Paul Wellman
Congressmember Lois Capps
The Power of Nice
Lois Capps: From Accidental Representative to 800-Pound Political Gorilla
Thursday, January 20, 2011
It’s an open secret that Santa Barbara’s U.S. Representative Lois Capps is notoriously nice. Four times running, she’s been officially proclaimed the Nicest Member of Congress by Washingtonian Magazine, an award based on annual surveys of Capitol Hill staff. Over the years, Capps’s numerous Republican opponents have seized upon this as if they somehow had discovered her fatal flaw. They first condescend to acknowledge Capps as “a nice lady,” and then begin savaging her as an ineffective political lightweight, knee-jerk liberal, and Democratic Party stooge who never would have gotten elected had her late husband, Walter Capps, not died suddenly just nine months into his first congressional term. Lois Capps always returns the compliment by beating each and every one of her opponents — without ever raising her voice. Being nice definitely helps. As one of her victims, Vic Tognazzini, her 2006 defeated challenger, explained: “Before our debate, we shook hands. Afterward, we hugged. You really can’t sling mud at Lois. She’s too nice.” But by the end of the race, Tognazzini, a big bear hug of a man and no stranger to high-stakes politics, said he felt “deflated and defeated.” The nice lady, he discovered, “has a tremendous, tremendous grassroots organization. Just tremendous. And she raises a ton of money.”
Courtesy Photo
Congressmember Lois Capps in 1959 when she received her nursing degree from Tacoma, Washington’s Pacific Lutheran University. Capps often cites her experiences as a nurse when explaining her actions and also calls them the stepping-stones of why she got into politics.
Capps’s toughness, however, transcends political machine and campaign grease. She radiates that gracious, disciplined, quietly devout, get-it-done, Scandinavian resolve bred in the frozen marrow of small Wisconsin towns like Ladysmith, where she grew up the daughter of Milton Grimsrud, a Lutheran minister, and Solveig Gullixon, a professional violinist. Consider this: In the 12 months after her husband died in 1997, Lois Capps had to run no less than four times to hold on to his seat. Two years later, she ran again, in perhaps her most challenging contest, against Republican perennial Mike Stoker. Shortly before that race, one of her two daughters, Lisa Capps, died of cancer.
But her inner grit was no surprise to those who knew her well. Without his wife, many political insiders believe, it is doubtful Walter Capps could have won in 1996. Walter, the highly popular head of UCSB’s prestigious religious studies program, had that rare political gift of always appearing wisely Lincolnesque, even when he was fumbling. But he wasn’t a master of political organization. It was Lois who provided the emotional center and logistical core for his group of intensely idealistic but woefully inexperienced volunteers struggling to elect a Democrat in a district Republicans had held since 1947. Then, late in the campaign, Walter suffered a near-fatal, head-on collision on San Marcos Pass. Not only did Lois Capps have to help nurse her seriously injured husband, but she also had to serve as surrogate candidate in what was then one of the most bitterly fought, high-profile, big-money, partisan showdowns in the country. For a high school nurse who’d never run for office, it couldn’t get more intense. To outside observers, she was the picture of stalwart calm.
Where Walter was radiant and could ruminate endlessly about the virtues of “Jeffersonian democracy,” Lois was focused, practical, and always thinking two steps ahead. But they shared the same values and political ideals. Though she had already earned her nursing degree, she, like her husband, had attended Yale Divinity School, earning a master’s degree, as well. Yale would have a profound effect on both of them. Lois had come from a family of lifelong Republicans. “All of them,” she said, laughing with a sweep of her hand. What changed things for her, she said, was the civil rights movement of the early 1960s. At Yale, they met many Freedom Riders, idealistic white college students who had flocked to the South in support of voter registration and the end of segregation — and had their heads cracked for the privilege. That experience — and that time — helped reset their political clocks. When the couple moved to Santa Barbara in 1964, where they raised three kids, Lois Capps worked as a public school nurse and administered a program focusing on the needs of pregnant high school girls. Those experiences also helped form her political and moral viewpoints.
The Pleasant Powerhouse
Since then, in the 14 years she has represented her district, Capps — still tall, slender, and wholesomely apple-cheeked — has morphed from admitted political neophyte to bona fide Beltway insider. Though no landmark legislation bears her name, she serves on one of the three most powerful committees Congress has to offer, Energy and Commerce, out of which the historic health-care–reform package — now the prime target of the repeal-minded Republicans — originally sprang. As part of her commitment to constituent service — the thankless bread-and-butter by which many elected officials rise or fall — Capps makes a point to fly back to the district almost every weekend, sometimes over the groaning objections of her staff.
Courtesy Photo
Having held on to her congressional seat since 1997, Capps stands the best chance to keep it in Democratic hands, according to political insiders, even after the 23rd District’s “ribbon of shame” gets unraveled into a less egregiously Democrat-heavy voting district.
Recently, opponents have hammered Capps for losing nearly $14 million in earmarks she thought she had secured for her district during the waning days of 2010. But prior to that, she has certainly brought home the bacon. In 2009, for example, Capps delivered $44 million in federal funds to the district, securing the millions needed to build the Santa Maria Levee. She even snagged $1.6 million in Department of Defense earmarks at the instigation of her most recent campaign opponent, Tom Watson, who happens to be an executive with a Goleta-based R&D firm.
When it comes to issues of health care, education, coastal protection, and offshore oil, she’s a player. It was Capps — a regular attendee of congressional prayer gatherings — who started the first congressional briefing on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” by linking key movers-and-shakers on the Hill with scholars at UCSB’s Palm Center, the only think tank in the country to specialize on the subject of gays in the military. When pro-life congressmembers inserted language into the health care bill last summer that would restrict funding options for women seeking abortion services, Capps — the ex-school nurse — jumped into the fray and sought to protect the status quo by suggesting compromise language. In that instance, her compromise was defeated. When BP execs were given the congressional hot seat after this summer’s disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it was Capps — who lived through Santa Barbara’s oil spill of 1969 — who asked some of the most pointed questions.
When right-wing Republican Congressmember Duncan Hunter of El Cajon succeeded in passing 2006 legislation making Santa Rosa Island a private hunting sanctuary for disabled veterans — over the objections of many veterans groups — Capps appealed to Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein — with whom she’s on good terms — who had Hunter’s language removed from the Senate version of the same bill.
Less measurable in impact, but certainly more intriguing, is Capps’s daughter Laura, who has a powerful Capitol Hill résumé of her own. She worked for Senator Ted Kennedy and for Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos and is married to the Number-Two Man in President Barack Obama’s communications machine, Bill Burton. Not only does this give Lois access to powerful political realms, but it also fuels speculation that Laura might want to succeed her mother in Congress, creating in effect, a Capps dynasty.
But despite all this, local Republicans continue to demand, what has she ever done? while Santa Barbara’s progressive Democrats are inclined to ask, what has she done for us lately? Though Capps was one of few members of Congress — of either party — to vote against giving former President George W. Bush the green light to wage war on Iraq, she has since voted to give President Obama the funding he sought to wage war in Afghanistan. Some South Coast anti-war activists — as well as younger, more liberal Democrats — have expressed disappointment with this vote. Capps says she is concerned that Obama has extended troop exit dates, but that she is also concerned about the human rights and safety of Afghan women once the U.S. withdraws.
Such criticism aside, Capps remains the undisputed 800-pound gorilla in local Democratic circles. Even the ever acerbic campaign consultant Jeremy Lindaman said Capps’s endorsement was the single greatest asset any Santa Barbara Democrat running for office could have; Capps is not just well-known, but well liked. Her endorsement matters. To an extent unusual for national or statewide office holders, Capps has aggressively inserted herself into city and county races. When Texas multimillionaire Randall Van Wolfswinkel spent $750,000 trying to elect a new conservative majority on Santa Barbara’s City Council last year, Capps jumped in and lent both her name and her resources to get Helene Schneider elected Santa Barbara mayor, as well as to place on the council Bendy White and Grant House, all progressive liberals. Capps’s support proved pivotal for County Supervisors Janet Wolf and Doreen Farr’s elections, and it’s hardly coincidental that former Capps staffers Chris Henson and Jeremy Tittle currently hold key positions with Supervisors Farr and Salud Carbajal respectively.
Kim Reierson
Capps took the place of her late husband, Walter, in the U.S. Congress when he succumbed to a sudden heart attack. Walter, hugely popular and Lincolnesque — even while fumbling — captured the district Republicans had held since 1947, but Lois is widely credited with getting the job done.
Learning New Tricks
Capps’s real legacy is the massive get-out-the-vote effort she spearheads in Isla Vista every election cycle, which has won for UCSB national awards for the numbers of students newly registered. But the organized effort is about more than good citizenship. When Walter Capps first ran in 1994 — against right-wing zealot Andrea Seastrand — he registered only 1,500 new voters in Isla Vista. Not coincidentally, he lost by that same number. Two years later, his campaign registered 10,000 new voters in Isla Vista. This time, he beat Seastrand — again, not coincidentally — by 10,000 votes.
When it comes to the media, Lois Capps has made herself readily accessible, but she’s never been a master of the catchy sound bite. That’s part of her appeal. As a result, when Capps says things like, “The last election was all about changing the guard; this election is all about guarding the change” — as she’s taken to doing recently — it feels forced and out of character. But with the recent drubbing Democrats took in nationwide elections — giving Republicans a majority in the House — Capps is willing to learn new tricks. “We need to learn to tell our story,” she said in a recent interview. “We need to translate what people are passionate about so others can hear.”
Given the sudden change in political winds, Capps will need her considerable power of nice coupled with her innate grit just to stay afloat. She spent her first eight years in Washington as a member of the minority. During the past four, she’s savored being part of the majority, and especially so the past two while Obama — whom she endorsed over Hillary Clinton — has been in the White House. With the new Republican majority in Congress, the issues nearest and dearest to Capps’s heart will be on the chopping block.
“We got beat,” Capps said. “Whether it’s fair and square, that’s another matter.” Capps noted that millions of dollars were poured into certain swing districts during the last two weeks of the campaign by conservative organizations unfettered in their ability to collect funds and unbound by any requirement to report the donors’ identities. Districts that polled in favor of Democrats earlier fell to Republicans. “I’m not whining or complaining, but we don’t want people buying elections in this country,” she said. To remedy this, she said, Congress should pass the DISCLOSE Act, which will require big donors to identify how much they gave and to whom.
Republicans, she cautioned, should take note. “As you may have noticed, the polls didn’t favor the new majority much more than the new minority.”
Other than that, how did Capps read the election results? Part of it, she said, was the political pushback that accompanies any historic change that’s challenged the status quo, like health care reform. But a lot of the swing she attributed to raw economic pain. “It said, ‘I don’t have a job, and I’m angry, and I want these guys out — the one who are in charge,’” she said. Republicans, she cautioned, should take note. “As you may have noticed, the polls didn’t favor the new majority much more than the new minority.” Ever the steely optimist, she continued, “There are still a lot of reasons to get up in the morning. I’ve been in the minority before, but I got stuff done. I managed to get a bill [the Nurse Reinvestment Act] signed into law when George Bush was president.”
Yet even with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Obama in the White House, it may be tougher now for Capps to execute her reach-across-the-aisle act. Moderate Republicans may find it harder agreeing to compromises with the freshman class of principled ideologues aligned with the Tea Party breathing down their necks. Certainly, life will be very different in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which for the past two years was chaired by Los Angeles Democrat Henry Waxman, who pushed an aggressive agenda where health care and climate change were concerned. Waxman is now the ranking minority member of the committee; in his place as chair is Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, who has made the repeal of health care reform his number-
one priority. To that end, he appointed Gary Andres, a lobbyist for the health care industry, as his chief of staff. Upton also appointed one of the most anti-abortion members of Congress, Joe Pitts, to head the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Where Capps voted in favor of the climate change bill passed by the House (though not by the Senate), Upton has come out squarely against any new emissions regulations on utilities or energy companies. Upton has denounced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having “its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery” and has vowed to hold so many hearings on the matter that EPA chief Lisa Jackson will need a permanent parking space.
Ordinarily, Capps would be appalled by anyone with Upton’s agenda. But under the new political alignment, Capps said Upton qualifies as “a moderate.” She knows Upton and his wife from a faith-based extra-curricular organization whose meetings they both attend. And she noted that Upton had been savaged by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as a “socialist” for supporting a minor bill extolling the energy-efficient virtues of fluorescent light bulbs over incandescent bulbs. By contrast, Upton’s only real competition for the post came from Joe Barton of Texas, who infamously apologized to BP oil executives for the rough treatment they received in the aftermath of the Gulf spill. Realistically, it’s not likely that Upton — or the Republican majority — can or will repeal health care. But they can surely hobble it.
Capps, however, is intent on telling the Democratic side of the story. On health care reform, the story Capps wants to tell — and has done so on the floor of the House — is that of Gwendolyn Strong, a three-and-a-half-year-old Santa Barbara girl afflicted with a rare spinal disease that means she needs machines to eat, breathe, and digest. Seven years ago, her parents — relatively affluent — saw fit to enroll in a health care policy with a $5-million lifetime maximum. They’ve already burned through about $1.5 million of that, and that doesn’t count the $30,000 a year they spend on ancillary expenses. Bill Strong, Gwendolyn’s father, reported that their insurance premiums have increased by 100 percent over the past three years. But that’s not his main concern. Before reform, he said, “Once we hit $5 million, we’d have to look for new coverage. And because of Gwendolyn’s preexisting condition, no one would have touched us.” But under the new rules of “Obama-care,” lifetime spending maximums — such as the Strongs’ $5 million — are banned, as is the practice of denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. “When people say they want to repeal health care, what do they want to take it back to?” asked Capps. “The existing system is broken. We didn’t just make that up. These are not merely fanciful ideas. For a lot of people, it’s really the difference between life and death.”
Capps had been talking about the loss of civility in politics well before a deranged Tucson gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, made it fashionable to do so — shooting 19 — including Arizona Congressmember Gabrielle Giffords — and killing six of them. “The language has become so vitriolic it’s crossed over from issue-based to personality-based,” she complained. “You talk about character assassination. There are people who really do want to tear down other people. I’m not fearful for myself or even my party; I’m fearful for democracy.”
By Paul Wellman (file)
Democrats have failed to tell their story effectively, Capps asserted recently. “We need to translate what people are passionate about so others can hear.”
Almost as daunting as Republicans in Washington is that the boundaries of her 23rd Congressional District — gerrymandered 10 years ago into a Democratic safe house known as “the ribbon of shame” — will be redrawn by August. The configuration of her present district, an improbable coastal snake — two to 12 miles wide — winds from Oxnard in the south through Santa Barbara and just shy of Hearst Castle to the north. California’s new commission to redraw the district boundaries — created by a ballot initiative and made up of 12 good-government citizen appointees — has cited the 23rd District as Exhibit A in its indictment of political gerrymandering. Capps, like many California congressional Democrats, donated $10,000 last November to a ballot initiative that would have abolished the new commission before it could get started. That effort failed. Capps has said she supports redistricting reform but charged that the new commission was not directly accountable to anyone and that its composition did not reflect statewide voter-registration trends. The commission is scheduled to release its new map of California state offices and California’s congressional delegation this August. No one pretends to know what the new map will look like. Everyone expects Capps’s district to be far more competitive.
Many vanquished Republicans are convinced they could have beaten Capps under the district’s earlier configuration — Mike Stoker for one, and Brooks Firestone, who was poised to run against Capps for Congress in 1997 immediately after the death of her husband. He had scads of money, an intact political organization, and a moderate track record on which to run. He also had former President Gerald Ford urging him onward. But instead, he was brutally savaged in the party primary by arch-conservative Tom Bordonaro, who tagged Firestone “a baby killer” for his support of abortion rights.
Capps went on to beat Bordanaro not once but twice. And she beat him in the previous district, which included pretty much all of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, with a few exceptions. “I love my district now,” said Capps. “But I loved the old district too. I won there,” she said. “It was harder, but I still managed to win.”
“I have to chuckle,” she said. “I have two neighbors [Republican Congressmembers Elton Gallegly and Kevin McCarthy] who are both beneficiaries of the same decision-making process, and I don’t hear complaints about their districts.”
To the extent Capps feels any embarrassment over “the ribbon of shame,” she’s not showing it. She maintains that the coastal communities of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties have far more in common with each other than with the more inland communities in those same counties. And she maintains her district is taking a bad rap. “I have to chuckle,” she said. “I have two neighbors [Republican Congressmembers Elton Gallegly and Kevin McCarthy] who are both beneficiaries of the same decision-making process, and I don’t hear complaints about their districts.”
The prospect of new district boundaries has caused considerable hyperventilation among political speculators. Will Capps run again? If not, will there be a political feeding frenzy among interested Democrats like County Supervisor Salud Carbajal and former assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson? And what about Capps’s daughter Laura, now pregnant and living in the nation’s capital? The less feverish calculation suggests that Capps will run again once the new district boundaries are drawn. As an incumbent and the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, she would stand the best chance of keeping a more competitive seat in Democratic hands. The only one who might know for sure is Lois Capps herself, and she’s not saying. After pledging to serve only three terms when first running — a pledge she obviously reconsidered — Capps is more careful when discussing future plans. “Saying what I said the first time, that was a mistake,” she said. “I haven’t made a decision.”
In a brief moment of introspection, Capps looked back to when she first went to Congress. Republican warlord Newt Gingrich was attempting to paralyze government, and partisan gridlock was the order of the day. But the economy was booming, and there was a surplus in the treasury. “When I ran, people were astonished. I was a total outsider. I was a woman, I was a nurse, and I had never run before,” she said. “But in this last race, the outsider was running against me, the incumbent. I was told I shouldn’t be reelected because I’m an insider. That sort of tells the story right there.”
Comments
Thanks Lois Capps for being genuinely nice and honest!
It is interesting that Capp's opponents political rhetoric includes the complaint that "Capps doesn't do anything for our district" <<(paraphrasing.) That of course is a lie but isn't that what republicans/conservatives supposedly want; people in office that don't do anything.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before too many go off on the "ribbon of shame" gerrymandered Capps Congressional District, check out the creative Bakersfieldectomy deep surgical excision gerrymander for the adjacent District 22, held by Republican shaker Kevin McCarthy:
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/co...
This is all typical of Congressional Districts nationwide.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
January 20, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Lois for all your hard work. Please don't leave anytime soon. The ranks of the democrats in waiting for your seat are at the very least pathetic. At least those who currently sit on the Board of Supervisors.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DonM: what has Capps done for our district?
DavidP: there are many 'ribbons of shame', all of which need to be fixed. The existence of others does not justify the existence of ours. I'm looking forward to redistricting, after which Capps will be a distant memory.
Capps is indeed a very nice person - also ignorant of the Constitution ('guarantees health') and the health care law she is so in favor of. Not the level of knowledge we need.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't ever change, JohnLocke, don't ever change.
But do write more about how health care laws are so bad, very very bad, and how the status quo before the law, less than a year ago, was so very very good.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
January 20, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like Nick is in love. What a puff piece. Can barely bring himself to challenge her or her record on pretty much anything, and offers excuse after excuse when he musters up anything remotely close to journalistic integrity.
Scooter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Health care is a wreck, David, but don't ever confuse doing something with doing the right thing. The big lie from the Obama crew is that the new health care plan will save money. One would have to be a complete fool to believe that. My prediction: Obamacare will not be implemented in its present form.
But my point about Capps was actually about her appalling ignorance of both the Consitution and Obamacare and her blind obeisance to Queen Pelosi. Capps is a nice lady - but nobody's home.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The big lie from the Obama crew is that the new health care plan will save money. One would have to be a complete fool to believe that." - Pinatubo
Analysis from "complete fools."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc1... (page 12 -- page 2 of the letter to Pelosi -- is a good place to begin the Congressional Budget Office tomfoolery.)
binky (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know that the tread on the tires of the following argument has worn thin , yet remains true nontheless. Where the hell were you whiners while Shrub was enjoying his majorities in both houses? You damn well knew that the health insurance crisis was escalating and you sat on your hands . If you had done something , anything ( other than the disaster that is Medicare plan B) then maybe you would have some credibility today instead of just being a bunch of dummies telling us how smart you are .
geeber (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2011 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lois served well, but times have changed and Lois has grown old and a bit forgetful.
Time for Lois to move on, and time for new leadership.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 3:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
binky, do you believe everything the gov tells you? The assumptions in the CBO analysis are unrealistic.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lois is an old school, bring home the bacon, back room dealing politician who has played a major role in bankrupting our country. She is a dinosaur.
reality_check (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Nick, Capps office just called and the check is in the mail. OMG can you show us any other example of why journalism is dead. Lois Capps is a miniscule, and ineffectual, player (actually she just fills a seat and is managed by her handlers) in the whole picture. Now that her purse strings have been cut let's see how this "Lioness of the Riviera" does now. Remember Lois, the Declaration of Independence says what? But it's good to see where all the sycophants hide.
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually binky, John is right on the money. Don't try to quote the OMB since, even though they are "neutral", they have to use the figures provided to them by the Congress. Gee, when you add back the Doc Fix, the double counting, the fact that we pay for 10 years yet only get supposed benefits for the final six; the tally is closer to probably 700 billion over the initial estimate. But this will all be moot when we get finished defunding administrative portions as well as throwing up obstacle after obstacle to the regulatory implementation. And that does not even consider the aspect of the Supremes and now we have a significant number of states (6) beginning the process of nullification. Should be fun to hear the squeals of derision from the progressives. Wow, I forgot how fun reading the ramblings of local Central Committee followers was. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My links in the post above went to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Petry, not the Office of Management and Budget.
And for JohnLocke, I suppose you can dismiss the over 100 economists and public policy analysts tasked with providing "objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and; the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process," but I would like to hear your best source of information for Congressional budget analysis.
[I incorrectly attributed my dear friend Pinatubo with a comment from JohnLocke (above); my apologies.]
binky (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Simple math old son. I can think for myself without the help of others. Look, the CBO just scores what's in front of them. On a quick comment, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, or around 500 billion, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, which is again around 500 billion, to pay for just six years of spending.
You are raising SocSec tax revenues, while also raising benefits. Now the CBO says you can only count that revenue one time. If you're counting it as a counter balance for the health bill, you're then increasing unfunded obligations for SocSec. The bill's framers increased obligations but did not set aside those dollars for the specific programs outlined. So you can't say that you are extending the life of a program with this. That is a fraud since you are also using the money for another programs offsets.
Now I realize that you, and most of those who subscribe to The Independent want government to dominate the health care marketplace and therefore have an overall budget scheme that leads to a “universal” expenditure; which would, by its very nature, lead to rationing. Myself, and those like me, believe in a decentralized system where individuals bring market forces to bear.
So let's take a look at the doc fix. This bill had the doc fix from the very beginning. And if you're trying to tell me that the Medicare savings can be defined as health care reform, then the Medicare portion should be counted also. On one hand you can't say that I am going to remove $450 billion in Medicare savings and then “apply” those savings to a new health care program. On top of that you are saying that you are going to ignore the doc fix. As I said before if you count the Medicare expenditure as a savings you have to count the spending. It is smoke and mirrors. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My source is common sense, something in terribly sort supply in government and its true believers. If we add millions of uninsured to the pot, leave the rate of inflation in health care alone, charge fines for non-participation that are far less than the cost of participation, continue to provide health care for illegals through emergency room services, and leave rate-setting in the hands of the insurance companies, the cost will go up, not down. Why do you think the insurance companies are already filing huge rate increases? Why do you think major corporations are already booking large reserve charges for the increased cost of Obamacare and dropping benefits? Because they all know that the taxpayer will pick up the slack under Obamacare.
None of which is an argument against the fact that health care in its current form is a mess, just support for my total lack of faith in the government to solve the problem under its proposed plan. And I do believe that most of the plan will be unimplementable for a variety of reasons.
Remember what progressives want:
progressively more government
progressively more taxes
progressively less individual responsibility
progressively less personal freedom.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Lois! I feel honored to have Ms. Capps as my representative.
joshanders_84 (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2011 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crikey! Accidental Representative... that says it all.
2012: We deserve better!!
maximum (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This article is very strange. First the title gives the impression that somehow being nice is not enough, yet then goes on to mention how Mrs. Capps thinks there is too much vitriol in today's politics.
Also, the question he asks still remains---what has she done other than frivilous earmark projects that add to the deficit? And oh yeah, helping place the boothold on the throats of oil and businesses via regulations here, regulations there?
I attended the debate and she brought up some green projects which her opponents thoughtfully countered with the question, why put tax dollars into these black holes? I think green projects should be funded by the companies that develop them. Gov latches on to these just to make themselves seem like they are "getting things done"--and sometimes it's a PR effort for their cronies as we are seeing Obama do over and over again.
Bottom line, it's a sham.
SantaBarbaraDianne (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There it is . Petry & Locke showing us how smart they are . Don't remember a peep out of these two guys regarding health insurance reform when the GOP had the White House and Congress. Biggest long term domestic issue and what do they do ? Nothing , nada , zippo.
GOP didn't care then and only cares now as a means to undermine the opposition . How come you guys are so smart now and were so dumb then ?
geeber (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that earmarks are a minor part of the budget. I guess I could complain that Capps as well as other California congress members don't bring home enough of the "bacon" in for form of earmarks. I know that they try but it is the republicans that are blocking efforts at comprehensive, fair and equal distribution of wealth. California is known as a "donor" State, only getting back 78 cents on the dollar back from D.C. The welfare states receiving the 22 cent balance are usually red, regressive, conservative, republican and I guess you could say welfare states.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No problem geeber. Thanks. Oh since you spend your life on the sidelines looking in; just wanted to tell you that our board that suggested a number of health care reforms. The amazing thing is they had nothing to do with how I could control my fellow American. But if you are saying that I had to participate in your reform movement...I did...I helped crush the progressives and give conservatives the largest victory in 70 years. You are welcome. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And Donny? No one is saying that they ARE a large part of the budget. Poor attempt at redirecting the conversation. Get a clue dude. Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
'scuse me, Geeber, but these posts are normally about an article and I don't recall any articles about health care reform during the period you refer to. Was Newshawk even in existence during that period?
And the Reps have suggested a variety of health care reforms; they just don't like the current package. So drop the partisan BS and consider the issues.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right John, the problem is the scorpion and the frog parable.
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
binky,
Warning: this post may be a bit off-topic.
Thank you for the links. I appreciate your ongoing effects to inject facts and data into the posted discussions.
During the health care debate, the Republican minority (at that time) did actually put forth a health care plan which was scored by the CBO. Here is a link:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705...
To summarize, the minority plan put forth also saved money according to CBO (not nearly as much as the final plan), and covered far fewer people. Nonetheless, it was a plan of sorts.
And with all due respect to JohnLocke, whose beliefs strike me as honest (although I disagree with many), I think I'll reserve judgement on his opinion regarding the validity of the CBO's analysis until I've read it more thoroughly. To me, the recent arguments attempting to undercut the CBO's analysis have sort of a "shoot the messenger" feel to them. After all, no one likes getting data which runs counter to one's opinions, me included.
wondering (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Locke , where do you think you are? "Was Noozhawk even in existence then ?". Figure out where you are and then try remembering back a bit. There has been vigorous discussion about health care reform here on THE INDEPENDENT for eons , well predating the period of GOP neglect when they had all the tools neccessary to do something .
Funny how it's only " partisan b.s. " when the opinion expressed runs counter to yours.
geeber (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2011 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Lois!
RETIRE!
Give it up!
You're OLD SCHOOL and bankrupting our country!
We will elect a much more suitable replacement.
BeachLivin (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2011 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, geeber, partisan b.s. comes from all sides. I judge it to be such when it is clearly parrotting a Pelosi or Reid or Glen Beck or Limbaugh or some other fool.
i do post on both Newshawk and Independent and apologize for getting my in-the-moment location wrong. I should have recognized the Indy by it's partisan b.s., esp the fawning over the lefty pols by Welsh.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2011 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry to be such a pain , Locke , but I must call you out once again. I don't need or want the Reid/Pelosi viewpoint on the 8 year GOP Rip van Winkle job done on health care . No "parroting" needed as the record speaks for itself .Nothing done- nothing ,nada , zero, zippo. Unless you want to discuss Medicare part B , but you might not want to go there.
As far as parrotting goes , I have seen your "what progressives want" pablum on Becks chalkboard more than once.Please spare me the lectures about "partisan b.s." till you can abide by your own advice.
geeber (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2011 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that health care is a wreck and no party has done anything about it. My "progressives want" screed is based on years of reading lefty partisan B.S. The righty partisans want their vision of God to run the country. They all scare me.
And once, again, common sense would indicate that including everyone in unlimited health care and exempting those who pay a penalty of less than insurance cost will not work. Either all in or nothing.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2011 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Krauthammer has said it best, and I quote, "Suppose someone — say, the president of United States — proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion....he'd be laughed out of town."
He also states, and I agree, "“This does not absolve the Republicans from producing a health-care replacement. They will and should be judged by how well their alternative addresses the needs of the uninsured and the anxieties of the currently insured. But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.”
Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2011 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The bill" isn't all that complicated; unless you're a republican tea bagger type. But still we could have a very simple single payer system that would be superior at all criteria. But then the republicans wouldn't understand that either.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2011 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Krauthammer:
"...amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.”
And thank you, Daniel Petry, for posting this.
maximum (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2011 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DonM has a good point, but then who would fund research and make all the great discoveries and inventions that move medicine forward? Government funded research is always politicized.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 25, 2011 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was a student at UCSB at the time of Lois' first campaign and was a proud member of the UCSB Democrats, which helped roll out the historic get out the vote effort mentioned in the article.
It was such a positive part of my college experience. Lois is intelligent, gracious and understanding of the needs of the community. I am truly proud to have been a part of her initial campaign efforts.
UCSBgrad (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2011 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)