Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!

Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
Coarse Cracked Corn
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
Shad Plank
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll

Surprise, Surprise? No...Just Follow the Money

by: Elaine in Roanoke

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 18:41:40 PM EDT

( - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)

Those of us who are old enough remember that "Deep Throat," the tip-off guy who fed information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporters seeking to unravel the scandal known as the Watergate break-in, said to "follow the money" have less trouble than some other people in figuring out why the Senate Finance Committee voted down the public option.

(By the way, for you younger folks, Mark Felts, who was an associate director of the FBI at the time, was the source for information that led Woodward and Bernstein to the information that ultimately uncovered the cover-up of the Watergate break-in which ultimately brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon, the only president to resign from the office.)

Taking Felt's long-ago advice, let's "follow the money" as we try to explain the vote in the Senate Finance Committee, where the public option was defeated 13-10 on Sen, Schumer's (D-NY) amendment. Note well: That's in a committee that has 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans. If the world worked as it should, the vote would have been 13-10 in favor.

The three Democrats who voted against a public option were Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Max Baucus (D-MT). It's easy to "follow the money." Just follow the campaign contributions.

Elaine in Roanoke :: Surprise, Surprise? No...Just Follow the Money
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who is up for re-election in 2010, has received $324,350 from the health care industry. (Second only to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada! Who would have thought that the biggest feeder at the money trough would have been a Democrat, and the Senate leader at that? It's really no surprise to those of us who know that the elite behind the throne always gives the biggest bucks to the party in control at the time.)

Committee chair Max Baucus of Montana raked in $141,000 this year. Baucus has never been a supporter of the public option, instead covering himself with a state non-profit "co-operative," whatever that means.

Sen. Kent Conrad is the laggard in the money race, raking in only $51,000 from the health industry. Of course, North Dakota is a state with a small population and one where one company dominates the health insurance industry, to the tune of 90%.

Lest you think the lobbyists leave out the opposition party, Virginia's own Rep. Eric Cantor (R-7th) was the Republican to bring in the most from the health sector for the year ($199,550). He got $54,100 from health insurers and $76,400 from pharmaceuticals.

Please note that money can't buy all the people in the Senate. Chuck Schumer of New York got $257,400 from the health industry and Ron Wyden of Oregon received  $221,450, yet neither had their votes up for sale.

Now, I realize that there may be valid reasons for the three Democrats to have voted against public option. However, when a politician takes that kind of money from the very people who have an obvious interest in keeping reform from happening, it is almost impossible not to judge them as "bought." If the situation is otherwise, they owe all of us an explanation.

The lie told to the American people is that money simply buys "access." I prefer the old-fashioned term, "bribery." When people invest vast sums of money in the re-election campaigns of politicians, they expect something in return. I know I do with the small amounts I give as contributions. It is an insult to my intelligence to tell me that the big corporate contributions aren't made with the expectation of a quid pro quo.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Quid Pro Quo?
You find corruption because you disagree with some Senators votes, but find none with the Senators whom you agree with. This seems to me to be a false correlation.

If you assume the worst about the Senators who you disagree with, you must also assume that Schumer and Wyden are also "on the take," but are just cleverer about it.

Instead, how about a civil dialogue based on the assumption that all these democrats are striving in good faith to keep faith with their constituencies?  

It is not agreement or disagreement.
You know them by whether they come down on the side of big corporations every time, or for the more than 300 million citizens.  There may be many with whom I disagree on this or that issue.  But it is abundantly clear from all the entanglements that Baucus has, for example, has that he is not operating "in good faith."  He's very corrupted by corporate dollars.  He's a one man Insurance Wealth Protection Act.  Over 3.4 mil dollars to him from the hc industry and you can see it in every aspect of his "plan."  He put in  a loophole to grandfather half of Americans so that they won't be really exempt for protection against discrimination due to their preexisting conditions.

His staff members and insurance lobbyists have a rotating door.  His bill pads Big Insurance's pockets but figures out ways to raise premiums on the old (5 times what others pay) and those receiving Medicare who cannot get their lab numbers in the right direction.

But put any restraints on Big Insurance?  Hell no.  Sure he put one thing in the bill to reduce the taxpayer giveaways (subsidies) to "Medicare" Advantage (privatized) plans which only advantage Big Insurance.  But there should be NO excess payments whatsoever.  As if these companies need any more than their already record profits.  These plans entire purpose is to trick people into giving up real medicare.  

And then he lines the corporate pockets in other ways.  No cost controls, not even price negotiations.  His mandatory coverage, with no price controls and no public option, is tantamount to "wealth" (such as it is) transfer out of the pockets of 97% of Americans into the pockets of Big Insurance.

Now just whose side is he on?  Not the American people's.  He is a one-man wrecking ball.  And the Dems should throw him out of his committee leadership position.  And now!  

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

[ Parent ]
Recent Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox