Claire McCaskill supports procedural reform in the Senate, and I thank her for that. However, she does not appear to support a 51-vote Senate, for a truly ridiculous reason. According to Mcaskill, not allowing the minority to paralyze the Senate would paralyze the Senate:
"We need to be really thoughtful about what we do, and we need to look at whole lot of different issues," McCaskill said. "We need to figure out ways for the body to work better. I'm not interested in a massive rule change to cram down the minority's throat. That would really freeze up this place. We've come close to that a couple of times, but that would really freeze it up."
Nooooo! We can't unfreeze the Senate! Unfreezing the Senate would freeze the Senate!
Granted, the Senate is a "collegial' body, and so Senator McCaskill, along with many of her colleagues, might have a different understanding of a paralyzed, frozen Senate than most Americans. While we may understand a frozen legislative body to be one that can't pass legislation, or which isn't responsive to popular opinion, Senators like McCaskill might imagine a frozen Senate to mean one where Senators are angry at each other:
Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said.
So, perhaps Senator McCaskill meant that maintaining collegiality is a good reason not to move to a 51-vote Senate, which is also a pretty bad rationale. So, come to think of it, maybe I don't actually know the worst reason for keeping the filibuster ever--there are so many to choose from.
Great news for "the left" -- Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence wrote us a memo!
Who is Jill Lawrence, you may ask. She is the prognosticator who declared three months ago, "It may be too soon to write a requiem for the public option, but I'm going to do it anyway..."
Surprise, surprise, she now writes, "Memo to the Left: The Public Health Insurance Option Is Dead, Get Over It."
I actually don't care that someone would question whether the public option is dead. Ezra Klein -- a smart guy -- wrote just last Friday, "The public option: Very alive or totally dead?" (He also wrote, "the story of the public option's resurgence has been a mixture of smart organizing and Senate cowardice," much appreciated by the thousands of folks who have been organizing on this issue.)
What I resent about Jill Lawrence's "memo" is that she engages in journalism without facts. Check out her main three arguments against progressives:
First, a public option could complicate passage in the House. Pelosi is trying to balance potential loss of support from anti-abortion Democrats against gains that may come from moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who prefer the Senate bill. They like it in part because it has no public option.
I spoke with Jill Lawrence and she said this on the phone. I asked her point blank, "What yes votes turn to no votes because of the public option?" Her answer, "Well, I don't know the names."
I suggested she find them. Evidently, she couldn't. But she threw this unsupported argument out there anyway.
One could just as easily say some members of the House are more likely to vote for the bill if it has a public option. Unlike Jill Lawrence, I can name names. The Atlantic's Chris Good wrote about Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY) -- a former "no" vote -- in his piece, "A Moderate Dem For The Public Option." When signing our House public option letter, Murphy said:
"Our nation's health care system is broken. To have real reform we need to ensure three things; accessibility, accountability, and affordability. I support this letter because the public option would help achieve all three of these goals and help to keep costs down by giving the American public a competitive option to private insurers."
Jill Lawrence's first point goes down in flames. But, she took two more stabs at it. Here's the next one:
I just spoke with Senator Claire McCaskill's press secretary. She told me that Senator McCaskill is out of the country, travelling in Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan. As such, cannot be reached for definitive answers at this time.
However, the press secretary added at Senator McCaskill has previously said that she would have to see a reconciliation package before deciding whether or not to support it. This means that Senator McCaskill is open to using the reconciliation process to finish health reform.
So, 23 24 down, 27 26 to go on using reconciliation for health care.
Additionally, even though she could not answer the specific question posed about a public option in reconciliation because the Senator is travelling, the press secretary reminded me that Senator McCaskill had supported the public option in the past. I will call again on Monday to see if she would be willing to sign the Bennet letter calling for a public option to be included in the reconciliation process.
So, still at 10 down, 40 to go, on including a public option in the reconciliation process.
Quite promising, though. I feel good about our chances with McCaskill when she returned to the country.
Also, we have nearly met our first goal of placing media inquiries to every Senate office by tomorrow morning. Once we get the calls in, we will start hearing responses and conducting follow-ups. Our ultimate goal is to have 50 supporters for each question by the start of the health care summit.
We are on our way there!
More support: Senator Casey's press secretary emails me saying:
Senator Casey has been a strong proponent of the public option during the HELP Committee debate on the bill and on the Senate floor. We have to keep all options open in order to pass health care reform.
I will take that as a "yes" on reconciliation. Trying to get clarification on the Bennet letter.
Correction: This post previously stated that Senators Jack Reed and Diane Feinstein had signed on including a public option via reconciliation. That appears to have been incorrect.
Update 3: OK, Feinstein did sign on. Lots of confusion right now, but it seems like there are 24 confirmed supporters for reconciliation, and 11 for including the public option in reconciliation.
I was a little surprised to read Susie Madrak writing about Joe Sestak's potential conflicts with other Senators as a negative:
It's a legitimate question since, as Howard Dean pointed out, the Senate is a gentlemen's club and your effectiveness is closely tied to your ability to build relationships.
I can certainly confirm what Susie writes about Joe Sestak expecting his staff to work very hard, and I can also confirm that he isn't going to build great relationships with the leadership. But really, why is this a bad thing? He was still ranked as the most productive freshman in the House back in 2007. Further, current Senate effectiveness does not seem particularly effective to me, largely because relationships are valued so much more than solving major problems. Supposedly, these relationships are built so that major problems can be solved, but how's that working out for us now?
Last week, Senator Claire McCaskill said the Senate was putting off the climate change bill for several months, because pushing it now was too hard and would make too many Senators mad:
Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "Climate fits that category."
To put it one way, maintaining Senate collegiality is more important than taking steps to avoid ecological apocalypse. Don't we actually want to do away with this attitude, rather than support it?
Maintaining a friendly atmosphere seems extremely important to Senators, but it is hard to see how it has any benefit to progressives, America or the world. Take Joe Lieberman as an example:
It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in Joe Lieberman receiving a standing ovation from Democratic Senators, even after he had promised to run as an independent against a Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut.
It is the same collegiality that easily kept Joe Lieberman in the caucus--and gave him a chairmanship--after endorsing and campaigning with John McCain throughout 2008.
It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in the Gang of 14 working to keep the filibuster back in 2005. This is the same filibuster that is now working to block or water down virtually every plank of the Democratic platform, resulting in Senators like Joe Lieberman de facto President.
That's what Senate collegiality gets us. When we need to fix major problems in this country, a Joe Lieberman types holds veto power. When the Democratic base tried to hold the Joe Lieberman type accountable for this, Democratic Senators praise said Joe Lieberman type. When Joe Lieberman type goes even further off the reservation, Democratic leaders do whatever possible to not hold him accountable. And then, when we ask why Democrats in the Senate aren't solving major problems, we are told that maintaining this collegial atmosphere to protect Joe Lieberman types is more important. And then they ask us for more money.
This relationship-focused collegiality just doesn't seem to work, and breaking it up would probably be an improvement. Say whatever else you will about Joe Sestak, but his willingness to even engage this primary challenge--against the wishes of much of the Democratic leadership at every level--demonstrates he is willing to challenge a dysfunctional, status quo that simply is not producing results. Further, time and time again, Sestak's challenge to the status quo has demonstrated an ability to get results. Arlen Specter is suddenly voting and talking like he is Bernie Sanders only a few months after flipping against EFCA and introducing flat-tax legislation to the Senate. Has there ever been a more successful campaign to change a Senator's behavior?
Relationship-focusing politicians just isn't what we need right now. The status quo institutions are not working and, from what I have seen, you can get more positive results by challenging the gentleman's club than by working within it.
Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "Climate fits that category."
Well, dagnabbit, I wish I'd thought of that when discussing future goals with ex-managers during performance reviews. 'No, no, I don't need to move on to any next project, I already did one really, really hard thing this year. And hold my calls, would you? They interrupt my Mahjong Titans time.'
But look, I've seen some of the Senate's other really, really hard work this year, and it sucked. Also, it was clearly written mostly by lobbyists anyway. Which is not only sleazier than having your Mom do your homework, it's lazier. It means these Senators didn't so much as have to supervise the staff manager that told the policy writers to stop screwing around and get that subparagraph on their desk, ASAP. That's like having your Mom's secretary do your homework.
This is some Subgenius level slacking going on up there in the Senate. If these Senators were on the government dime, why, someone might get angry about this. If we were paying for ... oh, right.
In closing, I can only sputter at this point. So I'm turning you over to the immortal inspirational speaking of George W. Bush. Here, in a 2004 debate with John Kerry, our former president laid out a nobler vision of a public service work ethic that, sadly, may deeply disturb Sen. Claire McCaskill:
Earlier today, Senator Claire McCaskill said that she could live with the Stupak amendment being in the final health care bill:
"And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill," McCaskill added. "And frankly, once again, this is another example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate."
Still, whether they are listening or not, a lot of progressive activists will remain rightly cynical that the language will stay in the bill. Even as some Democrats threaten to kill the bill if the Stupak amendment is still in the bill after conference committee, it just seems like threats of that sort from conservative Democrats are both more serious and taken more seriously.
Progressives are actually going to have to defeat a bill before their threats are taken seriously.
The past year has revealed a comprehensive philosophy of government championed by conservatives and moderates when they oppose major progressive economic reforms. I call it "crime and reward." The philosophy is summed up as follows:
The flaw in progressive legislative proposals is that they don't give enough money to the corporations that caused the problem(s) which overall legislative effort is supposedly trying to solve.
It applies in all major cases. Check it out:
The way to lower health care costs is to give companies that have increased health care costs even more money: As Olympia Snowe and many others have articulated, the problem with a public option is that it lowers the cost of health insurance rather than increasing the amount of money private health insurers generate in revenue. While one would think that the purpose of health care reform legislation is to lower the price of health insurance, it appears that for many the purpose is actually to make sure that the companies ratcheting up health care costs receive even more money from the process (ie, through mandates to buy their over-priced insurance and no lower priced, public option).
The way to fix climate change is to give the companies that are the main cause of climate change even more money: As Collin Peterson and Claire McCaskill have articulated, the problem with climate change legislation is that it doesn't give enough money to the energy and agricultural conglomerates that are primarily responsible for global warming.
The way to fix the financial crisis is to give the financial institutions that caused the financial crisis even more money: This one is pretty straightforward and has been covered extensively. From the Wall Street bailout program itself, to making sure that Congress doesn't pass laws restricting executive bonuses out fear that financial institutions won't take our money, the government's solution to fixing the financial crisis is to give the people and companies that caused the financial crisis even more money. The progressive alternative, temporary nationalization, should be opposed because it wouldn't make enough money for shareholders.
On the three major areas of public policy that were addressed by the federal government over the last twelve months--health care, climate change, financial crisis--the "moderate" solution has consistently been to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporations that caused climate change, the financial crisis, and skyrocketing health care costs. It is a crime and reward ideology. When powerful private sector companies cause major national and global problems, the "moderate" solution is to give those who caused the problem hundreds of billions of dollars.
Crime and reward. Through a conservative-moderate alliance, it is the system of government under which we live, even in the era of the Democratic trifecta.
STATE BLOGS
