Desperado’s Outpost

March 18, 2010

As The Health Care Reform Turns

Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Politics, health care — Craig @ 7:03 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

In today’s episode of  “As The Health Care Reform Turns”:

“House Democrats are inching toward the majority they need to pass health care legislation, giving them added confidence as they work out the last details of the bill and gird for a showdown as soon as this weekend.”

“Details” like what’s in the bill and how much it costs:

“House Democratic leaders on Wednesday night said the long-awaited Congressional Budget Office score of the reconciliation bill will not come out until Thursday, forcing an acknowledgment that a Saturday healthcare vote is likely off the table…But leaders are still hoping for a score on Thursday, and are still preparing for a possible vote before the end of the weekend.

…Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)…said that the delay is the result of numerous technical issues involved, and stressed that, despite any rumors to the contrary, the delays are not the result of policy problems.”

Translation: The delays are the result of policy problems. Just a hunch—Pelosi has seen the CBO numbers and they ain’t good. Hence the need to raise the tax on benefits:

“AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is headed into a meeting with President Obama this afternoon after the White House and Congressional leaders have begun to discuss a higher-than-expected excise tax on some health care plans, in order to maintain their claim that health care legislation will reduce the deficit, a source involved in health care talks said.”

Policy problems like President Obama’s support for the so-called “Louisiana Purchase”:

“That provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help,” Obama told Fox News’s Bret Baier…”

And since PhRMA has agreed to spend $6 million on pro-reform advertising, it’s safe to assume that the not-so-secret deal between the White House and the drug industry will be in the elusive bill as well.

So, where does HCR stand today? Pretty much in the same place its been:

“Democratic leaders say they have not nailed down the 216 votes they need for passage, but they are pressing ahead in the belief that they can get them.”

March 16, 2010

Health Care “Sleight of Hand”

Filed under: Congress, Politics, financial reform, health care — Craig @ 9:16 pm
Tags: , , , ,

If members of Congress have any question as to why they rank somewhere below used car salesmen on the trustworthy scale, there are 2 shining examples relating to 2 pieces of proposed legislation in today’s news—one on health care reform and one on financial reform—which should make it crystal clear. First there’s this from the Washington Post:

“After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.”

Wait a minute, I thought President Obama said it was time for an up or down vote on health care reform? Que pasa? I guess that only applies when the votes are there. Failing that, the need for an alternative procedure arises. Such as:

“Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.”

Note to Speaker Pelosi: For future reference, any time the words “sleight of hand” are used in relation to an action by Congress, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that what you’re trying to do is on the up and up.

“The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.”

Wait another minute. Haven’t the Speaker and the Democratic leadership been extolling the virtues of this “reform” and how good it will be for us ( just trust them)?  Then why the need for “political protection?” I’m confused.

The other bit of news is Sen. Chris Dodd’s release of his so-called “sweeping financial regulatory reform” bill. This quote from Dodd at the end of a Huffington Post article says it all:

“Interestingly, Dodd seemed to want to minimize expectations for the proposed legislation’s impact by saying several times that it is not enough to prevent another crisis: “This legislation will not stop the next crisis from coming. No legislation can…”

Yes it can, Sen. Dodd. If you want it to. Ay, there’s the rub.

March 9, 2010

Washington Still Fiddling

Filed under: Congress, Obama, Politics, economy, health care — Craig @ 5:52 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Bob Herbert’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times echos what I’ve been thinking lately—it’s time for Congress and President Obama to get past health care reform and move on to jobs. Please.

“The Obama administration and Democrats in general are in trouble because they are not urgently and effectively addressing the issue that most Americans want them to: the frightening economic insecurity that has put a chokehold on millions of American families.

The economy shed 36,000 jobs last month, and that was trumpeted in the press as good news. Well, after your house has burned down I suppose it’s good news that the flames may finally be flickering out. But once you realize that it will take 11 million or more new jobs to get us back to where we were when the recession began, you begin to understand that we’re not really making any headway at all.

…Instead of focusing with unwavering intensity on this increasingly tragic situation, making it their top domestic priority, President Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have spent astonishing amounts of time and energy, and most of their political capital, on an obsessive quest to pass a health care bill.”

“Obsessive quest” is right. But sadly I don’t see it ending any time soon. Now the talk is to have health care done by Easter. Anybody who believes that believes in the Easter bunny. But never mind, Congress. Take your time. The good economic news is that another million people stopped looking for work last month and no longer count in the unemployment statistics. Hooray.

By the way, what happened to “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010″ from the State of the Union speech in January? Just curious.

March 4, 2010

Another Financial Crisis “More Than Predictable, It’s Inevitable”

Filed under: Congress, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Politics, Wall Street, bailout, economy — Craig @ 8:15 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Remember the economy and that little thing we had not too long ago called…what was it…oh yeah, the financial crisis. While Congress and the White House spend “the next few weeks” mired in the never-ending saga of health care reform, there are some potential problems which could affect us a lot sooner than 2014. If legislators have some spare time they might want to give it a glance:

“Even as many Americans still struggle to recover from the country’s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, another crisis – one that will be even worse than the current one – is looming, according to a new report from a group of leading economists, financiers, and former federal regulators.

In the report, the panel, which includes Rob Johnson of the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, warns that financial regulatory reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and Congress must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high-risk investing that precipitated the near-collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.

…Without more stringent reforms, “another crisis – a bigger crisis that weakens both our financial sector and our larger economy – is more than predictable, it is inevitable,” Johnson says in the report, commissioned by the nonpartisan Roosevelt Institute.”

But in typical Congressional fashion, “beefing up” financial regulations and “stringent reforms” aren’t on the agenda:

“The proposal” [that would ban the banks receiving federally insured deposits from engaging in trading which benefits the banks and not their customers] “faces strong resistance in Congress, where lawmakers have shown little appetite for adding to the prolonged debate on overhauling financial regulations.”

The reason for Congress’ “little appetite” should come as no great surprise:

“Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would probably be the Wall Street firms most affected by the ban, known informally as the Volcker Rule…”

Goldman most affected? We can’t have any of that. Chris Dodd needs a job starting in January.

February 24, 2010

“Villain Rotation” in the Senate

Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Obama, Politics, health care, special interests — Craig @ 5:09 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hesitate to even comment on the health care reform charade any more because that’s exactly what it is and has been from the get-go, a charade. But Glenn Greenwald had a piece in Salon yesterday which nailed the situation perfectly. The bottom line is this–there will be no real reform for one reason–those in power don’t want it. Sure they, meaning the president and Democrats in the Senate, want to give the appearance of being for substantial reform, but the fact is they all benefit too much from the status quo. They aren’t about to kill the corporate goose that lays the golden campaign contribution eggs, and especially now that the Supreme Court has allowed corporations, like the insurance industry, to spend unlimited amounts on advertising for and against candidates.

Greenwald cites Sen. Jay Rockefeller as the latest example of what he calls “Villain Rotation.”

“They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.”

From Politics Daily on October 4, 2009:

“Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He’s a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor — and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

“I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go,” Rockefeller told me in an interview. “There’s got to be a safe harbor.”

Jay Rockefeller Monday:

“Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that.”

Greenwald:

“In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor it doesn’t have 60) But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.”  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing…[B]ack in August the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it).  Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary–finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include?  The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:  Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.”

The problem was, and is, that the president and the Democrats in Congress are getting exactly what they wanted to start with. The backroom deal with PhRMA is intact. The individual mandate remains, forcing people to buy from private insurance companies. The president’s plan also raises the subsidies, which shovels taxpayers dollars to the same private companies, which in turn keeps the corporate contributions flowing and away from the Republicans.

If this plan passes, I would suggest buying stock in Aetna, WellPoint, United Health Care, et al. Maybe the dividends will help cover the cost of the premiums.

February 6, 2010

Make Room Under the Bus

Filed under: Democrats, Obama, Politics, health care — Craig @ 3:44 am
Tags: , ,

Dear Congressional Democrats,  

Welcome to the undercarriage of Barack Obama Mass Transit:

“And it may be that — you know, if Congress decides — if Congress decides we’re not going to do it [health care reform], even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works. There will be elections coming up and they’ll be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or the other during election time.”

Sincerely,

Grandma,

Reverend Wright,

Public option supporters,

Defenders of civil liberties,

And a litany of other once upon a time hopers and changers.

P.S. We feel your pain.

January 30, 2010

Lucy Holds the Football……Again

Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Republicans, health care — Craig @ 2:16 pm
Tags: , ,

Some people never learn:

“Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Friday that she has been in conversation with Democrats and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about a way forward on health care reform.

“I have talked with several of my Democratic colleagues, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, just sorting through these issues, and the process, and what will unfold,” Snowe told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Friday afternoon.

…But Snowe made it very clear she could not support any form of a bill that came through the reconciliation process—a legislative move she called “wrong and untenable.”

Instead, Snowe believes Congress could pass a scaled-back version of insurance reform based on measures that would aid small business, a policy stance she has held since the summer with she voted in favor of the bill that came through the Finance Committee.”

Einstein was right.

May 26, 2009

The Return of the “Social Security is Going Broke” Myth

Filed under: Obama, Politics, Uncategorized — Craig @ 7:09 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

As if there wasn’t enough panic coming from the Republicans in D.C. (along with some Democrats like Harry Reid) about detainees from Gitmo being re-located to American suburbia, now comes the obligatory ‘Social Security is going broke’ myth from one of the usual suspects on the right, Robert Samuelson, columnist for the Washington Post.

”The recession had made everything worse…trust funds run dry; promised benefits exceed dedicated payroll taxes…retirees would scream. Hospitals might shut.” Chicken Little Samuelson cries.

Mr. Samuelson’s solution?

“It’s increasingly obvious that Congress and the president (regardless of the party in power) will deal with the political stink bomb of an aging society only if forced. And the most plausible means of compulsion would be for Social Security and Medicare to go bankrupt.”

Good idea, let them both go away, paving the way for another all-time greatest hit from Samuelson and his fellow travelers, privatization. (Note: the preceding contains sarcasm).

Just a couple of problems with the panic scenario. One, Social Security isn’t going broke. Two, the fiscal outlook for Social Security and Medicare are completely different. Of course the privatizers know this, they just like to lump them together to make the numbers bigger and scarier.

“About a decade ago, conservative and libertarian economists who oppose Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements came up with a clever rhetorical strategy. They would calculate the gap between the payroll taxes that pay for these programs and estimated costs over time. But there was one problem: The gap isn’t all that scary, at least in the near future.

So in order to frighten the American people and their elected leaders, deficit hawks cite the sum total of Social Security’s “unfunded liabilities” over 75 years. But even this — a paltry $4.3 trillion over three-quarters of a century, according to the 2008 report — isn’t sufficiently terrifying.  [So they combine Medicare and SS]

[This] produces a suitably spooky 75-year shortfall of $42.9 trillion. And if this is not alarming enough, deficit hawks can cite the truly apocalyptic figure of $101.7 trillion in combined “entitlement” spending over an infinite time horizon.

The anti-Social Security lobby always presents the “unfunded liabilities” of “entitlements” in scary dollar terms, rather than as percentage points of GDP. Here’s why: Over the next 75 years, the Social Security shortfall at most hovers around 1 percent of total U.S. GDP over that same period.”

Samuelson claims that Social Security will run out of money by 2037. Never mind the fact that this projection is based on an annual economic growth rate of 2.6% and the average annual growth rate since the Civil War is  nearly 3 percent.

At a rate of 3%, Social Security is solvent for 75 years, not 28.

Even using the conservative estimates, an increase in the payroll tax from 12.4% to 14.4% would completely eliminate the shortfall.

Medicare is a problem right now. But President Obama’s proposed health care reform would go a long way towards solving it.

“Medicare is entirely different. It’s a monster. But fixing it has everything to do with slowing the rate of growth of medical costs — including, let’s not forget, having a public option when it comes to choosing insurance plans under the emerging universal health insurance bill. With a public option, the government can use its bargaining power with drug companies and suppliers of medical services to reduce prices.”

So you see, no need to panic, Republicans. Resume focusing on KSM being your next door neighbor.

Blog at WordPress.com.