Month: January 2010

Shrinkage

by digby

According to the NY Times, this is what the congress is considering as an alternative health care reform package:

¶Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.

¶Insurers would have to offer policyholders an opportunity to continue coverage for children through age 25 or 26.

¶The federal government would offer financial incentives to states to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults and parents.

¶The federal government would offer grants to states to establish regulated markets known as insurance exchanges, where consumers and small businesses could buy coverage.

¶The federal government would offer tax credits to small businesses to help them defray the cost of providing health benefits to workers.

¶If a health plan provided care through a network of doctors and hospitals, it could not charge patients more for going outside the network in an emergency. Co-payments for emergency care would have to be the same, regardless of whether a hospital was in the insurer’s network of preferred providers.

Yeah, that’s something to run on. Maybe they could ask the insurance companies really nicely not to raise premiums and deny coverage to sick people. I’m sure they’d be happy to help out.

I assume that everyone’s still hell bent on blaming the liberals for refusing to pass the Senate bill, but it’s still not clear that they are to blame. Newsweek reports:

Stupak & Co. can refuse to go with the White House–supported option of the House approving the Senate bill, which has weaker abortion restrictions. There is a second option that would allow for more bargaining: the House passes the Senate bill with the assurance that budget reconciliation (which would only require 51 votes in the Senate) would follow. As Jon Alter wrote today earlier on The Gaggle, it’s “a messy approach but doable.” But since haggling in budget reconciliation would be limited to the budgetary issues, there would likely be little room to change abortion language.

Stupak has said many, many times before that he won’t support a bill without his amendment. If that would mean the downfall of health-care reform, then so be it. “It’s not the end of the world if [the bill] goes down,” he told The New York Times a few weeks ago. And this isn’t a Ben Nelson situation, where he’s a lone politician throwing down the gauntlet. Stupak claims—and so far, I haven’t heard any dispute to this—that he has 10 or 11 Democrats committed to opposing the Senate bill’s less restrictive language.

The fact still remains that that even if every liberal voted for the Senate bill, they still wouldn’t have the votes because of Stupak and his handful of anti-choice zealots. And I’m seeing nothing out there that indicates that they have changed their minds in the wake of Brown’s victory and are now persuaded to vote for health care reform if only those damned liberals weren’t making such a fuss. Indeed, quite the opposite:

On the day after the upset Senate victory for Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had some choice words about the election, the Democratic leadership, and health care reform in an interview on the Fox Business Network. By “choice words,” we mean “wake-up call,” “disillusioned,” “overreach,” “special deal,” and “dead.”

Stupak is a key Democratic moderate, so his outspoken and frank take on his party and the future of health care reform represents an unusual, and likely unwelcome, break of unity and protocol for the Democrats.

Asked Wednesday what the Massachusetts election means for his Democratic caucus, Stupak said, “I think for the party, it’s hopefully a wake-up call to leadership that the agenda you set and the pace you’re going…you have to be more inclusive of all members.”

On health care, Stupak said the leadership erred by proposing a massive package when a smaller, more targeted bill would have been far preferable. “They tried to hit a home run with health care instead of hitting — let’s get a single, let’s get a double. You know, build on this. But they went for the whole grand slam and it got thrown back. It got too big, too controversial, and it’s just like they overreached.”

[…]

Despite all of that, however, the congressman said the House can and should act on health care reform now.

“We are so close. I hope we do not lose this opportunity.

Just don’t ask him to vote for the Senate’s bill, which includes abortion language that Stupak has called unacceptable. He is the author of more restrictive abortion language adopted by the House.

“Everyone’s talking about Plan B, Plan B is dead,” he said. “We’re not passing the Senate bill, so you best come up with Plan C now. “

I would love to know which of Stupak’s ten or eleven anti-choice zealots are going to change their votes and vote yes now? Because unless they do, there will be no bill no matter what the liberals do.

It’s driving me nuts that people don’t see where the real roadblock is here, but I suppose it’s always easiest to blame the hippies — this despite the fact that at every step of the way the liberals have given in and the conserva-dems have doubled down. Now in the end game the social conservatives are holding fast and everyone says it’s the House liberals who are the problem because they aren’t publicly cheering the notion that the House of Representatives is Ben Nelson’s bitch. Infuriating.

Update: Ezra catalogs all the possiblities, including the “pared back to worse than nothing” option outlined above (which he rejects as useless.) Since I think there’s no way that the “ignore Massachusetts” option is feasible, I’m with “bow to the narrative.” It’s clean. I find it hard to believe that anyone’s contemplating it, but if there’s a chance to salvage that much I’d be thrilled.

.

Free For All

by digby

We’ve all been disgusted by the Democrats’ whorishness this past year. But in the wake of the Supreme Court free-for-all we are about to see an orgy of GOP whorishness that will make the Democrats look like nuns and virgins:

One of Obama’s most notable political achievements in his first year in office was persuading some key Republican-leaning business lobbies to support Democratic initiatives.Organizations like the Business Roundtable, the National Restaurant Assn., the National Federation of Independent Business and the pharmaceutical industry, for example, broke ranks with the chamber and worked with the administration on healthcare.

But in the days leading up to the Massachusetts vote, when polls showed Brown heading toward an upset, some of those groups turned back fitfully toward their Republican roots.

The National Federation of Independent Business, for example, insisted on more public criticism of the Democrats’ healthcare plan.

That prompted Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform, to remark that “members are wondering why the organization was either AWOL or collaborating for months and months.”

Dan Danner, president of the business group, disputed Norquist’s suggestion that the organization had changed its stripes. But he acknowledged that the group’s view of the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul had soured.

Danner also noted that his organization was one of the first to send personnel and money into Massachusetts to help Brown.

Conservative pressures — and responses like the federation’s — are expected to intensify. That worries Democrats, as does the impact of the court ruling.

“The decision is a big worry for Democrats,” said Michael Meehan, who has run several Senate campaigns in recent years. “It totally swings the balance.

“In a typical contested Senate race, we calculate that one-third of the spending comes from the candidate, one-third from the party and one-third from outside groups. There are still limits on the first two, but unlimited sums are allowed from corporate America,” he said. “To the extent that corporations continue to favor Republicans, this is a major concern for Democrats everywhere.”

I would expect that the Democrats will be trying hard to get a piece of that corporate largesse too, but they’ll never be able to fully compete with the Republicans as long as they represent poor people, unions, public services, consumer protections, environmental laws and business regulation. Lord knows they’ve tried anyway, but with campaign finance reform repealed, they’ll be chasing the money, selling out their constituents and losing anyway. The Republicans can do the corporations’ bidding without constraints. Why should they bother with Democrats if they can just buy themselves a seat for a true believer? Much easier — transaction-wise.

.

Intended Consequences

by digby

As today’s ruling sinks in,journalists, constitutional experts and lawyers are all weighing in with the unintended consequences of the Citizens United case:

Fineman: There are more unintended consequences in this opinion than there a bachelor week-end in las Vegas. For example, corporate boardrooms are going to become political cockpits now. Because if you’re saying that corporations are individuals that have full speech rights and can spend all they want on campaigns directly for candidates, then the decisions that are made by corporations in their boardrooms are going to be political acts. So it’s going to get very controversial at the corporate leverl. That’s an unintended consequence of this.

Is it really unintended?

How about this “unintended” consequence?

I want to focus on the special problem that now arises for judicial elections. Just last term, Justice Kennedy (who also wrote today’s majority opinion in Citizens United), recognized the inherent risk of corruption that comes when someone spends independently to try to influence the outcome of judicial elections.

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, Justice Kennedy recognized the potential for bias of a judge whose election victory was helped by a $3 million independent contribution favoring the judge. He wrote the contributions created a “risk of actual bias” so “substantial” that due process required setting aside the court’s decision.

Today’s decision casts all that aside, engaging in the fiction that candidates do not feel beholden to those who engage in large, independent spending favoring the candidates (or bashing their opponents).

This is a bad enough fiction to apply to elections for accountable elected officials; it is much worse to apply to judicial elections, where we count on the impartiality and fairness of the judges hearing our cases. Justice Kennedy backed away from Caperton today, leading Justice Stevens to note in dissent that Citizens United “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in [judicial] races.”

Neat. The judges and the politicians will all be employees of the corporations.

We are well on our way to cutting out the middle man in this country. The middle man, of course, is the citizen. It will undoubtedly make things more efficient.

.

The Teabagging Elite

by digby

… are cruising:

THE LIBERTY SHIP is a unique American themed cruise vacation for We The People – the Tea Party patriots, the 912′ers, common sense Conservatives, Libertarians, and all freedom loving citizens from across the fruited plain.

Departing from Fort Lauderdale, FL, onboard the luxury liner MSC Poesia, the cruise will sail November 14-21 in 2010, making stops along the way in St. Thomas and St. John (US Virgin Islands), Philipsburg, St. Maarten (Netherlands Antilles), and Nassau!

THE LIBERTY SHIP will feature a variety of common-sense personalities and celebrities, speaking and participating in spirited panel discussions, Q&As, and meet and greets.

I guess they couldn’t find any Real American ports to visit, huh? (And no the US Virging Islands don’t count. In fact, I heard that even Hawaii doesn’t count. Certainly Puerto Rico doesn’t.)

I frankly don’t think any real patriots would even go on a cruise owned by a European company. Who knows what socialist cooties might infect them?
Aren’t there any good American cruise corporations they can support?

I’m very disappointed in these liberty loving conservatives for going on a “cruise” in the first place. Why not a helicopter wolf hunt in Alaska? Or a Nascar race tour? If I didn’t know better, I’d think these conservatives were a bunch of fey Frenchmen …

.

Put Your Votes Where Your Mouths Are

by digby

This would be a wonderful way to force the Republicans to show their stripes and prove their populist rhetoric is hot air. And if they get on the bandwagon, that’s ok too.

Ben Bernanke’s nomination to serve a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve appears to be in peril. Bernanke is up for a second term at the Fed; his current term expires in 10 days on Jan. 31. A handful of Senators had previously threatened to filibuster the nomination, but this week the number of opposing lawmakers appeared to grow, further dimming his prospects for installment.

“I think it’s worthy of a review,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who is undecided.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met with Bernanke on Thursday, one day after Democrats voiced concerns during their weekly policy luncheon about the nomination. In a statement after his meeting with the Fed chairman, Reid was coy, saying the two met “to discuss the best ways to strengthen and stabilize our economy.”

“The American people expect our economic leaders to keep Wall Street honest and level the playing field for middle-class families, and I will continue to hold their feet to the fire to ensure this happens,” Reid said. “As the Senate prepares to take up Chairman Bernanke’s nomination, I look forward to hearing more from him about how he intends to address these issues.”

At Wednesday’s Democratic caucus meeting, according to Senators, liberals spoke out against confirming Bernanke for a second term. Those liberals tried to make the case that the White House needs to put in place fresh economic advisers to focus on “Main Street” issues like unemployment rather than Wall Street concerns. Moderates were more reserved, Senators said, but have similarly withheld their support for Bernanke.

If Bernanke gets confirmed with only Republicans and Corporate Senators I think some valuable lines will have been drawn. If liberals would filibuster his nomination it would be even better. Some fights are very, very clarifying educational tools for the electorate.

.

Bad Omen

by digby

What a day. The Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend as much as they choose to buy elections and Air America files for bankruptcy and ceases operations.

Did somebody break a mirror at DNC headquarters?

.

Petty Cash

by digby

There’s lots of good stuff out there about the Citizens United case, but this post by Michael Waldman struck me the most:

Why will this matter? Isn’t there a lot of money sloshing around in politics already? Consider Exxon-Mobil. In 2008, its political action committee (PAC) raised about $1 million from its employees and offices. Its profits that year -– which it was legally barred from pouring into politics -– were $45 billion. It was illegal for Exxon to spend that money on elections; now with this decision, it will be legal. Exxon or any other firm could spend Bloomberg-level sums in any congressional district in the country against, say, any congressman who supports climate change legislation, or health care, etc.

A century of campaign finance law was thrown in the trash today and that is going to be the result. These corporations have virtually unlimited money to spend on this — ad campaigns are chump change by their standards and well worth every penny if they deliver politicians who will represent them in the congress. The deal is now explicit and it will be very difficult to unseat them if their elections are financed entirely by special interests.

From what I gather, there are only a couple of things to be done about this: shareholder empowerment or constitutional amendment, both of which are very, very difficult.

Update: Republican strategist John Feehery on Ed Shultz just said that Move-On raised so much money in the last election that this ruling will level the playing field.

Plus, the little guy is employed by corporations so they can be confident that they’ll be represented by them.

.

The Problem

bu digby

Chris Matthews with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz:

Matthews: It’s manifest he hasn’t done the “big thing” yet, at least not that anybody can see. But do you believe it’s also true the public doesn’t want the “big thing” right now in terms of liberal legislation.

Dan Balz: Chris, a year ago I asked him the question of what the ’08 election really meant. Did it bring an ened to the reagan era. he said, “not necessarily” that there was still a skepticims to top down, command and control government. He thought that was a lasting legacy.

He said the challenge was for smart, effective government whether that was big and small. I think that’s the question that he’s trying to convince people that he’s got an answer to and after a year of his administration, there’s a great deal of skepticim on the public’s part that he’s found the right answer.

John “Drudge Rules our World” Harris added that the public is far angrier at government than at the Banks.

It was clear during the campaign that Obama was reluctant to confront the Reagan legacy on its basic terms, preferring to dryly characterize his governing philosophy as technocratic and competent. I think that was a mistake, since people really have no other framework within which to understand their problems, when things go badly, they have no other way of underastandingf it except for blaming “big government” for either causing it or failing to fix it.

Today, they may be angry at the banks, but they see the problem being that the government gave these institutions preferential treatment over them rather than that they caused this worldwide economic crisis with their irresponsible, swashbuckling, gambling culture — which now must be regulated by the government. I think most people see the recession, the banking crisis, unemployment and the rest as only a failure of government — and they are assuming that the way to fix it is by making government smaller. After all, both Democrats and Republicans keep telling them that it’s so.

I’m very glad to see that Obama is finally taking some action against the banks. It is the Democrats’ best hope of reframing the debate, although I think it’s awfully late in the game. Today, he seemed to sideline Geithner and Summers publicly, but the question is whether or not he’s finally figured out that they are part of the problem, not the solution.

I don’t think Obama’s words alone have enough credibility anymore to fix this. He’s going to have to take some concrete action.

And Democrats are going to have to accept that need to attack the Reagan legacy more directly and make an affirmative case for government. I would have thought that was obvious, but the Democratic party and Obama himself seem to have believed otherwise. If they persist with merely tweaking the Reagan legacy, they will find themselves in this same situation over and over again. As long as people see government as the problem, progressivism, liberalism, whatever you want to call it, will fail.

.

Trouble In Paradise

by digby

Brownie disses the teabaggers:

Brown said his model for governing would be McCain, who would also be the first appointment in a packed schedule of meetings that morning. “I have great respect for Senator McCain,” he said of the Arizona senator, who was one of the first establishment players to support his seemingly quixotic bid against Attorney General Martha Coakley. “I’ve known him for a while, long before this, and you know he is a war hero and kind of a maverick independent thinker. While I want to be a Scott Brown Republican, I want to rely on everybody on both sides of the aisle,” he added, “I’ve told my leadership already that I’m not a rubber stamp for anybody.”

And Brown expressed reluctance to be associated at all with the Tea Party movement that helped elect him.

“There may be members of a certain group that supported me,” he said, “but I had supporters from every walk of life. And to focus on one specific group is a disservice to the campaign — it’s inclusiveness in making sure that everyone has a voice.”

And I don’t know what this is about, but it’s creepy:

Asked about Glenn Beck’s suggestion on his radio show that Brown be fitted with a chastity belt before “it could end up with a dead intern,” Brown said, “You know, name calling and all that stuff? I’m way past that. My daughters know that I love them and there is nothing in the world I wouldn’t do for them.”

The teabaggers were endowed by their creator, FoxNews, to support Brown and there is no underestimating how much they had to do with it. It will be very interesting to see how they react to being publicly dismissed. If they take it, we’ll know that they are just the typical Republican base falling into line. If not — well, then the GOP has a problem if they take the Scott Brown attitude. They hate McCain.

.

Wingnut Hero Forever

by digby

Many years ago I wrote about the adventures of a young wingnut named David Bossie. There was a time when he was a disgraced criminal unfit for decent company, but today he goes into the pantheon as a conservative hero of epic proportions. His political propaganda group Citizen United took campaign finance campaign laws all the way to the Supreme Court. And he won big for corporations everywhere:

In response to today’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, People For the American Way president Michael B. Keegan released the following statement:

“Today’s ruling is yet another example of selective enforcement of constitutional rights by the Roberts Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservatives on the Court claim to be committed to judicial restraint and respect for precedent. But they demonstrated that they will gladly set those principles aside when it suits their ideology.

“It is a long-established principle that the government can act in the interest of democracy to prevent corporations from pouring in billions of dollars to unduly influence elections. Congress and state legislatures across the nation have enacted legislation based on this principle for decades and with bipartisan backing. But today the Roberts Court decided that it knew better. Given conservative rhetoric about deference to the democratically elected branches, today’s ruling is stunning.

“The Roberts Court seems to be most concerned about constitutional rights when they pertain to business, government, or other powerful interests. Today, not for the first time, the Court privileged corporations over individual Americans. This decision is proof positive that the Supreme Court has lurched dangerously to the right.”

The crisis of plotocracy continues apace.

And let’s give a big shout-out to former president Bush who made sure that the most business friendly Supreme Court in history was his legacy. Whatever else the results of the election of 2000 gave us, this was the gift that will just keep on giving.

.