Tweet
Gerry Connolly gets a bit touchy when Mike Stark (one of his constituents) doesn’t know Who He Is when he sees him on the street. And he doesn’t want to commit to defend a public plan in the health care bill, either:
STARK: Where are you on the public option.
CONNOLLY: I support a public option.
STARK: Will you vote against any bill that doesn’t have a…
CONNOLLY: I’m not going to do any such…no one’s ever going to get me to do that on anything.
STARK: Why?
CONNOLLY: Because I don’t believe in it!
So what DOES Gerry Connelly believe in when it comes to the health care bill? Well, protecting the rich evidently:
A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country’s richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama’s ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.
[...]
Also on Friday a busload of freshmen Democrats went to the White House to plead their case against sharp tax increases with the president and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The organizer was Rep. Gerald Connolly, the president of the freshman class whose Northern Virginia district is the richest in the U.S. as measured by median household income.
As one of Gerry’s biggest supporters and one of his constituents, I want to point out that I think this move is wrong. Supporting legislation that gives everyone access to affordable health care even if it means slightly raising taxes on the a small percentage of the wealthiest people in our country would actually help his re-election chances.
Well, ain’t that just precious; Democrats from the richest districts in America fighting against "a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000" (e.g., the top 1% of wage earners in this country) while President Obama fights to provide health insurance for all Americans?
[]
[E]ven if Gerry Connolly is correct that "Households earning at least $200,000 represent 14% of his district," that means 86% of his district does not earn at least $200,000.
Maybe this explains the problems that Connolly has been having with constituent services. If you’re not on the short list of potential campaign cash cows, you can take a number.
Connolly’s office: (202) 225-1492
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Excellent! Go get ‘em!
The fear Connolly seems to have of accountability on this issue is rather like the fear the Republicans have of FDL on this issue — hence their sending out trained trolls to FDL every time Jane or somebody else posts on health care.
Yeah you think they’d be pissed off over Ensign or something, but no — only the wonkish posts on health care.
Not normal.
Isn’t there something constructive they could be doing? Do they think they’re changing minds over here??
Oh yeah, they don’t do constructive, they do destruction.
While I’m not certain I am with y’all on Mr. Connolly on all fronts; however, I am disappointed that some recently-elected National Democrats in the House from conservative states are looking toward 2010 rather than helping to make meaningful reform in health care.
Without a public option and some reasonable curb on outlandish medical tort awards, low-cost private health insurance will mean that wealthy people will still be able to afford comprehensive health care; the indigent will receive care in the way of Medicare/Medicaid/State aid, but the folks who work an honest day’s labor, yet hover just about the income level necessary to qualify for public benefits will be forced to purchase health insurance that is shoddy and loaded with exclusions.
At Drinking Liberally tonight in Roanoke, Virginia, a state away from Mr. Connolly and Northern Virginia, someone asked whether health care, like education or wildness protection, should be dictated by the bottom-line. In other words, should “low-cost” or universal coverage be the focus of the debate? Some of our liberal drinkers are convinced they are mutually exclusive.
Mr. Connolly and others are looking at health care as a for-profit enterprise, but is health care really a profit v. loss issue?
Until men like Mr. Connolly understand that universal coverage should be a vision we share because we believe that access to quality health care is a moral issue, I’m afraid they will not have the political courage to lead others on this crucial issue.
I’m tired and watching The Colbert Report, so I hope this makes some sense.
Maybe I said it better here:
http://starcityharbinger.com/2…..rt-reform/