Progress Illinois

The president's top domestic policy priority is one step closer to being made  law. As you've read elsewhere, the full House passed its final health care reform bill late Saturday night by a slim 220-215 margin. Although 39 Democrats eventually voted against the bill, none of Democrats hailing from President Obama's home state -- including Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster -- dissented.

While not perfect, the package approved by the House would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 36 million people currently uninsured would gain access to health care. The bill, which includes an employer mandate and a "level-playing field" public option, is also deficit neutral over the next 10 years and would impose a whole host of important consumer protections.

Unfortunately, House leadership had to strike a Faustian bargain to gain the support of conservative pro-life Democrats, including Reps. Dan Lipinski and Jerry Costello. Included in the legislation was an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupack (D-Michigan) limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the health insurance exchanges. Lipinski, who made clear this summer that he "strongly opposed any bill that's going to have public funding for abortion," even spoke in favor of the amendment on the floor minutes before the vote took place, earning praise from the Family Research Council for his efforts.

What Lipinski forgot to mention was that House tri-committee bill does not threaten the Hyde Amendment, which forbids Medicaid from using any federal money to pay for an abortion procedure. And in practical terms, it will have a devastating effect on working women. Ezra Klein explains:

If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive [it] from their employers.

Continue reading »

Some members of Senate Finance Committee may be looking to pare down the size of the upper chamber's health care package and the White House is deliberating if they would accept such a deal. Back home, lawmakers are staking out their positions as well. Here's the latest in local health care news:

Foster's Tele-Town Hall

Rep. Bill Foster, a potential swing vote, clarified his stance on many health reform issues during a tele-town hall meeting with constituents last night. The Geneva Democrat reiterated his support for a public option, albeit one that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies. He also expressed openness to a few funding mechanisms, including a surtax on the top 1 percent of the nation's wage earners or a tax on high-level health insurance policies that currently are provided tax free. For reformers, this should come as a good sign.

Continue reading »

Here's our latest health care round-up:

Senate Finance Closer To Deal

The Washington Post has the scoop of the morning, reporting that Senate negotiators in the crucial Finance Committee -- the only committee with jurisdiction over health care that hasn't yet passed a bill -- may be close to reaching a bipartisan agreement. The "Gang of Six" will meet with President Obama today to discuss those details, which don't look promising with regards to the public option:

The emerging Finance Committee bill would shave about $100 billion off the projected trillion-dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade and eventually provide coverage to 94 percent of Americans, according to participants in the talks. It would expand Medicaid, crack down on insurers, abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking and, for the first time, tax health-care benefits under the most generous plans. Backers say the bill would also offer the only concrete plan before Congress for reining in the skyrocketing cost of federal health programs over the long term.

The committee also seems to be coalescing around an idea pushed by Sen. John Kerry to raise revenue by taxing insurance companies on their most-expensive policies. Unlike the 2 percent surtax on the wealthy, this option has broader support.

How high the subsidy levels for the uninsured will extend and how the Medicaid expansion will be structured is still unknown. But right now, the objective is to get something out of committee by Obama's September 15 deadline to keep the ball rolling. If that can't be done in a bipartisan fashion, Obama says the Democrats may have to go at it alone. "I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year," he said in Indiana yesterday, "because the American people need it."

Continue reading »

At a public forum in the suburb of Summit last month, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski went on the record in support of comprehensive health care reform, including a public option to compete against private insurance companies. Given that House Blue Dogs could make-or-break the Obama administration's reform efforts, it was encouraging to hear an unequivocal endorsement of Obama's broad approach from one of the area's more conservative Democrats.

But Lipinksi's vote isn't yet secured. FireDogLake tracked down Lipinski on Capitol Hill and asked whether he would back a bill that funds abortion. Here's his answer:

LIPINSKI: I strongly oppose any bill that's going to have public funding for abortion. The American people certainly don't want that.

It's worth noting that none of the health reform bills in Congress currently threaten the Hyde Amendment, which forbids Medicaid from using any federal money to pay for an abortion procedure. President Obama himself affirmed this fact in an interview with Katie Couric, saying that "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care."

But let's be clear: the American people already fund abortion services.

Continue reading »

This past winter, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski and a slew of congressional Republicans took pot shots at the Obama administration for including spending on social programs like food stamps in their federal stimulus bill. The critics whined that the package was supposed to promote jobs, ignoring data proving that food stamps are the most stimulative type of expenditure government can make.

Now, as big infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus are slow to start, it's the hike in food stamp benefits that is rippling through the economy. The Wall Street Journal has the story:

Money from the program -- officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- percolates quickly through the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates that for every $5 of food-stamp spending, there is $9.20 of total economic activity, as grocers and farmers pay their employees and suppliers, who in turn shop and pay their bills.

While other stimulus money has been slow to circulate, the food-stamp boost is almost immediate, with 80% of the benefits being redeemed within two weeks of receipt and 97% within a month, the USDA says.

The increase is modest -- a family of four on food stamps receives an average of $80 more per month. But for some struggling Americans, that boost makes a huge difference.

Continue reading »

It's not the only crucial component of health care reform, but including a public option to compete with private insurance companies is an ingredient that progressives believe to be non-negotiable. To the delight of many who gathered in southwest suburban Summit last night for a health care forum, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski went on the record in support of such a provision. Whether the type of public plan he prefers is robust enough to work is another question altogether. 

About 300 people turned out for the packed event, which featured eight speakers from organizations with a large stake in health reform, such as businesses, doctors, unions, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals. Rep. Lipinski wasted no time drawing a line in the sand, telling the 3rd Congressional District crowd that, in order to limit the cost of health care for individuals, small businesses, and the federal government, a public plan is a must.

But his support comes with a few caveats. Lipinski admits that employers may stop offering private insurance to workers if a government plan exists. "It all depends on how the public option is implemented," he said. And Lipinski prefers the "level-playing field option" championed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), in which the government-run plan would be granted no special advantages over private insurers, such as the ability to use Medicare's low rates or to access taxpayer subsidies.

This version of the public plan is a political compromise, to be sure. And it has its political advantages. Namely, it undercuts the argument made by the insurance industry and conservatives (like Rep. Peter Roskam) that any public plan would eventually make existing private coverage obsolete by stacking the deck too far in the government's favor.

But it's not ideal public policy.

Continue reading »

Those stimulus dollars are finally trickling in. Today, Illinois citizens enrolled in the federal food stamp program will see an increase in their benefits thanks to $890 million in funding included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. About 600,000 people will be affected, according to Gov. Quinn, and the jolt could last up to five years.

This temporary expansion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program comes at a crucial time for Illinois' most vulnerable. Although more families are facing economic insecurity, the state assistance available to them has been steadily deteriorating.  For instance, cash grants available under Illinois' Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program have fallen from 79.0 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in 1973 to 27.6 percent FPL in 2007. State Rep. Will Burns is trying to alleviate the problem through HB 2382, which would increases TANF benefits by 15 percent across the board. But until the bill passes, the federal government can plug the hole -- and do so without bilking state resources.

Let's not forget that Rep. Dan Lipinski was the only House Democrat to vote present on the stimulus bill (seven voted nay). 

Continue reading »

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed the compromise stimulus package by a vote of 246-183, with no Republicans supporting it, yet again.  Seven Democrats voted against the measure and one voted present: our own Rep. Dan Lipinski.

The Chicago Democrat voted for the original House version, but griped about -- among other things -- the inclusion of expanded food stamps benefits in the bill (despite the fact economists consider this one of the more stimulative provisions in the bill).  We've put a call into Lipinski's office to find out what led him to this vote.  Will let you know if we hear back.  

On the other side of the aisle, GOP Rep. Aaron Schock obviously voted no on the bill, despite a nudge from President Obama yesterday.  You can watch his explanation on the House floor here.

UPDATE: Lipinski explains his vote to the Tribune:

Continue reading »

While there was word yesterday that he was waffling on the economic recovery package, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski ultimately “voted in favor” of the bill (unlike the entire GOP delegation). He even co-sponsored an important amendment that added $3 billion for public transit funding, $100 million of which is earmarked for Illinois.

Yet when asked by the Sun-Times what he would have liked to see changed in the House bill, Lipinski picked food stamps -- yes, food stamps -- as his target:

Among other things, Lipinski said he was concerned about the bill’s inclusion of an extra $20 billion for food stamps. Some of that money could have been spent on transportation, he said.

“People are hurting, people have lost their jobs, food prices have risen, but I think it’d be better to give someone the opportunity to have a job, to create jobs, than to give them food stamps,” he said.

Lipinski’s ignorance of the stimulative effect of food stamps is inexcusable.

Continue reading »

This morning, the House passed The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 by a vote of 293-129. Authored by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, it was billed as a bipartisan compromise. The Media Consortium's Brian Beutler writes that while it certainly did garner support from both sides of the aisle, calling it a compromise "is a total farce." Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees. Mark Agrast at the Center for American Progress has more:

Nevertheless, despite these welcome improvements, the bill fails at the most fundamental level to restore the independent judicial check on executive power that the Bush administration has done so much to undermine. Now, instead of determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a surveillance order, the FISA Court will be reduced to reviewing the adequacy of the surveillance procedures established by the Bush administration. Instead of evaluating the sufficiency of the assurances that were given to telecommunications companies to obtain their cooperation, the federal district courts in which the lawsuits against the companies have been filed will be authorized to do little more than determine whether such assurances were in fact provided.

Unfortunately, four members of Illinois' Democratic congressional delegation voted in favor of the measure -- Melissa Bean (8th), Rahm Emanuel (5th), Dan Lipinski (3rd), and Luis Gutierrez (4th).

But praise is in order for Democrats Phil Hare (17th), Jesse Jackson Jr. (2nd), Jan Schakowsky (9th), Danny Davis (7th), Jerry Costello (12th), and newcomer Bill Foster (14th), all of whom voted to ensure the civil liberties of Illinoisans.