Jan Schakowsky

IL-SEN: Schakowsky Endorses Giannoulias, DSCC Whacks Kirk (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:21:01 -0800

The latest from the 2010 U.S. Senate race ...

Yesterday afternoon, Rep. Jan Schakowksy announced her endorsement of State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary. When they rolled out Rep. Luis Gutierrez' backing a week earlier, the campaign used the occasion to highlight Giannoulias' position on the need for stronger financial regulation. This time, the topic was health care. From a release:

"Alexi Giannoulias is the best candidate to retain President Obama's seat because he has the courage to take on powerful interests and stand up for Illinois families," Schakowsky said. "He supports health-insurance reform that will reign in the soaring costs of premiums and protect families from losing coverage during these difficult economic times." [...]

"Jan and I believe in a simple proposition: if you pay your premiums your insurance company should cover you - no exceptions, no caps, no limits," Giannoulias said. "Mark Kirk disagrees. He believes in protecting insurance companies, not protecting people."

Giannoulias has now racked up endorsements from five of the state's congressional Democrats (Reps. Bill Foster, Mike Quigley, and Phil Hare are also supporting him). Meanwhile, Cheryle Jackson is the only other candidate in the race to receive backing from members of Congress (Reps. Bobby Rush and Danny Davis).

Elsewhere on Sunday, Giannoulias skipped a debate held in Rockford, which Jackson, David Hoffman, and Jacob Meister all attended. ABC 7 has a report on their comments regarding Afghanistan. (All three "expressed deep doubts ... about sending more troops.)

In other news, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a clever web ad today hitting GOP frontrunner Mark Kirk for his shifting positions on Sarah Palin. Watch it:

And in a blog post on Friday, Gianoullias campaign manager Tom Bowen notes that Kirk's latest poll was conducted on a single day and not handled by his campaign pollster:

So, if you're releasing a one-day sample poll that is known to be unreliable, you juice it by running it on November 3rd and it's not done by your real pollster, how accurate can it be? My guess is that he's trying to distract from the real numbers in this race, which look a lot more like the ones we released.

Jackson appeared on Fox Chicago Sunday over the weekend, where she continued to cast herself as "a regular everyday person" and repeatedly emphasized her belief in the need to support small businesses (scroll down for the full video). When asked about Giannoulias' polling lead, she responded: "I think the question is: Why hasn't he locked it up by now, being in the race six months?" At one point, co-host Jack Conaty asked her whether she supported sending more troops to Afghanistan. Jackson's answer was pretty shaky, leading him to end the segment with this quip, "We're going to give you an exit strategy." (We'll add the video if and when Fox Chicago posts it to their website.)

Hoffman also hit the airwaves, showing up on ABC 7's Newsviews yesterday (scroll down for the full video). He continued to pitch himself as the candidate least likely to attract corruption-related attacks from the GOP in the general election:

HOFFMAN: There is no question that it is going to be a risky year for Democrats for a variety of reasons. I think the press has been very consistent about this: that there are vulnerabilities that are very strong on the Democratic side. And the main reason is the corruption scandals: the Blagojevich issue and others. And what people have been saying is that we need a nominee in the Senate ... who just takes the corruption issue off the table.

It should be clear to people that, whatever Republicans want to say, they won't be able to talk about corruption or ethics issues or tie me in any way to Blagojevich or Rezko. I just take those off the table. I have no connections to them and I've been a leader in helping to fight against corruption.

This argument is quite reminiscent of the case made by Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. She incessantly warned that Barack Obama's connections to Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers and Jeramiah Wright would give the Republicans far too much ammunition in the general election. We all know how that turned out ...

Finally, late last week, Meister released his policy platform. You can read it below:

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): Here's the full video of Jackson's WFLD appearance:

And here's the full video of Hoffman's ABC 7 video:

Full Disclosure: The SEIU Illinois State Council, which sponsors this website, has endorsed Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Schakowsky Won't Vote For Health Care Bill With Stupak Language (UPDATED)

Adam Doster — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:37:21 -0800

There aren't many lawmakers in Washington who have worked as hard as Rep. Jan Schakowsky to protect the reproductive rights of women. So it was with a lot of pain that the Northside Democrat ultimately swallowed a last-minute amendment to the historic health care reform bill limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the health insurance exchanges.

Women's groups across the nation, including Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women, said yesterday they would oppose any final health package that includes the abortion ban. Schakowsky is ready to join them. Greg Sargent has the scoop:

"If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades,” Schakowsky said in a statement emailed my way. “I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women."

Schakowsky is clearly mad about how the process evolved. Yesterday, on WTTW's Chicago Tonight, she explained her frustration with pro-lifers in Congress who moved the goal posts at the last minute. Watch an excerpt (in which she also pushes back against the GOP's efforts to restrict access to undocumented workers):

SCHAKOWSKY: Let me make it clear that we worked very closely with the anti-choice or pro-life members to craft legislation that maintains the status quo and says that not a penny of federal dollars or public dollars will go towards abortion. Turns out in that end, that that wasn't enough. And the amendment that passed says that even with private money, with your own money, middle class women couldn't purchase in the new health care exchange reproductive health services.

She's exactly right. For one, the 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 earlier this summer, the Democratic leadership agreed to a restrictive provision prohibiting women from using the public subsidies provided under the bill to buy private insurance plans that cover abortion. Even that deal, which would have allowed insurers to pay for the procedure (which usually costs between $300 and $400) using funds collected through private co-pays, wasn't enough to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) says she's collected more than 40 signatures from fellow members who say they will not vote for a bill that comes out of conference committee with the Stupak language intact. Schakowsky is the first to state publicly that she'd sign the letter. Because her vote carries weight among liberals in Washington, expect more to stake out an equally firm position in the coming days.

UPDATE (11:57 AM): We should also note the reaction from pro-choice organizations to Rep. Mark Kirk's massive flip-flop on the Stupak amendment Saturday. In the past, Kirk has received a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the National Abortion Rights League. Here's a press release from NARAL, courtesy of the Capitol Fax:

It is obvious from his recent votes, including the indefensible vote for the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban amendment, that Mark Kirk would rather have the endorsement of Sarah Palin than the support of millions of pro-choice voters in Illinois,” Keenan said.

Keenan said Kirk’s vote is confirmation that he is engaged in a political calculation that betrays his professed standards of centrism and moderation, and therefore, he doesn’t deserve a promotion to the U.S. Senate.

Rep. Kirk is clearly abandoning the moderate positions that afforded him re-election to the House in favor of radically conservative views that he hopes will bolster support for his Senate campaign,” Keenan said. “His move to the radical right is not what we expect from a moderate member of Congress. Women’s freedom and privacy are at stake, and I am committed to working with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 98,000 Illinois activists, members, and supporters to defeat Mark Kirk’s Senate campaign.”

UPDATE II (4:25 p.m.): Rep. Mike Quigley has joined Schakowsky in pledging to vote against a final bill that includes the Stupak language.

House Passes Health Care Bill With Help Of Illinois Dems

Adam Doster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:49:39 -0800

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.

From the House floor, Rep. Jan Schakowsky called the Stupack amendment a "back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade" and "an insult to millions of women." Here's an excerpt from her statement:

“This health reform bill is about improving access to care, not further restricting a woman’s right to choose. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country.

In his own floor speech, Rep. Mike Quigley echoed that sentiment:

QUIGLEY: But this amendment disrupts that sense of equality. This amendment says only women who can afford insurance deserve access to reproductive health care. This amendment says that women who need a little help paying for health care have to surrender their right to privacy. This amendment will serve only to hurt low-income women and restrict their ability to access reproductive health care, even with their own money.

Joining Lipinski and Costello in backing the Stupack amendment, though, was Rep. Mark Kirk, a candidate who has earned endorsements from Planned Parenthood in several elections because of his pro-choice voting record. Kati Phillips, spokesperson for Alexi Giannoulias, offered this assessment of the Republican Senate candidate's latest flip-flop:

"Mark Kirk proved tonight he will abandon all of his principles to curry favor with right wingers like Sarah Palin. He flip-flopped on the Clean Energy bill because the right wing demanded it, and now he has abandoned his once pro-choice voting record to take private insurance coverage away from women. Mark Kirk has sold his soul in the pursuit of Sarah Palin's endorsement."

Democratic Senate contender Cheryle Jackson chimed in, as well:

Mark Kirk says he is pro-choice but Halloween has come and gone and now that mask has been stripped away and we see him for what he is – an anti-choice, right-wing extremist who panders to Sarah Palin and turns his back on the women of Illinois. The final health care bill must provide access to reproductive health services for all women and girls, whether or not they are poor and receive government subsidized care. We cannot allow income to determine who gets care and services, and who does not.

Aside from the abortion measure, Kirk threw his lot in with the Republican leadership's bare-bones reform plan, which was promptly defeated 258-176. It's no surprise why; the CBO estimated that the Democratic plan covers 12 times as many uninsured people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican bill. Rep. Tim Johnson must have been the only Republican member to read the report, as the Urbana lawmaker was the lone member on his side of the aisle to vote against the substitute bill. He also sided with the Democrats on a motion to recommit vote intended to derail the legislation entirely.

The focus now turns to the Senate, where Sen. Dick Durbin says the going will get tough. Formal debate should begin after Thanksgiving.

Schakowsky Repeats Public Option Guarantee

Adam Doster — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:43:53 -0700

Rep. Jan Schakowsky -- chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Health Care Task Force -- has not been shy about her support for a public option, pledging to vote against any bill that did not include one. She's also gone on the record in recent weeks insisting that the government-run plan will survive the final months of health care reform negotiations. The North Side Democrat reiterated that belief today at a press conference in D.C., reports Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined Schakowsky at the podium and echoed that sentiment, noting that the fight is not about the inclusion of a public plan but rather how it negotiates rates. "The question is: which form will it take?," Beutler quotes Pelosi saying.

As the health care battle comes to a head on Capitol Hill, this is an encouraging message from two of the most powerful women in Washington.

Health Care Round-Up: Young People Demand Reform, Schakowsky Optimistic About Public Option, Public Opinion Swings In September

Adam Doster — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:59:24 -0700

Here is the latest news from the health care reform battle -- both in D.C. and here in Illinois.

Young People Demand Reform

Republicans looking to downplay the health care crisis in America often portray the population of uninsured young people as a collection of free riders: they can afford to purchase coverage but purportedly choose not to. Rep. Mark Kirk will probably repeat the argument at his latest town hall in Northbrook this morning. But that talking point isn't supported by the facts. Of the 13 million people (28 percent) in their twenties living without insurance, just 10 percent are college graduates and 5 percent have incomes above $60,000 a year. That's a major reason why young people are the age group most supportive of reform.

In latest "Real People Demand Health Reform" video, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and United Action for Power and Justice talk to three young people who aren't well-served by the current system. Watch it:

Schakowsky, Congressional Leaders Optimistic About Public Option

As headliners of an Organizing for America health care event in Chicago this past weekend, both Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Gov. Pat Quinn expressed their strong support for federal health care reform. Schakowsky even reiterated her belief that Congress will pass a bill that includes a government-run public option:

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky said Saturday that she thinks the final health care reform legislation will contain a public insurance option, despite strong opposition by Republican legislators.

"I think at the end of the day, the bill on the president's desk will have a public option," said Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who is the House's deputy majority whip.

Other Congressional liberals are optimistic, as well. On Thursday, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told reporters they were confident that health care reform will include a public option. The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to vote today on the provision, one which Sen. Dick Durbin praised on WJBC radio yesterday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might have something else in mind. An anonymous Senate aide told the New York Times over the weekend that Reid may keep a public option out of his chamber's merged bill, which could reach the Senate floor the week of October 12. (A Reid spokesperson denies the reporting.) We will know soon enough.

In the meantime, check out this video from Jim Duffett, the executive director of the Campaign for Better Health Care, in which he argues that applying additional pressure on lawmakers is the only way progressives can win the fight for the public option:

Public Opinion Swings In September

Are the passionate opponents of health care reform that stormed town halls this summer representative of the American people at large? It appears not, according to new polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation. A new September survey found that 57 percent of Americans "now believe that tackling health care reform is more important than ever," up four percent since last month. Large majorities of Americans continue support the individual reform provisions embedded within the Democratic bills on the Hill as well, including an individual mandate (68 percent), an employer mandate (67 percent) and an expansion of state programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (82 percent).

What does this tell us? While the lies and distortions propagated by Republicans this summer may have confused the standard voter about the intentions of the reform proposals being circulated in Washington, the central components of the Democrat's agenda remain quite popular.

Mad As Hell Doctors

A local health care fight is still raging, as well. In late August, employees of SK Hand Tool Corp. in Chicago and McCook hit the picket line to protest their company's decision to cancel health insurance coverage for 70 employees after contract negotiations between the company and Teamsters Local 743 stalled. Since the strike began, the group has gained a number of influential supporters, including Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who promised to investigate the problem when she rolled through town earlier this month.

Now we can add the Mad As Hell Doctors to the list. The single-payer advocacy group stopped by the factory and joined the line on its cross-country driving tour over the weekend. Watch a video the group produced documenting their visit:

Schakowsky: Public Option "More Alive" Thanks To Baucus Bill

Angela Caputo — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:05:34 -0700

Could the insurance industry's approval of Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) watered-down health care bill help galvanize support for a public option? Illinois' own Rep. Jan Schakowsky thinks so. Appearing on Fox Chicago Sunday this past weekend, she told host Jack Conaty that the rally on health insurance stocks last week -- following the introduction of Baucus' bill, which does not include a public plan -- perfectly illustrates who stands to benefit from that proposal. And Schakowsky says that only strengthens progressives' argument in favor of more robust reform. Watch it (relevant portion begins at the 2:40 mark):

CONATY: Is the public option in health care reform still alive in Washington?

SCHAKOWSKY: I think it's more alive now. After Sen. Baucus introduced his bill, if you look at the stock market, the value of insurance companies soared. It spiked right up because they see this is a perfect deal. How about it? You mandate that everyone get insurance. And then you don't have any competition for the private insurance companies. That's nirvana for them and for the stockholders as well.

So we absolutely need to have some real competition in these uncompetitive markets. And I think a public option certainly is the way to go.

Think Progress' Igor Volsky took note of the insurance industry's enthusiasm for Baucus' proposal last week and added some additional context. "[S]ince the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option," he wrote, "health insurance stocks have been on the rise."

Progressives should do all they can to highlight the correlation between watered-down reforms and insurance industry enthusiasm.

As Schakowsky points out, there's plenty of room for optimism because Baucus' bill isn't the only proposal being entertained in the Senate. Back in July, the upper chamber's Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee's passed its own proposal. Now, both Senate proposals will have to be merged. Encouragingly, HELP committee chair Sen. Tom Harkin (D- IA) has declared that the final bill "is going to have a strong public option." Members of the House (including Schakowsky) are taking a similar stand on their so-called "tri-committee" bill. "Now we have to reconcile the differences," Schakowsky said of the looming compromise process, "and I think we will have a public option."

Schakowsky Anything But Trigger-Happy

Adam Doster — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:40:44 -0700

For those interested in health care reform, the word of the week is "trigger." Trying to find a compromise on the controversial public option that's politically palatable to both liberals and moderates, Sen. Olympia Snowe -- currently the only Republican interested in finding common ground with the Democrats -- has been pitching the idea. How would it work? Essentially, health care legislation would establish certain benchmarks for affordability. If private insurers could not find a way to lower premium costs for enough people in geographically distinct markets by a still-undetermined deadline, a public option would be introduced into the health insurance exchange. (The New Republic's Suzy Khimm has a good rundown here.)

On MSNBC earlier today, Illinois' own Rep. Jan Schakowsky made clear that she isn't too fond of the idea, reiterating her support for a "a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation, no triggers."

There are good reasons to be skeptical of the trigger approach. For one, to modify their behavior, insurance companies would need to feel threatened by the looming public option, something that isn't likely if the legislation envisioned by Snowe is ultimately implemented. As Ezra Klein notes today, "I've not yet seen a proposal for a trigger where the trigger is set sufficiently low and the public option it would create would be national, rather than state-by-state."

That brings us to our second problem: special interests. Robert Reich explains how insurance companies could use the grace period to blow holes through the trigger instead of working to lower costs:

First, it's impossible to design airtight goals for coverage and cost reductions that won't be picked over by 5,000 and as many lawyers and litigators even if, at the end of the grace period, it's apparent to everyone else that the goals aren't met. Washington is a vast cesspool of well-paid specialists who know how to stop anything resembling a "trigger." Believe me, they will.

If designed differently, however, the trigger option could ironically lead to a more robust public option. Before the recess, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee stripped out a provision in their bill that would allow the public option to be based on Medicare payment rates and allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with providers to set rates. The Senate HELP Committee's bill follows the same "level-playing field" model. In other words, the best congressional Democrats might be able to get through now is a weak public plan that would be small and negligibly cheaper than other private options on an exchange.

But what if the private insurers really did fail to make changes? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks her caucus would have a lot of leverage:

They'd be better getting a public option now than one that is triggered because if you have a triggered public option, it's because the insurance industry has demonstrated that they're not cooperating, they're not doing the right thing, and I think they'll have a tougher public option to deal with.

If Congressional leaders want to pursue the trigger option, they must ensure that the eventual public option is worth the wait. Otherwise, the bridge will serve no purpose other than to ease short-term pressure on insurance giants. And that's obviously not the goal of this reform effort.

Schakowsky Pledges To Support "Nothing Short" Of A Public Option

Josh Kalven — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:41:18 -0700

While a progressive leader and a vocal supporter of health care reform, Rep. Jan Schakowsky has in recent months failed to join some of her Illinois colleagues in pledging to vote against any reform package that does not include a public insurance option. Today, however, she released her strongest statement to date, declaring "I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan":

"Many Members of Congress -- including myself -- will not support a health insurance reform bill that does not break the strangle hold of private insurance companies on our health care system. That requires that consumers have a choice of a robust public health insurance plan. I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation, no triggers. I believe Congress will pass and the President will sign such a bill this Fall."

Schakowsky's statement comes on the heels of President Obama's announcement that he plans to scale back and simplify certain contentious aspects of the health care package. Schakowsky appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show yesterday to discuss that news and the prospects for meaningful reform this fall. During the segment, she also derided the "he said/she said" media coverage that has allowed so many misleading claims about the Democratic plan to go unchallenged. Watch it:

Schakowsky Town Hall: Rescission And The Underinsured

Josh Kalven — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:19:33 -0700

Here's another clip from Rep. Jan Schakowsky's health care town hall meeting in Niles last night. As you'll see, an audience member asks her to explain the difference between health care and health care coverage. Schakowsky's answer is on point, as she tells two stories that illustrate how Americans can be covered by a private insurer, but still be locked out of receiving affordable care. Watch:

The New York Times editorial board recently highlighted the issue of the underinsured (such as the farmer Schakowsky cites):

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that 25 million Americans who had health insurance in 2007 had woefully inadequate policies with high deductibles and restrictions that stuck them with large amounts of uncovered expenses. Many postponed needed treatments or went into debt to pay medical bills.

And to learn more about rescission -- the reprehensible insurer practice described in Schakowsky's second anecdote -- check out this post from July.

Schakowsky Town Hall: Booing Ted Kennedy? Really?

Josh Kalven — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:07:53 -0700

We attended Rep. Jan Schakowsky's health care town hall meeting in Niles last night where over 2,000 people showed up, packing a high school auditorium and spilling onto the sidewalk outside. There was a real variety of opinion expressed during the 90-minute meeting, with opponents and supporters of the Democrats' health care reform proposal both well-represented.

One of the more disturbing moments, however, came right after the first line of Schakowsky's brief introductory speech: "You know, Ted Kennedy had said that this was the great issue of his life," she began. That initial remark was met with applause and also a surprisingly large number of ... boos.

That's right: Less than a week after the Massachusetts senator passed away and two days after his funeral, a good number of those in attendance felt it necessary to boo at the mention of his commitment to expanding health care access. Watch it:

Stay classy, guys.

We'll be posting several other notable videos from the meeting as the day progresses. In the meantime, check out the Tribune article as well as this great video produced by the Daily Herald and largely shot outside the auditorium, where protesters from both side of the debate gathered.

Follow us on Twitter. Receive our daily email update. Subscribe to our RSS feed.