Jan Schakowsky has been one of the leaders in House on health care reform. She’s a Chief Deputy Whip in the House, and my has she been outspoken about what she will and won’t accept in a health care bill.
From the letter Jan signed on July 30:
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable….we simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Here’s a statement she released on September 3:
“Many Members of Congress — including myself — will not support a health insurance reform bill that does not break the strangle hold of private insurance companies on our health care system. That requires that consumers have a choice of a robust public health insurance plan. I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation, no triggers. I believe Congress will pass and the President will sign such a bill this Fall.”
Here she is on September 9 with Cenk Uyger:
CENK: Will you vote for a bill without a public option, or is that your line in the sand, if there is no public option you will not vote for it?
SCHAKOWSKY: No, listen, my bargaining position right now is that without a robust public option I won’t pass the legislation, I won’t vote for the legislation.
She goes on to qualify that she’d be open to hearing other ways to bring about cost containment and competition, but she doesn’t believe that there is one. And in fact, the Senate bill doesn’t contain costs (which will continue to rise). At least the House bill removed the exemption that insurance companies have from anti-trust laws, but Ben Nelson got that yanked from the Senate bill in exchange for his cloture vote.
Here’s Schakowsky on September 25 with Igor Volsky:
“At the end of the day, there will be a public option in the bill.“
And then here she is telling Greg Sargent that she won’t vote for a bill that “blatantly discriminates against women”:
If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades,” Schakowsky said in a statement emailed my way. “I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women.”
Of course since Obama has signaled that he approves of the Senate’s language written by Ben Nelson, which allows a ban on abortion coverage for all insurance plans in the exchange and tees up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, maybe she’ll be like “pro-choice” Rosa DeLauro and support that, too.
Of course, Jan “bail” Schakowsky has a long history of signing letters. Remember the one where she said she wouldn’t vote for any war funding that didn’t have troop withdrawal provisions? Well, we all know how that worked out.
Schakowsky’s office numbers are (773) 506-7100, (847) 328-3409, and (202) 225-2111. If you hear anything, let us know in the war room.



59 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Good for Jan. She must know that Harkin means his “revisit” the public option issue.
Sure wonder about what Sibel Edmonds has to say about Jan’s making deals with …
Who is afraid of Sibel Edmonds
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
Jane on the Diane Rehm show NOrm Ornstein just called the Health care legislation passed through the Senate “moderate Republican” legislation. Yes he did
Jane, do you stand by your statement in the Guardian UK that, with no Public Option, Obama is heading into a one-term presidency?
I tried numerous times to get her to take the pledge and did not succeed. I assumed that it had to do with her liaison role between the WH and the House, or failing that, her leadership position, or failing that, her real intentions. I have run out of excuses for her.
I live in Evanston (in Jan’s district), and will be calling the DC and local offices.
I’d bet that Jan’s “At the end of the day-” referred exclusively to September 25th, 2009.
Obama is doing a lot of un-honest stuff.
He is not for any progressive issues
Obama is not for the public option
Obama is going to let INTERPOL operate in the US? WOW! not an good idea. Reagan did not let this happen. (this will enrage those who hate Bilderburg Group)
Obama is a bigger war president than BUSH when you look at his actions.
Obama Taxing the “Cadillac Health Plans” (Union Benefit Packages) is a GOP concession
No Import Prescriptions is a GOP concession
Allowing Insurance to charge Seniors excessive rates is a GOP concession
At the end of the day let us call Obama what he really is, a Republican
The powers that be, fear the progressive movement.
Obama was a TROJAN HORSE, use to hurt and hamper the progressive movement.
Progresssives must wake up and realize quickly, that the Democratic party has been hijack by people who hate progressives.
Obama is a one term president, because his actions are just crazy.
Obama and Rahm are clueless about the new USA political landscape.
She voted for it all in November.
un-honest, have a cup of tea
The better question is will she, like other “progressives,” break a bone in the rush to rubber stamp what the Obama Administration wants? This really needs to be clear for the so called left in the Congress, you don’t fight, then come 2010 we fight you.
We’ll see which way she leans , when it comes down to the final vote.
If she’s like the majority of our elected reps , she’ll end up caving just like those “progressives” in the other house
Heh “revisit” it in the Committee for Feel Good Liberal Inititives That Will Never Happen. It’s like the Isle of Misfit Toys.
Enjoyed your diary at Seminal. More of the same, please.
My guess is the Dems will vote for anything that comes out of this clusterfuck. A tick in the “Win” column is more important than real results.
there was never any “left” in Congress, wake up.
In the end Jan as well as Obama will do what their handlers tell them to do. No more, no less. If you want real revolution vote all incumbents out of office. See how the next crop does. If we are lucky enough to get honest representation allow that person two terms, no more. These lifetime terms lead to criminal enterprise. Founding fathers were more clear eyed than most give them credit for.
Man, you got that right, left, right
Hut 2, 3, 4
Eat the apple
Fuck the Corps
Obama, Rahm and the DLC gang believe that come election time the Progressives can always be counted on to vote Democratic simply to vote for the lesser of two evils. In the past, that may have been true, but Progressives have never been so betrayed with the bait and switch of the Obama Campaign. We were simply conned and that translates into voters not volunteering to get out the vote, not contributing money and sitting home on election day. Clinton governed as a pro-big business moderate Republican and Obama is doing the same. Rahm has his ear along with the old Clinton crew. The real Democrats in the Party, no longer have a place in the Party. Third Parties have always failed, but perhaps it is time to take the long view and start building one.
you ain’t got a friend on your left
right
you ain’t got a friend on your right
left
sound off
I’ve been trying to reach her every day. All I get is an email saying that if I’m really a constituent, she’ll get back to me.
Guess the whole New Deal and Great Society thingies were just illusions, then.
This is the worst it’s ever been in terms of moneyed and powerful interests smothering progress under mounds of $100 bills.
I went straight to comments to mention Sibel Edmonds, and there you are at # 1. Excellent. Nobody ever seems to mention her, but the cat’s out of the bag since August.
So what is the Plan B, if and when we discover that progressives just want a win and a seat at the grown up table with President Obama? I like that FDL seems to be forming a plan to prevent future clusterfucks, and I also like that there are sectors of the left that are waking up to see that the game was rigged. Personally I think it is a winning issue to unify with some on the right, for real electorial reforms. In the end I really do just want a government that listens to the people that it is charged to represent, not narrow special interests.
I used to not be for term limits, but increasingly it seems like the only way to get a more reform minded Congress. One of the “cons” against term limits was the idea that there would be so many freshmen and it would take them a long time to learn how to do things, meaning that they would rely on lobbyists more. This is true, but as it stands now Congress has already given the keys to lobbyists so what do we have to lose? With regards to term limits, what is an appropriate amount of time. I think Senators for two terms and the House for 5. Re-elections are still important and i think pols should have to stand up to the voters and be accounted for their actions.
Please, you know what happens when people start that new Society shit with me.Motherfucker does what he did in Vietnam and you are going to tell me that was “left”. I loves ya but no sale over here.
Perhaps Schakowsky has other things on her mind…
…like Sibel Edmonds
She will not keep her word unless she is one of the lucky few that is allowed to vote against it (see it has to pass – so they can only let about 35 people vote against it).
Don’t worry though, if she takes one fro the (her) team so will get something out of it (or be allowed to vote in a way that benefits her next time).
In any case thanks the immediate hold the feet to the fire and ask them if they are going to keep their word is key, and thanks for taking it on as part of your job. In the very long run I think accountability may arrive.
I certainly beleive that Obama has shown that he is not fit to be president. He has had ample opportunity to show that he is able to craft legislation that benefits the public. And he has failed miserably. There is absolutely no reason why he should be given further chances.
You hear that he has only been in office less than a year, but in that time he has wrought an enormous amount of damage, by his own deliberate actions and inactions. The outcomes we are facing in Banking, in home foreclosures, in transferring of public wealth to private interests, in escalation of war, and in the miserable HCR effort show him to be inept and deceiptful and not fit to be President.
The challenges that faced him were enormous and likewise called for someone that was up to the task. The chance to leave a great legacy that would benefit the country was before him and he has acomplished nothing of note. A country that has given him its trust and all the tools he required to accomplish great goals has been thoroughly disappointed and now sees him with scorn.
The solutions for the problems we faced had relatively straightforward solutions both economically and in other areas. The problem was that Obama was not willing to advocate for those straightforward solutions and instead did what he could to betray them.
Instead of placing further trust on Obama we should begin looking for an alternative candidate for ’12. And the person we select must have one simple quality beyond competence and that is a proven demonstration of commitment and integrity.
Representative Jan Schakowsky’s chief priority is to become Senator Jan Schakowsky. Most probably she will vote for whatever comes out of the conference. Alternately, she will be given a dispensation to “vote” her conscience so long as there are enough votes for passage.
I agree with Raven. There is no left in Congress. We just have the kabuki of Republican corporatists and Democratic corporatists handing off the baton of government to each other to keep the rubes appeased.
I agree with you but the mission of Obama is kill the Progressive Movement.
Obama and Rahm can care less about having the Dem Party control congress.
Obama and Rahm can and will work with republicans and those like them to carry out their insane agenda.
Progressives need to organize, and elect real progressives.
If the powers that be can get progressives to stay home, they win.
Obama is a Trojan Horse, his mission is to make you feel helpless, hopeless, etc.
The enemies of the CORPORATE STATE are real progressives.
We all need to get over being betrayed by Obama and Rahm, and fight back by getting real progressives elected.
Obama will tell her to fold and she will comply; it’s what she does.
Reid and Pelosi are skipping a “formal” conference committee and will ping pong the amendments, etc in an effort, it it said, to avoid GOP delays. BFD. Sounds more like a way to avoid responsibility and get a voice vote to pass a piece of shit legislation.
Agree. But if she goes for that with Rahm’s help all of her hanky panky in the Turkey defense contractor affair may even be covered by the MSM. Doubt it but who knows
She won’t commit because she has room to play. So screw her.
We have enough ‘players’ in this party who’ve screwed the party and the public.
Pelosi was the last man or woman standing for true health and insurance reform officially but Hoyer and Clyburn, like Harry Reid and those other sob’s in the Senate, put their own personal interests ahead of everyone else to undermine her authority.
‘Majorities’ be damned. Harry and the others, with our help, can stay home in 2011. That leaves a new Congress and Obama two years left to fix their failures -or we’ll play musical chairs again and again until we get it right.
In the end, how she votes on a Bill that canNOT pass WITH a public option, means NOTHING! The only difference she could make, is if she were to DEMAND, and then try to galvanize support for, STOPPING the charade, and taking it to “Reconciliation.” I stated before, and will reITERATE: I will NOT indulge one word of the false choice between voting FOR a Bill that Cigna and Aetna wrote, or accepting defeat. It is not ENOUGH to vote against_ it’s like saying, “I won’t throw confetti, when the parade for the Insurance Cartel rolls down the street.” It should ALSO be stated, and REstated, that if Reconciliation WAS adopted as a means to enact, enough votes FOR a public option would be there. WHY is this not the ONLY question asked of Democratic Senators and Congresspersons? The extent to which anyone in the media is willing to ACCEPT the lie that the choice is between an AETNA Bill, or NOTHING, only addresses the DEGREE to which, one is willing to make a gullible FOOL of oneself. The extent to which, “FIREdog” is willing to let the wool be pulled over its eyes, is not tolerable in any WAY, MEANS, or FORM. And CLEARLY!_ the role of media in energizing a TRUE framing of our choices, is at the forefront of ALL discussion. WHAT is the F-ing POINT of lamenting the fact that the GAUNTLET has not been picked UP!_ when it has NEVER been… laid DOWN!
On a not unrelated note, I would like to see a movement started to generate support for the removal of Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, BLUEdog Congresspersons, et al, from Chairs of their Committees. It is IMPERATIVE that this be spearheaded by the Unions, and ALL major FUNDraising groups within the Democratic PARTY. If MONEY is the reason why Republicans and so-called Conservative Democrats [Read: Democrats_ on the TAKE]have oKAYED the Insurance Lobby Bill, then the CORRECT way to fight that fire is, WITH fire. Not to mention, that it is the ONLY language that they COULD ever, WILL ever,… underSTAND! And the time for new Democratic PRIMARY candidates to be heard_ is NOW! THAT requires funding, as WELL, but is the ONLY way that change can be EFFECTED!
We can whine ON about the fact that the Democratic WHITE House, and Democratic CONGRESS, are filled with INDIVIDUALS, without a SPINE_ OR!_ we can wipe the SLATE, and bring in a new LINEUP.
PUT, ANOTHER way_ JAN, and LIKE Congresspersons_ can VOTE as they PLEASE_ but AT their own PERIL! The TIME to cut the NET, is AHORA!_ NOT some COME what may… MANANA!
If we and our allies in the blogosphere hammer on it the corporate media will pick it up, particularly with her being a Dem an’ all.
One million-ton shithammer, comin’ up.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post already in progress: “Waxman On Fannie/Freddie Bailout: “Must Be Conditions Imposed””
Re reading that American Conservative article with Sibel responding to Giraldi’s questions
“EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.
The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.
Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.
Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.”
Where are Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle now?
“EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.
Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.
But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.
GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?
*************************************************
EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. “
Jan “bail” Schakowsky she has been a scam artist for the longest.
And was allowed to get away with it but it’s good to see people are now
waking up to her scams.
Don’t tell me your are progressive Jan “bail” Schakowsky show me.
Going to read the entire article later. I wonder what it would take to get Ms Edmonds to put into writing all that she knows, assuming she’s not in the process of doing that now.
Wolfie – AEI
Feith – Georgetown U and Hudson Institute
Perle – AEI, Hudson Institute et al
The family that lays together stays together.
I recall several House and Senate Democrats making statements like this one. I expected that there would be a public option.
Apparently, those who made statements like Schakowsky’s were just enabling the sellouts.
According to the most recent Daily Kos “State of the Nation” tracking poll, 45% of Democrats identify themselves as either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote.
Far more that 45% of the base of the Democratic Party would be unhappy right now had it not been for statements like Schakowsky’s to keep the left quiet along the way to watering down and watering down and watering down toward final removal of real reform.
Good job, Jan Schakowsky.
And people ask me why I’m so disappointed with Obama and congressional Democrats…
Re that not good statistic, Steve Singiser at dkos wrote:
With all due respect to Steve, he’s essentially saying that – despite the fact that Obama and congressional Democrats fucked over the base and totally did the wrong thing for the American people on hcr – activists are now supposed to work even harder to help them stay in office.
Yes, let’s all thank them for betraying us and screwing over the American people. Not.
Connecticut for Lieberman Party did not fail, it even had the tacit backing of big (D)’s like Clinton and Obama!
and maybe it is finally time to try doing the right thing (3rd Party) and possibly failing, rather than continuing to do the wrong thing (enabling ongoing (D) betrayals).
Could have something to do with a taping of her in a compromised situation. Then her son in law died snorkling on vacation. At a very young age. Of course, if you acknowlege these things …you will be called a conspiracy theorist. Nobody wants to be called that. Patriot has a so much nicer ring.
I like Jan Schakowsky a lot!!!!!
The good ones are targets.
An Irish man said, “Once you lose your reputation, there is a certain freedom in it.” Wish the House and Senate would do the twelve step thing. Confess your wrong doings. Make ammends. We would have better legislation.
This bill is going to set a danderous precedent. If we force people to purchase a product (a very inferior one) from private industry without a strong government alternative, when will it end?? We all know where the merging of government and private industry leads.
Thank you for replying in an informed manner as opposed to attacking. The argument about relying on lobbyists to “break in” the freshman Sens and Reps is bunkum. I do not have a realistic idea as to what term lengths should be. As to term limits I believe that two for Senate and four for house. I defer to your judgement on these, my argument is for adding some measure of responsibility to actually represent voters who put them in office. One way is to limit campaign finance. One persons argument about John McCain being so firmly entrenched is that his war chest has 20 mil in it. As long as money elects instead of voters we are going to suffer this same system.
They have a transcript of that hearing she testified at. Brad Blog is the place to go for more information
Of course she won’t live up to her word.
Every single one of the progressive signess have already broken their word. They voted once already for a Bill with a PO not tied to Medicare rates..the same one that contained Stupak.
They’ve already lied, no reason to think they’ll stick to their guns now.
Dear Jane:
You already know that it’s all about the mid-terms now. Congresswoman Jan is going to roll over, the best thing that can happen to this bill is the Congress vote it down and kill it. Too bad but that’s not going to happen, the democrats will pass the bill because they believe if they don’t then it will be even worse in November, once again their careers Come before their country and they don’t give a shit about the American people, of course believing that they once did is incredibly stupid.
I called Congresswoman Schakowsky’s office. The kid answering the phone said she’s out to Washington to work on a bill. I asked about choice and the public option. He put me on hold and spoke to a supervisor.
Then he came back and said that the Congresswoman is committed to voting for a bill that she can feel good about. I said, “Well, what would it take for her to feel good about the bill? A public option? No restrictions on a woman’s right to chose? Franky, I’m really more concerned about the well-being of myself and other constitutents than I am about the congresswoman’s feelings.”
And he paused, and said that the well-being of her constituents was the #1 concern of the congresswoman. I found the whole thing dissatisfying and felt bad for the kid. I’m pretty sure she’s gonna cave.
They won’t even answer health care questions on the Chicago phone number.
Another Act Blue success story.
Field goal attempt. Football. Lucy. Repeat as necessary.
The media has already gotten tired of health care reform and went back to it’s comfortable terrorism coverage 24/7 !!. The Media sucks.
I wouldn’t bet my house on it that Jan Schakowsky would keep her word on anything….the woman is a habitual liar and con job.
Dear Jane:
Click on the body part you want to change, you Gotta be shitting me! And
Blago has a sister in law who I think lives in the district. Blago’s father in law has his own political machine to challenge mayor Daley’s.
Plus the sister in law is a Lesbian and was arrested for knocking down an undercover cop at a gay protest.
I think she could get serious support from the gay community Nation wide with that kind of street cred.
Plus extra bonus points I think thats Rahm’s old district and he got elected with Mayor Daley’s help.
Taking away Rahm’s old seat would be sweet. Next question aside from Lesbian and Gay issues where does she stand and can we get her to run?
Any Chicago Fire pups have anything else to add or maybe want to feel her out about running?
Even a serious Primary threat to Jan from the Left could force her to start voting our way from now till the election.
I would work for anyone who wanted to primary Jan.
Maybe I wasn’t CLEAR enough. Bashing Democratic politicians who have sold us out is oKAY, but only up to a limited POINT. The REAL stuff involves GETTING what we WANT. On an INDIVIDUAL level, THAT means getting MEDIA time for new REPLACEMENTS in CONGRESS. The people to GET to, ARE not the phony politicians in Congress_ they don’t have an actionable social CONSCIENCE, nor a secondary motive to act OTHERwise. The “PEOPLE” are not the ones to press, EITHER. THEY know what’s happening, but DO not have the OPPORTUNITY, much less, the MEANS, to effect CHANGE right now. The FINANCIAL base of the DEmocratic Party DOES. THAT means passing the TORCH to the UNIONS and POWER groups that hold the PURSEstrings. THAT is EXACTLY what the REPUBLICAN Party did to advance their sociopathic CAUSE_ HAND the ball to the LOBBYISTS at Insurance Cartel HEADquarters. IF the UNIONS and TRADE unions told Jan that she will BE without ONE penny of funding, next time around_ THAT might ACCOMPLISH something. And, of course, the same is true for the REST of them. It’s ALSO true that WE, the PEOPLE_ NEED a star BALL-carrier to lead the CHARGE. Not ONE individual, but a POWER group to galvanize both ATTENTION and SUPPORT.
The singular FOCUS should be on HOW to bring about CHANGE that we can SEE with our OWN two EYES. COMPLAINING about the HYPOCRISY of the MUTTS who only got us to BELIEVE in change, is an ASIDE. And YES!_ we ARE working against TIME: TEN months to ELECTION,… 2010!
Lol, a left wing bed-wetter, no less.
Rahm Emanuel is a Radical Right-Wing Likudnik Republican, MASQUERADING as a “Democrat” – you know, like, not only JOE LIEBERMAN, but like ARLEN SPECTER, NORM COLEMAN – all three who once ran as Democrats, before amassing power and reverting to their genuine Right-Wing tendencies.
Emanuel, Lieberman, and the other Democrat “Israel First” Neo-Cons (Jane Harman, Dianne Feinstein, Likudnik wanna-bee Hillary Clinton, etc.)
There is NOTHING “progressive,” Democratic, much less “Liberal” about the Likudnik agenda – they are all in 100% in agreement with, SYNONYMOUS with, every policy move, abuse of power, lies-to-war, corruption in war-profiteering contracts – of DICK CHENEY, as this 2007 video of AIPAC attendees CHEERING Cheney’s “Bomb Iran NOW!” speech attests.
http://www.aipac.org/2785_2859.asp
http://www.aipac.org/pc2007video/Speeches/Cheney/index.html
If “Liberals” and progressives don’t WISE UP, QUICK, to the INTENTIONAL SABOTAGE of the Democratic Party in 2010 – just as Joe Lieberman helped Republicans SABOTAGE VP Al Gore’s winning vote totals in the 2000 presidential election – then we will get a RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN RESTORATION, which is just what the Emanuel & Golddamn-Sachs gang desire.