At the absolute latest, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe will join the Senate Democratic caucus by Tuesday, June 12, 2012. She may not actually register as a Democrat, but she will start caucusing with Democrats by that date--or even earlier. Here is why:
Snowe is up for re-election in 2012.
The Maine primary is held on the second Tuesday in June. So, in 2012, this means June 12th.
Snowe is losing to a generic conservative primary challenger 59%-31%, among likely Republican voters.
Maine has a closed primary system, meaning that only registered Republicans can vote in Maine Republican primaries. Same day registration is allowed, but that won't change the outcome in such a lopsided campaign.
It is a rock-solid guarantee that conservatives will primary Snowe from the right in 2012. Not only is she pro-choice, but her lifetime Progressive Punch score on critical votes is identical to Arlen Specter's (27%). If they are not going to primary challenge Snowe, they are not going to primary challenge anyone. And we all know they will keep running primary challenges.
In 2012, all major Republican Presidential candidates will endorse Snowe's inevitable primary challenger. This is both because that challenger will comfortably lead Snowe in the primary, but also based on the pattern we just witnessed in NY-23. It didn't take long for all leading Republicans to fall into Hoffman's camp once he proved more viable, and more popular among the Republican base, than the moderate Scozzafava.
Republican Presidential candidates looking to appease the base will make sure that he entire Republican establishment lines up behind Snowe's primary challenger.
In the past, Harry Reid has approached Olympia Snowe about joining the Senate Democratic caucus. He confirmed this to me over the phone more than three years ago, right after the 2006 elections.
Without establishment support in her own party, trailing badly in the polls, and with an offer to join the Democratic caucus, Snowe will bolt the Republican Party and join the Democratic Senate caucus by June 12th, 2012, at the very latest.
So, sometime in the next 945 days, Senate Democrats will pick up another seat.
Might be a time to start preparing a primary challenger to Olympia Snowe of our own in 2012.
Per House of Progress in Quick Hits, both Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe have stated they will vote for the Baucus health care bill in the Finance Committee. This guarantees passage of the bill, even if both Ron Wyden and Jay Rockefeller vote against it. Either of them voting against the bill was highly unlikely, anyway.
The most important ramification of all this is that it is clear a health care reform bill will pass the Senate this year. The House will do the same. The only questions that remain are what form the final bill from each chamber takes, and whether or not they can agree on a final version.
Snowe and Lincoln both said that they will be watching the merger with the Senate HELP bill closely, and that their vote on final passage is not assured. I think I speak for nearly everyone here when I say that feeling is mutual.
Media reports and insider buzz make it increasingly clear that key people at the White House have become obsessed with Olympia Snowe on health care, and are willing to do pretty much whatever she demands in order to get her on board. The price is looking more and more like this incredibly bad trigger proposal she has been pushing, a trigger that quite literally is written to automatically never trigger a public option. You see, Senator Snowe is writing language into an amendment that is literally a Catch-22. The legislative language says that a public option will be set up in a state in which health care is not affordable to 95% of the state's residents, but it defines affordability as after the new tax credits that are written into the bill to make health care affordable. Not only would this be an incredibly weak public option (doing it in one state will mean it can't get the market power to compete with the big insurers), but it would be a public option that is written by its definition to never be triggered. This is a trigger specifically, intentionally designed to kill the public option.
Some senior White House staffers are now beginning to try to sell this trigger to progressive groups as the compromise version of a public option, saying the White House doesn't want to have a floor fight in the Senate, and that they can always fix it in conference committee. That way they can pick up Snowe, satisfy that desperate urge for being officially bipartisan (even though Snowe can't bring a single other Republican with her), and not have to worry about procedural hassles in the Senate. But by finally winning Snowe over, the White House is risking something far more politically dangerous: an ugly fight within the Democratic Party, further erosion of Obama's standing with his base, the specter of more primary fights.
The AFL-CIO, Howard Dean and Democracy for America, bloggers, MoveOn.org, progressive media figures, and the tens of thousands of people coming to Obama rallies and cheering wildly for a public option will figure out quickly that this trigger proposal is a farce specifically written to kill any chance of a public option. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus already are angry at having legal immigrants thrown under the bus by Baucus, all will explode.
As someone who spends every single day working hard to build and strengthen the bridge between the progressive community and the White House, I feel like the White House is triggering a bomb to blow the bridge up from under me (pun fully intended).
This trigger will never trigger a public option, but I can tell you what it will trigger: a civil war inside the Democratic Party just when you most need unity to pass health care reform. I am convinced that there are deals that can be struck that will bring progressive and moderate Democrats, House and Senate Democrats together on a good strong health care bill that will pass. But a trigger designed to never trigger isn't even close to being one of them.
Hi, folks. Meet Nancy Randolph from Maine -- a very nice lady I've talked to a lot in the last week as we prepared a new TV ad released today.
Before her first husband died of cancer, they thought they had great health insurance...until their insurance company denied him needed care. That drove them into bankruptcy.
Now, the senator who Nancy voted for -- Republican Olympia Snowe -- opposes the public health insurance option. And Nancy has something to say about that.
Our goal is to flood Maine and DC with $100,000 worth of these ads -- to really ramp up the pressure on Snowe. In just a few hours, we're $32,000$34,000$36,000 $45,000 of the way there -- but we do need your help.
As you know, this a critical time to put pressure on Snowe.
All week, the powerful Senate Finance Committee will take important health care votes -- including on whether to include a public option. Snowe will be a key vote on the Finance Committee.
Markos' recent poll shows Maine voters favor a public option 2 to 1. Among independent voters, it's 3 to 1. Yet Snowe urged President Obama to take the public option off the table "because it's universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate."
Senate Democrats are going to have to move forward on healthcare without a single Republican supporter after Sen. Olympia Snowe said Tuesday she could not back the Finance Committee's bill.
Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) failed to win any Republican backer despite weeks of intense negotiations behind closed doors to strike a deal.
This is great, great news. There is no longer any justification for the Baucus bill, as it simply cannot reach 60 votes.
To reach 60, you need all 59 members of the Democratic caucus, plus at least one Republican. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the only two possible Republicans, for a total universe of 61 possible supporters.
With Snowe opposing, that leaves only Collins. The universe of possible supporters is reduced to 60.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he would not support Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) health care reform bill in its current form - primarily because it lacks a public insurance option.
That reduces the Baucus bill to a maximum of 59 supporters.
The only justification ever given for the Baucus bill, and all of its problems, is that it could reach 60 votes. Well, that justification no longer exists.
The Baucus bill cannot get 60 votes in the Senate. The only way it can pass is through reconciliation. However, the bill was specifically designed to avoid having to use reconciliation.
Even beyond the Senate, given the Progressive Block, it could not have gotten 218 votes in the House.
Not only is the Baucus bill a highly questionable piece of legislation, it simply is not able to pass into law. Given how frequently conservative Democrats justify abandoning progressive policy by claiming that said policy cannot pass through Congress, it gives me great pleasure to point out in order for health care reform to pass, it actually requires a more robust public option in both the House and Senate.
One of reasons to think that Senators pushing the "trigger" are not being honest is, as in the case of Olympia Snowe, they say they "continue to oppose the inclusion of a public option in any package." So, if they oppose the public option in any package, why should we believe that they would ever support a trigger that would result in a public option?
A second reason to think that Senators pushing the "trigger" are not being honest comes from Senator tom Carper today. Carper says that he believes the trigger can bridge the partisan divide:
"I think that [the trigger] could end up being the compromise because it bridges the differences between those who are for a robust public option and those who are adamantly opposed to a public option."
"I raised it with the president," Carper continued, referring to his public option with a trigger proposal.
"Olympia Snowe and I are both advocates of this approach," he added, referring to the Republican senator from Maine who so far has been alone among GOP senators in wanting to craft a compromise with Democrats.
"I know she has raised it with the president," Carper added.
Here's the problem with this. Both Carper and Snowe have a seat in the Senate Finance Committee, the lone Senate committee to still not pass a bill. Three other Conservadems--Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad--also holds seats on that committee. Olympia Snowe is even part of the "gang of Six" that is negotiating health care for that committee. So, if the trigger had such support and was such a great means to bridge the partisan divide, then why isn't there even a trigger in the legislative framework for that committee introduced by Max Baucus.
Carper and Snowe are not being very honest about the trigger. They should stop saying that they oppose all public options before trying to convince people they would actually allow a public option in through a trigger. Further, they need to at least show proof of concept through their own committee before claiming it was such a good idea. Until that happens, there is no reason to believe them.
"The point is I don't support a public option. And none of my Republican colleagues do and some Democrats in the Senate and even in the House. I think the point is how do we bridge the divide?" That is why, she said, she suggested the so-called trigger mechanism months ago.
In response to this statement, Open Left's rudimentary deductive logic analyst, Chris Bowers, says that if President Snowe opposes a public option, but she supports a trigger, then she only supports a trigger that well never result in a public option. Otherwise, she is contradicting herself, and actually supporting a public option.
"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.
Some people, including national speech-giver Barack Obama, argue that the entire point of the public option is to offer lower-priced health insurance than private companies. However, their concerns have been noted, and placed in a filing cabinet no one will ever open again.
Elsewhere in Washington, D.C., it has been reported that a group of House Progressives are threatening to defeat any health care reform bill that lacks a robust public option that is available on day one (of 2013) and tied to Medicare rates (for a few years). However, even though Progressives tend to get their way on everything, there was no indication that either President Snowe, or anyone in her administration, believed a word the Progressives said.
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.
The main goal of health care reform is to lower the cost of health insurance. Apropos, Olympia Snowe thinks that the problem with a public health insurance option is that a public option would... wait for it... lower the cost of health insurance:
In an Associated Press interview in Portland, Snowe said it would be unfair to include a government-run health insurance option that would take effect immediately.
"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.
Well, duh. That is the whole point. You can't lower the price of health insurance unless you start offering lower-priced health insurance. It's a tautology.
So, naturally, during the fight to lower the price of health insurance, so-called moderate Senators think that the problem with the public option is that it would... lower the price of health insurance. While it may be news to so-called moderate Senators, protecting the crappy products of large corporations is not their job description.
It is pretty amazing that many moderates and industry figures are actually arguing that the problem with including a public option in health care reform legislation is that a public option would lower the cost of health insurance. Clearly, they have a different view of the purpose of health care reform than most Americans.
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
Chris's current front-page blog points out that we may need 59 seats to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed. I shouldn't need to convince anyone about the importance of this bill for unions, working families, and the Democratic Party. The question is, can we get to 59?
Right now it looks tough. A run-off in Georgia doesn't necessarily favor us, as a low-turnout election probably favors Republican white voters compared to Democratic black and poor voters. Minnesota is a toss right now. Alaska is a joke.
Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the incidents involving several companies, including Comcast Corp., Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc., have raised serious concerns over the companies' "power to discriminate against content."
They want the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to investigate whether such incidents were based on legitimate business policies or unfair and anticompetitive practices and if more federal regulation is needed.
Senator Dorgan already features Net Neutrality on his website, but an investigation could be a signficant step forward.
