Why, if we hadn't elected Obama ...

... we might have had a president who refused to roll back taxes on the wealthy, who refused to establish a windfall profits tax on oil companies, who refused to investigate activities carried out by telecom companies who illegally helped the government tap our phones, and who continued to tap phones without a warrant, who would have turned his back on Miranda, who would refuse to investigate any of the Bush Administration lies, incompetence, corruption or torture, who would support anti-democratic, murderous coup regimes in Central America, who might refuse to restore habeas corpus, who would have left Guantanamo open indefinitely and maintain that its inmates had no rights at all, who might have continued extraordinary rendition and torture, who might have fought to keep Dick Cheney's remarks to Plame investigators secret, who would have done nothing of substance to rein in Wall Street, who would have continued to issue signing statements, who might have continued to delay investigations of CIA torture and even investigate those who protest that torture, who would have traded away the public option even while saying he was in favor of it, who would have expanded the war in Afghanistan, who would have opened "vast expanses" of Atlantic seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, who would have 'put politics before science' and at first minimized the BP oil spill and then might have claimed that there was practically no oil left and that "the microbes ate it!", who might have continually filed briefs in favor of large corporate polluters, who might have even been in favor of whale hunting, who might have used cluster bombs on civilians in Yemen, who might have refused to investigate Bush's political firings of US attorneys, why we might even have a president who would appoint a bunch of right wing psychopaths to the Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while allowing Wall Street banks, the filthy rich and military corporations to continue plundering our economy, or who might try to institute policies which would effectively shut down the internet.

But wait…no. That's what Obama actually did do.

You in? Or out?

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance wants to know if you remember that time Planned Parenthood crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks and took TARP money? Yeah, us neither. We would also like to remind you that we never shut down -- never even threaten to shut down -- as we once again bring you this week's blog roundup.

Off the Kuff discusses the bet the Republicans have made about how the voters will react to deep cuts to public education.

At TexasKaos, Lightseeker warns Don't Buy Into the Lie - Help Spread the Truth About the Fiscal Mess! Updated with video! Check it out - be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

From Bay Area Houston: Unlike the GOP, which believes the solution to teen pregnancy is duct tape and a $50,000 speaking engagement by Bristol Palin, Planned Parenthood actually provides education services, family planning services, and low cost birth control.

Barack Obama asked the question "Are You In?" last week, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs decided he wasn't.

Texas has a revenue problem that's so bad even the GOP is starting to realize it. WCNews at Eye On Williamson posted about that: Texas GOP tax talk getting louder.

The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the potential, and potentially wacky, new districts in which Denton County might end up.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that Republicans want to stop you from voting, kill public education and control women's uteri. Did you see anything about creating jobs, except for the special uterus police?

More bad news for fracking from Public Citizen's Texas Vox blog, as they report that the House Appropriation will discuss on Thursday the tax exemption for "high cost" wells, valued at several billion dollars that should be going to schools and health care. As fate would have it, they had already planned to join a press conference that morning led by TPA's own TXSharon on the health impacts of fracking -- click for details!

Neil at Texas Liberal noted that while it is great for Houston Mayor Annise Parker that she raised $1 million for her re-election campaign in a single night, this fact is much less relevant to a public that finds little to care about in a municipal political atmosphere nearly devoid of grassroots enthusiasm.

Sunday Funnies: In or Out edition

Today's SDEC meeting in Austin *update: Richie won't run again

Breaking, 1:00 p.m.: Boyd Richie has announced that he will not run for re-election to the post of chair of the Texas Democratic Party in 2012. Burnt Orange Report is live-blogging the conclave.

============

Occurring as this is posted. The following was submitted by my Senate District Executive Committee representative, J.R. Behrman.

============

The April 9 meeting will pit the SDEC against the staff employed by the Texas Trust from the staff of Congressman Martin Frost -- the “Little Office” in Austin. That staff is desperately seeking to defeat motions to be made by Don Bankston of  Fort Bend County to support a bizarre theory of “singular authority” vested in the Texas Democratic Party chairman, and to re-elect Boyd Richie for State Chair despite his manifest unfitness and failure.

He had not planned to run in 2012. But, he and his entourage of “Senate Pages” have nobody but each other to turn to. We really cannot afford either half of that vain and unproductive symbiosis.

The staff and the “Palace Guard” -- together comprising the “Speaker’s Claque” -- are already “whipping” the SDEC, defaming Don Bankston, and threatening personal retaliation against each and every one of you. That is the way they operate. Since I am already on the hit list, I don’t care about the smear campaign so much as by what it reveals about a profoundly dysfunctional and failed state party.

The Obama campaign will bypass state parties altogether. They will use the new DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, passed over for the DCCC, to raise money in Texas and spend it elsewhere. We desperately need a new business model at the state and county level, but there is not a hint of such a thing from the Little Office in Austin.

In any case the state party establishment, which bet on John Edwards this time four years ago and Martin Frost to become DNC chair in recent weeks as well as de facto state chair through his protege, Matt Angle, will fare even worse in fratricidal fund-raising from “large donors” in the future.

That leaves the state and county party fighting over the last rich, bored trial-lawyer standing – a horrible business model, but the only one we have today.

Our party does not have personnel problems unless we create them, which we now have by not disclosing material conflicts of interest. Still, that just aggravates the profound financial problems that will not be solved by “keeping on, keeping on” with old or new staff.

Given the size of this state, our lack and ignorance of the scalable technologies that the Obama campaign will use nationwide, and the profound dysfunction of the state and several urban county parties, it is hard to blame the boys in Chicago. They have little regard for cornpone Southern Democratic parties run by “doctors, lawyers, and preachers” for their own benefit, what I call “The Grisham Novel”.

Democrats in Northern states, with real unions and well-funded public schools and services, are fighting against a neo-Confederate GOP. They do not have much use for a state party that nurtures “Blue Dog” collaborators and defectors. So ... we are on our own here.

The Democratic Party establishment in Texas and Harris County are artifacts of a bi-partisan concession-tending regime that lasted statewide from 1824 to 1994 and persists on City Council to this day. This establishment lacks proficiency and purpose – now that tort reform is a done deal and they have no alternative to debt-driven fiscal austerity at every echelon of government.

So the prospects for winning statewide, countywide, and even citywide elections in 2011-12 are not good. There have been essentially no lessons learned from victories in 2008 or losses in 2010. “Wave Election!” is an excuse, not an analysis or a plan. The same consultants will be doing the same thing with the same tools but without the benefit of an Obama primary campaign here in Texas next year.

Apart from dismay at the effects of national, state, county, and city austerity, there will be little motivation and no money trickling down from national politics unless and until we turn things around here on the ground ... dramatically. The patronage-oriented base vote will be no  better than 2010 and the (2008-vintage) “new base vote” will be hard to motivate, locate, or mobilize. It is true that on the margin there is still some 'bloc voting' by various interest groups. But that is not the way the politics of age, ethnicity, class, and gender work in “majority-minority” counties like Harris, for one. So we are going to have to adopt Obama-type political methods and messages if we expect results like 2008.

And if we should overcome our perverse heritage and technical deficiencies, as well as the dead hand of the TDP, DNC, and DCCC, we could join California -- even Illinois -- in re-electing Barack Obama, in re-electing those elected county-wide in 2008, and in electing future national and statewide office-holders.

Which brings me back to today.

The State Chair and the party staff will try to waste time and suppress debate on virtually everything using parliamentary tactics or just jargon and making utterly bogus legal-sounding arguments. My district includes parts of Fort Bend County, and you can bet I will support Don Bankston, less for what he has done -- avoiding Bexar County-type problems, for one -- than for what he and others in the county are doing.

The Speaker’s Claque and our Local Chapter of the DCCC use the term “conversation” to indicate that they will engage grass-roots Democrats as adversaries, not as the source of their own legitimacy and Blazing Saddles jobs. A one-sided “conversation” is what President Obama has with the truculent and juvenile GOP in Congress. It is not the way to handle internal party communications.

I hope SDEC members meeting in plenary session today can be relied upon to discharge their responsibilities to those who put them on the executive committee as their representatives, not as sycophants or suck-ups. We need wholesome and fair deliberation of a slew of important questions.

There are certainly two sides to the questions raised by Don Bankston. But there should be only one side to the question of their right and responsibility to fairly deliberate any important matter. SDEC members should vote to include serious matters -- not just long-winded harangues and busy-work reports-- in the order of business. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting, in particular, against attempts to suppress debate with parliamentary jargon.

But if the Chairman insists on turning a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair into a vote of no confidence backed by his threat to resign ... well, I can live with Lenora Sorola-Pohlman for the balance of this term.

It is hard to imagine a course of action less delusional and impractical than what the Little Office in Austin is doing today. They will whine about the “circular firing-squad”. But then they will volley-fire into the backsides of an SDEC which breaks and runs at the least prospect of serious debate.

Texas Democratic voters are looking for responsibility and leadership, not cowardice or sycophancy.

Unplanned, unwarranted, unbelievable

I don't agree with everything this toon portrays; I just don't think Boehner is all that bothered by being manipulated in this fashion. Nor does most of the rest of the Republican party, for that matter.

Oh sure, there are exceptions -- even in Texas, like Bob Deuell and Jane Nelson -- but generally the GOP is more like Mike Pence and Jon Kyl: they want to force women to bear children and then starve both mother and child to death. They don't want to pay for their medicine and they damn sure don't want to pay for their education. And they will tell any lie they can think of to advance their cause.

But hey, elections have consequences. When we elect weak-ass conservative Democrats to negotiate with terrorists (declaring the resolution of the budget stalemate last night  a victory, for example), we can't be too shocked about the outcome.

Texas Medicaid cuts will result in thousands of job losses and pharmacy closures

The Texas Legislature's intention to cut the state's share of Medicaid expenses will -- as with every other measure they are considering to fill a $27 billion hole without raising taxes -- result in thousands of lost jobs. It will also result in the closure of many (mostly rural) pharmacies across the state, limiting access to medications for everyone. From Pharmacy Choice and Access Now's press release:

Lawmakers are planning to introduce a large, bureaucratic middleman known as a “Pharmacy Benefit Manager” to administer 80 percent of Medicaid’s prescription drugs through a restricted managed network. In addition, they are proposing extreme cuts to Medicaid reimbursement rates paid to pharmacies. These cuts would take the form of significant reductions to dispensing fees, which are used to cover the overhead of pharmacies already operating on razor-thin margins. Without open access networks and adequate reimbursement levels as the cornerstones of Texas' pharmacy Medicaid program, community pharmacies could find themselves no longer able to serve Medicaid patients or even to stay in business.

Faced with a grave budget scenario, rising numbers of Medicaid patients, and the always-increasing costs of medicine, Texas Republicans are squeezed in a vise of their own making. And when they close and bar the door to any tax increases or revenue enhancements, that leaves only one bad choice.

Dr. Ray Perryman has an executive summary (.pdf) focusing on the economic implications of the proposed legislation. It lays out three scenarios based on various cost-reduction proposals. Each scenario shows that a large numbers of community-based pharmacies will be forced to close, consequently leading to decreased access to service not just for Medicaid patients, but for all those needing medicine.

"While it is easy to claim superficial efficiencies now, our analysis indicates that this proposal will ultimately hurt patients, taxpayers, community pharmacies and, ultimately, the economy of Texas."

"If these proposals become law, our state’s neediest patients will not be able to get their medications from their local pharmacy -- from the people they know and trust,” explained Tammy Gray, owner of Buda Drugstore and PCAN spokesperson. “Local pharmacies have been the cornerstone of communities for generations, and local pharmacists know their customers the best. We can’t let bureaucracy get in the way of patient care. And this isn’t just about Medicaid recipients. If the local pharmacy shuts down, it will impact the entire community."

Dr. Perryman's analysis found that the economic impact was severe: the worst case scenario estimated $4.7 billion in lost revenues and over 64,000 permanent job losses if dispensing fees and Medicaid 'carve-in' proposals are adopted.

"This proposal is being falsely promoted as a cost-saving measure, yet as presently structured, it represents a new bureaucratic layer that will mean duplicated efforts and actually increase costs,” said Dr. Perryman.

Even a Republican objects.

Rep. Fred Brown (R-College Station) echoed concerns that the cuts are too drastic and will hurt patient access and harm the local and state economies.

"The Texas legislature should reject short-sighted proposals that will reduce patients’ access to prescription drugs and will increase costs long-term when access to Medicaid services is restricted,” said Rep. Brown. "Current proposals to move Medicaid to pharmacy benefit managers unnecessarily adds waste and bureaucracy. We already have a Medicaid pharmacy vendor program that works. The pharmacy benefit managers and their allies, the big pharmaceutical companies, have a long history of acting against the best interests of the State of Texas. Since 2000, the Texas Attorney General has sued “big pharma” for overcharges in Medicaid, for over $420 million. We've had a hard time keeping them out of the state's cookie jar, and now we're just going to hand it to them? Texans deserve better."

Contact your elected officials and tell them that cuts to Medicaid are unacceptable.

(cross-posted at PCAN)