Peter Roskam

Will Roskam Bring His Handcuffs?

Adam Doster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:35:51 -0800

Just because the House passed a health care reform package on Saturday night doesn't mean the "debate" about the bill's provisions is complete. First, the Senate has to pass its own version. Then both chambers will have to approve whatever legislation emerges from the conference committee. In other words, there's a lot of work yet to be done.

As such, Republican opponents are still on the attack.

On WTTW's Chicago Tonight this evening, Carol Marin will host a panel discussion on health care featuring GOP Rep. Peter Roskam and Democrat Jan Schakowsky. Roskam can be expected to take a number of predictable swipes at the House bill. He may also treat viewers to his new argument that the individual mandate represents the "criminalization" of everyday citizens who don't want to buy publicly-funded insurance. Watch him whip out a pair of handcuffs during his floor statement on Saturday (via Hot Air):

So is Roskam correct in asserting that those who don't comply with the individual mandate can be subject to five years in prison and $250,ooo in fines? In fact, that's a gross oversimplification.

Under the House bill, every American would be required to carry health insurance. The justification for this mandate is simple enough. By forcing everyone in the country to purchase insurance, including the young and healthy, insurance pools will be larger, risk will be spread more evenly, and costs will be lowered for everyone. If opts not be covered, they will still be required to help offset the costs via an individual mandate tax (roughly 2.5 percent of income). In concept, this is no different than the federal taxes we all currently pay for safety net services provided by the government to other citizens. And just as with those levies, if someone chooses not to pay their taxes, he or she could be subject to the criminal penalties described by Roskam.

In other words, the criminalization of which Roskam speaks is related to changes in the tax code. And just as instances of people not paying their taxes to protest defense spending are pretty rare (to give one example), those choosing to neither receive coverage or pay the new tax will be few and far between.

Indeed, most of the nation's 45 million uninsured lack coverage because they are excluded by insurance companies or priced out of the individual market. The current bill addresses those two scenarios by offering a bevy of consumer protections and the subsidies that aim to make insurance more affordable for the vast majority of the uninsured.

And let's not forget that as recently as this fall, leading players in the Republican Party endorsed the individual mandate. "That's individual responsibility," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told Nightly Business Report. "And even Republicans believe in individual responsibility."

There is a reason that the individual mandate is broadly popular and considered by many reformers to be non-controversial. It's good policy. Late in the game, Roskam is just throwing up Hail Mary's. Watch for another one tonight.

Roskam, Fox Chicago Team Up For More Health Care Misinformation

Adam Doster — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0800

On multiple occasions this month, Fox Chicago has parroted conservative talking points about the health care bills circulating in Washington and their purported effect on Medicare. So it probably should come as no surprise that the station's anchors would fail to rebut such claims when put forward by their guests.

Still, it's irritating to watch this exchange between GOP Rep. Peter Roskam and Fox Chicago Sunday host Jack Conaty yesterday. In the first minute of his appearance, Roskam asserts that the House health care bill "goes after seniors" because it cuts "Medicare by $500 billion." Watch it:

Democrats have proposed reforms that will slow or eliminate some Medicare spending overtime. These include a number of measures, such as changes to the flawed physician payment system and the elimination of unnecessary subsides to the wasteful Medicare Advantage program. By ironing out inefficiencies, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this policy change could achieve $500 billion in gross savings over ten years. That money would be plowed back into the system to expand care to those who lack coverage. But benefits for most seniors will not be cut be cut as a result. And for those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private providers to compete for Medicare patients, all they would lose would be extraneous add-ons like vision care or gym club memberships, not standard coverage. Conaty should have these facts at his fingertips.

More to the point, most senior advocates agree that if health care reform passes in its current form, Medicare will actually be strengthened. The so-called donut hole in Medicare drug coverage will be eliminated. Deductibles and co-insurance for preventive care will be waived. Access for low-income Medicare beneficiaries will increase. Of course, Roskam omits all of these developments.

Not suprisingly, Roskam's false claims during the interview extended well beyond the issue of Medicare. He asserts that small businesses will be hit with an 8 percent payroll tax if they don't offer insurance to their employees (those with payrolls under $500,000 -- 86 percent of businesses -- would be fully exempt), he calls a public option a "middle class entitlement" (it's not), and he suggests that people who "enjoy" their private coverage will be forced into the public plan (they won't).

If no effort is going to be made to verify Roskam's claims, why even have the guy on?

Roskam: Wingnut DeMint "So Grounded And Wise"

Adam Doster — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:31:08 -0700

Back from his surprise trip to Honduras, in which he and a Republican delegation met with the nation's interim president President Roberto Micheletti (who assumed power through a military coup and has been subsequently condemned by the Obama administration and the European Union), Rep. Peter Roskam had some generous things to say about one of his travel partners, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina). Listen as he speaks admiringly of his congressional colleague on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma:

Internal mp3

ROSKAM: Senator DeMint is so grounded and wise and I came away just very, very impressed with him.

Is there a second Jim DeMint serving in Washington? Because if we're talking about the South Carolina arch-conservative, words like "grounded" and "wise" seem a tad inappropriate.

This is the same lawmaker who, instead of working across the aisle in the upper chamber to solve America's problems, said he'd rather "create pain" for his fellow legislators. This summer, he made his first priority torpedoing health care reform, pointing out that "if we're able to stop Obama on this ... it will break him." Two years ago, he wrote an essay for the National Review advocating that all "illegal immigrants should have to return home and get right with the law before being granted legal status." Now, he's turned his focus to purportedly creeping socialism,"writing" a book titled "Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America 's Slide Into Socialism" and telling a crowd of conservative activists that President Obama is "the world’s best salesman of socialism." (He's also repeatedly compared today's government to that of the Nazi's.) And here's the kicker: during his 2004 Senate campaign, DeMint told a local newspaper that openly gay people and unwed pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. (He later issued a very weak retraction.)

I think it's fair to ask Rep. Roskam how many of these claims and ideas he endorses.

Kirk, Roskam Join The Glenn Beck Brigade

Josh Kalven — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:43:15 -0700

This morning, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk and fellow Republican Rep. Peter Roskam will hold a press conference in downtown Chicago that aims to directly tie SEIU Illinois (which sponsors this website) to the embattled Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). In particular, they're pushing the U.S. Census Bureau to sever ties with SEIU because of the affiliation. Here's an excerpt from Kirk and Roskam's press release:

One SEIU local union, the Illinois Homecare Workers and Home Childcare Providers, sprouted from ACORN's organizing efforts and pays rent to ACORN. SEIU national president Andy Stern serves on ACORN’s advisory council. According to his own Web site, ACORN Founder Wade Rathke is the “Founder and Chief Organizer” of SEIU Local 100.

In Illinois, SEIU Local 880 rents office space from the “Chicago Organizing and Support Center”, an ACORN affiliate, and both Local 880 and ACORN have offices at 209 W. Jackson Blvd in Chicago.

Putting aside the ridiculousness of the right wing's recent campaign against ACORN, Kirk and Roskam really should have done more research -- and perhaps watched less Glenn Beck.

Just last week, CBS 2 Chicago investigated the relationship between SEIU and ACORN here in the Land of Lincoln. Reporter Mike Flannery noted that the group known as ACORN Illinois actually "collapsed in 2007" after local leaders Denise Dixon and Madeline Talbott "complained that ACORN's then-national leader, Wade Rathke, put his brother in charge of finances, was concealing key money moves and was, in short, a scandal waiting to explode." "We just felt things were not right at the top," Talbott told Flannery. She and Dixon went on to start the organization Action Now.

Before going after ACORN, Kirk should have thoroughly researched his own voting record as well. From Abdon Pallasch's Friday Sun-Times article:

Kirk himself voted in 2005 to approve a $140,000 earmark for ACORN’s New York office to fight teen delinquency, SEIU's political director Jerry Morrison said.

A Kirk spokesman said he would research that vote but that Kirk would lay out his case against SEIU and ACORN at Monday’s news conference.

Here's the bill Kirk voted for: H.R. 4818. Here's the November 20, 2004 roll call. And here is the earmark itself. (As an aside, there are a lot of other GOP congressmen who approved this spending measure, including Iowa Rep. Steve King, one of the most aggressive and misleading opponents of ACORN.)

Finally, the Illinois Republicans probably should have examined their members' campaign finance records before targeting SEIU, as the State Journal-Register's Doug Finke points out (H/T Capitol Fax):

Let’s take a look at the state Board of Elections Web site and see who’s gotten financial support from SEIU. Hmmm, the Republican State Senate Campaign Committee got several thousand dollars in 2006 and 2008. Senate Minority Leader CHRISTINE RADOGNO, R-Lemont, got $5,000 in 2008, and her predecessor, FRANK WATSON of Greenville, got contributions in 2006 and 2008.

The contributions weren’t limited to people in leadership. Sen. LARRY BOMKE, R-Springfield, and Rep. RAYMOND POE, R-Springfield, both have gotten donations from SEIU, as recently as this year for Poe. And everyone in the Springfield area knows what kind of radical, left-wing politicians Poe and Bomke are.

Furthermore, the most prominent Republican candidate in Kirk's soon-to-be-vacated 10th Congressional District, State Rep. Beth Coulson, received over $19,000 from SEIU during the 2008 cycle.

Smart thinking, guys.

Roskam Opposes Unemployment Extension, Kirk Misses Vote (UPDATE: Giannoulias Responds)

Adam Doster — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:25:57 -0700

(See Alexi Giannoulias' response below the fold.)

As we noted last night, the U.S. House has officially approved -- by a wide margin -- H.R. 3548, a bill that would provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance to workers from 27 states (as well as the District of Colombia and Puerto Rico) where unemployment rates top 8.5 percent. For the 20,000 workers in Illinois who have already exhausted their benefits and the 50,000 more who will do so at the end of the year, the short-term assistance could help prevent financial collapse. The extension will also spur consumer spending, one major goal of the Obama administration's stimulus plan. "With the unemployment rate in Illinois at over 10 percent," Rep. Phil Hare said after the vote, "it makes perfect sense to continue to provide unemployment benefits so ordinary people can pay their bills and hold onto their homes."

Not according to two of Hare's Republican colleagues from Illinois. Rep. Peter Roskam was one of just 83 representatives to vote against the bill. Meanwhile, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk -- along with Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush -- missed that vote and the two other roll calls taken yesterday evening.

In the past, Jackson and Rush have consistently supported extending unemployment benefits. But how would Kirk voted if he had been in attendance?

It's hard to know. Last year around this time, Kirk voted in favor of a bill to provide an additional 13 weeks of jobless benefits. However, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee points out in a press release this morning that he has previously "voted at least eight times" against extending benefits that were about to run out (6/11/08, 6/12/08, 2/4/04, 6/3/04, 5/22/03, 5/15/03, 1/8/03, 10/24/01).

What we do know is that, around the time the roll call was taking place in D.C., Kirk tweeted that his Senate campaign was "currently working on a site redesign." I'm sure the unemployed in Illinois will be happy to hear that ...

The Senate is expected to approve the extension quickly, which would take effect as soon as it is signed into law. We'll be sure to provide more updates as they surface.

UPDATE (12:00 PM): Democratic Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias just put out the following statement in response to Kirk's missed vote:

"Congressman Mark Kirk can't decide whether tens of thousands looking for work here in Illinois should be able to keep their benefits. Wherever you were tweeting from in Washington, Congressman, you should know there is a recession back here in Illinois and people are hurting. After all, it was your votes that helped put thousands of Illinoisans out of work to begin with," said Giannoulias.

Roskam, Jackson Duel On Health Reform

Adam Doster — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:07:38 -0700

Looking for reactions on President Obama's health care address last night, WFLD's Good Day Chicago dialed up a pair of Illinois Congressman, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Peter Roskam. Their responses are interesting in so much as they illustrate fairly well the current politics at play in Washington.

Jackson, who hasn't made many media appearances since his name was brought up in the Blagojevich indictment, praised the president for selling the American people on the importance of "more stability and security, on quality and affordable choices for all Americans, and reigning in the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government." When asked whether intra-party disputes about legislative details could thwart reform, he said lawmakers on the center-left need to join together and pass universal coverage now or risking losing their seats next year. Watch it (the relevant section begins at 1:30):

JACKSON: I certainly think that [the Democrats] do [have enough votes] and I certainly hope that they do or the 2010 election cycle is going to be very difficult. It's an off-presidential election year. Central to the Democratic Party’s platform for the last 40 or 50 years has been the idea of universal coverage for all Americans. And the idea that the President of the United States or this Congress under Democratic control would back away from covering all Americans would certainly be a form of suicide for the Democratic Party.

Roskam wasn't quite so excited by what he heard. The Wheaton Republican said the cost of HR3200, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, "took the breath away from members of the House Ways and Means Committee on both sides of the aisle." (Jackson quickly responded that the Democratic proposals are will be "paid for up front," a fact verified by both the President and the CBO). Roskam also claimed Americans are nervous that a government-sponsored health plan would ultimately drive private insurance into the ground (this clip starts at 3:20):

ROSKAM: I think there’s a whole host of Americans who currently have coverage who are very concerned they are going to lose their private health insurance if we move to the government option, and that’s born out by study after study.

This is a common theme during Roskam's health care rants. But since he's is so fond of the CBO, let's look at their data and see if it bears out his fears. The same analysis of the tri-committee bill above found that about 10-11 million individuals will enroll in the public option by 2019. Why is the number so low? Because only those that that are unemployed, self-employed, or work at businesses with 10 or fewer employees (about 30 million Americans) will be eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange, which would house the government-run plan. Of those 30 million, many will instead choose instead to purchase regulated plans from private insurance companies. This updated flowchart from Donkeylicious blogger Nick Beaudrot provides a nice visual reminder of how the main bills floating through Congress would affect all Americans.

This is the essence of the debate. On one side, we have a lawmaker pushing for universal access as a constitutional and human right. On the other, we have a lawmaker relying on distortions and misinterpretations to block reform. That's the main reason there won't be a bipartisan bill.

WLS To Hold Health Care Town Hall Tomorrow

Adam Doster — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:29:44 -0700

Congress returns to Washington next week and elected officials are using their last days of the August recess to continue discussing health care reform with their constituents. Tonight, we'll be attending Rep. Jan Schakowsky's town hall meeting in Niles and will have some coverage in the morning.

If you can't make it to the northern suburbs, be sure to tune into WLS Radio tomorrow night at 7pm for the station's Health Care Town Hall Meeting. Pat Cassidy will moderate a panel that includes congressmen Danny Davis (D) and Peter Roskam (R), Dr. Claudia Fegan of Physicans for National Health Care, and other health care experts and industry reps. The event will also be streamed live online. You can find all of the details here.

Progressive Public Option Pressure Grows

Adam Doster — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:50:07 -0700

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius created a firestorm among liberal pols and activists when she reiterated on Sunday that the White House, while supportive of the public option, does not view it as "the essential element” for health care reform. On the airwaves and in print, lefty commentators blasted the Obama administration for its newest hedge, including Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who wrote that "we didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president." Meanwhile, 60 congressional progressives sent a letter again warning they would vote against any bill -- either the House version or the conference report -- that does not include a public option. Unlike the last letter, which was sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in late July, this version landed on Sebelius' desk and included three more signatories. And netroots activists are raising money to "reward" lawmakers who stand by their promise.

The main concern of House progressives like Rep. Jan Schakowsky is that any co-op model created by the conservative Senate Finance committee would be too small and fragmented to provide real competition to the insurance companies. At least 500,000 people would have to join the non-profit insurance pools, according to estimates from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), before they would be powerful enough to negotiate reasonable prices with health providers. As Ezra Klein wrote yesterday, "the co-op does not solve a policy problem so much as it solves a political problem." That problem, of course, is finding a compromise that public option critics -- those who don't believe a public insurer limit costs and provide access to high-quality care better than the profit-driven private system -- can support.

Will it work? Republican obstructionists, including Rep. Peter Roskam, have already decided that the alternative is equitable to government-run health care and won't back the plan because that provision was included. "We have to make sure [the public option] is really off the table," Roskam said on WLS' Don Wade and Roma yesterday, "and not recast with a different name." Activists raging against the plan aren't going to ease up, either. At a health care town hall last night in Moline, Rep. Phil Hare expressed some openness for the co-op proposal. For that, he was rewarded with one taunt that he was a "socialist."

A bill with co-ops would likely gain enough support in the Senate Finance Committee, however, clearing the way for two full chamber votes and the possibility of intense conference negotiations. Ultimately, Congressional leaders are going to have to take a gamble. Should they include a public option in the final bill, knowing that some Senate Dems may do the unthinkable and join Republicans in a filibuster of President Obama's major campaign plank, or risk losing the support of reformers in the House? For those in the latter camp, the stakes are probably too high to miss another chance at extending coverage to the vast majority of Americans. After all, it's easier for lawmakers to strengthen than write a new law. But their public pressure at this crucial stage is valuable if it keeps all options -- public or otherwise -- on the table.

Health Care Round-Up: Schock Misleads, Bean And Foster Still Undecided

Adam Doster — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:30:55 -0700

As the national battle over health care reform enters a crucial stage and lawmakers make their case to voters during the August recess, we're going to be regularly tracking the latest health care news across Illinois. Here's our first update:

Schock's Misleading Memo

While Illinois Democrats were busy advocating for comprehensive health care yesterday, Illinois Republicans kept up their effort to stand in the way of such reform. This morning over his Twitter feed, Rep. Aaron Schock sent along a memo, prepared by Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-WI), providing (PDF) "key facts about the House Democrat health care bill for the 18th District of Illinois." But as you'll see, Cantor and Schock use the term facts rather loosely. Here's the first of many distortions in the two-page sheet:

Independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that 2 out of every 3 people would lose their current coverage, including up to 114 million people who receive health benefits through their employer or other current coverage if a government-run plan “competes” with private companies.

The Lewin Group is hardly "independent." In fact, it's "wholly owned" by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers. And the Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary analysis (PDF) of the House Democrats' so-called "tri-committee" bill last week and found that a net 3 million people will gain employer-based insurance under the Democratic plan.

But Schock and Cantor aren't done:

Nearly 11 million seniors choose Medicare Advantage plans as the coverage that best meet their needs. Specifically, the Democrats have proposed cutting Medicare spending for the 14,002 seniors in the 18th District who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.

In fact, Medicare benefits will not be cut, nor will the Medicare Advantage plan be discontinued. Instead, Obama has proposed ending the large public subsidies to the private insurance companies who participate in the program. As budget director Peter Orszag explained this spring, the White House is proposing that these companies compete to offer their services, thereby saving taxpayers an estimated $150 billion over 10 years. (Also, it's more than ironic that Schock, a congressman staunchly opposed to a public option, is so worried about protecting benefits provided through the nation's very popular single-payer program.)

The Schock memo also demagogues about health care reform's potential effect on small businesses, citing Heritage Foundation research claiming that 41,700 small businesses in Illinois will be required to pay higher taxes because of a proposed 2 percent surtax on individuals with more than $280,000 in income. But the Heritage figures are way overblown. Only "1.9 percent of filers with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009,” according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Roskam Misreads Polling ON WLS

Rep. Peter Roskam added his voice to the health care debate this morning, telling WLS Radio’s Don Wade & Roma that support for Obama's health care approach is "just dropping like a stone." Listen (The entier interview is available here):

Internal mp3

People really understand health care. We’ve had a really robust national conversation and debate ever since the Clinton administration in 1993 did the big push on that plan. And we’ve been talking about it, all of us. And when you start to say that you’re going to be taking choices away, that wait times are going to go up, and ultimately this is going to be very costly, the public gets it. And the White House, with all due respect, I think they are really underestimating the public.

The polls tell a different story. The Center for American Progress' Ruy Teixiera points to Pew Research Center data proving Americans are still broadly supportive of the president's goals: 79 percent support "requiring insurance companies to sell health coverage to people, even if they have pre-existing medical condition;" 65 percent support "requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those who can’t afford it;" 63 percent support "raising taxes on families with incomes of more than $350,000 and individuals earning more than $280,000;" and 52 percent support "a government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." "Don’t believe the hype," Teixiera concludes. "Health care reform is alive and kicking."

Bean, Foster Still Undecided

For the President's reform agenda to pass both chambers, conservative Democrats are going to need to come along for the ride. But two congressmen from Chicago's suburbs, Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster, remain on the fence, according to the Daily Herald:

Bean's Schaumburg office has been protested by activists on both sides of the issue. Most recently, she said she was "unconvinced" the current plan will provide a net benefit to the middle class while reigning in costs.

Foster supports the plan "in theory," a spokeswoman has said, but neither lawmaker will likely face a vote until some version of the plan moves to the House floor this fall.

DCCC Blitzes Biggert

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is also targeting Rep. Judy Biggert with its "Health Care ER" campaign. The goal of the blitz, which will include volunteer calls, emails, and tele-town halls, is to "hold targeted Republicans accountable for protecting health insurance companies' profits ... at the expense of affordable health care."

Illinois GOP Rails Against Energy Efficiency

Adam Doster — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:54:47 -0700

Republicans in Illinois are looking for all sorts of ways to justify their vote against the cap-and-trade bill. Strangely, two congressman have settled on one of the least controversial and most effective sections: energy efficiency standards.

Earlier this month, Rep. Peter Roskam went on WLS Radio’ Don Wade & Roma and imagined a scenario in which a "bureaucrat out there with a pocket protector and half-glasses" could prevent someone from selling his or her home because it did not meet new criteria approved in the House climate bill." More recently, Rep. Don Manzullo painted a similar picture on KROC, suggesting that if state energy efficiency standards are federalized, "a bunch of guys who live in apartments, probably in Manhattan," would make the final decision on whether or not a home can go on the market." Listen here:

Internal mp3

MANZULLO: What this means is it’s a complete usurping of state and local zoning and building codes by this arbitrary federal code made up by a bunch of guys who live in apartments, probably in Manhattan ... and that’s how bad this bill is.

Let's review the underlying details again. First of all, the proposed zoning codes will only apply to new construction projects, not buildings that already exist. Secondly, the General Assembly approved its own building energy code measure before leaving Springfield this year. (Before that, it was only one of seven states not to have such a law on the books.) Once it is signed by the governor, the state's Capital Development Board must adopt the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code within nine months and apply it to any new construction. In other words, Illinois will be forced to deal with new standards whether or not Congress takes action. And lastly, these improvements to the building code are undoubtedly good for both the environment and consumers. A new study from consulting firm McKinsey found that investing $520 billion nationally in energy improvements to homes and businesses could produce $1.2 trillion in savings on energy bills through 2020 while cutting the country’s projected energy use by about 23 percent.

Unfortunately, Manzullo wasn't done. Later in the KROC interview, he whacked Section 204 of the cap-and-trade bill, which establishes a building energy performance labeling program for homes and commercial property. The Republican argued that the provision is "onerous" and will "bring down the value of your home because you have to make all of these improvements."

Again, this is quite misleading. Affixing a label to a house explaining the property’s energy efficiency would not be required under the bill. Anyone nervous about the results could just ignore it. The provision is actually included to help consumers. The NRDC explains:

The average person knows more about how efficient their refrigerator or car is than their home, but they will spend much more on the home than anything else they own. This lack of information is what allows building owners to keep wasting energy despite the best intentions and keeps other interested parties, like prospective owners, tenants, or financiers, from having any idea what kind of energy costs they are committing to.

Standing up for the environment and consumers was never Roskam or Manzullo's strong suit. But it would be nice if they could argue using facts, not wild accusations.

Image courtesy of Cal Skinner.