Politics or Poppycock

HEALTH CARE

Seeking A 60th Vote

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid replaced the popular public option in the health reform bill with a “Medicare buy-in” provision that would expand the federal insurance program by allowing Americans aged 55 to 64 to buy into it. Reid said the change was necessary to secure the support of moderate and conservative Democrats, who threatened to join a GOP filibuster against any bill containing the public option. Reid said that with the compromise, there was now “broad agreement between the two groups. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), whose support is important to avoid a filibuster, said he was “encouraged by the progress toward a consensus.” Yet on Sunday, Lieberman suddenly announced that he would also be opposing this compromise specially crafted to gain his support. Noting that he still didn’t “know exactly” what is in the legislation, he nevertheless said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he “certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did.” Last night, Senate Democrats also announced that they would be giving in to Lieberman’s demands and likely dropping the Medicare buy-in provision in an effort to secure passage before Christmas. Lieberman has not been a good faith negotiator and his new positions are direct contradictions of ones he held as recently as September. It has become clear that his objective is not finding common ground to pass comprehensive reform, but rather killing or weakening health care reform legislation in order to preserve the status quo.

‘PLAYING GAMES WITH PEOPLE’S HEALTH CARE’: Perhaps the most stunning aspect of Lieberman’s announcement opposing the Medicare buy-in provision is that he has consistently supported such a proposal. During the 2000 presidential race, the Democratic ticket of Gore-Lieberman supported expanding Medicare to allow Americans aged 55 to 64 to buy in. During a meeting with the Connecticut Post in September, Lieberman “appeared to go further than the current Senate deal,” saying that the program could be opened up to people aged 50 and over. Spokesperson Erika Masonhall told the Daily Beast yesterday that the senator believes a Medicare buy-in would be “duplicative.” She cited the “extensive health insurance reforms, including a more narrow age rating for pricing health insurance premiums and extensive affordability credits” for people 55-65 years old that were in the Senate Finance Committee bill and then incorporated and “strengthened” in Reid’s version. Of course, unmentioned by Masonhall is the fact that Lieberman also opposed the Senate Finance bill because he believed it was “trying to do too much.” Lieberman’s “explanations” are not adequate. As the Connecticut Post editorial board wrote yesterday, Lieberman needs to “drop this charade and come up with a coherent explanation for his recent behavior. He should not join a filibuster against the bill. Otherwise, he risks sending a message that he’s playing games with people’s health care. And that is a dangerous game to play.”

NOT A GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATOR: Lieberman’s objective from day one in the health care debate seems to have been to preserve the status quo. He has never been a good faith negotiator. On Nov. 1, he even said that having “nothing” was better than having a health care reform bill with a public option. He isn’t trying to look for solutions; he’s looking for attention, noting that he enjoys feeling “relevant.” As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote yesterday, Lieberman is “now basically mocking his Democratic colleagues by moving the goal posts every time a new agreement is struck.” “Lieberman continues to play Lucy to Reid’s Charlie Brown, yanking away the football again and again with a cheerful grin on his face, with no apparent regard for the fact that this is making Reid look like, well, Charlie Brown,” added the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent, also pointing out that the media shouldn’t be “spending so much time puzzling over the motives and machinations of a single Senator who obviously never approached the process, or his colleagues, in good faith to begin with.” Indeed, Lieberman last week said that it was impossible for anyone to make a fully informed decision about the Senate legislation until it was scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has not yet scored the bill, but nevertheless, Lieberman went ahead and made a decision, showing that he had made up his mind to oppose long ago.

ARE SENATE DEMOCRATS RECONSIDERING RECONCILIATION?: The Senate Democratic leadership has repeatedly asserted that the reconciliation process — which would allow the Senate to pass portions of health care with only 51 votes — is off the table. “That would probably be the worst thing we could do right now because of deadlines and dates,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said last month. “If the question is ‘let’s fail again’ or ‘let’s go to reconciliation,’ I don’t think that’s a real question,” said Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta. Among the complications: Insurance reforms such as banning exclusions of people who have pre-existing conditions could not be included in a bill, and “anything passed as part of a budget reconciliation bill would expire in 10 years unless it was renewed or revised.” Podesta added that without the support of Lieberman and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) — who has said that he will oppose any bill that doesn’t include strict restrictions on a woman’s right to choose — the question is whether Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will join in blocking a GOP filibuster. CNN reported yesterday that reconciliation was unlikely to move forward because of opposition from Senate leadership.

ECONOMY — MICHAEL STEELE’S NEW ECONOMIC PLAN FOCUSED ON TAKING AWAY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Yesterday on NBC’s Today, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said that to revive the economy, banks need to lend money to small businesses and in order for banks to start lending, the federal government should “reduce the unemployment tax.” The unemployment tax is a tax levied on employers in order to provide payments of unemployment compensation to workers who have lost their jobs. Unemployment insurance provides a vital lifeline to more than 10 million Americans currently looking for work in an environment where jobs are scarce. Moreover, the benefits also provide fiscal stimulus as they are almost certain to be spent and put back into the economy quickly. Economists estimate that one dollar put towards unemployment benefits contributes about $2.15 to economic growth. While Steele’s solution to fixing the economy is to take away benefits from those who have lost their job, he did not specify who will fill the taxation gap if businesses’ unemployment taxes are reduced. Rather than raid unemployment benefits, the Obama administration is proposing to assist small businesses through funding from the TARP program, which Republicans also oppose. This isn’t the first time Republicans have sought to limit funds to unemployed Americans. Before the Senate passed its jobless benefits package last month, Senate Republicans held up the bill for four weeks, which prevented more than 200,000 Americans from receiving the benefits.