A bridge too far

by: Mike Lux

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 13:30


I am a team player. I believe in compromise and negotiation, and have always been okay with taking half a loaf or even a quarter at times. I have never believed in making the perfect the enemy of the good. And as an aging diabetic, a small businessman with skyrocketing health care costs, and a veteran of the Clinton health care war room and 30 years of other health care fights, I have wanted a health care reform bill badly, worse than I have ever wanted any piece of legislation in my life.

But there does sometimes come a bridge too far.

When Joe Lieberman turned his back on a compromise that he has been strongly and publicly supporting for at least 9 years, and one that he signed off on in private last week, and added that he would not negotiate on anything, period, this Senate health care bill got too heavy to carry. When the entire progressive core of Senators folded up like a cheap suit in response, insult was piled on to injury.

I understand all the reasons the White House and Harry Reid don't want to go to reconciliation at this late date, and have been inclined to support them on that up until now. But at this point I think House progressives simply need to say hell no to this deal.If Lieberman was willing to negotiate at all, I would be inclined to try to negotiate in good faith, but with him saying taking it or leave it, I say progressives should leave it.

You know, Olympia Snowe has been saying we should just wait for another month or two, give ourselves all a little time to keep thinking and talking about this bill. It is an absurd position, since she has been thinking and talking about this bill for a year now. But I'm starting to agree with her. Maybe we need to take some extra time, slow the process down until the White House and the Senate are willing to take progressives' points of view into consideration. Along with getting rolled on the public option, this Senate bill is worse than the House bill on the Medicaid numbers, affordability, the anti-trust exemption for insurers, the financing (taxing middle class health care benefits rather than the wealthy), and the structure and rate of eligibility expansion for the exchanges. Perhaps if all or most of that were fixed, maybe then this bill would be more acceptable. But as it is, it is a very heavy load for progressives to stomach.

Look, as disappointing as this, there is still quite of good in the bill, too. It expands Medicaid coverage for people above the poverty line, expands S-CHIP coverage dramatically, still has some good tough insurance regulation and investments in other important health related programs. But progressives need to push back right now, and demand something better. There are two Houses of Congress and the House needs to assert itself right now. And I certainly hope that when all this gets done, Lieberman gets stripped of his committee assignments, and a hold is placed on every single thing he wants for the rest of his tenure in the Senate.

Mike Lux :: A bridge too far

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A bridge too far | 42 comments
guess what Steny Hoyer just said (4.00 / 4)
about the House needing to assert itself right now?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

This is a bad dream getting worse.

John McCain won't insure children


One of the worst (4.00 / 2)
Hoyer is one of the worst House members from either party.  He has his knife permanently out so he can back stab as quickly as possible.  Pelosi wanted to ditch him.  Anybody (including Murtha or Attilla the Hun) would be a better choice.

[ Parent ]
Regarding how Lieberman will be treated (0.00 / 0)
   TPMDC checked in on Capitol Hill, and learned that White House officials are regularly meeting with him on climate change (even as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says he's not sure if aides are talking to him about health care).

   Also sizzling on the stove are major pieces of legislation pending in the Homeland Security Committee, which Lieberman chairs.

   Most prominent is the investigation into the shootings at Fort Hood this fall, and Lieberman is holding an 11:30 press conference at the Capitol on the issue after meeting with Defense Department officials.

   He has been closely coordinating with the Obama administration on documents and witnesses who will testify at the Fort Hood hearings, sources tell us.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...



[ Parent ]
Quote from John Emerson (4.00 / 13)
A comment from this weekend

The Democrats are dependent on voters they're ashamed of and essentially despise (blacks, progressives, labor), and that makes both their policymaking and their campaigning almost unintelligible at times.

Wow, that says it all for me.  

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.


Mr. Lux, I commend you on your efforts (4.00 / 8)
but I think it's time to heed this piece of advice from William Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."

He was talking about the process of writing, but I think it applies equally well here.


I respect your intellectual (4.00 / 7)
honesty.  This likely will cost you with the administration and the Party.  It's choices like this that show the true measure of a person: doing what's right as you see it when to do so wil cost you.  

Very impressive, Mike.  


TPM says... (4.00 / 6)
Can't piss of Lieberman now by threatening him with things... We must always coddle him because he's an important player on Climate and Same-Sex benefits...

Always coddle, never threaten... By all means, Democrats should continue to let Joe have veto power over all of their legislation.


What gives??? (4.00 / 2)
TR would have wielded his big stick!!  These guys are afraid of their own shadow.

They always have been? ... (4.00 / 1)
remember all the times they kept their powder dry during the BushCo years?

[ Parent ]
The Game is subtraction not addition (4.00 / 3)
So what should progressives demand be removed.

The mandate?  


The profit motive for health insurers (4.00 / 1)
that is one thing to remove.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
If you remove the mandate (0.00 / 0)
you have to remove the regulations guaranteeing coverage for those who want it. Since one of the main talking points was people not getting coverage because of preexisting conditions and the mandate is the flip side of that then I don't see it going anywhere.

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
No, no... (4.00 / 4)
You're not getting it.

That's still playing by their rules.

Just take out the part you don't like, regardless of its effect on the policy. That's how the **cough** "centrists" do it, right?

Remove the mandate, and then if some pol tries to take out the ban on preexisting conds. set up a howl that they want your grandma to get poor and starve because of medical bills, and be thrown out to die like a dog in the street, etc.


[ Parent ]
killing (0.00 / 0)
Look, as disappointing as this, there is still quite of good in the bill, too. It expands Medicaid coverage for people above the poverty line, expands S-CHIP coverage dramatically, still has some good tough insurance regulation and investments in other important health related programs.

And if the narrative leading up to this point weren't so incredibly frustrating and disappointing - if this were just some bill that popped out of committee one day - it would be greeted as a fantastic bit of progress. Nothing that comprehensively reforms the system, but something that will improve or even save many, many lives. So it's worth passing.

It's not going to get any better than this. I doubt, for instance, that any kind of remotely decent climate legislation is going to pass. The nature of the Senate itself, let alone the filibuster, is just too anti-democratic to allow real reform given modern political realities. It's an 18th Century anachronism and it's absurd we tolerate it at all in the 21st Century. We need to do something about that.

But in the meantime, it would be nothing but counterproductive to kill this bill in a fit of pique.


Setting aside the substantive issues (0.00 / 0)
and from a purely political perspective, I think you can make the argument that killing health care reform would not be as lethal to Obama as it would be to Clinton.

HCR in '94 was killed shortly before the election, and exit polling showed voters believed HCR was the single most important issue.  

There are 11 months before the November elections, and they will be overwhelmingly decided on other grounds - the economy.  Moreover, if Progressives can work with the administration on a second stimulus package there is an opportunity to rebuild relationships that would be damaged by killing this bill.

In short, I am beginning to think the political breach that would be caused is neither irreperable nor significant in the context of the 2010 Elections.

This is all irrelevent, because I think there is absolutely going to be a bill.  


Mike, I love you, but.... (4.00 / 7)
Might now not be the time to your position as the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm of the left? The latest finagle was entirely predictable -- the general outlines, if not the Liebermanish last-minute character of the (pen)ultimate disappointment.

There's no way to get from here to there through the normal processes of representative government. Absolutely no way. Lord knows, the alternatives might be worse, but speaking only for myself, I'd be willing to suffer a lot of real, personal, physical damage to avoid the indignity of being taken for a fool by the likes of Joe Lieberman and his Washington cohorts, including our current President.


Correction: ...ABANDON your position... (N/T) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Are you hip to Thomas Ferguson? (4.00 / 1)
He's a scholar of economics and politics who has advanced a persuasive investment theory of party competition, which also informs a brilliant study of the rise of the DLC.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
The link shows promising chapter headings, though. My mentors are from an older school -- Hegel, Marx, Marcuse, Chomsky. I'm glad that there are people studying the details of our present distemper, but its roots go way back.

The potential in human nature has always been stunning in its range and complexity, and remains so even in the light of what we know about it after studying it for centuries. The twin amplifiers of our technology, and our sheer numbers may have distorted its superficial features, and given them powerful new ways to express themselves, but most are still recognizable from the ancient texts.

They may need some translation here and there, but there's no doubt that the lessons of the past apply to the present. Put Joe Lieberman in a toga, or a powdered wig, or even in a Gauleiter's uniform, and we'd know him immediately. If we doubt that President Obama is a failure, or find it hard to identify his role in history, Thucydides would serve as well as Ferguson.


[ Parent ]
Maybe its possible to observe (4.00 / 1)
certain continuities in people's personalities and character over long stretches of time.  But Thucydides remains remarkably silent on the structural changes that have taken place within the Democratic party over the past 40 years.

Ferguson's analysis of the relation of party politics to finance capital, far more than anything in the ancient Greeks or even Karl Marx, speaks to your, in my opinion, correct contention that representative government as currently composed in the US can not achieve meaningful health care reform.    


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
I'm not dissing either Ferguson, or you for calling attention to his analysis. At least I hope I'm not. I'm just old, and not entirely sure that yet another book will push me over the threshold into wisdom.

So...will Ferguson explain to me how the Imperial U.S. Senate differs from the Imperial Roman Senate that was? Do you remember the formula Senatus Populusque Romanus? It seems to me that in both Rome and the U.S. the populusque part was honored more in the breach than the observance. The details may be intrinsically interesting, and worthy of study in their own right -- for the benefit of posterity if nothing else -- but just how fundamentally different were they really? Different enough to shake a geezer's confidence in having heard it all before?


[ Parent ]
I can't believe you seriously believe (4.00 / 1)
that pointing out that because populusque then and now can be said to be "honored more in the breach than the observance" renders the "details" of what that means now versus then merely "interesting" and not of fundamental significance.  

Maybe it's time to draw a warm bath and slowly open your veins while reading from "De Tranquillitate Animi".

Really though, good scholarship that analyzes historically contingent events with rigor and insight always serves the cause of wisdom.    


[ Parent ]
Again (4.00 / 1)
...good scholarship that analyzes historically contingent events with rigor and insight always serves the cause of wisdom.

You're right. You're right. You're right. However....

(Howevers are still permitted, are they not? Not among the marchers, I'll admit, but then my marching days are over. Yours clearly are not. That's a good thing, I have no doubt, as far as it goes. I won't bother trying to hint how far that is. You already know.)


[ Parent ]
Could you elaborate (0.00 / 0)
There's no way to get from here to there through the normal processes of representative government. Absolutely no way.

Do you mean revolution?  How do we get from here to there?

I swear I'm not an FBI spy.  I really find your analysis interesting and useful, and you've said stuff like this a few times and I'd like to see more meat on the bones.


[ Parent ]
Of course (4.00 / 1)
My statement was too broad. Some representative governments have obviously been able to pass, and through their executives, enforce legislation which is broadly beneficial, even against the opposition of powerful elite interests. The difficulty in the U.S. is that our form of representative government isn't very representative, and it doesn't govern, not if we grant that words have any actual meaning.

There are all sorts of historical reasons for this, most of which have been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere. Chomsky's notion of the manufacture of consent is typical of this perspective, I would say. My own take is that after the New Deal, wealthy and powerful people decided that popular government was a threat -- that what we think of as the people's most effective defense against them and their designs, was in fact the tyranny of a rabble, and couldn't be tolerated. The Cold War came along and made them respectable again. By the time Reagan launched his particularly noxious version of Know-Nothingism, they were more than respectable, they were on the verge of a coup.

The rest is silence, as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe that the coup can be reversed, not, at any rate, by by the corrupt internal processes of a captive government. In fact, I've come to believe that the New Deal was an aberration, not Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America. I also believe that something very close to a revolution would be necessary to drive the moneychangers out of the Temple.

In my opinion, Tim Geithner is emblematic of the futility of Mike's hopeful engagement in the nuts and bolts of lobbying and organizing in the Beltway sense. Mr. G is The Vicar of Bray, the mendacious cleric in the old English ballad who was so adept at bending to the political winds that he'd remain the vicar no matter whatsoever king shall reign.

We might as well ignore these elected assholes -- the Lieberman-Baucus-Emanuel axis -- and get on with our own business. If they're the short-sighted vultures we believe them to be, we'll get a shot at them one day on something much closer to our own terms.

I mean it when I say that I hope we as a nation we can avoid guillotines or gulags, but if they do become a part of our future, people like Geithner and President Obama will have no one to blame but themselves.


[ Parent ]
I just spoke to staffers for Sherrod Brown in Cleveland and DC (4.00 / 3)
Both said that Sherrod will not support a bill unless it has a strong public option: it's his bottom line.  

I then asked why the Senator and other like-minded progressives have been content to sit on the sidelines while Joe Lieberman sanctimoniously drones on about his "power as a single senator."  To this, they did not have an answer.  


Wrong (0.00 / 0)
He was on NPR tonight saying he wouldn't kill the bill.  He'll keep trying to make it better, he said.

[ Parent ]
If that's so (0.00 / 0)
Ask such staffers to e-mail me at adambink at gmail dot com with an on-the-record statement. Or find a reporter on the ground. I'll believe it when I see it.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
I'll do that tomorrow (0.00 / 0)
And I agree that your skepticism is warranted.  I was just pleasantly surprised to hear this, and thought that I would share it.  

[ Parent ]
Alas, like the Senator himself (0.00 / 0)
they're singing a different tune, but you knew that all along.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry - but the bigger issue is (4.00 / 3)
that because the bill is crafted to do most of its stuff in 2014, after 2010 or 1012 it could be gutted of all the "good" that some want to proclaim it does.

Because the bill actually pleases no one, and obama has laid a BIG ZERO this first year, the base that elected him is not going to show up to vote - especially the younger folks that thought we were actually going to get change.

If anyone was serious about meaningful reform, the bill wouldn't have been crafted to kick in years down the road while, conservatively estimated, more than 135,000 will die because of this bill's inability to affect meaningful change.

I know many here are just trying to be accepting and not become overwhelmed with disappointment, but the fact remains - DON'T COUNT ON ANYTHING IN 2014 if the White House and leadership wouldn't back up their campaign rhetoric in 2009!


more time only helps the right (0.00 / 0)
"Maybe we need to take some extra time, slow the process down until the White House and the Senate are willing to take progressives' points of view into consideration."

The longer the debate stays open, the less progressive the bill will be.  It will never be more progressive than it is today, or than it was yesterday.  I think Obama understood this when he set the original goal for August.


Don't buy that 13-D Chess Crap (0.00 / 0)
No - it was not part of some "understanding" that he set his original goal for August because since making that public proclamation he, largely through his Chief of Staff undermined the entire process and enabled the like of snow, LIE-berman, and others.

If he intended to deliver on his campaign promises (huge IF IMHO) it can't be that he "understood" what would transpire at all.


[ Parent ]
More nonsense - (4.00 / 1)
Mike:

How can you say there is good in this bill when they haven't finished with it yet?  Every time you post something another part has been removed or weakened and you still don't get it.  There won't be anything there in the end to support.  The caps are gone, the repeal of the anti-trust exemption is gone, the cost cutting measures are gone, my bet is the guaranteed acceptance is functionally gone, if you don't think the medical loss ration stuff won't be gone you are nuts and who knows what else has been disappeared under cover of Harry Reid's cowardly pen?

As Atrois said:

"I've never said the bill should be killed. There isn't even a bill to kill at this point."
(http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/12/attributing-opinions-to-me-that-i-have.html)

Lieberman is now the illiberal Independent (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman: Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Me To Oppose Medicare Buy-In
In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) revealed Tuesday that he decided to oppose a Medicare buy-in in part because liberals like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) liked it too much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So let's prepare for the next debacle (0.00 / 0)
Jobs.

Let healthcare end up as whatever bloody stump it does, passed or not.  Nobody even mentions that it will surely get re-Stupakked when it goes to the House.  We are simply in no position to influence anything in it.  Our "representatives" have already factored in our indignation.  The whole kabuki dance.

What we need is for the federal government to start creating jobs, WPA-like.  So much in this country needs building and rebuilding.  As Robber Baron Jay Gould put it in 1896, "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."  That seems to be current policy.

How about standing that one on its head.  Hire one half of the working class to feed and shelter the other half?  (Please don't respond with quibbles, you get my drift!)

But what we're going to get is a jobs program where the corporations and (holy of holies) small businesses get tax breaks to hire workers that they probably would have hired anyway.  Oh, don't forget, get rid of those pesky job-killers like OSHA, FMLA, time-and-a-half for overtime, the rest of the puny protections workers still cling to.

Obama once said healthcare was a human right.  How about a decent job as a human right?

We know how this fight is going to go.  We don't need to repeat the daily Charlie Brown show of maybe this time they won't gut public option/medicare/abortion and then act like we couldn't have known.

And that means preparing our political response to the sellout that is heading our way like an onrushing train.  We can already hear the whistle.

The Democratic Party is responsible for the healthcare debacle.  Not just Lieberman.  Not just Stupak.  The party.  The progressives voted for the Stupak-laden bill in the House.  For that they can roast in hell forever.

We can't really punish them in 2010.  The Democratic base will do that out of disgust of their own.  We can't stay on the treadmill, we have to get ahead of the curve.  Thus the Full Court Press for 2012, laying the foundation NOW!

File for all 435 Democratic congressional primaries in 2012.  Put forth a set of progressive principles that embody the desires of the American people and/or the Democratic base.  And if the incumbent doesn't sign on, they get challenged.

These don't have to be races to win.  ActBlue and others will play that game, and more power to them.  One problem with focusing on winning a few seats is that the hacks can concentrate their resources in defending them.  The Press is tougher because it is thin but WIDE.

So many incumbents aren't challenged in the primaries at all, this will get their attention.  This will hurt.  They'll have to raise money.  They'll have to state their positions to the base, so they can't say just any old thing in the generals.

And lay the groundwork now.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


BREAKING NEWS (4.00 / 1)
Howard Dean: "Kill The Senate Bill"  

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as "the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.


Damn (0.00 / 0)
Why couldn't he have done this a week ago?  We might have gotten the Medicare buy-in that way.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of bridges (0.00 / 0)
This bill will be a dream wedge for Republicans breaking bridges within the demographics of urban America.
 The two most powerful factions of urban America could easily be pitted against one another as a result of this, and it could cut us in half.

Who are these? (0.00 / 0)
The two most powerful factions of urban America


[ Parent ]
Just go for little steps, and progressive demand #1 (0.00 / 0)
Enough of this big bill approach. Fine, no universal health care, but expand it a bit at a time. Take the prima donnas out of the spotlight. Figure out what can be done.

And by the way, strip Lieberman of all his committee positions. That should be Progressive demand #1 - show we can draw blood.


A bridge too far | 42 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox