: to move to Medicare for All, we have to absolutely do it in a way that won't prove republicans right. We can't screw up royally and have this become the next Obamacare issue that republicans right for years and get power back because of it. We have to do it right.

"But, I would like to work on a version that makes necessary changes and would allow us to completely transform our healthcare system in an effective way. In its current form, HR676 doesn't do that."

• Sam Jammal (CA-39)- "Yes. It's a no brainer. Medicare works. We should first preserve it from Republican attacks, but also expand it so everyone has access."

• Kia Hamadanchy (CA-45)- "Yes will definitely cosponsor as an original on whatever day it's introduced in 2019"

• Katie Porter (CA-45)- "Yes, I would! I've seen far too often during my work as a consumer advocate how a major illness like cancer, a sick child or an accident can literally bankrupt a family that was on sound financial footing just months before. So here’s what I believe: health care is a human right. No one should have to go bankrupt to care for a sick loved one, and families shouldn’t have to constantly worry that a major illness will ruin their finances. That's why I support Medicare for All, because every American should have access to health care-- regardless of their income."

• Dave Min (CA-45)- "I believe healthcare is a basic human right, and that we need a system in which all Americans have affordable and high quality insurance coverage. However, at this time, and in its current form, I will not commit to signing on to H.R. 676, as there are too many open questions I have about it, and I don't want to simply sign a blank check. Just this weekend, I was talking with constituents about H.R. 676, and I continue to hear concerns about this bill’s transition, cost, quality of care, and its potential dilution of Medicare. I support a CBO analysis (and other independent analysis) of H.R. 676, to see if it brings us responsibly toward our goal of universal affordable insurance coverage.

"In the near term, I favor allowing people under the age of 65 to have the option to buy into Medicare or some other public option at an affordable price, extending Medicare to those 55 and older, fully funding Medicaid, and expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I believe these measures would get us closer to our goal of universal affordable coverage, while also providing significant data on the efficacy of expanded Medicare and potentially creating a clear pathway to single payer if that is the direction this country (and my district) wants to take at that point.

"I realize that not everyone agrees with where I am on health care reform, but I want to be honest, consistent, and realistic about my policy priorities. I am tired of politicians making empty promises they can't keep, and then backtracking on those promises once they're in office. I promise to stand up for the general positions I articulate, and therefore I want to be thoughtful before I support any particular positions."

• Harley Rouda (CA-48)- "I am for universal healthcare with a single payer system for all Americans, that still allows interested individuals to purchase private insurance. I am committed to working with a broad-based consortium of healthcare experts, stakeholders, and legislators to do so, and if in the end HR 676 is the best way to accomplish that outcome, then yes."

• Tim Canova (FL-23)- "YES!!!

I will gladly sign on to HR 676!

• Dr. Alina Valdes (FL-25)- "Absolutely!  I have already stated that in various social media venues and at events I have attended.  With the population and longevity in medicine I have had, I have advocated for a one payer system for over 30 years."

• Michael Hepburn (FL-27)- "Yes!"

• Geoffrey Petzel (IL-06)- "Yes."

• David Gill (IL-13)- "This is a very easy one, Howie. Given that I have been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and that PNHP helped Rep. Conyers write H.R. 676, my answer is: YES, OF COURSE!"

• Victor Swanson (IL-14)- "Yes"

• Dan Canon (IN-09)- "Yes."

• Paul Clements (MI-06)- "Yes ... call time now w/ new volunteer."

• Peter Jacob (NJ-07)- "Yes. We don't need health insurance in America, we need healthcare."

• Alexandria Ocasio (NY-14)- "Yes!"

• Jenny Marshall (NC-05)- "Yes!"

• Tom Guild (OK-05)- "Yes."

• Kerith Strano Taylor (PA-05)- "Yes. With gusto."

• Paul Perry (PA-07)- "Yes"

• Daylin Leach (PA-07)- "YES!!!"

• Mary Ellen Balchunis (PA-07)- "Yes, I saw the benefits of universal care when I was in Sweden on my Fulbright and put my then 6 week old daughter in their healthcare system. Last Thurs., I was in Meehan's office asking his staff (We requested Meehan.) to have him support. Bernie's People's Platform, Medicare for All was the first issue!"

• Derrick Crowe (TX-21)- "Yes."

• Hector Morales (TX-29)- "Yes. Because our elected officials have normalized the notion that poor people should be sentenced to death because they cannot afford the healthcare they need. And all for a quick campaign contribution."

• Dr. Kathie Allen (UT-03)- "Yes unless Bernie has a better proposal, or someone else does by that time. Conyer's bill is only about 15 pages long and I have my doubts that it is comprehensive enough to ease the transition from a profit-driven system to non-profit, universal coverage. It has a 10 year plan to partially 'buy-out' insurance companies, and advocates retraining insurance employees, but there is a lack of detail on how to do some of these things. I support the goal, however."

• Randy Bryce (WI-01) has told me numerous times he plans to sign on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 676 and yesterday he responded to my question with two brand new memes. I especially like the "day one" phrasing:

You may have noticed there's a hot gubernatorial primary raging in Illinois. There are a couple of dynastic billionaires running, a Kennedy and a Pritzker and a trued and tested progressive, state Senator Daniel Biss. Prtitzker will say whatever he has to to get the nomination but he always seems to claim to back progressive issues... just before insisting they have to be enacted federally. I wonder what he thinks he'll be doing as governor. Biss, who has a record in the legislature that shows exactly what he plans to do as governor wants Illinois to be one of the states the show the federal government how to make a Medicare-For-All system work. "We need a single-payer health care system in Illinois that covers everyone," he told Illinois voters. This is what he said after the defeat of the TrumpCare bill in the Senate a few weeks ago: "Today's Senate vote brings us closer than ever to millions of Illinoisans losing their healthcare. Maybe now, Governor Rauner will feel like he has a 'motion to proceed' to get off his duff and actually speak out against Trumpcare. Today, we must do all that we can to protect the ACA. But we also must make sure that the conversation doesn't end there. In the long run, we must expand access to coverage through Medicare for All to ensure that no one is denied the care they need." He can't sign on to Conyers' H.R. 676-- but he will do something even better if he's elected governor of Illinois next year.

OOPS... FORGOT TO MENTION DANIEL BISS' TERRIFIC WIN LAST WEEK

Daniel Biss with Rep. Jan Schakowsky

Everyone at Blue America is high on Donna's win last night, and still recovering from the Illinois primary last week, where Pera lost against the execrable Lipinksi and where a close vote has still not determined who won the Democratic nomination in IL-14 that pitted progressive grassroots John Laesch against a multimillionaire Machine-backed Blue Dog.

But actually, another Blue America candidate also had a huge triumph, Daniel Biss, who we endorsed last June. Not only did he win last Tuesday, he won handily and in such a way as to auger extremely well for the general election in November.

     •     He received 16,589 votes; his Republican opponent had 6,643 (that's a stunning breakdown of 71%-29%).

     •     24,311 Democratic ballots were cast in the district, compared to 8,306 Republican ones (75%-25%).

     •     More Democratic ballots than Republican ballots were cast in all but 2 precincts in the whole district!

     •     Democratic turnout was substantially higher than ever before; Republican turnout was well below 2004 levels.

The incumbent Republican must have been stunned. If Daniel continues working as hard and as effectively as he's been doing he is clearly headed for the state legislature next year.

MEET DANIEL BISS-- A PROGRESSIVE WHO CAN HELP ILLINOIS LIVE UP TO ITS POTENTIAL AS A SOLIDLY BLUE STATE

Remember when we did the vlog session with John Laesch a month or so ago? Christina put together a memorable event built around that and I got to meet some of the best progressive minds in Chicago. One was a 29 year old math professor named Daniel Biss who Christina was especially keen on me meeting. And now I'm keen on you meeting him. Daniel is running for State Representative from a district just north of Chicago, the 17th. It's a Democratic district with an unimpressive squishy Republican rep, just like the congressional district it overlaps (Kirk's). The district includes a bit of Evanston, where Daniel lives, plus  parts of Skokie and Wilmette, as well as Winnetka, Glencoe, Northfield and Glenview. Kerry and Gore each beat Bush handily here. Obama swept the area when he ran for Senate. Beth Coulson, the current Rep., isn't a monstrosity; but she is a Republican and she supports her party's leaders and their venal and destructive agenda. She has enjoyed support from one-issue liberal groups like the Sierra Club and the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, whose heads are too far up their butts to be able to understand why Republicans are their enemies.

Daniel Biss is anything but wishy-washy or squishy. He's a genuine progressive leader with a powerful understanding of what government's role in society should be. "People in this district," he told me, "believe government is capable of benefiting people. The Republican Party functions as if government has to be kept out of the way." This primitive, anti-social Republican outlook helps draw the distinction between Daniel and Coulson. Mathematicians are logical and, above all else, they are problem solvers. Not only is that different from a Republican, that is different from most politicians of any stripe. It goes beyond the intellectual dishonesty that makes the political system a cesspool. Daniel, who graduated from Harvard and MIT, is a guy I found intellectually rigorous.

He finds the notorious shortsightedness engendered by our politics to be unhelpful to people and their problems and issues. "They're incentivized to focus on the 2-year election cycle rather than the 20-year plan. As an academic, I've spent my whole career thinking about long-term projects and goals. I think it's no coincidence that the issues I stress most, education and environmental policy... these are places where common sense dictates that making major changes now is a great long-term investment, and yet our politicians can't seem to bring themselves to make that investment, because they're too caught up in the short term."

He's actually a guy who has spent a lot of time seriously considering what it means to be a progressive. "I keep coming back to etymology: progressives like progress, which means that we're focused on the future. Believing in a better future has to also mean planning for and making a better future. And I find it flabbergasting how little of that goes on in our politics today."

Illinois, one of the richest states in America, is 48th in the country in dollars spent per pupil. "In the last legislative session there was a bill to increase the education funding level per pupil by a few hundred dollars-- rather than the thousand or more that many people feel is absolutely necessary-- and [in a party line vote] Coulson voted against it."

It doesn't look like she's in a position to do anything for her constituents even if she wanted to. She's boxed in between the progressive and moderate voters of the 17th on the one hand and her own crazy, incompetent party leaders-- the ones who imported Alan Keyes to run for Senate-- on the other hand.

Daniel got his political start as a grassroots organizer, after despairing over the river of misdeeds flowing out of the Bush Regime. He organized volunteers for Kerry and three congressional candidates, but with Democrats controlling every facet of Illinois government, he sees dysfunction where there could be a model for good government. He is hoping to help build a new independent power based within the Democratic Party-- a coalition of workers, middle class African-Americans, people in suburbs not enamored of a Chicago machine politics that spits up corrupt reactionaries like Rahm Emanuel and Dan Lipinksi, latinos newly galvanized by the immigration issue, etc. He hopes to open debate in the party, debate that has never been welcome in the old style political machines.

Daniel Biss is the kind of young leader we need to help build a Democratic Party that will be worth something. There are 65,000 registered voters in the 17th and he intends on meeting every last one of them. We can help him. Remember, Illinois practically has no campaign finance laws and the big corporations have a history of buying elections. Campaign mailers and even cable TV spots are not prohibitively expensive... but they cost something. Daniel is one of us, a friend of Rick Perlstein's and Christina Siun's. Let's welcome him to Blue America and help him raise the money he needs to conduct a competitive campaign. Today at 2pm, EST (1 pm in Chicago), Daniel will join us at Firedoglake for a discussion.