As I sit here in frigid Michigan this morning, I'm contemplating the state of our state. And pondering if we are, perhaps, a bellwether for the rest of the country, particularly in terms of Democrats and our political future.
It's a mixed bag in Michigan, to be sure. As I diaried last week, there's been some better news of late. GM has started battery production for its new line of electric and hybrid cars. The Detroit Auto Show is featuring a plethora of new electric vehicles in its "Electric Avenue. This morning we learn that Ford has earned Car of the Year with its Fusion Hybrid (as well as Truck of the Year with the Transit Connect, a 22/25 mpg vehicle). The Obama administration has awarded Michigan vehicle manufactureres $187 million in grants to boost fuel efficiency. Detroit was even named as one of the Top Five Cities to find a "Green" job, being called "the poster child for green jobs".
On the other hand, our economy is in a complete shambles. The Democrats are hosting a certified Clown ShowTM when it comes to the upcoming governor's race of 2010. Even Bart Stupak, author of the Coathanger HCR Amendment, is considering a run for governor. One of the main contenders on from the Valley of the GOPosaurs, Pete Hoekstra, is racing to place his mug in front of any media camera that will have him to talk about how our president is failing Americans with regard to national security.
So what we have is state poised for greatness, thanks in large part to the foreward thinking and planning by our progressive Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm. But those improvements are going to be largely overshadowed by the poor economy and the perplexing ability of Republicans to frame every single debate and conversation in their own terms, putting Democrats on the defensive. As is happening in our state Congress, they obstruct and fight every progressive attempt to make things better then point their Fingers of BlameTM right back at Democrats who, through their own lame own-foot-shooting seem to be their own worst enemies much of the time. For all her many great efforts, efforts to diversify Michigan's economy and put us in a good position with regard to green energy and a new energy economy, she is term-limited and will likely never get the credit she is due for the great service she has done for our state.
Will Democrats be able to turn the Meme of the Day around in 2010 and fight back effectively to win these battles or will Republicans dominate the message wars and, despite their obstructionist behavior and lack of vision or political leadership, use the poor economy to whip the Dems and gain political advantage?
My take is, if you want to see what will happen on the broad national stage, watch what happens in Michigan. While Sarah Palin likes to cast Alaska as a microcosm of the country as a whole, Michigan is far more representative of the USA. We have rural and urban areas and everything in between. We have a manufacturing base, farming and a strong service sector. We have a racially, economically and politically diverse population. All of these things lead me to believe that how politics play out here in our state in the coming year will very likely be an early warning sign as to how things will go nationally.
As the son of a nurse who worked in primary care for many years, I've long held the belief that decisions about childbearing should be made by a woman in consultation with her family and doctor. The government doesn't belong in the room when these very personal, private decisions are being made.
Unfortunately, the debate over abortion - a legal, constitutionally-protected medical procedure - has become a wedge issue in the larger effort to reform our nation's broken health care system.
Since current federal law already bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, and nothing in the Affordable Health Care for America Act changes the Hyde Amendment, I didn't hesitate to vote against the amendment introduced by my colleague Bart Stupak.
This measure represents a dangerous step towards making abortion a class-based procedure that only wealthy women could afford.
Under Mr. Stupak's amendment, women who don't get their health insurance through their employer and purchase affordable coverage through the new Health Insurance Exchange, would be denied the ability to buy a health insurance policy that covers abortion services - even when using their own money. That's right: none of the private plans or public insurance options found in the Exchange would be allowed to cover abortion.
Okay, I can respect that, but isn't health care for the uninsured a moral issue too? And how does Stupak square his concern for fetuses with the lack of respect he shows this group of people?
In his letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Stupak expressed concern over reports that terrorist suspects would have priority over United States citizens waiting for the vaccine.
Apparently "suspected" terrorists are less worthy.
It might only be 229 more vaccines but I would rather see 229 vaccines go to pregnant women of young children to be protected from H1N1 not to a group of people who are beheld as suspected terrorist against our country.
I'm not trying to beat up on Stupak. I think his heart is in the right place, and he votes with Democrats more than 90% of the time, but I'm tired of the way this argument always gets framed. We should respect all life, including the lives of terrorists and the uninsured, not just the lives of fetuses.
The good news is that Stupak does support health care reform and still plans to support it.
If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could.
I hope the other 39 House Democrats aligned with Stupak vote Yes. Health care for the uninsured deserves their respect and support too.
True health care reform can't happen unless there is a real public option. We need a way to ensure that everyone can get affordable heath care. And, you can help with this effort.
65 Democrats have pledged to vote against any health care reform bill that does not include a public option. We need to put pressure on every member of Congress to do the same. Here in Michigan only two members, John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick have pledged so far.
Mr. Stupak, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Schauer, Mr. Peters, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Dingell, what say ye? Your constituents want to know.
UPDATE: See comments below. Kildee is co-sponsoring HR 3200. Dingell sponsored HR3200 so we know he also supports the public option. But the magic question is will they vote against a bill that does not include it?
Count 'em. Seven no votes by Michigan Congressmen on H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. It's another entry on the Table of Shame. This is getting old.
The Party of No delivered again. And, they got some help from Bart Stupak. I guess there are no foreclosures in the UP < / snark >. Ehers did not vote on the bill or the motion to recommit.
A survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association released Thursday found that nearly 12 percent of homeowners were in foreclosure or behind on their payments at the end of 2008.
Stupak
D-1
No
Hoekstra
R-2
No
Ehlers
R-3
Not Voting
Camp
R-4
No
Kildee
D-5
Yes
Upton
R-6
No
Schauer
D-7
Yes
Rogers
R-8
No
Peters
D-9
Yes
Miller
R-10
No
McCotter
R-11
No
Levin
D-12
Yes
Kilpatrick
D-13
Yes
Conyers
D-14
Yes
Dingell
D-15
Yes
Once again, it doesn't matter what constituents want. It doesn't matter what constituents need. It doesn't matter how much they're hurting, or whether they're losing their homes because they couldn't make mortgage payments after they lost their job. It doesn't matter. Not. One. Iota.
In 2009 the salary for Members of Congress is $174,000. Leadership positions get additional stipends. Must be nice.
Michigan's first congressional district consists of the entire upper peninsula, and much of the northeastern part of the lower. It's 30 counties (plus part of one more) cover 44% of the state.
Bart Stupak (D) has represented the district since its creation in the redistricting of 1993. Stupak's campaign site is here.
As the son of a nurse who worked in primary care for many years, I've long held the belief that decisions about childbearing should be made by a woman in consultation with her family and doctor. The government doesn't belong in the room when these very personal, private decisions are being made.
