Health Care: Progressive Movement Must Push Back On This Week's Lapses

It's early, and given the clear attention the President is paying to health care reform I ultimately believe something will get done. But without question, this has been a bad week for those who want to see a legitimate reform of the system. This article in The Hill captures some of the movement:

Despite having a popular president in the White House and comfortable majorities in Congress, the Democratic rollout on healthcare reform has encountered significant bumps in the road.

A cost estimate hanging a $1 trillion price tag on an incomplete bill, salvos from powerful interest groups and great uncertainty among key Democrats on what will actually be in the legislation that moves through Congress have emboldened Republican critics.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee postponed the markup of its healthcare reform bill by one day, to Wednesday. On the eve of that markup, the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce publicly ripped the bill.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) initially planned to release his bill Wednesday, but he has pushed back his timetable because of cost estimate concerns.

“Will we have something out tomorrow? Not sure,” Baucus said Tuesday. “Thursday or probably Friday,” he added.

Perhaps more importantly, the unity that Democrats touted earlier this year has cracked. As conservatives lambaste Democrats, liberal healthcare groups are not rushing to their defense because so many questions about the legislation have not been answered.

Since then, the Senate Finance Committee postponed their markup until after the July 4 recess. And all kinds of compromise plans and half-measures are swimming around Washington. Apparently, centrists in the House from both sides of the aisle are meeting in secret to hash out one of them. Kay Hagan and Jeff Bingaman are refusing to sign on to the public plan in the Senate HELP Committee, delaying its inclusion in the bill, which is worrying advocacy groups. I'm assuming they prefer a compromise like Kent Conrad's out-of-left-field "health co-ops" plan introduced into the debate and sending a thrill up the leg of centrists last week. And today, old warhorses Tom Daschle and Bob Dole unveiled yet ANOTHER compromise plan:

Daschle, Dole and Republican Howard Baker released a bipartisan plan today that would tax some employer-provided health-insurance premiums, require individuals and large employers to buy health insurance, and create public insurance pools run by states instead of the federal government.

The proposals were put together over 15 months by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center, which was started by Daschle, Dole, Baker and former Democratic Senate leader George Mitchell. Congress is drafting a bill to revamp health care, which President Barack Obama calls “the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health.”

Dole said the U.S. has a rare opportunity this year to enact a comprehensive health-care bill. “Let’s do it now,” he urged, saying it may be five years before lawmakers have a similar political opening.

The state-run insurance pools may run into some trouble due to economies of scale. A state simply cannot bargain the way a single payer federal government can.

There are basically two issues that have bedeviled reformers this week. One is the CBO scoring, based on an incomplete document that should have never been given to them, but causing moderate Dems to simply run for cover. This failure came about largely by the HELP committee offering an incomplete bill to try and get some bipartisan cover.

You might ask what the HELP Committee was thinking, sending Swiss cheese legislation to CBO. Well, the HELP Committee's expectation was that the CBO, in crafting its preliminary score, would assume something similar to the outline it had seen months before. The CBO didn't. In fact, it did the opposite. CBO ran its estimates with no employer mandate and an individual mandate with a laughably small penalty.

Members of HELP were thus shocked by yesterday's score. The specific provisions of the bill that the CBO examined did not look like the bill HELP intends to write. Which means that the numbers aren't correct. If HELP is writing a bill with a strong employer and individual mandate, and CBO scores a bill with no employer mandate and a weak individual mandate, that's not a useful estimate.

By Monday night, members of the HELP Committee were scrambling to give the CBO something closer to the final legislation to examine -- this time including rough details of the employer mandate and the individual mandate. They're hoping to have a new set of estimates by Friday, though that's probably ambitious. Either way, I wouldn't put too much stock in these numbers.

Doesn't matter. The numbers are out there, and the Democrats are running away from them as fast as they can. OF COURSE the Republicans would use the CBO score as a permanent talking point no matter what was changed on the bill. Forevermore, it will be seen as costing a trillion dollars a year and not covering anyone - just check out this piece. Max Baucus essentially pulled his bill so he can cover costs and cut government subsidies.

The other problem has been this continued wrangling over the public plan, which I think a healthy bit of Democrats are simply desperate to torpedo. Hagan and Bingaman won't sign on to it in the HELP Committee, and now Kathleen Sebelius has, perhaps unwittingly, given a bad compromise oxygen:

"I think there is a lot of understanding that the private market has really failed to provide affordable coverage to Americans," Sebelius said. The industry has had "a lot of opportunities" to get rid of coverage restrictions and other unpopular policies, Sebelius said, and really "hasn't served Americans very well."

However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.

Obama did offer a pretty forceful defense of the public option to the AMA this week. And if he wants to throw his weight around, he could probably muscle something through. But will the desire to create a bipartisan solution, which is supposedly more "durable" than a successful solution, trump the public plan? Bill Clinton hopes not:

If he can’t get a good bill, I wouldn’t give away the store on that. If he can’t get a bill that’s genuine universal coverage, that genuinely is going to cut costs and make health insurers give up some of these unbelievable administrative burdens that they’ve put on people, and that really gets to the guts of the delivery system and does more primary preventive care and actually measures things that work, then I would go for the 51. But I would spend a little time trying to get to 60.

Nyceve has more on this meeting.

So we've had a bad couple weeks, with Democrats scurrying in fear from the cost and the public option clearly being used as a bargaining chip. Enough. Chris Bowers has a proposal:

For years, candidates for, and members of, Congress told us that we needed to elect and re-elect them in order to lower health care costs and provide universal coverage. And so, for years, we dutifully worked our collective asses off, delivering wide majorities for Democrats--who said they would lower health care costs and provide universal coverage--in both branches of Congress.
Now, when it comes time for them to deliver on health care by providing a public option--the care minimum required to reduce costs and provide universal coverage--what we are getting instead are backroom deals, flip-flops, and cop-outs.
Enough.

Today, along with Health Care for America Now, Democracy for America and numerous blogs, a campaign is being launched to put an end to the backroom deals on health care. We made and delivered on a commitment to bring about wide Democratic majorities in Congress. Now, instead of negotiating in secret, this Congress needs to make a public commitment to us on where it stands on health care.
No more dodges. No more vague, open-ended responses. We need every member of the Senate--main obstacle to reform--to answer four questions on the public option:

Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?

As activists and as constituents, answering these questions are the minimum they owe us. We are entitled to specific, clear, written responses to all of these questions.

Email--don't call, but email--these four questions to your Senators now. Make it clear that you want a written response to all four questions. There needs to be as little room for interpretation as possible. The Senate is going to be the biggest hurdle on health care, as it has proven to the biggest hurdle on all legislation in 2009. That is where we must focus our pressure.

Here's the form to post where your Senator stands. We need a citizen whip count on the public option so we know where everyone stands. Only with this kind of clarity can we embolden, for example, the Progressive Caucus to demand a public option in any reform bill.

This is clearly the biggest domestic policy that will be tackled this year. We MUST not fail.

Daschle Post-Mortem

There's a pretty amusing old Tom Daschle ad going around, with him driving to work at the Capitol in his old Pontiac instead of "BMWs and limos," with the final line:

"It's too bad that the rest of Washington doesn't understand that a penny saved is a penny earned."

What's that old adage about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely?

Eventually, no matter the rhetoric to win votes in South Dakota, Tom Daschle became a DC insider. And because President Obama relied on DC insiders to implement an agenda of change, he got burned. The case is a textbook example of how Beltway privilege - which is also class privilege - is inevitably corrupting and ethically corrosive.

A classic rule of Washington's political culture -- that public service can lead to personal riches -- seemed to collide yesterday with the presidential promise that the time has come for a break with the past.

Former senator Thomas A. Daschle, whom President Obama once called "the original no-drama guy," suddenly was forced to step aside as the president's nominee for secretary of health and human services because of problematic ties to wealthy private interests.

It was a jarring twist to Daschle's 30-year career in Washington, one built on a reputation of integrity and decency. After losing his Senate seat while serving as that body's most powerful Democrat in 2004, he swiftly signed on as a special policy adviser to a 900-member law firm and pulled in a multimillion-dollar salary. It is a well-worn path, trod by dozens of ex-lawmakers in the past decade.

But some observing the debacle wondered if the capital's ways were changing. The story of how he fell in with the monied elite and out with the popular mood involves a longtime Democratic financier, Leo Hindery Jr., and his keen interest in currying influence with powerful politicians. The outcome caught many in Washington off guard.

"I think it's possible this is some sort of bridge between an old Washington and the new Washington," David Arkush of Congress Watch said of the initial backing of Daschle and the sudden reversal.

Somehow this is being spun as a consequence of Obama holding Daschle to too high of a standard with all this talk of ethics during the campaign, and not the fact that Daschle really is ethically compromised, as is his business partner Bob Dole. Not that Daschle's the worst offender, but he's just a symbol of a failed status quo that has pushed this country to the point of ruin:

Dole said the Democrat would be a valuable asset to the firm even though Congress is run by the GOP these days. "He's got a lot of friends in the Senate, and I've got a lot of friends in the Senate, and, combined, who knows -- we might have 51," Dole joked. "It's going to work fine. You need some flexibility and diversity. I don't think any successful firm is all Democrat or all Republican."

That about covers how Washington works: driven by sleazy, bipartisan influence-peddling. And it is, in particular, how the Senate works: members do nice favors for their "friends," who are lavishly paid for asking for those favors (and who ensure that their "friends" still in the Senate are rewarded for granting those favors), and the outcome is our set of laws.

In a way, Obama picked Daschle not in spite of this sleaze, but BECAUSE of it. The thinking was that health care reform could only be accomplished with someone of stature coordinating White House maneuvering, someone who can go get the votes. He wanted someone from the Washington favor factory that would do whatever necessary to get health care reform passed. It would be a turd of a bill, filled with giveaways, but Daschle could do it, and Obama could put a pretty bow on it, and everyone would shout "huzzah."

The buzzsaw that Daschle ran into was a public increasingly given to agree with the populism expressed on the campaign trail, something Washington never saw coming.

So what happened? My guess is that official Washington underestimated the public's pique at what appeared to be the old ways of Washington. Hill staffers tell me that many offices have been inundated with telephone calls, emails, letters and faxes expressing concern (to put it mildly) about Daschle -- not only his failure to pay back taxes but his relationships with major players in the health care industry and rich consulting contracts with the private sector since leaving the Senate, and even the fact that he was given a car and driver by one of them [...]

Typical Americans are hurting very badly right now. They resent people who appear to be living high off a system dominated by insiders with the right connections. They've become increasingly suspicious of the conflicts of interest, cozy relationships, and payoffs that seem to pervade not only official Washington but our biggest banks and corporations. In short, many Americans who have worked hard, saved as much as they can, bought a home, obeyed the law, and paid every cent of taxes that were due are beginning to feel like chumps. Their jobs are disappearing, their savings are disappearing, their homes are worth far less than they thought they were, their tax bills are as high as ever if not higher.

Meanwhile, people at the top seem to be living far different lives in a different universe. They're the executives and traders on Wall Street who have lived like kings for years off a bubble of their own making while ripping off small investors, the financial louts who are now taking hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money while awarding themselves huge bonuses and throwing lavish parties, the corporate CEOs who are earning seven figures while laying off thousands of workers, the billionaire hedge-fund and private-equity managers who are paying a marginal tax rate of 15 percent on what they say are capital gains while people who earn a fraction of that are paying a higher rate, and, not the least, the Washington insiders who have served on the Hill or in an administration and then gone on to pocket millions as lobbyists for the same companies they once regulated or subsidized. To the American who's outside the power centers -- the places of entitlement and I'll-scratch-your-back-while-you-scratch-mine deal making -- the entire system seems rotten.

I'm sorry Tom Daschle won't be in the Obama administration. He would have served the public well and with distinction. But the public wants change, real change, big change. There's no tolerance any longer for the way things used to be done.

There is a hope in all of this, in the fact that Obama acknowledged the mistake, and more important the disconnect between one set of rules for public officials and another for the man on the street. That's a big step early in an Administration, to take blame and admit it. Now the action has to follow the words.

Ezra Klein has more.

The Scottie Show

Well, I never thought that the name "Scott McCllelan" would return to the lips of every American, particularly because he was a lying hack as a Press Secretary who decided to release a book which, as Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel note, isn't news. But as I've also said, what's news is the defensive posture taken by the Administration and the news media about their conduct in the run-up to war, as Landay and Strobel have also noted.

Bush loyalists have responded in three ways:

1) Scott, how could you? This conveniently ignores the issue of what Bush did or didn't know and do about intelligence on Iraq, converting the story line into that of wounded leader and treasonous former aide. (That canard was the sole focus of a CBS news radio report Wednesday night).

2) Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Okay. When do Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, et al *not* say that? Dog bites man.

3) It was an intelligence failure. The CIA gave us bad dope on WMD and, well, they're the experts. More on this in a second.

The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.

Here's ABC News' Charles Gibson: "I think the questions were asked. It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.” And “I’m not sure we would have asked anything differently."

Really?

Or this from NBC's Brian Williams: “Sadly, we saw fellow Americans — in some cases floating past facedown (after Katrina). We knew what had just happened. We weren’t allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors [in Iraq]. I was in Kuwait for the buildup to the war, and, yes, we heard from the Pentagon, on my cell phone, the minute they heard us report something that they didn’t like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary.” And this: "“It’s tough to go back, to put ourselves in the mind-set. It was post-9/11 America."

So the Pentagon tells the media what kind of reporting is in- and out-of-bounds?

Hogwash. Hogwash! HOGWASH.

That's a damn good blog post.

I think most notable of all the vituperative responses comes from both a Republican and a commentator, Bob Dole, who was raised from the crypt to bare his fangs at Scottie.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in the personal e-mail. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique." [...]

Dole, the former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, also tells McClellan he is likely looking to "clean up" as "the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm."

"When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me,'" he wrote. "Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

Dole also made clear he has no plans to read the book.

"I have no intention of reading your 'exposé' because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job," he wrote. "That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively."

Pretty awesome that the guy who defended Nixon during Watergate is now talking about someone not having the guts to speak up about malfeasance when it occurs.

The thing is, though, that there is some actual news in the book. McClellan admits that the President authorized the leak of the NIE on Iraq in 2003, selectively, to rebut charges made by Joe Wilson in his op-ed. Marcy Wheeler explains the importance.

Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. But as I've described over and over again, it's not just the NIE Bush authorized Dick to order Libby to leak.

As a review, here's what Libby's NIE lies are all about. This is all documented in this post, and here is the court transcript in which most of this is revealed.

• Scooter Libby has instructions in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003

• When questioned about the notation, Libby claimed the instructions related to the NIE

• Libby went further to make certain claims about the NIE leak--that the leak was authorized by Dick Cheney and George Bush, that such an authorization was totally unique in his career, and that Libby was so worried about leaking the NIE to Judy that he double checked to make sure he was authorized to do so

• Libby later made claims that directly contradicted these assertions--most importantly, even though Libby claims the Judy leak was totally unique in his career, he also leaked the NIE to three other people: Bob Woodward, a journalist [David Sanger] on July 2, and the WSJ

• Also, in spite of the fact that Libby says he was really worried about getting authorization to leak the NIE to Judy, he's not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward; his concern about the leak to Judy only extended to whatever he leaked to Judy

In short, Libby is almost certainly lying about what he was authorized to leak to Judy on July 8, 2003, in a meeting where Judy Miller admits he talked about Valerie Plame, and where Libby tried to get her to falsely attribute the story.

At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby's lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush's clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie's identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.

The White House has so far not denied the allegation of a Bush-to-Libby leak of Plame's identity. And McClellan, for his part, has said he'd be happy to testify before Congress about the remarks. What you have here is the President of the United States, by commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby, indirectly pardoning himself for federal crimes. That's a big deal - and while the circus is about other parts of the book, this should be the central point.

Sen. AWOL Taking Heat

Senator McCain showed up for work today, but I don't think that's going to satisfy this Arizona legislator:

A Phoenix-area Republican legislator called on Sen. John McCain to resign from his seat Tuesday if he continues to miss votes while campaigning for president.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa also said he regrets supporting Sen. Jon Kyl during last year's election because the senator now supports a comprehensive immigration bill — though he stopped short of calling for Kyl's resignation.

"It's about time we start cleaning house if that's what it takes," said Pearce, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

According to the Washington Post, McCain has missed 43 votes, nearly 50 percent of the current Congress' votes. In comparison, Hillary Clinton has missed less than 2 percent of votes and Barack Obama has missed 6.4 percent, according to the Post.

"We need a senator," Pearce said. "I think if McCain wants to be a full-time candidate and not be at the Senate, he ought to consider resigning."

Asked if he would prefer a Napolitano appointee over McCain, Pearce said: "Even poor representation is better than no representation."

Republicans in Arizona are so pissed at McCain (and I assume at least some of this has to do with immigration) that they would rather see a Democrat appoint someone to the seat than have him continue to blow off his Senatorial duties.

In 1996 Bob Dole resigned from the Senate to run for President, but only after he got the nomination. McCain is being as cavalier about his responsibilities two years out. He ought to go and tilt at Presidential windmills instead of being a SINO (Senator in Name Only).