What Voters in the 6th Congressional District Should Know about Rep. Peter Roskam

Summer has been busy and I haven’t had time to write as much as I’d like. Some important votes have slipped by without comment. One that I think is of particular interest is the vote on June 24 on H.R. 6331: Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Medicare recipients and the physicians who care for them should take special note.

On July 1st 2008, physicians participating in the Medicare program were scheduled to receive a 10 percent cut in reimbursement. An additional 5 percent cut was to take place in 2009. These cuts, if enacted, could have been devastating to both physicians, who are struggling to maintain the solvency of their practices in the face of reimbursement reductions by state, federal and private payers, and to Medicare recipients, who are faced with increasing difficulty in finding physicans willing to treat Medicare patients. According to the American Medical Association, as many as 60% of physicians would have been forced to limit their services to Medicare recipients under the proposed cuts.

In an effort to prevent these cuts from taking place, Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Charles Rangel, introduced H.R. 6331. In addition to to stopping the physician pay cuts, the bill provided for a number of modest improvements to the Medicare program to aid beneficiaries including:

• Coverage of additional preventive services
• Elimination of late enrollment penalties for the part D drug benefit
• Coverage of pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation
• Elimination of higher co-payments for mental health services

Prior to the vote, President Bush threatened to veto the bill because it would have reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans - private health insurance plans that offer alternatives to traditional Medicare under contract with CMS. Such plans currently receive, on average, about 12% more than the cost of services for recipients in traditional Medicare. Outside the Administration, there is widespread feeling that these plans, which are supposed to reduce costs through careful medical management, should be receiving reimbursements at a level lower than the costs of traditional Medicare, although insurance companies argue that the cuts will increase out-of-pocket costs and decrease options for Medicare Advantage recipients.

When the bill came to a vote on June 24, Peter Roskam voted no, siding with the Bush administration in its desire to allow the pay cuts to take effect. The bill passed but was vetoed by the President on July 15. That veto was quickly overridden by the House and Senate and has become law.

Physicians and Medicare recipients in the 6th district should ask Peter Roskam why he voted to support pay cuts for Medicare physicians. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

When it comes to earmarks, Peter Roskam’s message is “do as I say, not as I do”.

Last fall, Peter Roskam got together with a bunch of fellow Republican extremists who were feeling desperate about their party’s chances in the upcoming 2008 elections after 7 horrible years of mismanagement, malfeasance, and downright criminality by their President, George W. Bush. They decided the only answer was to bring back Ronald Reagan from the dead and so they founded a kind of Ronald Regan resurrection club.

They called their club “Reagan 21” . This is what they had to say about their club:

Republicans have a proud tradition of upholding Ronald Reagan’s principles of liberty and a vision for the 21st Century. That vision is an America that espouses individual freedom, free enterprise, and common-sense values. Americans are crying out for leadership with courage, principle, and integrity. Reagan 21, a new conservative group uniting Republican leaders from both chambers of Congress, was formed to fill this leadership void. Reagan21 presents a positive alternative to the current majority in Congress.

Now I could fill a book about Reagan’s “common-sense values“ (remember Iran-Contra, Reagan’s brutal war in Central America, his opposition to gay rights, his indifference to the poor and to persons with AIDS?) but that is not the point here. The Reagan 21 club proclaimed its emphasis on Integrity and Ethics, presumably because the Jack Abramoff model of the previous few years wasn’t working for them anymore:

Americans deserve to have elected officials who represent them, including Members of Congress, abide by the highest possible standards of professional conduct and personal ethics. No Member of Congress should engage in any activity in which there is or could be a conflict of interest between his or her official duties or activities on behalf of his constituents and any personnel interest of that Member. This duty to avoid conflicts of interest is critical to public confidence in the integrity of our nation’s government. To effectuate this duty, Members must not only aggressively avoid any conflict of interest but also any activity in which there could be even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

One of the ways the Reagan 21 club proposed to promote ethics and integrity in Congress was to end the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are Congress’s way of bypassing the executive branch agencies and allocating funds directly to specific favored pet projects. Earmarks in an appropriation bill are often called “pork”. Citizen’s Against Government Waste, an advocacy group formed to “eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government”, identified 7 criteria for identifying pork:

• Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
• Not specifically authorized;
• Not competitively awarded;
• Not requested by the President;
• Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
• Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
• Serves only a local or special interest.

Senators and Congressmen often rail against pork spending but tend to like it because it can be a way of making themselves popular in their home district, effectively buying votes with highly visible projects that would not other wise be funded.

Here’s what the Reagan 21 club has to say about earmarks:

Recognizing this critical duty, House Republicans in 1994 pledged to “re-establish the bonds of trust between the United States Congress and the American people.” Regrettably, we failed to achieve and maintain this goal. Now Congress must reinvigorate its efforts to reestablish those bonds of trust and hold every Member to a zero tolerance standard in which no self-dealing or appearance of impropriety whatsoever will be tolerated.

One of the main culprits of self-dealing is the practice of “earmarking.” The 1981 transportation bill contained only 10 earmarks. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 that contained 121 earmarks, saying, ‘I haven’t seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.’ In 2005, Congress passed a transportation bill that included an astonishing 6,371 earmarks at a cost of $27.3 billion.

The year before Republicans took the majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, there were 1,400 earmarks. Last year, there were more than 14,000.

So we see that, while most Republican complain about pork and try to blame it on the Democrats, they have been, in actuality, big pork fans. But the Reagan 21 Republicans said that all was going to change. They were going to end earmarks. Yes that’s right, Roskam signed on to a group that declared its intent to pursue a full ban on earmarks, whose members subscribed to a set of core values that included ending all earmarks.

So. How’s Roskam doing in his quest to bring integrity back to Washington by ending the practice of earmarks. Sad to say, not so good. As of today, Roskam’s house website lists a whopping $163, 086, 569 in earmarks for FY ‘08 and FY ‘09. Mr. Roskam really does like his pork, all his pretensions about being a fiscal conservative to the contrary.

I can only speak for myself but this kind of pisses me off. I’m sure there are many worthwhile projects included in Roskam’s long list of earmarks but we have been listening to Roskam lecture the Democrats in Congress on wasteful spending every time they try to do something to help folks who are truly suffering and all the while Roskam is buying votes back home with these projects that bypass the normal appropriations process.

If it makes you mad too, I’d suggest you give Roskam a call and ask him “what’s with all the pork?” Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

I’ve written about it before, but I’m seeing an increasing number of hits on this website from residents of the 6th Congressional District who are seeking to bring an end to the annoying onslaught of robo calls from their Congressman, Peter Roskam. Roskam, who is obviously concerned about his re-election chances this fall, is using the calls to promote his plan to exploit the current crisis in fuel prices as an opportunity to help the big oil companies that play a significant role in funding his campaigns. These calls, while pretty clearly designed to aid his campaign, appear to be originating from his Congressional office as they don’t bear any funding message. I can only presume they are being paid for by the taxpayers. I am not knowledgeable about the legal or ethical implications of the use of government resources for such a purpose.

I have been seeing a notable increase in hits from persons in the area using search strings like “stop peter roskam robo phone calls’, “stop peter roskam phone calls”, and “peter roskam phone calls at home”. I too have been the recipient of these phone calls, most recently just a couple of days ago, and I too find them objectionable. Sadly, this site has no solution to offer. I can only prevail on Representative Roskam once again to set up a registry to exclude those of us who do not wish to receive his automatic messaging. This seems only fair since we appear to be paying for them. I would be very happy to use this site to help him promote such an option, free of charge.

Have been busy with business and vacation travel over the past month and I missed this one at the time it came up but I think it is important as it is another example of Peter Roskam’s utter lack of sincerity when he purports to be concerned about the high gasoline prices his constituents are being forced to contend with.

Back on June 24, Democrats in Congress brought to a vote H.R. 6346: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who in his role on that committee has been working for a long time to bring real relief to consumers, unlike Roskam who has merely trotted out his energy independence dog and pony show in a desperate attempt to win votes this fall. You can see Stupak going head-to-head on price gouging last year with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto who must be getting large checks from Exxon-Mobil to argue so strenuously on the oil companies behalf. (The gas prices on the sign behind Stupak at the beginning of the clip made me weep with nostalgia).

Stupak’s bill would have allowed the President to issue renewable declarations of energy emergency of up to 30 days duration, either generally or for specific geographic areas. During these periods, those who engage in price gouging could be subject to criminal penalties. The FTC and the state attorneys general are empowered to enforce with civil and or criminal actions. Fines and penalties recovered would be required to be put in trust to provide assistance to low-income individuals and families with energy costs under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) Program.

Seems pretty straight forward. Price gouging in periods of emergency is wrong. This bill makes it illegal and those most vulnerable to high energy costs reap the rewards of its enforcement.

Sadly, the Roskam and his Republican colleagues in Congress blocked the measure, as they have done with virtually everything else the Democrats have attempted to cope with the energy crisis and promote energy independence. The day of the vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent out instructions to its minions on the Republican side of the House to defeat the measure and they blindly obeyed. Roskam consistently votes in accordance with the Chamber’s wishes, regardless of the impact on his constituents. The over $100,000 in campaign contributions he has received from the oil and gas industry probably helped also to ensure his “nay” vote on the bill.

If only we had a Congressman with the integrity and concern for consumers that Rep. Stupak has demonstrated. Perhaps we will yet. I remain optimistic about Jill Morgenthaler’s chances this fall. Roskam has blatantly voted against the best interests of his constituency at almost every opportunity and I think people are beginning to wake up to that fact.

Peter Roskam has spent a great deal of time touting his Energy VISION Act around the district lately. The act is supposed to be a plan to eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports in response to the crisis of high energy costs that has been caused by the last 8 years of war and mismanagement by George Bush enabled by Roskam and his Republican colleagues in Congress.

Roskam, who has attempted to block House Democrats at every turn in their efforts to develop a sound energy policy based in heavy emphasis on alternative, renewable sources of energy and increase energy efficiencies, now wants to implement a plan that he says will end our dependence on foreign oil in 15 years. Roskam’s plan emphasizes drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in currently protected areas of the outer continental shelf (OCS), which he says will ultimately yield a combined total of 3.9 million barrels per day.

This past Thursday Democrats gave Roskam a chance to put his money where his mouth is by bringing H.R. 6515: Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 to the House for a vote. Instead, Roskam and his Republican colleagues blocked the measure.

Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made the following statement about the legislation defeated by Roskam and his colleagues:

Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands. With Americans being pummeled by $4 a gallon gas, it is high time America did just that,” stated Rep. Hoyer. “However, after months of suggesting that the only answer to bring down gas prices is more drilling, House Republicans today showed their true colors by blocking the DRILL Act – a bill which would have decisively and responsibly increased domestic oil production.”

Specifically, the DRILL Act would speed up the leasing process of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), an area of land west of the federally-protected Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that contains an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil to ANWR’s 10.4 billion. The bill also incorporates the ‘Use It or Lose It’ legislation, which simply requires oil producers to drill on the leases they already have or relinquish them so that another company can produce the oil there. Finally, it would call on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of Alaskan oil and gas pipelines, so products will get to market sooner, and it ensures that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks, not be exported to other countries.

“In addition to promoting responsible drilling, this bill tells the oil companies to drill on the leases they have, or let somebody else do it - but don’t just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon,” stated Hoyer. “I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let them start on the land they already have, which will bring oil to the market more quickly.”

Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and the Outer Continental Shelf on which they are not producing oil and gas. Eighty-one percent of estimated oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters are already available for development – 311 million acres. These reserves are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption (7.5 billion barrels per year).

Roskam instead proposes a plan that:

• Allows oil companies to sit indefinitely on their existing leases without drilling while prices climb even higher allowing them to increase their future profits
• Puts highly sensitive ecosystems at risk of irreversible damage
• Makes no assurance that oil ultimately produced will make it into gas tanks in this country
• Relies on questionable math in its calculations regarding future energy independence

It is clear that there will be real action taken regarding the nation’s energy crisis until we elect a Democratic president this fall and increase the Democratic majority in Congress. Roskam and the Republicans are in Big Oil’s pocket and can be counted on to do absolutely nothing to help Americans who are suffering through this crisis.

Big Oil has been having a tough time lately. Since George Bush took office, gasoline prices at the pump have more than tripled, forcing the oil companies to absorb huge windfall profits and causing whining, irrational consumers and Democrats in Congress to question the large subsidies that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have provided to the companies and to ask themselves whether we should be using so-called “alternative” forms of energy.

Now just as things were beginning to look bleak for Big Oil, our own Congressman, Peter Roskam, has unveiled a plan to help the oil companies weather these difficult times. Disguised as a plan to address the high fuel prices that consumers so unfairly complain about, the Roskam plan cleverly nips all talk of renewable, clean, alternative energy sources in the bud, and secures our dependence on fossil fuels into the distant future.

The Roskam plan is stunning in it’s simplicity. It focuses on two major actions: tax breaks to the wealthy and unrestrained domestic drilling.

Under the Roskam plan, residents of the 6th district who are suffering hardship from high gasoline prices will be able to receive a substantial tax credit for trading in their Hummer or Escalade for a smaller, more sensible Lexus or Mercedes. Who said Roskam was insensitive to the needs of the disadvantaged?

For many years now, Democrats and other communists in the environmental movement have successfully thwarted Big Oil from drilling in protected areas offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in the name of protecting the environment. Well screw the environment! Peter Roskam’s energy plan tells these tree-hugging pansies who’s boss. Why drilling in ANWR alone will knock 4 cents off the cost of a gallon of gasoline within 20 years and supply a whopping 3 percent of our nation’s energy consumption no later than 2027. Democrats in Congress have tried to insist that the oil companies must first pursue drilling in the 5,500 oil leases that they currently possess. Roskam won’t rest until Big Oil has it all, tourists and pelicans be damned.

But Peter Roskam is no Johnny-Come-Lately to the cause of Big Oil. Since coming to Congress, Roskam has consistently used his votes to advance the interests of the Oil Companies and ward of threats posed by alternative energy technologies and increased fuel-efficiency standards.

Thank God, in these harrowing times, the oil companies have a friend like Peter Roskam. Remember that when you vote this fall.

Addendum: the pinkos over at Progress Illinois have a post questioning the math Roskam is using to promote his plan. Imagine. Suggesting that a sitting Congressman running for re-election might somehow use fuzzy math to his own political advantage. It boggles the mind.