Money Changes Everything
It's easy to get a pretty basic understanding about what's going on in Washington by following the money. Pick an issue and do a bit of research on campaign contributions to your representative, or any representative for that matter, and you'll get a clear connection between the money and their legislative position. Health care is no exception.
The Washington Post published a chart today Who's In Play: House health-care vote, comparing the current lean of house members with their November 7th votes on health reform legislation.
I was interested to see the history, and current leaning, of the representatives from my home state of Georgia. Not surprisingly, positions were unchanged. The money tells the tale. According to data in The Washington Post chart, as of November 2009, health industry campaign contributions to Georgia representatives are in excess of $7.4 million. The no-voters, chiefly Republicans, have received in excess of $6.67 million, nearly four times as much as the the yes-voters who have received just over $1.76 million. Three Republican no-voters, Phil Gingrey, Tom Price and Nathan Deal have received $5.77 million combined.
The one undecided vote at this time is Sanford Bishop of Georgia's 2nd Congressional District. Based on the following quote from his web site, I expect Bishop to vote yes this week.
Bishop's district, a mainly agricultural region in the southwest corner of Georgia, has a median income of $29,354, the lowest of any district in the state. Unemployment is at a staggering 11.4%, with 22.3% uninsured. The people of Bishop's district need affordable health care as much, if not more, than any other residents of the state of Georgia.
In contrast, the average median income of the districts represented by Gingrey, Price and Deal is over $51,000. Price's Cobb County residents enjoy a median income of nearly $72,000. Needless to say these higher-income, better-educated, adequately-insured citizens are tea-bagging the hell out of their representatives to oppose health care reform. They simply don't need the help as much as their neighbors to the south. However, they are voting against their own best interests. There but for the grace of God go I.
With all the money in play, opposition to more government programs is understandable, but opposing health care reform does not reform Washington or the broken system driven by obscene amounts of money paid by health insurance and big pharma lobbying firms.
Misguided anti-government rallies, cries of socialism and irrational fears are missing the point entirely. Our interests are being bought and sold by corporate America, and until fundamental changes are made with respect to campaign contributions the cycle will continue. The recent Supreme Court decision to strike down campaign finance reform has opened the flood gates to even more money being used to influence votes and to put corporate-friendly faces into office. Our representatives should be required to wear jumpsuits, like those worn by NASCAR drivers, with patches and embroidered logos of their corporate sponsors, at least then we'd have some semblance of "transparency", and be able to follow the money.
...and in case Representative Bishop is still undecided there is this.
2 comments:
That's a good chart, Steve.
What's unknown about the final voting patterns is what strings are attached. Once Nancy Pelosi had rounded up 216+ votes, were certain Democratic congresspeople, perhaps facing sensitive upcoming elections, allowed to vote against the bill, knowing their vote was unnecessary? That is, in favor of it passing but too weak to act accordingly?
Likewise, how many Republicans would like have voted for the bill, but fear of breaking with the party ranks overwhelmed their ability to do so? Once again knowing it wouldn't make any difference, there was no reason to make a symbolic and career-ending stand, so they stick with the party line.
So much for country first!
Post a Comment