Peter Roskam has lately been complaining loudly to anyone who will listen about the high unemployment rate in Illinois. Roskam is trying to discredit the President and Democrats in Congress because unemployment exceeded the 8% peak projected earlier in President Obama’s term. Roskam pays lip service to the need for job growth:

“November’s continued job losses only further confirms that our economy is in serious peril, and we need to set aside partisanship and employ pro-growth policies that will create jobs.”

But when it comes time to actually vote on a jobs creation measure, partisanship wins out and Roskam votes against it.

That was what happened this past Wednesday, when the House voted on the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010, as an amendment to H.R. 2847: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Peter Roskam voted no, along with all of his obstructionist Republican colleagues.

According to Speaker Pelosi, the bill would redirect $75 billion in TARP funds to pay for highways, transit and other infrastructure; to hire or retain teachers, police and firefighters; and to subsidize loans to small businesses.

The bill also extends unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies, and Medicaid payments for people hard hit by the recession.

While Roskam loves to talk about unemployment in order to smear the President, and in order to work against legislation that his corporate sponsors oppose such as health care reform, financial regulation, and climate change legislation, Roskam demonstrates no empathy for those who have suffered job losses due to the Bush recession. You will recall that Roskam voted against unemployment benefits extension once before, back in September.

The GOP Plan is the Roskam Plan

On October 25, 2009, in Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Great new ad from the DSCC.

The Roskam plan:

  • Say “no” to anything that might help people – unemployment insurance, food stamps, minimum wage, green jobs, civil rights, health care
  • Unless that “people” means the insurance industry ($237,488 in campaign contributions), the real estate industry ($208,401),  the securities and investment “industry” ($251,490), commercial banks ($140,148), the oil and gas industry ($143,315), electric utilities ($82,900), the healthcare sector ($456,000) or, of course, Peter Roskam.
Tagged with:
 

Peter Roskam appeared on Fox Chicago Sunday yesterday and, I must say, our Congressman was looking particularly dreamy. The friendly Fox News team quizzed Pete again about the Joe Wilson outburst during President Obama’s speech last week  and Roskam describes the “thud” he felt at hearing Wilson cry out “you lie” to the President when Obama said his plan would provide no coverage for undocumented workers. When I look at the pictures though, I’m pretty sure that the only “thud” Roskam experienced came much later when he saw his picture in the New York Times.  In the picture that showed Wilson shouting, Roskam exhibits no reaction to Wilson. It does look like he’s reacting negatively to the President himself, though not shouting like his buddy from South Carolina. And notice in the interview how Roskam quickly changes the subject when the interviewer comments that, in the picture, Roskam didn’t look at Wilson:

In an interesting post, FDL questions whether the Wilson shout was planned because of the lack of reaction by Roskam. But enough about Wilson.

Roskam only does safe interviews and this one was no exception. Fox gave him free air time to rehash his same tired obstructionist Republican talking points.

Roskam remarks that we need more clarity regarding the issue of coverage for illegal immigrants. I really don’t know how you can get any more clear than the President:

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Personally, I feel undocumented workers should be covered. They are human beings who work hard for us, they pay taxes too, and we are all presently  paying through the nose for ineffective care for them in emergency rooms. Why not provide them with lower cost effective health care while they are among us. But I know that won’t fly.  Roskam seems to think that the paltry 30 million uninsured Americans remaining after you eliminate the undocumented are hardly worth bothering about.

Roskam says that polls show that the majority of Americans are opposed to a public option. But in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, “76 percent of respondents said it was either “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.” A CBS News/Nework Times poll in June found that 72% of respondents support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers. Even a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted this month after all the August teabag nonsense shows 55% support. (A poll of Congressmen receiving hefty campaign contributions from the healthcare industry would probably show weaker support). Roskam’s assessment of public opinion is, at best, disingenuous.

Listen to the Fox interviewer helpfully remind Roskam of his principal talking point that a public option “is opening the door to single-payer in the United States”. Apparently Roskam had gone off script. A single-payer plan is not, of course, what the President is proposing:

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.  And the insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Now, it is — it’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated — by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn’t be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.  The public option — the public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

Peter Roskam loves to go on TV and radio and talk down the democratic efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality affordable healthcare. What we have never, ever, heard from Roskam in all these  is his alternative plan for providing healthcare to the millions of Americans who presently go without.

President Obama last week outlined an actual plan. It needs some meat on its bones and I’ll admit to skepticism on some points but he’s laid out a path we can follow to address the problem of the uninsured this year.  All we ever hear from Roskam is “no”, “can’t do it”, “won’t work”, “too expensive”. Well the time for “no” is over. If Roskam doesn’t like the President’s plan, he should outline his own plan to provide universal healthcare. Otherwise, Roskam needs to take a heaping dose of STFU and work with the President to enact his.

I have no real hope, of course, that Roskam will do either. The hallmark of Roskam’s brief tenure in Washington has been an appalling lack of concern for those less fortunate than himself. I have no real expectation that he will change now. Not while there is political hay to be made by trying to cause the President to fail.

Healthcare really shouldn’t be so difficult a problem for our country to solve. In case you haven’t already seen it, I highly recommend T.R. Reid’s Frontline report “Sick Around the World” below. Reid shows how five wealthy democracies have tackled the problem and have come up with solutions that, while imperfect, are pretty good, and haven’t resulted in a totalitarian state or economic collapse. All the noise that surrounds the effort to provide universal healthcare in this country is the result of obstructionist Republicans like Roskam manipulating their gullible base into working against their own best interests for political gain and to the benefit of their corporate sponsors.



Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to Peter Roskam’s comments this morning on 890 AM’s “Don Wade and Roma Show” regarding President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor has had a distinguished legal career:

  • J.D. from Yale Law School
  • Editor of the Yale Law Journal
  • 5 years as an Assistant District Attorney in New York
  • 8 years of private practice in commercial litigation at Pavia & Harcourt
  • Appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush to U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in 1991
  • Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton toCircuit Court of Appeals in 1997
  • 17 years experience as a federal judge (John Roberts had only 2 years)

And Peter Roskam wants to reject her based on a couple of remarks taken out of context, without having any hearings and without having examined her judicial record. He thinks she has “an agenda”.

Come on, Peter. That’s bullshit. Its you who has an agenda. If this all about the law, why didn’t you speak out when President Bush nominated his dismally unqualified counsel Harriet Miers.

No, you are just trying to fan the flames among your extremist base by insinuating that she is a racist and will let her racists beliefs guide her decison-making. That claim is absurd, as Tom Goldstein has pointed out at ScotusBlog. This is just more obstruction on your part. Trying to create noise to prevent the President from addressing the nation’s real problems. If you think there are real issues with this nominee based on her judicial record, you should outline them. Otherwise your comments are just irresponsible and helping to make an ugly Republican spectacle even uglier.

In fairness, we need to remind readers that Peter Roskam himself has had a distinguished legal career:

salvi_roskam_maher

Here’s President Obama speaking about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s qualifications:

Weekly Address: President Obama on Judge Sotomayor’s Experience from White House on Vimeo.

UPDATE: I note that Adam Doster at Progress Illinois, has published a response to Roskam’s remarks that is, as always, more thorough and more polite than my own. I encourage you to read it.

The United States Chamber of Commerce recently honored Peter Roskam for proving in his first term to be “an effective ally to the business community”.

Sounds great until you realize what exactly “being an effective ally to the business community” means.

Put simply, it means consistently voting against the interests of the majority of citizens in your district and giving big business exactly what it demands.

It means means Roskam voting against reducing the dependence on fossil fuels that is threatening our national security and destroying our environment by requiring minimum standards for the percentage of electricity generated using renewable sources of energy.

It means Roskam voting against tax incentives for energy conservation and development of clean, renewable energy sources because they are funded by the repeal of tax breaks to big oil companies now enjoying huge profits at our expense every time we fill up our tanks.

It means Roskam voting against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 which would have insured that Illinois’ uninsured children receive the kind of health care that Roskam’s own kids get at taxpayer expense.

It means Roskam standing up for the interests of big drug companies rather than allowing the Medicare program to negotiate for better prices on prescription drugs.

It means Roskam voting against protection of his constituents right to equal pay for equal work. And their right to organize.

And it means Roskam voting against protecting middle class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So congratulations on your big award, Peter, and thanks for nothing. Its time we had a new Representative in Congress who works for us and not for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Peter Roskam is not telling you the truth.

Today (December 19th), Roskam published on his House web site a brief news item announcing “ROSKAM PROTECTS 70,000 IL-6 RESIDENTS FROM ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX”. This was in regard to the Democratic plan to relieve middle class taxpayers of liability for the Alternative Minimum Tax beginning in the coming tax season.

What Roskam is not telling you is that he and his Republican colleagues absolutely refused to vote for the measure until provisions were removed from the bill that would have closed loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to escape paying taxes by keeping assets offshore and allow some investment fund managers and venture capitalists to pay much lower tax rates than ordinary taxpayers.

(more…)

Page 1 of 212