Forgive Me, Father, For I Have Sinned

by Oren Jacobson

Last January I had the opportunity to travel to Pittsburgh, a city that is a model for American reinvention, and lead a weekend-long training with a group of young progressives. The weekend was the kickoff to a fellowship program designed to prepare emerging leaders to be a force for positive change in the community.

As part of the program we run each year we start the process with self-exploration. We ask our fellows to explore their own strengths, weaknesses, skills, passions, and values in an effort to the craft their own vision for their future. It’s the first step in creating a plan of action that is followed by developing the skills needed to execute that plan.

On the final day, during the final session, we turned our attention to how our values, and the values of others, manifest themselves in our politics and policies. Within the discussion an anti-LGBT bill being pushed in another state was brought up. One of the fellows quickly and passionately attacked the bill, and in strong terms attacked the legislator who sponsored it. She was eloquent and clear. The entire room, myself included, nodded along in agreement.

“Is that what you think,” I challenged, “or how you feel?”

She looked at me puzzled for a moment.

“Is your opinion derived from data or something you feel in your gut?” I rephrased. I wasn’t playing devil’s advocate on her position but rather its origin in the hopes of broadening the discussion.

“It’s what I KNOW to be true,” she expressed after a brief pause for reflection.

“And what do you imagine the state legislator who sponsored this bill KNOWS to be true?”

“The exact opposite,” she replied softly as she began to imagine what this other person’s perspective might be.

The legislator pushing that bill knew that homosexuality was a sin just as much as we know it’s not. We know the real sin is to restrict the rights of others. To not truly love thy neighbor. The bill itself was driven by someone’s values however off base those values are to us. The demonization of others, though, while making us feel moral and righteous does little else.

“Progress is won not by having the loudest voice, or by the most poignant attack, but through the power of moral truth. Those who are persuadable don’t hear the argument when we yell or call each other names,” I suggested as I proceeded to challenge them to consider a more constructive approach moving forward.

I believe that it isn’t enough for progressives to use the political process to improve our communities, but that we as progressives have the obligation to approach politics differently.

I view it as the responsibility of my generation to change the way in which we engage politically. To not only have discussions, but to create the space for those dialogues to be more healthy and productive. This is a core belief of mine. A personal value which I hold dear. A naive hope, perhaps, that those who fight to reform our system of government, and the tone by which we politic, shall win the future.

Have you ever seen two people in a fight? When one person begins to throw a punch what happens? The second person immediately pulls their hands to their face and leans back to protect themselves. In most cases that is followed by a counter punch. The same happens in our political discourse. We eliminate the space for the conversations that build trust even if they don’t build agreement.

At their worst our current leaders sow the seeds of division amongst us and at their best take advantage of divisions that exist. Rather than seeking first to understand, then to be understood, we approach our politics in a talk at you fashion. We discount your point and immediately hit you back. When you punch the only response is to defend and counter.

Several weeks ago I wrote a post about Donald Trump when his rise in the polls coincided with his inflammatory rhetoric about Mexicans. In that post I went on, after examining the GOP’s approach to comprehensive immigration reform, to suggest that Trump’s rise said more about the base of the Republican Party than about Trump himself. In doing so I called the GOP base a hyper-nationalistic, xenophobic group.

I’ve reflected a lot since writing that post and admit to feeling a little torn about it now. On the one hand I feel like we have to aggressively call out bigotry. On the other I feel that in casting a xenophobic net on the entire GOP base I compromised my own standards and in doing so failed to live up to the challenge I proposed in Pittsburgh.

Let me be clear. I believe that where intolerance exists it should be called out and we must protect and defend those who are targeted. You cannot passively defend equality or justice and the ONLY justifiable intolerance is of the intolerant. Additionally, I will not suggest that any who have tasted the bitter pill of oppression approach the fight in any way other than what feels right to them. No person has a right to tell another how to feel or what response is appropriate, especially in the face of long standing injustice.

Let me further state that I believe that some portion of the GOP base is indeed xenophobic and I am not recanting that. But, I also know plenty of decent people who consider themselves conservative, or are simply registered Republicans, and have demonstrated personally over the years that they are filled with love, not hate. Their opposition to certain policies alone doesn’t make them bigots even if we believe the only non-political reason to oppose immigration reform is on xenophobic or nativist grounds.

Nonetheless, the Republican Party knowingly include these people in their political tent. In doing so the Party, and all who vote for it, give backing to the policies and sentiments that oppress others. For that it should rightfully be criticized. That these people hold sway on the process is obvious and sad. Major candidates are proposing changing the constitution’s protection of birthright citizenship, openly using derogatory terms like “anchor baby," and refusing to rule out the deportation of the children of undocumented immigrants who were born here and are constitutionally considered citizens under the 14th Amendment (start 9:35 into this video). Is there an explanation for this trend besides feeling a political need to play to the fear of others that exists inside a strong vocal faction of the base? Clearly not.

However, Donald Trump’s rise isn’t simply about a group of intolerant people. It’s clear now that the appeal exceeds that. He is attractive to many people including some Democrats I know. People are just tired of politics and politicians in general. His lack of caution exudes authenticity in an era of poll-tested politicians afraid to make mistakes and taps into a broader anger with Washington. That perceived authenticity, and anger, is pulling people in. They are attracted to him in spite of what he says in many cases, not necessarily because of it.

What does all of this mean? Will he last? I don’t know. What I do know is by casting a net that was wider than the reality of the issue I failed to uphold my own standards. In doing so I became momentarily blind to a broader truth about his appeal. A truth that speaks to how some Americans feel about their political system, and its leaders, even if they disagree with Trump’s positions and rhetoric.

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.

Playing The Trump Card

by Oren Jacobson

The way Donald Trump’s presidential announcement started revealed everything we need to know about his candidacy. His almost comical escalator ride to the stage from which he delivered his rambling announcement was one part egomaniacal, descending from the heavens to impart his genius upon us, and one part shameless self-promotion. Simply put, it was vintage Donald.

Well, sort of. While the tone and style of the event was utterly consistent with Trump’s public persona, the script was slightly different from the one he was reading in 2000. As he considered a third-party run that season, he claimed himself to be socially liberal, attacking the far right as intolerant and calling out party darling Pat Buchanan as a racist. He even endorsed the idea of universal health care. Those memories are hard to reconcile with the Trump who announced his 2016 bid for the GOP nomination-- the Trump declaring Mexican immigrants to be rapists and drug dealers, while conceding that some might be good people.

It would be easy to write this off as a flip-flop, or another example of Trump’s poor character. But that would miss the point. Donald Trump’s (currently) espoused views might be repulsive, but the man is no idiot. He built an empire on his ability to self-promote. He made his fortune by putting on a show for investors, business partners, and the American viewing public. He has long been an actor on a stage. He knows how to play a role, and in this moment, on this stage, he is reveling in the role demanded of him. He is, after all, running for the Republican nomination in 2016. He is one of the best marketers and performers in the world and this man knows his audience.

We could go on for pages about the factual inaccuracies of Trump’s campaign to date-- and indeed, others have. These are important points worth making, especially as the man tops the rest of the field, temporary though his lead may be. However, I actually think we are focusing our attention on the wrong thing. Donald Trump isn’t the issue.

If we remove Trump from the equation what are we left with? I’d certainly be far more comfortable saying that we have a candidate who recognizes the burgeoning immigrant community aligns far more with the broad Democratic platform and is simply choosing to focus on different demographics. But if that were indeed the case, the logical thing to do would be to recognize that you cannot sustain competitiveness at the national level without embracing and welcoming diversity in a substantive way. That’s not what’s happening here.

I would love to suggest that this really is simply about border security. However, the Republican Party killed a bill that dramatically increased spending on the border. In 2013 68 Senators passed a bipartisan bill, with 14 Republican votes, that would have overhauled our immigration system. The comprehensive immigration reform bill would have added 19,000 border agents, made E-verify a requirement for every employer as a hedge against hiring undocumented workers, and completed a 700 mile fence along the border, among other things. How substantial would the increase in funding have been? As of 2013, we spent roughly $3.5 billion annually on border security. The bill would have created an initial fund of more than $45 billion.

When the House, controlled by Republicans, took up the legislation, they declared they would move it piecemeal, and not as one large package. President Obama gave Speaker Boehner space to operate. Ultimately, the Tea Party tanked the whole thing. Apparently more border security isn’t the key issue on the far right. It’s amnesty.

Simply put, the far right doesn’t want those who came here illegally to stay in this country and they will not support any law that that creates a pathway for them to do so, regardless of the reality that we won’t deport 12 million people. Speaker Boehner, despite knowing the votes existed to pass the full bill, lacked the courage to even put it on the floor. So when the GOP cries out about border security, and uses the tragic death of Kate Steinle as a rallying cry for it and against immigrants, shouldn’t we ask them why they didn’t act when they could have?

What is even more ridiculous about the entire argument from the right is that on every other level the GOP should have loved this bill. Increased border security? Check. Boost the economy? Check. Pay taxes? Check. Pay fines? Check. Move to the back of the line? Check. Deficit reduction? Check, to the tune of almost $1 trillion over 20 years. The party that claims, falsely in my view, to be the party of fiscal sanity, pro-growth policies, and national security said no to a bill that makes the border more secure, boosts the economy, and shrinks the deficit? Check.

When you cannot find logic all you are left with is an irrational emotional drive. And emotion is at the very center of the anti-amnesty, anti-immigrant fervor on the far right. The bloviating of Trump and similar candidates isn’t about smart politics or sound principle. It’s about appealing to a hyper-nationalist, xenophobic base with little appreciation for facts and a great desire to return to a time when difference was deficiency. This is the party of self-deportation. The party who booed a gay service member during a primary in 2012. The party of birthers. The anti-marriage equality party. The “Obama is a Muslim” party. The party still fighting to protect the flag of slavery they parade around in a garish, haunting celebration of state’s rights.

This is not about Trump. This is about the contrast in priorities between the base of the Republican and Democratic electorates.The extreme far right-- the base of the GOP-- has spent the last few weeks in an anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro-confederate flag frenzy. The Democratic base has been pushing to remove a symbol of hate, celebrating the expansion of equality, and talking about economic fairness, opportunity, and equality thanks to a candidate whose rhetoric often sounds quite similar to that of Teddy Roosevelt, a president no one would describe as extreme. The divergence in values here is stark, and presents a pivotal fork in the road for moderates. With which group shall you cast your lot?

Values matter. Values define us. Donald Trump is simply the mouthpiece by which a sizable portion of the Republican base electorate is communicating its current values. Trump will eventually bow out and ride the escalator back up to his next promotional opportunity, but the values that have created the wave he is currently riding will remain. Those fear based values, like the Trump Card itself, must be folded and discarded. The ballot box must be where we dispose of them.

This post by Oren was originally published in Politics in Progress on Wednesday, July 15.

Guest Post By Oren Jacobson-- Would Thomas Jefferson Recognize American Democracy Today?

Looks like we lost Oren Jacobson as a candidate against Lipinski, at least for the this cycle, but we've gained a sharp and dedicated new correspondent from Chicagoland. Last week he shared his reflections after Obama's speech in Charleston. This evening his topic is reflections on the Declaration of Indpendence as it has evolved and continues to evolve. His targets are the evils of systemic partisan gerrymandering and the predponderant influence of Big Money on out electoral system and their impact on American electoral democracy.

American (r)Evolution
by Oren Jacobson

Each year on the Fourth of July, I read the Declaration of Independence aloud in its entirety. With every reading I am struck by something different as if I must avail myself through life experiences of the lessons and messages contained in that parchment. This year, as political candidates launch campaigns which draw into question the way we allow the system to operate, I found myself pondering how our Founders might view the breakdown of our democratic institutions.

Despite our temptation to cast our Founding Fathers as an intellectually homogenous and unified group, they were far from it. Division, personal animus, and disagreement ran rampant. They did agree, though, on two key points. First, that power could be used to suppress the rights and freedoms of the people. Second, that the people had not only the right, but the obligation, to address what ails them.

For our Founding Fathers, the dangerous power that threatened them was tyranny. The symptoms of tyranny, however, can exist without a tyrant. Power need not be centralized to be abused at the expense of the people. We face a much different threat to our national well being than our Founders did. The dangerous combination of politicians who can pick their own voters and unfettered money in politics funnels power to the few over the many.

In 1992 there were 103 Congressional districts whose vote was close enough to the presidential outcome to be considered a swing district. This meant that 76% of our Congress was determined before the election even happened. In 2012 that number dwindled down to just 35 swing seats. 92% of the nation’s Congressional DNA was determined before a single vote was cast.

Some of this is the natural selection process of people living alongside like minded people. For example there are many states that are clearly Republican or Democratic states. Most of it, however, is a result of a political process called Gerrymandering. This process essentially allows elected politicians to draw favorable districts and thus preserve their power.

In 2012 Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives earned 1.4 million more votes than Republicans. However, this “victory” for Democrats left them with a 33 seat disadvantage in the House. The GOP had control of about 54% of the body despite having fewer people vote for them and their platform.

The problem with Gerrymandering isn’t simply that one party can artificially maintain power by taking advantage of a loophole in our system, though. It’s the incentive structure it creates for elected leaders. If I don’t have to worry about a challenge from the other party then all I have to do is keep my base happy. Therefore, my only threat, is from a primary. How do I prevent a primary challenge? I don’t take positions, or cast votes, that give the other side what they want. Compromising with the other party compromises my career. We’re taught that all successful relationships are built on trust and compromise. The result of this systemic flaw removes both.

Gerrymandering is just one major crack in the foundation of this country. The other is the influence of money in politics. In 2012 roughly 55,000 people provided the maximum contribution to a candidate according to OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks all campaign contributions. That represents about .0002% of the population. Nearly 40% of all campaign money that year came from around 125 people, or .0000004% of the population.

Are we so willfully blind as to believe that elected officials will be just as responsive to the will of the people as they are to the will of the people who fund them?

What our founders wanted to do was to protect us from runaway power. They could never imagine a system that allowed those in control to draw boundaries that nearly ensured they would remain so. These were men who believed that campaigning was beneath them. That their election should be based on their merit and service so they would hardly be comfortable with the idea of non-stop campaigns funded primarily by the nobility of twenty-first century America. These men, I believe, would redress these grievances.

Unlike our forefathers, though, such redress need not be claimed by the barrel of the gun. We don’t need another American Revolution, but it seems clear that an American Evolution is necessary and overdue. We need not abolish our form of government to ensure that the power and purpose of democracy is protected, but we must heed the advice of these great men and alter it.

Redistricting reform that ensures non-partisan boundaries is the first common sense step we can take. Some states have already made strides in this regard. The Supreme Court just upheld a measure in Arizona that yielded an independent redistricting committee, taking the politics out of the structure of the electoral process. Adoption of similar solutions nationwide would do much to preserve the integrity of democratic representation in our country.

As it stands incumbents will win at better than a 90% rate and our elected officials will spend at least 40% of their time fundraising to protect their power. The question our elected officials should be asking themselves is whether they should follow the will of the people on an issue, or lead them. Instead they currently ask themselves how to ensure they have enough funding for the next election. Let’s make that a moot point.

Our national GDP is north of $16 trillion annually. With as little as 1/10th of one percent of that money we could fund all federal elections in the next cycle. Federally funded elections, in which each candidate had exactly the same amount of funding, would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the influence of money in politics. Overturning the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment would also go far to that end.

Our Founders gave us the power to change the way our system operates, and called on us to do so in the ever present words of the Declaration. That we have ceded it willingly, or passively, is a fact for which we must hold ourselves to account. We have the government we deserve because we have the government we accept. So did our Founding Fathers. Until they decided they would no longer accept it. How long will we continue to accept ours?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

– Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Guest Post: Oren Jacobson Reflects On Our First Black President

Oren Jacobson is the progressive who briefly put together a primary challenge to reactionary Chicago Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. After listening to President Obama's eulogy in Charleston last week he sent along this moving post:

Amazing (in his) Grace
By Oren Jacobson

After thirty heartfelt minutes, the greatest orator of our time-- and undoubtedly one of the most consequential Presidents in American history-- took Charleston’s Evangelical African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the country as a whole, to a crescendo. This crescendo was different than what we have come to expect from Barack Obama. It wasn’t his trademark soaring rhetoric that catapulted him toward the heavens this time. Rather, it was a long pause followed by the the man moving, unexpectedly, into song.

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound. That saved a wretch like me...”

He barely got past the first two words when the congregation joined in, carrying him to the finish as he had carried them in their collective grief. The first Black president stood at the pulpit of this historic Black church, where the futures of nine black men and women were stolen by the hatred of an unapologetic white supremacist, and delivered a eulogy in his familiar baritone that drove home a message reflecting a characteristic emblematic of his presidency: grace.

When they called him a Muslim he handled it with class. When they demanded his birth certificate, he displayed humility. When he was called the “Food Stamp President,” an unquestionable racial dog whistle, he stayed the course on the high road. When they criticized him for bowing to a foreign leader, for being an apologist, a socialist, for being weak, for leading from behind, he kept his eyes steadfastly on the horizon.

Every president is attacked by his opponents for his policies, but this president has been relentlessly attacked for his policies and for who he is, from the outside in. Overtly racist attacks may not be acceptable in the public sphere in this day and age, but under the camouflage of language deeply rooted in racist ideology, the sentiment has been made clear.

He is a Muslim, a Kenyan, an anti-colonial socialist. He is not like us. Doesn’t share our American values. He is the Other.

He never got mad. He never reacted in anger. He kept his composure under circumstances that would cause most to quiver in rage. How else could this man not only end up in the White House but deal with the problems he has had to face and the vitriolic antagonism he has encountered from day one, whether based on policy, politics, or racial motivations, if it not for grace?

This stirring testament to the too soon lost attempted to heal the nation’s wounds, acknowledged our uncomfortable realities, challenged our egos, and charged us to keep moving towards a more perfect union. A man and a people-- well within their rights to cast dispersion fueled by righteous indignation, allow anger and frustration founded on the injustices of past and present to consume them, attack the people who assault them both figuratively and all too often literally with the same level of hatred-- walking gracefully down a path of reflection, prayer, and hope.

In spite of the centuries of oppression, in spite of a flag flying over capitals in this country with the symbol of a rebellion meant to maintain them in a permanent inhuman status, in spite of a criminal justice system with proven racial bias, in spite of widespread economic disparity, this congregation and our president formed a perfect display of all we should aspire to be. This moment was profound. It was a testament to the beliefs that have formed this nation: that we can overcome, that we can rise up in spite of circumstance, that we can build a better tomorrow no matter what burdens we carry today. It was Barack Obama at his best. It was leadership at it’s best. More importantly, it was America at it’s best.

In times of national tragedy it is common for our presidents to speak for us. This speech, by this man, in this moment, was among the most remarkable moments of American history. It capped off a week that can only be described as the best of his presidency-- a presidency that, despite being characterized as a travesty by the right and a let down by the left, has accomplished so much with such grace that we too often fail to recognize the scope.

16 million Americans have affordable health care because of this man. He saved the economy from the brink of disaster. He ended two wars. He repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He refused to prosecute DOMA. He passed Wall Street reform and major consumer protections. He protected Dreamers, and millions of others with executive orders.

He became the first President to support marriage equality and made it a touchstone of his second inaugural. He pushed through federal benefits for same-sex partners. He appointed more gay officials than any other president and the first transgendered cabinet official. He passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act, and appointed the first woman to lead the FED. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court (doubling the previous historical total) including the first Hispanic judge. He saved the auto-industry. He killed Osama Bin-Laden. He cut the deficit by more than half. He raised fuel efficiency standards, doubled federal investments in clean energy, negotiated a major climate deal with China, and has presided over the longest period of sustained private sector economic growth in American history.

Despite all of this, President Obama faces level of hatred fiercer than anything endured by his predecessors. Politics and policy may inspire discord, but one cannot honestly stand witness to such seething disdain and not recognize the racial roots in at least some of the attacks.

As I sat and watched him sing “I was once was lost, but now am found…” a lump built in my throat and tears welled in my eyes. I wondered out loud how people could see this man, hear this man, and still hate this man? To disagree with his politics I get. But to despise the man makes no sense.

What a beautiful representative of our country he, and his family, have been for us. We have changed for the better under his leadership. In that moment yesterday there is no doubt some of our national hope was restored. The hate will not stop. The attacks will continue. The disrespect will endure. But, it matters not. For President Barack Obama has been, and will continue to be, Amazing in his Grace.

Dan Lipinski Pledges His Undying Support to The GOP In Their War Against Women

Lipinski hates women; they're probably not fond of him either

This week, only 4 Democrats voted to further restrict women's right to Choice, reactionary Blue Dogs, Dan Lipinski (IL), Henry Cuellar (TX) and Collin Peterson (MN) plus bizarre religious fanatic James Langevin (RI). There were also 4 Republicans who crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with 180 Democrats to protect women's choice-- Charlie Dent (PA), Richard Hanna (NY), Bob Dold (IL) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ). Right after the vote, Alan Grayson told us, "We should not criminalize the very personal and very private decision about whether to have a child." It's pretty much what you would expect every Democrat to say, isn't it?

The DCCC may go on a tear about the Republican War Against Women, but they just gloss over Lipinski, Cuellar and Peterson. The DCCC says they fear they could lose the seats to Republicans if they make a fuss, but Cuellar's seat is solidly Democratic (D+7, 78.4% Hispanic), as are Langevin's (D+8) and Lipinski's (D+5). In fact, Lipinski, one of the worst, most reactionary Democrats in the House, is locked in a heavy-duty primary battle with progressive Oren Jacobson. The DCCC should be backing his bid instead of backing the guy who consistently gives Boehner the opportunity to call his reactionary agenda "bipartisan."

Oren, who has the backing of Chicagoland progressives and has been endorsed by Blue America, points out: "In 2010 the GOP, carried by the Tea Party wave, promised to focus on jobs and growing the economy. Instead they used their majority in the House to obstruct. The real story, however, came at the state level where the GOP wave led to record numbers of bills restricting a woman's right to choose. In 2014 the GOP gained control of both chambers in Washington promising to bring back normal order and a functioning government. Instead, they show their true colors by passing another bill aimed at attacking women's rights. When will they focus on the thing most Americans want them to work on? When will they work on expanding opportunity rather than restricting access? What makes it worse is that it's not just the GOP. Several members of the Democratic Party, including Congressman Dan Lipinski, voted for it as well. The unemployment rate in his district is still over 10%. Maybe he needs to focus more on creating jobs?" 

What many Democrats in IL-03 want to know is why Lipinski is on the Republicans' side instead of protecting Choice and equality for women in the Bungalow Belt and the suburbs west of Chicago.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus promptly condemned Wednesday's vote. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) wrote: "The bill passed by Republicans today is an attack on women’s reproductive health. Young women, women of color, and low-income women already struggle to get the health care they need. But Republicans continue working to restrict health care options for American women. H.R. 36 jeopardizes the well-being of women and punishes physicians who provide compassionate care. Americans overwhelmingly trust women to make their own health decisions. They support upholding Roe v. Wade, but H.R. 36 violates that Supreme Court decision. Republicans should stop passing bills that violate women’s constitutional rights. Rather than focusing on limiting a woman’s right to choose, we should pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would ensure women do not face significant barriers to the care they deserve.”

Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD) has been part of this battle for her entire life. Today she is running for the open Maryland Senate seat. "Republicans," she told us right after she voted NO, "are once again trying to dismantle women's access to comprehensive healthcare. This vote is another in a series of attempts by this Tea Party, Republican Congress to roll back the clock on women's rights, from allowing D.C. employers to fire women for purchasing birth control to restricting how women can spend their own private money on their own healthcare. Republicans should stop playing partisan games, and focus on an agenda that works for America's women: paid sick leave, affordable childcare, and equal pay for equal work."

An Opportunity To Replace Dan Lipinski With A Real Democrat

There are few Democratic incumbents more in need of a primary than Chicago Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. This session, when it came to crucial roll calls, Lipinski has voted more frequently with Boehner and the GOP than with progressives. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is an abysmal 41.94-- among the 10 worst Democrats in Congress. And, as we discovered this week, he finally does have an opponent: Oren Jacobson, the son of a teacher and a self-employed immigrant. 

Oren is a progressive tech entrepreneur with over a decade of leadership experience in the private sector. Over the course of his career, he has successfully fought to defend struggling small businesses and preserve jobs. He helped to expand economic opportunity in the throes of one of the toughest economic climates America has seen in nearly a century, experience that has prepared him to make the tough decisions on the most important issues of our time. It has ignited a passion for strengthening communities through inclusive, growth-oriented policies and substantial civic engagement. 

Oren’s experiences have taught him a simple truth: Most people are decent, hard-working folks who simply want to provide a better life for their kids. He is considering this race to fight every day to help those people reach that decent and noble goal. Blue America has endorsed him this week, and we asked him to tell us what he will do when he gets into Congress to make the Affordable Care Act, which Lipinski joined the GOP to oppose, more effective.

What's Wrong With The ACA?
by Oren Jacobson

Congressman Dan Lipinski voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2009 because he was more concerned with restricting a woman’s access to healthcare than expanding it for millions of Americans.

Blue Dog Lipinski

Many Americans hold strong stances on the issue of abortion. While I’m strongly in favor of a woman's right to choose I respect that others see it very differently. Diversity of thought is part of our beauty and power. But, how can one claim to be pro-life when they are at the same time preventing millions from receiving the basic health care they need to survive? How can one be pro-life when they vote against a bill the helps millions of seniors by expanding coverage and closing the donut hole in Medicare Part D that is now helping seniors save billions of dollars? If all lives matter than voting against a bill that will help millions of the poor, children, and our seniors is just unconscionable.

The ACA is far from a perfect bill. In many ways it is more of patients bill of rights and protections than a real reform of the system. Despite the GOP’s best efforts to paint this as a socialist takeover of health care, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The changes in the ACA exist completely within the existing system and provide huge benefits to big business. Don’t believe me? Check out the stock prices of healthcare and pharmaceutical companies since the law passed.

If I was in Congress in 2009 I would have voted for the ACA. It isn’t perfect. It isn’t the bill I would have wanted. It is, however, progress. As a progressive I believe in fighting for the ideal. As a pragmatic progressive I realize not taking a step forward is the same as taking a step back.

The question is what do we do now? It’s too soon to tell if the dip in health care inflation is directly attributable to the ACA. That being said we still have a health care system that costs twice as much for the same life expectancy of any other industrialized country, per capita. Why? Two reasons. First, the law, and our system in general, prioritizes business interests over national interests. President Obama had to make big concessions to industry lobbyists in exchange for their support. Second, it fails to really deal with the core driver of costs. Prevention and cure.

When was the last time you were in the emergency room? Have you looked at the bill lately? That tylenol you were given that cost pennies per pill to make gets billed at $10. That x-ray that costs the county $15 to take gets billed at $1,000. This is true at public, private, and nonprofit hospitals alike. Healthcare is big business. This isn’t an attack on business. Quite the contrary. As a private sector leader who has worked at all levels of industry I know first hand the critical role businesses, even larger ones, play in the community. And I respect that a profit for goods exchanged fuels benefits for all. But there is a difference between a fair and reasonable profit, or in the case of an exceptional product a premium price model, and simply price gouging. We’re being gouged and our deficit and debt show it. We hear people on the right decry taxes, and espouse the free market, but whether you pay for it in taxes, or pay for it out of pocket through other direct consumption, our hard earned money is paying for it.

While preventative care is more readily available through the ACA we have dramatically cut back on our investment into finding cures for diseases that both kill us and drain our resources. Investment into scientific research is the key to our long term health care costs. What was the last major disease we cured in this country? Polio! Most of us weren’t alive when that happened. Do we really not believe that we can cure so many of the diseases we face today if we are committed to it as a country? Apparently Congress doesn’t think we have enough money to do so or is too shortsighted to see how the investment will decrease long term budgetary issues.

This year our government will spend about $300 billion dollars treating diabetes and health issues directly related to diabetes. Want to fix health care? Want to drive down costs? Imagine if we could cure this one single disease. If you add in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's you reach a total of nearly $800 billion per year. Did you know the percentage rate of people who die from cancer today is about the same as it was in 1950 and that the rate of breast cancer is actually occurring? It might seem like we couldn’t possibly solve these problems and find these cures. Then again 100 years ago who would have thought we would walk on the moon or put a rover on Mars? Surely, we can do this. A cure to one of these diseases would also cure our budgetary issues. The only question is whether we have the courage to invest substantially into this effort?

Yesterday, Lipinksi was one of only 4 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans to further weaken the rights women have in matters of Choice. If you'd like to see Oren replace Lipinski in Congress, you can help his campaign here.