Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals of a public plan.
Blanche Lincoln is a liar. She signs a document stating that she supports the public option. Her website says that she would be fine with a public option. And then she does on the floor of the Senate, and promises to filibuster any bill with a public option.
There is still a real possibility that Lincoln could face a high-profile primary challenge next year. The challenger won't be a great progressive, but would still be an improvement over the lying Blanche Lincoln. Further, Arkansas remains a Democratic state at all but the Presidential level, and so that primary challenger might very well have a better chance in the general election than Lincoln.
Let's hope that primary challenge starts sooner, rather than later. Blanche Lincoln is a lair, and needs to be removed from office.
This is also an open thread on the health care vote tonight, which passed 60-39. Senator Voinovich of Ohio did not attend.
As part of their statements, Landrieu and Lincoln are both claiming they will filibuster a bill with the current version of the public option. Landrieu is demanding a trigger, and claims that she is working on a compromise of that sort with Senator Schumer. Lincoln did not specify a trigger as part of her demands. They join Joe Lieberman, who has been threatening to filibuster a bill with a public option for nearly a month.
It is worth noting that, several months ago, both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln singed the HCAN statement of common purpose which states:
Our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone in America and it must play a central role in regulating, financing, and providing health coverage by establishing:
A truly inclusive and accessible health care system in which no one is left out.
A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.
So, these Senators are just flat-out liars. Both Lincoln and Landrieu signed a document stating that it was the "government's responsibility to guarantee... a public insurance plan," and now they both claim they will filibuster a bill with a public insurance plan.
Both of them flipped on the card-check provision of EFCA, too. They are just liars. I don't even know why we deal with lying Senators like these. I certainly don't know why we give to organizations that give them money. How can we believe anything either from these two Senators, or from organizations that are funneling them money? They consistently lie to us about the most important, progressive aspects of the Democratic agenda.
It now seems quite likely that the Senate has the 60 votes necessary to force cloture on the motion to proceed with the health care bill. The final three votes Senate majority leader Harry Reid needed were Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, but all three now appear to be ready to vote "aye." Here is a rundown of all three:
"This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor," Nelson says. "The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans."
Nelson indicates that this does not mean he is ready to support cloture to pass the bill, but he is willing to let debate go forward.
Earlier today, Senate #2 Dick Durbin stated that Blanche Lincoln has told Harry Reid she would vote yes. Durbin is now walking back that statement, but really, the gig is up for Lincoln.
Anyway, what was Lincoln going to do--oppose even letting the debate go forward and then ask Democrats to vote for her in 2010? Not bloody likely, especially with a prominent figure in Arkansas still considering a primary challenge. Lincoln is highly likely to be a yes.
Right-wingers are in an uproar over this, but really--I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this casino! A member of Congress holding out on a key vote in order to secure funding for her home state or district!? I bet that has never happened before. This is really breaking new ground on Capitol Hill!
Further, while they don't seem to realize it, the right-wing uproar over Landrieu's deal actually makes it virtually impossible for her to vote against cloture now. Due to right-wing publicity, now everyone knows Landrieu is bringing $100 million home by holding out. As such, what is Landrieu going to do--issue a statement that preventing a floor debate on health care is more important than $100 million for Louisiana? Only 9% of Louisianans think she should block the debate. I bet a lot more than that want the $100 million, especially now that everyone has heard about the $100 million.
So, it looks like Democrats have the 60 needed to move forward on debate. The truth is that Reid probably secured the 60 votes before filing the cloture motion. It is a rare day when the leadership doesn't know the outcome of a vote before scheduling it.
The vote will take place tomorrow night, at 8 p.m. eastern, following an all-day debate. Notably, in exchange for the all-day debate, Senator Coburn has dropped his demand that the entire bill be read out loud, which means there will be less droning on C-SPAN2 during Monday and Tuesday of next week.
Per House of Progress in Quick Hits, both Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe have stated they will vote for the Baucus health care bill in the Finance Committee. This guarantees passage of the bill, even if both Ron Wyden and Jay Rockefeller vote against it. Either of them voting against the bill was highly unlikely, anyway.
The most important ramification of all this is that it is clear a health care reform bill will pass the Senate this year. The House will do the same. The only questions that remain are what form the final bill from each chamber takes, and whether or not they can agree on a final version.
Snowe and Lincoln both said that they will be watching the merger with the Senate HELP bill closely, and that their vote on final passage is not assured. I think I speak for nearly everyone here when I say that feeling is mutual.
Paul Kane at the WaPo is reporting that Dodd has chosen to stay at Banking rather than take EMK's chairmanship at HELP. This is far better than Tim Johnson (D-Banking Lobby) taking over.
Tom Harkin will take over the helm at HELP, and Blanche Lincoln will take Harkin's Agriculture gavel.
All considered, even with Lincoln taking a gavel, I think this is good news.
A local Arkansas news portal is running a headline declaring that Blanche Lincoln is opposed to the public option:
Lincoln: Public option too expensive
Posted on 01 September 2009
By John Lyon
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK - U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said today she opposes a public health insurance option because it would be too expensive.
Hmmm... that doesn't sound too good. Maybe we should cross her off the whip count list.
Or not:
"I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can't afford that," Lincoln told reporters before her speech.
Ummm... a "solely government-funded" public option? Like what? All four bills to pass congressional committees include public options that are funded entirely through premiums. None of them have any government funding, much less are "solely" government funded.
According to what Lincoln actually said, she is open to a partially funded public option, which would actually be even stronger than any of the current bills. As Brian Beutler wrote, this statement is more hedging of bets than anything else.
If Lincoln came out against anything, she came out against Britain's National Health Service. As I understand it, the NHS is solely government-funded.
The problem here lies with the web portal in question, Arkansas New. I don't blame websites for wanting to make news through big headlines and catchy opening sentences. However, the website seems to fundamentally misunderstand what a public option actually is. Their article is only correct is the public options on the table were solely government funded, but that is the exact opposite of the truth.
The internal debate on health care strategy for Democrats can be boiled down to this: do we choose the approach whose specifics are more popular with the public and will almost certainly work better in practice once it gets passed, or do we want to go with something that has some bipartisan support and may avoid an all out war with the insurance industry?
The first approach is currently being championed by President Obama (although not always by his Chief of Staff), Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and 4 of the 5 committee chairs responsible for bringing the legislation to the floor. The second approach is strongly favored by Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, Tennessee Rep.(and co-killer of health care reform in the Clinton years) Jim Cooper, and a few conservative Democrats in the Senate.
Seems like a damn easy choice to me.
The first thing to understand in all this is the consequences for the Democrats for the next generation and probably longer if they pass some convoluted, complicated, unworkable compromise that doesn't change the abusive patterns in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and doesn't begin to control health care costs. If they pass a compromise that doesn't meet regular people's needs, folks will figure it out very quickly, as most people deal with the health care system all the time. If the Democrats twist up this bill to make insurance companies and their Republican allies happy, it is end of story for this generation of Democrats - our party will not recover from screwing up health care.
The second thing to understand is that wealthy, powerful elements of the health care industry, along with the entire right-wing message machine, will oppose any health care reform bill. Democrats trying to avoid a fight should just get over it: they will get one no matter what.
Here's the other thing: having a clear, clean fight - Obama and the Democrats take on the insurance companies - is an easier message to win with than the mushy "we're all in this together, we're all partners in solving this problem" thing Obama has been doing so far. Having enemies helps define this fight in Obama's favor, especially when the enemies are as unpopular as the insurance companies.
So face your fear, Max Baucus. Tell you health industry allies no, Jim Cooper. Work through your fear of commitment, Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. Let's put together a bill that actually works and move forward sometime soon, in our lifetimes preferably. It's time to get this done.
Some of my favorite progressive bloggers are teaming up with one of my favorite progressive filmmakers to air a new ad in Arkansas calling out Blanche Lincoln for selling out on the public option.
For weeks I've been working on an action so we could get busy defending the best option we have and I think we've come up with a great idea. We are going to target Blanche Lincoln first with TV ads, with the help of Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films, and expose her actions to her constituents in Arkansas. This will be the first play because she is up for re-election in 2010 and has already received the second most money from the HIC of any Senator.
Watching the health care debate unfold is frustrating and predictably enervating. These kinds of debates are often followed by a deepening of public apathy and a sense that government can't help solve the big problems. And this plays into conservative hands since they are the ones who want to stoke that belief so that the citizens don't get it into their heads that they can get an equal shake with those who think they own this country.
We can't let that happen with health care. It is just too important on every level, for individuals, business and the country at large. It's time to get involved. To that end Blue America is launching a campaign to raise money to run some television ads. We've got to get these wavering Democrats off the fence about a public plan choice or this thing is going to fall completely apart before it even starts.
Perhaps it's not surprising that Lincoln is showing so much compassion for the poor insurance companies. She's taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from them over the years. In fact, she's already received $14,500 from insurance companies for her 2010 campaign, the second highest of any senator up for re-election next year. And the only reform they support is reform that will get the taxpayers to pay the overpriced premiums for the 47 million uninsured without having to change their ways. The fact is that insurance companies are not in any danger of going out of business because of the public plan choice unless they continue the kind of practices that have brought us to this crisis.
Digby's been writing TV scripts for a whole week to try to salvage health care reform from the tender mercies of Democrats who have grown worthless to working families after millions and millions of dollars in legalized bribes from the Medical-Industrial Complex and the Insurance Giants. Robert Greenwald is standing by with a camera crew ready to start shooting. The first batch of ads are going up on TV in Arkansas and, man, do we need help. We have a new Blue America Page that I want to urge you to visit today.
If we are going to achieve the 40% social investment economy, the public sector will require more revenue. More public sector revenue basically means more taxes. Clearly, the only new taxes that will be politically feasible will those targeted toward higher income groups. The best options are to repeal all Bush-era tax cuts, put a tax on all carbon (if this means 100% auctions on cap and trade, that's fine, too), and to eliminate the income cap on Social Security income taxes.
While these are both moderate (relative to other wealthy countries) and achievable (both President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership have endorsed all, or part, of each of these three pillars of new revenue) goals, there are still major barriers. In fact, there are still major barriers in our own party. A prime example is Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, who two weeks ago authored and, with the support of nine other Democrats, passed an amendment to reduce the amount of rollback the House had proposed on the estate tax. A reader explains over email (more in the extended entry):
Roll Call has a new article online focusing on Republican attempts to win in 2010 the Senate seat held by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln for the last ten years. The content of the article is a clear statement on how Senate Republicans' only weapon besides obstruction-by-filibuster is toothless bullying.
The article begins by telegraphing how Republicans will attack Senator Lincoln over the course of the 2010 cycle:
This cycle, the NRSC has stepped into the Arkansas race early, attempting to soften Lincoln's poll numbers with attacks on her support for the stimulus legislation and for sending "mixed signals" when it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, according to an NRSC press release. And when Lincoln announced late last month that Vice President Joseph Biden would join her at her 2010 campaign kickoff this weekend, the NRSC was quick to blast the two-term Senator for being out of touch with voters back home.
"Senator Lincoln's support for runaway Washington spending and her refusal to take a position on 'card check' despite representing a right to work state, are among a few of the important issues we are bringing to the attention of her constituents," NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said on Monday.
Let's take a look at the foolishness contained in this passage:
I learned last year that Senator Joe Lieberman is brilliant man with an unbelievable ability to ignore reality. In 2006, he spent his election campaign promising to bring the troops home from Iraq, and promptly reversed course after winning reelection, going even further with belligerent rhetoric against Iran. Now he's working on something even bigger than the Iraq war - an economy-wide bill on climate change.
We all know that Lieberman cannot be trusted, but to understand the problem with his particular approach to global warming, you need to get that the Senate is far ahead of the deniers but is focused on how to regulate carbon. There are a whole host of bills on carbon (you can track them at Hillheat.com), but only the Sanders-Boxer bill does what is needed. The rest of them are worse than nothing. If you pass a big piece of legislation, we'll have to wait at least five years before understanding it hasn't worked, which is five years we don't have. And with that in mind, here's Lieberman's latest.
The bill from Warner and Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., tries to limit the cost of mandating reductions of greenhouse gas emissions through an emissions cap-and-trade program.
Their bill would allow companies to borrow emission permits and pay them back in future years with interest and to buy more offsets to meet their emission requirements. The bill establishes a seven-member, president-appointed Carbon Market Efficiency Board to oversee the carbon emissions market and, if necessary, permit a temporary increase in emission allocations when prices remain high.
The Senate would have to confirm the board members, who would have 14-year terms.
Basically this bill sets up a complicated scheme to give away carbon rights to industry, and don't worry, if the price of carbon goes to high, the government ll just let more into the atmosphere. It is, in other words, a fraud, designed not to work.
Backing the bill is environmental DLC group Environmental Defense, and their President Fred Krupp. There's no nice way to say this, so I'll just say it. Krupp has been selling out the environmental movement for years.
I'm trying to get my head around the climate change debate, and there's quite a bit here, obviously. There's the Farm bill, the Energy bill, transportation, and a whole host of regulatory agencies. But coming down the pike this fall are a series of economy-wide measures to regulate carbon. We shouldn't pass anything until 2009, when the next President takes office, because Bush won't sign anything that solves the problem. We need to be sure that the bill that goes through works, and this Congress can't get a bill like that done.
There's useful stuff to get done right now on carbon policy. But going for full bore cap and trade, with people like Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Warner, Graham and Krupp in charge, will be a disaster.
