Mar
12
If you Don’t Like A Rule….Break It
Filed Under American Politics | 9 Comments
This is the progressive way. Yesterday, the Senate Parliamentarian, ie the person who judges the rules by which the Senate can act, ruled that the Democrats could not pass a reconciliation bill ‘fixing’ those aspects of the Senate healthcare bill that House Democrats didn’t like. Instead, the Senate Bill would have to be signed into law by Barack Obama before the Senate could pass the reconciliation fixes. If you recall, House Democrats have to pass the Senate bill as is because their bill differs and this is the only way to get a bill into law right now. House Democrats hoped to get a concurrent fix to the Senate bill passed before this bill went to the Presidents desk but this doesn’t seem likely now (it should be pointed out that the Senate Parliamentarians ruling was communicated verbally to members of the Senate GOP and we only have their word for it that this ruling has been made at the moment).
So here’s an idea from Balloon Juice which sums up why I am so fed up with political discourse right now:
Even if it is true, whatever. Fire the parliamentarian- not like it will be unprecedented to do that. Or have Biden over rule him. Or find another way.
Rules like this and the filibuster exist for a reason, to stop political majorities from exercising despotic power. Democracies only exist as they do because checks on majority power temper excess. The Democrats are becoming more and more desperate to pass this legislation and will sacrifice the rules to achieve their aims. When will they learn that sometimes bills get defeated, it’s how democracy works?
Mar
10
Sullivan takes Scott Rasmussen to task for saying this:
One of the more amazing aspects of the health-care debate is how steady public opinion has remained. Despite repeated and intense sales efforts by the president and his allies in Congress, most Americans consistently oppose the plan that has become the centerpiece of this legislative season.
In 15 consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls conducted over the past four months, the percentage of Americans that oppose the plan has stayed between 52% and 58%. The number in favor has held steady between 38% and 44%.
In response, Andrew Sullivan cites one poll (Yougov) which shows a majority favouring healthcare reform whilst ignoring almost every other single poll taken this year that shows more Americans opposed to healthcare than supportive. In fact, 38 polls taken into 2010 asking whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Democratic proposals for reform show them disapproving whilst only three polls show Americans approving.
And he then offers this chart from Pollster.com to prove Rasmussen wrong (he takes out Rasmussen polls to get this effect):
What it shows is that in the last four months, the range of people disapproving is 6%, exactly what Rasmussen shows and the range of those approving is 6%, again exactly as Rasmussen shows.
And then Sullivan critiques the Rasmussen poll itself:
And Pollster’s poll of polls, excluding Rasmussen’s outlier numbers, favoring the old, white and Republican, show a dramatic rise in support this past month, as the consequences of getting nothing at all begin to sink in:
Or voters as they are also known (it will be the white middle-aged and elderly who will make up the vast majority of the voters in November).
I could ignore polls to get an impression I wanted too, but then that would be dishonest wouldn’t it?
For example, here’s Obama’s approval measured by registered and likely voters (ie those that actually matter and can be arsed to vote):
7% more disapprove than approve of Obama. Here’s the same poll aggregation (both aggregations are for 2010 only) with all polls thrown in (ie polling all Americans, not just those prepared to vote):
It’s not difficult to create your own reality, the problem is, no-one else shares it.
Feb
4
Reihan Salam, a very smart writer from the right and one whom I really should read more often, explains why it is both reasonable to oppose the recent attempt to pass health care reform, and why Republicans never had a chance to partake of a bi-partisan approach, because one was never put on the table by the Democratic leadership in the first place:
I think that the approach taken by the White House and its congressional allies was wrongheaded, and that one potential benefit of the Brown victory is that it might chasten the Democrats in a constructive way. The hypothetical example — a reform model that actually works — was not a realistic option after Arlen Specter defected from the Democratic caucus in the Senate and Al Franken won his recount battle. At that moment, the incentives for cooperating with moderate Republican senators weakened tremendously….Senate Democrats offered “compromises” like interstate compacts that bore little resemblance to robust interstate competition. There wasn’t a serious effort to woo Senator Bob Corker, who has explicitly said that he’d be interested in compromise legislation that placed a heavier emphasis on catastrophic coverage
And on the weakness of the Democratic bill:
I do not believe that a weak mandate, a sharp increase in implicit marginal tax rates, and a regulation-driven strategy to addressing adverse selection — as opposed to an incentive-driven strategy using state-based high-risk pools and, better still, well-designed public reinsurance — will work. In fact, I believe that it will turn out very badly and that it will prove impossible to reverse.
I may have been against the original Democratic bill on principle, but at least that bill had substance. But as it progressed through both houses of Congress, it became watered down and corrupted by back-room compromises and deals to such an extent, that the remaining bill does little in the name of reform, but lots in increasing the cost of healthcare for the taxpayer. What is the point in requiring insurance companies to accept medical pre-conditions, if the mandated insurance for the healthy is so weak that there is every incentive to forego insurance until one becomes ill? How, in any conceivable circumstance, can it be a good thing to require non union workers to pay an excise tax whilst exempting union workers?
Republicans have done Democrats, and the cause of decent health reform a favour by obstructing the passage of this bill. Perhaps now, Democrats and Republicans can grow up a little and actually fashion something worthy of the title reform.
Jan
23
A new USA Today/Gallup poll out today shows 55% of respondents want President Obama and Congressional Democrats to “suspend work on the current health care bill … and consider alternative bills that can receive Republican support.” And 39% want to see Democrats “continue to try” to pass health care.
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows 61 percent of adults surveyed saying Congress should “drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.”
As Obama fails to provide leadership to Congressional Democrats, perhaps the man with the tin ear is finally listening to the voice of the American people. Or perhaps he’s just indecisive.
Jan
20
Health Reform Is Dead
Filed Under American Politics | 2 Comments
At least as it’s currently constituted.
Two key moderate Democratic Senators have effectively said as much. Via Marc Ambinder:
Jim Webb:
“In many ways, the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform, but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,”
Senator Evan Byah:
Democrats would find themselves “in even further catastrophe” if they failed to learn from the “wake-up call” of Coakley’s pending defeat, Bayh said.
“It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” Bayh told ABC News. “They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”
There isn’t going to be the appetite in the House to pass the Senate bill as is. And I’m not sure Obama will be able to cobble together 50 votes in he Senate right now, never mind 60.
So does Obama have the capacity to accept a defeat, go back to the drawing board and finally start to put together a bi-partisan coalition (the right move), does he abandon health reform altogether and move on to more populist measures like banking reform and a jobs bill or does he become more combative and continue to press his radical agenda? The next few weeks will define his Presidency starting next week at the State of The Union.
Jan
16
Rich Lowry at The Corner runs through the options:
They can try to pass health care before he can be seated. The problem is that it will strike people as unfair and undemocratic—brazen really. It will create a roiling populist revolt that will far outstrip anything we’ve seen so far. It also will be tough to pull off. There’s the issue of timing—could they cut a final deal and get an acceptable CBO score and all the rest of it before Brown arrived? Plus, there would be the heavier political headwinds created by Brown’s win and the above mentioned revulsion at the process. Would Blanche Lincoln be comfortable going along with this ploy? Would every Blue Dog who voted for the bill the first time around? Seems unlikely.
There are other routes: The Democrats could make another run at Olympia Snowe. This would be the easiest solution. But would they be able to address her concerns about affordability without another drawn-out negotiation (with time continuing to work against them) and without creating other problems in the bill? Also, if Brown won, it well might stiffen her resolve.
There’s always reconciliation. If they go that route, they no longer need 60 votes in the Senate. But my understanding is that they would have to send the bill back through committee. It would be a time-consuming process, making it impossible for Obama to do his “pivot” to jobs anytime soon. And a lot of the most popular features of the bill couldn’t be included, meaning Democrats would have to pass just the Medicare cuts and tax increases through the House and not lose any votes (again, in an environment where a Democrat lost in Massachusetts in an election defined by health care).
In theory, they could try to get the House to pass the Senate bill in its entirety. That means the unions give up the Cadillac loophole, the liberals eat every single one of their concerns, and they don’t fix their Stupak problem, which itself threatens to bring down the bill in House. A very heavy lift.
It wouldn’t be impossible for Democrats still to get it done if Brown won (and the leadership would be more desperate than ever to make it happen), but the odds would be against them. That’s why the stakes are so gigantic and Obama is going to Massachusetts. The fate of his signature piece of legislation—and perhaps his presidency—hangs in the balance.
The problem with all of these options is that it gives those waverers on the Democratic side (either from the right or the left) the chance to bolt, allowing them to blame it on the Massachusetts result. Personally, I think their only real option is to get the House to pass the Senate bill. In that instance, another Senate vote is not needed rendering Scott Brown’s 41st vote irrelevant. But that means passing a bill that doesn’t have a public option as the House bill does, passing a bill that doesn’t go as far as the Senate bill in who benefits from government subsidies and also passing a bill that doesn’t prevent government financing abortion. It will be a bill that the left and rigt of the Democratic house caucus will be unhappy with. However, Obama has reached the stage where has to get a bill passed soon as the longer this drags on, the less he can refocus on the economy. The other routes will either take too long (negotiating) or will be hugely unpopular (reconciliation and not seating Brown).
Jan
13
The Democratic Senatorial candidate for Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, hosted a fundraiser in Washington D.C. yesterday. The roll call:
As first reported by Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner, the host committee for the fundraiser at Pennsylvania Avenue’s Sonoma Restaurant includes lobbyists for Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis and sundry other drug companies that have been among the biggest of ObamaCare’s corporate sponsors. Other hosts—who have raised at least $10,000 for Ms. Coakley—include representatives from UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and other insurers. As far as we can tell, the insurance industry claims to oppose ObamaCare’s current incarnation.
So why are health insurance companies lining up to give their lobby money to Martha Coakley who represents the 60th vote in the Senate that breaks a filibuster on the Democratic healthcare legislation? Surely, as Democrats tell us ad nauseum, health insurance companies are opposed to the proposed reforms.
Well consider what the reforms do:
1. The Health Insurance mandate – With the public option off the table, the mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance just means that the health insurance companies get a whole host of new customers.
2. Reforms aimed at requiring health insurance companies to not disallow people for pre-existing conditions means that insurance companies now have carte blanche to put up prices.
3. This is likely to be the last significant legislation on healthcare (should it pass). That means that Republican calls to open up the market (allowing people to buy insurance across state lines for example) has been effectively killed off for the foreseeable future. That makes it harder for smaller businesses to enter into a more heavily regulated marketplace thus protecting the share for the large incumbent companies.
The Democratic Party – Good for the health insurance business.
Jan
9
Democratic In Name Only
Filed Under American Politics | 2 Comments
Republican Scott Brown has an outside chance of winning the special Senatorial election in Massachusetts. The Democratic pollster PPP calls it a “losable race” for the Democratic Party:
At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they’re going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy’s legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.
-Scott Brown’s favorables are up around 60%, a product of his having had the airwaves to himself for the last week. By comparison Bob McDonnell’s were at 55% right before his election and Chris Christie’s were only at 43%. Coakley’s campaign or outside groups need to tie Brown’s image to national Republicans and knock him down a notch over the final week of the campaign.
This has become a losable race for Democrats- but it could also be easily winnable if Coakley gets her act together for the last week of the campaign. Complacency is the Democrats’ biggest enemy at this point and something that needs to be overcome to avoid a potential disaster.
It would be a huge story should Scott Brown win. Massachusetts is about as blue as states get. But there is another reason why a Republican win would be big news; it’s impact on the healthcare vote. Should Brown win, he represents the 41st anti-healthcare vote, the vote that can sustain a filibuster regardless of how many Democrats vote for reform. The Democratic Party is planning for such an eventuality:
Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.
But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.
The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.
Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.
“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”
Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.
Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.
Does the argument that because it’s a federal election, a requisite ten days have to pass before certification can take place? No:
In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Deliberately delaying Brown’s certification (should he win) so as to avoid his no vote on healthcare gives lie to the way the party of the left identify themselves. It would be disingenuous for them to refer to themselves as the Democratic Party.
Jan
3
Writing in the Wall Street Journal (with two others), Senator Hatch of the GOP argues that the individual mandate aspect of Obamacare is unconstitutional:
President Obama’s health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends.
The obvious response to this from Democrats would be to point out that the individual mandate is constitutional precisely because it is a tax:
WSJ again:
Chairman Max Baucus’s bill includes the so-called individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900 “excise tax” if you don’t buy health insurance. (It had been as much as $3,800 but Democrats reduced the amount last week to minimize the political sticker shock.) And, lo, it turns out that if you don’t pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail, or both.
Under questioning last week, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted that the individual mandate would become a part of the Internal Revenue Code and that failing to comply “could be criminal, yes, if it were considered an attempt to defraud.” Mr. Barthold noted in a follow-up letter that the willful failure to file would be a simple misdemeanor, punishable by the $25,000 fine or jail time under Section 7203.
And that of course will allow Republicans to juxtapose that response with this video in any future political adverts:
The rest of the Hatch article is interesting. The one point he makes that really stands out is referencing the Nebraska bribe that got Senator Ben Nelson on board:
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states’ obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed “cash for cloture” because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
“General welfare” is the other constitutional argument made by Democrats in defending the constitutionality of the health care legislation. In this case, the word “general” is applied way too “generally”.
Dec
31
As noted by Megan McArdle at The Atlantic:
The good is that some people who cannot now acquire insurance will get it; even if this does not make them noticeably healthier, it will make them less worried, and insulate them from catastrophic medical bills. If our technocrats get things right, we may improve the practice of medicine–the most hope probably lies in improving IT and streamlining the bloated provider administrative processes.
The bad in my opinion, is that I’m not particularly sanguine about the ability of our technocrats to deliver unmitigated fabulousness, nor our politicians to resist the lobbying groups who will be steadily pressing them to make everything less fabulous. I think we’ll probably end up eventually with price controls that reduce innovation, providers that turn into horrid quasi-public utilities, brain drain out of the medical profession, and pretty serious rationing, which as David Cutler told me the last time I interviewed him, no other country has managed to avoid.
Oh, and there’s a good chance we’ll also end up with a fiscal crisis. Those are usually pretty bad for everyone, but particularly the everyones who rely on government benefits.
Does the good outweigh the bad? You decide.