Raul Grijalva asks if industry gets "first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust"?

[madfloridian]

Raul Grijalva is chair of the Progressive Caucus. I agree with him.

Today someone said this to me: "you're just a party loyalist who shares Blue Dog sensibilities"

It really struck me odd because I had just written a post criticizing Blue Dogs who did not think of themselves as Democrats and who referred to those in our party in the third person.

In a post by Steve Hildebrand at Huffington Post he had overheard a Blue Dog asking "what do we have to do to get the Democrats off our back?"

Steve remarked that it seemed pretty easy: "Start acting like Democrats. Your Blue Dog label is a shield you hide behind, not a place where leadership is shown."

Then I was thinking and wondering why I felt so down about the health care reform today.
I figured out it is because I don't trust the party leadership on this. Sad to say that but true.

I am upset that Governor Dean is now saying that the House Blue Dogs were right to demand that a new public option not use the Medicare payment schedule because it would undermine the insurance companies too much. He says the public option can't be run at Medicare prices because it would undercut the private sector. Here is the video of Dylan Ratigan interviewing Howard Dean last Friday.

The comments are in the last minute of the interview.

So those on Medicare would be getting the short end of things because even the public option would pay more?? Doesn't make sense to me. Someone has some "splainin" to do.

I then read the article which reveals the great influence Republican Billy Tauzin has had in constructing parts of this bill. He got to meet with Rahm Emanuel and Nancy DeParle at least twice, and he has been reassured as far as I can figure that Medicare will STILL be unable to bid on drug prices for seniors because of a deal he made with them on behalf of big pharma.

White House affirms deal on drug costs

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards. Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. “They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,” he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.

“They blessed the deal,” Mr. Tauzin said. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House was not bound by any industry deals with the Senate or the White House.

Now back to my being called a "party loyalist who shares Blue Dog sensibilities".

I don't think so, not at all.

That is a thoughtless comment that goes to the heart of many problems that Democrats have now.

The problem? If we expect our party to use its majority to get vitally important things done...we are called purists by many here. Those of us who post about the reproductive rights of women, and those of us who think it is way past time to get rid of DADT are considered by many here to be too demanding of our party and its majority.

Then when we go further and point out that even those who purport to be speaking for us are not actually doing it, that they are too protective of the corporate world..then we are being disloyal to the party and to the president.

So to be quite frank, I don't know for sure what I am right now. I don't believe anyone much of the time anymore.

I think when the president I worked so hard to elect chose his Chief of Staff, he chose the way the party would be going. He said Rahm would "have his back."

If having his back means making deals like the above with Tauzin, then I think many are going to rethink some loyalties.

I agree with Raul Grijalva, chair of the Progressive Caucus:

In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”

“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”

He added: “It is a pivotal issue not just about health care. Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?

Yes, it appears the deal has already been cut.

I guess Representative Grijalva and I are both Democrats who want the party to do Democratic things which they were elected to do.

I guess that makes me a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and seems there are not many of us left lately.