BAE Systems lost their appeal with the Department of Defense on their contract to build military trucks called Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (Source: Houston Chronicle) The contract was the largest federal contract in the 10th Congressional District.
When it was first announced that BAE Systems would lose the contract, there was proof that no written communication -- or really any efforts -- had been made by Michael McCaul, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator John Cornyn, or Governor Rick Perry to protect the contract and keep it in Texas. (Source: Lone Star Project & Austin American-Statesman)
Republican Michael McCaul's negligence to protect the largest Department of Defense contract in his district will cost the town of Sealy and the state of Texas 3,000 jobs. And while Rick Perry is quick to blame the Obama administration, the fact is that Perry, Hutchison, Cornyn, and McCaul did absolutely nothing to stop this from happening.
The Houston-area economy suffered a second blow Friday, with the U.S. Army rejecting a Sealy-based company's appeal to keep combat truck production in Texas, where it has been for 17 years.
The Army's action to award the contract to a Wisconsin firm — following a review ordered by Congress' watchdog Government Accountability Office — could claim an estimated 3,000 jobs at the Texas plant in suburban Houston, with layoffs beginning later this year.
Today, McCaul is blaming Washington and the Obama administration. However, there was no effective effort to save it by McCaul, Senator Hutchison, or Governor Rick Perry. It was not until after the contract was announced that any of the state's Republican elected officials began to work on saving the contract -- something they have now failed to do, and are now quickly trying to point fingers at President Obama to avoid accepting the responsibility of their failures.
The facts speak for themselves: The Lone Star Project detailed and documented McCaul's inaction when we heard this could happen in December:
An official letter from the Department of Defense obtained by the Lone Star Project states that no record exists of Michael McCaul contacting the Department of Defense during the contract review process to advocate for BAE systems or to request fair consideration that the contract be renewed. (Source: DOD Freedom of Information Act Request, 10/14/2009)
McCaul failed to appear before the House Budget Committee on “Member’s Day” where Representatives can advocate for programs important to their district. (Source: House Budget Committee Witness List )
McCaul did not go to the House floor a single time to speak on behalf of the Texas/BAE contract or to defend Texas workers. (Source: Library of Congress)
McCaul did not make any public statements or issue any press releases supporting BAE or the nearly 3,000 jobs covered under the contract. (Source: McCaul Website)
Once McCaul learned the contract was loss, he quickly ran to Democrat Bill White for help. Unfortunately, by the time the appeal stage had been reached, there was nothing that could be done to prevent the loss of the contract.
Rick Perry is going to do what he always does -- blame Washington for his failures. But while Rick Perry and Michael McCaul are busy pointing fingers and refusing to accept responsibility, there are thousands of Texans without work. And the fact that no Republican did anything to stop this from happening in the first place is cut-and-dry obvious that Texas Republicans failed at the simple task of protecting Texas jobs.
In the days since Jack McDonald announced that he would not be running for the 10th Congressional District, speculation grew that foreign policy consultant and former candidate for the district Dan Grant would enter the race.
Grant--an Austin native--was widely viewed as one of the strongest contenders to make a late entry: he still has solid support from his previous campaign, and is extensively well-regarded by local activists. He has extensive foreign policy experience from his civil service work in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Today, Grant released a statement making clear that he would not be entering the race. From his press release:
"Like others, my wife and I were surprised by our friend Jack McDonald's announcement this week that he will not run for Congress after all, and I am deeply grateful for the strong encouragement I have received in the past two days to get into the race.
Because time is short, I have visited quickly with friends, Democratic Party officials, and community leaders in the district. After giving the decision due consideration, I am today announcing that I will not be a candidate for this or any other office during the current election cycle.
As many of you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child in less than a month. In other words, the standard excuse that I want to spend more time with my family is, by a happy coincidence, actually true in this case.
Moreover, my work training civilian workers and soldiers for the international mission in Afghanistan will continue to require my professional focus for the foreseeable future.
Again, my wife and I appreciate the many expressions of support we have received in the past two days. We look forward to helping Democratic candidates in this race and up and down the ballot get their positive message out in the months ahead."
Dan Grant remains a great candidate for this district, as he was in 2008. A loyal, committed Democrat, Grant has remained highly active within the party since his unfortunate loss in the 2008 primary. He continues to participate extensively in our local grassroots organizations, and has been involved in fundraising efforts for Democratic candidates.
Grant has also expanded his work on foreign policy issues by joining up with Operation Free, an organization that focuses on clean energy from a national security perspective. In an ironic bit of timing, the Austin Chronicle ran an article this week in which Grant evaluates President Obama's Afghanistan strategy.
Grant's decision not to enter the race at this late stage in the game is completely respectable. With less than two weeks in the filing period, it will be challenging for anyone to assemble a team capable of challenging McCaul. However, I sincerely hope that Grant continues to consider the race in the future. He would be a strong voice for the people of the 10th District.
Meanwhile, best wishes to Dan and his wife as they await the arrival of their first child.
"In February, after receiving strong encouragement from friends and supporters throughout Texas to consider running for United States Congress, we formed an Exploratory Committee to evaluate the race.
My wife, Carla, and I have been humbled by the broad and deep support and kindness we've received over the last 10 months from fellow Texans, including business, community and political leaders, Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike.
However, after careful consideration, and with the January 4 filing deadline approaching, I have decided that this is not the right time for me to run and I will not be filing to enter the race. This was a difficult decision for me and one I did not make lightly. I approached the decision in the same way I have approached my business decisions over the years-in an informed, realistic and fiscally-responsible way. In the next few weeks, we will be offering to return the contributions made to our committee.
For Carla and me, the last 10 months have provided some of the best and most enriching moments of our lives-with so many wonderful people from throughout the district and state sharing with us their hopes and concerns. As we look ahead, I remain more committed than ever to public service, to the need for more people in government who can put aside partisanship to do what's right for Texas and America and to my work with the State of Texas' Emerging Technology Fund and the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce to create more good jobs in the state."
Myself and many others were excited about his efforts in the exploratory campaign, and I believe he had a strong chance against McCaul. Here's hoping that at some point in the future, the circusmtances work out so he can run again. He remains one of the most impressive (potential) candidates I've ever had the pleasure to meet, as well as a genuinely compassionate and caring individual. I don't get to know a lot of candidates very well, but in the few times I was able to talk to and meet Jack McDonald, I always knew he cared about the work he was doing. I am proud I supported him while I did, and I sincerely hope that in the coming years he takes another look at running for office.
For now, at least, the BAE Systems plant is still alive.
The federal government's General Accountability Office has determined to uphold the protest conducted by Navistar and BAE Systems about the awarding of the defense contract to Oshkosh. They determined that the "Army's evaluation was flawed" and the proposals must be re-evaluated. However -- and this is important -- they denined many of the challenges made by BAE Systems, including challenges to Oshkosh's price.
What this means is that the contract is not necessarily staying here in Texas -- but there's still a chance. BAE Systems is now getting a fair chance at the bid, something they didn't have before due to Michael McCaul's gross negligence. Thankfully, with the help of Democrats like Chet Edwards and Bill White, BAE Systems will get another swing at the contract.
Last week, a day before his announcement, Bill put politics aside and joined forces with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to fight for an Army contract that could jeopardize more than 10,000 jobs (direct and indirect) and have economic impact of 1.8 billion annually to Southeast Texas region.
Bill said after the 90-minute meeting, "When it comes to matters affecting Texas, we put politics aside. That's who Texans are, at our best. Obviously, there are some who play by different rules, but that's who we are."
I'm still reading news reports as it comes out. I'll post something more this afternoon, once I get more details. For now, here's the official statement from the GAO:
We recommended that the Army: reevaluate the offerors’ proposals under the capability evaluation factor, in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation; conduct a new evaluation of Navistar’s past performance that adequately documents the agency’s judgments; and make a new selection decision. We also recommended that if, at the conclusion of the reevaluation, Oshkosh is not found to offer the best value, the agency should terminate Oshkosh’s contract for the convenience of the government. We further recommend that Navistar and BAE be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the successful grounds of their protests related to their challenge of technical and past performance evaluation issues, including reasonable attorney fees. By statute, the Army has 60 days to inform our Office of its actions in response to our recommendations.
Navistar Defense, LLC, of Warrenville, Illinois, and BAE Systems, Tactical Vehicle Systems LP, of Sealy, Texas, protested the award of a contract to Oshkosh Corporation, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-09-R-0083, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, for production of the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV). Navistar and BAE challenged the Army’s evaluation of the offerors’ technical and price proposals, and contend that the selection decision was flawed.
The Army received proposals and conducted negotiations with Oshkosh, Navistar, and BAE. The agency selected Oshkosh’s proposal for award on August 26, 2009, and Navistar and BAE each filed a protest with our Office on September 4 and 5, respectively, with each supplementing its protest several times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Oshkosh, Navistar, and BAE. Our Office also conducted a hearing on November 9 and 10, at which testimony was received from a number of Army witnesses about the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective approaches to produce the FMTV. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
The decision was issued under a protective order because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision."
Today, the fate of the BAE Sytems plant in Sealy, Texas will be announced. It was reported several weeks ago that the plant would close -- and at least 3,000 jobs would be lost -- because the military defense contract they'd received in the past had been awarded to the Wisconsin company Oshkosh.
Republican Congressman Michael McCaul had been notified about the contract renewal in 2007, but -- as far as any evidence suggests -- did nothing to prevent BAE Systesms from losing the contract, or to help BAE Systems lobby for a new contract from the Department of Defense. Since learning, several weeks ago, of the DoD's decision to award the contract to the Wisconsin company, Congressman McCaul has solicited the support of Democrats -- including Congressman Chet Edwards and Houston Mayor Bill White -- to help save the contract through an appeal's process.
Above photo courtesy of Congressman McCaul's office, via the Statesman.
The decision on the appeal will be announced today. Hopefully, the lobbying of Congressman Edwards, Mayor White, and others in the Texas delegation will lead to the DoD's reconsideration of the contract proposal. In the mean time, to learn more about this story, watch the ABC 13 News report from when the story first broke (below), and read about our previous coverage on the story. We'll be sure to post an update once we've learned about the result of the appeal process.
Earlier this week, I wrote about how Michael McCaul's negligence in his duties as Congressman for the 10th Congressional District has, most likely, led to the loss of thousands of jobs in his district. While McCaul's office has tried to claim that they were "blindsided" by the announcement and that they have had "regular" communications with the Department of Defense, there are no facts to back up their claims.
McCaul has never spoken on the floor of the House on behalf ofthe BAE contract. (Source: Library of Congress)
McCaul has not issued any statements or press releases supporting BAE prior to news of the lost contract. (Source: McCaul Website)
McCaul's biggest defense -- that he was "blindsided" and that is why he should not be held responsible -- is incredibly weak. Libby Shaw, writing at Texas Kaos, goes into terrific detail about the role of a Congressman, and how McCaul's failure to publicly advocate for the BAE Systems plant and his apparent unwillingness to fight for their contract renewal is exclusively and unequivocably his fault.
From Texas Kaos, Libby Shaw pens an excellent piece about the role of a Congressman, titled, "How Texas Lost 10,000 Jobs":
As an administrator for a scientific laboratory at an academic institution that is awarded a great number of federal grants, I can tell you that if BAE System's executives, Rick Perry, Michael McCaul, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison forgot about the potential for a 10,000 job loss in Texas, all are grossly and hopelessly negligent.
It is up to the recipient of the funding award to know when the funding will run dry. Grants are awarded for specific periods of time whether it is for five or twenty five years. At academic institutions is up to administrators and the principle investigators (the professors) to do due diligence and prepare renewal requests for ongoing funding when a grant dries up. The renewals are always competitive. Everyone who receives federal funding of any sort should know this. There is always going to be another PI or another company that wants the same money that has been awarded to you. And they will fight like hell to get it. The PIs and companies have to fight like hell to win the award again.
When a grant is about to dry up few funding agencies will send notifications. They don't have to. Admins. and PIs know when the money will run out because when it does we have to find new sources of money to pay research scientists and staff salaries, fund grad student stipends and education, undergrad summer research internships and buy lab equipment. In academe we frequently refer to this process as the grant grind.
A federal funding agency will sometimes send an email notification when they are soliciting new proposals but not always. It us up to the administrators and PIs to find out when proposals are being solicited and to stay on top of when the funding will come to an end. During the term of the funding we have to submit annual reports to the funding agency that discloses financial expenditures and research outcomes and achievements. The funding agency has to report to the Congress how it is spending the people's money.
Where federal grants are concerned it is up to the PI to contact his/her U.S. Representative to inform him/her about a proposal submission and the outcome it promises (i.e. more jobs in Houston, more students in the fields science and engineering, the potential for job creation outside the academic institution). It should be the job of the U.S. Rep. to do due diligence and lobby for the companies and academic institutions within his/her district. Like the PIs and company executives Representatives should fight like hell in Washington to bring the bacon home to their district.
And this is where Michael McCaul and Senators Hutchison and Cornyn failed miserably. Not only did all fail to fight for the bacon and its 10,000 jobs, all completely forgot about it.
Next Monday, December 14, we will know the final fate of the contract for BAE Systems. Hopefully, the lobbying that has been done recently by Democrats Chet Edwards and Bill White will result in the opportunity for BAE Systems to renew their contract, or at least bid for it again (or at least find another contract where thousands of Texans won't lose their jobs). We'll be sure to let our readers know the result of next Monday's decision.
Key Point: The Google ads (for when they disappear) have an image of Jack McDonald and say, "Real leadership means taking a stand on the issues." In fact, Michael McCaul is the one is standing down -- and could not so much as lick a stamp -- while he lost the largest defense contract in his district and the 3,000 jobs that came with it.
Oh, the irony.
Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy post about how Republican Congressman Michael McCaul Dropped the Ball and lost 3,000 Texas jobs. The story was picked up and received some links from the Texas Tribune, KUT, KSAT, and several other traditional and new media sources. The highlights (or lowlights, as they should be called) were that:
Michael McCaul had absolute no written communication with the Department of Defense about the defense contract BAE Systems lost. In fact, the communication he had was so non-existent that he and BAE Systems admit to being "blindsided" by the contract change. (Source: Department of Defense)
The defense contract McCaul lost was the single largest defense contract in his district, and 3,000 Texans are likely to lose their jobs because he dropped the ball. (Source: Austin American-Statesman)
McCaul has provided no proof of any communication with the Department of Defnse about the contract, and only now -- after the fact -- has solicited the help of high profile Democrats Chet Edwards and Bill White to help save the jobs (which, hopefully, they can do). (Source: Virtual Capitol)
That post -- which generated quite a lot of traffic and buzz -- is now the reason that Michael McCaul ads are running on Burnt Orange Report. As Google searches the "Texas news" sites across the internet, it comes across the keywords in our post -- predominantly, Michael McCaul. As a result of that, we now see his ads running on our site -- which is great for the BOR staff because that means some more money from advertising generated for everyone.
So -- thank you, Michael McCaul, for paying for the coffee we drink, the chicken sandwiches we buy, and the small dollar contributions we make to your opponent, Jack McDonald -- an opponent who is going to defeat you in November 2010, no matter how much you try to advertise on our site.
The Google ads (for when they disappear) have an image of Jack McDonald and say, "Real leadership means taking a stand on the issues." The idea that Michael McCaul is the one who is taking a stand -- when he could not so much as lick a stamp in order to help save the largest defense contract in his district and the 3,000 jobs that came with it -- is purely laughable for any BOR readers who McCaul could hope to advertise with.
Let's take a look at some of the issues Michael McCaul has stood down on:
Michael McCaul Has Stood Down and Supported Rush Limbaugh's Attacks on Sonia Sotomayor (Source)
Michael McCaul Has Stood Down and Allowed Property Tax Rates to Increase (Source)
Michael McCaul Has Stood Down and Allowed Student Loan Interest Rates to Increase (Source)
Michael McCaul Has Stood Down and Allowed Insurance Companies to Block Meaningful Health Care Reform (Source)
There are dozens more instances -- I'm sure -- of McCaul standing down and allowing special interests and Republican ideologues to run him over. Those are the ones that took me forty seconds to find here on BOR. The simple truth, though, is that Michael McCaul doesn't work hard, and doesn't really care about his job. He is a career politician whose support of the far-right policies do a tremendous disservice to his district -- and his complete ineptitude has led to nearly 3,000 Texas families losing their jobs.
Michael McCaul -- if you want to advertise on BOR, by all means. KT will just collect the ad revenues and send all the money to Jack McDonald, the man who will soon replace you in Congress.
Texas Republican Michael McCaul has fumbled away nearly 3,000 jobs in his district, according to the latest research put together by the Lone Star Project. McCaul -- who did not have any written communication with the Department of Defense prior to the announcement of the contract BAE Systems lost (Source) -- is now facing tough scrutiny about what, if any, work he did to keep what had been, until recently, the largest defense contract in his district.
The Lone Star Project knows that McCaul hasn't done at least the following four things:
An official letter from the Department of Defense obtained by the Lone Star Project states that no record exists of Michael McCaul contacting the Department of Defense during the contract review process to advocate for BAE systems or to request fair consideration that the contract be renewed. (Source: DOD Freedom of Information Act Request, 10/14/2009)
McCaul failed to appear before the House Budget Committee on “Member’s Day” where Representatives can advocate for programs important to their district. (Source: House Budget Committee Witness List )
McCaul did not go to the House floor a single time to speak on behalf of the Texas/BAE contract or to defend Texas workers. (Source: Library of Congress)
McCaul did not make any public statements or issue any press releases supporting BAE or the nearly 3,000 jobs covered under the contract. (Source: McCaul Website)
What specifically did you communicate to the Army in "Late 2007?" Was it by mail or telephone? Can you produce all copies of your communication?
If you were informed of the potential problem in 2007, what did you to to advocate for the Sealy plant officially and unofficially?
Did you formally notify and ask for assistance from your fellow local, State, and Federal officeholders regarding the potential job loss?
You claimed that, "My office has been in regular contact with BAE Systems prior to and during the rebid process." Can you produce any documents that confirm "regular" communications?
Since being elected to Congress from the 10th District, but prior to the loss of the BAE contract, have you spoken even once on the House floor promoting the quality of work and the importance of the mission at BAE Systems plant in Sealy?
Written communication “is not how it works,” McCaul said. “It’s a little naive” to say so.
Michael McCaul never thought to get anything in writing?!?! Is it because he's just that foolish and irresponsible, or because he is just so used to communicating through right-wing radio -- after all, his father-in-law is the one who owns Clear Channel, the corporation that is both Michael McCaul's single largest political contributor and the one that has given a $100 million signing bonus to McCaul's best friend, Rush Limbaugh.
No written communication? Not so much as an email? That’s pretty strange. Did anyone take notes from the phone conversations they had, or minutes at the meetings? [...]
McCaul’s statement here seems in conflict with this:
BAE employees expressed concern to McCaul aides around late 2007 that the Army was seeking bids for the production of the trucks made in Sealy. Many of the trucks had already been made, and they found it unusual that the Army would seek bids for the rest of those trucks. McCaul’s office relayed that concern to the Army.
In response, Army officials praised BAE’s work but said they would move forward with their plan to seek competitive bids, McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen said.
Surely BAE must have had a reason to be worried beyond the obvious fact that having a competitor means the possibility of losing. What was McCaul doing between then and September when the contract was officially awarded? Maybe he was working at it, and maybe there was nothing he could have done. I just have a hard time understanding how this could have caught people like McCaul off guard.
Understanding the actions McCaul has failed to take is crucial -- you have to realize just how huge losing this contract really was. From the LSP report:
For 17 years, BAE Systems in Sealy, Texas, has built military trucks called Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) for the US Army in a plant that sits in the heart of the 10th Congressional District. BAE Systems is the single largest defense contractor in District 10. (Source: USASpending.gov) The billion dollar contract was recently taken from BAE and awarded to Oshkosh Corp. in Wisconsin costing McCaul's constituents thousands of good paying jobs. McCaul has yet to produce any documentation that he fought for the Sealy jobs before the contract was awarded or even took the most basic steps to promote the fine work done at the plant.
Michael McCaul's negligence cost his district and the state of Texas those jobs. It's that simple. While they spend the next few days trying to act extremely busy to pretend that they care, they simply failed to protect the largest defense contract -- and the 3,000 working jobs that came with it. Michael McCaul is a failure as a Congressman, and he will be replaced in 2010.
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul is working hard in D.C. to make sure that Texans in the 10th District receive no meaningful health reform. With efforts to block President Obama's proposals at every turn, the unremarkable incumbent has now taken to touting bogus polls and whining about not being included in the process. And what does McCaul have to show for it? A Republican bill that will leave 17 million Americans uninsured, and won't cut the deficit nearly as well as the Democratic bill.
Last week, Michael McCaul went on KVUE to complain about health insurance reform, touting an oh-so-scientific poll from his own website. From KVUE, October 31, 2009:
"In my view, the majority of the American people don't support [the Democratic health reform plan]. Certainly in my district, on my website I have a poll, and it's about 85% against this, it's what's called the public option, the government-run option, the government takeover of our healthcare, it's one sixth of our economy."
Michael McCaul is wrong about health reform. In August, 77% of Americans supported the public option, according to a SUSA poll. That's even higher than it was in June. According to an ABC News poll conducted last week more Americans prefer the Democrats' public option than a watered-down, bipartisan compromise.
McCaul continues on with a series of bogus Republican buzz-words against health reform: "government-run takeover," "getting in between you and your doctor" and "health czar!" Funny, last time I checked, the only person coming between me and my doctor was some insurance company bureaucrat trying to decide if I really need that M.R.I., or visit to a specialist, or blood test, or not. And what's with their czar fetish?
To provide justification for his position, McCaul sites a bogus poll conducted on his website. (How does he know the folks voting on his website are only constituents? Hmm?) On his Facebook Feed, McCaul also published the results of another bogus poll conducted during his own tele-town hall, with 65% opposed to the public option.
Whaaat? You mean to say the small sample of folks who bother to visit his website or join a tele-town hall happen to overwhelmingly agree with his views on the public option?! What's extra irritating here is how the newscaster just takes the bogus statistic as God-given fact. Then she has the gall to suggest that health reform is actually moving too fast. As anyone who has actually been following the legislative process can tell you, things are definitely NOT moving too fast, especially for the 9.3 million Texans who were uninsured for all or part of last year.
Then, just this week, McCaul continued whining in a call-in press conference that Obama and the Democrats have "left out" the Republicans in the health reform process. This is disingenuous, for three reasons.
First, the Republican bill championed by McCaul is widely considered to be a dismal failure. From Ezra Klein:
In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit. ... The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.
McCaul describes the Republican bill as better, because it "incentivizes the free market and the private sector to provide coverage." Except that's the same idea that has failed Americans since World War II. It's no change in policy, and it will do very little to change the rate of uninsured Texans.
Second, Republicans--teabaggers and members of Congress alike--are deliberately trying to obstruct the reform process for ideological and political gain. They spent all summer yelling about death panels and insuring undocumented immigrants and shouting "YOU LIE!" during joint sessions of Congress. Republicans are too busy trying to prevent meaningful reform and coverage that will extend to all Americans, in order to support their buddies in the insurance industry. All they want is for President Obama's plans to fail--they don't care about meaningful reform, they only care about their own electoral prospects in 2010 and beyond.
Third, while McCaul complains about not having a seat at the table, he made it nearly impossible for his own constituents to share their views on health reform. He complains that the Democratic bill was written "behind closed doors in Washington," despite the many open town-halls held by Democratic Representatives and constant stream of news coverage about every single step of the process and constant updates from Democratic Congressional leaders.
Meanwhile, it's McCaul who is largely operating behind closed doors, having private meetings with folks who seem to unanimously oppose reform. According to his website, McCaul held only one in-person town hall, at 9:00 a.m. on a Friday, in Katy, the day before Labor Day weekend. He waited until the final day of the Congressional District working period to solicit real input from his constituents. It was only posted to his campaign website three days before the event. Sounds as if Rep. McCaul doesn't want to hear what his constituents have to say. In a district that spans 150 miles from Austin to Houston, he holds only one event, off in one of the most Republican parts of the district. There sure was no event in Travis County, because if there was, McCaul would have heard an earful from his constituents who are tired of losing coverage for pre-existing conditions, being dropped from their plans, and watching premiums rise as access to quality care drops.
To conclude, let's sum up the many ways in which Michael McCaul is wrong about health reform:
Elections have consequences. Barack Obama won, and Democrats have significant majorities in the House and Senate. Democrats are supposed to set national policy. That's what people voted for. (N.B.: Olympia Snowe is not a Democrat and should not be setting health care policy.)
If Republicans want a seat at the table they need to offer real solutions backed by their party, not just vitriol and obstruction. A bill that leaves 17 million people uninsured and doesn't cut costs as well as the Democratic bill is not a real solution.
Congresspeople can't conduct bogus polls on their websites and conference calls and tout it as scientific fact. Anyone who actually has a say in our nation's education funding should know better. The thought makes me shudder.
Michael McCaul is yet another out-of-touch Republican in Congress working hard to prevent the people of the 10th Congressional district from having access to quality, affordable health care. He needs to go.
In early October, I sent a message in support of health care reform and a public option to my U.S. Representative, Michael McCaul (TX-10). As I know the representative is ideologically disinclined to support Democratic initiatives or a public option, I was surprised to receive a reply:
October 6, 2009
Dear Mr. Lyon:
Thank you for contacting me with your views on HR 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act. I appreciate your opinions that help guide and inform me in Congress.
