Friday, March 26, 2010

It's a done deal

Barack Obama scored a big victory, both in terms of policy and politics. Wanting to get some Republicans on board, Democrats spent the last year crafting a bill that Republicans – or at least large numbers of them – should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years. Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. The new healthcare reform law not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers.

Regardless of what they say on the talk shows, Republicans know that the plan does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance. Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine". Well, this bill is far from socialized medicine. It is nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It does not even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government which, in turn, would have given insurance companies competition and force them to keep their costs down. (I predict that Congress will have to revisit the issue relatively soon to address the rising increase of health insurance premiums.)

Republican leaders, who have only thought of getting back power ever since the Democrats won their majority, think that they have just been handed a heavy political poll-studded cudgel with which to hammer Democrats in the fall, but they better think again. Moderate Republican David Frum's “GOP Waterloo” theory is getting a lot of buzz. He says that the healthcare bill is Republicans’ and conservative Democrats’ most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s – not only for reasons of politics, but because healthcare reform will be an enduring policy. The bill will not get repealed, but when Republicans take power again, they will likely tweak it – tinker around the corners of it. Maybe they will add tort reform, or purchasing across state lines, or change how it's funded. But now that healthcare reform has been signed, the future holds healthcare reform, not repeal.

Frum wrote:

“At the beginning of this process we [Republicans] made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. [Republicans believed] this would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s Waterloo in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we [Republicans] went for all the marbles, we ended with none.”

There is little question that the new Affordable Care Act, the lawsuits against it (both credible and talking points-based), and the Republican "repeal" movement will keep the Tea Party activists energized and engaged. Off-year elections are about mobilizing the party base. Independents remain the key voting group in politics.

Frum also wrote:

“When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to Limbaugh’s show much less – then he gets less money.

“So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them ‘It’s mission accomplished’. For the cause they purport to represent: ‘It’s Waterloo all right: ours [meaning Republicans].’ ”

It didn't take long – and the GOP knew it, which is why they fought so hard against HCR passing – new poll numbers show a positive shift in opinions toward the Democrats. These numbers suggest that running on a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act or shift healthcare policy to the right is not much of a winning strategy. Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday. A poll by USA Today/Gallup finds a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry." The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system. Bonus stat: President's approval rating on health care 46%; GOP approval rating on health care 26%.

In a CNN poll, a question shows that 51 percent of the public trust Obama versus 39 percent who trust Congressional Republicans. Similarly, another question shows that 45 percent trust the Democrats versus only 39 percent who trust the Republicans.

All these numbers suggests that running on a promise to repeal the Healthcare Act will not work in favor of the Republicans. (I hope they do not realize this until it is too late.) The Party of No is losing. As it is, however, the lock-step march of the Republicans in radical resistance to even the most modest proposals to heal a deeply ailing nation leaves the Democrats as the only party that matters. The Republicans are a party of incoherent rage, and while they might temporarily succeed as demagogues, they are now acknowledged strangers to fact and logic – not to mention compassion.

Now that the bill has actually passed, independents will begin to forget the ugly process and start focusing more on the substance – the goodies they get from the bill. Talk of death panels, deem and pass, and reconciliation will fade away. Every news outlet in the country already has stories and charts showing people what they get under the new law. Once the public realizes the goodies they get, Republican candidates – and conservative Democrats – will not want to insist on repealing the bill – which would be the same thing as insisting that children be kept off of health insurance once again because they have a pre-existing condition, or that a sick person can be kicked out of their insurance plan, or that small businesses should not get the 35% tax credits to help pay for their employees' health insurance. Even if Republicans scored a 1994-style landslide in November, how many votes could they muster to re-open the 'doughnut hole' and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes would it take to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes could they get to banish 25-year-olds from their parents' insurance coverage? Who really wants to repeal the ban on annual and lifetime insurance payment limits?

The seniors will be really happy that the donut hole for their drug coverage is closing, although they do lose the overpriced upper-end Advantage C Medicare plans for which Medicare, through taxpayers, pay private insurance companies more than if the seniors stayed with regular Medicare. This will extend Medicare's solvency for 10 more years beyond the previously predicted date.

By November, David Frum argues, "the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs" – and they are going to love what they have. Even if the Affordable Care Act moves from unpopular to merely neutral, Tea Party-driven mania for repeal will be out of sync with the majority of the public, especially if Democrats are focusing their public conversation on jobs.

Word is already getting out about how the deficit will be REDUCED by 1.3 trillion dollars during the first 20 years the reform plan is in effect. Can you guess what happens to the GOP when the public begins to understand and enjoy the goodies in the bill? Soon the public will be shouting: “Keep your hands off my Obamacare!” This could actually turn into a Republican Waterloo, especially if the economy begins to turn around for Main Street.

Healthcare reform is a done deal.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Is Congress Sick?

Is Congress Sick?
Needed: A Transfusion of Democracy

The institution of Congress must undergo changes if it is to resume its role of leadership envisioned by the founding fathers.

Let's take a look at the machinery of Congress and see why it is faltering.
Ideally, Congress should meet, organize promptly, debate all major matters fairly and efficiently and adjourn in June or July. Why doesn't this happen? There is no easy diagnosis and there are no easy answers because the machinery of Congress is extremely complicated. Congressional junkets and outrageous personal conduct deserve and get publicity and should be condemned. But these are relatively rare. They occur in industry and in state and local governments too. As wrong and outrageous as these actions are the fact is that these things have little to do with the failure of Congress as an institution. The trouble is the machinery which gives every advantage to those who say "no" over those who say "yes"; to those who want deadlock over those who want issues resolved; to those who want delay over those who want action now. Here are a few of the more paralyzing factors

SENORITY SYSTEM
Every aspect of Congress's work is affected by a rigid, unbending, all-pervasive seniority system which (a) gives a few men great national power with no national responsibility, and (b) selects key congressional leaders on a basis which excludes any consideration of ability. The committee member who (regardless of ability) has served 20 years is not just 5 per cent more powerful than the member who has served 19 years. If the former is chairman of a committee he is 1000 per cent more powerful. New members are told that there is no alternative to this practice, that a change would cause chaos, that "to get along, you must go along." Yet there is no other democratic body in the free world (and I include 50 state legislatures) which operate thusly.

The seniority system was not devised in Independence Hall for it was unheard of until about 50 years ago. Henry Clay, for example, was elected Speaker and Committee Chairman the day he took his oath as a member. While the founding fathers intended government power to be dispersed and divided, I think they would be shocked at the way Congress has re-fragmented that block of power it was intended to have. The Speaker of the House, with heavy responsibility, has relatively little power. The major committee chairmen between them have much more--and the power they exercise affects the entire country--not just their small congressional districts. Yet, so long as 400,000 people in a particular congressional district re-elect a chairman to Congress, he holds his position of national power. The people of Southern Arizona who can speak in the House only through me have no say in who shall exercise this power. To get the 20 years of seniority it takes to become a major chairman, a congressman--whether a Democrat or Republican--must represent a "safe" one-party district. Many, but far from all, of the present chairmen are of exceptional ability and would be leaders under any system. But, able or not, each one exercises immense power on crucial national matters without any direct or indirect responsibility to a national constituency.

No city council, no school board, no great corporation, no bank would canvass its personnel roster for the very oldest man in point of service and arbitrarily without exception make him city manager, school superintendent or company president. In the worlds of local government, education, industry and finance we seek out and promote the brilliant leaders, either young or old. In Congress we discourage able younger men and create a system in which consecutive years of tenure are everything and ability, diligence, leadership potential, responsibility count for nothing.

Let us pose an example which will make clear the ignominy of the present system: If ex-President Eisenhower were to seek election to the House (as did ex-President John Quincy Adams), and if he were assigned to the Armed Services Committee--this great general would irrevocably go to the bottom of the list. He would ask his question of witnesses, give his advice, or serve as chairman, only after every present member was through.

REPETITIOUS COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Congressional committees in their own field of jurisdiction are almost all-powerful separate legislatures. They are jealous of their prerogatives and share power reluctantly. Thus we often have four or more separate and complete hearings on the same piece of legislation, instead of one combined, complete investigation. Thus a bill to build a dam must go its long and tortuous course through House Public Works Committee, Senate Public Works, and then through Senate and House Appropriations Committees with the same witnesses giving the same testimony each of the four times. Many key administrators and cabinet members spend the majority of their time answering questions they have already been asked by three other committees of the Congress.

THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE'S UNLIMITED DEBATE
The House and Senate are separate bodies with separate traditions and rules of procedure. The main paralysis in the House is the House Rules Committee; the Senate's special cross is unlimited debate.

House members are unable to vote on any major bill until and unless eight senior Members of this group, in their unrestricted wisdom, see fit to grant us this right. We are told that chaos would result if the Speaker could simply call up important bills for debate. Yet the Senate Rules Committee has no such power. What the House Rules Committee does to stagnate the operations of the House is done for the Senate by the filibuster. Restless junior senators are told that the Republic would fall if any time limit were fixed for debate. Yet the House debated the tax cut bill last September for just eight hours and all was said that needed saying.

Thus what is assertedly vital to the Republic in the Senate (unlimited debate) is unimportant to the House; what supposedly saves the country in the House (Rules Committee control) is unheard of in the Senate.

MUCH TIME IS WASTED
The House rarely legislates on Monday or Friday because of the tradition of the "Tuesday to Thursday Club." This phrase describes the practice of some Eastern and Southern congressmen, many of whom retain active law practices and business interests at home. Many of them arrive for the week's business on the early plane Tuesday. By Thursday night they are ready to depart. Important votes can be scheduled only for the three middle days of the week. This not only drags the sessions into late fall, but throws an unduly heavy load of committee work on western, midwestern and more distant southern members who cannot afford to commute.

THE BURDEN OF NON-LEGISLATIVE DUTIES
A congressman's primary job is to legislate. Yet our society and government are so complex that we spend less than a third of our time on legislative matters. A congressman is not only a legislator: he is an employment agent, passport finder, constituent greeter, tourist agent, getter-out-of-the-armed-services, veterans affairs adjuster, public buildings dedicator, industrial development specialist, postmaster appointer, party leader, bill finder, newsletter writer, etc. etc. etc. His typical day will be far more concerned with these problems than with national defense, foreign aid or appropriations for public works.
Given the nature of our political and governmental system, and the sincere and genuine problems which constituents have with a big and sprawling government, much of this is inevitable. An adequate congressional staff, and proper organization of his office, will enable the conscientious member to give enough time to legislation, but controversies over who is to be postmaster at Apache Junction and increasing demands for other non-legislative work are a big part of our problem.

A DETERMINED PUBLIC CAN BRING REFORM
Perhaps all of this may only reflect the frustrations of a junior Member of Congress for, in spite of Congress the Republic seems to prosper and continue. Old timers always comfort us with the crack that, "The seniority system is bad, but the longer you're here the better you'll like it!" But I am not convinced. I strongly feel that the Congress is in trouble. It worships old procedures and uses worn out machinery in an unsuccessful attempt to attend the business of a huge, jet-age nation.

The hard fact is that the engine is badly worn out and must be overhauled into something suitable to our complicated and fast-moving civilization.
Even those congressmen who agree that Congress needs improvement throw up their hands in doubt that significant changes can really be brought about. I don't agree. Arizona judges and lawyers undertook a largely successful effort to modernize the judicial procedures which had clogged the machinery of our courts. I played a part in that movement and know how difficult such efforts are. But something similar is needed in Congress.

Congress will never reform itself through internal pressures alone. Such a movement must come from and be supported by influential citizen groups and ordinary citizens. All Americans who believe in a healthy, functioning democracy should get interested in and aroused by the vital issue of congressional reform.

A noted Republican, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, writing in 1889, made a comment which is still appropriate today:

"The people of this country are, as it seems to me, thoroughly tired of the stagnation of business and the general inaction of Congress. They are disgusted to see year after year go by and great measures affecting the business and political interests of the country accumulate at the doors of Congress and never reach the stage of action.

"They have also waked up to the fact that this impotence and stagnation are due to the preposterous fabric known as the rules of the House, and they are prepared to support heartily that party and those leaders who will break down these rules and allow the current of legislation to flow in its natural channel and at its proper rate."

The parliament of the world's greatest democracy is not a democratic institution.

Written by Morris K. Udall
1964

Mo Udall served as a U.S. Representative from Arizona from May 2, 1961 to May 4, 1991.

Taken from: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/congrept/88th/640221.html

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Bunning’s blockade

On Tuesday night, senators finally approved a bill extending unemployment benefits, highway funding, and other federal programs after Senator Jim Bunning dropped his days-long “hold” on the bill. The Senate approved the measure 78 to 19 (that means it was bipartisan).

During the Bunning “hold” on a bill that would have provided a short-term extension for federal funding programs that expired March 1, the federal government was forced to furlough workers (without pay), while hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans braced for an end to their unemployment checks and health insurance benefits, and doctors saw fees for treating Medicare patients decline by 21%.

Senator Jim Bunning's "unilateral decision to block an extension of federally funded unemployment benefits and other popular provisions…united Democrats and sent Republicans hiding from the political backlash," Politico reports. "Making matters worse for the GOP: Bunning is opposing the $10 billion aid package on the grounds that it isn't paid for – effectively forcing his Republican colleagues to join him or risk undercutting their own efforts to make Democrats' deficit spending a centerpiece of their 2010 campaign."

Bunning did not have much support, even in his own party. Most of the Republicans ran for the hills. Republican Senator Susan Collins asked Bunning to stop what he was doing. One Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, showed support for Bunning by arguing that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working." (Yeah, we know that you people who have lost your jobs are just taking a vacation on the government dole. Get off your fat, lazy b*tts and find a job!) Kyl makes this statement while the nation faces chronic unemployment levels unlike anything we have seen since The Great Depression.

This issue could not show the contrast between Democrats and Republicans any clearer. Democrats are working to put money in the pocket of the unemployed to help them feed their families while they are looking for jobs, while Republicans are trying to block that money and calling those who are relying on benefits lazy. The idea that those who have lost their jobs in this Wall Street/mortgage-scam recession are simply deadbeats, choosing to stay on unemployment rather than look for work, seems more appropriate to Scrooge's attitude.

The results of Kentucky Republican Senator Bunning’s action spread far beyond unemployment benefits.Kentucky could have been deeply affected by Congress' failure to extend the current transportation bill, which will halt nearly $1 billion in federal reimbursements to states each week, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. To be considered at a March 26 bid letting, five construction projects in Henry, Fleming and Lincoln counties must be advertised on the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Web site by Friday, said Chuck Wolfe, a cabinet spokesman. The projects include two bridge replacements. Without federal authorization by the end of the week, “they would have to be withdrawn from the March letting,” Wolfe said.

How many other states would have had the exact same problem due to Bunning’s blockade?

There’s more:

Bunning's objection also resulted in the expiration Sunday of a provision that would have stopped a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors. That drew fire from American Medical Association J. James Rohack, who said seniors are “collateral damage” to Bunning’s procedural games in the Senate. Physicians are outraged because the cut, combined with the continued instability in the system, will force them to make difficult practice changes including limiting the number of Medicare patients they can treat. AMA suggested that doctors sit on their bills for a couple of weeks until the issue is cleared up.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: “In addition to the dismay of these American workers, we must add the disruption of key safety programs. Programs like “Drunk Driving: over the limit, under arrest” campaign, our current work against distracted driving, and our work promoting child passenger safety and motorcycle safety. These are programs that work to change driving practices that kill 37,000 Americans every year.”

Yet another provision that expired Sunday because Congress did not act in a timely manner allowed satellite television transmissions to certain rural areas.

Also the loan program for small businesses (small businesses are vital to the U.S. economy – employing half of all American workers) were put on hold, an extension to the COBRA health insurance subsidy for people who have lost their jobs expired, and an extension to the National Flood Insurance Program authorization expired.

If Congress had not acted, the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that 4,300 Kentuckians and 8,000 New Yorkers would lose unemployment benefits in the coming days. By June, about 60,000 Kentuckians would lose on benefits prematurely, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project, which advocates a broad extension of benefits. Multiply that by 50 states. According to research from the National Employment Law Project, nearly 1.2 million unemployed workers were poised to lose jobless benefits, and with highway projects stopped, as many as 90,000 jobs could have been lost.

Sen. Bunning claims held up this emergency legislation because of the bill’s cost and the fact that it is not being paid for up front (an estimated $10 billion over the next 10 years), yet he voted YES on:

· the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $1.35 Trillion over 10 years
· the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $349.7 Billion over 10 years
· the GOP’s 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill – Increases Deficit by $395 Billion over 10 years

These three Republican bills alone added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit!

In this particular case, I have a tendency to agree with Cheney when he said, “Deficits don’t matter.” Actually, deficits do matter very much, but in a time of deep recession with very high unemployment, the government has to spend to keep the economy from going straight down the tubes. When the economy, including unemployment, improves, then you begin to bring down the deficit.

Why is all this so important since Bunning finally relented and the problem was solved?

Bunning is the perfect example on problems with Senate procedures, specifically overuse of the "hold" and the filibuster. With Bunning as their poster child, is this the moment when Senate Democrats finally start to move forward on reforming Senate procedures and perhaps start moving Congress forward again?

An enormous gift has been handed to Democrats on a silver platter. This one is so easy to paint as Democrats being on the side of the angels, fighting off Republican demons. The talking points just write themselves. Democrats should compare Bunning to the Clinton/Gingrich showdown every chance they get. They could say how indignant they were over the plight of the unemployed whose checks could have permanently stop because one Republican senator did not get his way. They should publicly ask Republicans if this is what they mean by "deficit reduction" and "fiscal responsibility" – holding over a million families' immediate financial future hostage in a senatorial snit. Democrats should decry "parliamentary tricks" that let one single senator anonymously hold up any legislation they feel like.

There is a very basic lesson here, one that Democrats just never seem to learn. The lesson is: Republicans have no shame about pushing Congressional rules to the limit and beyond. They also have no fear of any political consequences whatsoever, because Democrats never call them on it in any meaningful way. Republicans do not even think twice about doing this stuff, because Democrats seem fundamentally incapable of playing hardball – even when Republicans taunt Democrats and dare them to do so.

If handled correctly, this could be a watershed moment for Democrats – a way to show who really cares about the American public and who does not. Remember, Newt Gingrich went so far as to shut the entire federal government down, because he thought he would emerge from the fray with a political victory. He did not, and Clinton did. But the only reason that happened is because of public opinion. And public opinion is a pump that needs priming. The next few days will show whether Democrats are even capable of doing so, because the Republicans have just served up a golden opportunity on a silver platter. Opportunity is not just knocking; it has in fact broken down the Democrats' front door with a sledgehammer, and is now bashing them about the ears in a whirling frenzy of opportunity.

Here's the "kicker" which should prove irresistible: while speaking on the floor of the Senate, Bunning's response to Democrats upset with his actions was, "Tough sh*t!" If the Dems cannot make political hay out of that one, they simply should not be in the field of politics in the first place. "Bunning says tough 'sh*t' to the unemployed!" How hard is that? Get out there in front of the cameras and say so!

Okay, Dems, repeat after me: Republican obstructionism; Party of No.

Here are your talking points: Republicans do not care about you. Republicans do not care about the unemployed. Republicans do not care about families going bankrupt due to losing jobs or due to illness. Republicans are more interested in playing politics than doing what is right for this country. People's lives are at stake, but Republicans do not care.

Every chance they get over the next few days Democrats should be loudly denouncing Bunning's move. Bring it up no matter what the subject – you can always tie it into "Congressional gridlock" or "Republican obstructionism" or "this is why nothing gets done in Washington."

To put it an even more colorful way, the Republicans are collectively bent over in front of the Democrats with a giant "KICK ME!" sign painted on the metaphorical GOP backside, all the while screaming: "I dare you to do it!" at the tops of their lungs. All that is required is for Democrats to summon the energy to lift their collective foot a few feet off the floor and do so. Come on Dems, if you blow this one, you deserve to lose Congress next fall! Show some spunk!

On, no, please, don’t blow it…

SIGH


See McClatchy news article, “Who really gets hurt when GOP's Bunning blocks this bill?” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/01/89610/gops-bunning-told-off-senators.html