No Men-- Especially No Men In Public Office-- Should Ever Think They Are "Untouchable" When It Comes To Workplace Sexual Harassment

-by Valley Girl

I wrote an email to Howie a few days back saying in part "I totally agreed with your tweet. This is what leadership should be about. It seems that they are not willing to name names because it will hurt their own careers. Howie, you have a lot of connections. Is there any way you could winkle this information out of someone? Get them to name even a few names? My gut feeling is that once even a few names are mentioned, then the floodgates will open."

Howie asked me to do a guest post. I’ve been working on that. Getting into the weeds, as I usually do. I started checking out Barbara Comstock (R-VA), who I didn’t know anything about before, but who now seems to have little record of bravery of any sort. I’ve compiled quite a dossier on her.

And, reminding myself of the details of Jackie Speirs’ history-- 1978 including when she went, as a congressional aide to Leo Ryan, to Jonestown, Guyana. By the end of the trip, Ryan was dead-- the first and only congressman to be assassinated in office-- along with three journalists and one cult defector. Speier and nine others had been shot and left for dead at a remote airstrip; they waited 22 hours for help to arrive.

Yes, she does have a solid history of bravery, courage, and public service. Watch this for context as to what Howie was talking about-- a House hearing:



Also note that this video above leaves out something: via CNN: During the hearing to review the House's sexual harassment policies, Comstock said it was "important that we name names."... exactly what Howie challenged her to do in his tweet.

And, also from the same CNN link, note this, if you follow the link-- "Speier, a Democrat who has gone public with her own allegations of sexual assault while she served as a Hill aide decades ago, testified before the panel Tuesday that two currently sitting members of Congress-- one Democrat, one Republican-- have 'engaged in sexual harassment' but have not yet been reviewed." NO, CNN is wrong on this quote. Speier actually says: two members… one Democrat, one Republican, who have been subject to review, or not have been subject to review, who have engaged in sexual harassment.

Fast forward with the post I’ve been working one-- I’m on EST, so I missed this news by several hours, until I woke up this morning. And ended up ditching most of what I’d already written. Note again Speier’s actual comment above.

The Buzz Feed story blows the lid off one of these two-- John Conyers. Title and subtitle: She Said A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story. "When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation."

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”

Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic.

And the documents also reveal the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: a grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling, she told BuzzFeed News, that she had no option other than to stay quiet and accept a settlement offered to her.

“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said in a phone interview. BuzzFeed News is withholding the woman’s name at her request because she said she fears retribution.

The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.

In this case, one of Conyers’ former employees was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.

The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.

“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”

Two staffers alleged in their signed affidavits that Conyers used congressional resources to fly in women they believed he was having affairs with. Another said she was tasked with driving women to and from Conyers’ apartment and hotel rooms.

In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.

She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.

In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”

“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.

Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.

One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)

The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”

The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.

“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.

A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.

“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.

The male employee said that in 2011 Conyers complained a female staffer was “too old” and said he wanted to let her go. The employee said he set up a meeting in December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.” The affidavit says that Conyers “agreed that he would work on making improvements as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”

Another female employee also attested that she witnessed Conyer’s advances, and said she was asked to transport women to him. “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers['] apartment, hotel rooms, etc.”

“I don’t think any allegations should be buried... and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office, because it doesn’t really allow other people to see who these individuals are,” said the former staffer. “When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”

Another staffer said Conyers’ reputation made people fearful to speak out against him. Aside from being the longest-serving House member and the ranking member of a powerful committee, Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is the second most senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee after Conyers. This was his statement yesterday: "The allegations against Ranking Member Conyers are extremely serious and deeply troubling. Obviously, these allegations must be investigated promptly by the Ethics Committee. There can be no tolerance for behavior that subjects women to the kind of conduct alleged. We also must support efforts to reform the way the House of Representatives handles these matters to make the process easier and more supportive of victims, as well as more transparent."

I'll leave this post with a brief mention of the salience of "political correctness" in the societal explosion we're going through now. I borrowed it from an essay by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic: "Political correctness is a vague term, perhaps best defined by the conservative scholar Samuel Goldman. 'What Trump and others seem to mean by political correctness is an extremely dramatic and rapidly changing set of discursive and social laws that, virtually overnight, people are expected to understand, to which they are expected to adhere.' From a different vantage point, what Trump’s supporters refer to as political correctness is largely the result of marginalized communities gaining sufficient political power to project their prerogatives onto society at large. What a society finds offensive is not a function of fact or truth, but of power. It is why unpunished murders of black Americans by agents of the state draw less outrage than black football players’ kneeling for the National Anthem in protest against them. It is no coincidence that Trump himself frequently uses the term to belittle what he sees as unnecessary restrictions on state force."

Medicare For All-- Who's Not On Board?

On January 24th John Conyers introduced H.R. 676, the Medicare for All Act. He had 50 cosponsors on that first day, mostly progressives, but New Dem Eliot Engel signed on and so did a member of the House Democratic leadership, Jim Clyburn. No other members of the leadership signed on that day-- nor since-- no Nancy Pelosi, no Steny Hoyer, no Joe Crowley, no Ben Ray Lujan. But since then more than a few other New Dems and even Blue Dogs signed on as cosponsors: Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD), Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), Jared Polis (New Dem-CO), Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Adam Smith (New Dem-WA) and, Friday, Blue Dogs Jim Cooper (TN) and Mike Thompson (CA).

I've been vetting a lot of Democratic candidates lately and one question I always ask is about the degree of support they have for single-payer (Medicare For All). I spoke with one guy last week who wanted to be endorsed by Blue America but who said he's unsure about supporting single-payer-- although he's very sure about supporting the NRA and the death penalty. Another candidate-- one who Blue America is endorsing-- is Matt Coffay, the young man running against far right extremist and Freedom Caucus chieftain Mark Meadows in western North Carolina. Yesterday Matt told us that "While a majority of Democrats in Congress now support a single-payer system, there are still a handful of holdouts.This is despite the fact that, according to a recent poll, 60% of Americans want Medicare for All, including 75% of Democratic voters. As a member of Congress, I will proudly support HR 676, a Medicare for All bill introduced by John Conyers. This bill would largely eliminate the health insurance industry, guaranteeing medical coverage for all Americans. The vast majority of the tax revenue needed to fund this single-payer system will come from taxing the wealthiest people in this country, including a tax on the trading of stocks and bonds. It's time the rich started paying their fair share to ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care." You can contribute to Matt's campaign here.

No Republicans have co-sponsored H.R. 676. OK, that's expected. But there are a large number of Democratic incumbents who haven't become co-sponsors of H.R. 676 either. Unfortunately, that's expected too-- part of Pelosi's and Wasserman Schultz's idea of a Big Tent that means nothing much at all. Consider whether you really want to support these men and women as they seek re-election-- especially the ones who have primaries like right-wing Blue Dogs Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Dan Lipinski (IL). Most of these incumbents are part of the infamous Republican wing of the Democratic Party; they're not onboard with single payer, though over three-quarters of Democrats-- and a majority of Americans regardless of party-- are. Part of the problem, not the solution:

• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Tom Suozzi (NY)
• Jacky Rosen (NV)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA)
• Tom Walz (MN)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)
• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)
• Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Donald Norcross (New Dem-NJ)
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
• Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM)
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)
• Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA)
• Gerry Connolly (New Dem-VA)
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
• Raja Krishnamoorthi (New Dem-IL)
• Ruben Kihuen (New Dem-NV)
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Mark Veasey (TX)
• Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI)
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)
• Lisa Blunt (New Dem-DE)
• Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX)
• Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)
• Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)
• Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA)
• Mike Quigley (New Dem-IL)
• Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
• Norma Torres (New Dem-CA)
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)

Demands for a national single-payer health plan dominated town hall meetings during the spring congressional recess, Republican incumbents getting most of the heat. Blue Dogs and New Dems need that heat too. Conyers' bill added 28 new co-sponsors in April and there's still plenty of room for growth among current members.

We also decided to ask some of the Democrats running for Congress. Tom Guild is running in the Oklahoma City district represented by anti-healthcare fanatic Steve Russell (OK-05). Russell is backing TrumpCare, Ryan's bill that kicks 24 million people off their health insurance and makes insurance prohibitive for millions of others with pre-existing conditions. Guild offers an alternative vision. He told us he strongly supports the Affordable Care Act and opposes Republican efforts to undermine the ACA. "However, it has become clear that the GOP won’t give up on their seek and destroy operation to repeal the ACA and replace it with something that would be catastrophic for the American people. HR 676 would provide approximately half a trillion dollars each year in savings on overhead and afford coverage to 26 million Americans who are currently uninsured, providing more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs. It is time to go to a Medicare for all healthcare system and take the undue influence of huge corporations and unconscionable corporate profits out of the equation,  that have been financed by the blood, sweat, and tears of American taxpayers. Insurers and big pharmaceutical companies are making out like children sneaking cookies from the cookie jar while no one is looking. HR 676 would provide better, more widespread, more economical, and more efficient healthcare in America. The time has come to transition from the ACA to universal single payer healthcare for our country. Many countries, like Canada, have successfully developed and implemented single payer healthcare systems. The time has come for the United States to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I will sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 676 when I am elected to Congress."

This was a no brainer for Dr. David Gill the progressive running for the IL-13 seat held by Rodney Davis, a 25 year member of Physicians for a National Health Program. This morning, fresh off a long stint in the Emergency Room, he told us that he passionately "supports H.R. 676 and would proudly sign on to Rep. Conyers' bill when I arrive in Washington in January, 2019. I actually intend to do much more than simply sign on to the bill; as someone who has practiced medicine for nearly 30 years, my experience will afford me a unique opportunity to be a leader in moving H.R. 676 toward passage and into reality. I intend to speak boldly regarding the flaws in American healthcare financing, and about the many myths and lies advanced by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries about single payer."

Doug Applegate is the progressive Democrat who nearly beat Issa last year and will likely finished what he started in 2018. He's eager to co-sponsor Medicare for All. "Other industrialized countries of the world have proven single player healthcare systems far more efficient and far more effective," he told us. "Now an American generation faces a future with a shorter life expectancy than their parents and at twice the cost of other industrialized countries. We must fight to put people ahead of insurance and healthcare profits. To that end, I would proudly stand with Congressman Conyers' bill HR 676."

You can contribute directly to the campaigns Matt Coffay, Tom Guild, David Gill and Doug Applegate are waging against anti-healthcare Republicans by tapping on the thermometer on the right.

Republicans Vote To Prevent Consumers From Finding Out What's In The Food They Eat

Wednesday, when I got home after a month in the hospital, I found a big stack of mail, including a copy of Neil Young's new CD, The Monsanto Years. And I got home in time to watch two of the most treacherous right-wing "Democrats," Blue Dogs Jim Costa (CA) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on a procedural resolution to advance what food activists are calling the Monsanto Protection Act.

This is a relatively simple issue. Food activists want to see potentially dangerous GMO food labeled so that consumers can make up their own minds about whether or not to feed it to their families. Monsanto and the GMO-Republicans, led by the Koch brothers' Mike Pompeo (R-KS), want to make sure that there is no labeling and that the states that have already passed labeling laws to protect their citizens-- Connecticut, Maine and Vermont-- are overruled. I guess the concepts of states' rights and small government are trumped in GOP minds when their Big Business allies squawk loud enough! The bill passed yesterday 275-150. 45 disgraceful Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with all but a dozen Republicans in favor. 

Among the Democrats who sold out their own constituents were the regular Blue Dogs and New Dems who tend to back the GOP in most things, plus easily corrupted crooks like Donald Norcross (NJ). After the vote, Alex Law, the progressive Democrat challenging Norcross' reelection, told us:

The dark bill that passed in Congress today with the support of my opponent Donald Norcross is a direct assault on the consumer's right to know about their food. It is transparently a bill bought and paid for by companies like Monsanto. It is an assault on democracy and an assault on states' rights and I would have voted against it.

One Los Angeles congressman, Steve Knight (R-Santa Clarita), voted for the bill. The progressive Democrat running against him, Lou Vince, was stunned. After the vote he told us:

This bill is incredibly important. Every person deserves to know what is in their food, and especially if their food contains potentially dangerous GMOs. The American people are not hurt by GMO labeling so there is no reason to oppose it, unless you are receiving money from large agribusiness firms like Monsanto. Every vote cast against GMO labeling is a vote against consumers, the right to know what you are consuming, and against the interests of average Americans. We need to stop Congress from serving as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the giant chemical corporations. As a congressman, that's exactly what I would do.

Do Republicans want to give you cancer? Probably not. Do they care about protecting you from it? Uh... no; they don't care. Or maybe they're just too stupid to understand. Earlier this year the World Health Organization declared glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto's weed-killer Roundup, a probable carcinogen.Yesterday House Republicans voted to exempt Monsanto's GMOs from labeling.

Pompeo's ironically named “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” (H.R. 1599) has four toxic components:

• It forbids states from labeling GMO foods or enforcing existing labeling laws already passed in Connecticut, Maine and Vermont.
• It prohibits any state or local county or city oversight of GMO crops.
• It further weakens already nearly impotent federal regulations on GMO crops at USDA and FDA.
• And, outrageously, it allows GMOs to be labeled as "natural."

For two decades-- under corrupt Republicans and corrupt Blue Dogs (the House Agriculture Committee for years and years was like a Blue Dog caucus meeting)-- Monsanto and other giant chemical companies have basically been writing the rules and regulations behind closed doors, allowing their toxic chemicals and untested genetically engineered crops to receive rubber-stamp approvals at the FDA, EPA and USDA. "Americans," wrote John Conyers in an OpEd before the vote yesterday, "want to know what's in their food."

The Orwellianly-titled "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," HR 1599, would bar the Food and Drug Administration from introducing mandatory labeling of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods and ban states from doing the same -- even if voters demand such labeling through a ballot measure. The bill would also block many state and local efforts to protect farmers and the public from concerns including seed and pesticide drift and would forbid states from making it illegal for companies to label GMO products as "natural," as Connecticut has done.

The bill is a serious attack on transparency and presents a dubious one-size-fits-all approach to federal policy making. Most importantly, it presents a potentially serious threat to our long-term health.

In a landmark report this year, the World Health Organization revealed a weed-killer called glyphosate to be a probable cause of cancer. The chemical, also known as Roundup, is considered safer than some other herbicides, but it's being used increasingly often in growing quantities as farmers around the world attempt to drown out new weeds that have become resistant to the chemical's effects. This overzealous use of herbicides is made possible by a recent innovation: corn, soy, and other crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand heavy use of the chemicals. The issue, therefore, isn't just GMOs on their own-- it's the increasing use of herbicides that GMOs enable.

This is why voters in Vermont passed a ballot initiative to require GMO labeling. It's why 64 countries around the world require GMO labels. It's why, according to recent polling, more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling for these crops.

The proposal before Congress this week isn't simply about denying Americans the right to know what's in their food. As the text of the bill stands right now, HR 1599 could potentially block state and local efforts to regulate GMO crops and related chemicals to protect farm workers and rural residents from economic and environmental damages. This is particularly troubling when you consider that there are hundreds of elementary schools within 200 feet of a corn or soybean field, according to the Environmental Working Group.

This should not be a partisan issue-- both parties purport to stand for transparency, and both parties should oppose a federal power-grab to prevent states and localities from making their own decisions regarding the protection of lives and property.

So why has the bill been introduced?

Proponents of HR 1599 claim it's essential to stop food labeling in order to prevent a spike in food prices. Yet companies change food labels frequently to highlight innovations, and countries with mandatory labeling have not encountered food price spikes attributable to anti-GMO backlash.

While proponents claim that their proposal will still allow voluntary GMO labeling, the bill, as it stands now, outlaws any non-GMO claim unless approved through a new certification process to be created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Given that it took the department more than a decade to establish similar certifications for organic foods, this would effectively stop farmers and food companies from advertising the purity of their own food. Meanwhile, many of the corporate lobbyists who champion this proposal are the folks who are fighting to reject the claims of leading scientists that the liberal use of glyphosate and other chemicals could harm human health.

Upton Sinclair, the author who appears to have awakened Teddy Roosevelt's interest in food safety, said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

The fact that Congress is even considering a proposal to deny Americans basic information about their food speaks to overwhelming power of these corporate lobbyists over the public interest.

Detroit: Water, Water, Everywhere, But Not A Drop To Drink

There's a horrible drought in California and I'm going to rip out my lawn and replace it with a rock and cactus garden, as several neighbors and friends already have. The city even offers a cash incentive for doing so. There are also serious drought conditions on northern Texas, western Nevada and southeastern Colorado. But not in Detroit-- nor anywhere in Michigan or Ohio (which is closer to Detroit than lots of Michigan itself is). Plenty of water there... except for people to use. Well, not all people. Poor people are the ones who have no water-- tens of thousands of them.

A few months ago the Detroit Water and Sewerage District sent out something like 46,000 shutoff notices-- after jacking up the price of water so that it's prohibitively expensive for many families. People in Detroit are charged an average of $75 a month for water, comapred to a national average of $40. By summer, the District was talking about 150,000 households they consider delinquent and plan to stop serving. John Conyers, the congressman who represents most of the poor people living in Detroit, flat-out declared the District management's policy "inhuman" and the UN reminded Detroit (and I hope Lansing) that "Disconnection of services for lack of means to pay may constitute a violation of the right to water. Disconnection due to non-payment is only permissible if it can be shown that the householder is able to pay but is not paying-- in other words, that the tariff is affordable."

Conyers is working on legislation to keep the District from being able to cut people off from water. what do you think Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy will have to say about that? How about predatory Michigan Republican leaders like Fred Upton, Dave Camp, Candice Miller, and Tim Walberg? They don't care-- especially because gold courses that don't pay still get to waste massive amounts of water while poor families have no water for drinking or sanitation. The GOP wants to see the system privatized and kicking poor families off their books, makes that look a lot more attractive for corporate buyers.

In a city where the median household income is less than half the national average, 38 percent of residents live below the poverty line and 23 percent are unemployed, it comes as no surprise that at least 40 percent of customers are delinquent on their bills.

The water shut-offs have taken no prisoners. Since this year's shut-offs started at the end of March, at least 15,000 Detroit households have had their water turned off. But the campaign, a tactic designed to pressure Detroiters into paying their water bills, began with little or no publicity last year, when 24,000 homes had their water shut off, says Darryl Latimer, the deputy director of the water department.

The frequency of shut-offs gained momentum in the fall, shortly after the city’s bankruptcy was filed, and just a few months after the city contracted shut-off services out to Homrich, a demolition company. The city agreed to pay Homrich at most $6 million for work over 730 calendar days. Delinquent customers were given a grace period in December for the winter months, with shut-offs resuming upon the arrival of spring.

With the city’s average of just under three people per household, these numbers mean that roughly 100,000 Detroiters out of a total population that hovers just under 700,000 have already been affected by the shut-offs, with tens of thousands more awaiting their turn.

Clampdowns can seem to arrive out of the blue, as residents don’t receive any formal notification that their services are to be shut off... Residents targeted by the shut-off campaign have been reluctant to speak up. Some have stayed quiet because they’ve resorted to illegally hiring plumbers, and others—who are without water and relying on neighbors and friends for drinking water and showers—are afraid child-protective services may intervene, as a lack of running water is grounds for social services to immediately take children out of parents’ care.

Even those without children remain reticent. Some feel tarred by a general notion of shame and culpability for not being able to meet such a bare necessity as water. Last week, a headline in one of the local newspapers, the Detroit News, described delinquent customers as “water scofflaws.”

This stigma is enhanced by the painting of blue lines in front of those houses that have just had their water turned off-- lines painted by Homrich’s employees after a job is completed... Monica Lewis-Patrick, a community organizer who has been going door to door with fellow activists in order to raise awareness and distribute water, says she has come across old-age pensioners who-- not knowing where to turn after their taps were closed off-- have gone without running water for almost a year.

...“This is a public-health emergency,” says Peter Hammer, a law professor at Wayne State University and director of the school's Center for Civil Rights. But Hammer takes it further. Beyond the likely prepping of the water department for privatization, the law professor states these measures are just one part of a larger process of moving people out of neighborhoods the city wants to see emptied out. “They are also shutting water off not wishing people will pay necessarily, but implicitly hoping people will move,” he says.

Geographical relocation is a controversial issue in a city like Detroit, which is 83 percent African-American and has a painful history of housing segregation. The Motor City’s financial woes are also often associated with decades of white flight, which left its population depleted by almost two-thirds and its tax base in tatters.

The city’s racial makeup plays a role in the way this is being dealt with too, Hammer says: “If this was not an impoverished African-American community that was getting the brunt of this, people would be up in arms.”

Ah... yes-- which is why we don't hear Fred Upton, Candice Miller, Dave Camp, Tim Walberg speaking up-- nor Bill Huizenga, Dan Benishek, Mike Rogers, Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio.

The New Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act-- Robin Hood To The Rescue?

Andy Hounshell, John Conyers-- fighting for jobs

Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act into law on October 27, 1978. It had passed the House on March 16... 257-152. 81% of the House Democrats (233 Members) were joined by 16% of the House Republicans (24)-- there were still that many mainstream Republicans back then-- to pass one of the era's most significant pieces of legislation. It's worth noting that the Democratic Party was so infested with racists and corporate whores even that recently that 41 Republicans joined with 111 Republicans to oppose it. The Keynesian bill, which was proposed to tackle rampant unemployment, created the largest public service jobs program and the largest training program since the Great Depression and it helped create 6.5 million new jobs and cut unemployment by 25%. During the debate, During the debate, Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) said, "What this bill says is not that America owes everybody a living. No, But America owes every American an opportunity to earn a living. This bill is an embodiment of what American stands for."

H.R. 1000, the new Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, was introduced by John Conyers on March 6 of this year, and shut up by Boehner and Cantor in John Kline's Education and Workforce Committee, where they knew it would never see the light of day. Conyers is one of the few Members of Congress who voted for the original Humphrey-Hawkins bill. This one, has many similarities-- it is primarily a jobs bill-- but, of course includes provisions to cover things that weren't concerns in the 1970s. Here's how Conyers describes it on his website:

The Act aims to provide a job to any American that seeks work and to, ultimately, create a full employment society.

• The Act establishes a “Full Employment and Training Trust Fund” with two separate accounts. These two accounts will direct funding to job creation and training programs.

Dual Job Creation Focus: Direct Jobs Grants and WIA Training Programs

• The first trust fund account will direct funds to a new innovative direct jobs program. Funds will be distributed by formula through the Department of Labor to larger cities and states, and then be passed to localities and rural areas.

* The program will allocate funds based on the Community Development Block Grant formula modified to consider unemployment data. Local elected officials, who are closest to our communities and needs on the ground, would work with community groups and labor leaders to identify critical projects and connect workers to projects right away.

* Jobs could be in the public sector, community-based not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses that provide community benefits.

* The Program will adopt a two stage approach to ensure immediate job creation, and allow for a longer term planning process that involves community input and a focus on education and career development.

* Positions will be for up to 45 hours per week, for at least 12 months. They will pay comparable or prevailing wages, as well as benefits. Appropriate safeguards and strong anti-displacement protections will help to prevent substitution and ensure that workers are placed in new positions.

• The second trust fund will distribute funds to job training programs covered under the Workforce Investment Act.

* These funds will fund innovative job training initiatives including One Stop Job Training Programs and the Job Corps.

Revenue: Taxing Wall Street Transactions to Pay for Main Street Jobs

• Revenue for the trust fund will come from a small levy on covered trading transactions

* 0.25% on stocks = 25¢ on every $100 traded in stocks

* 0.02% on futures, swaps, and credit default swaps = 2¢ on every $100 traded on these types of transactions

* The rate for options contracts would be imposed on the underlying transaction multiplied by the premium paid for the option (still very small)

Boehner has vowed there will never be a vote on this bill on the House floor. There is a way to get a vote on it though-- defeating a couple dozen Republicans in 2014, particularly John Boehner. Andrew Hounshell, an Ohio steelworker and vice-president of the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) Local Lodge 1943 is running for the seat in western Ohio that Boehner currently holds. Bread and butter issues-- like jobs-- is exactly why he's running.

"A bill like the H.R. 1000 is exactly what the citizens of this great country expect from their elected Representatives," he told us this morning. "Instead they get the 37th vote to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act from our Speaker. His excuse was that it is all about jobs. How will a vote that everyone knows will never pass the Senate be about jobs? Who's job is he referring to? His own? This bill would create real jobs, and put tax paying Americans back to work. The goal of a bill like this is to provide full employment. The problem is, the Speaker isn't interested in full employment because the corporations that support him aren't interested in it. Full employment raises the cost of labor which cuts into corporate profits. It is much more profitable for them to have the labor force in this country unemployed and underemployed. It's time our elected Congress represents the people and not the corporations."

Andy is on the Blue America ActBlue page... in case you'd like to help out.

Shortest Bill Ever-- Seeks To End The Obama-Boehner Sequester

It may not be sophisticated but it sure does get right to the point. H.R. 900 was introduced last week by Alan Grayson (D-FL) and John Conyers (D-MI). Here's the whole bill:

Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

Grayson and Conyers introduced it on February 28 and since then, 14 other progressives signed on as co-sponsors:

Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ)
Frederica Wilson (D-FL)
Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Jim Moran (D-VA), the first New Dem to sign on
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Mark Takano (D-CA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Cantor had it assigned to Paul Ryan's Budget Committee, so the chances of it ever seeing the light of day while the Republicans are in charge of the House are... scant. Meanwhile the DCCC is having a field day attacking Republicans who voted, once again, to keep the Sequester in place on Wednesday. (The DCCC neglects to mention that two Blue Dogs they just put on their Frontline list, John Barrow and Jim Matheson, voted with the Republicans.) Here's the letter they sent out to media outlets in Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley, home of mega-Sequester flip-flopper Buck McKeon:

Congressman Buck McKeon just voted in favor of the sequester-- a series of devastating and arbitrary budget cuts that will eliminate 750,000 jobs, force furloughs and throw a wet blanket on the economy. Instead of the sequester, House Democrats have tried to end taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil companies and tax breaks for millionaires, but Congressman McKeon said no.

“The sequester is here and Congressman Buck McKeon is one of the few people in the country who thinks it should stay,” said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Americans are already seeing job losses, military cutbacks and longer airport lines, but Congressman McKeon would rather protect tax breaks for the well-connected than stop the damage to our middle class. The people of California want a balanced solution-- but Congressman McKeon and his Tea Party extremists said no. There’s now no doubt or debate: Congressman McKeon voted in favor of the sequester and was unwilling to stop the worst effects of these disastrous cuts on the people of California because tax breaks for Big Oil companies and millionaires are more important to him.”

Before today, Democrats have offered multiple times balanced alternatives that would replace the arbitrary sequester approach with a thoughtful and balanced budget plan that cuts spending and eliminates tax breaks for the well-connected in a way that is not harmful to the economy. Each time, House Republicans refused to vote on these plans.

The DCCC may have something worse to deal with than just ignoring that Frontliners like Barrow and Matheson support the GOP Austerity agenda. There's also Obama. What did he give away at his dinner with Miss McConnell and the senatorial nihilists? Retiring Republican Mike Johanns (R-NE) said, after the dinner that he's more optimistic of reaching a broad deficit-reduction deal this Congress. and that Obama was "very sincere." [Less sincere are GOP grifters who were at the restaurant, Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who took a little time out of their #StandWithRand filibuster. It's ironic that Chambliss and Ayotte are two of the biggest recipients of legalistic bribes from the drone manufacturers of anyone in the Senate, a fact neither disclosed when they were filibustering Wednesday evening before dinner.] North Dakota backbencher John Hoeven said dinner conversation included what Republicans call "entitlements" cuts, by which they mean Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the very cuts progressive Democrats will not back Obama compromising away. Progressives want more focus on growth and less focus on the kind of deficit reduction policies that have wrecked Europe and the U.K.

“We really did talk about a big deal that includes entitlement reform in a way that protects and preserves Social Security and Medicare but addresses the debt and the deficit,” he said. “What we really talked about is, ‘How do you get there?’"

The president and lawmakers are encouraged that Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress are moving together on legislation to avert a government shutdown at the end of March. The government-funding bill could be used to manage sequestration to soften its impact on government services.

They see upcoming Senate and House debates on budget resolutions and the expiration of the national debt ceiling in May as other opportunities for leaders to come together to discuss a broad deficit-reduction deal.

“That’s what we talked about today is how do we come together in a bipartisan way on this to truly address the debt and the deficit in this next four-month timeframe,” Hoeven said.

...Corker said the focus was more on reaching a grand bargain than simply turning off sequestration. "It wasn't on that. It was on dealing with the big issue of solving our fiscal problem and it was a constructive meeting," Corker said. "It was a very positive meeting, it really was."

How Bad Is Obama's Deal With Boehner?

Mark Takano is one of the new progressive congressmen just elected from California. A longtime progressive from Riverside County, he's not going to be a rubber stamp for Obama in the Grand Bargain with Boehner to balance the budget on the backs of working families. It's because of freshmen like Takano that Obama is trying to get this dirty business done before the end of the year and before the new freshmen get a chance to vote on it. He would much rather have conservative lame ducks going off to work as lobbyists, like Heath Shuler, Mike Ross and Larry Kissell, than principled champions of working families like Takano, Alan Grayson, and Carol Shea-Porter voting on his scheme. “As I’ve been preparing to come to Washington," said Takano after Obama announced hos he and Boehner planned to gut Social Security by crippling the cost of living adjustments, "I’ve kept a close eye on the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ negotiations that are underway between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. Recent reports have indicated that while Speaker Boehner has conceded that tax rates will increase for the wealthiest Americans, there is significant discussion about reforming key entitlement programs. During my campaign, I told the voters that I would  oppose any cuts or fundamental changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and I continue to stand by that.  We shouldn’t be using a budgetary crisis, created by Republican obstructionism, to undermine the promise we’ve made to our seniors. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the America’s most vulnerable citizens.”

Many American have never heard the phrase "chained CPI" before and they are unsure how the whole progressive movement has turned on Obama so quickly because of it. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus helped to explain it:

“Federal law has always prohibited Social Security from contributing to the deficit. Any talk of shrinking the program to ‘save money’ is flawed from the start because Social Security is not part of the national budget in the same way as military spending-- it’s paid for through a dedicated payroll tax separate from general budgeting.

“Some have suggested that Social Security benefits should be based on a chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which assumes that when the price of one item rises, people buy something else-- no matter how popular or necessary that original item might be. If this change goes into effect, Social Security benefits would stop reflecting the rising prices of popular goods.

“The average Social Security recipient rakes in a whopping $13,000 a year. If we pass chained CPI, projected annual cuts for a typical retiree would be about $560 a year by age 75, $984 a year by age 85 and $1,400 a year by age 95.

“The less money our Social Security recipients-- including 9 million veterans-- are able to spend, the less money goes to the businesses that create jobs. Chained CPI makes life harder for millions of retirees, weakens Social Security and doesn’t reduce the deficit by a penny. It’s a Beltway fig leaf that I will never support, and I call on my colleagues to make their feelings known as soon as possible before this becomes yet another piece of conventional wisdom that makes things worse.

“Lifting the cap on high earners paying into Social Security is a real fix that would make the program solvent indefinitely. If we want to talk about solutions, let’s talk about that, not inventing reasons to take money from American retirees.”

And Grijalva's co-chair, Keith Ellison (D-MN) explained what the impact of this move-- which is meant to save the wealth from paying their fair share of taxes-- on ordinary American retirees. “Everyone has a grandparent, a friend or a neighbor who relies on the Social Security benefits they earned to pay for medical care, food and housing. A move towards chained CPI would be a long-term benefit cut for every single person who receives a Social Security check. The current average earned benefit for a 65 year old on Social Security is $17,134. Using chained CPI will result in a $6,000 loss for retirees in the first fifteen years of retirement and adds up to a $16,000 loss over twenty-five years. This change would be devastating to beneficiaries, especially widowed women, more than a third of whom rely on the program for 90% of their income and use every single dollar of the Social Security checks they've earned. This would require the most vulnerable Americans to dig further into their savings to fill the hole left by unnecessary and irresponsible cuts to Social Security. I am committed to standing against any benefit cuts to programs Americans rely on and tying Social Security benefits to chained CPI is a benefit cut."

Although Nancy Pelosi, sadly, on the wrong side of history, said she will round up plenty of the Democratic votes Obama and Boehner need to pass their poisonous Frankenstein Monster of a "compromise," many of his most important leaders refuse to go along with the betrayal. John Conyers (D-MI), one of the Democrats most respected senior leaders:

Despite clear evidence that the American people support balancing the deficit by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, Speaker Boehner announced a plan today that would allow millionaires to keep their tax cuts.

This so-called ‘Plan B’ is not a balanced approach to deficit reduction and it should be rejected.

 I resent that Speaker Boehner has chosen to put cuts to Social Security benefits for current and future retirees on the table as a way to resolve the budget crisis.

 The change in the way Social Security calculates yearly cost-of-living-adjustments, called ‘Chained CPI,’ would place an increased  burden on elderly Americans-- nearly 70 percent of whom rely on Social Security for more than half of their income and whose benefits average less than $15,000 per year.  Under this proposed policy, benefits would be cut by 0.3 percent annually and would increase over time.  As a result, the older and poorer a beneficiary becomes, the larger the benefit cut.

The fact that Republicans would seriously consider cutting the current and future Social Security benefits of all Americans to benefit the wealthy few is unconscionable and unacceptable.  We cannot ask our seniors and the most vulnerable to bear the burden of deficit reduction.

If Congress were to pursue this unwise course of action, we would not only be embracing a deeply unpopular policy, but also ignoring the will of the American people. A recent poll by Hart Associates in the days before the November election found that an overwhelming 84 percent of Americans said they did not want their Social Security benefits cut. 104 House Democrats have also already stated their opposition to including Social Security in any deficit reduction package.

"Any debt deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits is unacceptable.

If House Democrats are unhappy, Republicans are exultant over having rolled Obama once again-- and perhaps having made it possible to put a permanent wedge between the Democratic Party and their grassroots base.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Tuesday he will move to a “Plan B” on the fiscal cliff by having the House vote on legislation to extend tax rates on annual income under $1 million.

The bill would allow tax rates on annual income above $1 million to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, but make permanent lower rates on income below that threshold, Boehner’s office said.

The move sets up a momentous challenge for the Speaker, as he seeks to build support for legislation that only months ago House Republicans considered an unacceptable tax increase.

...House GOP leaders told lawmakers later on Tuesday there would be two floor votes, aides said. The first would provide a one-year extension on rates for family income up to $250,000, mirroring the original Democratic position. The second would be Boehner’s proposal with the $1 million threshold, with additional provisions for the Alternative Minimum Tax, the estate tax and investment taxes.

House Republicans said they expected that the Senate would amend any bill the House passed and send it back to the lower chamber, meaning the House bill could serve as a legislative vehicle for a final agreement.

But the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) swiftly rejected Boehner’s move, and House Democrats said they would whip their members to oppose it, challenging the Speaker to round up 218 votes to pass a tax increase on his own.

“Today, House Republicans have threatened to abandon serious negotiations,” Reid said. “Boehner’s proposal will not pass the Senate.”

With Boehner’s latest proposal, the post-election shift in bargaining positions has come full circle: Republicans are now the ones rhetorically pleading to protect all but the wealthiest taxpayers.

In the hours after Boehner pitched his “Plan B” to the House GOP, his aides sought to corner Democrats by pointing out that top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), have previously expressed support for extending tax rates.

But a Schumer spokesman said things changed with the reelection of President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on annual income above $250,000 but moved to $400,000 this week.

...[T]his would be the first time Boehner would ask his members to vote for a tax increase, and it was unclear whether Republican leaders could even pass their bill through the House without Democratic support.

“It’d be a bit of a stretch,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said. “Good whip team. I just don’t know for sure.” Gingrey said he was undecided on how he would vote.

The conference meeting was a sobering reality check for House Republicans who have opposed tax rate hikes at every turn, and many lawmakers walked grimly past reporters without commenting.

“We’re having a frank conversation about where we stand, what are the realities of our negotiating position,” freshman Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) said. “There wasn’t applause. There wasn’t outrage. People are just absorbing, you know, what the Speaker is saying.”

Other members described a spirited discussion in the room and division within the conference about how to proceed.

“The Speaker laid out the plan in a very compelling way, and there’s just a lot of hard thinking going on,” conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said. “I’m going to let the Speaker have as much latitude as he needs to try to negotiate with this president.”

Jeff Merkley (D-OR) will work to help prevent this shameful bill pass the Senate and help prevent Obama from going down in the history books as the mediocre president who destroyed the Democratic Party brand once and for all. “We had an election," said Merkley, "and the voters sent a message to Congress to focus on jobs and fairness-- not cutting benefits for people who have worked all their lives and are now making ends meet on fixed incomes. The formula we use to adjust cost-of-living changes for seniors needs to reflects the real costs they face, not the budgetary fantasies of Washington.”

And Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will be working against the plan in the House. Obama must have understood who he was talking about when he issued this statement, even if it only refers to "Republicans." Nadler: “Social Security is one of the bedrocks of our middle class society and is an essential safety net for millions of American seniors and their families. Millions and millions of Americans rely on Social Security benefits for medical care, food, housing, and other essentials. We cannot allow a move toward chained CPI that would result, over time, in substantial cuts in benefits.

 “We must not force our senior citizens to dig further into their savings to fill the hole left by unnecessary and irresponsible cuts to Social Security. It is unconscionable for Republicans to ask seniors and others who can least afford it to sacrifice even more in order to continue giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I do not support any deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.”

Will there be enough congressmen with the integrity and courage of the ones like Nadler, Grijalva, Schakowsky, Takano, Merkley, Conyers, Ellison and the others who are coming forward and telling Obama "no" or will Washington's Conservative Consensus grind the nation's retirees into the mud while the political elites and the wealthiest 1% toast their victory?

Drugs And Corruption-- No One Has Ever Figured Out How To Separate Them... Too Much Cash At Stake

My friend John is in Paris. My friend John is always in Paris. He lives there half the year and in DC the other half. Why would someone waste half a year in DC? What a wretched place... with the worst excuses for human beings in the entire country (not counting Wall Street)! Anyway, yesterday John filed a story from Paris how how much more we in America-- thanks to the Republican, Blue Dog & New Dem corporate hacks who take massive bribes from Big Pharma-- pay for ordinary drugs, the pharmaceutical ones, than people in Europe pay. "The money I save on my asthma drugs by buying them in France rather than in the U.S. (at Costco) will pay for my flight to Europe and then some," he wrote.

The first drug is Symbicort. Note that both drugs, the US version and the French version, are made and sold by the same pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca. This isn't some cheap knockoff-- which is the lie the FDA is spouting to justify this rip-off of the American taxpayer-- it's the same company charging 3.5x the price when it sees that your passport says "American." ...[N]ote that the French version and the American version of Singulair are made and sold by Merck & Co. Merck marks it drug up by 400% when it sees that you're American.

...Why do companies like Merck and AstroZeneca charge Americans nearly four times what they charge Europeans for certain drugs? Because they can. European governments refuse to let companies like Merck and AstroZeneca make such obscene profits on their prescription drug sales, so they tell those companies that if you want to sell your drugs in Europe, you're going to lower the price and only make a "reasonable" profit.

So what do the drug companies do? They cut their prices in quarter in Europe, and then quadruple the prices in America to make up the difference.

Americans are quite literally subsidizing cheap prescription drug prices in Europe (we are in essence paying a drug tax forced on us by both political parties) and we have both Democrats and Republicans in Washington-- who are all beholden to Big Pharma-- to thank for it.

This is part of the conservative definition of freedom/liberty-- the freedom and liberty of corporations that pay off corrupt politicians to rip off consumers. Blue America-endorsed congressional candidate Dr. David Gill (D-IL) says John's examples are "yet one more example of a health care 'system' which isn't focused on health care."

The fact that we pay exorbitant fees for needed medications in this country is another ramification of a system in which the big pharmaceutical companies litter the hallways of Congress with their lobbyists. In the Emergency Room, I bear witness to many examples of just how short-sighted, wasteful and cruel our system is. I recently had a patient in a diabetic coma, near death. We resuscitated him and sent him to the ICU for a lengthy stay. He had been laid off from his job 3 months earlier and eventually was unable to afford $8 for his insulin; so now, we will all pay $60,000 for his hospital bill. It's long past time to end such inhumane and illogical care-- Medicare for All will make America much healthier and much wealthier. I'm proud that my campaign refuses all funding from the drug and insurance companies, and I look forward to getting to Congress and being a leading voice in bringing us a health care system that puts the focus upon care, rather than the maximizing of investor return.

On Wednesday after the GOP and 5 slimy Blue Dog corporate whores voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Lee Rogers-- running for Congress against Insurance Industry shill Buck McKeon-- did a series of press conferences across his district at hospitals and medical centers laying out concrete and specific bipartisan plans for improving the ACA. All 6 are great proposals but take a look at this one:

Allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices

The United States carries the pharmaceutical research and development burden for the entire world. We are essentially subsidizing the lower drug prices in wealthy countries like England, Germany, France, Canada, and Japan. Americans should not pay more for the same medication than they do in other developed nations. Medicare and Medicaid should be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA, DOD and other nations. I also understand it is costly to develop new medications. Patents should be extended a minimum number of years from the time the drug goes on the market and not start the clock while it is in development an unable to be sold.

John Conyers (D-MI), one of the most dependable champions of working families in Congress, is the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee-- and he's been fighting for fair pharmaceutical policies for Americans for decades. It's an uphill battle against conservatives and he's never giving up. This is how he put it to us last night:

The reason drugs cost more in America than anywhere else boils down to a single factor: profit. The drug companies have the highest profit margins of all American corporations. Their profits as a percent of sales run about 19 percent, compared to a median of about 5 percent for Fortune 500 companies.
 
I find it incredibly ironic that the people who embrace the competitive benefits of the free market oppose drug re-importation or allowing the Medicare program to negotiate prices with the drug companies. They seem to have abandoned two of their favorite principles-- the unconstrained operation of the free market and low government spending-- in order to protect that outrageous profit margin for the pharmaceutical companies.
 
 
Health care must not be a market commodity. The market dictates that one’s ability to consume a particular product should be constrained by one’s ability to pay. This approach may be feasible when applied to hamburgers or tennis shoes, but it is unacceptable when it comes to health care. Our ability to get health services should be constrained by only one thing: what our doctor thinks we need. Profit should not be a factor.
 
That’s why we need to build on the reforms in the Affordable Care Act, allow for drug re-importation from other industrialized nations, empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, and ultimately enact a single-payer health care system that establishes health care as a universal right.

Bribing Members of Congress is a cost of doing business for Big Pharma. Lobbying and bribing congressman (which in reality is just giving them their cut of the profits of what they rip off from American consumers) is nothing compared to what they spend on advertising. As for who to bribe... they have it down pat. Here are the Big Seven for the 2012 electoral cycle:


Some of the worst of the Democratic corporate whores-- your Hoyers, Crowleys, Mathesons... that ilk... Ron Kind, Allyson Schwartz, Jason Altmire, come a little further down the list. But look who they picked for the really big bucks. Obviously Cantor, Boehner and McCarthy control the House agenda, so they automatically get their cuts. Fred Upton is the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Pitts chairs that Committee's subcommittee on Health and Eshoo is one of the senior Democrats on the Committee. And Dave Camp is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and chairs the Joint Committee on Taxation. For a few paltry bucks to a handful of greedy corrupt Members of Congress, Big Pharma gets to charge American consumers 400% more than people anywhere else for the same drugs. What could be better?

Dr. Syed Taj is the Democrat running for the now empty Thaddeus McCotter seat in the Detroit suburbs. He thinks John Aravosis hit the nail right on the head... and he knows why:

Much more than just dollars and cents are at stake in the health care and pharmaceutical industries. When insurance companies raise rates or deny coverage to increase profits, or when pharmaceutical companies increase costs because the demand will be met regardless, the wellbeing and general health of millions of people are affected. When middle-class Americans are forced to pay upwards of $8,000 a month for cancer treatment medication, it’s obvious our priorities are not in the right place.

It’s been shown that drug companies price discriminate-– they sell drugs in Canada and elsewhere for less because they know they can still hike prices in the United States. This is proof that a laissez faire pharmaceutical market does not work; the
greater the profits for drug companies, the sicker and poorer people become. Congress should intervene by introducing price ceilings in exchange for investing in research and development. Rather than companies price gouging because they lack competition, we should be pricing drugs according to their expected benefit to the population. Drugs are also cheaper in France because their companies have lower liability costs-– they’re much less likely to be sued than in the United States and for much less when they are sued. This means we need major tort reform.

Mr. Aravosis is exactly right: we are subsidizing the costs of socialized medicine without any of the benefits of lower costs and a healthier society. Medicine in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and other top-rated health care systems is so much cheaper
because they took a proactive role in reducing those costs to insure greater health to their citizens. Our federal government should be leading the way.

Progressive doctors Matt Heinz (D-AZ), Captain B.J. Hunnicut (MASH, Korea), Lee Rogers (D-CA)