Republicans Want You To Die Quickly-- Wouldn't It Be Nice If The Democratic Party United Firmly Behind An Alternative?

Yesterday, AOC sent her followers a note: Just months ago, the official campaign arm of House Democrats (the DCCC) announced that they would blacklist anyone who worked on a primary challenger’s campaign. That’s made it much harder for progressive challengers to get the resources, staff, and tools they need to win. It’s clear that we need our own support system on the progressive side of the party. That’s why we’ve worked so hard to raise nearly $300,000 for progressive candidates and causes this cycle. But we need to do a lot more, and in order to do so we need to grow this movement. The DCCC is enforcing their anti-incumbent rules by requiring a 'loyalty' pledge from the partners they work with. But what is that loyalty to? The values of the Democratic Party? Absolutely not. It is only loyalty to incumbents-- full stop. The DCCC has stamped down on progressive challengers while embracing partners and candidates that openly work with pro-gun, anti-choice, or corporate-friendly groups. We cannot allow the DCCC to slam the door on candidates who challenge the status quo."

Also yesterday, the uber-reactionary U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent out a "key vote alert," basically warning conservatives of both parties that if they vote for H.R. 3 it will be held against them-- and the Chamber happens to be one of the biggest institutional bribe-givers in American politics. "This legislation's government price controls on prescription drugs would threaten to cut critical medical research dollars essential for innovation and the development of new cures, and would endanger the livelihood of an estimated 1 million Americans. The Chamber will consider including votes on this legislation in our annual How They Voted scorecard."

Continuing to lie and using right-wing talking points, the Chamber warned that the proposals "would curb access to lifesaving medicines and eviscerate an estimated 1 million American jobs." I wonder if they just rolled out their opposition letters to Social Security and to Medicare to come up with this crap.

This is important because, as my grandfather, a Socialist who was enamored of FDR and the New Deal, always taught me, "there's only one thing worse than the Democratic Party-- the Republican Party." Trump's and MoscowMitch's strategy for dealing with runaway drug prices is, basically, "Giddyap"-- while blaming the whole mess on the Democrats, who are easy targets. Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett has a great way of bringing down the cost of drugs-- H.R. 1046-- which has 127 co-sponsors, most of the Democrats. The Republican Party, of course is opposed but it is Pelosi, Hoyer, Pallone and the criminal Big PhRMA bribe takers who are blocking it. What the conservatives and crooks object to in Doggett's bill is that if companies don't treat government drug price negotiations fairly, the government could enable HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug. This approach would push companies to approach negotiations around drug pricing more seriously-- and make sure that patients could still access a particular drug even if the company manufacturing it opted out of negotiations. Conservatives light their hair on fire over this-- just the way the used to when Social Security and Medicare were first brought up, just the way they do when anything that helps working families is brought up. Conservatives are not and have never been the friends of the working class. Wendell Primus, the deranged anti-Medicare-for-All fanatic who Pelosi allows to set Democratic health policy has always insisted that Medicare not be allowed to negotiate drug prices at all, ever, the Republican Party position.

This week the Congressional Progressive Caucus threatened to block Pelosi's weak and ineffective drug pricing bill-- which will never get through the Senate anyway-- if it was at least a little better for working families. Although the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- wanted a floor fight over it, Pelosi backed down after she counted the numbers. Arch right-wing scumbag Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), one of Congress' most corrupt members hissed "Make my day."

Pelosi insisted on keeping her shit bill but allowed a few progressive tweaks in return for the CPC dropping a threat to upend the vote altogether. Pelosi's bill allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of a few commonly used over-priced drugs, but just a few. The CPC tweaks increase he number of drugs from 35 to 50. They also forced Pelosi and her anti-healthcare czar, Primus, to include a provision that will pave the path, but still not enact, to prevent predatory drug manufacturers-- who give both Republicans and Pelosi and her team millions of dollars in bribes annually-- from continuing to hike their prices beyond inflation.

AOC (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) led the fight against Pelosi and Primus. Today the House voted 230-192 in favor of the improved bill, every Democrat and two electorally super-vulnerable Republicans in favor. 191 Republicans + independent conservative Justin Amash voted against it. Earlier 3 right-wing Democrats voted with the Republicans to kill the bill with a failed motion to recommit-- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT).

Trump said he will veto the bill if it passes, which means MoscowMitch will not allow a debate, let alone a Senate vote. Jayapal and her co-chair, for the Progressive Caucus: "Democrats won back the House promising to take on pharmaceutical greed and meaningfully lower drug prices for patients. We look forward to voting for the improved H.R. 3 this week, so Congress can fulfill that commitment."

The rule for the bill that had to pass yesterday for the vote today, passed 196-170, all the Democrats + Independent Justin Amash voting for it and all the Republicans voting against it. Interestingly 37 Democrats and 27 Republicans didn't vote at all. Among the Democrats boycotting the vote were many Blue Dogs and New Dems who were present-- Kurt Schrader (Blue-OR), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Terry Sewell (New Dem-AL), Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ), Lou Correa (New Dem-CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA) and Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)-- but were pouting over the progressive improvements.

Doggett, who didn't vote on the rule either, pointed out that Pelosi's shady bill won’t even address cases of price gouging like that of Martin Shkreli. Finally Primus saw Pelosi partially raise the white flag Tuesday night increasing the the number of negotiated drugs to 50 and, agreeing to Jayapal's amendment directing the secretary of labor to implement a policy refunding money to employer-sponsored insurance plans when drug makers hike their prices more quickly than inflation.

Juliette Cubanski, an associate director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation: "The changes to H.R. 3 aren’t major in terms of dramatically moving the needle on expected savings, at least in the short term... In general for now, though, the move seems to be more about politics than policy."

The Progressive Caucus was glad to have gotten their tweaks out of Pelosi and wrote that "While we didn’t get everything we wanted, the changes we have negotiated over the past few months will bring relief to millions of Americans who would otherwise have been left out of this landmark legislation. This was a collective movement."

Shahid Buttar, the progressive Democrat challenging Pelosi in a primary noted that "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Heidi Sloan, one of the progressive Democrats running for the gerrymandered TX-25 seat occupied by anti-healthcare fanatic Roger Williams, told me right after today's vote that "I support any effort to lower out-of-control drug prices, but am disappointed HR-3 has been watered down. This is unfortunately a trend with Speaker Pelosi. We are proud to endorse and have been endorsed by Shahid Buttar, who will replace Pelosi with true progressive leadership, and help win Medicare for All, which is what we truly need to make prescription drugs available to all people."

Eva Putzova, former Flagstaff City council member and AZ-01 congressional candidate for the seat held by Republican turned Blue Dog (not much of a leap there) Tom O'Halleran, wasn't happy with the "improved" version. "Although the Pelosi bill was improved by pressure from the progressive caucus, it is far from what we need. Instead of the government having the authority to negotiate prices for just 50 drugs as now required in Pelosi’s bill, the federal government should have the authority to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies over the prices of all drugs. In the event the drug companies refuse to negotiate, then the government should be able to license competitors to sell generic drugs. It is about time that our elected representatives cared more about the health of their constituents than the profits of the drug companies."

Shaniyat Chowdhury is running for the southeast Queens congressional district held by one of Congress' most corrupt members, New Dem Greg Meeks. Like most of the New Dems, Meeks has done nothing to help solve the problem of over-priced prescription drugs. Chowdhury calls it a "tale of leadership vs lip service. Gregory Meeks will only sign onto most bills where the party will go. The only time he steps out of bounds is to help his billionaire friends. That’s more than enough to let the public know that politicians like Meeks only serve the wealthy and powerful regardless of political affiliation. Unlike him, our campaign and team will run on values like ethics and morals. It’s not enough to passively sign onto Medicare-for-All and then not negotiate the drug prices to take power away from pharmaceutical companies who are hurting the American people. I’d vote against this-- and then fight for Medicare for All which would 100% allow affordable drug prices to be negotiated.

Marie Newman, the Chicagoland progressive taking on anti-healthcare fanatic Dan Lipinski-- who even voted against Obamacare!-- said she is "so glad the Progressive Caucus worked hard and strengthened this bill. Next step: Medicare for All." Brianna Wu, the progressive Democrat running for the Boston area seat occupied by corporate New Dem Stephen Lynch, sees it much the same way Marie does. "I suppose HR-3 is a start," she said, "and I appreciate the determination of the Progressive Caucus to make the bill better. But the shortsightedness of limiting the scope of the bill to only 50 drugs concerns me. No American should be priced out of life saving prescription drugs, no matter which drug is required. This bill provides yet another argument for the need for a real Medicare For All program, where all prescription drugs are truly affordable for all Americans. Incrementalism should not be mistaken for a permanent fix. We need to get to the finish line, and when I’m in Congress, I’ll make sure we do."

Do You Think That Trump Is The Only One Motivated By Corruption In The Battle Over Drug Prices? Wake Up

Medicare-for-All Will Never Pass And Drug Prices Will Remain High Until Pelosi And Wendell Primus Are Gone From Congress

The public-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents, non-voters-- everyone wants cheaper drug prices, but the prices continue to rise. The public wants Congress to do something about it. But nothing-- a whole lot of nothing-- is getting done. PhRMA charges what the market lets them get away with. As Sam Baker pointed out in Politico over the weekend, "the most expensive drug in the world-- a gene replacement therapy that treats spinal muscular atrophy-- came to market earlier this year, with a sticker price of $2.1 million in the U.S. That drug is a groundbreaking new therapy, but prices also continue to rise for old, familiar products that people depend on every day-- most notably, insulin

This week, the House is going to vote on a very modest and unsatisfactory bill that Pelosi has been pushing and that progressives are embarrassed over. Trump prefers Chuck Grassley's Senate bill, which McConnell isn't thrilled with and which the right won't vote for. To pass it, it would take a lot of arm-twisting of conservative Republicans that Trump will never do, plus all the right-of-center and moderate Democrats. And then it would have pass the House. Big PhRMA opposes all the bills-- especially the effective one, H.R.1046 that Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) introduced and is backed by 127 Democratic co-sponsors. Doggett's bill is the only one that would crack down on PhRMA and it is being backed by Democrats from progressives like AOC (NY), Barbara Lee (CA), Ro Khanna (CA), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Jerry Nadler (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Katie Porter (CA), Jamie Raskin (MN), Ted Lieu (CA), Rashid Tlaib (MI), Andy Levin (MI), and Jan Scxhakowsky (IL) to even some of the most cowardly conservatives like Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL), Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA) and Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA).

Back to Politico: "The big picture: The pharmaceutical industry almost always gets its way in Washington. The industry's top two trade organizations, together, spent more than $35 million on lobbying in 2018, more than they've ever spent before. That doesn't include individual companies' contributions, nor does it include any of the industry's campaign contributions, which are substantial."

Cenk Uygur, the progressive reform candidate running for the open congressional seat in a district in the suburbs north of Los Angeles (CA-25) told us this morning that "Drug companies don't give politicians money for charity, they do it to buy them. And unfortunately it works. Everyone knows these are bribes. The only people who won't acknowledge it are corporate politicians on both sides and the corporate media. This is a sick system that lets people die for profit. Any politician that takes money from the drug companies is selling out their voters on behalf of their donors."

This is a list of current House members who have taken the most in bribes from the health sector (which includes Big PhRMA) since 1990. All of them have been in top leadership and committee positions to prevent any movement on meaningful reform. All of them belong in prison:

• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $6,610,354
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $4,970,630
• Michael Burgess (R-TX)- $4,466,629
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $4,403,284
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $4,276,714
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $3,611,054
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $3,468,191
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $3,207,836
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $3,026,262
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $2,944,209
• Ron Kind (D-WI)- $2,869,860
• Richard Neal (D-MA)- $2,869,426

On Friday, Adam Cancryn and Sarah Karlin-Smith, writing for PoliticoPro, reported that House progressive leaders were testing support for an effort to block Pelosi’s bill, "amid rising frustration over the crafting of the Democrats’ signature legislation.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus circulated a questionnaire asking its members if they would be willing to oppose a procedural vote on the bill-- effectively stalling the top Democratic priority-- unless Pelosi agrees to make a series of changes moving it further left, or allow votes on progressive amendments." Pelosi, who has a bizarre relationship with Big PhRMA and with their lobbyists and "ex"-lobbyists, hit the ceiling.

Few progressives have publicly suggested opposing the drug pricing legislation up until now, even as they complained of being locked out of negotiations over its specifics. The Progressive Caucus has struggled in the past to marshal its diverse membership against major Democratic priorities, and Pelosi’s drug pricing bill is seen as key to keeping Democratic control of the House in 2020.

But progressives' anger with top Democrats reached a new pitch Friday, after Politico reported that leadership weakened a key provision authored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and approved by the Education and Labor Committee in October.

“I don’t know why I’m having to fight so hard for an amendment that already passed through committee,” Jayapal said.

The bill originally directed the federal government to study how it could require drugmakers to refund money to employer-sponsored health plans when the companies raised prices above the inflation rate-- and then issue regulations based on those conclusions.

Yet in a private meeting with advocacy groups on Thursday, top aides led by Pelosi health adviser Wendell Primus said they were cutting the regulations mandate, effectively reducing it to a simple call for a study, people who were in the room said.

You may have noticed that Blue America is in the middle of a fundraiser for Pramila's campaign. It's because of this kind of thing that we're trying to help her. Who else is going to stand up to Primus who is exactly as anti-healthcare as any garden variety Republican. There is no presence more detrimental to healthcare policy in Congress than Wendell Primus. You can help-- and maybe win a Nirvana gold record award-- by clicking on the Blue America Nirvana thermometer above.

Cancryn and Karlin-Smith continued that "Progressives have unsuccessfully pressed leadership for months to make changes in the bill that would fully eliminate the ban on Medicare’s ability to directly negotiate drug prices, increase the number of drugs the government can target for direct negotiation and make negotiated prices available to the uninsured." Big PhRMA's man inside Pelosi's office warned that Pramila and other progressives are "gravely misreading the situation if they try to stand in the way of the overwhelming hunger" for Pelosi's bill that most people view as slightly better than nothing.

The last-minute changes have left liberals irate over what they characterized as a leadership attempt to steamroll the left wing on a top priority.

Leaders had vowed to allow rank-and-file members to help shape the bill for months, they said, only to speed the legislation to the floor in the final weeks of the year. Now, they said, they were quietly watering down language that progressives touted as the element that justified supporting a bill they otherwise saw as far too timid.

“For many of my residents at home, constantly there’s this lack of a sense of urgency they feel is coming out of this chamber,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). “If we’re not going to take this head-on right away, it’s not going to make a difference.”

In an interview, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) characterized the drug pricing bill as the latest in a string of issues where Democratic leaders ignored progressive lawmakers.

Meanwhile, Doggett, the congressman from Texas who actually wrote the good drug pricing legislation said "I've tried to be positive throughout this and talk about improving the bill, rather than opposing the bill, but it would be really difficult to vote for it if no improvements are made... We are setting the standard, we are setting the model for what a Democratic president would do on prescription drugs."

Trump Promised Lower Drug Prices... But He Has Moscow Mitch Blocking Both Democratic And Republican Bills That Would Do That. Why Is He Such A Dick?

I was on the phone a few minutes ago, talking with a super-progressive running for a congressional seat in central Texas and she brought up Lloyd Doggett, chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, and more progressive than anyone else in the Texas congressional delegation. Some people consider his bill, the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2019 (H.R.1046) too radical; it would help too many working families and infuriate too many Big PhRMA executives, lobbyists and donors. Doggett's bill "requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies regarding prices for drugs covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Current law prohibits the CMS from doing so.) The CMS must take certain factors into account during negotiations, including the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the drug, the financial burden on patients, and unmet patient needs. If the CMS is unable to negotiate the price of a drug, such drug is subject to competitive licensing in order to further its sale under Medicare, notwithstanding existing government-granted exclusivities. Additionally, for one year after a drug is provided under a competitive license, such drug is also subject to specified price limitations; if the drug is not offered at such prices, the drug is subject to additional licensing that furthers its sale under any federal program (e.g., Medicaid)." Doggett has 127 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

The bill was too much for Pelosi and Hoyer and it remains bottled up in Frank Pallone's Energy and Commerce Committee, where Pallone will make sure it never sees the light of day. Instead, Pelosi passed a meh bill-- better than nothing but not nearly as good as Doggett's bill.

But even that bill, that passed the House with bipartisan support-- and a nod from Trump-- is being prevented from getting a debate, let alone a vote, by Moscow Mitch in the most dysfunctional Senate in American history. Marianne Levine and Sarah Karlin-Smith reported on the morass the struggle to lower the cost of drugs is experiencing in the GOP-controlled Senate for Politico over the weekend.

An even less helpful bill was approved by the Senate Finance Committee (19-9) but the Finance Committee chair who's sponsoring it, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), says McConnell won't even let that one come to the floor. He said Trump-- who is probably just pretending to want to lower drug prices-- would have to lean on Moscow Mitch and tell him to put it up for a floor vote. There's no question that it would pass, but Trump doesn't really want it to pass, as long as he doesn't get the blame for it not passing.

The standstill-- even on an issue that has bipartisan backing and the support of a fickle president-- reflects the unceasing gridlock of today’s Senate and how difficult it is to move any major legislation through the upper chamber.

With Democrats in control of the House, the GOP-controlled Senate has shifted virtually its entire focus to confirming Trump’s judicial nominees where bipartisan votes aren’t needed. And heading into an election year, McConnell is loath to bring up issues that divide his caucus or risk alienating powerful industry groups. Legislative activity will only decline further if and when the Senate holds an impeachment trial that will further polarize the Capitol.

“I’ve said to people here, if you’ve been here four years or less you’ve never seen the Senate,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) “And you would have loved it. It was an interesting place. We had bills, and amendments ... we did big things.”

Senate Republicans have unsurprisingly ignored a raft of liberal measures passed by the Democratic House, including bills to curb gun violence or overhaul election laws. But even ostensibly less controversial legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act or strengthen retirement security have also run aground amid partisan bickering.

The only measures regularly moving are must-pass bills to avoid a shutdown, and lawmakers are still struggling to reach a long-term deal to fund the government.

McConnell has made no secret that stacking the judiciary with conservatives is a top priority. But he also argues that the Senate could do more if the House wasn’t stalling on matters like the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement or the annual defense policy bill.

“If [Democrats] are going to keep plowing ahead with their impeachment obsession, they cannot abdicate their basic governing responsibilities at the same time,” McConnell said recently.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing her own legislation to curb the cost of prescription drugs, but McConnell has said it has no chance in the Senate.

Most Republicans have long opposed federal intervention when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, but public support for action as well as Trump’s embrace of the issue may be shifting the party’s stance.

The GOP leader said in September that the Senate’s next steps on prescription drugs were “under discussion” and that the chamber is “looking at doing something on drug pricing.” Still, McConnell has demonstrated little interest in taking up Grassley’s bill, which would cap seniors’ out of pocket costs on drugs in Medicare and penalize companies that levy large price increases, among dozens of other measures aimed at lowering spending on medication.

That’s despite Trump saying he likes Grassley’s bill “very much” and top White House aides throwing their support behind the legislation.

Health industry sources closely tracking the Senate proposal, say McConnell’s office is not making an effort to help the White House get his members on board.

Asked whether McConnell would bring the bill to the floor, one Republican senator said, “I can’t imagine... It’s like Grassley, and a couple of Republicans and all the Democrats on the committee.”

Grassley has acknowledged that any action on his bill is likely slip into 2020 and that the measure currently doesn’t have enough support to pass in the Senate.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the bill’s coauthor and the Finance Committee’s ranking member, are trying to make changes to the bill to garner more Republican backing.

“This bill may not have 60 votes today, but when Republicans wake up to the fact that 22 of them are up for reelection and in every state it’s an issue ... they are going to soon realize that this is the road to do something responsible,” Grassley said at an event late last month . “But we’re not there yet.”

Since the legislation advanced out of the Senate Finance Committee in July, administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Joe Grogan, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, have been on the Hill pushing the bipartisan bill with little to show for it.

The measure was approved by the panel on a 19-9 vote, with six Republicans joining all Democrats and nine Republicans opposed. A chairman advancing a bill through committee over the opposition of most in his party is an unusual event, but the fact underscores Grassley’s commitment to moving ahead.

GOP senators who voted against the bill largely cited a proposed change to Medicare’s prescription drug benefit that they say is akin to implementing government price controls; it would impose financial penalties on companies that raise prices faster than inflation.

Grassley has said provision is necessary to keep Democrats on board with the bill. But even some of the Republicans who voted for it in committee have indicated they might not support final passage on the floor if that language remains.

Another large health policy package with bipartisan support has also faced headwinds.

The Senate HELP Committee approved a bill this summer that would aim to prevent surprise medical bills, raise the legal age to buy tobacco to 21-- a priority of McConnell’s-- and increase competition in the drug industry. While the White House hasn’t backed the package explicitly, Grogan penned an op-ed this past Wednesday calling on lawmakers to “come back to Washington in December ready to vote to protect patients from surprise medical bills.”

Momentum on the legislation stalled after pushback from doctors and dark money groups over how to resolve “surprise” bill disputes between insurance companies and health care providers. Senate GOP leadership hasn’t given any assurances it would bring the measure to the floor, though one Senate Republican aide said it could become part of an end-of-year spending package.

“I hope we can come up with a consensus document the leaders could attach to any piece of legislation they want to attach it to,” HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told reporters recently. “I think sooner or later people are going to say, ‘We’d like to do more than confirm judges and talk about impeachment.’”

Indeed, the Senate has not been doing much legislating these days. Republicans have instead prioritized the confirmation of judicial and executive branch nominees, even changing Senate rules to speed up the process. So far this Congress, the Senate has held 268 votes on nominations, compared to 98 votes on legislation.

The House has sent more than 300 bills over to the Senate, and Democrats are quick to point out that many of them have Republican support.

I spoke about this drug pricing issue with the two most progressive Senate candidates running for Republican-held seats this cycle, Betsy Sweet in Maine and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado. Andrew, the former speak of the Colorado House, is in a tough election race with two conservatives, John Hickenlooper, the establishment Democrat in the primary, and Trumpist Cory Gardner in the general. Health care-- he's a Medicare-for-All proponent-- is one of the top issues motivating his campaign. He told me that "The high cost of health care is driving more than half a million Americans into bankruptcy each year-- and 35,000 to an early grave. We need senators who will stand up to the drugmakers and the insurance companies, not do their bidding. But that won’t happen until we put an end to the corrupting influence of corporate cash and elect lawmakers who no longer owe their seats to the industries they’re supposed to be regulating."

Betsy Sweet has a similar situation. Chuck Schumer picked an easy to manipulate, middle of the road candidate in Maine, just the way he did in Colorado. "Apparently," Betsy told, "the political money from big PhRMA is more important to Mitch McConnell and his Senators than the bankruptcies  and lack of medical care millions are experiencing from unaffordable prescription drugs. Medicare for All and universal coverage the ultimate answer. The bills being held up are steps in the right direction. Inaction is unacceptable. Senator Susan Collins ought to be demanding publicly that McConnell take action on this."

Pelosi Promised If She Won A Majority, She Would Lower Drug Prices-- So What's The Hold Up?

The problem: Pallone and Pelosi

Back in January, when the new Democratic majority began taking over the reins of power in Congress, there was a hopeful spate of reports on drug prices-- like this one by Maureen Groppe in USA Today: Democrats examine drug prices, a first step in Congress' path to cut prescription costs. Groppe reported that "reducing the cost of medicine is one of the few goals" that both Democrats and Señor Trumpanzee have named a top priority. Even "Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said he will try to find solutions... But the initiative is stronger on the Democratic side, said Rachel Sachs, an expert on drug pricing legislation at Washington University in St. Louis. 'The Democrats have advanced an affirmative agenda on what to do on drug pricing,' said Sachs, an associate professor of law. 'Different Democrats have different ideas about how to advance each of those goals, but they are all on board with those goals. Republicans have not really advanced an agenda in the same way.'"

No mention, though of the fact that the Democrat Pelosi has driving the ship, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a corrupt machine pol who has taken more more in bribes disguised as campaign contributions ($6,288,967) from the Industrial-Medical Complex than any other member of Congress in history. Because of Pallone and his corrupt cronies, the Democrats are stalemated and getting nowhere. Reporting for Vox, Li Zhou wrote yesterday, that the Democrats are supposed to unveil something within a month... but not even they know what it will be yet! "Reducing prescription drug prices was a key plank of House Democrats’ platform during the 2018 midterms. More than six months into their term, however, a concrete bill has yet to emerge from House leadership on the subject, and early excerpts Speaker Nancy Pelosi has floated have spurred progressive concern."

Curbing the rise of prescription drug prices is a problem that Democrats have wanted to solve for some time. Because of the way the industry is currently regulated, many pharmaceutical companies have established a monopoly on certain drugs and have significant leeway when it comes to determining costs for their medications.

As a result, the US boasts some of the highest prescription drug prices of any developed country, leading to shocking costs for thousands of drugs including insulin. Most recently, a gene therapy treatment from Novartis was priced at a whopping $2.1 million.

Despite Democrats’ consensus about the problem and the broad way to solve it (more government regulation), there’s disagreement among lawmakers about the best route to take.

Although Pelosi’s bill is not yet finalized, she has laid out some general outlines at various caucus meetings, including some recent updates that responded to progressive pushback: According to the pieces she’s revealed so far, the bill would enable Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to negotiate on prescription drugs covered by Medicare, but a final price would be decided by the Government Accountability Office if no agreement could initially be reached.

That approach differs significantly from two other bills, one introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the other by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Doggett and Brown’s legislation, which has garnered the support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would not include a GAO middle-man in negotiations. Additionally, it would enable a pharmaceutical company’s competitors to produce a generic version of a drug if a firm did not engage in negotiations fairly.

A key difference in the Democrats’ options-- of involving a third party in the negotiations, even if it’s a government body-- has been a point of contention, due to concerns about how this added step might make the process clunkier, while also limiting potential price reductions.

To top it all off, progressives argue that the process for developing this bill has been opaque-- although they’ve been heartened by the latest tweaks by House Leadership, Politico reports. According to a senior Democratic aide, the heads of the two major committees with jurisdiction over the legislation have been making the rounds with different Democratic constituencies as they try to flesh out the proposal.

“We need the same type of transparency in writing drug pricing legislation as for pricing drugs,” Doggett told Vox in a statement.

As lawmakers await the final version of a bill spearheaded by Pelosi, there are still outstanding questions about whether it will be ambitious enough... [T]he contours of the proposal as described during a caucus meeting in late May had spurred outcry from progressives who argued that the legislation didn’t go far enough to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. Pelosi more recently signaled that she was making updates to the proposal in response to the critiques it’s received... Here’s what we know about the speaker’s plan so far, though these pieces have not been finalized:

• It would enable HHS Secretary Azar to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the prices of drugs covered by Medicare.
• If the companies and HHS are not able to reach an agreement, the Government Accountability Office-- an independent agency that conducts research and advises Congress-- would help set a final price. (This is different from a binding arbitration process that had been proposed by the House speaker in an earlier version of the measure.)
• As a reference point for price-setting, GAO would use the median pricing for a particular drug in other countries around the world.
• The plan is calling for negotiations that target roughly 250 drugs, though it does not cap the number of drugs that would be part of negotiations.
• If a company does not comply with the negotiations for a particular drug, it would be penalized with an excise tax of 50 percent of its sales on the drug from the previous year.

While the GAO is seen as a better option than a third-party private arbiter (something that had been floated in prior talks) by critics of the leadership plan, there’s a lot of unanswered questions about how exactly the body would handle this job. The GAO is usually tasked with delivering oversight and other reports on government activities, not managing government negotiations.

...The idea of a drug minimum has also emerged as another point of contention. Previously, Pelosi had suggested a 25-drug floor, though the speaker has since said her plan would aim to target about 250 drugs. Critics had expressed worries that any number set by the legislation would instead become a de facto maximum, and negotiations would peter out once an agreement was reached on a select number of drugs.

Advocates in favor of establishing a drug floor suggest that it would force the HHS secretary to engage in negotiation on a set list of drugs, at the very least, and also argue that it would be very tough for Medicare to start this process without working on a more narrow universe of drugs first.

...Beyond the mechanics of the negotiations, one of progressives’ biggest concerns is whether the bill has an adequate backstop that will ding companies with a financial penalty if they don’t comply with the process.

Pelosi’s proposal does have some safeguards, as HuffPost reports:

Companies that refused to participate would be slapped with a tax equal to 50 percent of their prior year’s sales of the drug. Prices on all drugs covered under Medicare Parts B and D could not be increased going forward, and any company that still did so would have 100% of the price hike taxed away.

Doggett’s bill, however, which has more than 100 125 cosponsors, takes a much more aggressive tack on the matter.

If companies did not treat negotiations fairly, Doggett’s bill would enable HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug.

This approach would push companies to approach negotiations around drug pricing more seriously-- and make sure that patients could still access a particular drug even if the company manufacturing it opted out of negotiations.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, spoke for her members, saying "We wanted to make it very clear that it needs to be something bold that has teeth in it, and I think that’s what Rep. Doggett's bill has in it." Pelosi, who laughably claims to be a progressive because she once was, a couple of decades ago, will not allow that. She would rather support the source bribery for her members from the Sickness Industry than fulfill her oath to the voters who put her party in power in the House.

When Doggett introduced the same bill, Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2018 (HR 6505), last year, he hard 104 co-sponsors. In February Doggett re-introduced the bill (H.R. 1046) and now has 125 co-sponsors, all the members of the House who are serious about lowering drug prices. Pelosi and her cronies are not among them and even though more than half the Democrats are behind the bill, she refuses to accept that her caucus has moved on and left her in the policy dust.

In 2020, San Francisco voters will have an alternative to Pelosi if she decides to run again. Shahid Buttar is, like she used to be many, many years ago, the real thing. "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure," he told me recently, "and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Tomas Ramos is a progressive community activist in the South Bronx, who is aiming to replace retiring Congressman Jose Serrano. Last month he told me that "It's unconscionable to think that there are lawmakers who don't deem it necessary to pass common sense legislation to rein in the reach of big PhARMA. I support the progressive caucus' efforts to clamp down on this industry, and I look forward to joining them once I'm elected."

Aside from Pelosi, others on her craven and disgraceful leadership team who want to feather the drug makers' nests-- and refuse to co-sponsor Doggett's legislation-- are Steny Hoyer (MD), Ben Ray Luján (NM), Jim Clyburn (SC), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Cheri Bustos (IL), Frank Pallone (NJ), Richard Neal (MA) and Katherine Clark (MA). SHAME! Freshman members who have signed on and are backing their own constituents over Pelosi's allies at PhRMA are:

• AOC (NY)
• Ilhan Omar (MN)
• Rashida Tlaib (MI)
• Ayassa Pressley (MA)
• Joe Neguse (CO)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Andy Levin (MI)
• Katie Hill (CA)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Chuy Garcia (IL)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• Debra Haaland (NM)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Josh Harder (CA)
• Joseph Morelle (NY)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
• Tom Malinowski (NJ)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Dean Phillips (MN)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Jason Crow (CO)
• Susie Lee (NV)
• Sean Casten (IL)
• Elaine Luria (VA)
• Chris Pappas (NH)

Maybe someone should ask Central Valley freshman TJ Cox if he thinks voters in Bakersfield don't want more reasonable drug prices. Greg Stanton in Phoenix might be asked the same question. Ditto for "ex"-Republican Harley Rouda. Sure, Rouda is very, very wealthy but does he think voters in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach don't want fairer prices for the prescription drugs they need? Lucy McBath is nuts if she thinks voters in Alpharetta, Sandy Springs and Roswell only care about gun control and not also about high drug prices. Maybe Donna Shalala has been hibernating this summer but voters in Miami want fair drug prices too and if she doesn't wake up and smell the roses she's going to wind up with even more time to sleep after November of 2020. The detestable Republican-lite brigade of Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY) can always be expected to oppose anything and everything that's good for working families; so why should fair drug prices be any different? Only primaries can save us from Pelosi and her team and the mindless freshmen who do whatever she says with no regard for the folks back home-- which is exactly why she gave Cheri Bustos the OK to squelch primaries.

What Can Austin Texas Teach Us About How A Widely Hated Republican Party Consolidates Power

Lamar Smith and Roger Williams-- this is not Austin, Texas

In 2003, Tom DeLay did Travis County in. It was part of a masterplan that brought Texas from a state with 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans in Congress to one with 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Among other things, he gerrymandered up Texas' fifth most populous county-- Austin and it's suburbs-- to deprive the citizens an opportunity to elect their own congressional representative. Two actually. Nationally, the average House district has a population of 710,767 and Travis County's population is 1,151,145-- two congressmen. Both would be Democrats-- by a wide margin. Instead the DeLay-engineered gerrymander cut the county up and divided it among 5 districts, TX-10, TX-17, TX-21, TX-25, and TX-35, only one of which is Democratic, but still isn't a Travis County district.

In 2012, Travis County voted for Obama over Romney by a wide margin-- 231,540 (60%) to 139,503 (36%). There was also a U.S. Senate race that day and Travis County voters went heavily for Paul Sadler, the Democrat, over Ted Cruz. 224,070 voters went for Sadler (59%) and just 133,354 voted for Cruz (35%). You get the picture; it's a nice blue county. But here's how it worked district by gerrymandered district.

TX-10- stretched from the deep red suburbs west of Houston in Harris County across a hug swathe of rural Texas and right into northern Austin. Almost 40% of the district is in Travis County, which votes reliably Democratic but has it's voice muffled by the rest of the R+11 district. In 2012 over 88,000 votes came from Travis County and the multimillionaire right-wing Republican incumbent, Michael McCaul, only got 40% of them. But he took 74% of the 90,000 votes that came from Harris County and most of the votes in the smaller, rural counties.

TX-17 is a red hellhole (R+13) with a right-wing nut, Bill Flores, as a congressman. The district is dominated by McLennan County (Waco) which is overwhelmingly Republican. Over 60,000 of them voted in 2012 and 51,459 backed Flores (85%). Brazos County has the second biggest population of the 12 counties in the district and about 47,000 voted for Flores (83%). Travis is the 3rd biggest; over 32,000 voted but their voice was drowned out.

TX-21 is almost as red (R+12) and with an even worse congressman than Flores, Lamar Smith. We've been talking about this district a lot this cycle because we're trying to help Tom Wakely turn it blue. In 2012 Smith took 61% of the vote against a weak candidate. There are 10 counties, #1 being Bear (San Antonio) and #2 being Travis. Smith only got 32% of the Travis vote. Over 73,000 voted there, but they were drowned out by Bexar (over 101,000 voters) and Comal (about 40,000 voters).

TX-25 starts up in the suburbs south of Fort Worth and goes into the Texas Hill country southwest of Austin, grabbing a chunk of Travis County on the way. It's another R+12 district with another right-wing nut as a congressman, Roger Williams, who was just charged by the House Ethics Committee for trying to pass legislation to enrich himself. There are 13 counties and although Travis is the single biggest (109,000 people from there voted in 2012) their voices were drowned out by Republican votes from Johnson and Hays counties.

TX-35 is the one blue district that includes a piece of Travis County, not that the GOP didn't try to gerrymander Lloyd Dogged out of a seat. In the end though he wound up in this district that parallels TX-21 but tries stuffing in as many Democrats as possible so that neighboring TX-21,TX-10 and TX-31 would all remain safely red. The PVI is D+11 and includes southeast Travis county and a big chunk of Bexar (San Antonio). The district is about 65% Hispanic and 9% black. In 2012 over 72,000 votes came from an overwhelmingly Democratic part of San Antonio, while 42,000 voters from Travis County were able to join with them to elect Doggett.

None of this is news, except for the part about the Office of Congressional Ethics stating that "there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Williams' personal financial interest in his auto dealership may be perceived as having influenced his performance of official duties." He had slipped an amendment into a transportation bill to allow car dealers (like himself) rent cars and use loaners under recall, a clear conflict of interest. (He's already one of the richest members of Congress-- with a 2014 net worth of $28 million-- but usually the richer someone is, the greedier they are as well.) Normally-- in a non-gerrymandered district-- he could be beaten. The DCCC didn't recruit a candidate and isn't supporting Kathi Thomas the district's nominee.

Tom Wakely

As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline Williams had raised $1,382,855-- primarily by leveraging his position on the House Financial Services Committee (the banksters have given him a hefty $1,871,616 since he was first elected in 2012)-- to Kathi's $24,699. He had $978,997 cash on hand and she had $4,467. And it isn't as though the DCCC didn't know about the pending charges against Williams, which started bubbling up last November.

The only Republican-held Travis County seat we see as winnable this cycle is TX-21, where a combination of Trumpophobia in the Bexar suburbs and anger at Lamar Smith for his role in the Zika crisis and for his support for Trump. If you can spare some cash to help turn a Texas district blue, please give to Tom Wakely here.




No New Texans!

The GOP Establishment-- call it plutocracy or fascism... it's the elites who run the right-wing show-- smells blood in the water... Obama's. They're positive they can beat him in 2012, sweep Congress and roll back what's ever left of the New Deal and maybe even democracy, which they've always detested, itself. The moron zombie base is worked up and ready to consign its future generations to slavery and Democrats are depressed and deflated by Obama's shocking conservatism. But they know-- like Obama knows-- that his best chance for a second term rests with an over the top Republican nominee. And, as the corndog and fried-butter-on-a-stick eaters at this weekend's Ames straw poll proved, that's exactly what the Republican base wants. They picked, overwhelmingly, the craziest, least electable candidates. Romney, the anointed candidate of the Establishment-- who, regardless of what the base (and Obama) want, will be the GOP nominee-- barely made a blip, with a dismal 7th place finish, even below joke candidates Rick Santorum and Herman "the Hermanator" Cain.

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his intention to run on the sane day as the Ames straw poll. He was drafted by the Republican Establishment. His job is to knock out Bachmann. The Roves and Aileses and their plutocratic/fascist backers don't care if Perry manages to go all the way or if he just winds up as Romney's VP nominee... they just want Bachmann and her crazy eyes and her closet case psychotic husband out of the race as soon as possible.

Less than a month ago we looked at a laundry list of reasons many on the far right fringes-- i.e., the typical GOP activist-- can't embrace Perry. (Yesterday Think Progress had a more all-encompassing laundry list worth taking a look at.) But this seems to be as big a problem for him as Romneycare and the consistent pattern of flip-flopping are for Mitt:

Perhaps the biggest issue people opposed to the nanny state should be concerned about is Perry's issuance of an executive order back in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry was in the tank with Merck. There were apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.

The Texas legislature put the kibosh on that idea by crafting a bill that overturned the executive order.

Subsequently, very serious safety issues with the vaccine came to light. The biggest problem with regard to the Gardasil issue was that Perry appeared to be condoning premarital sex, or at least assuming that middle school girls were going to be engaging in sexual activity, which is the only way that the cervical cancer that the vaccine prevents can be contracted. Many parents and conservatives were justifiably outraged.

When one takes into account these facts about Rick Perry, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Perry is for the expansion of government and its intrusion into our lives.

The new Texas Monthly is running a major feature on how Perry keeps winning-- 10 elections in a row, some against formidable opponents. He may come off like a pathetic lightweight unfit to run a rural post office but he's managed to beat Jim Hightower, John Sharp, Tony Sanchez, Chris Bell, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Bill White-- all of whom are interviewed in the Monthly story.

Saturday's Wall Street Journal opinion page, though, exposed a weakness in the Perry armor that could be deadly-- in fact, a weakness that could be as disturbing for many on the right as it will certainly be for normal Americans. The scandal has been kept in the public eye partially because of carping by teabaggers who see Perry as a phony baloney hack politician and a willing servant for the Establishment they sometimes vestigially sense is their enemy.

Gov. Rick Perry's presidential pitch goes something like this: During one of the worst recessions in American history, he's kept his state "open for business." In the last two years, Texas created over a quarter of a million jobs, meaning that the state's 8% unemployment rate is substantially lower than the rest of the nation's. The governor credits this exceptional growth to things like low taxes and tort reform.

It's a strong message. But one of the governor's signature economic development initiatives-- the Texas Emerging Technology Fund-- has lately raised serious questions among some conservatives.

The Emerging Technology Fund was created at Mr. Perry's behest in 2005 to act as a kind of public-sector venture capital firm, largely to provide funding for tech start-ups in Texas. Since then, the fund has committed nearly $200 million of taxpayer money to fund 133 companies. Mr. Perry told a group of CEOs in May that the fund's "strategic investments are what's helping us keep groundbreaking innovations in the state." The governor, together with the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Texas House, enjoys ultimate decision-making power over the fund's investments.

Among the companies that the Emerging Technology Fund has invested in is Convergen LifeSciences, Inc. It received a $4.5 million grant last year-- the second largest grant in the history of the fund. The founder and executive chairman of Convergen is David G. Nance.

In 2009, when Mr. Nance submitted his application for a $4.5 million Emerging Technology Fund grant for Convergen, he and his partners had invested only $1,000 of their own money into their new company, according to documentation prepared by the governor's office in February 2010. But over the years, Mr. Nance managed to invest a lot more than $1,000 in Mr. Perry. Texas Ethics Commission records show that Mr. Nance donated $75,000 to Mr. Perry's campaigns between 2001 and 2006.

The regional panel that reviewed Convergen's application turned down the company's $4.5 million request when it presented its proposal on Oct. 7, 2009. But Mr. Nance appealed that decision directly to a statewide advisory committee (of which Mr. Nance was once a member) appointed by Mr. Perry. Just eight days later, on Oct. 15, a subcommittee unanimously recommended approval by the full statewide committee. On Oct. 29, the full advisory committee unanimously recommended the approval of Convergen's application. When asked why the advisory committee felt comfortable recommending Convergen's grant, Lucy Nashed, a spokesperson for Mr. Perry, said that the committee "thoroughly vetted the company."

Starting in 2008, Mr. Perry also appropriated approximately $2 million in federal taxpayer money through the auspices of the Wagner-Peyser Act-- a federal works program founded during the New Deal and overseen in Texas by Mr. Perry's office-- to a nonprofit launched by Mr. Nance called Innovate Texas. The nonprofit was meant to help entrepreneurs by linking them to investors. It began receiving funding on Dec. 31, 2008, soon after Mr. Nance's previous company, Introgen Therapeutics, declared bankruptcy on Dec. 3. According to state records, Mr. Nance paid himself $250,000 for the two years he ran Innovate Texas. Innovate Texas, whose listed phone number is not a working number, could not be reached for comment. (Two phone calls left for Mr. Nance at Convergen's offices went unreturned.)

ThromboVision, Inc., a medical imaging company, was also the recipient of an award from the Emerging Technology Fund: It received $1.5 million in 2007. Charles Tate, a major Perry contributor, served as the chairman of a state committee that reviewed ThromboVision's application for state funding, and Mr. Tate voted to give ThromboVision the public money. One month after ThromboVision received notification that it would receive a $1.5 million state grant in April 2007, Mr. Tate invested his own money in ThromboVision, according to the Dallas Morning News. The Texas paper later found that by 2010 Mr. Tate owned a total of 200,000 preferred shares in ThromboVision.

According to a Texas state auditor's report, ThromboVision failed to submit required annual reports to the fund from 2008 through 2010, when the company went bankrupt. The report noted the tech fund's managers were "unaware of ThromboVision, Inc.'s bankruptcy until after the bankruptcy had been reported in a newspaper." ThromboVision's bankruptcy filing revealed not only that Mr. Tate had been a preferred shareholder in ThromboVision, but so had prominent Perry supporter Charles Miller, who owned 250,000 preferred shares in the company and has donated $125,000 to the governor's campaigns. Three phone calls and an email seeking Mr. Tate's side of the story went unreturned.

All told, the Dallas Morning News has found that some $16 million from the tech fund has gone to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund has gone to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members. The tangle of interests surrounding the fund has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.

"It is fundamentally immoral and arrogant," says state representative David Simpson, a tea party-backed freshman from Longview, two hours east of Dallas. The fund "opened the door to the appearance of impropriety, if not actual impropriety."

...Michael Quinn Sullivan, the president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, sees in the Emerging Technology Fund a classic example of the perils of government pork. "The problem with these kinds of funds is that even when they're used with the best of intentions, it looks bad," says Mr. Sullivan. "You're taking from the average taxpayer and giving to someone who has a connection with government officials."

I got an e-mail this weekend from Texas Congressman Lloyd Doggett. He knows Perry well-- and knows what a disaster he's been for ordinary working families in their state. He was sounding the alarm. Here's Doggett's interview Friday on MSNBC:

Maybe Rick Perry did the right thing last Saturday when he asked for America to join him in prayer. Considering the disaster that has been his governorship in Texas, we need every prayer we can get as we try to sort this mess out.

...There is no more extreme, no more disagreeable candidate than Rick Perry.  Want to know just how right-wing Rick Perry is? As Governor of Texas, he even implied that secession was a possibility. That’s right, the Rick Perry, who wants to be President of the United States of America is the same Rick Perry who provided comfort to those Texans, who have supported disuniting from America and seceding.

    •    This is the same Rick Perry whose answer to Texas being the state with the highest percentage of folks without health insurance is to do even less here, while questioning the very existence of Medicare.  

    •    This is the same Rick Perry who has undermined our future economic competitiveness by slashing budgets for primary and secondary education and undermining our institutions of higher learning. 

    •    This is the same Rick Perry that dangerously disregards the importance of protecting the water we drink and the air we breath. Texas now leads the nation in clean-water permit violations in the nation, hazardous waste spills and toxic emissions.

Doggett is hardly the only Democrat sounding the alarm. Paul Begala, who's known him nearly 3 decades-- back when Perry was a freshman Democratic state legislator (nicknamed "Crotch")-- did a good job at the Daily Beast this weekend. "Perry stood out," Begala remembers, "for his modest intellectual gifts... But lack of brains has never been a hindrance in politics." What Begala claims Perry has-- aside from nice hair-- is the willingness to say or do whatever it takes to win, no matter what the ancillary harm. That's the classic definition of a sociopath.

That's truer than ever in relation to today's Tea Party–dominated Republican Party. You’ve gotta be willing to do anything, say anything, accept anything, propose anything, endorse anything, pledge anything. There is nothing too batshit for these people.

Watch your back, Mitt.

Beyond Preventing Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson & Lieberman Ruining The Bill, What Are The Battlelines In Health Care Reform Now?

Two different progressive approaches

I got a lovely personalized e-mail from MoveOn.org yesterday thanking me for having a little something to do with the health care victory Saturday night. (My congressmember, Diane Watson-- who I love for her prefect voting record and wonderful leadership role among progressives, but who has never responded to a phone call from me-- voted for the bill. If not her, who?)

Within moments of the MoveOn note, another came from Dennis Kucinich, one of only two Democrats who voted against it because it wasn't good enough-- the other being career-long single payer advocate Eric Massa. Kucinich is very clear about why he lined up in the disreputable company of corrupt and reactionary Blue Dogs like John Barrow, Bobby Bright, Parker Griffith, Jason Altmire and Mike Ross on the Republican side of the aisle. Here's Kucinich's statement:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies-- a bailout under a blue cross.

"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy-- in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."

More than a few progressives view Kucinich as the last man standing and the purest of the pure. Others take a dimmer view of the former boy wonder mayor of Cleveland. Last week though, Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), about whom there is no ambiguity, penned an OpEd for Politico laying out what the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he leads, wants out of health care legislation. He's more hopeful than Kucinich.

Those of us who fought long and hard on its behalf are glad to see House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) still standing with us so close to the finish line, pushing together for a program that will give millions the hope and opportunity the market currently denies them.

The last and most pressing question is what kind of public option will come out of this process. I, along with other progressive members of the House, argued strongly during the past few months that a successful public option would structure its payments to doctors and hospitals around Medicare rates. Medicare saves the government money because its purchasing power nationwide is unmatched, giving it leverage to negotiate affordable prices for Americans over the age of 65. It can afford to charge consumers less because it has low overhead and is remarkably efficient at what it does.

A public option, we argued, should look very similar if it is also to save the government money and provide affordable health care to the public at large. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that a “robust” public option paying Medicare rates plus 5 percent would save the government $110 billion over its first 10 years.

We were glad to have Pelosi’s support. Unfortunately, it seems we fell short in the House, and Democratic leadership decided we could not sustain such a proposal if it came to a vote. Like my progressive colleagues, I understand the art of the possible and have no illusions that my answers are perfect. At this point, I am considering support for a public option even if it is not the robust version for which I have so often argued.

My support for such a plan is based on the reality of the insurance market. Because tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance, we must create a plan that can help sick people get well, help struggling families get and keep good coverage and help contain the costs of medicines and procedures often out of reach even for the middle class. We must start somewhere in addressing these disparities, and progressives will continue to play the constructive role we have played throughout this process. If I believe a public option as written in any final bill can help, I will vote for it. My conscience dictates nothing less than full support of a program that can lessen the injustice of our broken health care system.

My support is not unconditional. I believe certain proposals now being advanced would be fatal to the effectiveness of any public option, and I will very strongly consider voting against any bill that includes them. Among these is the notion of waiting to create a public option until a “trigger” point has been reached. As we have seen with Medicare Part D, these sorts of triggers do not go off. They are designed to sound appealing and appear to be a useful compromise.

In fact, they are designed to let everyone take credit for supporting a good program without accepting responsibility the next day when it doesn’t go into effect. A public option must be active from Day One to give doctors and hospitals confidence when they consider whether to participate. If a public option rests in political limbo for several years, it may as well not have been in the bill.

Allowing states to opt out of a public option is a second moderate-sounding compromise that will undermine the program from the get-go. It is unfair to create a national mandate for citizens to buy health insurance, only to allow states, for ideological reasons, to deny their citizens access to the public version. My state of Arizona is only one of several-- including Texas-- likely to take that step the morning after the president signs the bill into law. “Opt out” will not work, and it will not receive my support.

We are close to enacting truly historic health care reform. This is a moment on a par with the passage of Medicare and Social Security. Twenty years from now, Americans will look back at this Congress and have a great deal to say about whether we passed a public option that worked or a fig leaf that did nothing to address the problem. With so much at stake and the final threshold so near, I urge my colleagues to consider the best policies for the nation and give voters the successful public option they want and deserve.

Watch kick-ass Texas populist Lloyd Doggett explain why Republican obstructionism has itself become one giant pre-existing condition to meaningful change:




UPDATE: And Eric Massa

I've known Eric Massa for just around four years. In all that time he's never wavered from his die-hard support for single-payer. His insistence comes from deep within and trumps politics. As long as I've known him he's been all about getting us out of senseless wars, ending unfair trade practices and pushing single-payer, universal health care. It has a lot to do with why Blue America supported him in 2006 and 2008 and its why he may wind up being the only Democrat to have voted against the health care bill with a chance to be endorsed in 2010. This morning he explained his votes, for the rule of debate, against the Stupak Amendment and against final passage of the bill to constituents in NY-29:

While this bill does contain a public option, it is far from a "robust" one and Rep. Massa pledged, in a letter months ago, to vote against anything less than that. The public option in this bill is available for only about 2% of the American population and its premium rates will match private health insurance, guaranteeing no effective competition in the marketplace.
 
Additionally, he thinks that this bill, if signed into law, will not do enough to regulate the private for-profit health insurance industry and will actually empower them further. This is a major problem with the legislation as far as he is concerned... During the closing hours of the debate, Rep. Massa voted against the Stupak Amendment which he viewed as a significant universal increase of current federal law. For the first time, if passed, the federal government would have prohibited a private citizen from using private funding to buy an insurance policy that covered elements of reproductive rights. The bill as written is clear, no federal funding for abortion procedures is allowed. Rep. Massa agrees with that but does not support an increase in federal law on this matter. This amendment passed and became part of the final legislation.
 
While there are several provisions that he did like in the bill, such as the elimination of patient rejections on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and the closing of the Medicare Part D Donut hole, members of Congress cannot vote for one part of a bill and against another.
 
"There are several reasons why I voted 'no' on H.R. 3962," said Congressman Eric Massa. "I have always said that I will vote 'no' on a bad bill to try and get a better one and that's what I did. Reforming our health care system is critical to our economy and our nation, but I had some serious concerns regarding the bill that we voted on Saturday night. If the Senate is able to move forward, I hope we can get a better bill back for a conference version."