On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote:
EPA's proactive lead in greenhouse gas regulation is a critical aspect of the effort to reduce our rampant, destabilizing, and destructive dependence on foreign and offshore oil. While the endangerment finding does not, in itself, prescribe regulations, it provides the legal basis for critical standards: EPA's proposed CAFE efficiency standard for light-duty vehicles is projected to save over 455 million barrels per year, and an anticipated standard for heavy-duty vehicles will save billions more. Stripping EPA of its authority to implement these protections would increase our nation's dependence on oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. We cannot afford this big step backward, especially as we watch more oil gush into the Gulf each day.
In the end, the Senate didn't take that "big step backward" on June 10th, as the Murkowski resolution failed by a 47-53 vote. Many of us probably figured that was the end of this issue, and that the Senate would now move on to passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Unfortunately, as is often the case in Washington, DC, it isn't that simple (let alone logical).
Today, clean air and public health are once again under an assault that constitutes, essentially, "Murkowski Part II." The Wall Street Journal reported on June 22:
As U.S. Senate lawmakers attempt to determine the fate of energy legislation, an influential Democrat is boosting efforts to suspend a controversial greenhouse-gas rule passed earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
After introducing a bill to impose a two-year halt on the new EPA rule, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia, is now working to round up supporters for his legislation.
It should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable. As we all know, the public was outraged at Senator Murkowski's Big Oil Bailout bill. They understood that this moved the country backward, not forward, and that it was exactly the wrong way to go given the energy and environmental challenges we face. Through all our efforts, our phone calls and emails (and blog posts and tweets, etc.), we helped to kill Murkowski Part I. Now, unfortunately, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is pushing Murkowski Part II, yet there's far less attention being paid to this effort than to the Murkowski's EPA Castration Resolution Part I. People have a lot of other things on their minds, and they thought this fight was over back in June. But, once they find out that this effort is baaaaack, like a monster in a cheesy horror movie, they are not going to respond positively.
Of course, why would the public - which overwhelmingly supports taking action to promote clean energy and deal with climate change - ever respond positively to a proposal aimed at throwing away one of our key tools to cut pollution and protect public health? And why would they respond positively now of all times, as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, as record heat waves scorch the United States, and as climate science is strengthened every day that goes by? Last but not least, why would they support an effort to protect the corporate polluters and not all of us who are being hurt by that pollution?
The bottom line is simple: instead of wasting its time on legislation that will only move the country backwards - towards dirty energy forever - the Senate should be busy passing a bill that moves the country forward towards a bright future of green energy, clean tech jobs, energy security and climate protection. Once our Senators hear that message loud and clear from all of us, Rockefeller's Murkowski Part II will be rejected by the Senate, just as Murkowski Part I was before it.
It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. [emph mine]
Jeff Merkley, today:
Today, we have taken a long stride forward in our decades-long effort to provide affordable, accessible, quality health care to every single American. Thirty million Americans will gain access to affordable health care. Millions more will benefit from insurance reforms that end the insurance practice of rejecting citizens with pre-existing conditions and of dumping citizens off policies after they become sick or injured. And virtually every citizen will benefit from the investment in health clinics, disease prevention, and disease management.
This legislation is not all I want it to be. It does not contain a national public option to increase choice and competition. It is imperfect in many other ways as well. But this bill brings peace of mind to Americans struggling to secure affordable health care. This bill attacks runaway health care inflation. This bill establishes that in the United States of America, health care is no longer a privilege, it is a right. [emph mine]
How do you define "critical" or "essential?" How about, as the President has been madly backpedaling on all week, "must have?" If there were similar statements of decision-rule rhetoric from Senator Wyden I'd print those too--but the best he ever did was "urge" its inclusion to Reid, which he actually did. At least from that standpoint, Wyden's vote to pass this doesn't really violate any lines in the sand that he has drawn. Also, I don't have a statement from Wyden at this point.
The scene now shifts, however artificially, to the House--where 60 members including Oregon's Earl Blumenauer have said any such proposal that has no Medicare-based reimbursement for a public option, is "unacceptable." Of course, they said that before the House passed a negotiated rate bill--but surely a bill that even lacks any kind of national option is even more unacceptable, and thus finally a line that must be drawn to protect the public. Louise Slaughter and two others have made noise about seeing their committments through, but they are not exacting drawing hails of approval.
This is what many people are defending, often against their better judgement. You can blame the GOP all you like--they don't have the votes. You can blame the centrists, but they did the exact same thing progressives did, but one thing more: they didn't fold before the negotiation even began. Jane Hamsher is taking an extraordinary amount of heat for daring to suggest that even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders--who I think is awesome--should be careful about his vote, lest he find himself negatively held accountable for it. It doesn't have to be a knock on the guy's ideology or principles or good heart, to say that if he won't fight for those principles when they are needed most, you're left with pretty speeches. Heard that one before?
The change wasn't indentured health care. "The change" was no more passing craptastic bills written and designed for the plutocracy, that manifestly ignore and deride programs that are broadly popular and actually good policy. No more "getting a win" for political victories and dollars. And no more rolling over so that next election season doesn't have any hard votes. If y'all aren't going to change what you're doing, I will.
Hey, just got a little note from my friends at Organizing for America! They want you to act, and act now:
Your senators are fighting hard for health reform. Please call today, thank them for their work, and let them know we need them to keep fighting.
According to our records, you live in Oregon. Please call: Sen. Ron Wyden at 202-224-5244 Sen. Jeff Merkley at 202-224-3753 Just dial the numbers above, then tell the staffers who answer where you live -- so that they know you are a constituent -- and that you support reform.
All well and good--except there's the little problem of the bill itself, which after serial dessication by Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and--let's face it--Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, has become a rotting carcass whose primary function will be to force 30 million people to buy crappy insurance from private companies, at unaffordable rates that have been pre-guaranteed by the insurance companies to double in the next decade (and will because there are no cost containments in the bill except those designed to reduce covered benefits), with annual benefit caps and prices 3x for seniors what younger people will pay, and no substantive attempt to prevent recisision from continuing apace. Howard Dean explains why, and Darcy Burner goes into more detail.
So thank you to OFA for providing the numbers and getting me off my duff and onto my phone for a few minutes. I've called both Merkley and Wyden, expressed a firm desire to see them both vote NO on any bill looking remotely like this Liebercare monstrosity--and promised them neither will see my vote or support again if they vote to foist it on us.
And yes, I am serious. Deadly so. A yes vote on this bill, as it stands, will be a significant disaster for the Democratic Party--and I can guarantee the death knell of my support for Oregon's Senators, regardless of what other good they might do. It's that important. Please join me in telling Merkley and Wyden No, No, HELL No.
We all know what's happened to the health care reform bill in the Senate...so far. Think whale carcass, serendipitously beached in a village of starving Aleutians. If the word "near-total gutting" comes to mind, you win a prize.
Haven't seen this come up in the OR blogosphere, although HuffingtonPost had a pretty up-front treatment of it and the Register Guard repeated the comments in a piece actually more about Ron Wyden--but while Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson discuss the new reform mashup bill to be unacceptable from the right, our own Jeff Merkley has some problems with the new deal, specifically the Medicare buy-in, from the left:
"The basic challenge for Oregon is that a program that expands Medicare using existing Medicare rates would be of very little use in our state," the senator told the Huffington Post. "And the reason why is because the reimbursement rates are so low in the state of Oregon that doctors aren't taking additional Medicare patients... They can fill their agenda and their schedules with higher-paying patients."
One of the leading young progressive voices in the party, Merkley would not discuss how the Medicare buy-in provision will ultimately affect his position on reform, saying he had to wait for more details before making up his mind. But his objections complicate the notion that Senate Democrats now stand on the doorstep of historic legislation. The Oregon Democrat said he is going to work to make sure his state and others aren't disadvantaged by the newest wave of health care reform compromises. Medicare expenditures by the federal government, he noted, are 25 percent more (per person) in California and 38 percent more (per person) in Florida than they are in Oregon.
"We must succeed in repairing this broken system. But it doesn't get repaired by creating a major program that does not help states like Oregon," Merkley said.
Merkley complained about other aspects of reform negotiations, adding that many questions remain unanswered. The senator said that he was "enormously frustrated" by the unwillingness of his party's more conservative members deal with its progressive members on a public option for insurance coverage.
Some interesting stuff in there. Let's talk about it a little, below the fold...
As part of an agreement hashed out at the end of the Finance Committee mark up process, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) will join forces to amend the Senate health care bill with Wyden's "Free Choice Act." If it can attract 60 votes, it would give low- and middle-class Americans with employer-provided insurance the option of purchasing subsidized insurance in the exchanges.
Sixty is a tough climb. It would have likely been impossible under the original terms of the Wyden amendment, which would have opened the exchanges up to everybody. This is a scaled down version of that, and it will be a hard amendment for Democrats to vote against.
Estimates of additional participation in the exchange--no notation of whether it would be public or private plans, which I assume means they counted both--apparently run about 1 million. Of course, that's among those who already had insurance, albeit costly or insufficient coverage.
There will be time to discuss his proposal as it comes up for a vote--but in a separate, broader piece at TPM by AP pre-gaming the initial cloture vote in the Senate tomorrow, is this nugget:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Friday that Senate leaders will support an amendment he plans to offer to allow certain low-income people with offers of employer health coverage to shop in the purchasing exchanges instead. Wyden had not committed to voting for Saturday's procedural motion prior to securing the commitment from Reid to support his amendment. The amendment would extend health coverage to 1 million more people who would not otherwise have been able to afford the coverage offered by their employers, according to Wyden's spokeswoman. [emph mine]
It's not clear who said this--Wyden's spokesperson, who is cited in the statement immediately after that one, or the AP reporter operating on the fact that Wyden had made no public pronouncements of support for cloture. And it's not 100% obvious that he's stated his support AFTER getting his amendment a hearing, although it damn well better be a Yes, and I don't think anyone suspected otherwise. (If you know of such a statement indicating he's a definite Yes now, let me know.)
But unless the AP reporter is simply trying to make trouble, the strong implication is that prior to Reid's support for Free Choice, not even the Majority Leader had been able to fully count on Wyden's support for health care reform--and that support was in fact the predicate for Wyden's Aye on initial cloture. If that's the case, how is he any different from Ben Nelson, or--gulp--Joe Lieberman? To think that there was really some kind of chance--or even that Wyden was bluffing as such--that he would risk the entire HCR bill over his pet project, is extremely unsettling. It's been the pattern for Wyden to withhold support on larger health care reform issues until his ideas had been addressed, and this instance appears no different. As the estimate indicates, getting one million people to switch to the exchange neither saves as much money or covers as many uninsured (since Free Choice covers zero of those folks) as the larger bill...and to suggest or even allow the suggestion that Wyden's vote was in doubt based on whether his particular concerns were addressed, is the kind of political toying with people's lives that leads folks to mistrust the motives of our representation in government. Let's hope with the pacifier having been proffered, that "commitment" can be safely assured.
The O carries a story from this afternoon describing a trio of Democratic Senators who are seeking a slowdown on the potential extension of some of the more egregious USA PATRIOT provisions otherwise set to expire. (Betcha didn't know the Act's title was actually in acronym form, didya? It's short for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism...Act.) Along with Russ Feingold of Wiscosin and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois is our own Ron Wyden, who--compared to his stance on healthcare--is well out in front of his caucus on surveillance and civil liberty issues, and continues to lead progressive interests in the Senate:
Wyden is spearheading an effort to place tighter rules and oversight on the so-called business records provision in the law. Under the current law which expires Dec. 31, federal investigators can scoop up individuals' bank and financial records, medical information, DNA and other "tangible things" (the law's actual wording) without having to prove that the individuals have any connection to terrorist activities.
But Wyden and his allies believe the definition is too broad and too easily allows government officials to conduct "fishing expeditions" of people who may not have any involvement with terror activities.
The "business records" provision sets the standard that the government must meet to obtain an individual's personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions.
On a pure workload and intellectual basis I think President Obama can handle multitasking on a variety of issues, but the media and the general public may not be so facile. I've been aware of the business records provision and the attention it's been getting in prog-wonk circles, because it's among the most ridiculously overreaching of the PATRIOT provisions, and one that has great potential for touching the lives of ordinary Americans in their homes and businesses. But with stimulus and health care and climate and Afghanistan and banking all taking up chunks of our collective consciousness, we run out of things to devote your outrage and our energy to.
Diehard fans of H.R. 2651 charged the floor of the Senate chamber Tuesday after their bill, a 14-vote underdog nicknamed the Maritime Workforce Development Act, passed 51-49 with just moments to go in the legislative session...A champagne-soaked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), whose last-second vote clinched the bill's passage, said the guys on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee deserved much of the credit, but that the biggest thanks should go to God.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that the bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public health insurance option that individual states could decline to participate in.
"The public option, with an opt-out, is the one that's fair," Reid said. He said his decision was supported by the White House and by Senate Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Don't believe me? I don't blame you. But unless it's the cruelest parody video in history, here's the proof:
This hoped-for but still somewhat unexpected turn of events creates an entirely different, MUCH more positive dynamic for health care reform than just last week, when the PO-less Finance bill was still passed with full Democratic panel support. Evidently they were promised that things would improve with the merged Finance-HELP bill, but given the way things have gone with promises and deals over the years, you could forgive anyone for skepticism.
But now, assuming the House is able to follow through on its version, that is even stronger than the Senate bill, the likelihood that some form a of a real, nationally-based public option will be in the final legislation is now near 100%--and anyone who has been following this story during 2009 has to understand just how remarkable it is to be able to make that statement. The PO was dead a number of times, and it clearly did not have strong backing from the White House or the "sensible" members of the Senate. They had to be pushed to where we are now, and frankly, I'm not sure anyone can even remember the last time a legislative process was significantly pushed to the left.
One thing to note is that the version in the Senate bill will indeed include a state-based "opt-out;" that is, under some as-yet undetermined process a state could decide not to allow its residents to avail themselves of the public option in any health exchange. But as many have said, Medicaid is opt-out, too. So was the stimulus bill, and so are highway funds. The opt-out record for all three? Zero, despite much blustering and threatening otherwise.
No statement has hit my email box yet from Senator Wyden on this momentous accomplishment, but that's not necessarily meaningful. If and when something comes on, I'll append it. But Senator Merkley--who has been a very strong supporter of the PO, and helped put together the HELP Committee version of the bill that will be supplying much of the terms for the Senate configuration of it--is on the ball:
It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. States may choose to opt-out based on their individual needs and the input of their citizens, but this provision will ensure that most Americans will have the choice between private insurance or a public plan that operates on a level playing field. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue and takes us one step closer to action by the full Senate to finally pass health care reform and fix our broken system.
Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden isn't saying how he'll vote when the Finance Committee takes up Chairman Max Baucus's 10-year, $829-billion plan next Tuesday.
"I am not going to characterize where I am (on the bill) in any way," Wyden said Friday as he headed to the airport for a trip back to his state.
"I'm going to be doing everything I can to make sure hardworking Americans aren't forced to buy unaffordable coverage from monopolies," he added, making his discomfort clear.
Narrated by former health insurance executive Wendell Potter, the spot accuses private insurance of trying to "kill health reform" and whacks the committee for not including a public option to keep the industry honest.
"Take it from me," Potter says, "the Senate Finance bill is a dream come true of the health insurance industry. If there is no public option insurance companies aren't going to change. The choice of a public health insurance option is the only way to keep insurance companies honest."
"I want to continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle," he said in remarks before the Finance committee, emphasizing that he did not want to do anything to promote groups trying to halt healthcare reform this year.
"My vote today to advance this bill forward is a judgement that there is enough goodwill in this committee and this Congress to move this bill forward," Wyden told colleagues.
Wyden asserted that Baucus and other Democratic leaders had vowed to work with him to ameliorate concerns about the bill as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) works to meld the Finance proposal with the one in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
"I am convinced every one of those colleagues is anxious to get real health reform, while we have spirited debates about how to get that done," the Oregon Democrat said.
Always the optimist, the cute little dreamer believing that working with people like Chuck Grassley and Joe Lieberman is an exercise in good faith.
Today, millions of Americans are one step closer to the healthcare reform they need. We disagree with Senator Wyden on some of the principles of healthcare reform, but we stand with him and many of his colleagues today in saying that, while the Senate Finance Committee bill is not perfect, it is important to ensure that the process does not stop. There is still time to make changes, and we hope changes will be made; we hope that all Oregonians will be ensured access to affordable healthcare, that a public option will be available and that employers who support their workers by providing health insurance will be rewarded, not discouraged. As the Senate and House bills move to the floor we are counting on Oregon's delegation to continue to stand with middle class Oregonians and support the real reform we need, reform that, for the first time in a decade, is now within our reach.
I suppose a bit weirdly, I agree with both Potter/MoveOn, and OR-AFLCIO: it's a horrible, bogus, POS gift to the insurance industry, and if it's what largely ends up as the Senate version that crowds out a more robust House plan, we're all doomed and Democratic electeds will start feeling the pain next year. However, while I'm not as sanguine as Wyden is about all the good-feelin's within the caucus and across the aisle for health care, it's true that the SFC bill is simply batter waiting to be made into cake. There WILL be modifications; I'm just scared about what they will be. The truth is that a solid bill was never going to come out of that committee, and in fact Baucus and Co have been a tremendous hindrance all summer. At least this way he's gotten his moment in the sun, and while he'll definitely have a big seat at the table, there will be several other players working with/against Baucus to create something that might actually help American citizens instead of Humana shareholders.
So the vote today was almost entirely meaningless, for perhaps everyone except Snowe. She now has to endure what will surely amount to furious pressure from her own caucus, who has reportedly threatened to keep coveted chair assignments away from her for this vote. Equally furious effort will come from those still obsessing over the mercurial value of "bipartisanship," hoping to keep Snowe in the Yea column when it comes time for a floor vote. Again, what's it worth? Not a lot, but that's where we are. Onward! And screw it, let's just put the MoveOn ad here at the bottom, above the fold:
Two interesting developments, one symbolic and one substantive, that represent a far more visibly progressive effort on health care from Ron Wyden this week. The symbolic but paradigm shifting sign was Wyden's signature on a letter to Majority Leader Reid signed by 30 Senators, "urging" a public option as part of any bill leaving the Senate:
Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.
The Senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.” It continues on to state that “the number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.”
Why is this a marked shift in language for Wyden? It's the difference between being "open to" something, as Wyden has stressed repeatedly this year about the PO, accepting it like a rainstorm when you're caught without an umbrella--and being FOR it, asking for its inclusion, and emphasizing its importance. Those are all things that to my knowledge, Wyden has not explicitly done in this campaign for reform, so that he's saying them now is--while tardy--significant.
Significant, but tangibly effective? That's an open question, although surely at this stage when the option appears to be more on the wax as far as the likelihood of inclusion in a bill, every positive voice helps and builds additional momentum for what one would hope is a 60-vote stand on cloture and then 50+ votes for a bill with some kind of PO.
Of course, "what kind of PO" becomes the next set of goalposts, if "whether a PO" is a question now looking more answerable with a yes in the Senate. From my reading it seems the co-op Conrad con never got the slightest bit of traction, so that's probably out. The trigger is apparently the default carrot for "bipartisan" legislation, hoping to snare Olympia Snowe to the side of the good guys, although it's not even clear that will make the nut for her vote. And so Chuck Schumer's "level playing field" plan that basically makes public insurance play by private rules is the current "most worrisome" version likely to be the Senate's offering.
...which makes the newest variant, the "opt-out" concept (not the opt-in idea of Conrad's, yet another DOA stinker) where a federal public option is established but states are left with the option to ban their use, a very interesting prospect. I am a strong subscriber to the idea that this can work as a classic "camel's nose" attempt to build universal compliance through the presentation of an "option" that is nonetheless a federal fait accompli. I don't think you'd see many states really take that step, to taketh away what the federal government giveth, and have to face their electorate afterwards.
Steps away from the Finance Committee markup, SEIU Chief Andy Stern ducked into a private meeting Thursday with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Stern told Pulse colleague Manu Raju that he was working with the senators and "trying to improve [the bill] as we speak."
On Sen. Tom Carper's proposal to allow states to opt into a government plan, Stern said states should be allowed to opt out of the government plan.
"I'm in the fourth way option," Stern said. "If Alabama doesn't want a public option, they should consider that question. I don't think the citizens of Alabama will want out. ... I think we need a public option. I don't think it needs to be triggered. The question is if there are certain state legislators who think it's not appropriate for their state, they should have a right in some fashion to deal with it."
It's not a direct line established by Politico between Stern's meeting with Wyden, his espousal of opt-out, and that meeting having been about developing that idea. But it's a logical hypothesis, at least. I'll see if I can get a confirm that Wyden is willing to cop to his development and support for an opt-out. If so, you'll see the tone of the coverage on Wyden's efforts for reform change at Loaded Orygun. It's a long way from signing letters with the likes of Nelson and Lieberman to delay a bill, to signing one urging a PO--and it's almost as long a journey going from being "open" to a PO to pushing for one (if the strong version is indeed what they're cooking up for it, which is the point--that with the argument that any hesistant Dem Senator can cover his ass at home with the theoretical opt-out, the bill that gets passed can be much stronger). That would be the path towards real reform for everyone, and I would hail it.
OK, I'm not 100% sure what to make of this video, just released by the Merkley folks, and featuring the Senator himself on camera, arguing the merits of solving the health care crisis. It's fewer than two minutes long, so give it a scan and then I'll comment:
I have to say that as it began, it seemed like a clever idea to tie the complex health care mess to the convoluted and seemingly intractable problem of a scrambled Rubik's Cube. Wow, I thought--Jeff's going to sit there and play with the cube while talking about how to fix health care! Amusing, breezy and informative!
...and then he set about working to solve it. No, not health care, the cube--he started to turn the sides around and attempt to put the colors together. OK, I thought, maybe the joke is that he'll try to solve it for a few seconds, then throw up his hands and say, "See how hard it is?" But he kept going, and it became clear that he really was trying to solve it--and of course that meant he was going to succeed, and do so in less than 2 minutes, apparently, since they wouldn't film him giving an extended try but failing.
...except then they started speeding up the videomotion, meaning that he CAN solve it, just not in two minutes. And while doing so, the three espoused tenets of fixing health care--extending access, strengthening coverage and lowering costs--are bullet-pointed on a sidebar.
...but that's pretty much all the explication there is: if you want to solve health care, just do these three things! I kept waiting for him to go into some kind of detail, but it doesn't happen. And it's not like there was no time; for several seconds after the voiceover stops, Merkley's still leaning on his desk, flipping those cube-sides at Chaplinesque speed.
And when he finishes, it's a mildly triumphant moment, but I was left with the sarcastic sense of "oh, it's just THAT easy, huh?" After watching, I'm no closer to understanding how he suggests we break the health care Rubik's Cube, or for that matter how he solved the cube itself.
I get the sense that Merkley's staffers took a cue from the truly clever (and much rarer) ability of Senator Franken to draw the United States freehand while simultaneously talking politics. Now that had wow factor! Merkley's clip is cute, and it's interesting to know he can solve a Cube. The message that we actually CAN do this if we have the requisite resolve is right on. And there's no doubt that he's carried a ton of water for serious health care reform, particularly a robust public option. So I'm not trying to be critical either of Merkley's committment to the issue, or the unconventional, lighthearted way to get his message across. I'm just not sure it's very effective, informative or value-adding. At least reference other sources where you can get some details--or offer viewers an action item, to call their representatives or to step up discussions about health care and the PO with friends and family.
Maybe next time he can describe how our daily activities are interconnected to the global environment, while completing an entire Jenga stack, as a way to advocate for the climate bill. Perhaps Merkley keeps a bunch of brain games in his office, to distract lobbyists while he gets actual work done?
This is sort of a continuation of the tea-leaf reading post earlier this morning, on the several opportunities recently featuring Ron Wyden speaking out on his vision for health care reform. It must be noted that true to his staff's word this summer, they said when a bill was presented in Finance he would have plenty to offer--and he is indeed an active member of the current debate, and a respectful representative for our state. He's a gentleman, and we're glad for that.
But his discarded reticence hasn't, to my mind, brought us any closer to his actual positions and predilections when it comes down to the nitty gritty of a final bill. There's a difference between "committed to" and "open to," and Wyden's consistent use of the latter when referencing a public option leaves a big trap door open, allowing him to say later "Well, I was open to it, but never committed to having it in for passage." Contrast that with Jeff Merkley's language, or Jeff Rockefeller's language, or even Maria Cantwell's. It's pointedly weaker and softer in tone.
Kathleen Wells: I read a summary of your Plan and it's an exchange. What about the public option?
Senator Wyden: I'm open to the pubic option and I've said that to your publication and others. What's important for folks to know, and what I was struck with this summer [is]: I had town meeting across my state. I had eight town meetings across Oregon. I headed into a gym in a community and up against the wall there would be lots of folks with public option signs [stating] "Public option or bust." I'd say, "Folks, I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to hold the insurance companies accountable and trying to put the consumer in the driver's seat. Are you aware that the way these bills are written now, more than 85 percent of you would be legally prohibited from choosing a public option?" People practically fell out of the bleachers.
I happen to think that choice, whether it's private sector choice or public sector choice, is the key to competition. Competition is the key to holding the insurance companies accountable, turning the tables on the insurance lobby. It's almost as if the country has been having this debate between the ideas of private option versus public option when what we really ought to be thinking about is "no choice" option.
That's a tell, to me. Competition is what drives down costs, and for Wyden the key is not a more efficient and cheaper option from the get go, but the idea that you can choose from among options no matter who provides them. That's like being lethally injected but getting excited because the drugs come in different flavors. And you simply aren't committed to serious reform if you don't think public or private matters.
It continues to be a busy and visible time for Senator Ron Wyden, as he rides the cable and print junket for his "Free Choice" amendment to the Finance Committee inkblot. We've got two TV clips for you, a long interview that frankly makes my Spidey sense tingle in a bad way, and then a news piece from yesterday that simply makes me want to retch. So grab that sandwich and let's dig in!
We'll start with the videos. Note the way they're being presented viz Wyden's position on reform, as here at Blue Oregon but also headlining the YouTube original of the Ed clip--in short, that he's suddenly on board, talking less about plans without public options, more about plans that have them--but also, conveniently, Free Choice running alongside. And the pitch is that the news is happy--yay, he's off the fence! Is he? I'll let you watch. First is Ed Schulz, then Rachel Maddow. He says much the same in both, but Maddow asks some really piercing questions that throw him off his game at bit at the end of hers:
It's an extreme rarity when Oregon's entire Congressional delegation finds a way to vote in unison on any bill that's not blandly symbolic, splashily ceremonial or a blatant pander to a constituency no one dislikes. Obviously in this hyperpartisan age, it's a foregone conclusion that they won't all vote the same way, as long as there's an Eastern Oregon Republican thrown into the mix with our six Democratic representatives. But even with the Ds, and even just the House Dems, somebody dissents from the group for one reason or another from time to time.
Not yesterday. In a capitulation to the GOP fringe notable even in this Season of Caving for its speed and sense of political repulsion, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed bills banning any federal funding for the non-profit community group ACORN. In the House just 75 Members stood up to defend the truly massive sums being doled out (about $3.5 million per year--million with an M), and in the upper chamber there were only seven votes opposed to the funds cutoff. Naturally, all 82 legislators were Democrats; if there's one group that knows how to fall in the line with the bell rings, it's the Congressional GOP.
But in one of the more shameful, cowardly, politically-eskeert votes I can recall, not a single one of those 82 lawmakers were Oregonians:
Earl Blumenauer? Fuck you, ACORN.
Peter DeFazio? Suck it--I might run for Goobernor!
David Wu? I may be from a minority community, but it's the overachieving one
Kurt Schrader? Don't look at me--I'm the new guy!
Ron Wyden? I couldn't--what would Chuck Grassley say?
Jeff Merkley? File this turkey with his Yea allowing loaded guns in parks.
Greg Walden? Well, natch. You get a pass as a lost cause...
Well, now wait--why is this such a bad vote? Isn't ACORN that group that commiitted massive voter fraud, getting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to vote for Obama last election? Don't they tell people in child prostitution rings how to evade the law? Aren't they just some nefarious underground cabal of Chicago style "community organizers?"
Below the fold, I'll let Glenn Greenwald lay it out for you.
The rubber is beginning to really hit the road when it comes to health care in Congress; recess is over and the Baucus Caucus finally came out with a bill to mark up. It appears the rest of the Finance Committee--including our own Senator Wyden--either want to mark it with a bunch of changes (Democrats) or with a big red F (Republicans, even Olympia Snowe).
Both of our Senators have elucidated serious issues with the Finance bill, not quite as directly as Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia--who essentially declared it a dead letter and ripped the "co-op" compromise to shreds in a letter to the Gang of Six--but by attacking what the Baucus Suckus plan lacks. And for each Senator the complaint is different.
Jeff Merkley, for his part, continues to be one of the more repetitively vocal members of the chamber when it comes to support for a robust public option. His insistence has not wavered throughout a long summer of angst-ridden tea-leaf reading over whether the PO would survive the deliberative process. His refusal to sit quietly on the back bench and let the seasoned pros handle things is enormously welcome, and a big poke in the ribs to doubters (like me) who thought the key word for Merkley's first term would be "languid" rather than "loud and liberal."
Yesterday he took his advocacy to the airwaves, hitting not only The Ed Show, but also CNBC. Here's the latter clip, first:
And now, chatting with Ed Schulz:
If you like, you may consider my relegation of Senator Wyden's media efforts below the fold as some kind of "punishment" or commentary on his behavior on the health care issue. That doesn't mean it would be true (but it doesn't mean it would be false, either). What it definitely means in part, at least, is that with two vid clips, the top of the fold is already pretty big....
It's tough to maintain the proper amount of mojo in order to keep up a political blog like this one--at least, it has been for me since at least the November elections. I got heavily involved in politics when Bush was "elected" in 2000, and got particularly engrossed in 2004 when Chimpy was again put into the Oval Office. I felt like I had to do something, to try and effect change and get better representation at the federal level. Well, that's happened for the most part, and sadly many of us have discovered that's not enough (or at least not for the current crowd of pathetic sheep and cowards we've elected on the Democratic side for the most part).
That post-elation disappointment and ennui persists with me today, but sometimes you get a little boost from unexpected quarters--like the Washington Spectator, an indy-insider rag in the capital which I have actually not perused before, despite being around for the last 35 years. My initial impression of them is wildly favorable, given this as my introduction (via a reprint at Senator Jeff Merkley's home page):
The Huffington Post got it right. Sort of. “Senator Calls Out Frank Luntz from the SenateFloor” read a June 10 headline on the national Internet news site. Huffington Post’s political reporter Sam Stein had seized on a short speech that Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley made on the Senate floor, attacking veteran Republican consultant Frank Luntz for circulating twenty-five pages of talking points to be used against any health care legislation the Democrats might offer up.
If the Huffington Post was close, the more obscure Loaded Orygun was spot on. The regional Internet site that “delivers the straight scoop on news, politics and other cool happenings around the state of Oregon” focused on what editors call the “so what” of a story: a senator with four months of seniority had stepped up to the lectern in the Senate chamber and attacked the minority leader who had been a member of the club for twenty-five years. And pulled no punches.
Loaded Orygun blogger “Torridjoe” was so taken with Merkley’s three-minute speech that he apologized for his earlier lack of enthusiasm. “The word ‘milquetoast’ got a lot of use on Merkley, by me as much as anyone,” Torridjoe wrote.
“So, so wrong.”
He went on to praise Merkley for “a devastating critique of both Frank Luntz for offering health reform-killing talking points designed to scare … and the Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, for taking the points and running with them.” [emph mine]
As I type this piece, I realize there may be a certain stench of self-congratulation at work, but there are a couple of reasons I'm bringing it up besides shameless aggrandizement. First of all, to have any established media source not only reference, but cite and quote "an obscure regional blog" like LO is rare indeed. Shoot, half the time when a blog as influential as DailyKos or FireDogLake comes up with original material, they don't get proper mention. So at the top of my talking points is a big thumbs up to the Spectator for a) researching their subject, b) utilizing nontraditional, local sources, and c) actually crediting those sources for their efforts.
The other main reason I bring it up is the amusing irony of WHICH LO post about Merkley ended up getting cited--the one where I most emphatically admit my error in thinking Merkley would be a silent, soft pillow on the backbench of the Senate. It's not clear whether the author is aware of my strong advocacy for Steve Novick (although he does reference and IMO accurately characterize the primary in the article), or whether it simply struck him that a homestate observer who had previously thought Merkley was a milquetoast, had changed his tune after this. Regardless, after all of the negative ink I've spilled on Merkley in the past--much of which I still stand by as a proper reflection of the time--it's funny to me that the one time my writing about Merkley gets noticed, it's for my mea culpa.
And--yeah, OK--the whole piece is a pretty good feature on Merkley, noting approvingly the Senator's push for a strong public option. So you have my permission to read the whole thing, not just the parts that mention me. It's nice to be noticed, nicer still to be noticed for being right. Maybe this will stanch the ennui for a couple of weeks...
We've been understandably focusing our attention on Sen. Wyden lately, because he's the biggest cipher in the health care debate and appears quite potentially willing to help deliver a disastrous, worse-than-nothing bill with individual purchase mandates but no public option.
Is that where he's headed? I guess we'll just have to wait see (unless he's answered one of the faxes you sent him last week--tell us about it!)...but his junior colleague Jeff Merkley has evinced no such confusion: the Senate HELP committee bill is already passed with his vote, and contains a relatively robust PO.
Since progressives have essentially banked his vote long ago, you might be wondering what the point is in going to one of Merkley's final town halls this week--just to pat him on the back and take up a chair? Well, yes, actually; both of those are also necessary functions of citizen involvement--the carrot move instead of the stick move, if you will.
Why is it important to show up if you already know Merkley's views? Because as the birthers, deathers and teabaggers have amply demonstrated this month, beyond the interpersonal communications in the room there is a broader narrative being driven at these things. The support/oppose balance is being watched, and also the mood of the crowd and any "fireworks" that crop up during the session.
So if you're a supporter of strong health care reform, it would help the cause if you'd advertise, so to speak. Show up at a meeting near you, be visibly (and politely audibly) in favor of robust fixes, maybe ask a question with an implict demand for real change, and give the Senator one more voice of support--for while we're confident Merkley will make the right call on any vote, there will still be intense pressure to accept various half loaves as they're half-baked by the reform killers and their centrist apologists. Lend Merkley some of your backbone in order to stand up to those pressures.
Heck, TJ, where ARE those meetings this week? Well, they're mostly in the eastern part of the state--where showing up as an advocate of reform is most important to the cause, as you may be outnumbered by wingnuts and the askeered group of otherwise well-meaning folks they've tainted. Here's the sked:
Wheeler County Town Hall
Wednesday September 2 - 5:30 pm
Morrow County Town Hall
Thursday September 3 - 10:00 am
Union County Town Hall
Thursday September 3 - 2:30 pm
Wallowa County Town Hall
Thursday September 3 - 7:00 pm
Baker County Town Hall
Friday September 4 - 11:00 am
Malheur County Town Hall
Friday September 4 - 5:30 pm (Mountain Time)
Grant County Town Hall
Saturday September 5 - 1:30 pm
Harney County Town Hall
Saturday September 5 - 5:00 pm
Lake County Town Hall
Sunday September 6 - 1:00 pm
Looks like Jeff will be needing that Congressional gas card this week!
In other health care news, below the fold I'll post some of the better sections of Wendell Potter's speech in Portland last Saturday. Potter is the former PR flack for CIGNA who has blown the whistle on his former industry in recent months; he starts with an apology reminiscient of Richard Clarke's after 9/11...link here, excerpts below. {more}
It's been a long and frustrating summer for Oregon citizens who have been hungry for some indication--any indication, really--of Senator Ron Wyden's true position on health care reform. We've covered it at LO ad infinitum (and some in Wyden's camp may change the last word to nauseum), and have gotten no further than where we started: Wyden claims to "be open to" an unspecified public option, although his first preference is for his own bill, the Healthy Americans Act--which doesn't have a PO. And as we reported last week, one of his colleagues claims that Wyden has let them know he's perfectly willing to "get off" the public option when the time comes.
So is he supporttive, coercable, against, waffling? As I've heard the various staffers say at various times, "The Senator is not willing to speculate at this time." Sucks to be us, I guess.
But we're not giving up, and we need your help to continue reminding the Senator who he works for, and that it's entirely reasonable to expect him to be clearer on his position. I also think given his status as a senior Democratic Senator from a blue state that surely mirrors (at least!) the high level of approval for a PO that exists nationwide, he could go crazy and declare his support for the HELP bill already out of committee, pledge to vote against any bill in his Finance Committee that doesn't include a robust PO, or pledge to vote for any bill in conference that contains a PO. But let's not push his delicate buttons too firmly just yet. First things first.
And this is where you come in. A major push has been underway by national bloggers like Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake, and Chris Bowers at Open Left, along with progressive groups like Democracy for America and Health Care for America Now. Through various pledge letters covering what they will and won't go for, over 60 House Democrats and 45 Senate Dems have made their stand for real reform. The House Gang is enough to hold the line there, and if five more Senators can be signed on by the time they return to DC next month, there'd be enough in that chamber to pass strong reform under reconciliation.
Junior Senator Jeff Merkley is one of those 45, and has been pretty clear about it. Senator Wyden? Not so much. And so he's made the list of Sens on the Hot Seat for this issue, the focus of a national campaign to get those final five committments and stand strong when recess ends.
What would we like you to do? It's so easy a Cave Junction* man could do it! Send Wyden a fax! "But I got rid of my fax machine the same year I stopped having to carry around a big plug-in box for my cell phone," you may be saying. Not to worry, the Toobz can now do all that faxing stuff for you, right online. Here, click on this hyperlink! It will take you to a page to enter your information (so Wyden knows who he's getting it from and it's not just a vacuous form fax), and then submit your message. (If you'd rather call or send a snail mail, that works too!)
Below the fold I'll show you the example, and then what I wrote for my comments. Obviously, it will be more effective and taken more seriously if you don't use the form version, but your fax will still count if you do. It's probably just fine to use the questions verbatim, but think about using your own words if at all possible. If you're fired up and ready to fax, get cracking, otherwise click below decks...
I've spent a whole lot of virtual ink discussing the cipher that is Senator Ron Wyden this spring and summer. Just what he is trying to accomplish by continuing to press his private-insurance mandate plan, the Healthy Americans Act, while superordinating "bipartisanship" with Republicans who want no reform of any kind, and mouthing platitudes about being "open" to a public option while lifting not a finger to actually support it for the majority of Americans who want insurance choice?
I've said repeatedly that--wittingly or not--Wyden's plan is being set up as a stalking horse for the GOP to get behind as a way to forestall any real reform in the health care system that would work for citizens more than private insurers. During the arduous committee process in the House and Senate those warnings had little to refer to, but as we start the Senate recess this week we're already seeing signs that they were prescient warnings indeed. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham spent time talking with WaPo's Ezra Klein, and not only posited HAA as the "centrist" sweet spot between the public option and doing nothing at all, but indicated that Wyden himself had told him and a number of others that there's really no weight or conviction at all to his already-vague support of a public option.
The entire interview is well worth reading, particularly the section where he discusses HAA with Klein, but this is the money quote:
You know, this is not smart politics for Ron Wyden. He comes from [Oregon,] a very blue state. He's getting the crap kicked out of him. I wanted to jump on this bill like I wanted a hole in my head. But he is so persistent. He was willing to say to Bennett and me and others that he'll get off the public option. I wanted to help him. A guy like him is necessary. A guy like [Utah's Robert] Bennett is necessary. There's a comfort zone in politics where you just say no to the other side and it'll be okay. But the country is changing. Those who step out of that zone will be rewarded. We're a ways off yet, on immigration and health care and Social Security. But the day is coming when the people like Ron Wyden will be seen as the solution and not the problem. [emph mine]
"He'll get off the public option." In the context of Graham's comments, where he's positioning Wyden (and HAA cosponsor Robert Bennett, a Republican) as the necessary, reasonable 'center' between the four bills passed out of committee already that have a reasonably strong public option and those who "just say no to the other side," it seems obvious that there is no role for Oregon's senior Senator when it comes to anything other than his corporate-teat version of health care--and that rather than being the right-wing alternative between a public option in the center (where it actually is) and a single payer system that was compromised away long ago, HAA is the settle position for Republicans between current bills and outright shout-it-down teabagism.
The Senate Finance Committee Wyden sits on still lags alone among comittees putting together health care bills, and appears to be headed towards a version without a public option or employer mandates. As discussed on KPOJ last week, when confronted with those concepts, Wyden's staff did nothing to dispel their support for such a bill--and in direct conversation with me in fact affirmed his ability to indeed support it. (A request to comment on Graham's statement was not replied to.)
Given that he's now telling his colleagues that he'll "get off" his support for a public option as soon as his bill is designated the official Republican Third Way, we move ever closer to validating the stalking horse theory--and legitimately declaring Wyden an enemy of health care reform, friend to the insurance industry, and ultimately someone with blood on their hands for the thousands of people who will die because the will of his constituency was subverted by his partnership with the GOP. I can't believe I have to type that, but it's coming true, and it's unconscionable that Oregonians should stand by and watch it happen.
Daily Kos' mcjoan got herself a bit of a scoop the other day, somehow getting her hands on what is normally a private list--an insider's Congressional whip count, this one from the House Congressional Progressive Caucus on health care reform, pledging to vote AGAINST any bill without strong reform principles. I noticed a key Oregon omission from that list, and asked--with reply--why that was. Meanwhile, over on the Senate side the GOP's primary goal of slowing down health care to kill it is being given a boost by none other than our senior Senator. We'll take a brief look at both, below. {really, go below!}
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
