Richardson is the only governor running now - he deserves serious consideration

[Herman Munster]

He's probably the most qualified candidate on paper by far.

1) Two-Term Governor
2) Former House Rep. in Congress
3) Former Ambassador to the United Nations
4) Former Energy Secretary

Add in that he is hispanic and lives in a Western State and he really could be the dark horse here. If Edwards-Hillary-Obama destroy each other and Richardson stays above the fray, he really could catch on quickly.

[politicasista]

1. Until he apologizes for not having a recount in NM

then I will go from there.

[skipos]

4. I like Richardson a lot

Though this isn't an apology, and I doubt he will ever be your favorite (or a DU favorite for that matter), he has done more for secure voting than most governors since 2004.

Santa Fe, NM - Governor Bill Richardson yesterday signed a bill making New Mexico the fourteenth state to require voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs) for its voting systems. As amended and passed, New Mexico Senate Bill 678 also requires audits to compare a portion of paper ballots with electronic vote tallies.

"New Mexico has swelled the ranks of states requiring voter-verified paper ballots across the country," said VerifiedVoting.org Executive Director Will Doherty. "Election administrators, policymakers, and the public recognize the need to prevent the malfunctions, errors, and failures of paperless e-voting machines that occurred repeatedly across the country during November 2004 and prior election cycles."

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5697

[politicasista]

6. He should have done that in 2004

But I forgot, it's better to throw stones at the victim aka candidate instead of the people that didn't allow it to take place. (McAwful including).

[Breeze54]

8. Apology through Action is fine with me!

;)

He was interviewed on regular TV today.

[helderheid]

21. that's where I'm at

[TheModernTerrorist]

42. I thought

the SOS did that...

[SharonRB]

2. I absolutely agree

If Gore doesn't run, he may become my candidate.

[merh]

34. See my posts in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x266120#266348

[havocmom]

3. Had the machines wiped clean before the recount was done...

where does THAT fit on the list.

There are other DEM governors out there. Keep looking. We can find several who actually WANTS our votes counted.

edited for typo

[ray of light]

7. ditto! The guy may be good on foreign policy but he stopped the vote counting

in NM in 04.

[Breeze54]

11. It wouldn't have made a difference anyway!

[havocmom]

15. ah, so we shouldn't bother with counting?

Why have elections?

NO on Richardson. Period.

[Breeze54]

18. That's a leap!

My, my! Sarcastic much?

I never said never count. Get a grip.

It would not have CHANGED the outcome!!

Even if a recount showed Bush lost New Mexico, the state's five electoral votes
are insufficient to tilt the presidential race nationally in favor of Kerry.

[havocmom]

23. "get a grip" I get that a lot

from people who don't really have a rebuttal.

Having the machines wiped clean before the recount was complete and certified was unforgivable.

And, what, only voters from large populations should bother with having their votes counted and verified?

I hear there are probably staff members/paid advocates for some candidates about. Yep, I'd believe that is likely.

[bigtree]

35. Kinda of an uphill battle to convince folks that the chairman of the Democratic convention

wanted Kerry to lose in his state.

:shrug:

[ray of light]

113. that's the confusion...he had the power to keep counting votes there

because the situation warrented it. There were so many suspicious things that happened in NM.

So instead of keeping the ballots under lock and key, instead he just stopped the voting and refused to find out what had happened.

To me, it's not about if Kerry would have won in NM, it's about the one person who had the ability to control the integrity of the voting process not showing up to do it.

I don't feel a need to convince anyone of anything though. As I said originally, the guy has foreign policy experience and that's a plus. But the guy has negatives too.

I think they all do if you don't mind my saying.

This is why I'm pretty much just observing the primaries.

[TygrBright]

5. Waitasec.... Didn't Vilsack declare first?

And isn't he still in the race?

Not that I dislike my Goob, he's not bad (though not my ideal choice,) but just in the interests of clarity here...

confusedly,
Bright

[Herman Munster]

9. Vilsack is out

many threads on DU about this

[TygrBright]

14. ah, thanks.... missed that. It's taxprep season y'know.... n/t

[lisa58]

10. Vilsack dropped out today n/t

[scarletwoman]

12. Vilsack just dropped out. (nt)

[bobbolink]

13. "On Paper" -- that is the key.

1. stopped the recount in New Mexico, which now clearly looks like New Mexico was for Kerry.

2. On the wrong side of the Wen Ho Lee issue, a sore point for caring people in Los Alamos, and should be for all of us with a conscience.

3. Repubs would *love* his candidacy, as he is a drunk, and they could tie up LOTS of news cycles with his escapades.

Wanna know more.... or just coast on the romanticism of Richardson?

There are so many very good candidates... let's, this time, pick one with integrity!

[havocmom]

16. Doesn't he have a problem with the ladies too?

Or am I confused in my old age? I have SO much trouble keeping DINOs with drinking problems straight ;)

[Radical Activist]

27. I read

a very disturbing article about his sexual harassment problems. I won't convict the guy based on one article, because I know everyone has false hit pieces written against them, but if its true then he shouldn't be President.

[bobbolink]

43. I seem to remember something about that, but.. don't have any

facts, so I won't comment further.

Seems to me that what I and others have mentioned as problems are worth consideration and concern, rather than the slaps we get.

[havocmom]

44. I agree, but since REAL behavior problems don't count for much

and sex sells... ;)

The man has LOTS of history we should be very weary of. He is a DINO at best. A corporate shill most likely. A puppet in waiting at worst.

[bigtree]

45. wow. that exchange was a smear worthy of the REAL opposition

no info provided at all. just a casual accusation.

you really see no problem with this type of conversation? It's just innuendo on top of more innuendo. Where's the credibility or morality in that?

[havocmom]

46. You are really monitoring. Interesting

:rofl:

While discussions of weaknesses may bother you, we do have to consider what will be used against any candidate we run. We need to consider all aspects before a nominee.

You didn't like it when we mentioned Bill dousing the recount either. THAT is a topic worthy of much discussion. So, seems, you just don't like anything dissing Bill. 's OK. You are entitled to your opinion.

We are entitled to ours.

It is my opinion we should look carefully at any and all weaknesses along with any and all strengths of the people in the race.

Oh, and we should SERIOUSLY consider nominating a DEM not a DINO. Someone who has not voted against the best interests of the majority of Americans, again and again...

But, one must also deal with reality and reality is sex sells too. We don't need Bill R to be attacked for the same things Bill C had to fend off. Too much time and energy spent on defense instead of getting progressive agenda pushed. If there may be problems in that area, it does need to be looked at. If not, fine, we can just deal with Richardson's voting record, which is bad on it's own.

Edited to add: We had best be considering the smears the 'real opposition' will pull. That is reality. So it is a good idea not to borrow trouble with candidates who make the RNC's job easier.

[bigtree]

47. it's just a load of gossip

and a smear without any proof provided. I'm asking for ANY documentation of criticisms and claims and am getting mostly a repeat of the same rhetoric. It's not too much to ask that folks provide SOME documentation for their charges and criticisms.

on your opening crack:

Have you actually seen the way I monitor this board? I read quite a bit. This is just one source. I have a voracious appetite for politics.

I think the tone of the 'monitoring' remark is chilling. Are you trying to smear me by innuendo? It would only take a simple search of my posts and my name to judge what my interests are. Richardson happens to be a particular obsession of mine now because he needs to get traction NOW if he's to have ANY chance of overcoming the popularity contest. I've criticized NO other candidates at all. I wish you would direct more efforts in advocating SOMEONE, rather than just muckraking around *(Richardson's) posts. I'm an honest man. A simple citizen in every sense. I make very little money. I care deeply about my country. And I strongly oppose what Bush has done to our nation and to the destabilization of the world community. I have an ability to write and I have dedicated almost four years of my time to advocating against this administration and their militarism, with no benefit except the knowledge that I tried to make a difference.

[havocmom]

53. I have noticed what sets you off lately: any frank discussion of RIchardson

[bigtree]

57. based entirely on innuendo

and in this case, rumor

[havocmom]

63. clearing the machines and his voting record is not innuendo

and what has been talked about in many other places before it was brought up here is innuendo we best deal with.

[bigtree]

67. which of course IS innuendo when presented here (deliberately)

without any documentation (proof) at all.

[bobbolink]

50. All you've said about picking a candidate is very PRUDENT.

What this reminds me of is all the same sort of attacks on DU from Salazar supporters, when others were supporting Miles. All the same stuff about how "electable" Salazar was, how skilled he was with various things, etc etc etc.

It was clear that Salazar had the party BIG MONEY, and the obvious backing of the BIG MONEY INTERESTS. Miles had no money, but LOTS of grass roots support.

So, fast forward, and not even very long in time.... Salazar is elected, Salazar introduces Gonzales (and of course votes for the fascist!), then Salazar sells out completely and becomes part of the 14!!! He completely sold out our Democracy by making even a filibuster impossible, which lead to the passing of all manner of evil.

Yet, NOT ONE Salazar supporter ever had the integrity to say "We were wrong".

Here we are again... there are many very good Dem contenders, and now the same very angry denouncements of any criticism of another DLCer with several issues that need to be examined.

What in the world does it take?

How many times do we have to be sold out before we're willing to look with open eyes???

Thanks for having the willingness to actually post about Richardsons weaknesses without trashing him.

It's too bad there can't be a bit more rationality.

I hope we don't have to learn the hard way once again!

[havocmom]

52. Thank you for noticing the focus was on real problems not just knee jerk attack on the man

I do really appreciate your statements. Seems too many miss the distinction between frank discussion and rabid attacks. There is a lot of area between starry-eyed, hopeful and blind support and trashing all DEM candidates. And I thought primary season was the time to visit that land of critical thought and scrutiny.

[bigtree]

59. nothing more knee-jerk attacking than making him out to be a drunk and a womanizer

without any supporting facts at all

[havocmom]

60. LOL

well, who saw that coming?
:rofl:

[bigtree]

66. I guess you thought that no one would object to your throwing around accusations

without proof.

Anyone who's seen my posts here over the years would have seen my response 'coming'

[Clark2008]

51. Unfortunately, that sounds like most of our field.

x(

[havocmom]

54. Sadly valid point.

We need to really support the good guys and ignore the DINOs. And we need to keep pointing out the fact that Nader is seasonal. He blooms when the campaign lights come one. ;)

[bigtree]

58. it's still a mystery who you think the 'good guys' are who have declared

and how they are distinguished from Richardson. That would be much more helpful than the continued rhetoric about Richardson.

[havocmom]

61. Don't recall coming out for anybody yet

If I had my druthers, Dr. Dean would be in the running. But seems he set aside his own personal ambition for the greater good of getting the DNC back on track and relating to people instead of just corporations.

That, my friend, is leadership.

[bigtree]

68. of course, he HASN'T declared a candidacy

[havocmom]

80. Gads, you have to attack me for a personal opinion and favorite?

Lots of people aren't running, but many here still hope.

Oh, I didn't come out for Richardson. Got it. Bye

[bigtree]

81. no. I just think a Dean run is a real longshot

politics is often the art of the possible

[0rganism]

17. well, you're right of course, he does deserve serious consideration

From what I've seen of the serious consideration so far, he is very much a long shot. But he deserves serious consideration.

FWIW, I agree he has an impressive resume', and some mad skillz to go along with it. While he's not my first choice, we could do a lot worse in a nominee than Gov. Richardson.

[Czolgosz]

19. When considering Richardson, know where he stands on these key issues:

Top 10 Problems with Richardson

1. Pro-NAFTA/Pro-CAFTA/Anti-Fair Trade;

2. Supported Vouchers for Private Schools (draining public school funding);

3. Shut down presidential recount despite suspicious circumstances;

4. Supported medical savings account approach to broken health care system;

5. Hawkish on military bases and homeland security;

6. Supports revenue reduction via tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy;

7. Supports giving churches access to federal funds to provide faith-based social services;

8. Has much praise for Bush's immigration plans;

9. Richardson is a favorite of the DLC; and

10. Weakness on Civil Rights (see below)



Richardson's Top 10 Civil Rights Weaknesses (So Many, I Need Another Top 10 List)

1. Richardson’s support for mandatory jail time, even for non-violent offenders;

2. Richardson’s support for the death penalty;

3. Richardson’s vote to abolish habeas corpus in death penalty appeals;

4. Richardson’s opposition to offering the option of life-without-parole as an alternative to the death penalty;

5. Richardson’s support for prosecuting minors as adults;

6. Richardson’s support for expanding the number of federal crimes punishable by death;

7. Richardson’s support for eliminating parole for anyone convicted of a violent crime;

8. Richardson’s support for eliminating automatic citizenship for all children born in the USA;

9. Richardson’s support for limiting access to our court system for people hurt by negligent hospitals; an

10. Richardson’s vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act against gay marriage.



Top 10


Sources:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm
http://www.whereistand.com/BillRichardson/16327
http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?old=true&can_id=H2505103&npatform_id=11
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151631,00.html

[havocmom]

24. If it looks like a DINO, walks like a DINO...

Great list, Czolgosz. Thanks for posting.

Really, there are some DEMS out there. We don't have to settle for the people the corportists want most.

Just watched Janet Napolitano on with Tweety. She is strong.

Brian Schweitzer here in Montana is a no-nonsense, find-win/win solutions to the real problems most Americans face kinda guy.

There ARE real DEMs out there to consider.

Insist on one that knows every vote counts. ;)

[Czolgosz]

37. Now that Vilsack has dropped out, I think Richardson is the least progressive candidate for the

nomination, but there is hardly and distinction between him and Hillary (or Biden, for that matter).

[Elwood P Dowd]

38. You nailed it

Have one on me. :toast:

[bigtree]

32. large list, but not out of the mainstream of the present membership of Congress

or out of step with the bulk of declared candidates.

[Czolgosz]

36. I agree that Richardson deserves serious consideration . . . for Sec'y of State.

I could even go so far as seeing him as VP behind Clark, Edwards, or Obama, but he just doesn't share enough of my values to warrant my support for the nomination. That said, I'll support the ticket even if he's the nominee - he's too DLC for my tastes but he a damn sight better than any of the Repubs running.

[Elwood P Dowd]

20. He deserves a serious tongue lashing

for pushing NAFTA and every other job-killing, union-killing, anti-democratic fake free trade agreement ever proposed.

[Jacobin]

22. Would be nice to have a reasonable

level headed guy with serious foreign policy experience, not connected to the neocons as president.


I'm not up for a 'rock star' candidate or another Clinton

[havocmom]

25. And a DEM would be good too

;)

[Elwood P Dowd]

26. Funny. Yes, I too would rather have a Democrat than Richardson.

:toast:

[phusion]

28. He is a master diplomat...

which might be a really good thing for this country.

[SaveElmer]

29. He deserves serious consideration...

Whether or not he is a Governor...he has the resume...

It's just a matter of whether he can connect with people and raise the cash...

[bigtree]

30. definitely

:kick: R

[David Zephyr]

31. He does deserve serious consideration. I hope he gets it.

Bill will be a formidable candidate. Watch him. He will do well in the Nevada caucus.

[merh]

33. Nope, not for me

He is tied to the oil corporations the same way the republicans are.
See my posts in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x266120#266348

[Rydz777]

39. Good man - Vice President

He is a good and experienced man. If he doesn't get the Presidential nomination, he would make a great Vice President.

[Elwood P Dowd]

40. Good men

fire millions of American workers, take the corporate money, and continue doing it for years and years? I don't think so. I want a real Democrat on the ticket - - not Newt Gingrich lite.

[w4rma]

41. He's a free-traitor?/free-trader. I won't support any free-traders. (nt)

[Bluebear]

48. In 1996, Richardson voted (twice) in favor of the federal DOMA.

Sorry.

[bigtree]

49. or course, as we discussed once Bluebear

he has an arguably favorable record of accomplishments in defending GLBT rights and opportunities in his state.

the post (if I may)

New Mexico governor & presidential contender Bill Richardson’s record on LGBT rights is worth a look
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x268046

[Greyhound]

55. ...because you can never have enough corporatists in power...

:eyes:

[havocmom]

62. look out

the thread monitor will come at ya ;)

and what you said... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

edit: typo

[bigtree]

70. sucks being held accountable for what you say

[Morgana LaFey]

56. A great candidate if you want another DLC-style corporatist

I don't.

He's probably running for VP tho, but still.

[Bombtrack]

64. Most DUers already know all this. Presidential politics have changed, and being a mediocre person

is not made up for by the quantity of years and variety of positions you've had in political appointments and statewide offices.

These elections are not magically tilted towards governors. The fact that the 3 non-VP's who've been elected in modern history were them are simply a streak, not a rule.

Just as Richardson doesn't have deep seated grasp over the hearts and minds of the Hispanic people. He's a run of the mill politician who happens to be brown, not Cesar Chavez.

[Cleita]

65. Sorry but he lost me today.

On an interview with "Ring of Fire" today he stated that if he were President he would TRY to get access to health care for MOST people. WRONG ANSWER! Everyone should have access to health care. It tells me he's not interested in dumping the health care for-profits that got us into this mess to begin with. It means he's not interested in single payer universal health care that would cover everyone, not just MOST people. Saying he would TRY to do this tells me that it's not a priority with him.

Because the only way you would have people left behind is a plan that caters to the health insurance industry, who just wouldn't cover everyone without a lot of government funding. Also, keeping these greedy pigs in business with taxpayers money is plain wrong. My candidate list is very short because of this one issue and those who are out campaigning right now aren't saying what I want to hear about health care with a couple of exceptions.

[bigtree]

69. he believes in universal care, but he's not so obstinate

to rule out incremental advances until that's financially and politically possible. You know the hurdles.

http://www.nwfco.org/New_Mexico_Considers_Universal_Health_Care.pdf

He's just not as out of the game as you think.


From October 20, 2003, issue of New Mexico Business Weekly
State faces rough road to universal health coverage

By Dennis Domrzalski
NMBW

Gov. Bill Richardson wants universal health care insurance for New Mexicans, and he's appointed a task force to study ways to provide that to the 400,000 people in the state who have no coverage. But it isn't likely that universal coverage will be a reality either this year or next.

State legislators and state Human Services Department Secretary Pam Hyde say that any move toward universal coverage will have to be gradual.

"Universal coverage is the goal. But the financial situation has changed since the governor charged us with going after the figures on this, and the time frame to make this happen could be much longer," Hyde says. "This is not something we are going to solve. It is something we are going to manage."

The financial situation Hyde is talking about is a state Medicaid program that needs $119 million more next year to maintain its current level of service, and financial projections that show the state will have only $30 million extra dollars next year for all government agencies.

It's probable that a special legislative session that Richardson wanted to call this year to deal with health care will be put off until early 2004. In the meantime, though, Richardson's 80-member Governor's Health Care Coverage and Access Task Force and Steering Committee has been meeting and looking for ways to ensure that all state residents have health insurance. Hyde emphasizes that the task force is not looking to impose a single-payer, government-run health care system.

http://www.bcbsnm.com/aboutUs/Releases/art_102003_universal.htm

[Cleita]

71. So in the meantime while all these committees are

studying the problem, people are suffering without health care. He needs to look at California Senator Sheila Kuehl's health care program that takes care of all the above problems easily. The only reason we don't have it in California today is because Arnold vetoed it so he could introduce a plan similar to Massachussets bonanza for the private insurers and HMOs. The candidate who gets my vote will be the one who cuts the privatized blood suckers out of the system and so far that is Dennis Kucinich.

[bigtree]

72. I really don't know a universal solution until folks can agree on funding

NM has a modest income base. Modest to poor.

[Cleita]

74. People smarter than me have figured out that the money

that is poured into the insurance and HMO industries as premiums should be diverted to single payer. Also, because single payer, non profit coverage can be more cost effective, they can give everyone coverage, not just those who can afford it or who get it from work.

Really, it's not hard to find out how other countries do it. They all have websites that explain their programs. I don't believe that New Mexico is any different than Cuba. I mean if Cuba can do it, New Mexico certainly can.

[bigtree]

78. more on Richardson and Health care

Richardson Initiative Doubles School Clinics | Albuquerque Tribune, May 8, 2006
As a way to prevent teen suicide and give students better health care, school-based health clinics have been set up in the state’s 33 counties. The number of school-based clinics in New Mexico has more than doubled since Gov. Bill Richardson announced a statewide initiative to boost the number in 2004. That year, the state had 31 clinics in 16 counties. Now, there are 34 more clinics in 17 additional counties.

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_education/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19857_4676061,00.html


from January 01, 2007:

Richardson:

"We made health insurance more affordable for small businesses, and guaranteed that every child under five can get quality health care."

"Too many New Mexico families have their home budget stretched and their opportunities limited, by poor health and no health care.

Step-by-step, year by year, working with the private sector we must extend affordable health care to every New Mexican.

http://blogs.scripps.com/albq/state/2007/01/gov_bill_richardson_begins_sec.html



Saturday 22 January 2005

The Wrong Prescription for Medicaid

By Gov. Bill Richardson
The Washington Post

As someone privileged to have held public service positions both in and outside Washington, I've learned that policy ideas produced and promoted from our nation's capital are all too rarely new, thoughtful or workable. The latest example of this truth may be the recycled proposals President Bush is reportedly considering that would impose deep cuts and arbitrary caps on federal Medicaid expenditures through some form of block grant.

Even as the costs of prescription drugs and long-term care continue to be shifted to the states, and in the face of bipartisan opposition from governors, the administration is looking at ways to put strict limits on the federal government's financing commitment to Medicaid, the nation's health care safety net. This would be a radical change from the current federal-state partnership that provides health care coverage to 52 million low-income children, parents, people with disabilities and seniors.

I have a better idea: Why not block-grant state rather than federal spending on Medicaid? This would be the mirror image of past congressional proposals.

Under my plan, states would be prohibited by law from spending more than a fixed amount on health care. The federal government would pay for the rest. It would be obliged to insure populations that the state had covered. It would retain flexibility to change eligibility and benefits for groups covered by federal law, such as poor children and seniors. Rather than shifting all risk of unexpected costs to states, this plan would shift such risk and cost to the federal government.

This plan makes more sense than a federal Medicaid block grant for several reasons. Unlike the federal government, all state governments balance their budgets. Thus it is more difficult for states (and governors) to account for unexpected and rapidly rising health care costs. Moreover, states with the greatest health care need typically have the least ability to raise revenue to address it.

States are willing to pay a fair share of health care financing costs. But the federal government, which has a broader tax base and no balanced-budget requirement, should be responsible for the unpredictability of Medicaid costs.

Most important, since the federal government has abdicated its responsibility for paying for a significant amount of health care costs for seniors, it should act now to take greater responsibility for them. Its failure to provide adequate health benefits to its Medicare beneficiaries has shunted the pharmaceutical and long-term care costs of low-income seniors to states. Fully 40 percent of all Medicaid benefit spending is for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. This will only grow with the retirement of the baby boomers. This required spending to fill in the gaps of Medicare forces governors to limit coverage for low-income children and others.

more: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/33/8546/printer

[Change has come]

73. From the Democratic presidential forum this week

in Carson City...live blog from MyDD http://jerome_armstrong.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/14555/2059

*snip

On the question of taxes for universal healthcare, Richardson says they are not necessary, that the Democrats should not always be about raising taxes.States that instead administrative costs should be cut and preventative care should be increased, pointing to a "Massachusetts-style plan" (not much applause there)

and talks about expanding current programs to cover everyone (does get applause here). Final question covers WTO trade agreements, to which Richardson says we need fair trade, not just unabashed free trade, with agreements that cover environmental and workplace regulations. In his closing statement, Richardson also talks about the need for experience, touching on his work as UN Ambassador and his recent negotiations in Darfur.

[Cleita]

75. The Massachussetts style plan is what Arnold is trying to push

in California. Thanks but no thanks.

[bigtree]

76. that was a summary fron his brief statements at the forum

his vision is much more than a reliance on a 'Massachusetts plan' . . .

from April 2005: http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/richardson.shtml

Health care really tops the list of concerns. The explosion of health care costs hurts families and businesses across the country. In 2004, the cost of health benefits increased five times higher than wages. And in the last four years, a family's share of health coverage has increase more than 60 percent.

The costs of taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. These programs protect our most vulnerable citizens, but in recent years they are hurting state budgets and economies. Overall entitlement spending-which includes Medicare and Medicaid-consumes some 44 percent of federal spending. It's the fastest growing area of government spending.

There are similar problems when it comes to under-funded schools, rural areas struggling with low-paying jobs, or neighborhoods battling drugs and crime.

But Washington is more stifled with partisan gridlock than ever before, and stuck in a permanent political campaign cycle. The focus there always seems to be on the political game. And Congress and the president pass the buck on the real issues to the states.

And while a lot of media attention is focused on Washington; the public policy laboratories are no longer found inside the Beltway. Rather, they are in the states across the country, where the role of government meets the real world face-to-face.

States are not waiting for the federal government to act. States themselves are taking on the challenge of finding solutions on health, and also on jobs, education, and other important issues. That's because governors are activists. We don't just make proposals, we get things done.

In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich has implemented a prescription drug plan, which provides residents in Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas savings of up to 50 percent on their medicines.

In Michigan, Governor Granholm has created a new program that puts family resource and health centers in troubled schools. She's also struck a deal with a major automaker to build a research center in Michigan that will development technology for the next generation of automobiles-creating high-wage jobs.

In New Hampshire, Governor Lynch created a low-interest loan program for companies that pledge to create jobs.

Governor Henry started a $500 million education bond program in Oklahoma to fund 140 higher education projects, create an estimated 4,000 jobs, and generate nearly $800 million for the state's economy.

Governor Rendell started an initiative to expand resources supporting alternative fuel projects.

Governor Sebelius has an initiative in Kansas-similar to ours in New Mexico-providing tax credits to promote and encourage employers and small businesses to offer health care coverage.

Governor Gregoire just signed a law in Washington requiring mental illness to be treated just the same as physical illness-helping some 900,000 people whose illnesses are not currently covered by insurance.

[bigtree]

77. from a DNC Winter Meeting

In his state:

"We expanded state health insurance to cover every child, lowered the cost of health care for working families, and we’re helping small businesses create purchasing pools so they can get the same low insurance rates as large employers.

Two of the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party are equal access to an excellent education and equal access to health care. For too long in this country, we’ve had neither. "

http://blog.4president.org/2008/bill_richardson/index.html



N.M. aims to expand health plan for kids

By Kate Nash
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

SANTA FE - The state is looking for thousands of New Mexico kids who qualify for its health care coverage but whose parents might not know it.

{snip}

The event comes after the Legislature this year approved Year of the Child initiatives aimed at helping the state get more families insured.

The allocations include $4.6 million to expand Medicaid outreach to children and $3.7 million to cover new children and adolescents by making it easier for them to qualify for Medicaid.

The state has changed its rules so residents who don't qualify for Medicaid can get help with insurance premiums.

This year's attention to the uninsured is part of Gov. Bill Richardson's plan to insure as many New Mexicans as possible in a state that's typically at the bottom of the list for its percentage of people with health insurance.

Next year, Richardson plans to ask state lawmakers for $77 million to reduce the number of residents without insurance by almost 60,000 over two years. That plan is aimed at adults.

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local_state_government/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19859_4891112,00.html

[Cleita]

82. This is not true,

The costs of taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. These programs protect our most vulnerable citizens, but in recent years they are hurting state budgets and economies. Overall entitlement spending-which includes Medicare and Medicaid-consumes some 44 percent of federal spending. It's the fastest growing area of government spending.

Medicare is paid for out of a trust fund, funded by FICA deductions, not the federal general fund. It's the other way around, our government is borrowing from the trust fund monies for their endless wars. The only reason Medicare and Medicaid would be unsustainable is because of tax cuts for the wealthy. Also, there is a cap on what is collected by FICA at $96,000 per year.

This means that it's the poor and middle class who fund most of this and the rich who earn more than that cap a year are not getting taxed for it. Lift the cap on rich people's incomes and you will have fabulous funding for these programs and more.

[bigtree]

87. he knows about trust funds

34. H.R.3467 : To establish a health care reform trust fund in the Treasury of the United States.

Sponsor: Rep Richardson, Bill (introduced 11/8/1993) Cosponsors (None)

Committees: House Government Operations; House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means

Latest Major Action: 12/20/1993 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:34:./temp/~bdr8bi::


103d CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3467

To establish a health care reform trust fund in the Treasury of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 8, 1993

Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Government Operations

A BILL

To establish a health care reform trust fund in the Treasury of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3467:

[Cleita]

98. And this has brought us meaningful health care reform, how?

I haven't seen any improvement and there has been in fact further deterioration of our health care system since 1993. When our infant mortality rate is the same as most third world countries, we have a problem and the problem has been directly attributed to the access to health care that other countries citizens have with a low infant mortality rates.

Triangulating and trying to compromise with the industry that has mostly caused this situation isn't going to get us to meaningful health care legislation very quickly and I have been fighting this battle since 1980. So you can see that I am not interested in the same old non-solution that has been posited in those years.

[bigtree]

100. my point is that no one has been able to politically enact these ideas nationally

States, as Richardson has stated, are subject to the burdens of entitlements that don't come with complete funding. He's stated that he's intent on moving incrementally in his state toward full coverage. He's already made significant reforms in his state as I provided. I think his concern and attention, since he was a congressman, has been born out into action as governor. That's a good indication of his commitment to this issue if he were to become president, notwithstanding the areas he's disappointed you.

[Cleita]

107. As a person who has been fighting this health care battle for more than

twenty years, I'm not compromising anymore like I have in the past. The reason I voted for Clinton the first time was because he promised to bring us national health care and I was sorely disappointed the first time of many disappointments from subsequent candidates. This time I will not give any quarter. Meaningful health care reform it going to be more dire than ever now with all these broken and wounded vets coming from a war zone and we have to take care of them.

If we can force Arnold here in California to take back his veto of the Kuehl health care bill it will be a good start because as California goes, so goes the nation. This is how Canada got started one province at a time. Now I understand Richardson's problem with New Mexico alone, but here he's going for President, which means he will have a good chance of doing single payer national health care across the nation if he were elected. He needs to promise it and stop pandering to his corporate donors if he wants my vote.

[bigtree]

108. Hell, Moynihan killed the Clinton's health reform bid

Can you show me where you see Richardson 'pandering' to corporate donors?

[Cleita]

110. I'm glad he did because it was an awful bill, exactly what I was

talking about that Richardson seems to favor. I can't see making the same mistakes over and over again. Oh, I'm not voting for Hillary either for the same reason and there are many like me who won't either. We are fed up and this time want some meat on the plate with this issue. They have such excellent health plans, they don't give a shit about the rest of us. They just trot out the issue hoping that they really don't have to deal with it in the long run. First there's the war in Iraq and maybe Iran, etc. etc.. No need to really worry about pills and health care for sick people. Maybe the next president will take care of it if they stall it with other issues throughout their term.

[bigtree]

111. Now, Richardson HAS worried over pills and health care for sick people

that's what he did as a congressman and that's what he's been doing as governor, as I've presented.

from Senate - On the Issues: http://senate.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Health_Care.htm


Bill Richardson on Health Care
Democratic NM Governor


Secure lower prescription drug costs for seniors

We passed legislation to secure lower prescription drug costs for seniors and funded efforts to recruit and reform health professionals. Shoddy contracts and poor financial management by the previous administration have lost the state tens of millions of dollars in matching federal funds. We're working through the mess and have put real systems of accountability in place as we provide health care services to hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans.
Source: State of the State speech to the New Mexico Legislature Jan 20, 2004

Focus on raising childhood immunization rates

While we're facing an explosion of Medicaid costs that are straining our budget, I pledge to protect Medicaid eligibility levels for children. I'm proposing to increase Medicaid by providing approximately $55 million in new state funds to match federal funds. I want to also continue our focus on raising childhood immunization rates in New Mexico. Immunizing more of our children today means we'll have healthier, more successful citizens down the road.
Source: State of the State speech to the New Mexico Legislature Jan 20, 2004

Increase access to affordable health care

I have two defining goals in health-care reform: decrease the number of uninsured New Mexicans - and increase access to affordable health care for all. Health care is a shared responsibility of governments, employers and individuals and their families. It will not be quick and it will not be easy, but we must have the best efforts of everybody involved in health care - from consumers to HMO executives - if we are to find ways to attain my goals of wider coverage and greater access.
Source: State of the State speech to the New Mexico Legislature Jan 20, 2004

Consolidate mental health and substance abuse therapy needs

I want to create a new way to consolidate mental health and substance abuse into a single comprehensive advisory structure. I want to immediately create a common plan and structure to address the mental health and substance abuse therapy needs of New Mexicans, and have a draft ready to review by March, a request for proposals out by September, and the system up and running by July of 2005.
Source: State of the State speech to the New Mexico Legislature Jan 20, 2004

Restrain Medicaid costs and maintain benefits

We're working diligently to uncover and eliminate fraud, abuse, and errors in the Medicaid system. If we don't control Medicaid costs now, we will face cutting eligibility and services down the road. We have to pay for these programs, and this is the most fiscally responsible way to do it. I say we restrain costs and maintain benefits now, while working to create more access in the long run for working New Mexicans through my healthcare purchasing collaborative.
Source: State of the State speech to the New Mexico Legislature Jan 20, 2004

Affordable access to healthcare for all New Mexicans

A robust economy with successful companies translates into higher levels of healthcare and coverage for all. However, in the short term, we can make some fundamental changes to how we approach healthcare in New Mexico and improve the results. We need to find a way to make healthcare more affordable and ensure that all New Mexicans have the access to the care that they need.

My approach requires innovation, proven solutions, and use of best practices to shift New Mexico from fragmented care delivery to purchasing organized and accountable systems of care. It combines good ideas from other states, with increased efficiency and preventative healthcare.

During this campaign I have already made specific proposals regarding the recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses. And I have proposed a prescription drug program for our seniors.

Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002

New Mexico Cares: invest in our health

1. driven by a principle that says the health of our citizens is something as a state where we must invest-or we risk falling farther behind in jobs, in education, and every other major category. My approach, which I call "New Mexico Cares," is a seven-part plan.Immediately re-evaluate the structure of our Medicaid contracts and programs to ensure we are holding providers accountable for superior treatment and improved results.
2. Keep doctors in New Mexico by lowering taxes.
3. Institute a new approach of comprehensive care for our elderly and chronically ill.
4. Expand Medicaid enrollment for children.
5. Create a consumer report card for hospitals and healthcare providers.
6. Offer a partnership to business that gives a tax break in exchange for a commitment to provide health insurance to fulltime employees.
7. Establish a statewide telemedicine network, to provide advanced levels of diagnosis and treatment to rural communities throughout our state.
Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002

Supports managed competition & medical savings accounts

* Indicate which principles you support regarding America's health care system. Support a "managed competition" health care plan to contain costs and improve access that does not include mandated health alliances, government cost control powers, or employer/employee mandates.
* Establish limits on the amount of damages awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits.
* Encourage tax-free medical savings accounts, which would be taxed if used for any purpose other than medical costs.

Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996

[leomcgarrysghost]

79. Not a bad idea

Richardson is like the Big Dog without the bimbo problem. We get all the benefits and the Repukes wouldn't have a good answer to him.

[Cleita]

83. He's a corporate DLCer.

It appears that some of his staff are posting on this thread and I can't fault them their loyalty, but the truth is there are better choices than any of the DLCers. I loved Bill Clinton and he was a great President, but his DLC ties have brought us a lot of the problems we are facing today especially the fact that the USA now has the biggest divide between rich and poor in the world. (I just read this yesterday on a news website.)

[leomcgarrysghost]

84. On the other hand

Richardson brings the moderates and Latino votes. Nothing is gonna get done if we don't win; he can win. Obama's my guy so far but I won't say no if he turned up. Obama / Richardson works too.

[Cleita]

92. He doesn't have this Latina's vote.

I resent you implying that Latinos vote for a candidate because he's of their ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[bigtree]

95. I know Latinos who've expressed interest in someone with Latino ancestry running

They were quite excited about the prospect of his candidacy. It would be an historic accomplishment no matter what folks think of the prospect, and may bring a greater focus to the concerns of the Latino community in NM and elsewhere.

[Cleita]

104. I can't see how that will work in his favor.

It will lose a lot of "immigrants are taking our jobs" white people's votes if they thought he was going to focus on the Latino community above all else.

Also, as a person who has spent a lot of time traveling in New Mexico, the so-called "Latinos" in New Mexico are mainly Native American. I can't imagine them wanting to vote for the same crowd who came as conquistadors and forced to be baptized at gun point and made to take Spanish names and speak Spanish. Athough I don't think Richardson is a descendent of those guys.

Also, since New Mexico is about 55% non-anglo, I believe that their concerns are always at the forefront of the politicos there. This is one of the reasons I like to visit New Mexico because I feel comfortable there. I just have to get away sometimes to a place that isn't predominantly white people and white culture.

[bigtree]

106. Or course, he hasn't focused on the 'Latino community above all else'.

and I don't think he will. But, the Latino votes are important and we shouldn't underestimate his appeal, rather, the community should capitalize on it. I don't understand the zero-sum approach some take to these elections. This is our opportunity to get one of these candidates to carry our concerns into the election and beyond. I wouldn't assume ANY limits of our influence, or discount these candidates potential to influence before their campaigns have a chance to even develop.

[bigtree]

90. I'm not 'staff' of any candidate

that's a disappointing defense of your position

[Cleita]

93. Did I name you? n/t

[bigtree]

96. no, but it's an insult to folks who care deeply enough to participate

to paint participants in this thread with such a broad brush.

[bigtree]

91. The DLC ties argument is a sham without specifics of what he represents

It's shorthand which obscures important details of these candidate's record, accomplishments, and intentions. Richardson isn't in a cult, he's exchanged policy ideas with the policy institute. He's staked out positions which are contrary to the DLC in his speeches before them, in addition to the areas where he found agreement. But, his policies are readily available and are a more honest presentation than the DLC label. He's been a congressman, a U.N. ambassador, a governor, a crisis negotiator abroad . . . so much more than a simplistic label.

If there's something specific he's done or said it can be debated, but, just stating that he's a DLCer without examples is misleading and marginalizes his appeal away from folks whose positions he may well agree with.

[Cleita]

94. This is not my lone idea. Those with more authority than me

on other websites and on the radio have said the same thing. Also, for some Democrats being a DLCer is not a bad thing. It's just a bad thing for a social Democrat like myself. I'm sick of the centrism displayed by our Demcrats in the past decades, which is really the same brand of conservatism that my parents, Republicans, had.

[bigtree]

97. It's a lazy and often inaccurate shorthand for their opposition.

It's a smear, plain and simple without specifics, and folks use it to divide our party. We benefit from our diversity of ideas and participation across the ideological spectrum. These 'centrist' ideas have to compete in the political arena like any others. Concerns should be spelled out in specifics if the intent is to address them. If the intent is to merely label, specifics are less important.

[Cleita]

99. If people like me don't air what we don't like about each

candidates positions, they aren't going to know what we are thinking and why we won't vote for them. So there.

[bigtree]

101. I'm asking for specifics

you are free to air whatever you please, obviously

[Cleita]

109. Specifics.

I have been giving specifics, posted links, and written some pretty good posts on this subject for years here on DU. I'm tired of posting the information over and over again to watch it ignored and sink into oblivion. If you do a search on me especially going back into the archives you will find many specifics on the subject of single payer universal health care, not only from me but from other posters who have put up excellent specifics in the past. But I'm old and arthritic and tired of pounding this keyboard to have someone come up again and ask for specifics. Better yet, go to this website and thoroughly read what they have to say: http://www.pnhp.org/

I'm tired of posting over and over again.

[bigtree]

112. thanks for the link

[skipos]

85. I like Richardson a lot, but he will never be a DU favorite

And anyone who likes him should be prepared to be accused of being a "paid blogger" or a
"freeper" on DU.

[leomcgarrysghost]

86. That I don't get

he's not a bad guy, good governor, and he was in Big Dog's admin. It's not like he's Zell Miller for Chrisssake.

[skipos]

88. 1st of all DU is way to the left of most Democrats

IMO. That's why Kucinich is a fave here, but he came in 6th behind Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark and Sharpton in 2004.

DUers don't like his past support of Nafta. I don't agree with it either.
He isn't against the death penalty.
Some DUers felt that he didn't do enough for the 2004 election problems. However, he has done a lot on the matter since then. More than most governors:

Santa Fe, NM - Governor Bill Richardson yesterday signed a bill making New Mexico the fourteenth state to require voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs) for its voting systems. As amended and passed, New Mexico Senate Bill 678 also requires audits to compare a portion of paper ballots with electronic vote tallies.

"New Mexico has swelled the ranks of states requiring voter-verified paper ballots across the country," said VerifiedVoting.org Executive Director Will Doherty. "Election administrators, policymakers, and the public recognize the need to prevent the malfunctions, errors, and failures of paperless e-voting machines that occurred repeatedly across the country during November 2004 and prior election cycles."

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5697

And even though Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean and Edwards were all DLC, those three letters bring a lot of fear to DUers.

[leomcgarrysghost]

89. Maybe I'm tired but

the idea of another 4 / 8 years of a Republican in the White House makes me want to puke my guts out. Richardson's not a bad guy, I won't turn my back if he's picked.

[gulliver]

102. Getting sleepy...can barely type...

Whenever I ... yawn ... see ... Richardson or ... yawn ... anything about him I ... zzzzzzzzzzz.

[bigtree]

103. at least you saw him

amazing :P

[Colobo]

105. Richardson for VP

He won't win the nomination. Rudy would beat him.