Houston – We Have a Problem…

Or more specifically, Congressman Pete Olson has a problem. Pete Olson is being primaried by the Tea Party, and the Tea Party is painting Olson as an “establishment incumbent.”

This has been so under the radar, my radar. I had no idea that the Tea Party was not pleased with the voting record of the Olsonmeister. Particularly I remember at a Tea Party rally in 2009 Pete Olson spoke there and had a big trunk open in front of him where he was accepting donations of tea bags that he was going to take back to DC with him.

The Tea Partiers applauded Olson that afternoon.

But now it seems Olson has drawn a challenger, a “Constitutional Conservative” (for that read “Obama hater”) in the person of Barbara J. Carlson.

She has a campaign website that you can find here. On it you will read that she is a mother, a widow, a businesswoman, an author, a widow, against Obamacare, and a college graduate. Oh, and did I mention she is also a widow?

What does that have to do with anything? Is Pete Olson a heartless boor because he chooses to run a campaign against a widow? Ooooh. He IS isn’t he?

You will also learn that Barbara Carlson won the Saddle Up Texas straw poll against Olson in a squeaker 51.5% to 48.5%. I never heard of the Saddle Up Texas straw poll. But apparently the preferred presidential candidate of the voters who participated in this straw poll was none other than Ron Paul.

And you’ll also learn that Ms. Carlson keeps showing up at Republican candidates’ forums and Pete Olson doesn’t. On the website you read this:

“Monday evening, February 13, was the first congressional debate for District 22, held at the Alvin Senior Center. While Barbara J. Carlson arrived early and was prepared, unfortunately, Olson was a no show, not even extending a courteous apology to both the Alvin Area Republican Women’s Club and the Bayou Republican Women’s Club for his no show. Both clubs went to great lengths and personal financial outlay in preparing the excellent homemade food for this all-important forum.”

Oh, Pete, Pete, Pete. Say it isn’t so. Say you didn’t snub these fine ladies and did not partake of the potluck that they labored over hot stoves to prepare?

Pete’s got a problem and her name is Barbara Carlson. I’ll bet he will continue to ignore his opponent, especially when she invites him to debate with her in the “When Was the Last Time You Beat Your Wife?” debate.

Pete Olson Finds the Aye Button

I was wondering if my congressman, Pete Olson, was ever going to find the “Aye” button on that voting machine that he uses to cast votes on what he thinks represents what people in his district want.

For instance, last week Pete Olson found the “Aye” button and voted for HR 2,  the “Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.” That’s right. One of the first votes that my congressman cast was a vote to deny his constituents affordable healthcare. He voted to rescind the law that makes it a crime for health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. He voted to rescind the law that requires health insurance companies to cover your older children on your own family policy.

Because, you know, times are hard and getting health insurance when you are young is a luxury.

Pete Olson voted to do all of that, but not until he voted in the same voting package to keep his own government-subsidized healthcare insurance. You see, included in many of the amendments offered up in HR 2 was a Democratic-sponsored amendment to “prevent lawmakers from keeping their congressional health insurance if they repeal the new health care law for their constituents. Under this motion to HR 2 (above), repeal could not occur until a majority of members in both chambers were dismissed from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That taxpayer-subsidized, privately operated program provides extensive health insurance for nearly all members of Congress and their families as well as millions of civil servants, former lawmakers and federal retirees, and their spouses.”

Pete Olson thinks its perfectly OK for he and his family to have the very same healthcare insurance that he voted to deny his constituents.

This isn’t hypocrisy. Not really. What it is, is blind greed. It’s what Republicans do best: grab as much for themselves as they can while telling you that you don’t want or need what he and his colleagues jumped through some hoops to keep for themselves.

CD 22 was sold a bill of goods. Not that we Democrats could do anything about it this time, not with Krazy Kesha on the ballot.

Still and all, it’s nice to see that the congressman can find the “Aye” button. I thought maybe he lost it, or worse, couldn’t decipher that “Aye” meant yes.

I’m going to enjoy seeing my congressman listen to President Obama tomorrow night at his State of the Union Message. Hopefully he will find a place right next to Looney Louie Gohmert like he did last time.

They make quite a pair.

Republican House Leadership to Texas: Use It or Lose It

Back in September, September 14th to be specific, Texas’ junior senator, John Cornyn submitted Senate Bill 3774, a bill to extend the deadline – a fast approaching deadline – for expenditure of funds under the Social Services Block Grant of 2008. This was a small part of a huge bundle of bills rolled up into HR 2638 and was meant to provide funds for “health services (including mental health services), and for repair, renovation, and construction of health care facilities (including mental health facilities), child care centers, and other social services facilities” that were affected by major disasters (like Hurricane Ike).

But apparently it had one small problem. The deadline extension specified in Cornyn’s bill, September 30, 2012, was too long. So on September 29th, in a move to save his bill and get it passed, Cornyn introduced an amendment to move the deadline up one year, to September 30, 2011. He also inserted language to put his bill in compliance with the recently passed Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

The amendment passed and Cornyn’s bill, specifically meant to keep unspent but allocated funds available for expenditure for another year, something to the tune of $40,000,000, was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on that very day.

The Senate sent the bill to the House, and they asked for unanimous approval as well, I guess to speed it along. The deadline was that very day, September 30, 2010.

And it was there, in the House Appropriations Committee, that the bill was killed.

By Republicans.

Here is an account of this in the Houston Chronicle. In summary, it looks like “Republican leadership” decided that if Texas couldn’t spend its disaster money in two years it obviously didn’t need the money.

There was also a concern, one that we hear often repeated, that the bill was coming to them just before the recess and they didn’t have enough time to study it. My guess is that they were also a little miffed about the unanimous consent request, and probably had a feeling that someone was trying to pull something.

So they killed it.

Finger pointing ensued on Capitol Hill. No one was taking the blame for this. The only thing anyone agreed about was the suddenness of the bill’s appearance. And about the fact that it would only take one objection on the House floor to deny unanimous consent.

So they killed it.

And in so-doing, they added to Texas’ unemployment rolls when the dozens of social services agencies that were to be kept running if the bill passed started laying off their employees this past week.

John Cornyn and Pete Olson are apparently pretty steamed about this. People who had jobs and who were helping others now don’t and aren’t. So now maybe Olson and Cornyn might want to take another look at their same tired old complaint about not wanting to pass a bill before reading all 18,000 pages of it.

When Republicans do that, sometimes people lose their jobs.

Is Pete Olson Worried about Kesha?

For a few weeks it has been a lone political dispute between myself and my neighbor across the street over whose lawn sign is the better one. When the calendar page turned and it was 60 days out to the November 2 election my neighbor planted a brand spanking new Pete Olson for Congress lawn sign on his front lawn.

When Labor Day came and went I joined in the fun and planted my Bill White for Texas sign. And from that day to this the only political signs visible on my street have been those two.

Up until today.

Driving home today I passed house after house (and not just on my street) with those brand spanking new Pete Olson for Congress signs.

Oh, and one of those loud noisy Bob Hebert for County Judge signs.

Now I have to ask myself, what is with that? When Democrats came to the polls in dribs and drabs last March to vote for their congressional candidate for CD 22 they did what Democrats sometimes do best when they don’t know who the heck any of these candidates are – they pick the first one listed.

The first one listed in CD-22’s most populous county, Fort Bend, was LaRouche Democrat Kesha Rogers. She won Fort Bend County. The one listed first in Harris County’s ballot, Doug Blatt, won Harris County.

And so on.

So CD-22 Democrats saddled themselves with a 3rd tier candidate in Kesha Rogers who thinks that Barack Obama is a puppet of the British monarchy and should be impeached for ending the Aries and Constellation projects at NASA.

Pete Olson, I told myself, was a shoe in for a second term.

Obviously though, Pete Olson disagrees.

I think Olson reads the papers, and has realized that this congressional election is his to lose if he doesn’t get his name out there. And maybe it’s because in 2010 CD-22’s most populous county may just go the way Harris County (CD-22’s 2nd most populous county) had gone in 2008, and break over to Democratic.

Democratic straight ticket voters have outnumbered their Republican counterparts in the past couple of election cycles. This must be of some concern to Pete. And ironically it is of some concern to me in this one race.

That’s because if there is enough voter backlash against the established Washington DC insider incumbent, which is something Pete Olson epitomizes, Pete Olson could just find his hat handed to him by a tin-foil hat-wearing LaRouche Democrat whose main strength in this race is voter ignorance over just what she stands for.

This must be what was on his mind when he ordered up all of those lawn signs.

Congressman Green Saving NASA Jobs; Olson Says He’ll Help

I was delighted to hear that Congressman Al Green of TX-9 filed a bill on Monday, HR 5855 to be specific, that allocates $80 million in federal funds to pay to retrain or otherwise help NASA employees, and others, whose jobs will be negatively impacted by the cancellation of the Ares/Constellation manned spaceflight program.

TX-9 is a congressional district that lies just east of the Johnson Space Center plant, but commuting being what it is, as well as downstream effects of job losses in the region, this bill will inevitably work to directly benefit some of Green’s constituents.

Pete Olson, whose TX-22 district does include the JSC plant also signed on to this bill as a co-sponsor, the only one listed at this writing, although the article at Fort Bend Now indicates that Congressman Gene Green and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee have since included their names on the co-sponsor list.

Now I think it’s great that Olson has signed on in support of a bill, authored by a Democrat, that directly benefits thousands of his own constituents. It makes me wonder, though, why such a bill didn’t originate from his office, and that led me to conclude that when push comes to shove, Olson will eventually vote No on passage of this bill, and in doing so will join the steadily growing crowd of Republican legislators who co-sponsor a bill that they eventually vote against.

Now why do I say this? Well for one thing, being the congressman whose district includes NASA, Olson couldn’t very well avoid putting a stamp of approval on a bill that is expressly written to benefit his own constituents. But if you read the bill you have to ask from where do they get these funds to pay for the job retraining program? The answer is not apparent. Olson doesn’t vote for things that are unfunded, even if they serve to benefit his own constituents, like the unfunded unemployment extension bill that he voted against. But because this bill directly targets his constituents, Olson couldn’t very well refuse Green’s appeal to support his bill by co-sponsoring it.

After all, it makes good press.

And when Olson votes against the bill, if it ever comes up for a vote, you’ll not see that reported in the press.

But you will see it here.

Pete Olson Holds a Republican Love Fest

Last night’s town hall meeting hosted by Congressman Pete Olson went off pretty much as expected. Predictable. Town hall meetings were the place to be last summer during the Angst of August when healthcare reform was being beaten about the heads of voters and votees alike. Not so this summer. The crowds stayed away.

Now it could be because the event was held on a weeknight and not on the weekend, but I doubt that had much to do with it. No, this was a town hall meeting attended by those who attend town hall meetings when there is nothing to talk about. And they get there fully fed because the Early Bird dinner hour is over at Luby’s.

Attendees were mostly white people, old white people.

And outside of one or three of us, all of the attendees seem to make it a habit to watch Fox News.

It was, in a word, a Republican Love Fest.

After the flag ceremony, the event began with an introduction from the County Judge, Bob Hebert who allowed that Olson was able to win in his election in 2008 without his help.

Then Olson had a 30 minute presentation where he outlined his views on four issues.

Energy Policy. Concentrating on the BP oil spill, and not necessarily on how it has impacted the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who are directly or indirectly related to fishing and tourism. Concentrating on the moratorium – that is, the idling of 33 offshore oil drilling rigs.

Figures lie and liars figure, but Olson finally admitted toward the end of the evening that whether there was a moratorium or not, not one of these rigs was going to spud a well in the deepwater any time in the near future. Olson intimated that this was due to uncertainty in having their work halted in court; not mentioning at all any that the oil industry itself may have concerns about its own internal readiness to react to an accident. Over whether those BOPs which work perfectly well in shallow water, have a tendency to malfunction in deepwater.

Healthcare. Or should I say “healthscare?” It’s back to the Angst of August where Olson marched out a small boy whose mother was afraid that insurance companies wouldn’t pay for the birth of her son. Did you know that as a direct result of healthcare reform doctors are not accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients and companies are going to drop healthcare coverage for their employees? Doctors are going to go out of business? Hospitals are going to go out of business? “This is all a result of this healthcare bill," said Olson.

Those dire predictions alone were enough to scare the bejesus out of the collection of geriatrics we had in the meeting. I give you the Republican Party - Scaring old people since 1952.

Then he rolled out the Republican plan to replace the historic healthcare reform bill, now law. What was amazing to me was that the plan he unveiled looked oddly like the one already passed. He left out the jargon, though. “Let [small businesses] pool together for insurance purposes.” That is exactly like the "insurance exchanges" created by the healthcare reform law. Add to that, though, torte reform.

“Every Texan here knows the benefit of medical torte reform. We passed it in 2003 and almost immediately in the next two years we saw over a 30% reduction in the insurance rate that the doctors were being charged for torte reform.”

That was nice for the doctors. But my medical bills didn’t go down. Did yours?

Olson admitted that any attempt by Republicans (should they regain the majority) to overturn healthcare reform will be stopped by presidential veto. He promised, though, not to fund any portion of healthcare reform.

I actually look forward to having that conversation should it ever come up.

Economic Solutions. In four steps: Freeze then reduce federal spending, Energy solutions that are market-driven (i.e. coal, oil, nuclear), repeal healthcare reform, decrease government regulation.

Fun stuff that should make the Great Depression of the ‘30’s look like a walk in the park.

NASA. On Pete Olson’s watch, NASA dumped the “manned” part of “manned space exploration.” He admits to being caught completely unawares when the Aries/Constellation project was axed. He’s mad about that.

This despite the fact that NASA actually had a slight increase in its budget (he didn’t mention that). This despite the fact that, using his own analogy, when a family has to trim their budget during hard times, the annual family vacation to Gstaad is probably the first to go.

Then came the Q and A. This was when you become acutely aware, if you weren’t convinced before that this was a political event bought and paid for by federal taxpayers, that this was a Republican event for a Republican crowd.

One woman’s question wasn’t even a question. It was an expression of gratitude that Olson was her congressman. Other questions had to do with the unquestioned certainty that Republicans were going to retake both houses of congress in the fall and what were they going to do when that happened.

Two questions were revealing on Olson’s take in the whole area of privatization. One where he reminisced over Bush’s attempt to put Social Security in the hands of Wall Street which in retrospect, seems pretty much like the worst idea . . .ever, and the other where he speculated about privatizing the United States Postal Service. You know, like FedEx and UPS.

One question about his Hispanic business community outreach allowed Olson to branch into a discussion of a Republican/Teabagger issue on immigration. Olson defended Arizona’s SB 1070, saying it was “Arizona’s cry for help.” Defended the racial profiling that will ensue because “that can’t happen in the bill. It doesn’t sanction racial profiling.”

No, that’s what he said, I played it back over and over.

My fear is that in making this poor choice of words, he actually got it right.

And finally, confirming my speculation that the audience gets all of its news from Fox, this question came up:

“Can the House investigate the DOJ for dropping the Black Panther voter intimidation case?”

Here is Olson's answer, minus a reference to American Indians:

“Yeah we’ll look at that. The House probably won’t do it because the majority won’t let us do that but that’s something to look at. I mean the Black Panthers . . . there were a lot of allegations of voter intimidation, voter fraud . . . and, ah, the Department of Justice – it’s pretty solid evidence from what I understand – the Department of Justice dropped it. They said we’re not going to pursue that case. Um, as my former boss Phil Gramm said, and I believe this from the bottom of my heart, uh, you know, voter fraud is one of the most serious offenses that an individual can commit under our constitution because you effectively take another person’s legal vote and cancel it you can make their vote irrelevant. And that is just, again, we’ve got men and women overseas today fighting for our rights and one of those is the right to vote. So voter fraud is something we can’t tolerate. And the Black Panther case right here is a great example of that. The DOJ needs to step up to the plate regardless of party affiliation what have you and make sure that there is justice.”

Fun stuff, huh? Yes, it is an absolute fact that the Department of Justice dropped the criminal charges against the New Black Panthers, preferring to pursue a civil case against them. And that happened on January 7th 2009.

Eleven days before Obama took office.

But then those are facts and dates. What bearing do facts and dates have here when what we want to have is a taxpayer-supported Republican Love Fest?

Pete Olson Goes to Richmond

Now I have it on good authority, because I read about it here, that CD-22 congressman Pete Olson will soon be making his way to the county seat of the largest and most populous county that lies within the Texas 22nd Congressional District, the district that he represents.

He wants to hold a town hall meeting at the McDowell Jury Assembly Building at 212 Houston St, in Richmond [map]. The meeting will be on a Tuesday evening, July 12th starting at dinner time, 6:30 PM and going until 8 PM.

Yeah, dinner time. On a work day. I am wondering if they want to limit the audience to those who make it to the early bird special at Luby’s. For the rest of us who dine watching the sun set, and want to attend, I don’t know if they’ll let you in with a bucket of KFC under your arm but if they do, just remember not to leave the chicken bones on the floor.

If you go, be sure to go armed with some questions. I hear he will ask for questions. Just make sure that if you want your question asked, you ask it with your own voice. Sneaky Pete is well known for having his staffers collect index cards from the audience – he requires that his constituents write their questions down so his staffers can filter them. Nice, huh? Can you say Banana Republic?

Anyway, one question I want to hear him answer is why he voted NO on HR 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This act, passed in the House by a vote of 270 to 153, extends the filing date that families whose breadwinners cannot find work can file for federal unemployment benefits and extends the date of the program until April 2011.

And Pete Olson voted NO. He voted NO while 29 of his Republican colleagues voted YES. They voted yes for Texas families. Pete voted NO.

Clearly, Pete Olson is out of touch with his constituents. Had he looked, he would have seen that his district is hurting. From April 2008 until April 2010 the unemployment rate jumped from a low of 3.7% to the most recently recorded 8.3%. Don’t believe me? It’s here.

That’s more than double the people who were unemployed a mere two years ago.

And it shows in the neighborhoods.

Drive through any neighborhood in Fort Bend County and you see the same thing: a growing forest of “For Sale” signs on front lawns. More go up but none come down.

And then another question that might come up is why Pete Olson voted NO on HR 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The measured passed the Senate (a miracle on the order of the loaves and the fishes) by 59 to 39, and sent back to the House to be reconciled in conference. That report is what Olson voted against.

Now, it is clear to anyone who hasn’t had his or her head stuck in the sand since September 2008 that it was an unregulated, greedy, and rapacious Wall Street that sold our country’s economy into the sewer, and it is also clear that the bill is nowhere near as tough in re-regulating these people as it could be, but these days you get whatever can pass the Senate and that is what we got.

And Pete Olson voted against it.

Pete Olson voted for his lobbyist friends and acquaintances on Wall Street, and against the people who live in the neighborhoods in Fort Bend County.

Now it’s not like we can do anything about it at the ballot box this year. The Democratic opponent he drew is one taco short of a combination plate, but at the very least he can be made aware of the fact that he is now on the firing line.

Literally.

Olson needs 5 years in Congress to get vested in the congressional benefits package. We can cut him off with one year shy of that in 2012 and it is now time to let him know that is going to happen.

A guy’s gotta make plans, after all.

Cornyn and Olson Set to Decry Deepwater Moratorium

I was reading a short blurb in FortBendNow, you can read it here, that Texas Senator John Cornyn and my CD-22 congressman, Pete Olson, are setting up to attack the Obama Administration’s 6-month deepwater oil drilling moratorium.

They plan to visit a semi-submersible drill ship that is currently standing at idle in the Texas deepwater, and then a local Stafford family-owned drilling tool maker.

It’s painfully transparent that this investigative tour to “take a look at the impact the Obama Administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium is having on local small businesses, jobs, the local economy, and our nation’s energy security” is nothing more than an exercise in the “politics of No” for local consumption.

“Following the rig tour, Cornyn and Olson will visit Stafford small business Sunbelt Machine Works Corp., which manufactures tools for the oil and gas industry and stands to suffer layoffs and significant setbacks due to the moratorium. Family-owned Sunbelt Machine Works currently employs a staff of 70. Sunbelt has already been forced to cut back hours and productivity as a result of the moratorium, according to a Cornyn and Olson.”

It’s a pretty stunning thing to say that cutbacks in the hours and productivity of a local family-owned business should be given the same weight and consideration as the issue of uncertainty of whether the major oil companies have a plan on what to do when a deepwater well blows out. It should be very clear to all of us by now that they haven’t had a plan, still don’t have a plan, and we don’t know when or whether they will have a workable plan in the future.

Russian Roulette is a game of chance played with one live round and six empty chambers, and that is the game that Cornyn and Olson want us to play with the 11th largest body of water on the face of the earth. Truth is, we now know that it was only a matter of time that a blowout on the order of the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout would occur.

I would also remind Olson that even his congressional leader, John Boehner, agrees that “maybe there is a reason there to pause till we know what happened and we can make sure we can prevent it again.”

Yes he did say that.

How long should the “pause” be? To my mind, 6 months is too arbitrary, and to put a finite time limit to it at this stage of the game seems unreasonable. How long should the “pause” be? It should be long enough to come to correct conclusions on the cause of the blowout, formulation of reasonable contingency plans should one occur again, with once more being too many, and engineering and manufacture of blowout preventers that can reliably operate in high pressure low temperature conditions in a failsafe manner. Currently blowout preventers, the ultimate well control device, are not 100% reliable in the most benign environment, and less so at extreme water depths and pressures. Indeed, one thing that can be predicted as an offshoot of this disaster is that blowout preventers will be redesigned as predicted by Paul Bommer, a UT petroleum engineering professor quoted here:

“…one thing is fairly certain. The Gulf oil spill will probably result in a "re-design" of BOPs, said UT's Bommer, as well as an overhaul of how they're tested and activated”

Leaving us with the plight of businesses that deal exclusively with deepwater oil exploration and production. What lessons should they take from this? Simply this: if your business depends on a special area of the oil business like the Gulf of Mexico deepwater, that is, if you put all of your eggs in one basket, take a lesson from the words of a great American, Mark Twain:

“Put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket.”

But the Republican plan seems to be to “watch that basket” by letting oil companies resume deepwater drilling before anyone is ready.

And that serves no one but the demagogues and lapdogs of the oil industry.

Pete Olson Continues to “Be Factually Inaccurate”

Pete Olson, my congressman, continues to be factually challenged.

June 17th, it seems was a kind of double witching for Olson, first being quoted from the House floor as denouncing Iranian President Khatami for trying to get a nuclear weapon, then in his own words in a local newspaper on “Obamacare”.

From the House floor:

“I mean, the—Mr. Khatami and Iran is scary. I mean, he‘s trying to get a nuclear weapon. He was here at our country a couple of weeks ago, at the United States, at the U.N., at the United Nations, sat down with George Stephanopoulos and literally—this is the leader of Iran, told him that the Osama bin Laden is here in Washington, D.C.”

Like, ya know? Khatami is scary, dude.

But in truth, Mohammad Khatami, a FORMER Iranian president who stepped down in 2005, was going to oppose the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but stepped aside in favor of his friend Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Rule Number One: Get name right.

Oh, but then why let a few facts get in the way of a good narrative, right? Iran is scary and so is Khatami.

 Then on the same day, Olson’s blast at “Obamacare” appears in a local paper that often prints his diatribes unanswered. It is here.

Olson took up Medicare Advantage, a Republican poster child for all that is bad about healthcare reform it seems.

Medicare Advantage is a plan that funnels Medicare funds to private insurers, something that Republican lawmakers can get behind, especially those who want to privatize the whole Medicare program. Over the years, more and more medicare funds have been absorbed by private insurance providers. Olson, and all Republican supporters of the health insurance industry argue that “…to pay for the health care reform law, the law’s sponsors cut $575 billion in cuts to Medicare. The President’s own analysis indicates that up to 50 percent of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans because of these cuts. Seniors will lose benefits and services starting as soon as next year…”

Factually inaccurate, again.

Medicare Advantage has been identified as a huge waste of taxpayer money. Republicans argue for elimination of waste in Medicare need look no further than Medicare Advantage.

Here is President Obama’s answer to Republican objections to ending Medicare Advantage found in this interview:

“These (Medicare Advantage providers) are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average -- and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said -- they're getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.”

“Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they're overcharging massively for it. There's no competitive bidding under the process.”

“And so what we've said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…”

So the choice for seniors who fear loss of Medicare Advantage is this: you choose, close the ‘doughnut hole’ or pay more for services that Medicare already provides.


Pete Olson is not responsible for the ‘doughnut hole.’ That was a brainchild of a CD-22 predecessor, former congressman and tango dancer Tom DeLay. But Olson chooses to invoke his party’s impossibly inaccurate shtick.
 
And why is that? Why promote such an impossible scenario? Does it have to do with the time-honored tradition of Republican politics that Facts Flee in the Face of Fear?

Is Ahmadinejad an Iranian President?

Pete Olson Files Bill to Lift Deepwater Drilling Moratorium

Coming to me as no surprise, my congressman, Pete Olson has filed a bill in the House to lift the 6-month Deepwater drilling moratorium that has been ordered by President Obama.

Really, nothing new here.

Co-sponsored by a covey of “oil-soaked” congressmen, the moratorium would reauthorize drilling in the Deepwater of the Gulf OCS. A move that is completely irresponsible given what we now know about industry readiness to handle undersea blowouts in the deepwater.

Their reasoning? The moratorium will cost the industry untold losses in terms of revenue, jobs and rigs.

Drilling rigs will move to overseas locations if they are not allowed to drill in the Deepwater.

And America depends on offshore Gulf of Mexico oil for 30% of its energy.

Oh, but wait. The moratorium is only for wells drilled in the Deepwater. You know, the parts of the Gulf where oil companies still don't have a handle on well control should a blow out occur.

So really, lumping all Gulf offshore oil drilling into the President’s Deepwater moratorium is just a little disingenuous isn’t it? After all, Deepwater exploration and production does not account for 30% of America’s total dependency on oil, or anything close to it. But Olson and his cadre of “oil-soaked” congressmen are willing to fight for those dozens of jobs that will be lost due to the moratorium.

But guess what. Knowing the oil industry they are going to use this event to their economic benefit and lose some employees anyway. That’s what working 22 years in oil and gas exploration has taught me.

But OK, I’ll concede that there is one way we can turn this abomination of a bill filed by Olson into a silk purse. A win-win for everyone. Want to open up the Deepwater for exploration and development before studies have been completed as to what happened in the Deepwater Horizon blowout and what remedial procedures need to be adopted?

Fine.

All Olson needs to do is insert an amendment in his bill to require, require any Deepwater well be drilled simultaneously with a relief well. No catch-up well drilling. The two wells spud on the same day and keep up with each other. Then if one blows out the other kills the first.

That should ease concerns, shouldn’t it? And as a matter of fact, that should be a boon to the offshore rig count and to employment of drillers and service company workers, casing and equipment suppliers. It’s a new day for the oil and gas industry.

Oh, but then you ask what would happen if both wells blow out simultaneously?

Well, by that time BP should have it all figured out.

Right?

Pete Olson Votes “No” On Democracy

In last week’s vote on HR 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010, my congressman, Pete Olson, cast another No vote.

Pete Olson voted against the people of Puerto Rico voting in a democratic election. One wonders how he feels about Iraqis and Afghanis voting in democratic elections. Is democracy a bad, bad thing? Is it only for white people?

What’s the deal?

HR 2499 is a bill, passed in the House (223-169) and now in the Senate, that would allow Puerto Rico to conduct a free and democratic election, a referendum actually, asking only this question: Which do you prefer, 1) the status quo in Puerto Rico’s association with the United States, or 2) a different political status?

No, nothing on what that change is. If the Change option wins, then they go to step two in conducting plebiscites every eight years to vote on what sort of change they want: 1) Statehood, 2) form an alliance with the United States that falls outside of the Territorial Clause of the constitution, 3) full independence as a sovereign nation, or 4) status quo – also known as choice one in the first election.

Now what the H-E-Double-Hockey Sticks is wrong with giving Puerto Ricans, already American citizens, the same right to self-determination that we enabled in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It’s not money, is it? Puerto Rico, despite its name, is not very rico.

So it has to be political. Olson is, if anything, predictable. If money is not the issue it has to be all about winning elections.

It has to be about the theoretical millions of poor and middle class people on that island who just might vote Democratic (with a capital D) if they gained statehood and could vote for their own US Senators as well as, perish the thought, the President.

Do you think?

Did Olson vote No because he thinks that Obama is pulling another fast one and stacking the Democratic deck, as it were?

I’m pretty sure that’s why, but I really don’t believe in this magical pool of Democratic voters in Puerto Rico. There is no metric.

This is because the political parties in Puerto Rico are divided along completely different lines than they are here. Basically it is a three-way between the PIP, who want complete independence (with a base that makes Libertarians look like a third party rather than a joke), the PPD a party whose sole issue is to maintain Puerto Rico’s status quo as a commonwealth, and the PNP who want statehood. At 30% the PPD is very probably the most likely to vote Democratic in American elections. The PNP, at 35%, is more problematic as it consists of conservatives and liberals who are united in wanting statehood for their respective reasons.

And 27% who fail to declare a party alliance. Independents, if you will.

So I don’t see it as clearly as Olson does. Puerto Rico is an island full of deeply religious people of conservative values. Frankly, maintaining the status quo has been the result of similar elections going back years and years.

They don’t much like change.

So I think Olson was clearly wrong to vote against a democratic election in Puerto Rico. And I think it was based on unreasoned fear of an enhanced Democratic majority in America.

Where do I stand on statehood for Puerto Rico? As a non-islander I really have no opinion. I just think that they should be free to express theirs in a free democratic election.

OK, yeah, I do have one problem with statehood. It is more aesthetic than political or economic though. Since 1776 the stars and stripes had a star field with some symmetry. Sometimes compromises were made, but on the overall, the arrangements of stars on the American flag has been pleasing to the eye.

But adding one star is going to assault my sense of symmetry. You’re going to have to lose three rows and have 6 alternate rows of 9 and 8 stars each. Ruins the symmetry. It looks squished.

51 is not a prime number, it’s divisible by 3 but I’d hate to see a star field of three rows of 17. That would be really squished.

Alternately we could go back to basics and arrange the stars in a circle.

Hate that, although the 5-sided symmetry appeals, it just looks too much like a sanddollar.

Problems, problems, problems.

So if we are going to add a state, let’s add two. 52 is a good number. That’s 4 rows of 7 stars and 4 rows of 6. And no, let’s not make the 52nd state American Samoa or the Marianas Islands (although they could well-use our child labor laws), let’s split a big populous state.

You choose, Vermont or Massachusetts.

Pete Olson Votes Against Safety in Public Schools

I keep wondering whether my congressman, Pete Olson, will ever be able to find the “YES” button on that voting box that he uses to cast his votes in congress.

Come to find out, my congressman, Pete Olson, voted against safety in public schools last March 3rd. Voted against public safety in a bill known as the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.

I want to ask why, Pete? Were you beaten as a child? Does that make it OK to afflict physical or chemical abuse on children in public school?

Is it because what was good for you is good for all kids?

I swear, Pete, have you lost your mind?

Here is the first paragraph from bill summary found here:

“Keeping All Students Safe Act - (Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to establish minimum standards that: (1) prohibit elementary and secondary school personnel from managing any student by using any mechanical or chemical restraint, physical restraint or escort that restricts breathing, or aversive behavioral intervention that compromises student health and safety; (2) prohibit such personnel from using physical restraint or seclusion, unless such measures are required to eliminate an imminent danger of physical injury to the student or others and certain precautions are taken; (3) require states to ensure that a sufficient number of school personnel receive state-approved crisis intervention training and certification in first aid and certain safe and effective student management techniques; (4) prohibit physical restraint or seclusion from being written into a student's education plan, individual safety plan, behavioral plan, or individual education program as a planned intervention; and (5) require schools to establish procedures to notify parents in a timely manner if physical restraint or seclusion is imposed on their child.”

This was pretty much a bipartisan bill, yet Pete Olson thought it was a bad idea. But just because it is a Democratic idea doesn’t make it a bad idea. Just because we don’t want our children to be physically abused in schools doesn’t mean Pete Olson needs to vote against it so Democrats don’t have a win in their column.

This is getting a little tough to take.

Pete Olson: Highway Hypocrite

So I got this email message from the Democratic Party today. Here is how it began:

Hal --

Are you represented in Congress by a Highway Hypocrite?

Highway Hypocrites voted against the Recovery Act and spent the last year attacking it -- while praising it in letters requesting funds and press releases touting projects in their districts.

We've identified 118 Republican senators and representatives guilty of highway hypocrisy. But we know there are more.

Click here to find out if you're represented by a Highway Hypocrite -- and help us expose others.

Now sometimes I can be a little dense, especially when it comes to my congressman, Pete Olson. I expect so little from him that I don’t really add one and one when I see in the news – well the news I watch anyway – how all over the place Republicans who voted against the Recovery Act are taking credit for bringing stimulus money to their districts.

So when I clicked on the link and entered the information the website reported that Olson represented me (that’s a laugh) and that he voted against the Recovery Act. Nothing new there. But I looked and looked and couldn’t see if he was on their list of 118 hypocrites.

Then I realized that he is a highway hypocrite. And I even posted a blog piece about it last month.

Like I say, sometimes I can be a little dense.

So yes, Pete Olson is a highway hypocrite, and yes, I googled it and he is on the list. Pete Olson voted No on the Recovery Act and then came to the aid of Democratic County Commissioner Richard Morrison in making a request for Recovery Act money to fund a road widening project.

A request that was appropriately enough rejected.

Texas only received two grants out of that pool of money, both of them in the Democratic Free State of Dallas.

Pete Olson: Highway Hypocrite.

Pete Olson Digs a Hole for Himself

All over the news last night was the story about how 4 young men of the Republican persuasion were caught red-handed, as it were, trying to pull a prank in Democratic Senator from Louisiana Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office. A prank that, as it turns out, is a felony because they were posing as people they weren’t trying to do something that they wanted to keep a secret. They were in a federal building, a federal office, under false pretenses. A felony

Two of them, you see, were dressed as telephone repairmen, one was sitting in the getaway car down the block, and a fourth was capturing the moment on his cell phone’s video. That fourth person, James O’Keefe III was the same James O’Keefe who posed as a pimp last year in his attempt to set up some community workers in an ACORN office.

Back then, O’Keefe secretly videoed two women trying to help him and the girl who posed as his prostitute, and posted the heavily edited video on You Tube.

This instantly vaulted the young man and woman to national and international fame. They became the darlings of conservative news media.

A House Resolution, HR 809 was filed to commend the couple’s heroic action to bring down a national organization whose soul purpose was to render aid.

HR 809 reads like this:

“Honoring the fact-finding reporting done by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe III in their investigation in the fraudulent and illegal practices and misuse of taxpayer dollars by the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN).”

And then the resolution goes on to list all of the accomplishments of Hannah Giles (the pseudoprostitute) and O’Keefe. Stuff I just don’t want to quote because the whole thing is utterly laughable. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform where it still languishes.

And now here comes the best part. The freshman congressman who filed the resolution is none other than my congressman, Pete Olson.

And the resolution has 31 co-sponsors, Republicans all.

You would think that there would be a causal connection between Pete Olson and the ACORN affair, and in that you would not be wrong. As it turns out, O’Keefe’s co-conspirator, Hannah Giles, is the granddaughter of Texas SREC committeewoman Terese Raia. And Terese Raia lives in Congressman Olson’s district, CD-22. Even better, Raia got her granddaughter to speak at the local Republican women’s club late last year, as reported by FortBendNow.

So Pete Olson has officially made it into the history books by offering a resolution commending the actions of a felon-to-be doing exactly the same thing he did in the ACORN office.

Doing exactly the same thing that he and Terese Raia’s granddaughter are being commended for in HR 809.

It really doesn’t get much sweeter than this.

Oh wait, yes it does.

Everyone in his district who reads this needs to send an email to Pete Olson’s congressional email address urging him to get HR 809 out of committee and onto the House floor for a vote.

He is, after all, still praising the actions of O’Keefe, according to The Hill:

“Individuals who lawfully expose wrongful activities by an entity like ACORN receiving federal tax dollars should be praised.”

So really, if he still feels this way he should do his darnedest to get that House Resolution to the floor while the iron is still hot.

And about that hole he has dug for himself? Keep digging Pete.

Pete Olson to Host a Carbon “Roundtable Discussion”

It caught my eye in FortBendNow, halfway down the page that my congressman, Pete Olson of TX – 22 is going to host a “roundtable discussion” on Carbon Regulation.

From FortBendNow:

“Representative Pete Olson, District 22, today announced that tomorrow he will be hosting a Carbon Regulation Roundtable with Houston-area state delegation members and industry members. Fellow Houston area Congressman Kevin Brady, District 8, will also be joining Olson for this event.”

Now why should this news item be of interest? Well incredibly, the supposed Round Table will consist of the following groups according to the article:

• Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership
• Economic Alliance Houston Port Region
• East Harris County Manufacturers Assoc.
• Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association
• Texas Motor Transportation Association
• BP; Texas Chemical Council
• National Petrochemical Refiners Association
• Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
• Valero
• Valero Refining
• INEOS Nova
• Lubrizol
• AES Deepwater
• Hefele
• Air Products
• Oxy Vinyls
• Noltex

This is a veritable who’s who of carbon emitters or supporters of carbon emission.

Now a “Round Table Discussion” is defined as a discussion group with contributors of various points of view who come together to equally contribute – the table is round indicating no one is at any specific end – and that all viewpoints are expressed on a level playing field with no prejudice or partiality.

This table is any thing but a round one. At best one could characterize it as semi-circular, with contributors of one point of view clearly evident.

And it is fitting and proper that Pete Olson convene such a group. He has, after all, completely made up his mind on the issue, making an equal exchange of thoughts and ideas at a true roundtable discussion a moot point.

Olson, after all, voted “No” when HR 2454 came to a vote last June. HR 2454, which passed in the House by a vote of 219 to 212. A big part of the bill establishes how carbon emissions can be held in check by collecting and storing carbon emissions in vast underground reservoirs – in naturally occurring porous geologic traps.

Something that is done all the time in the oil and gas industry in order to enhance oil recovery.

But Pete Olson voted “No” on this, and I suspect will vote “No” on anything that even smells like an effort to keep carbon emissions in check. Because Pete Olson knows something that hundreds of environmental scientists and climatologists don’t know.

Pete Olson knows that this global warming thing is a pure hoax.

But that doesn’t prevent Pete Olson from convening this group, a group that is of a single mind to keep the status quo when it comes to carbon emissions. A half-circle table discussion group that he disingenuously labels a “Roundtable discussion.”

I have a better label for this discussion group, a group that convened and shared their single-minded view on carbon regulation today.

I call it a fundraiser.

Pete Olson Just Says “No” to Anti-Terrorist Protection at Chemical Plants

One day before my congressman, Pete Olson of TX 22 voted against healthcare reform and for a thinly disguised GOP gift to the healthcare industry, one day before he sold out his seat to healthcare lobbyists to the detriment of voters in his district, Pete Olson voted with the rest of the Republicans, all of them, to leave ourselves open to terrorist attacks in an area that we are very vulnerable: chemical plants.

He voted No to HR 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.

This act amended the Homeland Security Act to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.

These places are the soft underbelly of our national infrastructure. Damage to any one of these installations by terrorist attack could result in the release of lethal chemicals, the poisoning of our water systems and the spread of disease through our wastewater (sewage) treatment works.

Many of these kinds of installations are within Pete Olson’s own district boundaries. Most poignantly, since part of CD 22 is within the Port of Houston, a no vote on this bill was not only ill-advised, it was a downright double-crossing of his own constituents.

Something Pete Olson appears to be becoming more and more comfortable with.

Pete Olson needs to take a cue from his fellow Republican in Louisiana, Joseph Cao, who was the lone Republican to vote Yes on healthcare reform last Saturday. He did so because he knew that voting for it was the best thing for his district, as he said many times on the news.

Joseph Cao apparently knows something that Pete Olson doesn’t. That sometimes the thing that is right to do is the thing that is of greatest benefit to the people who voted to send him to Washington and not cast votes to appease Republican Party leadership and party bosses. They don’t know what is best for CD 22, Pete Olson is in the best position to know that.

Or at least he should be.

Congressman Pete Olson Votes Against Texans

Obviously, since only one Republican voted for HR 3962, the recently passed House measure to reform healthcare insurance in America, and it wasn’t my congressman, and no congressman abstained from voting last night, one could reasonably conclude that Congressman Pete Olson of Texas CD 22 voted against, as he would call it, “the Pelosi Bill.”

And I now see that Olson did vote in favor of Boehner’s Republican replacement bill along with 177 of his compatriots. Curiously enough, so did Anh Cao, the lone Republican supporter of “Obamacare.”

This was not announced in the news, and obviously Rep. Cao likes to play both sides against the middle.

But back to Olson, who consistently votes with the Republican Party, I have to ask myself how could he have possibly done what 80% of Texans didn’t want him to do? Well, that’s somewhat rhetorical because clearly Olson doesn’t care what Texans think when he casts his votes. But we should remember the Texas Tribune’s recent internet poll of 800 Texans asking what were the main concerns of Texans.

Well you have to scroll down through the dross to come to something that is completely startling in the extreme. Texans, it seems, are nearly all unified over their opposition to the common dishonorable and shameful practice of healthcare insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

From the Texas Tribune poll:

“• 80 percent would stop the denial of health coverage for preexisting conditions.”

Get it? 80% or respondents want the healthcare industry to clean up its act and end this immoral practice once and for all.

80 percent.

And so when Pete Olson cast his “Nay” vote against HR 3962 and his “Yea” vote for the Boehner Amendment he was in his own small way, stomping on the desires of 80 percent of all Texans.

Because HR 3962 ends the practice of denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions statutorily. Ends it.

But don’t take my word for it. Here it is in Section 221:

“SEC. 211. PROHIBITING PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.”

“A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any of the following: health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, disability, or source of injury (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence) or any similar factors.”

Pete Olson voted against that.

Here is what he voted for:

“SEC. 101. ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL ACCESS PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE HIGH RISK POOLS AND REINSURANCE MARKETS.”

STATE REQUIREMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2010, each State shall—
(A) subject to paragraph (3), operate—
(i) a qualified State reinsurance program described in subsection (b); or
(ii) qualifying State high risk pool dscribed in subsection (c)(1); and
(B) subject to paragraph (3), apply to the operation of such a program from State funds an amount equivalent to the portion of State funds derived from State premium assessments (as defined by the Secretary) that are not otherwise used on State health care programs.”

Get it? Healthcare insurance providers are not forbidden from the practice of denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Boehner’s bill, the bill that Olson voted for, was an unfunded mandate that states must provide funds to cover these unfortunate souls in “high risk pools.”

This is a huge gift to the healthcare insurance industry, a huge gift made on the backs of state taxpayers.

And Pete Olson voted for it.

Pete Olson doesn’t even defend his vote on his website. As I write this, there is nothing on his website about last night’s vote.

And I completely understand why he wouldn’t want to defend his vote. If I voted for the thing that he voted for, and against the thing he voted against, I wouldn’t want to own up to it either.

Not to that 80 percent of all Texans, anyway.

Pete Olson: Giving Texas CD – 22 Its Money’s Worth

I get this email notification on how my two Republican senators from Texas, and how my Republican congressman from TX-22 voted on recent congressional action. Today I was informed that my congressman, Pete Olson, voted NO on accepting House Report 111-292 on HR 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010.

It’s a $42.8 billion bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security.

He voted NO with 113 others.

Now, there is nothing on his congressional website explaining this curiosity. A curiosity made even more curious by the fact the Olson sits on the Homeland Security Committee.

So one would hope that Olson, who serves on the House committee that oversees Homeland Security would support the Department of Homeland Security.

Oh, but then I thought that since Olson sits on the committee, and he voted against the conference report that he might have some special knowledge about this, so I checked the NO votes against the list of members of the Homeland Security committee.

Only three members of that committee voted against accepting the report, all Republicans. No Democrat voted against accepting the report, and 9 Republicans serving on the committee voted in favor of it.

Now Houston, part of CD-22 is a port city. The Department of Homeland Security ostensibly keeps Houstonians safe from . . . from . . . well the stuff that the Bush Regime told us to be very afraid of. Stuff that Pete Olson still must be buying. So what’s the deal?

Are Houstonians getting their moneys worth having Pete Olson in office?

Is anyone?

Pete Olson Lauds “Stunt Journalism”

It could only have come from my congressman. Pete Olson, the duly elected congressman representing Texas CD-22, a redneck’s redneck, has filed a House Resolution honoring the “journalism” of Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III, who ran a “stunt” at a couple of ACORN offices.

Ran a stunt and called it journalism.

Pete’s resolution, House Resolution 809, goes on that these people were doing credible journalism that is “setting an example for concerned citizens across America.”

In case you have been on an Antarctic cruise the past few weeks, you probably missed the fact that a couple of amateurs posed as various low-life people, one time, as I recall, as a pimp and his prostitute, and came into a neighborhood ACORN community service center asking for help.

To their eternal shame, the ACORN workers tried their best to help them, but in so doing, suggested that the actors stretch a few truths.

Now the fact is, this was not an infraction of the law in any way. These people, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III, were actors who were secretly videoing the entire encounter so they could use it against ACORN – not to mention make themselves Pete Olson’s personal heroes.

The video did its damage, however, and nearly no one in congress was able to avoid voting for pulling federal funds from the ACORN community services organization.

No one in the field of journalism (except for Fox News) thinks that this was credible journalism. It was a set-up pure and simple. A set-up like the county fair stunt where someone glues a wallet with folding money showing out on the midway and in a grandstand that is set back fair goers sit and watch the misbehavior of their fellow man as they encounter the wallet and then make poor decisions on how to recover the money for themselves.

Given a sordid set of circumstances, people tend to act sordidly, unfortunately.

This was not journalism in any way, shape or form, and Pete Olson should be ashamed for singling out this pair of actors as journalists doing laudable reporting.

I used to give Pete Olson credit for having at least some brains, or he wouldn’t have been able to fool so many people into voting for him. Now I am convinced the man couldn’t think his way out of a 3rd grade spelling bee.

Yesterday the bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform where I suspect it will die a cold and lonely death.

Pete Olson Got It Wrong and Gets It Wrong

Well there’s a switch. All summer my congressman, Pete Olson, has been dismissing the Democratic plan for healthcare reform. Not coming up with any plan himself, just blindly opposing anything that Democrats propose, including giving constituents the same kind of free choice that he and his family enjoys from the Federal program.

Now, from one reading of his recent comments in the news, he seems to be in favor of a robust public option. The trouble is, its all just a huge mistake.

The truth is, Pete Olson is anything but a glib man. In person, without the use of notes or a slide show, he has trouble making his point.

He sometimes has trouble making any point at all.

So imagine my surprise when I saw that Pete Olson alerted his constituents that he was participating in a “live chat” at the Houston Chronicle’s “Texas on the Potomac” blog. That I did not participate in the live chat should be of no surprise given that the timing of the event was atrocious for most of us who find that they are still at work at noon on a weekday.

Nevertheless, the blog went on to post a transcript of what went on. And just what went on? Nothing really, except for a brief foray into healthcare, where, in answer to a question from participant “sara” we find that Pete Olson made a cogent argument in favor of a robust public option.

“[Comment From sara]Give me the same access to the same health care plan Pete Olson has with his pre-existing condition - at exactly the same cost. I am a voter in his District and I don't see how hard that is to understand. Olson's health insurance is subsidized by the federal government and I want in on that. I'm self employed and work at least as hard as he does.”

“POlson: Sara - I have no problem with that. I have signed on as a cosponsor to a House resolution that requires Members who vote for the Public Option to make it their health care.”

Now on one level you could say that Olson was participating in the Grand Old Pastime of his party in going all snarky on us again, saying that any legislator who favors the public option must participate in said option. Must participate in the fruits of their mistakes as it were. And that is the level that Olson was seeking. The lowest one . . . again.

But there is more than one way to look at this. Imagine if you were a congressman flirting with the notion of voting in favor of the public option, and you were presented with this house resolution. A resolution, I might add, that seems to make what is optional to their constituents mandatory for them. What would you do as a lawmaker?

Well obviously you would want the most robust public option imaginable. One that would be the envy of the world.

One that you, as a legislator, or anyone as a citizen, would want to buy into.

So there you have it. Pete Olson has stuck his foot in it again, saying and meaning one thing in his usual snarky way, but suggesting something that I think we all can get behind.

I would be wildly supportive of this resolution, as a result of the above, if it weren’t for the fact that I read the resolution, HR 615, introduced in the House on July 8, 2009. Something that Pete Olson obviously didn’t do. HR 615 doesn’t “require” Members to make the public option their health care. It merely “urges” them to make that choice.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 615

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.

And there in a nutshell, is my congressman. When he’s botched a line it seems like you can get behind him, and it’s only when you do the legwork to check up on it you find that, again, he got it wrong, and again, he gets it wrong.