Intra-Page Navigation by Post Number

• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05
• 06
• 07
• 08
• 09
• 10

An Open Letter to Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

The GOP's Whip v. The Dem's Wet Noodle

August 20, 2009
Post 01
by Kay Street

I would like to address to you one question: How can you enact legislation that reflects the will of the people when your party is frequently fractured on any given issue, and when the Republicans speak with essentially a single voice that will brook no compromise, and yet continue to perpetuate the myth of “bipartisan” solutions?

First, I'd like to talk to Sen, Reid. On health care reform, the Republicans have made heir position clear: they stand with the special interests, and against the will of the American people. Yet, Sen. Reid, continues to wait for the so-called “Gang of Six” to weigh in on a “bipartisan” health care reform.

Sen. Grassley, ranking member of the “Gang of Six” has pledged to vote against any reform bill, even if he gets all the concessions he asks for. How is that bipartisan? He gets to negotiate on behalf of the special interests, then vote against that which he helped to ruin -- no downside here for Mr. Grassley. The only downside is for the American people. Further, he continues to work to undermine the reform efforts outside of Congress by perpetuating lies and rumors, and outright mocking the Democrat's plan¹.

That is not “bipartisan,” Sen. Reid – it's more like intentionally inviting sabotage.

Finance Committee Chair, Sen. Max Baucus, apparently can't even count. It's my understanding committee assignments are supposed to reflect the current make-up of that particular house. By my reckoning, with the Senate at 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, this ratio when applied to a six person committee assignment, means 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans, not half and half. What's worse, is having Sen. Grassley there at all. How can having someone whose views are admittedly aimed at only one thing -- killing the very legislation in question -- be at all helpful to the process of crafting that legislation.

Tell me, Sen. Reid, what good did it do us, the American people, to hand you a super majority when you use it to invite sabotage by the Republicans? Are you trying to lose the mid-term elections? Seriously, I fail to see the logic. Even if you craft decent reform legislation, like H.R. 676 for example, and it fails to pass, it's better than passing a “Medicare Part D - like” “bipartisan” substitute that favors only the special interests, and checking health care reform off your list as “done.” Thereby, losing this amazing opportunity for who knows how long.

To Speaker Pelosi, things are a little better in your house, but the Democrats are still all over the map on what constitutes good health care reform. I can't see how you plan to pass meaningful reform when you have H.R. 676, medicare for everyone supporters; H.R. 3200 with a public insurance option supporters; H.R. 3200 without a public insurance option supporters; co-op with a public option trigger supporters; and well, I'm sure there's a few more. Meanwhile, the Republicans are essentially all on board in the view that delaying and/or killing reform is the objective.

You need to get your houses in order. We can elect Democratic representatives, but it's up to you, the congressional leaders, to make them work together to better the lives of the American people. We did our part, please do yours.

Apparently, given the current rhetoric, the White House is making plans to abandon us to the greed of the special interests. Recently, saying a public option is non-essential, and “not the main objective” of reform, and the like. But what good is banning discriminatory practices, when millions are still barred from entry by the very thing H.R. 676 would cure – a lack of money! Most of the 47 million uninsured are not in that plight due to discriminatory practices alone, but due to lack of affordability. Please, we need your help.

1.Chuck Grassley: If You Want Good Health Insurance, Work For The Government
Senator Calls for Narrower Measure: Republican Grassley Cites Town Hall Anger
Grassley Endorses "Death Panel" Rumor: "You Have Every Right To Fear"
Grassley Comment Raises Fresh Doubts About Bipartisanship
Grassley Calls Obama and Pelosi 'Intellectually Dishonest'
GOP Senator Pushing For "Bipartisan" Health Bill Calls Dem Plan "Idiotic"

I expect no reply from this inquiry.

You can comment on this post here.

Back to Top

Blinders

August 18, 2009
Post 09
by Kay Street

Dear Sen. Snowe and Sen. Collins,

In 1997 Sen. Snowe gave a speech at the commencement ceremony for the graduating class at the John F. Kennedy School for Government. In this speech, the senator spoke about partisanship and it's ultimate incompatibility with the goal of governing well. Unfortunately, these words are even more true today than they were then. Here, I think, is a particularly apt paragraph:

I still remember politics without spin... If I remember correctly, it even had a name -- it was called the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Putting the “Fairness Doctrine” aside for the moment, I do believe that congress, as a whole, is out of touch with the realities of “Main Street” America. Particularly the billionaire boy's club known as the U.S. Senate (kind of ironic that both my senators are women... for which I am eternally grateful). I think it always has been this way. I've read U.S. history fairly extensively, and it's always been, as it is now, that the legislative branch is made up of good, high-minded people who truly want to serve and better the lives of their country's people. The problem lies in knowing how. I think this is where congress tends to put on blinders that they are, perhaps, not even aware of having donned.

Looking back over the last decade, I see a pattern. Yes, you govern, but from the perspective of the ordinary American, you consistently fail to govern well. You look after the needs of the special interests, and tell yourselves that is what is best for my country. Some of you may even believe it. I'll get some examples soon, but in nearly every case of major or controversial legislation passed in the last decade, the only big winners were government and corporations.

And guess what? Our country is a mess! So I urge you to take off your blinders when considering health care reform, and realize the only... only... ONLY way health care reform will improve the lot of ordinary Americans, like me, is if you have the foresight and courage to remove it from the greedy claws of for-profit corporations. As Rep. Harman points out below, we have no bully pulpit: what we have is you. Please, for once, represent us instead of the special interests.

And don't.... just don't... hand me any “deficit-neutral” garbage. During this last decade, congress spent $1.35 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy special interests. During the last year? $4.7 trillion on the wealthy Wall Street financial sector. But, whenever it comes to helping out Main Street... suddenly it's absolutely essential that purse-strings remain closed. This needs to change.

We have a chance... right here, right now... to do something great for the American people, but it'll take courage. Courage to stand up to the special interests. It'll take foresight. The foresight to ignore petty minutiae we pretend are stumbling blocks, and plot a way around, over or through any real issues we may find in the way of true reform as embodied in H.R. 676.

So... on to some examples of what I mean.

HR 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act; signed into law June 7, 2001. Reduced incrementally from 2001 to 2006 the tax rate for the 4 highest tax brackets: -3%, -3%, -3%, and -4.6% respectively. Projected to reduce total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. A bill you both voted for.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act? Well, the tax relief part worked fairly well, as did the surplus reduction part... it didn't even take the 10 years the CBO predicted-- it took one. But economic growth, on the other hand, went rather in the other direction. While wages remained flat, costs of health care and higher education sky-rocketed, and low interest rates began to sink the “middle class” American family into an ocean of debt that would soon began drown them.

So, the score for this bill? Where A = greatly improved, C = neutral, and F = well, really bad.

For the Wealthiest Americans and Corporations: A+
This bill was a real hit! Improved profits, capital gains, dividends, and executive salaries and bonuses – all with a lower tax burden.

Middle Class Working Americans: D-
For working American families, the news was less good. Wage and Job numbers remained flat, inflation was low except for energy, food, health care, and higher education which rose at levels up to 5 times that of inflation. They received a modest amount of tax relief. The end result: a net loss in improving the lives of these Americans.

Poor Americans: F
The only plus for these Americans was that of millions more of their neighbors got to join them in the ranks of Americans living below the poverty line.

Bottom line: The bill worked extremely well if you were already rich, but for the remaining 98% of Americans, it was a total bust, and cost the American taxpayer – well, who really knows how much, but it helped turn a $250 billion budget surplus into a $350 billion deficit in less than 5 years.

This provisions of this bill were updated/expanded a couple times:

H.R.2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, in May of 2003

H.R.1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act , in October of 2004

In spite of the good intentions implied by the names of these two bills, the results only proved to exacerbate the effects of H.R.1836. I trust you have heard about the Franklin quote concerning ...taking the same action repeatedly and insanity? However, Sen. Snowe voted against these two bills, thank you!

There were a few more disasters in there... a couple more tax cuts (remember – insanity). A failure to regulate the financial markets despite Treasury Secretary John Snow's repeated efforts (practically begging, really) to make clear to Congress just how needed regulation was in the financial housing market. Sec. Snow testified before congress in 2003 and again in 2005.

Ah, 20/20 foresight.

Ok, so much for improving the economy, let's talk about civil rights and liberties. In the wake of 9/11, congress, in a well-intentioned effort to keep us safe, passed a number of bills that expanded government powers to interfere in the lives of ordinary Americans, this in spite of the constitutional protections against doing so. That last sentence is almost as vague as the “safeguards” to protecting citizen's rights in the bills mentioned above, so I'll be more specific.

Lets talk about the Protect America Act (PAA) – again, the name implies a well-intentioned congressional effort. What really happened was closer to a nightmare. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

Dictionary.com defines “secure” as: “1. free from or not exposed to danger or harm; safe.” So in order for us to be safe, as guaranteed us by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, the government needs to keep it's nose where it belongs.

The PAA failed to accomplish this in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite -- what it did accomplish:

Covered up an eight year long illegal government spying operation aimed at ordinary Americans, gave the Telecoms who collaborated with the executive's illegal programs a “get out of jail free card” and (not in the bill) access to lucrative government contracts.

What did ordinary (and not so ordinary) Americans get?

From the ACLU:

From Hugh's List:

From Salon.com:

And for “not so ordinary” Americans? This from Salon.com:

Jane Harman: Angry, partisan, civil liberties extremist

Seems like Sen. Collins may have been mistaken about “If you're not doing anything wrong...” Because it looks to me like we have plenty to worry about.

You can comment on this post here.

Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.
Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.

Back to Top

"Bipartisanship" is Not.

August 15, 2009
Post 08
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I have received your reply regarding my recent correspondance on health care reform. Thank you.

In this letter, I'd like to address the issue of "bipartisanship."

First of all, take a look around you... how many of your GOP colleagues have not returned for the 111th Congress? What does that tell you? It should be telling you: we, the people, don't want “bipartisan.” We want real change.

In the current political climate, “bipartisanship” is a myth. To the majority of house and senate republicans, it has only one meaning: we get what we want, when we want it, and without compromise. It doesn't matter what the American people want and voted for. Now, I know this typically doesn't apply to you, or Sen. Collins for that matter. After all, Maine has a proud tradition of electing excellent representatives no matter their party affliation. But on health care reform, you, the vast majority of your GOP colleagues, and even some conservative democrats, are only part of the problem. When one side won't bend, there can be no compromise, and without compromise there is no “bipartisanship”.

The republicans proved this when working on the stimulus bill. In spite of the president's efforts to accommodate the republicans by making concessions on taxes and spending, not a single house republican, and only 3 senate republicans voted for it. They effectively announced, it's our way or the highway!

You, Senator, along with Sen. Collins and Sen. Specter, did vote for the stimulus bill, but used your leverage to cut billions in spending. Which you then hailed as a victory for “fiscal responsibility.” Frankly, after handing over $4.7 trillion to Wall Street, no strings attached, I'm surprised anyone could say that with a straight face. Rest assured, most of the American public was not fooled. One of the nastiest things your “fiscal responsibility” did was hamstring state governments, forcing lay-offs of teachers, police, firefighters. Yes, even Maine had a budget shortfall and was forced to cut funding for projects for the poor such as homeless shelters.

In what is quickly becoming a GOP trademark, this story takes a distinctly Orwellian twist, as some of your colleagues are offering, as proof of the president's lack of bipartisan effort, the fact that no house republicans and only three senate republicans voted for the stimulus bill. When in point of fact, the president went so far in his attempts to include the republican caucuses, that he weakened his own legislation to the point where the "bailout of main street" became an under-effective public works project.

I realise you can't speak for your colleagues on this issue, so no reply is necessary, but I did want to point out that the frequent use of the term “bipartisan” in regards to health care reform is ludicrous. The GOP has made their position clear on the issue.... they stand with the special interests, and against the will of the American people.

The GOP answer to health care reform seemes to me to consist of an effort to confuse, mislead, mis-direct, obfuscate, and terrify the American people. Issueing memos advocating the use of delibrately misleading language, and outright falsehoods to designed to scare the American people into delaying, or even better in the GOP playbook, outright killing enactment of reform that over 75% of Americans want! You even noted in your recent newsletter, The Snowe Report, dated 7-31-09, that:

Apparently, you are content to stay above the GOP tactics when framing your thoughts on the debate, but perfectly willing to use the results of your party's underhanded tactics as ammunition in your efforts to sway the American people.

The RNC memo advocates characterizing everything the president has done or wants to accomplish as... if already tried, "a failed experiment" or if planned “a dangerous experiment.” Dictionary.com defines experiment thusly: "a test, trial, or tentative procedure..." This rhetoric is hardly intended to inspire confidence.

They go on to blame the president, who has been in office a meager six months, for the Wall Street disaster and the ailing economy. While there is some merit to the claims that the administration's handling of Wall Street, at least, was faulty at best, it of course, totally ignores the role of the previous administration and that of congress in the crisis.

They then make several blatantly false and/or deliberately misleading statements about the president's plan with the intention of generating exactly the reaction from the American people you refer to above.

For example:

Even if it were true, this not would differ from many private insurance company policies. But it's not true... this is exactly one of the items the president's plan proposes to fix. In fact, the language of HR 3200 as currently written is not so very different from your own SHOP Act, with the exceptions of being available to everyone, and offering a strong public option. Compare Sec. 3200. of the SHOP Act to HR 3200, as currently written, Subtitle C. Sec. 123... if this was a literary or scholarly work, you'd have a good case for plagiarism.

If you want to talk about failed experiments, pass a prescription drug cost reform bill, and turn the whole thing over to private insurers with minimal safeguards, and no bargaining power. I have Medicare part D insurance myself, I have had to change providers every year I have been in the program to ensure all my medications are covered, and they still try, every single year, to deny payment for medically necessary meds... until my doctor ( a kind, caring and persistent soul) has jumped through enough hoops to satisfy them he's not giving up. That's what I call a failed experiment!

Then there's the whole “death panel” issue. Your so-called “bipartisan” senate Finance Committee “working group” which has been called upon to draft the Finance Committee's version of health care reform legislation... Has as it's ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Who is truly a shining example of your “bipartisan” effort. Apparently he is spending his summer vacation perpetuating false rumors about currently drafted reform proposals. Here is a small sampling of the fallout:

Grassley Comment Raises Fresh Doubts About Bipartisanship.
Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 08-13-09.

Grassley Endorses "Death Panel" Rumor: "You Have Every Right To Fear."
Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 08-12-09.

GOP Senator Pushing For "Bipartisan" Health Bill Calls Dem Plan "Idiotic."
Media Matters, 08-6-09.

Grassley Uses Kennedy's Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing.
thinkprogress.org, 08-5-09.

Now for the obligatory Orwellian twist: according to Time:

Oh, Those Death Panels.
Amy Sullivan Thursday, August 13, 2009.

Sen. Grassley voted for legislation containing essentially the same provision – the only difference: In the version Sen. Grassley favored, you had to be terminally ill before seeking counseling... whereas, Sec. 1233 of HR 3200, merely expands coverage to those voluntarily seeking counseling – before they become terminally ill. It's not even a new provision! Having already voted for it, Sen. Grassley can hardly claim ignorance of the actual language of Sec. 1233, so that makes him... what? A liar and a hypocrite?

The GOP memo and recent talking points preach delay, delay, delay... in the hopes the that the enormous political capital this issue generates will begin to wane. In short, your party... your caucus... has done, and continues to do, whatever is in their power to block the progress the American people want and voted for... by any means, fair or foul.

Frankly, Senator, the American people have made thier wishes clear... no more failed GOP policies! So if your ideology won't let you lead, and won't let you follow... at least do us the courtesy of getting out of the way.

A reply to this post was not requested.

Back to Top

You're Fighting For The F-22? Really?

August 11, 2009
Post 07
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe and Senator Collins,

I am writing to ask about your continued support of the F-22 project. In a time when the biggest excuse among congressional naysayers to meaningful health care reform is a huge national debt, and budget shortfalls that add to that total, how do you justify your support for spending $1.75 billion on an airplane no one seems to want. The President doesn't want it, Defense Secretary Gates doesn't want it, and in fact, according to the Washington Post, asked the president to veto the military spending bill if the Senate retained F-22 funding.

Senator Snowe, on your web site, you defend the project saying, "The F-22 Raptor is a vital component of the national security of our great nation. Today’s Senate action is a setback to ensuring the program’s continued production and I will pursue every possible avenue to have this vital funding included in the final defense authorization bill." Senator Collins used similar language in a recent letter to me concerning the F-22. Thank you, and it's good to know your respective stances on the issue. However, the “vital to national security” thing isn't exactly true, is it?

According the Washington Post, this plane has many problems and was designed 30 years ago to counter a threat that no longer even exists! It has never been flown in combat despite past and continuing U.S. military operations in the Middle East. That doesn't sound all that “vital” to me.

Still, if the plane was capable of doing it's job for a reasonable cost, there's always a chance the threat could re-occur. But according the Washington Post article and I quote, “The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin... [has] unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion...” A vulnerability to RAIN?!?! Sounds like a pretty serious drawback for an airplane to me.

The Post article quotes a Defense Department official as saying, "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.” And states that each plane costs $350 million to build and $44,000 an hour to fly. The article also points out that most aircraft fleets get cheaper to maintain over time, but the F-22's “key maintenance figures have been negative in recent years.”

So we've a choice: spend 1.75 billion building this “vital” asset and spending who knows how much maintaining a fleet where, according to the Post article, almost half of the planes are not even combat ready at any given moment, or we could get serious about health care reform. I know you're both hawkish, but the choice between $350 million for an asset of questionable value and that costs $44,000/hr. to maintain versus using that money to pay for health care reform... The choice seems obvious to me. I confess to being somewhat alarmed that it is not obvious to both of you.

Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.
Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.

Back to Top

Controlling Costs Possible In Current System?

August 11, 2009
Post 06
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I am, once again, writing you in regards to health care reform. Today, I'd like to talk a little bit about cost.

In a recent communication, you professed some alarm at the CBO's trillion dollar 10 year cost estimate for the current legislation under consideration, then in your last newsletter you concede that “[developing legislative language]...which the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] said is critical in comprehending the full cost and total effects of this bill.” I'm glad, that's a tiny step in the right direction, anyway. As I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Elmendorf himself, admitted the trillion dollar figure was based on insufficient data, as the bill is not even fully formed. By all means, let's hold off denouncing legislation on the basis of cost until we know what we're dealing with. Well, maybe next time.

The thing is, if you take Mr. Elemndorf at his word, and I see no reason not to, where the bill fails is... it adds to the federal government's liability for health care costs, while not going far enough to control those costs. This means, at least in my view, the government needs to provide a low cost alternative . Preferably a single payer system, as in HR 676.

Why? Well, let's see where our health care dollars are going:

Health & Disability Insurers 2008 CEO Compensation
Unum Group
CEO Thomas R. Watjen:............. 12,262,978
Coventry Health Care Inc.
CEO Dale B. Wolf:................. 11,018,797
Humana Inc.
CEO Michael B. McCallister:.......  5,185,414
CIGNA Corporation
CEO H. Edward Hanway:............. 12,236,740
Aflac Incorporated
CEO Daniel P. Amos:............... 10,783,232
Aetna Inc.
CEO Ronald A. Williams:........... 18,608,778
WellPoint, Inc.
CEO Angela F. Brady:..............  8,665,596
Principle Financial Group, Inc.
CEO Larry D. Zimpleman............  6,347,488
Total:.............................85,109,023

Source: AFL-CIO Corporate Watch. NOTE: "In order to show the full value of equity awards granted to executives, the AFL-CIO Total includes the Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Options Awards as found in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table of the company’s proxy statement." This varies a bit from SEC filings... which use the method set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

To be fair, most of these people took a pay cut over their 2007 compensation totals, by as much as 50%. Of course, that means these people were gouging us for up to twice as much just one year before, and worse yet, reduced overhead while making no effort to reduce consumer costs!

To top this off, CIGNA's H. Edward Hanway retired this year at age 57, and walked away with a “golden parachute” worth $73 million. By all means, let's protect the interests of these companies... it sounds like they are really hurting during this economic crisis.

Plus they like to make a profit, maybe pay dividends, lobby congress, make political contributions, advertise, fund 527s front groups to run propaganda campaigns, and the like. All things that cost money – a lot of money, yet have no part in the healing or the prevention of sickness and disease.

Ok, that's 85 million dollars to pay eight employees. By Comparison, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asked for a total Employee Compensation of $424,000,000 for it's 4200+ employees – an average of $100,000 per employee. The agency is non-profit -- no shareholders to satisfy, no advertising, no lobbying, no political contributions to make, or 527s advocacy groups to fund. The money is spent on a drastically reduced overhead and health care. Does this sound more efficient to anyone else?

Source for agency wages: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.

Frankly, as long as you... congress... we as Americans... all insist that we be served our health care needs by for-profit corporations, there can be no cost containment. There can be no emphasis on prevention over reaction. The emphasis will always be on profits over people. Truthfully, I hardly see that as an efficient use of my health care dollar. I'm guessing you wouldn't either... if you actually had to pay for yours.

You can comment on this post here.

Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this letter.

Back to Top

Ok, I'm A Little Angry Now.

August 10, 2009
Post 05
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I am continuing to work my way through your correspondence dated, July 9th 2009 on health care reform. I will address some additional questions I have in this missive.

In your letter you state:

By “some” I guess you mean the 83% of Americans who want a strong public option? You have a real gift for understatement.

In what way would a public option “compromise competition and innovation?” Having occasionally watched C-SPAN, and even more frequently seen C-SPAN clips used in other programs, I realize that members of congress have a habit of making such broad generalized statements... typically, as in this case, without any evidence. Since it seems to be your whole argument against a public option... me, I'd like to know what makes you think that?

In the last ten years, the only competition has been which of the mega-corporations can swallow up the smaller players the fastest, and the only innovation... raising rates at 4 times that of inflation while purging all their customers who actually, you know, use the insurance to get health care.

Is it that you think that all the industrialized nations on earth, with the sole exception of the United States, are wrong in offering their citizens free health care? Why?

We can't afford it? We have the largest economy of any single country on earth... considered per capita, it's even more impressive... so why it is these countries can afford what we cannot?

You go on to mention a “safety net” plan, and cite Medicare Part D as an example?!? You can't be serious! That is the absolute worst piece of reform legislation in my lifetime. I know from personal experience, I have Medicare Part D. Why is it so terrible? Because as usual, congress caved to the special interests and left out key reform elements, like bargaining power. In fact, earlier in your letter you mention the MEND Act which is designed to fix this... how about we get health care reform right the first time?

I may have said this before, but it bears repeating... On Medicare Part D, the insurance companies adjust their formularies to enhance profits as often as possible, leaving me, and others like me, to scramble around time and again to find coverage that matches our medication needs. I can't see people standing still for having their health plans ratcheted around year to year by corporations whose only goal is profit.

Just to be clear here... health care is a right, and NOT A MARKET. Do you really believe that making money on the backs of people's pain and suffering is ethical? I mean, it's right there in the preamble of the Constitution... “establish justice, ....promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty...” I notice no lack of support for one of those phrases in the middle: “...provide for the common defense...” You wholeheartedly endorse a socialized war effort.

Last, the question I really want answered: Since you are so against government sponsored health care, are you going to return an equitable portion of your salary to cover the fair market value of your health plan? The salaries of your staff? The pay of the entire military?

Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this letter.

Back to Top

Concerns About Money In Politics

August 8, 2009
Post 01
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I have received your reply regarding my recent correspondance on health care reform. Thank you for the reply, however, it doesn't answer all my questions. I would appreciate some clarification on some points.

In this letter, I'd like to address the issue of what I call Congressional incentive... or the money/lobby effect.

In the normal course of events in a democracy, when 76% of the people agree on an issue, that issue must be Important... with a capital “I”... and the need must be Immediate... also with a capital “I.” It is the role of government, in such cases, to enact reform that reflects the will of the governed. Wouldn't you say?

So I have to ask, why all the caveats and privisoes, the hedging and delays? I think, at least in part, this stems from congressional incentive.

The medical, pharmacuetical and insurance lobby have spent over $149 million on lobbying this year alone, an increase of 41% according to USA Today , to kill or cripple reform. Some members of congress have taken contributions from these interests. Anywhere from a pittance to several million dollars. Intentional or not, this is bound to have an effect on any congress person's perspective.

You cite, in your letter and newsletter, how Senator Baucus, the chair of the Finance comittee has selected you for a "bipartisan" subcommittee [Referred to in Snowe Report dated August 7, as a "working group" rather than a formal subcommitte.] to develop health care reform legislation. Senator Baucus may be a Democrat, but he has also taken $3,973,485 in contributions from health and insurance interests.

On July 17th 2009, The Huffington Post reported the following:

The people on this list represent some of those who taken the largest amount of contributions from the interested industries.

Sen. Mary Landrieu: $1,653,943

Sen. Joe Lieberman: $3,308,621

Sen. Ben Nelson: $2,214,715

Source for contribution data: Democracy for America

You have taken over $1 million from those with vested interests, yourself. Furthermore, your office has close ties to a few notable lobbying firms (Capitol Counsel, Petrizzo Strategic Group (PSG) and Cassidy & Associates ) that have represented quite a list of very interested clients, such as The Healthcare Leadership Council, Health Care Service Corp ., PhRMA, Medica HealthCare Plans, Inc, to name a few.

Source: The Huffington Post; Snowe's ties To Health Care Industry Raise Concern As Reform Talk Heats Up

Again, with the possible exception of Sen. Nelson, I'm not making any accusations of influence peddling, but it's bound to color perceptions. You're on vacation right now... if you haven't seen it, rent a DVD of the movie 12 Angry Men, and you'll see what I mean.

A close association can lead to empathy you're not even aware of... try reaching out to Mainers, get their stories (I mean besides the crazy ones, like me, who write you all the time), and see if you don't empathize with them.

Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this letter.

Back to Top

Footnote on Money in Politics

August 8, 2009
Post 02a
by Kay Street

This was not included in the above correspondence.

On Sen. Nelson... what follows is a quote from a statement released August 1st 2009, by Jake Thompson, Senator Ben Nelson’s spokesman, in response to an ad running in the Nebraska media concerning Senator Nelson and health care.

I find the implications of the phrase “raise money to try to buy influence inside the beltway” somewhat alarming. Is he admitting that influence is for sale? That corruption is so rampant that influence peddling is now a congressional paradigm? I wonder.

I'm not that naive, of course it is... but to come right out and say so is rather bold... or maybe arrogant is the word.

Back to Top

The SHOP Act? Good Start, but not nearly enough.

August 7, 2009
Post 01
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I have received your reply regarding my recent correspondance on health care reform. Thank you for the reply, however, it doesn't answer all my questions. I would appreciate some clarification on some points... beginning with the SHOP Act.

You mentioned the SHOP Act in your as means for small businesses to better afford health care options for their employees. I see a few problems with this approach.

First, it's a piecemeal aproach to health care reform. Something I feel is better crafted as a whole, and taking into consideration the whole of the problem. But hypothetically, let's say it passes and is effective, small business now has tax and market incentive to shop for employee health insurance. Okay, you've covered some of the forty million (and rising daily) of American workforce without health insurance, but there are so many cracks in this approach that a good portion of the un-insured are bound to fall through. The businesses that use mostly part-time help to avoid paying benefits, the currently horrendous, and rising ranks of the unemployed to name just a couple.

Now a problem I see with the plan itself, the biggest flaw, in my view, is that it relies on an industry everyone concedes is broken. You can form all the co-op marketplaces you want, but you can't make them competitive in the current system. A grand total of eight mega-corporations have a stranglehold on the insurance market. Your plan assumes that small business lack of buying power is the major issue with affordability... in a market where, in the last ten years, the cumulative increase in cost for employee benefit health insurance has risen 119% compared to 29% for inflation and a cumulative average worker wage increase of 34%... your optimism for this plan seems a little naive (source for quoted numbers: Cumulative Changes in Health Insurance Premiums, Inflation and Worker's Earnings 1999 - 2008, The Kaiser Family Foundation, facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=707).

I see nothing in the plan that stops this out-of-control cost spiral. In a market where even the "best" deals are basically criminally poor, a little added buying power and competition are unlikely to be very effective.

Allowing exclusions for "pre-existing conditions" is reprehensible, and at least in part, what health care reform is supposed to be fixing.

We already have a bureaucracy in place to manage public health care... It's called Medicare, why create another one with all the associated overhead costs? But, if you're going to create a new bureaucracy anyway, why not use it to cover everyone?

Also of note, if the rules for entry into this marketplace are considered by the industry to be too restrictive (having read them, however, they seem more than amply favorable to insurers), is there anything from stopping them from simply saying, "Thanks, but I'll pass?"

Last and least, since the bill seems to me to go not nearly far enough to offer any real help, according to Govtrack.us, this bill died in committee last session, though I understand Senator Durbin reintroduced the bill in May. Still, it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of traction at present.

Scan of the reply: Sen. Snowe on Health Care Reform

Back to Top

"Maine Is A Low-cost, High Quality State." Really?

July 2009
Post 02
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Collins,

I read your recent email newsletter. and noted in particular your comments on health care reform in which you stated, " The State of Maine is a high-quality, low-cost state, and it is critical that our state’s health care providers are not harmed by reforms."

I can't say I agree. I understand that your health coverage is provided at no cost to you, and you spend a lot of your time in D.C., so maybe you're a little out of touch with the reality of the situation here in Maine. I recently had the misfortune of shopping for health insurance for a family member, and learned that premiums average over $1,300 a month, and companies are allowed to reject claims on based on "pre-existing" conditions when insurance coverage lapses for more than 90 days. In my view, that's neither "low-cost" nor "quality."

Furthermore, my sister, who is currently without coverage, went to a clinic for a simple complaint... a boil in need of lancing. She was charged $250 prior to being seen, and told that this fee usually covered the visit, and likely any procedure needed that could be completed during the course of the visit. A few weeks later she received a bill for over $2,000. In this case, the quality of the care was not in question, but I'd hardly describe $2,250 for lancing a boil as "low-cost."

It would be a nice change if congress would consider the plight of the more than 70% of Americans who need and want a public option, rather than the profits of insurer's and health care providers.

Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.

Back to Top

Somewhat Exasperated Questions On Health Care Reform

July 2009
Post 01
by Kay Street

Dear Senator Snowe,

I have a few questions regarding your stance on health care reform.

First and foremost, why do you support a plan that includes a "trigger" option, rather than just a straight out public option? You do realize over 70% of the American people... in any poll you care to name... support such a plan. Seems like the only people not on board are those in the health and insurance industries, and the members of congress who take money from them.

Second, I have read your weekly reports, and you say the "trigger" will come into play "after market and insurance reforms are implemented." What are these reforms? How will they help me? And why should we have to wait for a system already proven to be flawed and even outright broken, to fail further before you will commit to doing anything meaningful. You cannot seriously ask that we take it on faith that "market and insurance reforms" are all that's necessary. It was government policy that allowed the insurance companies to merge into the mega-corporate behemoths that wield near monopoly power on the market. Exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.

After the Wall Street melt-down we asked you for meaningful over-sight and reforms on the banking industry... instead you handed over more than a trillion [Edit: actual total more like $4.7 trillion] to the very architects of the melt-down with essentially no strings attached.

We asked for meaningful regulation on predatory lending and credit card practices, instead you passed a watered-down to the point of being pointless bill... in other words, one that the banking lobby could live with.

You sold us out to the telecom industry by passing the PAA, giving immunity to companies that may have broken privacy laws and the fourth amendment. You said that the companies "believed they were acting in good faith." If that's an excuse to break the law, you'd have to give immunity to the 9/11 hi-jackers as well.

You passed the PATRIOT ACT twice, knowing it violated the Constitution... so much so, that the legislature in your own state passed a resolution saying that Maine would not enforce many of it's provisions.

Source for the Maine House resolution: I discussed this in person with then Rep. Jeremy Fischer of Maine's 5th District in November of 2006.

To sum up the performance of congress, in every instance during current and past crises, you have sided with corporations and the lobbyists representing them. We haven't any faith left.

You have said that the cost of a public option is a major concern you have, and you oppose tax increases to pay for it. Let me ask, who pays for your health insurance? Because you're a Senator, it's fair, right and just for the government to pick up the tab for you, but not for us?

Further, we spend about sixty percent of the discretionary federal budget on defense. Something along the lines of 638 billion in the upcoming appropriations bill has been asked for, I understand. So I can only guess, that you believe it to be cost effective to keep us safe, but not healthy? That, of course, doesn't include the cost of fighting a war on two fronts for last 8 years. Not to mention the trillion plus dollars [Edit: actual total more like $4.7 trillion] you handed to Wall Street. A public option looks like a real bargain to me in comparison to what we got for all that money. Of course, I don't have to rely on contributions from the defense, banking and insurance industries... so I guess it might look like less of a bargain to you.

If you really want to help the people of Maine and all of the American people, get on board with real campaign finance reform, and start representing the people. The lobbyists and the industries they represent may contribute to your warchest, but K Street is not located in your district.

Scan of the reply: Sen. Snowe on Health Care Reform

Back to Top

• E-mail me
• Email Sen. Olympia Snowe
• Email Sen. Susan Collins
• Email Rep. Mike Michaud