The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 82 members, 81 in the House and 1 in the Senate, but has taken the anti-progressive onslaught of recent years lying down. The CPC can be counted on to say some pleasant things, but in the end 1 or 2 or 8 or 14 of its members will vote a progressive position. Almost never will the CPC attempt to organize its members to all take a stand. When it did organize 90 members to sign a letter to President Bush "opposing" war funding, virtually all of them turned around and voted for the funding.
Some observers held out hope that change might be on the way when Congressman Raul Grijalva this year took over one of the caucus's two Co-Chair positions. But change hasn't arrived yet, and Grijalva has made clear that he will sit by and wait for the president to deliver it. This is disconcerting, to put it mildly, for citizens who thought the role of a caucus of congress members might involve action as well as commentary.
Read it and weep: from just a month ago, the big, bold words of the Prog Caucus honcho on his own site:
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told the Huffington Post that he and fellow liberals within the House would not be "rolled" over in a key debate regarding the reimbursement rates rewarded under a public option.
Oh yeah! Medicare plus 5 or bust. No flipping. Remember the Alamo. ¡No pasarán!
Because, as the lede has it,
A key liberal lawmaker pledged on Wednesday that the progressive caucus in the House was not going to compromise on health care reform, emphasizing that it was acutely aware of its reputation for buckling under pressure.
By calling for a robust public option, the four Caucuses are saying that a public plan should:
• Be universal and include mental and dental health services.
• Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.
• Receive at least the same consumer subsidies as private plans and pay competitive provider rates that ensure equal access to affordable, quality care.
• Reflect an overall commitment to the elimination of racial and ethnic health disparities.
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable.
October 12: see above
November 7...
Whereas, as we know, the Stupaks, flying underneath Bowers' radar, at least, won big boasting half the numbers in the CPC.
Stupak claimed the Prog's problem was too much crying wolf. And clearly there's a element of that.
There's also the fact that the Progs' views are generally to the left of the leaderships'; and therefore any action they take usually would involve voting against legislation that gives them some, though not all, of what they want.
And that the Prog line (when there is one) is inevitably less corporate-friendly than the leaderships' - and Progs have to eat too.
Not to mention that the Progs (still more the Quad Caucus) have too many members with too great a diversity of hot buttons to direct in an insurgency - the Stupaks were strictly single-issue.
And - be it said - Medicare plus 5 is a much less potent cause to those who support it than no taxpayer-funded abortions is to its supporters.
And - looking more directly at the Stupak case itself - what he proposed was voting to defeat the rule. The great thing about that vote is that reps voting against a rule aren't tying themselves to any particular element, or any alternative content.
Thus, if the CHC had found unacceptable text on illegals in the bill, there would have been no political reason why they couldn't have join the Stupaks in voting against the rule.
And the Stupaks were essentially a mob - Stupak could say with credibility that he had no control over them, and had no idea what they might do if the leadership didn't give them a vote on their amendment. The CPC - not so much.
Perhaps, if the Progs want to make an impact, they need to study the Stupak insurgency: identify a disrete hot button issue in some legislation, organise a guerilla band separate from the Caucuses with enough votes to defeat the bill, give the leadership a hard time - and then follow through.
One key strategic point : there is no such thing as a one-shot, now-or-never deal. Legislation can be revoted; a lot a legislation takes several Congresses to pass (eg the notorious bankruptcy bill under Bush).
And another: there's a big difference between important and embarrassing. Progs might want to look for opportunities to hurt the leadership's pride without hurting voters.
But insurgency is not an end in itself: the object would be to reach a state where threats from coalitions of Progs could be effective whilst remaining unspoken - at least in public - thereby minimising intra-party strife.
Of course, this might mean legislators scribing fewer stemwinder diaries at DKos...
I keep having the same argument, in which someone says, "The progressives won't really kill healthcare reform, right? Even if they don't get a public option - right?"
And I unfailingly respond, "Actually, they will. And they should."
A no-public-option bill would mandate that every American buy health insurance while ensuring skyrocketing premiums. What sane politician would vote for a bill like that?
The public option is essential to the success of the reforms - not merely for political reasons, but for fundamental policy reasons.
Simply put, if you want other reforms like elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, you need a public option because:
* Reforms such as eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions only work if you have an individual mandate. * If you have an individual mandate, rates will skyrocket unless you have a public option to provide competition (or rate controls, which aren't even on the table).
So what opponents of the public option are proposing is that we pass a bill that will spike the cost of health insurance at the same time we require everyone by law to buy it.
Given that as the alternative, we are in fact better off with no reform.
Let's pull apart the logic I described a little more to understand it better.
For those of us continuing to fight for the President's proposals on health care- including covering everyone at a price they can afford, strong regulations on insurers, tough cost containment measures, and a public option to keep insurers honest- it can get discouraging sometimes. I continue to be concerned by the number of progressive friends I have who have become convinced that we cannot win this fight, and are on the verge of giving up. I believe that we are very much in this fight, that there is a clear path to victory, and that it would be a tragedy for those of you who have been fighting for this moment for so long to give up now.
It is easy to get discouraged. The array of forces in outright opposition- insurance companies, somewhere between 98% and 100% of Republicans in Congress, the massive right-wing attack machines- is huge and very loud. Traditional media is so relentlessly negative and cynical that it frequently seems as if they have just joined the coalition mentioned in the previous sentence- I guess they prefer covering a train wreck to seeing something substantive done. And the conventional wisdom/establishment-oriented Democrats who are all too ready to give up the fight for really comprehensive reform and just take the easier path of not really taking on the powerful insurance industry are perhaps the most discouraging of all- they have probably done more to undermine enthusiasm for the President's goals than anyone.
But for those of us fighting this battle in the trenches every day, it is clear that there is a path to victory. It's far from a lock, it will require work and backbone by progressives, but the path is in front of us. And my sense is that more and more people are seeing it as a real possibility- David Sirota had a column today on it, Chris Bowers has been writing about it, Digby and many others as well. And progressive groups and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are doing meetings every day, continuing to work the strategy.
The folks who read my blog posts might be surprised to learn that there is an alternative to the public option I could live with (besides single-payer, of course, that being my preferred option from the beginning). I have been an advocate for a very hard line on the public option, as I discussed here yesterday. But there is one other alternative I would feel okay about, and Bob Creamer outlines it today in his great post, Three Reasons Why a Strong Public Option is Likely to Be Part of Health Insurance Reform.
More on Bob's post, the alternative I could live with, and an action to take, in the extended entry.
I have been in the battling-the-rich-and-powerful-on-behalf-of-the-poor-and-middle- income business for a very long time now (almost 30 years), and it can get pretty discouraging at times. For one thing, in some news that I am sure will be shattering to you, the rich and powerful have a lot more money. And they have seemed to have a lot more political friends over that era than do the poor and the middle income folks combined.
But hope rises anew from time to time, and there are encouraging signs. The most obvious one, of course, is that we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress - not always, of course, but more than the last set of politicians. But my hopes are rising for a lot less visible reasons than that.
More on what those reasons on in the extended entry.
The most interesting American political story unfolding today is the fight in the House over the Afghanistan--Iraq--IMF--Cash for Clunkers--Torture Photos supplemental funding bill. There is a lot at stake in this bill, which still might not have the votes to pass. Here is why it is worth watching:
Will the Progressive--Republican coalition hold? The reason this bill is in trouble is because of an alliance between House Progressives and House Republicans. The main objection from both camps is opposition to the IMF funding. Thirty-three House Progressives circulated a letter indicating that they would vote against any blank-check IMF funding, which was attached to the bill in the Senate. House Republicans have also reversed their once overwhelming support for the supplemental, due to the attachment of IMF funding.
If the supplemental is defeated, it means that the war funding will have to be passed separately from the IMF funding. This would be the first successful defeat of Democratic legislation by a Progressive--Republican alliance since 1999. It would also signal a new path to Progressive Caucus influence over future Democratic legislation. As Jane Hamsher writes:
Make them separate these bills so the IMF can come out from behind the war funding and we can have an honest discussion about whether we really need a $108 billion European bank bailout right now.
I'm feeling more hopeful about a public plan, though. If Obama will make calls for this, surely he'll do so for healthcare.
Progressives have been working to develop such influence for quite some time now. Defeating
Will the IMF status quo be changed? If the IMF is forced to be voted upon separately from the war funding, it might mean an end to the status quo of the IMF itself. This is because the same Progressive-Republican alliance can form to prevent IMF funding when it is considered by itself. However, House Progressives have indicated, through the above mentioned letter, that they would vote for IMF funding if certain strings and reforms were attached to the funding.
The four bullet points outlined in the letter would effectively put an end to the era of the "IMF riot," and make a real dent in the so-called Washington consensus. It would mean that many of the demands made by anti-World Bank and IMF protests ten years ago will have been enshrined into U.S. law. That would be a truly remarkable progressive victory over international neoliberal economic policy, and really change the world.
This is a big vote. If Congress can't get anything done without the approval of an emerging Progressive block, then Progressives will suddenly have the ability to make real change both at home and abroad.
No matter what happens, it is pretty impressive that a few dozen Progressives, and a coalition of blogs, managed to hold up White House approved legislation this long.
Something unexpected just happened on Capitol Hill today--the Congressional Progressive Caucus drew a line in the sand on something. In a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi, Representatives Woolsey and Grijalva stated that most of the 77-member progressive caucus will not support a health care plan that lacks a public option with a level playing field. I like it:
Dear Madam Speaker and Majority Leader,
Regarding the upcoming health care reform debate, we believe it is important for you to know that virtually the entire 77-Member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) prefers a single-payer approach to healthcare reform. Therefore, it will come as no surprise as you work to craft comprehensive health care reform legislation, that we urge the inclusion of a public plan option, at a minimum, in the final legislation. We have polled CPC Members and a strong majority will not support legislation that does not include a public plan option that is supported on a level playing field with private health insurance plans.
We look forward to working with you to ensure inclusion of a public plan option and the successful passage of healthcare legislation that will provide a choice of quality healthcare for all Americans
As the conservodems in the Senate seem mainly fixated on cap and trade, it appears that Progressives have fired the opening shot on health care. If there is no public option, then there is no deal.
This isn't an issue where House Blue Dogs and Senate Conservodems can hide behind their "red" districts in opposition. Here is the most recent poll I could find that seemed to talk about a public option:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 11-15, 2009. N=1,112 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?"
Government 59%--32% Private Enterprise
With a margin like that, only about 20-30 of the 435 congressional districts, and only about 4-5 states, would be opposed to a public option. And even then, the opposition would be pretty narrow. However, at the same time, terms like "public option" don't really mean much to people yet. The frames and terminology that will drive public opinion on this debate have not yet been set. Drawing a line in the sand is a good first step, but now we have to brace ourselves against what will inevitably be bi-partisan talking points about socialized medicine and government intruding on families. As long as the reconciliation process is still available for health care, as long as the progressive caucus holds a line on the public option, and as long as we can control the framing of the debate, this is a winnable campaign.
Like fellow progressive caucus member Peter DeFazio (Oregon) before him, Tom Udall (New Mexico) has opted out of a run for Senate. Both would have had excellent chances. A February poll for the DSCC found DeFazio already ahead of Gordon Smith 42%--38% in a pretty blue state. New Mexico is an open seat in a slightly lean-Democratic state, and Udall reports $712K cash on hand as of June 30th.
These were two seats where Republicans could have been replaced with very, very solid, progressive Democrats. In fact, despite their tendency to recruit Bush Dogs, these were even cases where the Schumer led DSCC would have been happy--if not eager--to have progressives in the race. As an active member of the Blue Majority fundraising page, I would have been personally eager to endorse either one, and I imagine the folks at Blue America would have felt the same way. Jonathan Singer, another member of Blue Majority, was active in both Draft DeFazio and Draft Tom Udall (I believe he founded the later). Basically, everything was in place for these two: very winnable races where they would start in the lead, plus lots of establishment and grassroots support to back them up along the way. They could have replicated Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in 2006, no problem. And yet they both passed.
At Open Left, we spend a good deal of time criticizing Bush Dogs. However, let me pause for a moment to criticize progressive caucus members. We simply can't build a more progressive Senate if progressive caucus members keep passing up opportunities to run for higher office. If progressives keep passing up on runs at higher office, should we be surprised that the Democrats who end up in higher office are often less than progressive? This is a failure of progressive leadership at the highest levels. I am well aware of the way conservative Democrats are often recruited for Senate by our existing leadership, but the DSCC does not share the entire blame here. In fact, in at least DeFazio's case, they really wanted the progressive to run, as demonstrated by releasing a poll showing the Defazio--Smith trial heat. I can't imagine they would have been opposed to Udall running, either.
We can't build a more progressive Democratic Party if progressive Democrats don't run for higher office. The double DeFazio and Udall let down are extremely disappointing. Honestly, it lowers not only my opinion of both men, but also of the congressional progressive caucus itself. This is a group of representatives who have a huge natural activist base and many great political opportunities to shine, but they consistently fail to step up to the plate. Media bias is not the only reason we hear more about the Blue Dogs than we hear about the caucuses in Congress. Part of it is that they are constantly trumpeting their own ability to stall legislation, their own ideology, and taking advantages of the opportunities presented to them to run for higher office. Progressives just are not doing the same things, at least to the same degrees. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is full of Democrats who could make activists feel a lot better about the party, but they are doing little to provide us with that feeling. They need to start stepping up more--a lot more-and one of the areas to start would be to take advantage of Senate campaigns where you would actually start in the lead.
Show some leadership, please. We are in desperate need of it.
The first general election poll out of MA-05 shows a surprisingly competitive race in this extremely pro-Democratic district (PVI D +10.7). From Survey USA, 9/7-9/9, 411 LVs, MoE 4.9:
The worrying part about this poll is that Tsongas is losing independents, 46-39, and that Ogonowski holds Republicans better than Tsongas holds Democrats. That is the old formula we saw working against Democrats before the wave started to build in mid-2005. Most worrying of all, Ogonowski is nearly even with Tsongas among those who disapprove of Bush, 46%-47%. If Democrats no longer hold the edge in partisan coherency, are behind among independents, and local Republicans have successfully distanced themselves from Bush and national Republicans, then the two-year plus run where Democrats held a decisive electoral advantage nationwide might be over.
To see if this really was a warning sign, or simply to be expected in an open seat campaign, I went back to 2006 and compared this result to a pre-election poll in a very similar district in 2006: Vermont At-Large. Back then VT-AL was also an open seat. It has a PVI of D +9.1, and is also situated in New England. It was somewhat of a relief to see that the final pre-election poll in that district was identical to this poll in MA-05:
MA-05 poll, 9/7/07-9/9/07: Tsongas (D) 51%--41% Ogonowski (R)
VT-AL poll, 10/23-10/24/06: Welch (D) 51%--41% Rainville (R). Welch went on to win 53-45. The poll was taken by Research 2000, and can be found in the subscriber section of polling report.
Now, that isn't to say that we are entirely out of the woods. There were other heavily Democratic open seats in 2006, which ended up as more comfortable Democratic victories than VT-AL. Here are a few:
HI-02, PVI D +9,7: Hirono (D) 61%--39% Houge (R)
IL-17, PVI D +4.6: Hare (D) 57%--43% Zinga (R)
IA-01: PVI D +4.8: Braley (D) 55%--43% Whalen (R) (Final polls showed Democratic leads of 56-35 and 49-42)
TN-09:PVI D +15.7: Cohen (D) 60%, two others split 40%
So, in these comparable districts, the Democrats all won by more than 10%, all better than Welch's performance in Vermont. They also pushed the party to the left, as all four joined the Congressional progressive caucus, including two in leadership positions in the caucus (Hirono and Hare). They also replaced to Blue Dogs (Case in HI-02, Ford in TN-09) and one Republican (IA-01). Peter Welch also joined the CPC.
So, there are at lest two reasons to be disappointed in the MA-05 election so far. First, it is doubtful that Tsongas will be the strong progressive that we tended to score in blue open seats in 2006 (although it is also unlikely that she will be a Bush Dog). Second, the campaign seems to be closer than blueish open seats were in 2006. Now, the latter could simply be the flukey results of one poll, which would make this over-analyzing a single result. However, I have to wonder if there is a connection between the two disappointments. Perhaps it is closer than it should be in MA-05 because there isn't as much local, grassroots, progressive activist energy behind Tsongas compared to what we saw in comparable campaigns in 2006. I can't prove that, but I do have to wonder. Reduced activist enthusiasm for electing just any Democrat, rather than preferred, progressive Democrats, could be a factor for Democrats in 2008. Finding a way to get that activism back will be a key to a larger Democratic majority in 2008.
