Open Letter To President Obama Regarding The "Compromise" On The Budget-Busting Bush Tax Cuts For The 2%-ers

On Monday, President Obama announced a tentative deal with the Republicans in Congress over extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

In addition to the tax cuts for the wealthy, the deal includes an extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed as well as some tax code tweaking that benefits the middle class.  However, like the Bush-era tax cuts, those seem to disproportionately benefit the wealthy (i.e. - the adjustments to the estate tax).

While the UI benefits are necessary, and middle and working-class tax relief is welcome, the disproportionate nature of the deal makes it less a "compromise" than an "abject surrender" and should be taken off the table. 

Below is the open letter I wrote to the President on the subject.  It turns out to be a little too long for the White House's online submission form, so it wasn't submitted to the White House verbatim.  However, I will submit a brief comment with a link to this post so they can read the entire thing if they choose to (they won't so choose, but the option will be theirs.)

The letter -

Dear President Obama,


I read with great interest regarding the deal you have struck with the Republicans in Congress over a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

I understand and laud your desire to ensure continued relief for those unemployed Americans who have seen their Unemployment Insurance benefits expire, especially during the holiday season.

I further understand that a lot of effort went into the negotiations for this compromise.

And I believe that you should take the deal off the table.

Not because I’m opposed to extending UI benefits to those who need them so desperately, but because on many levels the benefit of the deal isn’t worth the price was paid for it.

The deal isn’t paid for. It both increases expenditures and reduces revenues and will necessitate more borrowing from foreign sources in order to sustain the “budget.” It effectively deepens the deficit at a time when most observers, Democratic, Republican, and non-partisan, support bringing the federal government’s fiscal situation under control.

It’s bad short-term politics. As with health care reform, Wall St. regulation reform, and so many other earlier initiatives, the Republicans staked out a position and didn’t “compromise” so much as waited for you and the Democratic leadership in the Congress to water down your positions to the point that your positions were meaningless. There is a difference between “compromise” and “surrender.” Compromise is the settlement of differences by mutual concessions; surrender is what has been going on in D.C.

It’s bad long-term politics. This deal, and the ones the preceded it, have totally dispirited the base of the Democratic Party and alienated Independent voters. In 2010, Democratic candidates all over the country were swamped in a Republican wave, due in no small part to the fact that Independent voters trended toward Republicans and low-efficacy Democrats stayed home. How bad will 2012 be if the malaise spreads to high-efficacy Democrats?  In addition, by kicking the can down the road for two years, the Republicans have a ready-made talking point for the 2012 campaign.

If the election were held today, any Republican with a heartbeat would win the White House, not because everyone will vote Republican.

Most voters will just refuse to vote Democratic.

At some point, D.C. Democrats will have to start fighting for the American people. Otherwise, the American people will completely abandon them.

That time should be now. It’s time to stand up for average Americans AND for fiscal responsibility.

Take the current deal off of the table. The Republicans will scream about it, but face facts – you could cure cancer, the common cold, and male pattern baldness and they would still find a rationale to criticize you (though the “male pattern baldness” cure might cause a few of them to hesitate).

If the Republicans want the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and the reduction of the estate tax on the largest estates, and they do, make them negotiate in good faith and actually “compromise.”

For example, for a one year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and their estates, a similar-length extension of long-term UI benefits would be in order, along with passage of START.

For a two year extension, a similar-length extension of UI benefits, START, passage of the DREAM Act, and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And before they get anything, make sure they hold up their end of the deal first. Two years of them demanding concessions on significant legislation and then voting against that watered-down legislation anyway has rendered them totally devoid of credibility.

They could still balk at this. In fact, they probably will – their strategy of obstruction has worked for them for two years, and they have no reason to stop following that strategy.

Until you make it stop working for them.

Mr. President, thank you for your time, and may you and your family have a joyful holiday season.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Hardly my best writing, but that's what happens when I write while pissed off.  The sad part is that I'm less pissed off at the Rs for simply doing what Republicans do (yes, they're benefitting from low expectations here) than I am at the Democrats for enabling the Rs.

An open letter to President Obama on immigration and SB1070

This actually is a blog post, written in the form of a letter, but since I consider the "open letter" format to be lazy and pretentious unless it is sent to the titular recipient, it will be submitted to the White House via their website's online contact form.


Where it probably won't go any further than one of the interns or volunteers tasked with reading the thousands of emails that the White House receives every day, but at least I can say that I sent it. :)

By the way, while this will be a blog post, with the usual informality associated with such things, since it will also be sent to the White House, the snark will be kept to a minimum. Though anything in italics is added commentary from me and won't be included in the final letter to the WH. :)

Anyway, on to the letter...

Dear Mr. President,

My name is [cpmaz] and I am an Arizonan, and no, all of us are *not* insane.

As you are no doubt aware, recently Arizona enacted the nation's harshest anti-immigration law. While its supporters deny it, most observers view the law as one that specifically targets people of Hispanic ancestry and appearance, regardless of their immigration status.


The furor that has risen across the state, country, and the world over the passage and signing of SB1070 threatens to overwhelm and derail any plans you and your staff may have had set for your legislative agenda for the rest 2010.


The furor has overshadowed the discussion of financial regulation reforms and has pushed the discussion of measures to address climate change completely off the radar.


So be it.


It's time to prove that you're not just a good politician, but a great one.


In baseball, every "good" hitter can hit a pitch that they expect the pitcher to throw at them; the 'great' hitters overcome their own expectations and hit whatever the pitcher gives them.


Anybody major leaguer can hit a 3-0 fastball over the middle of the plate for a home run; the great ones can sit on that fastball but then see a hanging curve over the outside corner and take it the other way for a solid double.


Any politician can deal effectively with issues they they plan for; the great ones deal effectively with the ones that come across their plate, no matter their previous plans.


While climate change and financial regulation reform are important issues that need to be addressed, they may have to wait for the new Congress.

The rest of this Congress' time will be focused on the issue that the nativists in the Arizona legislature have heaved into their laps - addressing the issue of the flow of undocumented immigrants into the U.S., and the issue of how to handle the millions that are already in the U.S.


While many, and not just the nativists, advocate "solutions" that only address the immigrants themselves, almost no one advocates for measures that address the underlying cause of almost any non-warfare/natural disaster-inspired migration -

Economics.


Or more specifically, the soul-numbing poverty that afflicts a huge percentage of Mexicans and Central Americans. It's the kind of poverty that motivates men and women to abandon all that they have known, risk death by avaricious smugglers or unrelenting desert conditions, face the constant threat of arrest and deportation by American authorities, all for the dubious privilege of mowing American lawns, cleaning American houses, and picking American foodstuffs at incredibly low wages.


Any plan to address immigration and border issues, such as the latest "plan to end all plans", that address only the effects of immigration with enhanced walls and technology (security measures) and guarantees for businesses and workers (payoffs) but doesn't do anything to affect the underlying causes of immigration is doomed to fail or even to have any real impact.

However, any plan that doesn't include a lock 'em/deport 'em all main plank will incur the wrath and opposition of the Republicans in Congress, and any plan that doesn't protect the bottom lines of Big Business will garner the same wrath and opposition from both the Republicans and the conservative Democrats in Congress. In other words, such a plan would be doomed to fail in Congress.

It is time to push a plan that addresses the underlying causes behind immigration, yet does so in a way that can appeal to enough conservative Democrats (and maybe even a few Republicans) to make it through Congress.


Some multi-tasking is in order.


For example, a program similar to the old Civilian Conservation Corps could be implemented. However, instead of out-of-work Americans building roads in national parks, out-of-work Mexicans could build wind-power or solar power farms and the infrastructure necessary to distribute the power generated across impoverished northern Mexico and southern Arizona, or perhaps on a water desalination plant on the Baja coast that would send much-needed water to the southwestern U.S.

In addition to putting to work the very folks who would be most likely to consider crossing the border, reducing illegal immigration, it would strengthen the infrastructure needed for permanent economic development in one of the U.S.' primary trading partners. That combination would appeal to both the people who are advocating for migrants and the businesses that may object to a diminished supply of cheap labor - their payroll expenses may rise, but so will their revenue as their sales to Mexico and Mexicans rise.

Combine that with an increased military presence on the southern border with Mexico, from El Paso to Yuma. If officially deploying units to the border is politically or diplomatically unfeasible, perhaps the establishment of a "desert operations training center" or something similar. The desert along the border could become the training grounds for divisions about to deploy to the Middle East. They could practice patrolling with local terrain experts as guides, much as they would be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, the "local terrain experts" in the southern U.S. would be Border Patrol officers.

Such a move would both serve to quiet the nativists in AZ (and elsewhere) and the "secure the border first" Congressional critics of comprehensive immigration reform and to actually secure the border (most human and drug smugglers would think twice before crossing paths with a division of Marines or soldiers. Some would still try, but that number would probably be significantly reduced from the number of smugglers willing to attempt a desert crossing.)

The government of Mexico would surely object to some of this, but to be blunt, the government of Mexico is one of the few in the Western Hemisphere that the government of the United States can criticize for being too corrupt and inattentive to the needs of its people.

In other words, let them complain.

Now, I understand that one or more aspects of this idea may not be practicable, and this is surely an incomplete proposal, but Mr. President, you are a smart man who is surrounded by dozens of smart men and women.

You can work this out.

Mr. President, thank you for your time, and good luck.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Update: I actually tried to submit the letter, but it is too long for the White House's contact form. So it is only a blog post, not a letter to the President.

Lucky interns. :)

Congressman Mitchell's response to a letter regarding health care reform

Last week, I (as well as many others) contacted Congressman Harry Mitchell to urge him to vote for the health care reform bill before the House (and on Sunday, he did!! THANK YOU!!).

His reply came through today.

The response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]

Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance reform legislation, H.R. 4872. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue.

After more than a year of hearing from health care professionals, insurers, patients, and tens of thousands of passionate and concerned Arizonans both for and against reform, it has become clear to me that we cannot sustain the path that we are on. Rapidly rising health care costs are burdening Arizona families, hurting the economy, and slowing our recovery.

Arizonans are losing their health insurance when they get sick, and being denied the ability to purchase new coverage if they've previously seen a doctor. Insurance companies are literally refusing to sell policies to individuals who have previously seen a doctor for high cholesterol, diabetes or even acne.

Small businesses, which make up 73 percent of Arizona 's businesses, are facing a full-blown crisis. Since 2000, health-insurance premiums for small businesses have risen 130 percent, and insurers are warning that they will go up another 15 percent this year. In other words, a premium that cost $4,500 per employee in 2008 - and $4,800 last year - will cost $5,500 per employee this year. As a result, employers are being forced to choose between hiring workers and paying for health insurance costs.

At the same time, families who have insurance, and are already struggling with skyrocketing premiums, are being forced to pay a hidden tax to pay for those without insurance who show up at emergency rooms and get treated despite their inability to pay. It is estimated that the average American family is already paying an extra $1,100 a year in premiums to pay for costs associated with treating the uninsured, a cost that will only continue to grow.

After more than a year of careful review, I believe that this legislation will address many of the key issues plaguing our current health care system. While I understand that this package is not perfect and I don't approve of some of the procedures that were proposed to advance the bill, I strongly believe that the status quo is unsustainable and the time for reform is now.

While I have been heartened by the many thoughtful questions, comments and suggestions I have received over the course of this debate from both sides, as a former high school government teacher, I have been extremely disappointed by much of the extremist rhetoric and blatantly false statements that some have injected into this discussion. The use of swastikas does not help foster a civil discussion on a serous issue, nor does it honor the memory of the millions victims who died in concentration camps. But perhaps even more insidious, millions of dollars have been spent to spread misconceptions about what reform will mean, ultimately distracting many from engaging in meaningful conversations.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly explain what reform would mean for you and clear up some of the most egregious rumors about reform. For more detailed information, I encourage you to visit my web site at: www.mitchell.house.gov.

For individuals with insurance, including the 469,000 residents of Arizona 's Fifth District who currently receive health care coverage from an employer, this legislation will enable you to keep it, and prevent your insurer from dropping you if you get sick. It will also require insurers to allow young adults, up to 26 years of age, to remain on their parents' health care plans if they so choose.

The legislation will also ultimately slow the rapidly accelerating growth of insurance premiums by spurring greater competition between health insurers and offering more choice to consumers. Specifically, the legislation will establish insurance exchanges through which businesses and individuals can comparison shop for insurance policies that best meet their needs. While more complex, these exchanges would function, in a sense, like the system many travelers currently use to purchase airline tickets online. Just as the airlines bid for your travel business, health insurers will bid for your insurance business.

To participate in an exchange, insurers will have to meet certain minimum standards. Most notably, insurers will no longer be allowed to refuse to cover someone because of a pre-existing condition, or place a cap on annual or lifetime coverage. Members of Congress and federal employees have long had access to a system like this, and it has worked well. So well, in fact, that Congress is frequently, and I believe correctly, criticized for giving itself better quality and more affordable health care than countless Americans.

The legislation will also help small businesses, including the more than 17,800 in the Fifth District, who have been among the hardest hit by the present health insurance system. Currently, without a large number of employees, businesses cannot negotiate bulk, competitive rates with insurance companies. Reform will enable small businesses to combine or "pool" their purchasing power, and then comparison-shop for competitive rates via an insurance exchange. Approximately 15,700 small businesses in Arizona 's Fifth District would qualify for tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of insurance coverage.

Furthermore, this package will improve and strengthen Medicare for seniors that have been squeezed by rising costs of care and prescription drugs. So much so, the bill has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Among other things, the legislation will fill the "donut-hole" in Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, helping the 10,100 seniors in Arizona's Fifth District who are forced to pay full drug costs because they fall into it. The legislation would further improve Medicare by eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for preventative services in Medicare. This package does not, as some have alleged, weaken Medicare. As someone who is over 65 and depends on Medicare myself, I would not vote for it if it did.

The package does not contain any so-called "death panels" or government takeovers of health care. It does not contain a public option, does not dismantle the private insurance industry, and does not provide benefits for illegal immigrants. In fact, the legislation explicitly prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving health insurance. The package also maintains the current ban on federal funding for abortion, and maintains TRICARE for veterans.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $138 billion from 2010 - 2019 and by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. CBO's analysis is available online at: www.cbo.gov.

The reconciliation package that was approved by the House in conjunction with the underlying health care legislation addresses several of the concerns I had with the Senate bill. Specifically, it closes the prescription drug donut hole for seniors, and eliminates special deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback." Moreover, in the wake of the state legislature's decision to kick kids off state health insurance -- risking billions in federal matching funds and killing over 42,000 jobs -- the legislation will help Arizona bridge its budget gap by providing it with an additional $2.5 billion for Medicaid funding.

Finally, I have received a number of inquiries about tort reform and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. While these are primarily issues of state law, the reform package will allow the federal government to play a constructive role for states that are interested in pursuing either of these ideas. Under the legislation, states will be able to enter into agreements to facilitate the purchase of coverage across state lines. Reform will also provide incentives to states to create pilot tort reform programs. I would encourage those interested in reforming Arizona 's tort laws to contact their state legislators as well as the Governor.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. For more information about this issue, I invite you to visit my web site at www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

Health care vote coming up in Congress

Later this week, or perhaps early next week, the US House will vote on a health care reform bill. Its passage (assuming it passes, a likely occurrence but far from a guaranteed one) won't signal the end of the HCR debate - the Senate will still have to deal with it.

However, now is the time to help ensure HCR's passage through the House - contact your Congressional representative and urge them to support it.

My brief letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell, doing just that -

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

Within the next week or so, Congress will be voting on a health care reform bill.

Last year, you supported an HCR bill with a strong public option (Thank you!), and I am writing to you to urge you to continue to do so.

The current system of health insurance caters to the whims and desires of corporate bigwigs and lobbyists, while denying care for the patients who need it.

Throughout your political career, you have been known for standing up for the needs of your constituents. Right now, thousands of your constituents need you to stand strong one more time, this time against against the falsehoods and smears of those who are profiting from the current dysfunctional system of health insurance.

Congressman Mitchell, thank you for all that you have done for the people of your district.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

At this point, I expect that long and involved missives aren't necessary, but short notes to let our Congressmen and -women know that people are still watching and care about HCR are definitely in order this week.

Congressman Mitchell's online contact/email form is here.

For those who live in districts other than CD5...

Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) can be contacted here
Ed Pastor (CD4) can be contacted here
Raul Grijalva (CD7) can be contacted here
Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) can be contacted here

If you live in CDs 2, 3, and 6, you are represented by hardcore Republicans who are opposed to any kind of health care reform, no matter how much their constituents urgently need it to pass. Whether you support or oppose HCR, those reps don't care - they made up their minds before it was even proposed.

Later...

An open letter to Scottsdale's Mayor and City Council

This letter was submitted to them via the City's website contact form -

Mayor Lane and members of the Scottsdale City Council,

On Tuesday you will be considering a consultant’s report on the possible acquisition of Arizona American Water Company’s (AAWC’s) operations in Scottsdale.

I am writing to you to urge you to consider the report with an open mind, and during your discussions keep an eye toward protecting the long term interests of the residents of Scottsdale.

You are certain to hear from a number of interested parties on this matter, including many representatives of an organization calling itself The ORANGE Coalition. They will flatly oppose even the mere possibility of the City of Scottsdale acquiring the troubled local operation and assets of Arizona American Water. While they profess to be an Arizona-based organization dedicated to protecting the private property rights of “farmers and ranchers and other land owners,” that description of their purpose may not be a complete one.

According to records from the Arizona Corporation Commission, The ORANGE Coalition was incorporated on November 12, 2008 and listed the addresses of its directors as “1025 Laurel Oak Rd., Voorhees, NJ 08043.”

That is the address of corporate headquarters of American Water Works, the parent company of AAWC.

The inference is clear here – The ORANGE Coalition is an “astroturf” group formed specifically to further the interests of its industry backers, and nothing more.

While all of the residents of Scottsdale (your constituents), even those who work directly (or indirectly) for AAWC, have the right to have their opinions heard, the fact that certain individuals represent AAWC shouldn’t give you reason to confer greater weight to their opinions.

To conclude, let me reiterate the beginning of this note – please consider the report with an open mind and let your decisions in the matter be based on what best serves the needs of the residents of Scottsdale.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

NOTE –

The ACC page for The ORANGE Coalition is here: http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=14878680&type=CORPORATION

SEC info on American Water’s address from its initial registration is here: http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1993/dig052193.pdf

American Water’s contact page from its website, with corporate HQ address, is here: http://www.amwater.com/about-us/contact-us.html

Later...

Harry Mitchell's reply to my letter from yesterday

On Friday, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell (and the Blue Dogs). It must have been an incredibly eloquent and persuasive letter, given the success of tonight's vote (my supply of endearingly undue modesty is apparently running low :) ).

Here is his reply, just received via email -

Dear [Craig],

Thank you for contacting me regarding The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962. This is an incredibly important and complex issue, and I appreciate hearing from you.

As I meet with people throughout the district, it seems that everyone has a passionate opinion on this deeply personal issue. Many people who have insurance have been denied the care their doctors prescribe by their insurance companies. Some have been dropped altogether when they get sick and some can never get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Others who have insurance and are happy with their coverage and their doctors want to make sure they will be able to keep what they have, and be able to afford it going forward. Small businesses owners are finding it harder to cover their employees and remain competitive due to rising premium costs and seniors want to make sure that Medicare is strengthened and protected.

One point on which almost everyone agrees is that something needs to be done. Doing nothing is not an option. Yet, most folks in Washington are more concerned with scoring political points for an election than delivering the reform we need. Doing nothing is always the politically safe thing to do. But playing it safe, which I could do, is why big problems - like healthcare and immigration reform - have yet to be tackled by Congress.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962 is far from perfect, but I believe we need to continue the legislative process and work with the Senate to bring about desperately needed health insurance reform. That is why I voted for H.R. 3962 on November 7, 2009, when it passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215.

I do believe further improvements need to be made and the House needs to work with the Senate to get it done. I believe this bill can be better in order to improve our health insurance system. I also agree with the recent remarks of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe when she said that when history calls, history calls and that there should be no mistake about it: my first vote on H.R. 3962 is my first vote to advance reform. And it in no way forecasts my vote for a final bill in the future if improvements are not made. But we can only make improvements if we move the ball forward.

Right now, the rising cost of health care is severely hurting families in Arizona and around the country - especially those with insurance. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, the average family policy now exceeds $13,000 a year, and absent some kind of reform, it is likely to increase to $24,000 a year over the next decade.

Even worse, these families are being forced to pay for those without insurance, who show up at emergency rooms and get treated despite their inability to pay. It is estimated that the average American family is already paying an extra $1,100 a year in premiums to pay for costs associated with treating the uninsured, a cost that will continue to grow as well.

Small businesses, which make up 73 percent of Arizona's businesses, are facing a full-blown crisis. Since 2000, health-insurance premiums for small businesses have risen 130 percent, and insurers are warning that they will go up another 15 percent next year. In other words, a premium that cost $4,500 per employee in 2008 - and $4,800 this year - will cost $5,500 in 2010.

Bigger employers are hurting as well. Unable to keep up with the rising cost of health insurance, employers are increasingly shifting the costs to their workers and their families. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that "in 2010, nearly two-thirds of employers plan to shift more of the cost of care to workers and their families through higher premium contributions, deductibles, and copayments." The report went on to say that one in five companies plan to eliminate higher-costs plans and instead select plans for their employees with reduced benefits.

But perhaps worst of all, many who want insurance and are willing to pay for it, are unable to do so because insurers refuse to cover them if they have a pre-existing condition - even if the condition is as benign as acne. An increasing number of Arizonans are finding themselves one medical emergency away from raiding their 401k, going into foreclosure, or declaring bankruptcy.

When employees are afraid to change jobs because they're afraid they'll lose health insurance, and employers are afraid to hire because they can't afford to provide coverage, that's not just bad for our health, that's also bad for our economy.

These are the problems we face. All of us. Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They will continue to get worse, not better, and that means doing nothing is not an option.

Some on the left have suggested that we eliminate private insurance, and replace it with an all government-run system. Some on the right have suggested that we eliminate our employer-based system, and build a new one based on tax credits.

I do not believe we need to get rid of our entire health insurance system and create a new one. I continue to oppose a government takeover of our national health insurance system. I believe we need to keep what works and fix what doesn't. I also believe that, despite the long and heated debate, there is common ground upon which we can build.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962 is not perfect, but I believe it can be improved, and I believe Congress should continue working to bring about reform.
Many people have told me they already have insurance, and they ask what this reform would do to help them. The Affordable Health Care for America Act would spur greater competition between health insurers and bring greater choice to consumers. Among others, it has been endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the nation's largest physician organization, as well as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a leading voice for seniors.

To increase competition, the bill would establish an insurance exchange through which businesses and individuals could comparison shop for policies that best meet their needs. While more complex, the exchange would function, in a sense, like the system we currently use to purchase airline tickets online. Just as the airlines bid for your travel business, health insurers would bid for your insurance business. To participate in the exchange, insurers would have to meet certain minimum standards. Most notably, insurers would no longer be allowed to refuse to cover someone because of a pre-existing condition, or place a cap on annual or lifetime coverage. Members of Congress and federal employees have long had access to a system like this, and it has worked well. So well, in fact, that Congress is frequently, and I believe correctly, criticized for giving itself better quality and more affordable health care than countless Americans.

For the 469,000 residents of Arizona's Fifth District who currently receive health care coverage from an employer, reform would enable you to keep it, and prevent your insurer from dropping you if you get sick. It would eliminate annual and lifetime caps on benefits, and in many cases limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenses. It will also require insurers to allow young adults, up to 27 years of age, to remain on their parents' health care plans.

Reform would also greatly help seniors. So much so, the bill has been endorsed by the AARP. Among other things, the bill would fill the "donut-hole" in Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, helping the 10,100 seniors in Arizona's Fifth District who are forced to pay full drug costs because they fall into it. The bill would further improve Medicare by eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for preventative services in Medicare. The bill does not, as some have alleged, weaken Medicare. As someone who is over 65 and depends on Medicare myself, I would not vote for it if it did.

Reform would also help small businesses, like the more than 17,800 in the Fifth District, who have been among the hardest hit by the present health insurance system. Currently, without a large number of employees, businesses cannot negotiate bulk competitive rates with insurance companies. Reform would enable small businesses to combine or "pool" their purchasing power, and then comparison-shop for competitive rates via an insurance exchange. Approximately 15,700 small businesses in Arizona's Fifth District would qualify for tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of insurance coverage.

Finally, reform would make it easier for those who lack insurance to be able to purchase it. Over time, this would ease the burden on our local emergency rooms, which currently treat the uninsured, and then charge more to those of us with insurance to make up for it.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion from 2010 - 2019, with further reductions in federal budget deficits over the next decade. CBO's analysis is available online at: www.cbo.gov.

Reform would not, as some have alleged, provide federal benefits for illegal immigrants, or allow federal funding for abortions. The Affordable Health Care for America Act specifically prohibits any federal money from paying for health care for illegal immigrants, and specifically prohibits any federal money from paying for abortions.

H.R. 3962 would create a public alternative to private insurance, a provision which has generated a good deal of confusion and misinformation by both supporters and opponents. Under the legislation, the public option would be a separate, non-profit insurance plan, funded by premiums - not tax dollars - that would be allowed to compete with private insurers in the insurance exchange. No one would be required to use the public option. If you prefer private insurance, nothing in this bill would prohibit or otherwise limit your ability to buy it.

As you may know, I opposed to the public option as drafted in H.R. 3200, the House bill that circulated over the summer. In that bill, the public option's reimbursement rates for hospitals and providers would have been based on the reimbursement rates for Medicare. This was troubling because basing reimbursement rates on Medicare represents an unfair competitive advantage that could ultimate limit patient choice. In addition, basing reimbursement rates on Medicare rates could weaken the financial stability of local hospitals and doctors.

In my view, any public option alternative must be on a level playing field with private insurers. The public option in the Affordable Health Care for America Act would be based on negotiated rates, which is how private insurance companies operate.

This is one of several key improvements that was made to the legislation since the summer due, in no small part, to feedback from constituents. In addition, this new bill includes many bipartisan changes including allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and providing incentives for states to enact tort reforms. A recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that litigation costs and malpractice insurance accounts for 1 - 1.5 percent of total medical costs. While tort laws have traditionally been decided by state legislatures, I believe we need to examine all appropriate ways to deal with rising health care costs.

I continue to have concerns about the Affordable Health Care for America Act that I hope will be addressed as the Senate finalizes its health reform bill and the House and Senate conference to complete a final bill. Most notably, I remain deeply concerned by the overall cost of the House legislation. While I am pleased that the bill is deficit neutral, I believe we can achieve much of what this bill seeks to accomplish in a more fiscally responsible way. In addition, as the bill progresses, I hope that members will focus reducing the overall growth of health care spending.

I also hope that we continue to work to improve the public option. I believe we should continue to consider concepts such as allowing states to opt out, co-ops, or a trigger, which would go into effect if private insurance plans fail to expand affordable coverage sufficiently. This approach has worked successfully in the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit plan.

No bill, no matter how carefully drafted, can solve all of these problems. As the cost of health care increases, premiums will continue to rise, even with reform. Over time, however, reform can slow the growth of premiums, increase competition between insurers, bring more choice to consumers, and stop insurers from dropping or denying you coverage because you get sick.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have additional questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. In the mean time, if you would like more information about the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to visit my web site at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress


Now it *really* is "good night" to all...

An open letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell (and the Blue Dogs)

Normally, these “open letters” are something that I’ve written and submitted to a particular public official. As I am living in CD5 that usually means Harry Mitchell. They are written with a formal, respectful tone.

This one is written more as a blog post, with a less formal tone and links, though it also is respectful. It will also be submitted to Congressman Mitchell.

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

Tomorrow (or perhaps later today as you read this), you and your colleagues will be asked to vote on H.R 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. I am writing to you to urge you and them to support the bill, and to work to ensure that there is a viable and robust public option in it.

The CBO's analysis of the bill, with the proposed manager's amendment is here; the CBO's analysis of the Republicans' proposed substitute is here. The text of the actual manager's amendment is here, courtesy the House Rules Committee.

All of you are certain to hear from many of your constituents today on this issue, expressing their support or opposition to health care reform. (I tried calling your district office for more than 40 minutes, but the line was always busy. So, I called your D.C. office. The woman who answered was very pleasant and courteous while I voiced my opinion in support of health care reform.)

You and many of the Blue Dogs represent districts that are evenly split in terms of partisan voter registration, or like you, represent districts that are Republican-majority districts.

Congressman Mitchell, you are known as somebody who has "steered a middle course" during your more than four decades of public service. You have been a friend, mentor, teacher, mayor, state senator, and now, United States Congressman, for generations of Tempeans and now for residents of Scottsdale, Ahwatukee, Mesa, Fountain Hills, and Chandler.

Because of that middle course and your own reasoned, friendly, and warm approach to public discourse, you have been elected and re-elected to offices where the "conventional wisdom" said that no Democrat could win.

And on many issues, such an approach is not only a workable way of addressing issues, but it is the best way.

However, on the subject of health care reform, the debate is so polarized that tacking to the middle is only the best way if one wants to get pummeled from all sides.

Many of your Blue Dog colleagues have expressed concerns that if they vote for a health care reform package with a public option, they will have difficulty gaining re-election next year. They fear that many of the Republicans and Independent voters in their districts won't support them as they have in the past.

I think it is more likely that a "yes" vote on health care reform will cost them votes that they weren't ever going to get anyway. The health care vote will just be the latest excuse.

On the other hand, a "no" vote will cost them votes, contributions, and, perhaps most importantly, the enthusiasm of their most energetic supporters. After the defeat of health care reform in 1994, the Democrats who lost that year were those who were vulnerable anyway, regardless of their vote on the issue. Many of those who previously supported them closed their wallets and/or stayed home during the campaign season instead of volunteering.

To be sure, tomorrow's vote won't be the last word, or vote, on the subject. There will be many more as the House and Senate work to reconcile their versions of health care reform.

Many folks in Congress, possibly including you and the other Blue Dogs, will view that fact as an opportunity to "have it both ways."

None of you should fall into that trap.

People will remember, and voting for health care reform before voting against it, or vice versa, only serves to alienate both sides.

Additionally, many of you will be tempted to find an imperfection in the bill, and use it as an excuse to say to your constituents "Hey, I support health care reform, but I can't vote for..." XYZ, no matter how trivial "XYZ" is.

Don't fall for that trap, either.

No bill is ever perfect, and if you and your colleagues waited for perfection, no bill would ever pass, to the point of no post offices ever being named or college sports teams being congratulated on winning a championship.

Polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans support reform of the America's health care delivery system. There is, of course, disagreement over what that form those changes should take. One thing is clear though, the only real failure possible here is to simply do *nothing.*

*Nothing* is what was delivered to America in 1994, and the aftereffects of that failure devastated the country for 12 years until 2006, when the Republicans were stripped of their majority status in Congress.

To sum up, you and your colleagues are fated to be criticized harshly after your votes, regardless of whether those votes are "yea" or "nay."

It's unavoidable.

So be it.

While I do believe that you and your colleagues should support health care reform (and stated so earlier in this letter), each of you, whether you end up supporting or opposing health care reform, should do one thing.

Consider the best interests of your constituents, and vote your consciences.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

[Craig]

Later...

Dear President Obama: It's time to throw an elbow

This is an open letter to the President, submitted via email. I don't expect that he will read it, but since I consider the "open letter" blog post/newspaper column construction to be weak unless it is submitted to the named recipient, he's getting it anyway.

One among the tens of thousands of communications received by the White House every day.

Anyway, on to the letter...

Dear President Obama,

Later this week you will address a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. After a summer of town hall hysterics, sinking poll numbers, and unsuccessful tactical shifts designed to appease Republicans and fearful and/or corporate-friendly Democrats in Congress, something is needed.

A big part of your problems this summer, as I see it anyway, has been your Administration's attempts to negotiate with those who have no interest in changing a health insurance system that is less about caring for patients and more about enhancing the profit margins of deep-pocketed campaign contributors. In short, you've been trying to negotiate with schoolyard bullies in three-piece suits.

As any new kid in the schoolyard quickly learns, the best way to deal with a bully isn't by negotiating, pleading, or even running - it's standing.

As in standing up and standing your ground.

In the third season of the television show "The West Wing", an episode aired that told a story about the legendary center of the Boston Celtics, Bill Russell. The story was that Russell was getting eaten alive in the paint as he was playing by the rules but opposing centers were doing whatever they could to beat him. He asked the equally legendary Celtics coach and GM, Red Auerbach, what he could do. Red advised him to throw an elbow in a nationally televised game, and they wouldn't mess with him again.

The story may or may not be apocryphal (I could only find references to it in relation to its inclusion in The West Wing," but either way, the point of the story is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

You are getting pummelled from all sides and are trying to reason with those who have no incentive to be reasonable.

They need to be made aware that the President, as the head of the Executive Branch, holds political power that is at least the equal of their own.

It's time to get the attention of those who assail you, whether those who directly attack you or those who would simply hold you back because they fear change.

It's time stand up and stand your ground.

It's time to show them that you are the President of the United States.

It's time to throw an elbow.

Now, what form that elbow will take isn't known to me - I'm not a Washington insider, knowledgeable in the nuanced application of practical political power inside the Beltway.

I can hazard some guesses, though.

My suggestion would involve some of your senior staffers sitting with some Congressional Republican leaders at a negotiating table during an impasse, and one of the staffers casually mentioning that since health care reform isn't going to go through, the personnel who had been detailed to work on setting up the new health care structure will now be freed up to work in other areas of government, like a Department of Justice project examining campaign finance and lobbyist reports.

OK, so that isn't subtle and you probably can come up with something far more suitable to serve as your "elbow."

Just don't make it so subtle that those on the receiving end of your elbow don't realize that they just took one in the gut.

Something truly a little more circumspect would be called for when dealing with those in your own party who may be honestly afraid that if they support a public option as part of health care reform, they'll lose their seats in next year's elections.

Perhaps you could remind them, if you haven't done so already, that after the Clinton Administration's attempts to reform health care in the United States, the 1994 elections saw a massive Republican wave that carried them to their first majority in the House in generations.

And you could further remind them that any members who are legitimately vulnerable due to voting *for* real health care reform will be just as vulnerable to a Republican wave even if they vote *against* reform. "Waves" aren't particularly discriminating.

In any event, this week could be the "make or break" week for your entire presidency. When you make your plans for your speech and for your approach to health care reform going forward, remember that standing up and losing to the bullies still beats abjectly surrendering to them. A loss on this can be recovered from; a surrender will become the lasting legacy of your presidency.

And standing up could be the best path to victory, both for you and for the millions of Americans who support health care reform.

Regards,

[cpmaz]


P.S. - Jen at Mindless Mumblings of a Martyr Mom has her take on this topic (based off a Bill Moyers op/ed video) here; the full transcript of Moyers' piece is here, courtesy Truthout.org. (hat tip to David Safier at Blog for Arizona). Jon Talton, formerly the best writer at the Arizona Republic and now in Seattle, offers his rather blunt assessment here.

Open Letter To Congressman Harry Mitchell Regarding Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, the Democrats in the U.S. House introduced a health care reform package. It will be considered and marked up by three committee (Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means) before reaching the House floor.

That floor vote is expected to occur before the House's summer break.

The Senate is expected to vote on its package by the summer break also, allowing the two chambers to reconcile their packages and handle final passage sometime early in the fall.

As such, this is an opportune time to contact my representative, Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The letter I wrote, submitted via his contact page -

Dear Congressman Mitchell.

Thank you for the great work you have been doing to represent the people of Scottsdale and Tempe. You may not hear it about it as much as you should, but your constituents appreciate your committment to them.

Tonight I am writing to urge you to support the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Lobbyists are spending millions of dollars everyday to convince you and your colleagues that a "public option" should not be part of any health care reform package.

National polls show that more than 2/3 of Americans have a different opinion (http://tcf.org/publications/healthcare/wtprw.healthcare.pdf)

The individual people in your district (and your colleagues' districts) don't have the resources to fund and conduct national TV and print ad campaigns or to flood Representatives' offices with mass-produced post cards and letters.

More importantly, too many of your constituents also don't have the resources to pay for adequate medical care under the current system.


What they do have is you, their elected representative.


To be sure, any bill produced by the legislative process will have aspects you (and I) will be less than enthusiastic about.

Unless one or more of those aspects is *utterly* unacceptable, it would be good to keep in mind something first said by Voltaire and used by Secretary of State (then Senator) Clinton at last year's Democratic Convention in Denver when discussing health care reform -

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Again, thank you for everything you have done for the people of the Fifth District.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a good resource page on the proposal here.

CQPolitics' summary is here.

Later...

EFCA - A letter to Congressman Mitchell

Congress will soon be considering the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409 in the House; S.560 in the Senate).

It's been the subject of a massive anti-worker campaign funded by deep-pocketed corporate front groups. Many members of Congress, including CD5's Harry Mitchell, have been harassed by right-wing talk radio and inundated with a campaign of mass-produced postcards and phone calls to attempt to intimidate them into opposing the measure.

Perhaps the most galling aspect of the campaign has been the fact that some companies, particularly banks, that have received public bailouts from the American taxpayer, have used that money to fund anti-worker and anti-union activities. (Huffington Post)

It's time to let them, and Congress, know that the majority of Americans support unions and support EFCA.

On to the letter -

Congressman Mitchell,

Thank you for your past support of EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Tonight, I am writing to you to urge you to continue to support it, which will soon be before you in the form of H.R.1409. The proposal will provide workers much-needed protections from employer misconduct and intimidation when workers are considering whether to form a union.

Far too often, workers who are trying to form a union, or who even merely think about it, are fired (more than 20%), threatened with job loss (more than 50%), threatened with deportation in the case of immigrants (also more than 50%), forced into closed-door anti-union indoctrination sessions conducted by company management, usually with the assistance of professional union busters (90%!).

Among the lies that the anti-worker agitators and union-busters are putting out is the one that a vote for EFCA is a vote against the "American tradition of the secret ballot."

In fact, the bill places control of the choice of a secret ballot election in the hands of workers, not companies.

That lie is just a small part of the organized campaign against the bill, funded by corporate front groups.

Congressman, I understand that you are being attacked by the GOP and right-wing talk radio hosts over this issue, but they don't care about workers and working families in your district and across the country, only about using this as a wedge issue.

Please continue to stand strong for workers and working families as they strive to make a decent life.

Thank you for all of the work you have done for your constituents in CD5.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

Good night!

My letter to the editor - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Since the Rep never publishes my letters anyway, here is the letter I just submitted regarding the economic stimulus package winding its way through Congress.

The letter -

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Many of the opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are finding obscure provisions that they find objectionable to use as an excuse to object to the entire economic stimulus package.

To be sure, the package isn't perfect, and there are facets of it that I don't like. However, taken as a whole, it is a very good bill.

- It will create thousands of jobs in "green" energy production, including in the Arizona-friendly field of solar energy.

- The package's education funding will stave off the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers (at least in schools not controlled by the Arizona Legislature).

- It creates jobs in building, improving, and maintaining our transportation, energy, and water delivery infrastructure.

Congress shouldn't let the naysayers nitpick them into doing nothing while searching for the perfect course of action, because doing nothing to address America's cratering economy is surely the worst course of action.

Better to implement an imperfect first step than to be intimidated into immobility.

[cpmaz]

While I truly do think that the package is far from a perfect solution, it is better than no solution at all.

Later!

Guest writer - Letter to the editor

Jerry Gettinger, a PC in LD8 and a friend, submitted this letter to the editor to the AZ Republic and has graciously allowed me to publish it here.

His letter, concerning the shortsighted approach to the state's budget crisis taken by the legislature -

It might be different if our educational system was highly prized as an example of what educating our young should be, but sadly, the money spent per student and the result is such that the drastic cuts in funding that our esteemed lawmakers have foisted upon us just pours salt in the open wound that has come to be known as funding.

Shame on you.

You are not representative of our citizens, but only of a few who are self-serving. After over 20 years of Republican majority in the statehouse we have a school system that is last in the U.S., an infrastructure that is woefully lacking and a social safety net that ignores the needs of our young and less fortunate.

Shame.

When the young graduates of our underfunded colleges find that they are at a disadvantage in the job market because of their lack of quality education, it will be too late to fix.

Parents take notice! Your children had money taken from their education while sheriff Joe got his back!

That says it all when talking about priorities.

Jerry Gettinger
Scottsdale

He's a lot more succinct than I am...politer, too. :)

More later...

Letter from Harry Mitchell regarding H.R. 1

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell about the economic stimulus package that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week and will be voted on in the Senate this week.

Today, I received a reply -

Dear Mr. [cpmaz]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue.

I strongly believe that something must be done to bolster the flagging economy. We are not only struggling with a recession, but also an alarming rise in home foreclosures and unemployment. As of December 2008, the unemployment rate in Arizona was up to 6.9 percent - up from 4.2 percent in December of 2007. Making matters worse, Arizona, like many other states, is facing a serious budget deficit.

I believe that we need an economic recovery package that contains both fast-acting tax cuts as well as timely, targeted investments that will create jobs and help spur much-needed economic growth.

I am not happy with everything in the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1, but I believe it is a good start, and that we must allow the legislative process to continue. The risk of inaction at this time is simply too great.

The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1, contains $275 billion in tax cuts, which would provide approximately 95 percent of taxpayers with relief. H.R. 1 also makes important timely, targeted investments in transportation and infrastructure.

If enacted, states like Arizona would receive funding for planned highway, bridge, transit, and other infrastructure projects that are ready to go. Nationwide, these investments in transportation infrastructure would stimulate the economy in the short-term by creating approximately 1.5 million jobs and would help keep the economy growing in the long run by providing infrastructure that encourages commerce.

As we've seen in Arizona, the right kind of transportation investments can generate economic benefits far beyond that associated with construction. For example, the initial investments we have made at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport are already sustaining 4,500 jobs and, according to a recent study by Arizona State University, generating an economic impact of nearly $500 million.

H.R. 1 would also provide tax incentives for renewable and alternative energy. This investment would immediately create more than half a million green jobs dedicated to moving our country toward energy independence.

Like transportation, we have seen the benefits of these types of investments in Arizona, as well. With the help of solar tax credits, Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service are developing the world's largest solar energy plant outside of Gila Bend. The Solana solar generating station will create an estimated 1,500 jobs and provide clean, emission-free energy for 70,000 homes. Solana is expected to ultimately spur $1 billion in local economic development.

Additionally, H.R. 1 would assist states like Arizona which are facing severe budget cuts by investing in education, health care, and unemployment benefits.

H.R. 1 would significantly increase the number of jobs in Arizona and around the country. According to Mark Zandi, a leading independent economist, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would create a minimum of four million jobs by 2010. This would include approximately 125,000 jobs in Arizona, which would decrease the unemployment rate by 2.3 percent by 2010.

To ensure that funding approved in H.R. 1 is spent effectively and appropriately, the legislation would establish a Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board tasked with the oversight of the implementation of the legislation. Additionally, H.R. 1 would establish a new web site, www.recovery.gov, where all funding information including grant competitions and allocation of formula grants would be made available to the public.

I offered two amendments to try to improve H.R. 1, and I am disappointed that they were blocked from reaching the House floor for debate and a vote. The first amendment would have stopped Congress from taking a pay raise. At a time like this, when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, I believe it is unconscionable for Congress to raise its own pay. The second amendment would have made recent tax cuts to capital gains and estate taxes permanent. If Congress does not act, these cuts will expire next year. At a time when we need to encourage growth and investment, I believe it is wrong for us to let these taxes increase.

Despite these shortcomings, I voted for and the House passed H.R. 1 on January 28 by a vote of 244 to188. This legislation is now pending before the Senate, where I hope it will be further refined.Please be assured that I will continue to work in a bipartisan manner to help Congress enact an effective stimulus package that our nation urgently needs.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.

If you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/PS

Later!

Letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell

This one is rooted in the previous post, but while that was more of a rant, this one is more reasoned.

At least, I hope it comes across that way. :)

The contents of the letter that I just submitted to Congressman Harry Mitchell via his House website's contact form -

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

In the coming weeks and months, there will be much discussion (and some passage) by Congress of efforts to stabilize and stimulate America's economy.

Many of these efforts will include money for various infrastructure projects across the country.

I am writing today to ask you to work to minimize the portion of those funds that will be subject to whims of state legislators.

In our home state of Arizona, leaders in the legislature have already started to stated their intent to cut to the bone public services like education while pledging to set aside funds for activities they favor such as widespread roundups of immigrants. (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/133701)

In a year when municipal, county, and agency revenue has plummeted and budgets have busted, funds that are targeted for projects such as public transit, rural broadband connectivity, alternative energy, schools, etc., shouldn't be subject to siphoning by irresponsible state legislators who are less interested in serving the public than in advancing their personal ideologies.

Please urge your colleagues, including all of the other members of Arizona's Congressional delegation, to pass stimulus packages that either send funds directly to the targeted end recipients or send the funds to the states but with serious strings attached to ensure that the funds are used properly.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

While the Rep members of AZ's delegation (Flake, Franks, Shadegg) are sure to oppose any stimulus packages, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to oppose the packages (which are all but certain to pass) while working to ensure that any funds disbursed have the safeguards mentioned in my letter. As such, I recommend that everyone - Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and more - to contact their Congressional representatives and urge them to work to ensure that any funds disbursed end up where they are supposed to.

Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -

Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) - contact (no direct contact page)
Trent Franks (R-AZ2) - contact (no direct contact page)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) - contact page
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) - contact (no direct contact page)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) - contact page
Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) - contact (no direct contact page)
John Shadegg (R-AZ3) - contact form

Note: the four without a direct contact page utilize a zip code verification process to ensure that the online contact system is utilized by their constituents only. Follow the directions on their websites to contact them.

Note2: In a development that signifies how important I believe this issue is, I have linked to the Republicans' actual House websites, not their crAZyspace pages. You should be impressed. :)


Later!

Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout

A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell concerning the Wall Street bailout proposal floated by the Bush Administration.

Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.

The Congressman's response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1424, the economic recovery package.

The current economic crisis extends far beyond Wall Street or Washington. It affects us all. If the credit market freezes, then it is going to become dramatically more difficult for anyone to borrow money to purchase a home or a car, or to send their kids to college. Businesses, large and small, will be cut off from the credit they need to stock their shelves and make payroll.

Throughout consideration of this rescue package, I believed that both parties needed to come together to forge a compromise that would protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence. For this reason, I opposed the blank check proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. And, with less than 24 hours for deliberation and public comment, I voted against H.R. 3997, a modified proposal that House Leaders rushed to the floor on September 29, 2008, and failed by a vote of 205 to 228.

After the House of Representatives rejected these hasty proposals, members of both parties worked together to make significant improvements to this legislation.

H.R. 1424 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to begin an aggressive program to restore liquidity to our nation's credit market. Specifically, it authorizes the Department Treasury to begin buying and re-selling certain mortgage backed securities that are currently preventing lenders from issuing credit. Unlike the lump sum $700 billion pay out in the Paulson plan, the legislation provides the Secretary with an initial $250 billion, followed by another $100 billion upon a Treasury Department report to Congress. The Secretary could then request up to an additional $350 billion, however, Congress will be given 15 days to vote to stop this from happening if it does not approve of how the Secretary is managing the rescue plan, or does not want to commit additional taxpayer funds to it.

I am not happy with everything in the new bill, especially the earmarks that the Senate snuck into the bill at the last-minute. This is precisely the kind of legislating that makes the public so distrustful of Congress and so suspicious when they are asked to support an important economic rescue package. This is disappointing on many fronts, particularly because I spent nearly three decades teaching government at Tempe High School, and I am certain that this is not how our political process was intended to function.

However, inaction would cripple our economy.

To its credit, the new package includes improvements to protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence.

It increases Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") insurance limits to $250,000. This is not only important protection to individual depositors, but also to small businesses that keep payrolls in banks and credit unions and need to know these funds are secure. This provision was not included in the Paulson plan or the first bill brought to the House on September 29.

In addition, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 puts a stop to so-called "golden parachutes" - extravagant exit bonuses to executives who leave companies that may have had a hand in creating the current crisis.

Also, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 will protect taxpayers by making sure that the recovery program is subject to oversight and judicial review. Four separate entities will provide constant oversight to ensure efficiency and fairness in the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). This program will buy and re-sell assets from distressed companies, and new provisions for recoupment ensure that costs from the program are not passed on to taxpayers.

The new package will also help many homeowners in danger of foreclosure by allowing the government to work with loan servicers to re-structure mortgages.

Significantly, the new package includes a recoupment provision, which requires the President to submit legislation to Congress in five years to begin recouping any losses incurred by the federal government as a result of TARP from the financial industry in order to make taxpayers whole.

Finally, the new package will extend key tax credits to encourage investments in alternative energies like solar. Right here in Arizona, APS and Abengoa are planning to build the world's largest solar power plant - big enough to power 70,000 homes. Without these tax credits, it will not happen. These investments will be taken overseas. Now, the investments spawned by these tax breaks will help drive our economy forward by creating thousands of jobs and producing more than $4 billion worth of energy over the next 30 years.

I am disappointed that the final package did not extend important cuts to capital gains and estate taxes. These cuts are set to expire and I think the last thing we want to do is have investors worried about a tax increase. Last year, Representative Christopher Shays and I introduced H.R. 3170, Capital Gains and Estate Tax Relief Act, to make these cuts permanent, and I believe that the inclusion of this legislation would have encouraged investment and provided important certainty to our tax code.

However, with an economic disaster looming, I believe we had a responsibility to act. The final package was approved by the U.S. Senate on October 1, 2008 by a 74-25 vote. I voted for, and the House passed the economic package two days later by a bipartisan vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the legislation into law the same day.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about our economy and the government's economic recovery package. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.

If you would like to receive e-mail updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.

Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.

...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.

Later!

Letter to Congressman Mitchell re: the Wall Street bailout proposal

Surprisingly enough, occasionally I *can* exercise some self-restraint, and a letter to my Congressman is one of those occasions.

The letter -

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

I am writing on the subject of the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that the Congress will be considering this week.

I urge you to not support any package that doesn't include stringent oversight provisions, both for the firms receiving assistance and for the Secretary of the Treasury, who has demanded almost-dictatorial powers regarding the disbursement of the funds.

In addition, any bailout package should include provisions that bar 'golden parachutes' for the executives of any firm that receives assistance in any amount.

Lastly, any package that involves taxpayer monies must include fiscally responsible safeguards to ensure that any assets acquired under the bailout are purchased at fair value, not at a value chosen by Wall Street or its cheerleaders in the Bush Administration. In addition to that, the package should be structured so that when the affected firms return to solvency (as most will), the taxpayers are the first investors in those firms to receive a return on their investment.

Thank you for your consideration of this.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Some of the stuff that I didn't put into the letter (you know, the 'amazingly self-restrained' part :) ) -

Congressman Mitchell, please don't allow your colleagues or yourself to be stampeded into approving the blank check that the Bush Administration has demanded. Since January 21, 2001, these people have been lying to the world, to the American people, and most importantly for the purposes of this letter, to Congress.

They've lied us into an unjust war (weapons of mass destruction and more here),through an inept natural disaster relief effort ("you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie"), and into undermining the Constitution (Patriot Act and FISA renewal).

In short, the people behind the crisis, the bailout package, and the insistent hysteria surrounding both are men and women without honor, integrity or even the barest shred of civic conscience. There might be individuals within the group that are worthy of trust and respect

In some form, the proposed bailout may ultimately be necessary to minimize the damage that Wall Street's greed causes on Main Street. That doesn't mean that America's taxpayers or their elected representatives in Congress give up the keys to the treasury and walk away, regardless of the dire predictions of Bushies like Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

There's a saying that Republican President Ronald Reagan used in reference to the old Soviet Union that fits pretty well here -

"Trust but verify."

Scottsdale City Council and the Master Transportation Plan

Tonight, the Scottsdale City Council is meeting for its last meeting of 2007.

In addition to the normal consent agenda (mostly mundane stuff like licenses and such), the Council will be reviewing the Transportation Master Plan.

There are sure to be many controversial elements of the plan (a reversible center lane on Indian School Road, for instance), but none more so than the High Capacity Transit element, also known as Light Rail.

Opposition to even simple discussion of light rail in Scottsdale has already been loud and emotional, as this story from the AZ Rep demonstrates.

Tonight's meeting is certain to be as contentious as any that I've seen over the last 18 months of meetings (started paying attention in June 2006).

Unfortunately, tonight is also the night of the LD17 Dems' holiday party, and while I would love to attend the City Council meeting, the LD17 Dems are a *lot* more fun than the Scottsdale City Council to hang around with. :))

As such, I won't be able to comment at the meeting, and instead submitted the following public comment concerning agenda item 12, the Transportation Master Plan -

Mayor Manross and members of the Scottsdale City Council -

Tonight, you are considering the study results, elements, and previous recommendations concerning the Transportation Master Plan.

My comment is specific to one possible facet of Scottsdale's transportation future, High Capacity Transit, also known as 'light rail.'

Much of the 'discussion' surrounding the issue has consisted of people loudly proclaiming that light rail is not in keeping with Scottsdale's lifestyle or status as “the West's Most Western City.”

They ignore the fact that Scottsdale's 'lifestyle,' with its many amenities and services, is paid for by an economic core that is driven by a vibrant retail and commercial sector in downtown and north Scottsdale, a core that is moving east, south, and west as other Valley cities modernize while many here simply yearn for a return of Scottsdale's halcyon days as an unpaved, cotton-growing, tourist trap.

They also ignore the fact that the city's “most western city” slogan is just that
these days – a slogan, and nothing more. After all, when was the last time that there was a call out to the City to clean road apples off of one of its streets?* (smiling as that is said)

* = on non-Parada del Sol days

What you, the elected leaders of Scottsdale cannot ignore, is your duty to address
the future needs of Scottsdale.

That duty means that the Council must give an objective and complete evaluation of the HCT options, regardless of the emotional appeal or political convenience of nostalgic calls for a return to yesteryear.

Let me quote a letter to the editor in opposition, written by Clara Beauchamp -

“A lot of people don't seem to realize that Scottsdale is different than most towns and its very difference has been one of its greatest assets.”

If perhaps the name of the author is less recognizable than her sentiments, that might be because the letter was to the editor of the Scottsdale Progress and it was published in the April 19, 1951 edition of that paper.

And Ms. Beauchamp opposed the incorporation of Scottsdale.

That turned out reasonably well, don't you think?

Thank you.

Some things that I learned during the research for this comment/post -

...In 1951, Scottsdale had a population of approximately 2000 residents; now, it has approximately 250, 000, a growth of over 125 times.

...For an even sharper growth rate, consider this - in 1951, Scottsdale had two physicians; now, it has over 1300, a growth of over 650 times.

[Note - thanks to Roger at the Arizona Medical Board for quickly tracking down that 1951 number for me.]

...It didn't surprise me to find out that no one at the City of Scottsdale or the Arizona Department of Agriculture knew how many horses there are in Scottsdale today, much less in 1951, because that's a rather obscure statistic, but I was surprised by one thing.

It seems that ADOT's Motor Vehicle Division doesn't know how many vehicles are registered to Scottsdale addresses. I was told that they only break down the data "to county level."

Ummm, yeah. Either there's a lie there, or the MVD's computers and software are shamefully out of date.

...I learned that writing a short persuasive piece, such as the comment to the City Council is tougher than a longer expository one. It took me all day to write the comment, and I had put some thought into it over the weekend already. The rest of this post took just a matter of minutes.

Other Scottsdale campaign updates -

Mayor Mary Manross has a campaign website up now (info courtesy an AZ Rep article);

Council candidate Joel Bramoweth's site is here.

I can't find websites for the other announced or rumored candidates as yet, but that will change as we move further into the campaign season.

Later!

An open letter to John Shadegg

The following letter was submitted to the Congressman via his House website (note: the links didn't go through; it's a text-only message form) -

Note: This letter is from a post in my blog, Random Musings. While I truly don't expect a reply, it's only fair to actually submit the letter to you when I'm posting it on the internet.

Congressman Shadegg -

I know you've been busy with other things, like dealing with criticism for your support of the President's SCHIP veto or fighting off the surging campaign of challenger Bob Lord, but I hope you can take the time to answer a question for me.

You've been getting a lot of love recently in the conservative blogosphere for your bill, HR1359, the Enumerated Powers Act.

As written, it would require that "each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."

Believe it or not, while I am an active Democrat and certainly more progressive than you, I don't have a major problem with that particular concept.

I do have to wonder, however, where is the same requirement for Presidential acts, such as executive orders and 'signing statements'?

Why don't you believe that the President is as subject to the Constitution and needs to have Constitutionally-granted authority for his or her actions as any member of Congress would?

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

Later!

Letter time again - Iraq

With another Iraq vote coming up, likely the week after next, it's time to let our Congresscritters know how we feel. To that end, I just submitted this letter to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) via his website -

Congressman Mitchell -

Within the next few weeks, Congress will hear a progress report on the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize the situation in Iraq. That report will be followed by consideration of a measure funding continued operations in Iraq.

I urge you to reject any measure that doesn't include an unambiguous timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

By any reasonable standard, the war is an ongoing abject failure.

In May when you voted to support HR2206, you cited the benchmarks devised and agreed to by the Iraqi government as the reason you supported continuation of the
war.

According to the GAO, 11 of the 18 benchmarks established earlier this year have not been met; of the other 7 benchmarks, 4 have only been partially met.

And of those seven that have been met or partially met, four are symbolic only. “Quality of life” benchmarks like creating independent and non-sectarian Iraqi security forces are completely unmet.

Furthermore, the practical situation in Iraq is deteriorating. There are daily reports of sectarian strife and military and civilian deaths. Since the beginning of June, nearly 300 U.S. servicemembers and an estimated 5000 Iraqis have died as a result of violence there.

The political situation at home shows a continued decline in support for the war, and even more to the point, growing support for a withdrawal of troops. Support that comes even from many who have supported the war. The latest Gallup poll (August 3 – 5) shows that support for withdrawing troops by next April is at 66%.

Continued support for the war, or even equivocation on withdrawal, is not a position that is in line with the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Lastly, there are the moral considerations, considerations that haven't changed since May.

The war was started under false pretenses, when the President lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

The war was continued under false pretenses, when the Administration repeatedly lied about a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Then earlier this year, the President claimed that his “surge” would reduce violence in Iraq, yet the casualty totals for Americans and Iraqis have only increased. In fact, this summer was one of the bloodiest periods of the war.

In short, the President and his appointees have ignored reality, shaded the truth, and out-and-out lied, both to Congress and to the American people, on a regular basis.

To summarize, the situation in Iraq is still deteriorating, support for the war is plummeting, and the least credible President in history is still lying about it all.

There is no reason to believe that the situation in Iraq is improving; the objectively non-partisan GAO report says otherwise.

There are no practical or moral reasons for you or the Congress as a whole to distance yourselves from the mainstream of American thought on this subject.

There is no reason to further align yourself with the least-popular and least-respected President in American history.

There is no reason for you to support any funding measure without specific and binding withdrawal language in it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

Note: I didn't bother sending a letter to AZ's U.S. Senators, Kyl and McCain. Even the few seconds needed to copy and paste the letter into their websites' contact forms would have been an utter waste of time.

Anyway, have a great weekend everyone!