Newshoggers.com

Where's My Monkey Wrench?

By Steve Hynd

A couple of days ago,  Chris Bowers snarkily announced his conversion to being a "conservative Democrat".

After several years of trying to "retake" the Democratic Party and make it more progressive, today I am giving up and becoming a conservative Democrat. Upon careful consideration, the benefits packages are simply too heavily tilted toward the corporate wing of the party. Check it out:

It would be pretty sweet to be able to endorse someone other than a Democrat for President, and then have the Democratic leadership do whatever it takes to keep me in the Party. I mean, if you do this as a progressive, then you are pretty much screwed for life.

...If you are a conservative Democrat, you get frequent meetings with the President and proclamations that he is one of your own. If you are a progressive, you have to stand at the back of the line, and then get threats about never hearing from the White House again if you step out of line.

Further, if you are a conservative Democrat, you can also refuse to pay your Democratic Party Committee dues, and still receive disproportionate expenditures from Democratic Party Committees. That is just a straight up good deal.

...Being a conservative Democrat gets you more money, too. You can proclaim that you are a conservative Democrat, and still have small, progressive, grassroots donors be by far your top contributors. Hard to argue with receiving both enormous big dollar fundraisers held in your honor and huge amounts of money from small progressive donors. So really, who cares if bloggers complain about you. Their readers are still going to fork over huge amounts of money.

If you are a conservative Democrat, you get to hold up, water down, and threaten whatever Democratic legislation you want. And there are no repercussions. In fact...

Being a conservative Democrat also makes you far more likely to receive a major cabinet appointment. Not even counting the Republicans, New Democrats outnumber Progressives in President Obama's cabinet by 7-1.

Finally, if one of those crazy progressives decides to challenge you in a primary campaign, if you are a conservative Democrat you can also count on the endorsements of 95% of your congressional colleagues, the entire party leadership, and virtually every progressive advocacy organization. They will stand by you.

"Bonesparkle" at Scholars & Rogues took up the issue (H/t Kat):

Ultimately, Bowers and other frustrated progressives are right. The Democratic party just isn’t that into them. They’re useful when votes are needed, but are utterly incapable of leveraging that into actual influence...

Playing along isn’t working. So how about rounding up all the members of the Progressive Caucus (and their many allies around the country) and opting out? Leave the Democractic Party. Form a third party of their own (or just join the Greens). All of a sudden the Democratic Party has a numbers problem. All of a sudden they lose majority status, chairmanships, agenda-setting stroke, etc.

...Part of me says “what if it backfires?” But the other part of me looks at the state of the current union, at the looting of the last eight (or, depending on your taste for the long view, 29) years, at the energy way too many Americans have to devote to worrying about what happens if they get sick or injured, at the staggering cost associated with continuing to fuck around with the environment, at the fact that millions and millions and millions of citizens have no hope at all of financial solvency, at the knee-buckling stupidity of a populace that’s been victimized by a brilliantly conceived War on Education, at…. Fuck it. You get the picture.

Off your knees, progressives. The worst that happens is more of the same. At the least do us the favor of dying on your feet.

It's not a new idea. The same ideas play out in the run-up and aftermath to every major election cycle as progressives - perpetual victims - steel themselves to vote for people they're sure are going to screw them, get screwed, then wonder how to stop being screwed. Indeed, back in 2005 I contributed some ideas to the discussion a whole bunch of bloggers were having for a "coalition of the left", an American Solidarity movement which would be a progressive "big tent" outwith the self-imposed political rapings of the Democratic Party. The best round-up of the discussion came from American Samizdat.

Then, as now, the biggest real-world barrier to a divorce of progressives and Beltway Democrats is the way in which the big two parties have the electoral process sewn up at the earliest stages, making it nigh-on impossible for a new third party to get on the ballot in enough places to mount a truly national campaign. The biggest emotional barrier is the perennial notion that "this time it will be different" - the Dems playing Lucy with the football, as Fester likes to describe it. For the 2006 cycle, the football was Iraq. For 2008, it was Barack Obama himself and his promises even convinced cynical me to back off from urging that divorce. But Obama has become more and more a Tony Blair figure - he said a lot of stuff to get elected but on healthcare, the economy, social safety nets, interventionist foreign policy, state secrecy, torture and the Imperial presidency he's turned out not to mean a whole lot of those words.

No more excuses. "Off your knees, progressives. The worst that happens is more of the same. At the least do us the favor of dying on your feet."

Solidarinosc!

The CBO Cudgel

By Fester:

The CBO has scored the HELP committee's full healtcare bill. The bill is the complete vision of what Senators Kennedy and Dodd want to do and it includes a reasonably strong public option, Medicaid expansion, comparative effectiveness research and an employer mandate. The goal is to expand coverage by a significant margin and introduce significant and well backed competition in regional health insurance markets that are overwhelmingly quasi-monopolosistic or duopolistic.

The CBO previously scored a partial version of the HELP framework that did not have the public option or the employer mandate in it. That partial scoring produced estimated costs of about 1 trillion dollars but with a significant portion of the population still uncovered. The marginal increase in coverage per dollar over the next decade was not good.

The new scoring of the bill that takes into account the actual coverage expansion and cost control measures is pretty damn impressive. From the AP:

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office

Not a bad deal at all if we can get 97% coverage in even if there is a reasonable argument that the CBO score is a bit low as made by Jonathan Cohn. The real value of this CBO score with the complete HELP framework including the public option and the employer mandate is that it is a cudgel against the 'centrist' Democrats who don't want the public option overtly because it is 'too expensive' and potentially because it is a threat to major local employers and campaign contributors of regionally dominant health insurance providers. The public option is the best means of cost control and doing without it means a weaker bill for significantly more cost.

Time for a Blogger's Ethics Panel

By Fester:

Time for a blogger ethics panel as there is no invinsible wall between editorial and business functions at this and many other blogs. The Newshoggers recently received a paid advertisment from the ACLU that advocates Twittering Against Torture. Once BlogAds takes their cut, we may be able to afford a pint of good Kentucky whiskey to split amongst everyone. The ACLU advertised on the 'Hog because they consider the writers and by implications our audience to be a receptive audience to their message that torture is an inherent bad and should not be condoned. Our opinions as writers made us notable and potentially valuable to an advertiser. Time for an ethics panel...

If this Politico Report is to believed, the Washington Post really needs a Bloggers' Ethics Panel:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors....

 

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

 

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

 

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion....

 

Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ..

Of course we know it is the job of the national print media to star-fuck.  Why would that raise any ethical concerns at all.  And why would this raise any credibility concerns when it is so difficult to get decent steaks with an appetizer, desert and a pair of drinks for two for less than $20,000, they barely are making any money on this at all.  There is nothing suspicious here.  Nothing at all besides the complete confirmation of the malleability of the Washington Post’s editorial stances for deep pockets. 

But there is no need for an ethics panel as Tom in Comments at Balloon Juice wins quote of the week on this story with this line:

So we have now come to the point where a health care lobbyist is more ethical than the Washington Post.

Wow!

Congress has few philospher kings

By Fester:

I like to live in the real world. It is messy, it is confusing, it often produces non-optimal outcomes (depending on the relevant constraints) but it is tangible. I can also live in a normative world where everything is neat, clean, organized and optimized towards the relevant constraints. However that world seldom exists. I often look for satisficing improvements instead of optimal solutions because the improvements are achievable.

I don't understand the critique of Waxman-Markley that Andrew Samwick and others are advancing in that it is a satisficaing improvement but non-optimal on several grounds:

Much as you may like the idea, this is another 1300 pages of complexity and loopholes. Buried in there, I'll wager, are more than enough ways for large organizations (the ones who hire lobbyists) to get all the exemption and evasion they'll need. Consider the alternative of a carbon tax calibrated to achieve the same emission reductions, and applied to all sectors including vehicle fuel consumption. I'm no expert on translating ideas into pages of a bill, but that can't be much. And given that it allows us to do away with the CAFE standards, I figure we've done a great service of dramatically simplifying the whole regulatory process for carbon emissions.

Economically, a clean carbon tax and a clean cap and trade bill will do the same thing. They will both internalize the currently externalize cost of carbon dioxide emissions. There are two big differences. The first is that a a carbon tax is a price certain option while the cap and trade system is a quantity certain feature.  Secondly, cap and trade is economically more efficient as it allows for market discovery of prices of a scarce good instead of hoping that Congress can hit the right number at any given time for optimal economic efficiency for a given amount of emissions.  

 

His argument is that a carbon tax would be neater and less messy.  Lobbyists would not be able to claw out special interest exemptions and transfers and the legislation would be only several pages long.  He is arguing a straw man here in my opinion.  A properly designed cap and trade system could also be written in a fairly short and concise manner as well.

 

He is bitching and moaning about basic political incentives here.  A complex bill with exemptions, curlicues and who knows what else in it for concentrated interests is far more profitable to the relevant players than a simple, clean sheet proposal with no exemptions.  Dr. Samwick is implicitly arguing that a carbon tax would be less susceptible to this type of manipulation than a cap and trade regime.  I have severe doubts about that.  We have plenty of evidence that tax bills, even comparatively simple tax bills that are mere modifications of existing tax laws can and will be massively abused with exemptions, exceptions, partially refundable credits, donut hole deductions and anything else that concentrated interests can muster to improve their interests against the counterfactual of a clean bill.  The classic example is the agricultural bill where there are significant subsidies for sugar, mohair, honey and other products because there is a strong lobby for those interests while the public purpose of food security, public health and reasonably low prices for a wide selection of goods is often ignored. 

 

I have yet to see a good political reason why the concessions that the Democrats on the Agricultural Committee wanted and received to weaken the bill and make the bill more complex for cap and trade would not also be granted in a carbon tax system.  I think it is very reasonable to assume that Agricultural Committee Democrats would want land use carbon emissions to be exempted from the carbon tax or at least counted under a friendly system.  Those are the concessions that they basically got in cap and trade, and those would be the concessions they would have wanted from a carbon tax regime.  Otherwise they most likely and there would be nothing. 

 

Now if Dr. Samwick wants to argue that doing nothing now is a superior option as the costs of action and inaction escalate the pressure to pass a much cleaner bill that is more to his liking at some uncertain point in the future, that is a defensible argument.  However that is not the argument he is making.  He is whining that Congress is acting like politicians engaged in politics with attendant incentives instead of philosopher king technocrats who will agree with his preferred solutions.  Me, I’m happy for an improvement with the hope that institutional inertia will lead to a good process and outcome over time. 

 

 

Responsibility of 60

By Fester:

Congratulations to Senator Franken. I like the sound of that because by golly, people like him.

But guess what, the Republican Party is functionally irrelevant now. There are no procedural hooks besides infinite holds that can be lifted with a party line vote that can theoretically delay legislation. There is no legitimate way to argue that the filibuster choke-point on ground changing legislation is Senator Snowe, Collins or Grassley. Democrats own the Senate now, lock, stock and barrel. Now it is time to put up or shut-up.

On healthcare the veto players for a non-reconciled bill are now explicity two Democrats; Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

On Waxman-Markley, the veto players are coal state Democrats.

On Afghanistan and Iraq policy, the veto players are the gang led by Evan Bayh.

On pretty much anything that matters, the veto players are Democrats now. It is nice to have power, but with it comes responsibility to use it wisely. And I have severe doubts that the bedwetting caucus that counts as its members most of the relevant veto players is particularly wise.

Now there's 60

by Jay McDonough

Norm Coleman finally conceded today he'd lost his bid to be reelected the Republican senator from Minnesota.  Following multiple challenges and, finally, a decision by the states Supreme Court,  Al Franken was ruled the winner of the November 2008 contest.  It's likely Mr. Franken will be sworn into the Senate as soon as they return next week from the 4th of July break.

Mr. Franken now makes 60 Democratic (or Democratic voting) senators.  That's a filibuster proof majority and presents a great opportunity for real solid progressive legislation to be channeled through Congress.

There are two kinds of people in this world (Don't you hate it when folks say "there are two kinds of people in this world"?).  There are those that relish the opportunity to do something big; to take the big bold steps and make big significant accomplishments. 

Then there are those that are cautious, that don't want to be too disruptive to the status quo, and act meekly with the power they've been provided.

Any bets on which way this 60 member Democratic Senate will go?

Democrats' "radical, pro-war agenda" on anti-war money

By Steve Hynd

My friend Derrick Crowe, who blogs at Return Good For Evil and HuffPo, is pissed. He has a truly righteous rant today over the actions of Dem leaders on the Hill and at the White House, who have, he writes, sought to "wrap themselves in the flag" and jettison "the contrary arguments they employed during the last several cycles" in a shameful copying of past Republican tactics of pandering to the public for support for a pro-war agenda under cover of claiming to "support the troops".

Read the whole thing. Derrick points to the new DCCC ad campaign which mirrors previous GOP camapigns against principled anti-war Dems, and goes on to highlight how the Dems are using a heavy hand to browbeat their own anti-war members, threatening to ostracize and defund them unless the voted to fund Obama's continuation of Bush's wars. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) told the HuffPo that the White House and Dem leadership had threatened Dem freshmen "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," although an administration spokesman denied the charge. There were also rumors of about "Rahm Emanuel cutting deals with Republicans to go easy on them in the 2010 elections in exchange for votes" on the funding bill.

Thus, Derrick observes:

funds solicited from donors on the premise that they will be used to elect more Democrats and defeat more Republican incumbents are actually being used to ensure the election and incumbency of House members who will vote to support war funding.

As a prior Democratic donor and highly active volunteer, I am absolutely disgusted. I know I’m not alone.

And he concludes:

Incredibly, despite five policy reviews in six months, the President who ran on a platform of finishing the fight in Afghanistan presides over a military campaign now wandering into neighboring countries, adrift in the exhibition of qualities for which he once decried the policies of President Bush: “undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

At moments like this, we desperately need a Congress and a congressional leadership team with the spine to check the listlessness and violence of the executive’s actions overseas. The actions of House leadership and their political campaign operation down the street have revealed that we have no such thing. Rather, what the war funding vote and its aftermath revealed is the further infiltration and dominance of the official structures the Democratic Party by a radical pro-war caucus, perfectly willing to sell out their constituents and their donors in the name of out-of-control militarism and continued, highly profitable mass murder overseas. This radical caucus running the party in the House flexed its muscles just this past week, teaming with Republicans to defeat legislative language to require an exit strategy from Afghanistan, despite the fact that the majority of rank-and-file Democrats supported it and despite its similarity to the exit strategy for which Democrats agitated for Iraq under President Bush. Until we force changes, expect more of the same on future votes.

I encourage every anti-war DCCC donor to close your checkbooks and put your debit cards away until we see a party worth another penny. Right now, the Democratic party isn’t. In fact, I’d like my money back.

Righteous.

Lucy's Football

By Fester:

Ian Welsh has the outline of the Senate Finance Committee’s health insurance plan. The shorter version of the short version is that it sucks. Here is the short version of the plan:

1) Lower the medicaid coverage rate from 150% to 100% of the Federal poverty line, 133% for kids and pregnant women (once you have the baby, too bad for you)

2) Subsidies stop at 300% of the poverty line (was 400%)

3) No Public Option mentioned

4) Insurance exchanges at the State level

5) Must buy insurance unless it costs more than 15% of your income

6) A fine if you don’t buy insurance unless you’re below the Federal poverty line

For the most part, as Walker discusses, this is actually identical to or slightly worse than the plan put forward by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Yes, worse than the insurance industry’s plan. Remarkable. Baucus is really earning his campaign donations these days…. Without a public option, the insurance companies will have no check on their prices, let alone pressure to actually reduce them. Because people will be forced to buy bad insurance, they’ll hate the plan, and because “reform” has been passed, we’ll have to wait another 10 or 12 years for another shot....

Tim at Balloon Juice is very curious why Obama is not actively selling a strong public option proposal.

Watching Democrats try to fix health care I see a photo negative of the Bush years. Here is an issue with obvious urgency. Setting aside our shameful infant mortality rate, uninsured rate and other statistics, medical bills are by far the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. Insurer misconducy wrecks lives every day in every city in America. The right options are obvious and relatively few in number. Huge majorities support doing the right thing.

Even self-interest is similarly one sided. Remember how much Republicans invested in realigning the destroying Social Security? Imagine if they had an issue that would realign the country in their favor and instead of huge majorities violently hating it, most Americans strongly supported what they wanted to do. Republican strategists would give two of their first three kids for a shot at an issue with this much going for it....

I hear that Obama supports the public option. That would mean more if it felt even a little more urgent than his idea that we should have a college football playoff series.

Belaboring the obvious, people who care about what they’re doing normally enter negotiations with some firm goal in mind. Most would agree that it is moronic to make negotiating itself the point.

Many others, including Steve have noted that if a major and effective health financing reform bill passed with either a pathway to de facto single payer for baseline care or at least a strong public option, major fundraising avenues will be closed off to some of the current veto points in the Senate and the House. I think that is part of the problem with the Democrats.

However, I would like to get a little more cynical for a moment. What if healthcare reform is to Democrats what abortion and anti-feminism is to Republicans in that both are seem by significant portions of their respective bases as high salience issues that are best served by never fully addressing? Gotta keep the activists in line and ready to donate and phone bank for two more incremental steps in the 'right' direction instead of attempting to systemically change the constraints of power and the political process.

Tim is right that an effective public plan option would be a system changer that would effectively tilt the political playing field to Democrats for at least a generation or two in much the same way that Social Security and Medicare are high salience, high effectiveness boundary conditions for Democrats to lean on. However the Democrats who would benefit from these changes are not neccessarily the Democrats who are currently in power or more importantly, currently occupying critical blocking positions. So reform that can shave off several points of GDP on health expenditures, improve coverage and re-align US politics is not a winning solution for the key set of stakeholders; instead their winning solution is to do just enough to avoid overwhelming political costs and pressure.

Specter is in trouble... (again)

By Fester:

My great fear of not having Senator Specter's career circling the toilet to write about when I have nothing else to write will not be realized.

Rasmussen reports a race where the fundamental dynamics are working against Senator Specter in the Democratic Primary:

1* Suppose the Democratic Primary for the 2010 United States Senate were held today. Would you vote for Arlen Specter or Joe Sestak?
51% Specter
32% Sestak
4% Some other candidate
13% Not sure

Sure Senator Specter is up by 19 in this poll, which is a significant improvement from being down by half a dozen in the last polling on the Republican Primary before he flipped caucuses, but this is a weak position compared to Joe Lieberman in 2006. The Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is about ten months out. Two months out, Ned Lamont was trailing Senator Lieberman by fifteen points in the Democratic Primary that Mr. Lamont went on to win. Several weeks out, Rep. Toomey was trailing by fifteen points in the 2004 Republican Primary. He closed the gap by thirteen points by primary day. A well funded and well run campaign by a competent candidate who only has to make up two points per month against an incumbent with 100% name ID and little passionate support is in very good shape.

Change? - Not so Much, Volume VII

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Well we haven't seen much change from Obama or the Democrats.  As one war sort of winds down another is about to get bogged down in an epic quagmire.  But it doesn't stop there.  Remember all those crooked and trigger happy private contractors?  Guest posting at TMV Michael Winship reports that they are getting even fatter.

KBR, Halliburton and the private security firm Blackwater have come to symbolize the excesses of outsourcing warfare. So you’d think that with a new sheriff like Barack Obama in town, such practices would be on the
“Things Not to Do” list.

Not so.

According to new Pentagon statistics, in the second quarter of this year, there has been a 23% increase in the number of private security contractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq and a 29% hike in Afghanistan. In fact, outside contractors now make up approximately half of our forces fighting in the two countries. “This means,” according to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, “there are a whopping 242,647 contractors working on these two U.S. wars.” Scahill, who runs an excellent new website called “Rebel Reports,” spoke with my colleague Bill Moyers on the current edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS.

“What we have seen happen, as a result of this incredible reliance on private military contractors, is that the United States has created a new system for waging war,” he said. By hiring foreign nationals as mercenaries, “You turn the entire world into your recruiting ground. You intricately link corporate profits to an escalation of warfare and make it profitable for companies to participate in your wars.

But that's not all.  Robert Reich reports on how defeat is about to be snatched form the jaws of victory on the health care front.

I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.

Question!  If I'm going to get Republican policy anyway why in the hell should I vote for Democrats in 2010?  Obama and the Democrats have as much political capitol and power they need to do anything.  But no, the same old interest groups are still calling the shots.  Change? - not so much.  Don't count on my vote next year.

See also The Careless, Corrupt Program That Begat Preventive Detention and Torture