Open Left - populist caucus

ACTION: Urge House Populists to join Progressive Block

desmoinesdem — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:00:00 GMT

I have donated to Blue America's fundraising drive for House Democrats who have pledged to insist on a public option, American option, American Plan or whatever you want to call strong competition to private insurers in the health care reform bill.

The more House Democrats we can persuade to take this pledge, the better our chances for getting a good bill despite Obama administration plans to buy off disgruntled liberals with funding for favored projects.

This diary is about strategies for pushing House Populist Caucus members toward joining the "Progressive Block," our last line of defense against efforts to destroy meaningful health care reform.
All House Democrats need to hear from their constituents about health care reform, but I advocate a special focus on the Populist Caucus for several reasons:

1. The Populist Caucus announced its formation in February with a pledge to support "six key middle class economic issues," including "Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans."

2. Most of the 26 Populist Caucus members have signed on to support Health Care for America Now's core principles for health care reform.

3. Eleven Populist Caucus members are already among the 64 House Democrats (or 65 by this count) who will oppose any health care reform bill lacking a robust public option.

4. If we can move just a few more Populist Caucus members in this direction, we may be able to persuade the caucus to issue a group statement or open letter, which would help drive the media narrative that the votes aren't there in the House to pass a bill with no public option.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the Populist Caucus hasn't been out in front on this issue already. Founder Bruce Braley (IA-01) told the Huffington Post's Chris Weigant in March,

The Populist Caucus is the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle class economic issues. [...] We're going to be increasingly active on legislation and plan to be outspoken on these core economic issues. [...] Another big issue we all want to influence is the healthcare debate. Middle class families are being squeezed from a thousand directions these days, but one of the biggest issues is the rising cost of healthcare. Many companies are reducing benefits in the midst of this recession, and families lose coverage when breadwinners become unemployed. The healthcare debate is beginning, and I think we're well-positioned to influence it.

Presumably the Populist Caucus has stayed on the sidelines for lack of consensus, which wouldn't be surprising for a group containing New Democrats and Blue Dogs as well as Progressives. Even without unanimous agreement within the caucus, it's past time for the Populists to get involved in the health care debate.

Currently the Populist Caucus has 26 members:

Bruce Braley (IA-01), chair
Michael Arcuri (NY-24), vice-chair
Peter DeFazio (OR-04), vice-chair
Betty Sutton (OH-13), vice-chair
Leonard Boswell (IA-03)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Phil Hare (IL-17)
Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Steve Kagen (WI-08)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Ben Ray Lujan (NM-03)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Michael Michaud (ME-02)
Tom Perriello (VA-05)
Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Peter Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Twenty-five of those 26 members (everyone except Slaughter) are among the 179 House Representatives who have said they support Health Care for America Now's "statement of common purpose". Excerpt:

Our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone in America and it must play a central role in regulating, financing, and providing health coverage by establishing:
A truly inclusive and accessible health care system in which no one is left out.
A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

I also found 11 Populist Caucus members on Democracy for America's list of 64 "health care heroes" and Blue America's list of 65 House members who "took the pledge": DeFazio, Doggett, Ellison, Filner, Hare, Hirono, Johnson, Kaptur, Massa, Sanchez, and Yarmuth. Just three more Populists taking the pledge would put a majority of this caucus on our side.

People living in these 11 districts should thank their representatives for taking a stand and encourage them to co-author an open letter from Populist Caucus members insisting on a public health insurance option. They may not be aware that nearly a dozen Populists have already said they are willing to draw a line in the sand on this issue. A joint letter would get media attention, as did statements issued by groups of Blue Dogs and Progressives earlier this summer.

The other 15 members of the Populist Caucus especially need to hear from their constituents: Braley, Arcuri, Sutton, Boswell, Cohen, Courtney, Kagen, Loebsack, Lujan, Michaud, Perriello, Schakowsky, Shea-Porter, Slaughter, and Welch.

If you live in one of these districts, please tell your representative that you appreciate his or her support for Health Care for America Now's core principles, which include a public option (leave out this talking point if you're in Slaughter's district).

Please remind your member of Congress that cooperatives are not a substitute for a real public option, and anyway, health care co-ops were already tried in Iowa and failed to provide competition to private insurers, which have near-monopolies in most markets around the country. You could also mention that affordable health care for the middle class is one of the core principles for the Populist Caucus, and let them know that quite a few of their Populist colleagues have already taken a stand.

Special note for those in IA-02, NM-03, and IL-09: Loebsack, Lujan and Schakowsky are in the Progressive Caucus as well as the Populist Caucus, and all three are also co-sponsors of HR 676, the single-payer bill. Ask them to stand with the dozens of Progressives who will not vote for any bill that substitutes co-ops for a real public option.

We should also ask Populist Caucus members to resist any White House attempts to buy their votes on health care reform with "inducements, like more money for favored projects." Fellow Iowan 2laneIA got it right in this diary:

Thanks, but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere.
We have a bridge that needs repair in our community. It would take about $350,000. I am happy to keep driving a different road to avoid it if we all get access to affordable health care instead. Any Democrat who trades his or her vote to keep the public option in return for a bridge, a day care center, or a highway expansion, should be publicly embarrassed. [...]
While you are calling congressional public option supporters to thank them, tell them you don't want any bridges if it means you don't get affordable access to health care. You could also mention that if they vote for a bill without the public option, you will want to know what they got from the White House in return.

Please post any relevant thoughts and suggestions in this thread.

Time for Braley's Populist Caucus to speak up on health care

desmoinesdem — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:45:07 GMT

Congress is getting to work on the details of health care reform, and a major battleground will be whether to include a strong public health insurance option for all Americans.

Republicans like Senator Chuck Grassley are revving up their scare tactics about "government-run" health care. Coalitions of Democrats who back a public option are also taking shape in the House and the Senate.

The new Populist Caucus led by Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) has yet to weigh in on the specifics of health care reform. That needs to change soon if Braley is serious about turning this caucus into a voice for the middle class in the House.

More thoughts on this subject are after the jump.
Braley rolled out the Populist Caucus with 23 founding members in February. The accompanying press release listed six key priorities for the group, including "Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans."

Speaking to Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post in March, Braley said the Populist Caucus differed from the Progressive Caucus because

the Progressive Caucus tends to focus on a broad range of foreign and domestic policies. The Populist Caucus is the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle class economic issues.

When Weigant asked whether the Populist Caucus planned to endorse or introduce specific legislation, Braley responded,

We're going to be increasingly active on legislation and plan to be outspoken on these core economic issues. I think one issue you'll see a lot of activity from the Populist Caucus is on trade. Irresponsible trade policies can cost Americans jobs, and we'll be standing up for fair trade. Another big issue we all want to influence is the healthcare debate. Middle class families are being squeezed from a thousand directions these days, but one of the biggest issues is the rising cost of healthcare. Many companies are reducing benefits in the midst of this recession, and families lose coverage when breadwinners become unemployed. The healthcare debate is beginning, and I think we're well-positioned to influence it.

The health care debate is now underway. Four caucuses representing House Democrats have sent an open letter to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders advocating "a robust public health insurance plan like Medicare" as part of health care reform. I haven't received any statement from Braley's office regarding the question of a public option, and I couldn't find anything on the Populist Caucus pages of Braley's official website either.

I don't meant to knock Braley. He's a hard-working representative, and I like what he's doing on a wide range of issues. During the first week of May alone he introduced a bill on school nutrition and helped broker a compromise on a bill that would "take older, gas-guzzling vehicles off the road and spur new car sales by providing consumers with a $3,000 to $7,500 incentive to buy more fuel-efficient cars or trucks."

That said, Braley chose to create a Populist Caucus and promised that it would influence the conversation on health care. Rightly so, because access to affordable health care is one of the biggest problems facing the American middle class, and this year's health care reform debate may result in one of the most important bills passed this decade.

My best guess for why the Populist Caucus has not yet jumped into the health care debate is that its 23 members do not agree on the most contentious issue: whether the government should make a public health insurance option available to all Americans.

Quite a few founding Populist Caucus members also belong to the Progressive Caucus, which strongly backs a public option. On the other hand, some Populist Caucus members, including Braley, belong to the New Democratic Coalition. The New Democrats have a reputation for being sympathetic to corporate interests, and at least two New Democrats have expressed concern about the impact a public health insurance program would have on private insurers.

Although finding consensus in the Populist Caucus may not be easy, the group needs to take a position on key aspects of health care reform. Braley said it himself: the rising cost of health care is "one of the biggest issues" facing the middle class.

I am seeking comment on this matter from Braley's office and will follow up when I learn more about where the Populist Caucus stands on a public health insurance option.

Populist Caucus As New Progressives?

Chris Bowers — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:42:50 GMT

Last week, Representative Bruce Braley announced the formation of a fourth Democratic ideological caucus in the House: the Populist caucus. The Huffington Post produced a list of twenty of their founding members:

Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY); Pete DeFazio (D-OR); Betty Sutton (D-OH); Leonard Boswell (D-IA); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Joe Courtney (D-CT); Keith Ellison (D-MN); Bob Filner (D-CA); Phil Hare (D-IL); Mazie Hirono (D-HI); Hank Johnson (D-GA); Steve Kagan (D-WI); David Loebsack (D-IA); Eric Massa (D-NY); Linda Sanchez (D-CA); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); Peter Welch (D-VT); and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

While it is something of a mixed bag, take a look at Populist caucus membership in the other Democratic ideological caucuses:

Blue Dogs and New Democrats (1): Arcuri (what joiner Arcuri is!)
Blue Dogs only (1): Boswell
New Democrats only (2): Braley, Courtney
Progressives only (11): Cohen, DeFazio, Ellison, Filner, Hare, Hirono, Johnson, Loebsack, Sanchez, Schakowsky, Welch
No previous alignment: (5): Kagen, Massa, Shea-Porter, Sutton, Yarmouth

Clearly, there is a strong tendency toward the Progressive caucus among the Populists, even though they were organized by a New Democrat. Further, Progressive punch puts the median lifetime score on "crucial votes" for this group at 55.5 of 256 (between Courtney at 54 and Loebsack at 57) in the Democratic caucus, placing it decidedly in the left-wing of the party.

More in the extended entry.

Notably, the Populists are also heavy on the class of 2006, as 14 of the 20 members listed by the Huffington Post were first elected to Congress that year (and Massa came within an inch of being a 15th that year). Only Boswell, DeFazio, Filner Sanchez and Schakowsky were first elected to Congress before 2006. As such, while it displayed the same fractured tendencies of all ideological caucuses across the three bailout votes, the Populist Caucus appears to be primarily a caucus of progressive sophomore Representatives. This is particularly interesting since the class of 2006 was supposed to be a conservative dominated class ushered in by then -DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel. Now, the progressive members of that class appear to have organized a new caucus for themselves.

It is also worth noting that the caucus is 65% (13 out of 20) white and male, making the caucus demographically much more like the New Democrats (who are also at 65%) than like the Progressives (who are at about 28%). Thus, not only is the caucus a group of sophomore progressives, it seems to be a fairly "white progressive," too.

Even with that demographic caveat, this is still a caucus of which I think we need to be supportive. Upon entering the House, progressives lack a support network comparable to that offered by Blue Dogs or New Democrats. By organizing new House members, including nine potentially endangered Democrats who captured seats that were held by Republicans before the 2006 elections, the Populists have the potential to function as a non-right wing, non-corporate, support network for newly elected Democrats to succeed in endangered districts. As such, many of our future progressive leaders in Congress may very well come from the Populist caucus. That is a promising start, and one that I hope flourishes.

Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley to Start the Populist Caucus

Matt Stoller — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:30:37 GMT

This is a Dear Colleague letter being circulated by Bruce Braley.

This is an interesting internal shift in the House, and suggests that no current ideological caucus is quite capturing the moment. The plank for this group is economic justice, universal health care, affordable college education, consumer safety, fair trade, and good paying jobs. Culturally, though, this has more of a rural farmer and union feel than the progressive caucus, with its heavily New Left and multi-ethnic approach, but policy-wise it is substantially different than the Blue Dogs.

The Blue Dogs are have always relied on the argument that their districts are more rural and swing than the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and positioned themselves as more populist than liberal. Since 2002, though, that group has become riddled with corporate lobbying influence, and their brand has suffered. The progressive caucus doesn't have any requirements for belonging, so it's stocked with anyone who wants to attach their name to progressivism for any reason, often so they can triangulate against progressives with something along the lines of 'even the liberal Barney Frank believes that a bailout of Wall Street is necessary' or so that Dennis Kucinich can use it as a stepping stone to run for President.

This is an interesting development, and I suspect there's going to be some strong caucus reorganization going on as an expanded Democratic majority finds its sea legs.