Open Left - Joe Lieberman

Time for 'The Chicago Way'

jcullen — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:21:50 GMT

Much of the debate on health-care reform has concerned the creation of the "public option," which is limited in scope and would not take effect until 2013, and the amendment demanded by Catholic bishops that would expand the prohibition on federal funds paying for abortions to also prohibit subsidized private insurance coverage for abortions. But HR 3962 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act), as it emerged from the House on Nov. 7, would provide important help for middle-income families immediately. Effective Jan. 1, it would stop insurance companies from arbitrarily rescinding coverage when patients file claims. It strips the health insurance industry of its exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. And the bill would end lifetime caps on how much insurers will cover, which is a leading cause of family bankruptcy
It also would provide the following relief for working families in 2010:

• A $5 bln insurance program to help get coverage for high-risk people who are turned down by private insurers.

• Ending "rescissions" - by which insurers nullify coverage when patients file claims - except in case of fraud.

• Ending the lifetime caps on how much insurers will cover.

• Allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until age 27.

• Allowing workers who have lost coverage because they lost their job to extend COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place.

• New incentive programs to increase the number of primary-care doctors, nurses and public health professionals.

• Funding for community health centers to double the number of patients the centers can see.

• A new $10 bln fund to help employers pay for coverage for early retirees.

• For seniors, it eliminates co-payments for preventive services under Medicare and reduces the "donut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage by $500 and give seniors a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole in 2010. Right now Medicare doesn't cover any drug costs between $2,700 and $4,050. The donut hole will be phased out by 2019.

(See also Dispatches)

By 2013, HR 3962 would create an exchange in which millions can buy insurance - including the choice of a public health insurance option to compete with insurance companies. Businesses with payrolls greater than $500,000 would have to pay at least 72.5% of their employees' insurance and 65% of family coverage. Small businesses would get tax credits to offer health coverage. Lower- and middle-income families up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get federal subsidies to help them buy insurance.

The bill also would end denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions and it would end co-payments for preventative care.

The bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare and it requires pharmaceutical companies to rebate the government for drug overcharges that arose after 2003 when low-income elderly people who got their drugs through Medicaid were enrolled in Medicare Part D.

Under the House bill, 36 million uninsured Americans would become eligible for coverage. Medicaid would cover 15 million of the poorest children and adults while 21 million would buy coverage on a national national insurance exchange, either from private plans or from the government-run "public option" with the federal subsidies for low- and middle-income families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 6 million people would choose the public plan, making it a relatively small player.

Among major differences between the two chambers, the House bill would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.

The House pays for much of the 10-year $894 billion cost with a surtax on people earning more than $500,000 a year (or $1 million for couples). The CBO projected that the House bill would cut $104 billion from budget deficits over the next decade. The Senate would impose fees on the health-care industry and a 40% tax on "high-value" insurance plans, which would encourage businesses to cut back on their benefits. That has organized labor as well as business groups howling. On financing, the Senate should defer to the House, which is responsible for originating tax bills anyway.

For those 36 million who will at least have a shot at getting insurance - and for the rest of us who have insurance but cannot be sure that our medical needs will be covered when they come up for review by corporate bureaucrats - we cannot agree with single-payer advocates who say the compromise bill is worse than no bill at all.

This bill will not be the last word on universal health coverage. If we elect more and better progressive populists to Congress, we can try to make it better. But this bill is an important first step.

Now that the House has passed its version of health-care reform, the action moves to the Senate, where grandstanding Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) renewed his pledge to join the GOP in a filibuster of any health reform with a public option.

If that's the case, if Democrats lose their 60th vote needed to shut down the Republican filibuster, Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairmanship, since cannot be trusted on important procedural matters by the caucus. Then Democrats should proceed to pass a Medicare-for-All public option in the budget reconciliation, which is not subject to filibuster.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will try to attach an amendment to the Senate bill similar to Kucinich's stricken provision allowing states to proceed with their own single-payer plans. Good luck. But the Senate should reject the House's overreaching language restricting abortion coverage in private insurance plans.

So far it's been progressives who have been called upon to compromise on the principle of universal health coverage. It's past time for Democratic leaders to stiffen their backbones. Republicans like to call Obama a "Chicago pol" but we'd like to see a little more hard bargaining as we near the end-game of health-care reform. Democrats need to show the insurance lobby that the cost of obstruction is greater than the cost of agreeing to a compromise - which is what the House produced and the Senate is preparing to debate. The best way to get the insurance lobby to play ball is to make a credible threat that the alternative to a bipartisan vote in the Senate agreeing to the insurance reforms with a strong public option is a party-line vote that will put the insurance companies on the fast track to going out of business next year. That's the Chicago way.

See the entire editorial at The Progressive Populist. Reposted by permission.

Bayh, Conrad, Feinstein, Lieberman and Warner form national suicide pact

Chris Bowers — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:30:00 GMT

Of all the various blocs and gangs that have been formed in Congress this year, Senators Bayh, Conrad, Feinstein, Lieberman and Warner have managed to form the most regressive one yet. Currently, these five Democrats are demanding that Speaker Pelosi hand over all relevant Congressional power to an independent commission that will be allowed to slash and partially privatize Social Security and Medicare, or else they will allow the United States to default on its debt.

I am not kidding:

Senators from both parties on Tuesday put new pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn the power to trim entitlement benefits over to an independent commission.

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. (...)

(...) Congress is under pressure to raise the cap on what the federal government can borrow by mid-December. If the debt ceiling is not raised above its current $12.1 trillion mark by then, the government will exceed its borrowing limits and will be forced to default on the debt. Economists have warned that the inevitable result would be a lowering of the U.S. credit rating, triggering substantial increases in the interest rates the government is already paying.

But before Tuesday's hearing was over, Sens. Conrad, Gregg, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) publicly vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling if a budget reform commission bill doesn't come along with it.

The Republican threats don't matter, since only Democrats are needed to pass the bill.

Let's review the threat that these five Democrats are making:

They will allow the United States to default on its debt, which will vastly increase the overall amount we have to pay on our debt
UNLESS
Speaker Nancy Pelosi turns over Congressional power on Social Security and Medicare to an unelected commission that will almost certainly propose deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare entitlements. Keep in mind that if deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare pass under a Democratic trifecta, the party would be doomed at the ballot box for years to come.

This is completely insane, and there is no choice but to call this bluff.

Let's see these five Democratic Senators explain to the entire nation why they allowed the country to default on its debt. No matter how safe their seats appear to be, no Senator is going to win reelection after making the entire country default on its debt Their rationale does not matter. Being blamed for making the country default on its debt-especially after all five of these Democrats voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout and are demanding that Social Security and Medicare be cut-will be the effective end of their political careers.

Go for it, guys. Form your national suicide pact. Tell the country that you are demanding deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or else you will personally cause the United States debt to double. Let's see how well that message plays on the air.

7 Sitting Democratic Senators have already voted to gut the filibuster

Daniel De Groot — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:00:00 GMT

To chime in on Chris' ambitious proposal to kill the filibuster, I'd like to add some context, and a possible starting list for the 7 Democratic Senators that Chris argues would be needed to effect its demise.

When Lieberman announced he would filibuster the public option, it soon emerged that Lieberman had once crusaded against the filibuster, even going so far as to make an effort to significantly limit it in 1995.

Lieberman (and Harkin) introduced a measure that would effectively end the ability of minority to indefinitely delay action, by providing for a series of decreasing thresholds needed to invoke cloture, until eventually a majority (of Senators "chosen and sworn", not present) could invoke cloture. While it was not total destruction of the filibuster, it was the end of the ability of 41 Senators to kill major legislative priorities of the majority.

The amendment was introduced at the start of the 104th Senate, just after Gingrich and Lott swept into power in the 1994 blowout. His timing suggests he agreed with Chris' theory that a Republican Senate majority may be necessary to do this. After all, the Republicans had just taken over the Senate for the first time since 1986, and might be tempted to collude with a few Democrats in giving themselves the power to rule by simple majority. As it turned out, in 1995 they were not prepared to do so. A few days later the amendment was "tabled" (killed) in a roll call vote of 76-19. The 19 who voted "nay" on this motion are the most likely candidates for Senators who would be most open to eliminating the filibuster. Of them, the following Senators are still in office:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenburg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (I-CT)
~~Pryor (D-AR)~~ Update: This was the father of the current Sen. Pryor.

Additionally, Leahy (D-VT) and Rockefeller (D-WV) didn't vote on the measure and are listed as "not present."

Ruling out Lieberman of course, that leaves 7 living Democratic Senators who have actually voted to significantly damage the power of the filibuster. Pryor, as a member of the "Gang of 14" (along with Lieberman) in 2005 is probably not going to go along, but if Leahy or Rockefeller joins, and the other 6 still feel the same, Chris may already have his Gang of 7.

Inside, the text of the Lieberman/Harkin amendment, and Lieberman's complete speech that day. I rather hope if Chris' plan comes to pass, another Senator rises to support it and reads it verbatim just to spite Holy Joe.
No links, Thomas links all seem to expire.

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Robb) proposed an amendment to the resolution (S. Res. 14) amending paragraph 2 of Rule XXV; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. XX. SENATE CLOTURE PROVISION.
Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:
`2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: `Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
[...]
`(b)(1) If, upon a vote taken on a motion presented pursuant to subparagraph (a), the Senate fails to invoke cloture with respect to a measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, subsequent motions to bring debate to a close may be made with respect to the same measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business. It shall not be in order to file subsequent cloture motions on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, except by unanimous consent, until the previous motion has been disposed of.
`(2) Such subsequent motions shall be made in the manner provided by, and subject to the provisions of, subparagraph (a), except that the affirmative vote required to bring to a close debate upon that measure, motion, or other matter, or unfinished business (other than a measure or motion to amend Senate rules) shall be reduced by three votes on the second such motion, and by three additional votes on each succeeding motion, until the affirmative vote is reduced to a number equal to or less than an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The required vote shall then be an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The requirement of an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn shall not be further reduced upon any vote taken on any later motion made pursuant to this subparagraph with respect to that measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business.'

Perhaps David Waldman (Kagro X) or some other parliamentary expert can chime in, but I believe the mechanism Lieberman was employing would have been able to alter the filibuster on a simple majority vote - he was trying to amend the Senate resolution that sets the rules for the Senate for that Congress. This seems to be another way to circumvent the 2/3 majority needed to change the rules.

And Lieberman's speech:

AMENDING PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXV (Senate - January 04, 1995)
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you.
I am very proud to join with my colleague from Iowa in cosponsoring and supporting this amendment. A new day has dawned here on Capitol Hill today. A new majority has come to power; but, hopefully, more than a new majority--a new sense of responsiveness to the public, a new understanding of what it means to do the public's business here in Congress, and a new openness to looking at some parts of the operation in Congress which we have previously either not questioned or felt it was inappropriate to question.
I must say that over the last couple of years, as I watched the filibuster being used and, I think, in my respectful opinion, ultimately misused and overused, it seems to me that what had originally appeared to be a reasonable idea was being put to very unreasonable use.
Therefore, I promised myself that if I was fortunate enough to be reelected by the people of Connecticut to return for the 104th Congress, I would do what I could to try to change this filibuster rule, which I am afraid has come to be a means of frustrating the will of a majority to do the public's business and respond to the public's needs. And so when I heard that Senator Harkin had put this program and plan together, I called him and I said, `My distinguished colleague and friend, I admire you for what you are doing.' There are those who undoubtedly will think this is a quixotic effort, that it is a kind of romantic but unfeasible effort.
It is important now to make this effort to show that we have heard the message and that we are prepared to not only shake up the Federal Government but shake up the Congress. And not just for the sake of shaking it up, but because of a fundamental principle that is basic to our democracy, that is deep into the deliberations of the Framers of our Constitution and appears throughout the Federalist Papers, which is rule of the majority in the legislative body. It is this majority rule has been frustrated by the existing filibuster rule. So I am privileged to join as a cosponsor with my colleague from Iowa in this effort.
Mr. President, whenever I explain to my constituents at home in Connecticut that a minority of Senators can by a mere threat of a filibuster--not even by the continuous debate, but by a mere threat of a filibuster--kill a bill on the Senate floor, they are incredulous. When I tell them that now as a matter of course a Senator needs to obtain 60 votes in order to pass a bill to which there is opposition, frankly, the folks back home are suspicious.
When I explain how often the threat of a filibuster has been used to tie the Senate in knots and kill legislation that is actually favored by a majority of Senators--and the filibuster was used more times last year than in the first 108 years of the Senate combined--well, the folks back home honestly think I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, I am not. Those are the facts.
Mr. President, when I entered the Senate 6 years ago, I asked to be briefed by a staff person at the Congressional Research Service on the Senate rules. I wanted to figure out how the place worked.
I must say, after that briefing, I, like my constituents, was incredulous. I had been the majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate, so I had some familiarity with parliamentary procedures, but I must say I did not understand how the Senate's debate and amendment rules were being used to keep the Senate, presumably the greatest deliberative body in the world, from getting things done.
Like many Americans of my generation, I remembered the dramatic filibuster battles of the 1950's and 1960's and assumed that filibusters were relatively uncommon and were employed only in the great issues of the time which divided a country. I assumed--like most Americans, I would guess, drawing from probably the broadest experience America has had with filibusters, which is mainly `Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' when James Stewart stood in that magnificent portrayal and carried out a principled filibuster --that filibusters were to be reserved for only the most significant of legislative battles.
While I quickly learned that while real filibusters are uncommon, current Senate rules allow the mere threat of a filibuster to rule the way we do or do not do business.
The gentleman from the Congressional Research Service used a powerful analogy here. He said to me, `Senator, you have to think of the Senate as if it were composed of 100 nations, each Senator representing a nation, and each nation has an atomic bomb and can blow up the place any time it wants. And that bomb is a filibuster.'
That may make us feel good about our power and our authority, but it is not the way to run the greatest deliberative body in the world. In fact, I state this with some humility because I do not remember the exact quote, I asked the gentleman from the Congressional Research Service, `Is there any precedent for this kind of procedure in the history of legislative bodies?'
He said he thought the closest modern precedent was a Senate that sat in Poland in the 18th century which, because of unique historical circumstances that are not to the point, with approximately 700 members, the rule was that nothing could be done without unanimous consent. That, I hope, is not the model that we aspire to copy here.
What was once an extraordinary remedy, used only in the rarest of instances, has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority. Just as insidiously, allowing legislation to be killed on procedural votes, as we so often have here in the Senate, protects us from having to confront the hard choices that we were sent here to make and, in that sense, makes us a less accountable body.
Mr. President, this has to end and it will not end unless an effort begins to end it as we are attempting to do here today. As I believe Senator Harkin has indicated, the Senate filibuster rule has actually been changed five times in this century. In most cases, particularly when the changes were substantial, they did not occur the first time the proponents charged the fortress. Perhaps they will not occur on this occasion. But I know Senator Harkin and I are prepared to keep fighting until this change occurs because of what is on the line, which is the credibility and the productivity of the U.S. Senate.
The change that we are proposing, as Senator Harkin has indicated, will make it more difficult for a minority of Senators to absolutely stop, to block, to kill Senate action on legislation favored by a majority of the Senate, but it will still protect the ability of that minority to be heard before up or down majority votes on legislation are taken. It will give the minority opposed to what the majority wants to do the opportunity to educate and arouse the public as to what may be happening here to give the public the opportunity perhaps to change the inclination of the majority.
The procedure of succeeding votes with 2-day intervals, 60 being required, first 57, 54 and finally a simple majority of Senators being able to work its will--our intent here is to give the minority a chance to make their case and to persuade others but not to continue to grant them an effective veto power which they now enjoy.
We recognize that the opposition to this proposal is bipartisan, just as the use of the filibuster rule has been bipartisan. We also understand that as Members of the new minority, Senator Harkin and I perhaps are not the likeliest people to be proposing to limit the powers of the new Democratic minority, but we both firmly believe that regardless of how our resolution may limit our personal options as Members of the minority party in the Senate in the short-term, it is essential that this reform be undertaken now when the problem of filibuster-created gridlock is so fresh in all of our minds.
For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate.
The Framers of the Constitution, this great fundamental, organic American document considered on which kinds of votes, on which issues the will of the majority would not be enough, that a vote of more than a majority would be required, and the Constitution has spelled those instances out quite clearly. Only five areas: Ratification of a treaty requires more than a majority of the Senate; override by the Senate of a Presidential veto requires more than a majority; a vote of impeachment requires more than a majority; passage of a constitutional amendment requires more than a majority; and the expulsion of a Member of Congress requires more than a majority.
The Framers actually considered the wisdom of requiring supermajorities for other matters and rejected them.
So it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Constitution that this body, by its rules, has essentially amended the Constitution to require 60 votes to pass any issue on which Members choose to filibuster or threaten to filibuster.
The Framers, I think, understood--more than understood--expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and their writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule.
I know that some of our colleagues will oppose the alteration, the amendment, that Senator Harkin and I are proposing on the grounds the filibuster is a very special prerogative that is necessary to protect the rights of a minority. But in doing so, and I say this respectfully, I believe they are not being true to the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, which is that the Congress was the institution in which the majority was to rule, not to be effectively tyrannized by a minority. And the Framers, Madison and the others, who thought so deeply and created this extraordinary instrument that has guided our country for more than 200 years now, developed the system in which the rights of the minority were to be protected by the republican form of government, by the checks and balances inherent in our Government and ultimately by the courts applying the great principles of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect the rights of a minority that might be infringed by a wayward majority.
So this procedure that has grown up over the years has turned the intention of the Framers, in my opinion, on its head, and in doing so has not only created gridlock but has given power to a minority as against the will of the majority. The majority in the Senate, as reflecting the majority of the people of the United States, has allowed that minority to frustrate the will of the majority improperly.
So I think this is at the heart of the change for which the people have cried out. It is right, and it is fair. It is our belief in that most fundamental of democratic principles, majority rule, that motivates our introduction of this amendment. I am confident that if we ever put this issue, or could put this issue, before the American people for a vote, they would direct us to end the current filibuster practice. Majority rule is not and should not be a controversial proposition. Minority rights are protected by the checks and balances in our system.
Mr. President, it is my pleasure as a Senator from Connecticut to welcome the occupant of the chair as a new Member of the Senate. Perhaps you have observed from your viewing of the Senate before you arrived here that our problem seems not to have been that things move through this institution too quickly, that we hastily trample upon the rights of the minority. The problem, if anything--and it is not a bad problem and it does carry out the intention and will of the Framers--is that there are a lot of checks and balances here, and it is often hard to do the people's business and respond to the people's needs, and the filibuster has made it even harder to do so.
So I thank the Chair and the Senate for their indulgence. I congratulate again my colleague from Iowa for initiating this forthright and, in its way, courageous attempt to change the status quo, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Jan 4, 1995. (59.) 141 CONG, REC. 38 (1995) (statement of Sen. Lieberman)

Weekly Pulse: Problems for the Public Option

The Media Consortium — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:18:36 GMT

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

The House released a final version of the health reform bill. It has a public option all right, but not the robust version progressives were hoping for. The public plan would only cover 2% of Americans and premiums will cost more than anticipated.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) continued to threaten to join a Republican filibuster of a health care bill with a public option. A lot of people still think he's bluffing. Realistically, the public option probably faces more serious threats from inside the Democratic caucus. It's been whittled down at an alarming rate.

Nick Baumann of Mother Jones asks "What now for the public option?"

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that public option premiums will actually be higher than the premiums for private plans on the health insurance exchanges. That doesn't mean it's going to cost the government more money-the public option is paid for by premiums, not taxes; it actually cuts the deficit. But it will be more expensive than some private plans. Wasn't part of the point of the public option to prove that a government-run program could compete successfully with privately-run plans? Well, yes, but here's the problem: that was all based on the idea that the public option would pay health care providers at Medicare rates.

Baumann predicts that insurers will do everything they can to drive the sick people off private insurance onto the public plan, a phenomenon known as "adverse selection." Hopefully some of the proposed insurance reforms will curb their worst excesses, like kicking people off the rolls for misspelling their preexisting conditions on their application forms.

Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent reports that the House health care bill would eliminate the popular and cost-effective Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and shift its low-income beneficiaries onto private health insurance exchanges.

This looks like a stealthy preemptive strike on the prospect of single-payer health care. CHIP is a single-payer program that progressive health policy types envisioned as a prototype for a future single-payer system for all kids, or even eventually for everyone.

As Lillis points out, abolishing CHIP is also a gimme to insurance companies. Generally speaking, kids are cheap to insure because they're healthy. Private insurers would love to stock their risk pools with kids on federal subsidies. It's like getting paid to stock your pond with delicious trout. We worry about adverse selection making the public plan more expensive. Well, CHIP is the reverse of that because this public program is keeping the good risks for itself.

Suzy Khimm argues at TAPPED that killing CHIP could be a good thing, provided the kids continue to enjoy the same legal protections that they get under the public plan. Khimm suggests that moving low-risk kids into insurance exchanges could help keep costs down for everyone by making the risk pool healthier on average:

That being said, if CHIP's dismantling ended up moving more folks into the health-insurance exchange, it wouldn't simply be a boon for "the insurance lobby and moderate Democrats." It could strengthen one of the most fundamental parts of the Democratic reform package -- a robust insurance exchange with a pool of participants that's large enough to drive down costs precisely because insurance companies have an incentive to jump in and compete for customers. Moreover, folding CHIP into the exchange would add a younger, healthier pool of participants to the exchange, offsetting its potential of becoming a dumping ground for the sick and elderly. Finally, CHIP has always suffered from under enrollment -- about 6 million children aren't insured in the program who should be -- and by bringing whole families in under the same plan, more children will be covered.

That's a nice idea, but it seems foolish to scrap one a popular and successful social program in favor of an untested insurance exchange system.

The frustrating thing about so-called health care reform is that legislators don't really want to change the system. They want to make the system work better while catering to all the established interests that made it suck in the first place.

Politicians aren't the only ones to balk at fundamental change. The Real News Network interviews Sam Gindin (video below), a former assistant to the Canadian Auto Workers Union, now a professor at York University. Gindin says that, over the years, labor conceded too much on health care and thereby failed to reestablish itself as a leading force for progressive change in the United States. Helping elect Barack Obama was a step in the right direction for labor, he maintains, but it's not nearly enough.

As John Nichols of the Nation put it, when the House finally wrote the bill, the compromise was even more compromised than expected.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Lieberman won't filibuster, reaches "private understanding" with Reid

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:08:29 GMT

Last week, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a merged health care bill including an opt-out public option. The next day, Senator Joe Lieberman threatened to vote against cloture on any health care bill with a public option. The same day, Reid promptly brushed off the threat, saying that "Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems."

Now, sources claim the two Senators have reached a "private understanding" to let the bill go forward:

Sen. Joe Lieberman has reached a private understanding with Majority Leader Harry Reid that he will not block a final vote on healthcare reform, according to two sources briefed on the matter.

Um, OK I guess. There are good reasons to be wary, but I'll take it for now.

Anyone want to guess what the "private understanding" is?

Update: Now, both Reid and Lieberman are denying this to multiple sources. Of course they are. Either there is a private understanding, and saying so in public would make them sound ridiculous, or there is no private understanding, and saying there is would make them sound ridiculous.

In short, stating publicly that you have a private understanding sounds bad.

Weekly Pulse: Joe Lieberman and the Opt-Out Revolution

The Media Consortium — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:23:12 GMT

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

Progressives rejoiced when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that the final Senate health care bill would include a public option. The announcement was a major victory for left-wing Democrats.

Better yet, it would be a public option without a trigger. Earlier proposals called for a triggered public option which would only take effect if private insurers failed to bring down costs on their own. Under the opt-out compromise, the public option would come on line automatically (albeit not until 2013), but states would later have the option of quitting.

The jubilation was short-lived. Alex Koppelman of Salon explains:

Progressives didn't even get 24 hours to celebrate the victory they won in getting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include a version of the public option in his health care reform bill. The celebration was cut off Tuesday afternoon with the news that Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., will vote with Senate Republicans to filibuster the legislation.

The Democrats have 60 Senate votes. If they all vote for cloture, a procedural motion to stop debate, the Republicans can't filibuster the bill. The Senators who vote for cloture can still vote against the bill. Reid's strategy for passing the bill was to get all Democrats to vote for cloture and let them vote their conscience on the actual bill. Even without Lieberman, Democrats have the votes to pass the bill by majority vote if they can avoid a filibuster.

Health care is the most important domestic policy initiative of the Obama administration. Would Joe Lieberman really torpedo reform? The Senate leadership thinks Reid is bluffing, according to Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly.

I understand the argument. Lieberman loves attention and power. By threatening to join the Republican filibuster, he gets both-Democrats have to scramble to make him happy, since there's no margin for error in putting together 60 votes. Lieberman gets to feel very important for the next several weeks by making this threat less than 24 hours after Harry Reid stated his intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to be known forever as The Senator Who Killed Health Care Reform.
I find it very easy to believe, however, that Lieberman is capable of doing just that. He left himself some wiggle room, but not when it comes to the public option-he's against it, no matter what, even with all of the compromises thrown in.

In other words, if this is all a ploy for leverage, why would Lieberman open by swearing that he won't support a bill with a public option? You'd think he'd just say he was keeping his options open and force Reid to make him a counter-offer. Reid has already decided that the public option is politically non-negotiable. He's afraid that the base won't come out for the 2012 elections if they don't get what they want. Benen speculates that Lieberman wants to be the Senator Who Killed Health Care because he wants to drum up massive Republican support for his 2012 reelection bid. On this theory, Lieberman is joining Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC) and Balloon Dad in the quest to make bank on ridiculous publicity stunts.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) says that she will side with the Republicans to filibuster the bill "if she has to," as Evan McMorris-Santoro reports for TPM. Snowe was the only Republican to vote for the Finance Committee's health care bill.

Reid must walk a fine line. The administration really can't afford to alienate organized labor before the 2012 elections. Newly elected AFL-CIO President Ricahrd Trumka continues to push for his three core demands for health care reform: a public option, a mechanism to make employers pay their fair share, and no taxes on health care benefits. Last week, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said that his union would oppose legislation that taxed benefits, but Trumka hasn't gone that far, as David Moberg reports at Working In These Times.

Finally, in other health-related news, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the division of the Labor Department that oversees workplace safety, has issued a sweeping new report condemning Nevada's state-level OSHA program. As I report for Working in These Times, the investigators found that NOSHA inspectors were being pressured by their superiors to write up employers on lesser charges, even when their repeat offenses killed workers.

Reid Brushes Off Lieberman's Threat

Chris Bowers — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:01:35 GMT

Before today, sources had told me that Lieberman was not considered to be one of the top threats to vote against cloture on a health care bill with a public option. Now, even despite Lieberman's threat to vote against cloture today, from the way Harry Reid is talking, it seems like the Senate leadership still doesn't consider Lieberman to be one of the main problems:

"Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems," Reid told reporters at his weekly press conference.

During a Q&A session with reporters, Reid offered a fairly spirited defense of Lieberman, signaling perhaps that he doesn't believe Lieberman will ultimately be an obstacle--or at least that he doesn't want to tip his hat: "I don't have anyone that I've worked harder with, have more respect for, in the Senate than Joe Lieberman. As you know, he's my friend. There are a lot of senators--Democrat and Republicans--who don't like [parts of this bill]... Sen. Lieberman will let us get on the bill, and he'll be involved in the amendment process."(...)

"We'll get it on the floor, we'll have an amendment process, and that's what we do," Reid said. "We haven't been doing a lot of it because we've had 81 objections so far this year by the Republicans."

I can think of three possibilities here:

There is a deal with Reid and Lieberman to change the bill via amendments that is already in place.
Reid is disappointed, but believes he can get Lieberman to fall in line by the time of the final cloture vote.
Reid has been blindsided by Lieberman, but he is sticking to talking points that reflect the earlier estimate that Lieberman was not one of the main problems.

This is all very speculative, of course. One thing that is not speculative is that we are going to have to find a way to pressure Lieberman hard as a result of this statement. Any suggestions?

Lieberman Threatens To Vote Against Cloture On Final Passage

Chris Bowers — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:15:32 GMT

He's with us on everything except the war:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he'd back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care reform bill.(...)

Lieberman did say he's "strongly inclined" to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he'll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn't changed first.

"I've told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture," he said.

"I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company," Lieberman added. "It's just asking for trouble - in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there's going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid."

One of the main criticisms progressives had of Lieberman leading up to the 2006 primary was that he often joined with Republicans on prominent issues (Clinton impeachment, Iraq war) in order to garner huge media attention for himself. Again, that pattern holds.

Lieberman works to undermine Democrats on major issues in order to increase his personal media profile. It is a good thing we did whatever it takes to keep someone like that in the Democratic caucus.

Update: I completely agree with the commenters who say that Reid should call this bluff. Let's see Lieberman actually casts a vote against sending this bill to conference committee, or against final passage afterward. And then, if he does, let's see what happens back in Connecticut.

Update 2: To clarify, it appears Lieberman is threatening to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed with the floor debate, but against the vote for cloture on final passage. TPMDC:

"I told Senator Reid that I'm strongly inclined--i haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined--to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together because it's important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill."

Looks like Lieberman is making one final push to become President.

Update 3: Lieberman pledged support for universal health care back in 2006 debate:

Liar.

Lieberman Twice Says He May Side With Republicans To Deny a Health Care Vote

AdamGreen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:42:45 GMT

Last week, Mike Stark asked Joe Lieberman if he'd side with Republicans to block a vote on health care reform.

Lieberman's response: "I haven't decided that yet."

Yesterday, Politico had yet another Lieberman response to the same question:

“Not vote for cloture? I wouldn’t rule that possibility out — not at all,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats.

With the health care issue now moving into Harry Reid's court, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will deliver this petition signed by over 85,000 people to Reid today:

"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care."

You can still sign the petition, and have your name delivered to Reid. Just click here.

This issue actually came up for Lieberman after he endorsed John McCain for president. From Salon:

Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders argued for punishing him, but it was clear that Reid and his cohorts in leadership wanted to keep Lieberman in the caucus. When Reid opened talks with Lieberman immediately after the election, the apostate Democrat had said losing his committee chairmanship was "unacceptable."

Now, it's time for Leader Reid to lead -- and to tell Lieberman that keeping his committee chairmanship while helping Republicans block a vote on health care reform is "unacceptable." Help urge Reid to take that step today.

Lieberman Pushes Back on Lieberman

Chris Bowers — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:26:14 GMT

Via grannyhelen. After making national headlines for suggesting that health care reform "may have to wait" until after the recession, Senator Joe Lieberman is now facing some strong pushback from one of his Senate colleagues. Interestingly, the Senator leading the pushback against Lieberman was also Senator Joe Lieberman.

On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman said that health care reform "may have to wait" until after the recession. Emphasis mine:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut on Sunday urged the Obama administration to consider postponing overhauling the health care system and instead work on smaller chunks of the issue until the economy improves.

"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," Mr. Lieberman said on CNN's "State of the Union." "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."

In response, Senator Joe Lieberman sent out an email to his supporters last night, rallying them to the cause of immediate health care reform. Here are some excerpts:

Americans today are faced with greater uncertainty than ever before when it comes to their health needs. These concerns often focus around rising medical costs, access to coverage, and quality of care. With more than 45 million uninsured Americans and health care spending levels that exceed any in the world, our current health care system is unsustainable and one where we reward quantity over quality. The need for health care reform has been evident for quite some time. We cannot afford to wait any longer to provide Americans with the high-quality, affordable health care they deserve, even though doing so will require making some difficult decisions.

As of this writing, there has been no response from Senator Lieberman's office to this rebuke from Senator Lieberman. However, other Democrats have not been so quiet. Many high ranking Democratic officials have criticized Senator Lieberman for rebuking Senator Lieberman. A senior White House advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Open Left that "I don't understand why the left has decided to attack Joe Lieberman." Also, in a meeting with liberal groups, multiple sources have confirmed to me that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called the rebukes of Lieberman "f*cking stupid."

CT-Sen: Dodd Takes The Fall On Bonus Scandal

Chris Bowers — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:53:31 GMT

In the wake of the AIG bonus scandal, Connecticut Senate Chris Dodd is in serious trouble for re-election. In fact, the odds are now that he will lose, as a new Quinnipiac poll shows him trialing Republican challenger Rob Simmons by a whopping 16%:

Quinnipiac, March 26-31, 1,181 RVs, MoE 2.9 (March 8th numbers in parenthesis)
Simmons 50% (43%)
Dodd: 34% (42%)

This simply must be the result of the AIG scandal. Could anything else have possibly hurt Dodd so badly over the past twenty-five days? It is a painful irony that Dodd is the one taking the fall on this, given that he was the Senator trying to write stronger limits on executive compensation into the stimulus package, and it was other members who stripped it out. The Democrats who were in the room know what happened, and might be able to help Dodd if they fess up on who stripped the language.

Otherwise, not to be bleak or anything, it might not be possible for Dodd to recover from a deficit like this. It is true that a Research 2000 / Daily Kos poll taken just before this Quinnipiac poll showed Dodd ahead of Simmons by 5%, so one of those polls (or both) is very, very wrong. So, it is probably best to wait for a third confirming poll to develop a better sense of the campaign.

However, if the Q-poll is correct, than this is better than the advantage Bob Casey started out with against Rick Santorum in 2005, and akin to the advantage Tom Udall started with in New Mexico in 2007. Those campaigns ended up in 17.36% and 22.66% blowouts respectively, as the incumbent and incumbent party never recovered. I'd be hard pressed to find any incumbent Senator that has ever recovered from a 16% deficit. While the so-called "incumbent rule," where challengers gain the overwhelming percentage of undecideds in campaigns with incumbents, does not hold up as well as it used to, it is still safe to say that trailing by 16% with a name ID over 90% is a bad position. What is worse for Dodd in the poll is that he is also losing by 4% to a lesser known Republican State Senator, meaning that much of his deficit is specific to Simmons, who many Connecticut voters seems to consider an acceptable Republican, rather than just to an anti-Dodd sentiment. As such, retaining this seat will probably require either Dodd not seeking re-election, or Simmons being defeated in a Club for Growth fueled primary.

If Dodd were to step aside, it is a lock that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal would be able to retain the seat for Democrats. A February Q-poll recent poll showed Blumenthal defeating Lieberman by 28% in the general election, and with a 79%-12% approval rating. While it would be unfortunate to lose such a rock-solid chance to defeat Lieberman, recent polling from Research 2000 has shown that Ned Lamont is still primed to defeat Lieberman in 2012 if he decides to run again. Of course, while Lamont and Blumenthal remain solid bench candidates for Democrats in the state, Republicans have their own in Governor Jodi Rell. The same poll showing Dodd down 16% shows Rell with a 72% approval rating. All of this guarantees that Connecticut will be a big state, possibly the top state, to watch on the Senate front for the next four years.

Either You're with McCain and Lieberman, or You're Against the War in Afghanistan

ZP Heller — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:38:41 GMT

How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration's pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "minimalist" or "reductionist" path would be, in their view, "dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it." As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it's in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary."

How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don't get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use "loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan." The thing is though, and I never ever thought I'd write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
The type of success McCain and Lieberman dream of in Afghanistan would require at least 640,000 US troops, as Derrick Crowe has written, judging by the US military doctrine's rate of 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents. We already know the Pentagon is pushing for at least to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for a decade or more. So not only do McCain and Lieberman believe the Obama administration should engage in a long-term military commitment where the costs could very well exceed those of the Iraq war (both in terms of lives lost and tax dollars spent), but they want President Obama and the Democratic leadership to invest all their political capital to do so.

There's a good frame here that those of us who oppose the war need to use to our advantage: Let McCain and Lieberman champion an all-out war in Afghanistan. It means that if Obama and centrist Dems are not willing to side with this hawkish agenda and immediately commit over half a million troops long-term, then they have abslutely no business sending 17,000 troops or pursuing a half-hearted military agenda because clearly it will be insufficient and ineffective. It's either a broad-based counterinsurgency, or its regional diplomacy--you can't have it both ways. Now that McCain and Lieberman have set the rules, we can force the hand of the Obama administration: go all in or go home. Hopefully, Obama will opt to stand up from the table and leave.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

Intrepid Liberal Journal — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:40:10 GMT

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday.
Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they're concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for.

Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase "working majority" during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims.

Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode "It's A Good Life." Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we're dealing with.

The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation, the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter and Maine's Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut's "Independent" Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives.

Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama's political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it.

Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic senators a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear.

The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush's insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is a delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it's this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Lieberman Sets Low Approval Record

Chris Bowers — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:48:30 GMT

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Lieberman's approval rating in Connecticut is down to just 38%. This is actually record-breaking for the Quinnipiac poll:

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.

Only 21% of Democrats approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. Also, 40% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. It is kind of funny, but also not surprising, that Lieberman's constituents are far more aware of his partisan inclinations than his fellow Senators, or even President-elect Obama.

Lieberman isn't up for re-election until 2012. Given that, since 2006, he has been granted a committee chair, I won't be surprised if he is able to make a recovery. Obama validating Lieberman will, I'm sure, run through just about every campaign commercial Lieberman makes for the Democratic primary, too. Expect at least 42 Democratic Senators to endorse him, and campaign for him, in the 2012 Democratic primary, too. Further, don't expect many, if any, challengers to come from elected Democratic officials in Connecticut, for fear of reprisals should they challenge Lieberman. So, while Lieberman has a low approval rating, he is by no means particularly vulnerable right now.

Also, from the poll, it would appear that the northeast is more progressive than the West Coast:

Connecticut voters oppose 61 - 33 percent amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Republicans support such an amendment 49 - 46 percent, while Democrats oppose it 73 - 23 percent and independent voters oppose it 58 - 34 percent. Men oppose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage 56 - 38 percent while women oppose it 66 - 28 percent.

I always thought the northeast wasn't given sufficient recognition as the most left-leaning region of the country, which I think it fairly obviously is.

Pay To Play, Vote To Play

Chris Bowers — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:35:38 GMT

At the center of the Rod Blagojevich scandal is an allegation that he was putting a U.S. Senate seat up for sale. Here are some of the key quotes:

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich told aides he had something "f-ing golden" - sole power to pick Barack Obama's Senate successor - to trade for a White House post or lucrative outside job for himself, and he sought to sell the seat to the highest bidder, federal prosecutors allege in a sweeping complaint against the Democratic governor.

The Senate seat "is a f--ing valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing," Blagojevich said, according to the complaint. He even threatened to name himself "unless I get something real good."

This is pretty bad, and Blagojevich needs to step down and face trial. Still, it needs to be remembered that the only reason Blagojevich seems to be in trouble is because he was selling the seat for money. If he was selling the seat for votes, personal power, or a committee chairmanship, he would probably have been fine. After all, over the past month, there are at least two high-profile instances of conservative Democrats selling their membership in the party for committee chairmanships. First, Lieberman managed to acquire a Senate chairmanship by threatening to vote with another party (emphasis mine, more in the extended entry):

The tide turned in Lieberman's favor, sources say, after two events in recent weeks. First, President-elect Obama told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. Later, in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman told him it would be "unacceptable" for him to give up his gavel. That was considered by some as a veiled threat that Lieberman would jump to caucus with Republicans if he was forced to give up the gavel.

Beyond Lieberman, three "Democratic" members of the New York State Senate are currently doing the same thing: demanding committee chairmanships and more power over legislative priorities in exchange for voting for a Democrat for Senate majority leader. Fortunately, in this case, a revolt by members of the Democratic Senate caucus is nixing the deal:

The expected Democratic control of the state Senate is now in jeopardy after a power-sharing deal blew up Wednesday.

Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith called off negotiations with three dissident Democrats who have threatened to side with a Republican for majority leader.

"We are suspending negotiations effective immediately," he said. "Otherwise, we would reduce our moral standing and longtime Senate Democratic commitment to reform and change."

Despite cutting a deal last week with the three that included reforms and leadership posts for them, Smith said he and his members would rather wait to take control of the Senate than cave to their further demands.

While it is not illegal to threaten to switch voting habits if certain demands are not met, it is just as unprincipled as selling a Senate seat for money. In both cases, power is for sale for its own sake, prior beliefs and values be damned. Lieberman was threatening to start voting with Republicans on a number of issues that he previously did not if he was not granted more power. The same appears to be the case for these three Senate Democrats in New York. Power trumps values. Like Blagojevich, they are all demanding certain amounts of power before they will support your ideas.

I'm not saying these sorts of threats should become illegal. Instead, I am arguing how these threats from conservative Democrats to flip parties are entirely unprincipled to nearly the same degree as Blagojevich. It is too bad Senate Democrats caved to Lieberman's threat to start caucusing with Republicans, because his threat was entirely power based. If Lieberman had switched parties and also started switching his voting habits because he wasn't granted more personal power, he is the one who would have looked like a completely unprincipled, power-hungry, valueless asshole, not Senate Democrats. After all, who looks better now: Blagojevich for demanding a payout, or Obama for refusing to play ball?

Obviously, don't sell elected offices, legislation, or appointments for money. However, don't sell them on threats to bolt to the other party, either. If you refuse to sell, and the person making those threats follows through, in the end you will look better, and the person making the threats will be out of a job before long.

Lieberman as Chair - Damage Control

Daniel De Groot — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:45:00 GMT

Following up on the outcome that Lieberman keeps his gavel, some thoughts about mitigating the harm Lieberman might do as Chair of this committee.

Two vitally important things need to happen here:

1) Reid must stack the committee.

2) The Committee Democrats need to alter the rules to check Lieberman's subpoena power
Reid must stack the committee.

The current membership has 9 Democrats and 8 Republicans. This has meant that even if the Democrats wanted to gang up and out-vote Lieberman on some matter, they would probably lose since the Republicans would side with Lieberman.

However, now that a pile of extra Democrats are joining the Senate, the make up of the committee will change. In the 109th Senate, with 55 Republicans, this committee had a 2 vote lead for the majority: 9-7. There will be enough Democrats to vote down the chair on key matters (I'm hopeful for a 3 vote advantage, but I don't know precisely how that kind of thing is calculated).

Further, the membership is already due to change somewhat, since from the 110th congress, it includes several defeated Republicans, plus one non-returning Democrat, a "Barack Obama" character who I think resigned for some reason. Anyway, Reid needs to be smart about who he puts on this committee. He seemed to have done so with the Judiciary committee in the 110th, which was able to accomplish some good without constant fear of its membership bolting to vote with the GOP. Feinstein was the only weak point, and she did in fact bolt on the Southwick nomination.

It looks to me like Lieberman's committee was stacked with his allies (which Obama was at the start of the 110th). Too many unreliable votes here - Landrieu and Pryor in particular. This committee may need a coup d'etat to overrule its chair. In the days of near-invincible committee chairs, they used to be able to block all sorts of legislation they didn't like, including things like civil rights legislation.

This committee's jurisdiction is not so grandiose, but I daresay Lieberman will be able to exert considerable influence by the implied threat of bottling up legislation or nominees in his purview. Which is certainly a large part of why he fought so hard to keep this particular chair.

The Committee Democrats need to alter the rules to check Lieberman's subpoena power

Congressional committees create their own rules which control the specific powers of the chair, how testimony is taken, when a transcript is kept and vitally, who can issue subpoenas and how. For most committees, subpoenas require a vote from the committee, which usually means the majority members must consent. However, for this committee, and its House counterpart (previously chaired by Waxman) the Chair has enhanced powers as per the rules (pp12-13):

C. Full Committee subpoenas. The Chairman, with the approval of the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, is authorized to subpoena the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other materials at a hearing or deposition, [...] If a subpoena is disapproved by the Ranking Minority Member as provided in this subsection, the subpoena may be authorized by vote of the
Members of the Committee. When the Committee or Chairman authorizes subpoenas, subpoenas may be issued upon the signature of the Chairman or any other Member of the Committee designated by the Chairman.

This is slightly more stringent than the House version, where the chair can issue subpoenas solo, probably due to the clubby nature of the senate and the generally enhanced powers the minority maintains. I'm sure when this rule was created, it was just a nice sop to the Ranking Member, that s/he could pair up with the Chair and issue subpoenas without consulting the remainder of the committee. Naturally for anything partisan such cooperation would not likely happen, so the majority can simply vote out a subpoena if need be. But here, this rule plays right into Lieberman's hands and allows him to subpoena witnesses with only the approval of the GOP ranking member (Collins). I wonder why Lieberman campaigned for her?

I didn't study all of the rules in depth, but this part needs to change. The other Democrats need a veto on his subpoenas. There are probably other tweaks needed to limit Lieberman's ability to insert poison-pills into legislation or unduly delay key priorities.

I don't know if any of this happening is plausible, but Reid is said to be a parliamentarian master. It would be a smart move. Lieberman will not bolt the caucus over this stuff, it's inside baseball he would look really petulant if he did. Reid could essentially make Lieberman toothless (or at least knock out a few teeth). He would get his precious gavel and prime parking space, and some extra staff, but all with a leash. Otherwise he is effectively handing the Republicans effective control over a key committee.

The Evolution of Blog Opinion

tremayne — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:15:00 GMT

Most 2007: Lieberman sucks but at least he votes with us sometimes.

Dec., 2007: I can’t believe he’s endorsing McCain. Loser.

July, 2008: If he speaks at the RNC then he’s OUT!

Sep.,2008: Traitor! I can’t stand the sight of his smirky little face.

Nov., 2008: He must lose his committee chairmanship.

(Obama intercedes)

Today: You guys are a bunch of babies for whining about Lieberman so much.

Goodbye Legislative Branch, Nice Knowin' Ya!

tremayne — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:08:48 GMT

They say change is on the horizon. One thing that won't be changing is congressional subservience to the executive branch. There's good and bad in that. If you believe, as I do, that Barack Obama is far more capable than his predecessor then congressional subservience will allow him to undo much of the bad legislation the previous Congress rolled over and allowed into law.

The bad news is our system has been reduced to two branches (or even 1.5). Bush got what he wanted, even after barely surviving reelection in 2004. Much of what he wanted also passed after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Now Obama tells Senate Democrats what to do concerning an important committee and they comply. Again, if you have unlimited faith in Obama this will not concern you. I certainly hope that Obama's strategy is successful and I also hope he is, unlike his predecessor, a benevolent dictator. Still, it would be nice if congressional Democrats showed a spine some day.

Re: Lieberman Or Why We Need A "Viable" 3rd Party

Steelydan3 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:50:21 GMT

I read with some interest the mean things that Markos said about Ralph Nader, arguably the greatest journalist who has ever lived. I voted for Barack Obama but with eyes wide open. I think he'll be better and more sensible than the Republicans in power. But we really need to take a deeper look at our loyalty to the democratic party and the democratic party only if we're really serious about things like the rule of law applying to everyone or even getting out of wars that would be more honestly defined as crimes. In short: if you really want to put the fear of god into Democrats, then you need to start supporting third party candidates. This crazy idea that we just keep giving them more money no matter how horribly they treat us simply isn't beginning to fly anymore.
First, we need to take an honest look at the questions of electing democrats versus progressive policy. It's clear that if you look at the last several years we've been successful at electing democrats. It's also very clear that we've failed miserably to enact progressive laws, get our people into offices that matter and in some cases we've even failed to ensure some fairly common sense conservative rules that we believe in like: the rule of law applies to everyone or shouldn't democrats support the party's nominee? Crazy ideas like that. So we might have a situation where Howard Dean has no role in the current administration but Joe Lieberman does! This is why we work hard for Democrats? I would hope not.

Two, why does the DNC establishment continuously fuck us over? Glenn Greenwald outlines the reality of our situation.

It is worth remembering that the Democrats who are going to exert dominant political control are the same ones who have provoked so much scorn -- rightfully so -- over the last several years, and particularly since 2006. This is the same Democratic Party leadership which funded the Iraq War without conditions (and voted to authorize it in the first place); massively expanded the President's warrantless eavesdropping powers; immunized lawbreaking telecoms; enacted the Patriot Act and then renewed it with virtually no changes; didn't even bother to mount a filibuster to stop the Military Commissions Act; refrained from pursuing any meaningful investigations of Bush lawbreaking; confirmed every last extremist Bush nominee, from Michael McConnell to Michael Mukasey; acquiesced to even the worst and most lawless Bush policies when they were briefed on them; and on and on and on. None of that has changed. That is still who they are.
Joe Lieberman didn't merely campaign against Barack Obama and several other Democrats. That's the least of his sins. He was not only among the most vocal supporters of the Iraq War, but at least as bad, has endorsed and supported every last radical Bush policy to expand executive power and surveillance activities while destroying core constitutional liberties and checks and balances. He used his Chairmanship for only one purpose: to block oversight into Bush scandals and corruption. He has spouted the most defamatory attacks, not only against Barack Obama, but against war opponents generally. More significantly still, Democrats in his own state -- his own constituents -- booted him out of the party, no longer wanting to be represented by him.

Remember the arrogance of that Obama turnaround on FISA? Well, the answer is, under the current Daily Kos construction, we have no where else to turn. What else can we do? "Where else can you dirty fucking internet beatnik hippies go? Just give me some more money and shut the fuck up," Obama might as well have said. He'll probably say something like that a lot during the next four years. Obama will probably do things that any sensible person would never equate with real "change".

Here are the Markos rules as far as I can figure them out: We support the democrats no matter what they do. We don't support Republicans, which I think is smart because they're an evil party (there shouldn't be a party that represents private interests against the greater good at every fucking turn)but we also don't support third party candidates who would better represent us. Further, we won't expend any energy into building viable third party candidates and/or well funded well organized third party runs. Now, to me, those last two facts, the reality that we don't support third party candidates or will work to build a viable third party infrastructure, doom us to irrelevance. This is why we lose. I might stress that this is also why we will continue to lose. They simply don't fear us. Finally, this Markos construction is a boon to the Republicans. I can very easily see a scenario where the republicans stop all meaningful reform/stimulus over the next two years, declare all dem efforts "fails" and make big gains in 2010.

Three: What is a viable third party run?You don't need a 50 state plan, at least initially, to prove our point to the democrats. You really need to focus on what I've been calling my 5/25 plan. You need to fund 25 house races and 5 senate races. You need at least 1 million dollars to compete for a house seat and at least 2 million to compete, realistically and viably for a senate seat. Now, this is where the expertise of the Kos community could come in handy. What 25 house seats would you pick to make your point? I frankly think they should run "Lieberman" style. Run them in the primary first and even if they lose run them in the general. We already have two senate opportunities in Delaware and Illinois for 2010. Tom Morello has openly talked about dipping his toe into the political waters in Illinois. I actually wouldn't mind Ralph Nader as a Delaware senator because I think he would use the fillibuster. The truth of the matter is that five senators that use the old fashioned Jimmy Stewart fillibuster could change congress. Just once, I'd like to see a senator as supportive of child healthcare as they are for wall street bailouts. I'd love to see a senator talk about that over a several day fillibuster as well. (You would need a stubborn asshole to do that...Nader looks right to me...)

Finally, if you like being disappointed by the dems, then don't keep your third party options option. Just keep giving them money and clap harder. I might note that both David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald have organizations in place that could start searching for and funding viable third party runs and candidates. It's clear that's what they're thinking. Feel free to steal my 5/25 plan and start real change. That would make the dems take notice. Primary challenges aren't going to do it. Most of these guys look at "public service" as an audition for "K Street" anyway...Time to try some new ideas.

Go watch The Acid Jazz Channel.

Curses, Foiled Again? Hardly

Chris Bowers — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:15:00 GMT

I'm pretty disappointed at the outcome over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs leadership fight. Denying Lieberman the chair would have been a sign that the Senate Democratic caucus was willing to stand up for itself over the next two years, but instead we were given another sign that the legislative branch no longer matters that much in the United States.

However, given the focus on how this vote means that "the left has been foiled again," I want to push back against the idea that the last two weeks has not somehow been a string of defeats for progressives. There have been setbacks, such as today's Lieberman vote, but there have also been real victories. In the extended entry, I accentuate the positive.
Here are some good things that have happened over the last fourteen days:

The leadership of the U.S. House has moved to the left. At first, I was pretty disappointed with Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff. However, it seems increasingly clear that removing Emanuel from the House has resulted in a net gain for progressive leadership in that chamber. Given that Obama probably would have picked someone in Rahm Emanuel's mold even if he did not select Emanuel himself, this means our choices were either no Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel temporarily serving as Chief of Staff, or Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel clone temporarily serving as Chief of Staff. On net, I will take the former, and I am currently leaning toward the move as a net gain for progressives. If the left was "foiled" again, then I wonder why so many center-right House Democrats are feeling unhappy.
Lieberman did not get off scot-free: Keep in mind that Lieberman was punished, that 13 Senate Democrats voted to punish him even more, and that he probably would have been stripped of his full committee chair entirely were it not for Obama. While what happened wasn't the punishment that Lieberman deserved, I'm with Matt on feeling good about the thirteen independent minded Senate progressives who seem to have emerged. That may not seem like much, but thirteen independently minded, Democratic progressives is actually a lot better off than we were six years ago when Feingold might have been the only one.
A no residual forces agreement was signed in Iraq. Here is the actual text of Article 24 of the agreement:
1- All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.

2- All U.S. combat forces must withdraw from all cities, towns, and villages as soon as the Iraqi forces take over the full security responsibility in them. The U.S. withdrawal from these areas shall take place no later than June 30th, 2009

As I had hoped, this is indeed a no residual forces agreement. The differentiation between "all U.S. forces" in section one and "all U.S. combat forces" in section two make that clear. The "all forces" and "all combat forces" was a line that most Democratic candidates tried to blur back in 2007. Those following the issue closely were aware that "all forces" actually meant "no residual force" and "all combat forces" meant "residual force." So, this agreement means an end to all residual American military presence in Iraq by December 31st, 2011 at the latest. This is just an utterly massive progressive victory. The key is that it was engineered by the Iraqi government, rather than Democratic Party leadership. This gets to David's point earlier today about how the progressive movement needs to focus on organizing other than as an assistant to the Democratic Party's electoral efforts. Progressive change can happen, as long as we look

Now, I'm not going to argue that everything is all smiles und sunshine. The fifty-state strategy is in real peril, corporate bailouts continue apace, and neither Senate Democrats nor the Obama administration appear poised to be progressive paragons over the next two years. However, even in these areas, the fifty-state strategy might be revived, the bailouts are partly socialist nationalizations and thus quite left-wing, and the new bosses in the White House and the Senate will be a hell of a lot better than what we have had for the last fourteen years. My point is that progress is being made, and all is not lost. We are winning some of these fights so, and at least making progress in others. For crying out loud, we won a major policy fight in Iraq even though it was opposed by the Bush administration, the Democratic congressional leadership, and the incoming Democratic President. If that alone isn't a hopeful sign, I don't know what is.