Dear Blue Dog Bartlebys: Do Your Effin' Jobs. Or Quit.

Seems that a bunch of our favorite 'centrist' Congresscritters were spooked (like the scared rabbits they are) by Tuesday's voting, and want to cower in their offices and avoid any controversial votes between now and the 2010 midterm.

Brilliant.  That'll sure get the base to turn out for them, won't it?

From The Hill:

Vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want their leaders to skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda for next year to help save their seats in Congress.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, they don’t want to be forced to vote on climate change, immigration reform and gays in the military, which they say should be set aside so Congress can focus on jobs and the economy.

“It’s hard; the most important issue in front of us is the economy right now, and that’s where most of us really want to stay focused, the economy and jobs, that’s what our constituency is concerned about,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who is facing a tough race next year in Arkansas.

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), a centrist contemplating a run for Senate in North Carolina, helped Democratic leaders in the summer by voting for climate change legislation on the House floor.

He now wants Democratic leaders to narrow their focus on jobs and the economy.

“Three things ought to be the top priority: jobs, jobs and jobs,” he said.

Lincoln said that lawmakers should focus on passing healthcare reform and wait until next year to effect financial regulatory reform and reduce unemployment.

“That’s an awful lot to bite off and chew for right now,” said Lincoln, who described herself as “not in a hurry” to tackle climate change, an issue she has some jurisdiction over as chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D), who is running for reelection in conservative-leaning Indiana, said “jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that,” echoing a sentiment of many colleagues in similar positions.

Bayh said he recognizes that Congress should be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time and hopefully do more than one thing,” but that controversial issues will become especially difficult next year.

Climate change legislation would be “difficult to accomplish under the best of times and doubly so when the economy is not at all good,” Bayh said.

...

Some Democrats are worried the ambitious agenda could make winning reelection that much harder.

“If it was up to me, I would figure out how to handle the war and fix the economy,” said Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a senior centrist Democrat who has found himself in the crosshairs of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has recruited a promising GOP challenger.

Tanner worries his party may be trying to bite off too much in the 111th Congress.

“For all of these big issues, the trick is — to use a football analogy — to go for a first down instead of an 80-yard Hail Mary,” he said. “Some of the more philosophically driven people want to do an 80-yard Hail Mary, but getting first downs is how you legislate over time.”

A group of vulnerable Democratic lawmakers see healthcare reform, climate change and immigration reform as desperation passes down the length of the political playing field. They acknowledge that healthcare reform may very well pass, but they say that climate change and immigration reform have dim prospects.

Rep. Bobby Bright, an Alabama centrist viewed as one of the most endangered Democrats in the House, said that many Americans feel alarmed by the drastic legislative changes moving through Congress. He said leaders should consider breaking up sprawling controversial bills into smaller pieces that voters would not find so daunting in size and scope.

“Maybe this healthcare bill is going drastically too far,” he said. “If we could take it in smaller steps, we could build confidence.

What a bunch of worthless grovelers.

Look, that's the point of having a government: to deal with problems that need to be addressed on a national level.  If you guys don't want to be part of that, then QUIT.  Resign.  Give your seat up, so someone else who isn't petrified in fear of what the wingnuts might say, or what the voters might do, can use it, since you're not going to.  There are only 535 people in this country who get to vote on Federal legislation.  If you don't want to be one of them, fine - but step down.  If you won't lead or follow, then get the fuck out of the way.

Like it or not, it's your job to deal with tough issues.  If you don't want the responsibility, then run for the goddamned Library Board back home.

And can we all admit that the 'jobs' bit is a pathetic dodge?  You guys don't like deficit spending, at least deficit spending that will help ordinary people.  And you don't like raising taxes.  So you're not going to borrow or raise taxes to do anything that will create jobs.  That doesn't leave much, does it?

Oh, wait, I know: you'll come up with a bill to gut regulations that protect workers and consumers, and call that a jobs bill. 

Pathetic.

Comments

[oddjob]

"Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) chastised his fellow Republicans Wednesday for refusing to deal with climate change and said they needed to see green legislation as something that could help business.

“I am no scientist, but I’ve … seen the effects of a warming planet,” he said in a press conference. “The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.”

“If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?” he asked."

- from Huffpo, via a comment at ThePlumLine. (Emphasized text mine.)

Even Graham gets it!

[litbrit]

Look, that's the point of having a government: to deal with problems that need to be addressed on a national level. If you guys don't want to be part of that, then QUIT. Resign. Give your seat up, so someone else who isn't petrified in fear of what the wingnuts might say, or what the voters might do, can use it, since you're not going to. There are only 535 people in this country who get to vote on Federal legislation. If you don't want to be one of them, fine - but step down. If you won't lead or follow, then get the fuck out of the way.

Hear, hear, ltc. Thus also spake Alan Grayson (Votes Be Upon Him), practically verbatim, too, which is why so many Floridians are supporting him and why so many Dems elsewhere are saying, "We wish he was ours!". Another thing Grayson has said, repeatedly, is that the only way to handle bullies is to stand up to their bullshit: Everyone knows you can't back down from a bully.

Honestly and truly, it is this simple: we pay these people and they work for us. If they're unwilling to do the work, then they must go, so that someone who IS willing to do the work can step in and get things moving again. Weak, lily-livered white guys (and the odd woman) beholden to Big Insurance and Big Pharma, or married to people serving on the boards of same, or working as lobbyists for same, for the love of God? In all seriousness, and with the country's best interests at heart, it's time for them to go.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

They won't quit, but maybe we should figure out a way to fire them. The following is from The Washington Independent:

Under the House bill, federal funding for CHIP would cease on Oct. 1, 2013, with kids permitted to remain in the program through the end of the year if funds permit. At the start of 2014, however, the program would end, with kids shuffling into private plans on the exchange. An exception would be made in those states that have opted to use their CHIP funds to expand Medicaid rather than create stand-alone CHIP programs. In those cases, children would remain in the Medicaid program.

The shift is indication that House Democratic leaders don’t envision a place for CHIP within the framework of the comprehensive health care reforms they hope to pass this year – reforms that include a broad expansion of Medicaid and subsidized coverage for folks earning below 400 percent of poverty, or $88,200 for a family of four.

The proposal also marks a reversal from the Democrats’ health policy position of the past two years. Created in 1997, CHIP was originally authorized for 10 years, leading to a political showdown between the Democratic Congress and President George W. Bush in 2007, when it came up for renewal. An expansion bill easily passed Congress, but Bush vetoed the measure twice, prompting Democrats to accuse the White House of putting politics above the welfare of kids. Leading the critics was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who called the vetoes “sad” and “cruel.”

And this was in the House bill -- the more liberal of the two.

(I am going to mention this as part of an extended comment on the 'losing well' thread, but it deserves repeated mention)

However, to be fair, I should mention something that doesn't get discussed in relation to 'Government-run' programs like Medicaid and Medicare. They aren't 'Government-run' at all, at least in New York -- and I'd expect if we do it, other states do the same thing.

I'm sure that the insurance companies that do run them -- if you apply for Medicaid you are placed in a specific insco's 'group' and they set the rules for what drugs and procedures are covered and what hoops you or your doctor has to jump through.

I'm sure there are regulations concerning them, and the one thing they can't do to you is cut you off, that's the one thing the State is in charge of. But you don't get 'straight Medicaid" any more, you get "HealthFirst Medicaid" or "GHI Medicaid."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oops, I slipped on the next to last paragraph.

It should read
"...or your doctor has to jump through -- have regulations they must obey, but I don't know what they are or who sees they are followed -- given staffing cuts in relevant agencies."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I've mentioned, in e-mails and in posts, the wonderful blog,Morialekefa whose author -- born on the day of the Stock Market Crash -- has just turned 80. He's a wonderfully cantankerous old man, and each day's essay -- for that's what they are -- is worth reading. But want to quote him from yesterday's post:

One often raised objection to a change in our dysfunctional health care rackets is that we can’t afford it. Got that? We can’t afford health care. We can afford a “war” in Iraq that costs billions upon billions, another “war” in Afghanistan that costs more billions, a dismally failed “war on drugs” that costs billions, tax breaks for the filthy rich who do not need them that costs more billions, an “empire” that stretches around the world and costs billions, a defense budget that costs even more billions year after year, and we can’t afford health care for our citizens? Words like “pathetic,” “insane,” “stupid,” “absurd,” “ridiculous,” “disgusting,” and even “obscene,” do not even begin to describe how unutterably awful this is. And when you realize that most of the above expenses are not even necessary to begin with it gets even worse. The war in Iraq was completely unnecessary (and even illegal and a war crime), what should have been a police action in Afghanistan somehow became a war, the war on drugs is, and has been a dismal failure for years, we do not need 1000 or so bases around the world, especially in places like Germany and Japan, the tax breaks for the obscenely rich were certainly unnecessary. What does this tell you about American priorities? It tells me we are a bunch of pitifully stupid people who have no understanding of right and wrong, no empathy for suffering humanity, and no genuine sense of community. Our society has been increasingly dysfunctional for years and we are now paying the price for our inexcusable stupidity and short-sightedness.

The rest of the column goes on to talk about global warming and argues it is the Republicans who are trying to kill us.

Thought it was relevant.

[oddjob]

The Republicans have spent the last 100 years arguing that we could not afford meaningful health care reform, through good times & bad.

What they actually mean is that they don't want it to happen (unless of course it somehow could be done in a fashion that would most benefit the big business concerns that cause most of the trouble).