Congressman Altmire Responds

From his website:

As I said following the initial committee vote in July, I voted against the House’s health care reform bill in the Education and Labor Committee because it failed to effectively rein in rising health care costs; it was punitive toward small businesses; and it paid for reform by raising taxes, rather than by squeezing the inefficiencies out of and modernizing our health care system.

After months of negotiation, I believe that the bill we voted on today contained some improvements in each of these three areas, although these improvements were not sufficient for me to be able to vote for the bill. In particular, I remain concerned that the House’s health care reform bill still fails to make our health care system more cost-efficient. Until we rein in skyrocketing health care costs, we will simply be perpetuating an inefficient system that is unsustainable over time.

This bill is inadequate in two key areas that are critical to meaningful health care reform: cost containment and delivery system reform. Although I was unable to support this particular bill, I strongly believe that we need common-sense health care reform. I will continue working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to create a bill that will preserve what works in our current system, reduce health care costs for American families and small businesses, and build a payment structure that better incentivizes efficiency, value and quality of care.

So it's the cost.

Y'all gon' make me lose my mind...

...Up in here, up in here


I expect when I watch Morning Joe for their zoo crew to mischaracterize the Stupak Amendment as merely barring federal funding for abortion and that the Stupak opponents are seeking a "new entitlement."

I expect our resident Right Wing commenter to mischaracterize the Stupak Amendment to be the "Government not paying for abortions."

But, for the Post-Gazette's Early Returns blog to post "the Stupak amendment, which barred federal funding for abortion services" -- et tu, Brute?

You're all driving me crazy.

And, you're WRONG.

Let me repeat for the fourth or fifth time (in one version or another) in the last couple of days:

The Hyde Amendment already barred federal funding for abortion services.

The Stupak Amendment actually rolls back private insurance coverage for reproductive rights.

Stupak is really about getting PRIVATE insurance plans to drop abortion coverage -- which 85% cover now.

Insurance companies will want to participate in the Public Exchange because it gives them a crack at tens of millions of new customers.

However, with Stupak, if you participate in the exchange -- and uninsured folks will be mandated to do so -- you will not be able to purchase a plan that covers abortions EVEN IF YOU PAY FOR THE PLAN ENTIRELY WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL FUNDS.

So, again, we're not talking about government paid abortions -- that's already illegal -- we're talking about disallowing coverage of abortions from non government funded insurance plans.

Got it now?
.

Watching the Mayor

I mean, like, right now. He's giving his 2010 Budget Address at Pittsburgh City Council Chambers. You can watch too on the City Channel.

Lil Mayor Luke apparently plans to balance the budget with a 1% college privilege tax on college kids.
.

"Stupak" makes it in to the Urban Dictionary

Does "stupak" mean:

"A medical condition (subset of sepsis) resulting from unsafe - unnecessarily so - back alley abortions as a result of the "Stupak Amendment" to the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill."

Or is it:

adj: imposing religious beliefs of one group on another, especially through legislation or financial pressure.

How about:

To do something ridiculous, silly, moronic, stupid, asinine, idiotic, etc.

You can vote up your favorite definition here.

Personally, I'm torn between the first two defintions, but for this post, I want to remind everyone that here in Western PA we have three very stupak Democrats:

Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire and John Murtha all voted for the Stupak Amendment.
.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Not much fact-checking in this week's column by Jack Kelly.

There IS this:

But if you're one of the 84 Democrats who represent districts carried either by George W. Bush in 2004 or John McCain last year, the time to ponder this is before casting a potential career-terminating vote on health-care "reform." [emphasis added.]

That's a bit of a cheat, isn't it? I mean why include the districts of House Democrats carried by Bush in 2004 if only to beef up the number of "Dems at risk"?

Especially since there were only 49 Democratic House Districts voting for McCain in 2008.

I guess Jack really doesn't think anyone will check his work.

In any event 84 is a bigger (and thus scarier) number than 49 but one wonders, given the tone of the jeremiad that is this column what Jack thinks of the (according to Charlie Cook) 34 Republicans who currently represent the seats won by President Obama.

No mention of them.

Small(ish) point. I do want to get to the meat of the column. It's about last week's election and the bad news it portends for the Democratic Party. And it's all about New Jersey and Virginia.

Here's a reminder of what Jack wrote just last week:

Political soothsayers will be studying the returns Tuesday from Virginia and New Jersey for omens that could predict the outcome of the midterm elections next year. But the race with the greatest national implications is for the House seat in upstate New York because of what it portends for the relationship between the Washington GOP establishment and an increasingly restive base. [emphasis added.]

NY-23 is now in Democratic hands. Let's assume Jack is 100% correct in its importance its national implications in general and for the GOP specifically.

The seat was firmly (with a capital F) in the GOP's hands. The party establishment presented its candidate. But that candidate wasn't wingnutty enough for the Palin wing of the GOP so they switched to the Conservative Party candidate. The Palin-ite wingnuts bet on conservative ideology rather than political expediency.

And they lost. They lost a district their party controlled for decades.

And not a peep from Jack about it in this week's column. Wonder why.

Jack's take on the NJ race is informative:

Mr. Corzine was arguably the most unpopular governor in the country, quite capable of losing in a heavily Democratic state all by himself. In the end, that's what I think happened. Mr. Obama shouldn't be blamed for his defeat.

That last sentence is an interesting thing to slip into a column about how the burden of last week's defeats should be resting on Obama's shoulders. But I digress.

So we're left with Virginia. Jack wrote:

Mr. Deeds had been sinking like a stone in the polls for a month and the White House publicly washed its hands of him two weeks before the election. Mr. Deeds was losing, two "senior White House officials" told The Washington Post, because he didn't tie himself closely enough to the president and his policies.

That last part is intriguing, considering this poll data found at pollster.com


Tell me how Deeds' support was "dropping like a stone" there. Looks like he was never in front, he leveled off months ago and McConnell's support took off in the 6 weeks or so before the election.

Jack, if you're gonna spin at least get close to the truth.

As I said, not much to fact check this week.

Because there's not much there.

HA!

I just got a fundraising call from the DSCC -- I think -- they were asking for money to elect more Democratic Senators.

I made sure the telefundraiser knew that I would not give any money to elect any Blue Dogs. No money unless I know it would go to Senators who would/will reject the Stupak/Pitts Amendment.

I probably should apologize to the guy who called because I nearly bit his head off and I have been where he's at, but then again, he seemed to have never heard of the Stupak Amendment so screw him.
.

Sunday Morning Music Post, Jason Altmire Edition

.

Sunday Not So Funnies, Altmire Edition

Former Health Care Industry Lobbyist and Congressman Jason Altmire continues to bite the hand that feeds him.

UPDATE: From the Comments section (Hope it was worth it, Jason because I'm guessing there's a lot of folks like GeneW):

At 10:43 AM, GeneW said...
I worked hard for almost six months making phone calls and knocking on doors for him three years ago in part because he told me and my wife to our faces that he was going to fight to reform healthcare. We no longer live in his district but if I did, I'd certainly vote against him and if he has a primary challenger, I'll definitely send him/her support.

.

Who's going to run against Jason Altmire? (In the primary I mean)

Someone, please!

Not only did he vote yes on the Stupak Amendment, he voted no on the Health Care Reform bill.

Why exactly did anyone bother to vote out Hart?
.

Health Care Reform Bill Passes in the House -- Blue Dogs, Republicans and Spineless Dems Throw Women Under the Bus

The Stupak Amendment to the Health Care Reform bill in the House of Representatives passed with 240 yeas, 194 nays and 1 present vote.

What does that mean?

It means that women have been singled out to be the only class of people to actually lose coverage under the HCR bill.

While Rep. Bart Stupak (D, He-Man-Women-Haters-Club) claimed that the his amendment would just ensure that no federal funds would pay for abortion, that is just a BIG FAT LIE. There is already the Hyde Amendment which says no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.

What the Stupak Amendment does is ensure that no insurance will cover abortions in a regular plan -- even if the woman pays for the insurance totally with her own personal funds. (Currently about 85% of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.) With the passed Stupak Amendment, an insurer who participates in the Public Option Exchange cannot cover abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.

And, how did we get to a place where women actually will lose current coverage?

You can thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Apparently our Congress needed their seal of approval before they could pass HCR legislation.

How fitting that an institution which has an all male leadership has the most important voice in deciding which legal medical procedures can be covered for women. It's so peachy fucking keen. It's also swell that so many of our representatives have decided that we are all Catholic now. Perhaps the bill can also be amended to include "Magdalene laundries": virtual slave labor camps set up by the Catholic Church in Ireland for women of "low character". I'm betting Rep. Michele Bachmann would go for it.

Hell, maybe even Pittsburgh's own Rep. Mike Doyle the "point man to help strike a last-minute compromise on abortion language in the House of Representatives' health care bill" would like the laundries established here too seeing as how he lives in the "C Street" House with Stupak which is run by the ultra secretive and ultra creepy religious group know as "The Family." You know, the group who thinks that its members are destined to rule and aren't bound by conventional moral codes that the rest of us are supposed to follow (which is how they justify to themselves covering up their members' adulterous sexual affairs).

But, it's all OK. If a woman wants insurance that will cover abortion, she can apparently buy supplemental insurance -- because it makes perfect sense to buy extra insurance ahead of time to cover a pregnancy that was unplanned to begin with. Kind of like how everyone should be forced to get supplemental insurance for cancer just in case they get it some day and want to be covered. (And, speaking of cancer, Texas Republican Pete Sessions compared being a woman to being a smoker as to why it's perfectly fine for women to pay more for insurance than men. Better quit that uterus now, girls!)

As I'm writing this the HCR reform bill just passed. I can't even begin to tell you how happy I am that we have a bill which forces women to buy insurance that prohibits coverage of a legal medical procedure at the behest of men who wear dresses (and not in a good way) and can't have sex with women or men -- well, not unless they're very, very young -- and whose leader is in the midst of conducting a witch hunt against his own nuns in the US.

And, while it's true that we really have Blue Dog Dems to thank for this travesty, House Rethuglicans have their own special ways of sticking it to the lil woman. This happened this morning and wasn't even about abortion, but the HCR bill in general:

As the Democratic Women’s Caucus took to the microphone on the House floor to offer their arguments for how the bill would benefit women, House Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — repeatedly talked over, screamed, and shouted objections. “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object,” Price interjected as Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) tried to hold the floor.

What a great day for the women of this country (because it's always good to know exactly where you stand -- below men).

Woo-fucking-hoo
.

Markos gets Tancredo to storm off MSNBC set

You see, while former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has "talked to vets" about their health care, he may not have realized that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitas actually is a veteran. A fact that Markos pointed out to Tancredo while reminding Tancredo that he had sought and received a deferment for the Vietnam War even though he was a supporter of the war at the time.


.

Just when you thought they couldn't go any lower...

There's this sign from yesterday's GOP anti-health care rally:


If you can't tell, it reads: "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945."

Because trying to expand health care coverage for millions of uninsured Americans is exactly like the mass murder of Jews by Nazis. I mean anyone can see that, right?

One might be predisposed to assume that this banner was the work of someone with a long history of mental problems except for the fact that we know that many attending this rally have been fed a steady diet of outrageous propaganda warning them of death panels, government as the enemy, and a president who is supposedly an illegitimate foreign-born usurper and undercover Muslim terrorist bent on destroying the country.

You can thank Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbough and the rest of the sick, cynical pigs for signs like this one. They've wrapped themselves in hatred and fear and have grown rich and powerful in the process.

Sometimes I wish I believed in hell.
.

The Trib. Again.

Yawn.

Aw, geez. We gotta do this again?

From one of today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorials:

By destroying the myth that state control of alcohol sales ameliorates societal harm, a new Commonwealth Foundation report bolsters the case for ending Pennsylvania's archaic status quo.

"Government-Run Liquor Stores: The Social Impact of Privatization" (available at CommonwealthFoundation.org) says privatizing sales lowers per-capita consumption and DUI-related fatality rates and doesn't increase underage drinking.

It concludes: "Evidence from 48 states over time shows no link between market controls and ... social goals."

The Reason Foundation estimates Pennsylvania could sell its wholesale and retail liquor operations for $1.7 billion. And, Commonwealth's Nathan Benefield estimates, annual alcohol sales tax revenue would remain close to its existing level.[emphasis added]

Guess what?

There's no mention of the $410,000 in grants ($140K in 2008 and 2007 and $130K in 2006) from the Richard Mellon Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation to the Commonwealth Foundation in this editorial from the Richard Mellon Scaife owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

AND

There's no mention of the $375,000 in grants ($125K each from 2008, 2007 and 2006) from the Richard Mellon Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation to the Commonwealth Foundation in this editorial from the Richard Mellon Scaife owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

That's $785,000 gone unmentioned by Scaife's brain trust.

Richard Mellon Scaife's journalistic circle jerk continues. (Don't these guys get tired?)

But wait, there's another aspect of Scaife's circle jerk to be explored.

Take a look at this page. (It's the Board of Directors page at Commonwealthfoundation.org.) The Chairman of the Board is someone named Michael W. Gleba. Does that name sound familiar? It should.

He's the Executive Vice President of the Sarah Foundations.

Can someone tell me if that's kosher?

Now That Hoffman Lost...

From Mediamatters:

Right-wing media figures enthusiastically endorsed and boosted the failed Conservative Party candidacy of Doug Hoffman in the race to fill a vacant seat in New York's 23rd Congressional District, with several of them hosting Hoffman on their radio or television shows. Media figures who boosted Hoffman include Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Malkin, and Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com.

To that heady list we can add a local: Our Very Own Jack Kelly. Here he was just this past Sunday:

Political soothsayers will be studying the returns Tuesday from Virginia and New Jersey for omens that could predict the outcome of the midterm elections next year. But the race with the greatest national implications is for the House seat in upstate New York because of what it portends for the relationship between the Washington GOP establishment and an increasingly restive base.

Republicans have held the seat for 100 years. With public opinion turning against Democrats, it should have been easy to retain it. But local GOP bosses botched that when they selected DeDe Scozzafava as their candidate. Ms. Scozzafava is to the left of the Democrat in the race. She's for abortion and gay marriage, backed the stimulus bill every Republican in the House voted against and supports "card check," which effectively would abolish the secret ballot in union elections.

The Washington GOP establishment quickly lined up behind Ms. Scozzafava. The National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her behalf.

But the locals haven't been eager to support someone who is clearly a Republican In Name Only. Hence the candidacy of businessman Doug Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line. [Emphasis added.]

And he ended the column with this:

The Republican Party may be saved from its "leaders" by the woman they love to hate. The Beltway Brahmins can't stand Sarah Palin because she isn't one of them, doesn't aspire to be one of them and isn't afraid of them.

If Mr. Hoffman wins, Sarah Palin will deserve the lion's share of the credit. She made her bones in Alaska politics by taking on a smug, corrupt, complacent GOP establishment and beating it. A larger reform opportunity beckons.

And if Mr. Hoffman loses? That must've never occurred to the folks backing Hoffman.

The GOP, as Jack rightly points out, should have had no trouble keeping the seat. But they chose instead to impose a political purity test and purge the infidel.

And they lost. They lost the seat they held for, as Jack points out, 100 years.

But I'll go with Jack on this one. In an election year where the GOP took the Governor's mansions in VA and NJ, perhaps the election with the greatest national implications is the one where the GOP fed on its own and because of that lost.

Lost a seat they'd held for a long long time.

Another Day, Another Jerk In The Circle

From one of today's editorials at the Tribune Review:

It's bad enough that striking Philadelphia transit workers rejected what Gov. Ed Rendell called a "sensational" deal. What's really horrific is that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority offered such a deal in the first place.

Transport Workers Union Local 234 -- average member salary, $52,000 -- turned down a contract that included cumulative raises in excess of 11.5 percent over the next five years, a boost in pension payments and static worker contributions to health insurance.

In these times? That's daft. See what acquiescence to organized labor in the last contract got fare-paying Philadelphians and Pennsylvania taxpayers?

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy reminds that such machinations could be permanently dispatched by leaving "the small minority of states that allow transit workers to strike."[emphasis added]

It was only last Tuesday when I pointed out the $970,000 in grant money given to the Allegheny Institute over the last 3 years. Another mention of the Institute with no mention of the money from Richard Mellon Scaife being used to support it

They're just taunting me now. I know it.

A Couple of P-G Notes

I got a chance to see Dennis Roddy's latest music video posted at PG+. If you have a chance to see it, please do. Dennis is a very funny guy and the video is a very funny video.

ALSO I learned from my brief sojourn at PG+ that Jack Kelly is a bit under the weather. In today's chat between Reg Henry and Ruth Ann Dailey (who was filling in for Jack), Reg says that it's a gall bladder thing.

Honestly - as much as I detest Kelly's politics and as much as I rake him over the coals at this blog, I wish him nothing but good health.

Good Health to you, Jack!

The Trib Does It Again. With A Twist

This week's Midweek Briefing:

Newsmax.com's Chris Ruddy says what a growing number of War on Terror watchers are saying -- it's time to reduce our troop presence in Afghanistan. And he favors a plan put forth by Vice President Joe Biden "that involves keeping a smaller force (there) and focusing it on counterterrorism," especially against those nasty al-Qaida cells in neighboring Pakistan. It's likely the best way to better prepare us to handle the growing Iranian threat.

Same old same old. Newsmax is partially owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Want proof? In an article from October 2008 at the Palmbeachpost about Newsmax.com and its founder Christopher Ruddy, we read:

Ruddy says he and his business partner, Richard Mellon Scaife of the wealthy Pennsylvania Mellon family, recently traveled to Clinton's office in New York's Harlem section and met with the former president for more than two hours. [emphasis added]

And then a little lower down we read about the beginnings of Newsmax and a little bit of its evolution:

In 1998, after seeing how much online opinion, speculation and conservative frenzy was stoked by the biggest of Clinton scandals — the Monica Lewinsky affair — Ruddy dived into the online business. He did it in Palm Beach County, where he had relatives.

"I wanted to be in a nice climate," he says, "and I wanted to be away from New York and Washington."

He started in a two-room office on Datura Street in West Palm Beach. But with his London School of Economics background and many wealthy conservative friends, he raised $15 million in about three years, Ruddy says.

He and Scaife have since bought out the other investors, and Ruddy, the policeman's son, is the majority owner. [emphasis added]

Doncha think they should have mentioned this in the editorial?

The Journalistic Circle-Jerk continues.

And yes, Chris Ruddy has no credibility. More on Ruddy later today (if I get the chance).

Late Night Music Post, Election Edition

Same-sex marriage loses in Maine, Corzine loses in NJ, Lukey wins in Pittsburgh and Orie Melvin wins in PA.

NOT WORK SAFE

.

Just a reminder

Just a reminder that I have been told countless times on this and other blogs that abortion is just not an issue in mayoral politics.

However, today we have both re-elected an anti-choice mayor and found out that our city will have to now revise (lessen) its policy regarding bubble/buffer zones around women's clinics. Something that both City Council and the Mayor's Office will have to work on.

Hmmm...I guess, sadly, I was right and you were wrong.

I'm giving up on politics...

...at least for the rest of today. (My teevee will now be tuned to shows with happy and satisfying endings rather than election results.)
.

Lil Mayor Luke will continue to be Lil Mayor Luke

Lukey wins.
.