Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — along with six other members of the Blue Dog coalition on the House Energy and Commerce Committee — are threatening to vote down the House’s health care legislation in committee. Ross reportedly objects to the surtax included in the bill, saying “I don’t like the idea of raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War II.” However, the Blue Dogs concerned about the surtax voted for some of the budget busting Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that constituted a huge gift to the very wealthiest Americans. Of the seven Blue Dogs on from Energy and Commerce who are complaining, four were around to vote on Bush’s tax cuts. Here’s how they voted:

Over the ten year window from 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts gave the richest one percent of Americans about $715 billion in tax breaks. This comes out to about $518,000 per household over ten years or about $51,800 per year. The proposed surtax, meanwhile, would raise $544 billion from households making more than $350,000 per year. The Wonk Room has more.

In early May, conservative word guru Frank Luntz authored a messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on health care reform. In order to obstruct reform, Luntz offered a set of poll-tested words that he said “should be used by everyone.” Some of those words were “rationing,” “doctor-patient,” “takeover” and “bureaucrats.” Using the Capitol Words search engine, the Sunlight Foundation’s Paul Blumenthal has found that Republicans are following Luntz’s advice:

Over the past month, as the health care debate has really gotten off the ground, the use of these words in the Congressional Record has skyrocketed. See the numbers below:

“Rationing” goes from 18 uses in May to 90 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “rationing” in the Capitol Words database.

“Doctor-patient” goes from 6 uses in May to 20 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “doctor-patient” in the Capitol Words database.

“Takeover” goes from 13 uses in May to 106 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “takeover” in the Capitol Words database.

“Bureaucrats” goes from 53 uses in May to 78 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “bureaucrats” in the Capitol Words database.

Watch a compilation put of GOP lawmakers mimicking Luntz’ “doctor-patient” rhetoric:

On Tuesday, three separate House committees — Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, Education and Labor Committee — released a single health care reform bill, the American Affordable Healthy Choices Act. An analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the legislation would cost $1 trillion over 10 years and cover 94 percent of Americans (97% if you don’t count undocumented immigrants).

On Dennis Miller’s radio show today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attacked the bill, claiming that it plainly stated that Americans would be forced out of their current health care plans “within five years”:

BACHMANN: Well, what does that mean? That means that politicians are going to substitute their choice for your doctor’s choice for you. That’s exactly what this bill does. Here’s the other thing about that bill. It’s a monstrosity. I have the bill printed out on my desk, it’s over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you’re not going to have in five years. What you’re going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all.

Listen here:

Bachmann either misread the bill or is willfully misrepresenting it. In fact, page 16 is the beginning of the section on “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage.” The section that refers to five years is on page 17, but it’s not about pushing Americans off their current health plans. As the summary on Rep. Pete Stark’s (D-CA) website notes, it simply “provides for a five year grace period for current group health plans to meet specified standards.”

In fact, as the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky points out, the CBO’s coverage tables “undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage”:

The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage.

So, in Bachmann’s world, increased private insurance is a government takeover of health care.

In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing today, National Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford accused Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) of being a racist. Alford, an opponent of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, attacked Boxer for being “racial” when she cited the NAACP’s support of clean energy and climate legislation. Saying he took “offense as an African American and a veteran,” he asked why she didn’t quote an “Asian” instead:

All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take — I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that. You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some — I mean, you’re being racial here. And I think you’re getting on a path here that’s going to explode, in the Post.

Watch the exchange:

Alford, whose organization has received at least $275,000 from ExxonMobil, spoke on behalf of the “black community” in his opening statement. As Boxer noted, it seems “relevant” that other organizations with “a deep understanding” of the “black community,” such as NAACP and 100 Black Men of Atlanta see the threat of global warming and the opportunity in a clean energy future.

Capping off a day of unusual candor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explained to right-wing affirmative action opponent Linda Chavez, a witness at today’s Sotomayor confirmation hearings, that Republicans routinely make hiring decisions on the basis of race. According to Graham, “politics is politics in the sense that I know that Republicans sit down and think, ‘ok, we’ve got some power now. Let’s make sure that we let the whole country know the Republican party is not just a party of short white guys.’” And then, in a comment perhaps reflecting why Graham is supporting Sotomayor, he added:

What I want to tell the country is that Republicans very much do sit down and think about political picks and appointments in a political sense to try to show that we’re a party that looks at all Americans and wants to give an opportunity. And that’s just life. And that’s not a bad thing.

Watch it:

Graham’s comments come after a surprisingly friendly exchange between himself and Sotomayor in which he told her that he believes that she is “not an activist.” In other words, it seems very likely that Graham will vote to put Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.