'As Societies Grow Decadent, The Language Grows Decadent, Too'

That Gore Vidal quote, continued: "Words are used to disguise, not illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."

Apt words if you believe what Republicans say about the deficit.

Here's Ezra Klein:

The new Republican line is that there's a “Democrat tax hike" on the way. And it's a big 'un: "An unprecedented $3.8 trillion increase" that will affect -- and this is their bold and underline, not mine -- "every American who pays income taxes!"

To understand what's going on here, you need to go back 10 years to the passage of the Bush tax cuts. In order to maximize the size of the cuts, Republicans had to minimize the influence of minority Democrats on the package. So they chose to run the bill through the reconciliation process.

But that posed some challenges. Budget reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit. In fact, it specifically existed to decrease the deficit. That's why one of its rules was that you couldn't use it to increase the deficit outside the budget window. Republicans realized they could take that very literally: The budget window was 10 years. So if the tax cuts expired after 10 years, they wouldn't increase the deficit outside the budget window. They'd also have the added benefit of appearing less costly in the Congressional Budget Office's estimates, as the CBO duly scored them as expiring after 10 years, which kept the long-range budget picture from exploding.

But the plan was never to have the tax cuts expire. Instead, the idea was that people would get used to the new tax rates, and no future Congress would want to allow a big tax increase, so when the time came, either Republicans in office would extend the cuts or Republicans in the minority would hammer Democrats until they extended them. And that's where we are now: Democrats control the government, so Republicans are screaming about tax increases as a way to get Democrats to extend tax cuts.

It's really hard to know where to start with this one. It's not a tax increase passed into law by Democrats. It's a reversion to old tax rates passed into law by Republicans. It's not how law is supposed to work. It's the result of twisting a budget process meant to reduce the deficit so you could use it to massively increase the deficit. And as for the policy itself, it's a fiscal nightmare: No one who professes concern for short-term deficits can argue for the extension of these deficit-financed tax cuts and retain credibility on debt issues. This is a litmus test. It's not Democrats who are trying to pass the largest tax hike of all time, but Republicans who are calling for the largest increase in the deficit in memory.

Tweet

Both Sides Now

The Senate voted today and the Ghost of Dubya continues to hover...

From the New York Times:

The Senate on Saturday rejected President Obama’s proposal to end the Bush-era tax breaks on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, a triumph for Republicans who have long called for continuing the income tax cuts for everyone.

The Senate also rejected an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to end the tax breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.

Republicans voted unanimously against both proposals, and Democrats said it showed that they were siding with “millionaires and billionaires” over the middle class. Republicans said they were refusing to let taxes rise on anyone given the continuing weakness in the economy.

Or as one of their mouthpieces put it:

RIP: Health Care Reform 2009-2010.

Well, it wasn't even that much fun while it lasted...
A supermajority really isn't very super or much of a majority at all when it's led by Democrats, is it?

Republicans walked in lockstep with every disasterous decision Bush/Cheney dreamed up. Democrats couldn't even hold together to pass their signature issue. And now they can't even carry Massachusetts.

Out with a whimper instead of a bang...

From the New York Times:

With no clear path forward on major health care

legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top

domestic priority on Tuesday, saying that they no longer felt pressure to move

quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing

them.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat

of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care

now,” he said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.” He added, “There is no

rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health

bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

Mr. Reid

said that he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of

California, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in

coming months. “There are a number of options being discussed,” Mr. Reid said,

emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue.

At the same

time, two centrist Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year,

Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Bayh of Indiana,

said that they would resist efforts to muscle through a health care bill using a

parliamentary tactic called budget reconciliation, which seemed to be the

simplest way to advance the measure.

The White House has said

in recent days that it would support that approach.

Some Democrats said that they did not expect any

action on health care legislation until late February at earliest, perhaps after

Congress returns from a weeklong recess. But the Democrats stand to lose

momentum, and every day closer to the November election that the issue remains

unresolved may reduce the chances of passing a far-reaching bill.

Wednesday is the State of the Union address. President Obama hoped to be able to trumpet credible health care reform in his speech.

Rewrite!

The state of the union? #@&%$!

It's Not That The Democrats Are Playing Checkers And The Republicans Are Playing Chess...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

...it's that Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because, once again, they glued their balls to their thighs.

(BTW, Mr. President: bipartisanship is so 2008...)

Doesn't A "Public Option" Mean The Entire Public Should Have An Option?

A watered-down public option. The Confederates don't like that, either.

Harry Reid: Step Up Or Step Down.

The Majority Doesn't Rule.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Public Option NOW!

From the New York Times:

Liberal Senate Democrats on Friday will push to add a government-run insurance program to the health care bill in the Finance Committee, setting off a potentially explosive debate with Republicans who view the idea as a step toward “socialized medicine."

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Thursday evening they would propose the government-run program — the so-called public plan — because efforts to revamp the health system and cover the uninsured would fail without it.

“The best way to control costs, the best way to make availability easier is to have competition to the insurance industry which does not have to make a profit,” Mr. Rockefeller said in a conference call with reporters. Mr. Rockefeller said the public plan would combat the “rapacious instincts” of private insurers.

Centrist Senate Democrats long ago nixed the idea, knowing that it would be a deal-breaker with Republicans, and are expected to defeat the proposal on Friday.

Even the one Republican still willing to vote for the bill, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, has said she would support a public plan only as a fallback to be triggered in geographic areas where the legislation fails to provide affordable insurance.

Mr. Schumer said he would push the idea even if the finance panel rejects it. “It’s a fight that is going to go down to the wire,” he said.

But even if Congress creates a public plan, it would not be available to the majority of Americans who now have employer-sponsored health insurance, because the legislation would force them to keep their existing coverage.

Your Public Option Has Been Maxed Out.

Drug companies and health insurers love Senator Baucus to the Max...

From Politico:

Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive-turned-whistleblower, told a small group of reporters Monday that the Baucus health care plan is an “absolute gift” to the industry.

“The Baucus framework is just an absolute joke,” said Potter, Cigna’s former head of corporate communications who has been speaking out against insurance industry practices. “It is an absolute gift to the industry. And if that is what we see in the legislation, (America’s Health Insurance Plans chief) Karen Ignagni will surely get a huge bonus.”

Potter said the proposal would not provide affordable coverage. It gives the industry too much latitude to charge higher premiums based on age and geographic location, fails to mandate employer coverage, and pushes consumers into plans with limited benefits, Potter said.

Private insurers “want to have ‘benefit design flexibility.’ Those are three very worrisome words,” Potter said at a briefing arranged by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “By being able to have benefit design flexibility, they will be able to design plans that are so limited that more and more people will be in the ranks of the uninsured.”

Several Senate Finance Committee Democrats have raised similar concerns, saying the health care overhaul could mandate Americans to buy coverage that isn’t affordable and doesn’t offer adequate coverage.

This issue has dominated behind-the-scenes discussions, and several members pledged Monday night to address it with amendments in the Finance Committee markup next week.

"It's very clear, at this point in the debate, the flashpoint is all about affordability,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “I personally think there’s a lot of heavy lifting left to do on the affordability issue.”

Finance Chairman Max Baucus said the bipartisan group was "doing our very best to make an insurance requirement as affordable as we possibly can, recognizing that we’re trying to get this bill under $900 billion total.”

I feel like kicking something over the Democrats' inability to use their majority to help the majority. But I don't have health insurance, so I'd better not.

More here and here.

The Dog Days Of Health Care Reform.

I've posted about the bulging pockets of Blue Dog Democrats from health insurance industry largesse previously, and came across this item today that further drives the point home.

From McClatchey:

As the Obama administration and Democrats wrangled over the timing, shape and cost of health care overhaul efforts during the first half of the year, more than half the $1.1 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party's Blue Dog Coalition received came from the pharmaceutical, health care and health insurance industries, according to watchdog organizations.

The amount outstrips contributions to other congressional political action committees during the same period, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog organization. The Blue Dogs, a group of fiscally conservative lawmakers, successfully delayed the vote on health care overhaul proposals until the fall.

"The business community realizes that (the Blue Dogs) are the linchpin and will become much more so as time goes on," former Mississippi congressman turned lobbyist Mike Parker told the organization's researchers.

On average, Blue Dog Democrats net $62,650 more from the health sector than other Democrats, while hospitals and nursing homes also favor them, giving, respectively, $5,680 and $5,550 more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks the influence of money in politics.

The contributions came at a time when health care and pharmaceutical companies were mounting a campaign against a government-run public health insurance option, fearing cost controls and an impact on business. The Blue Dogs' windfall also came at a time when the 52-member coalition flexed its muscle with both the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives as an increasingly influential bloc in the health care overhaul debate.

At the same time, many Blue Dogs were also rubbing shoulders with health care and insurance industry executives and their lobbyists at fundraising breakfasts and cocktail receptions that cost upward of $1,000 a plate, according to public information compiled by the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, which advocates greater government transparency. Since 2008, more than half the Blue Dogs have either attended health care industry fundraising receptions or similar functions co-sponsored by lobbyists representing the health care and insurance industries.

In June, as Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who heads the coalition's task force on health care, publicly expressed the Blue Dogs' misgivings about the Democratic leadership's efforts, the former pharmacy owner was feted at a series of health care industry receptions. Ross has received nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance and health care industries over his five-term career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Calls to Ross' office weren't returned.

That month, the American Medical Association, which lobbies for health care providers and is one of the top contributors to Blue Dogs, came out against a public option.

House Republicans, however, tend to collect more than Democrats — including Blue Dogs — from insurers, health professionals and the broader health sector, the Center for Responsive Politics found.

In Democratically-controlled Washington, health care reform legislation is being partially shaped by a handful of majority party members who are largely indistinguishable from Republicans and are actively fighting a public option.

Meanwhile, 14,000 more Americans lost their health care coverage today.

In other words, our best shot at robust reform to our broken health care system is going to the dogs.

Six Of One, Half A Dozen Of....Never Mind: Why I Mean To Go Green.

I'm an Independent who's voted Green from time to time. I'm also an old Democratic voter who was back in the fold in 2008, and I'm waiting for health care reform with a public option.

I wanted single payer; I also want a swing set on the sun.

I know there's no single payer--because Democrats are as in the tank as are Republicans--but if there is no public option, I'm out. I will be Green, and Democrats can kiss my f****** ass.

Smooch, smooch. And I'm not reachin' back for old time's sake, either...

Spare Change.

When President Obama ran as the candidate for president who represented change, he often spoke of improving the tone in Washington. That idealism was commendable, but it was not why I voted for him. The "change" part? Yeah; that was it.

"Change" to me means focusing on the poor and the middle class; the rich have been pandered to for a generation, and--frankly--they don't need our help. "Change" to me means stricter regulation of the financial sector. "Change" to me means going full-tilt into the development of renewable, clean energy. "Change" to me means a rededication to science and education. "Change" to me means keeping religion out of government. "Change" to me means affordable health care for all.

It's that last one that is the big issue of the day, of course. And it's the one that is in danger of slipping through President Obama's hands.

From TPM:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), one of the "gang of six" Finance Committee members negotiating a health care reform bill, said today that the committee's bill will not include a public option.

"We have not had the public option on the table," Snowe told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "It's been co-ops, and addressing the availability and affordability of plans through the exchange."

Snowe's comments affirm weeks of speculation and hints that the committee would not incorporate the public option into its bill.

When asked later about her statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said only, "The president has said over and over that his goal is to offer more choices to bring costs down ... and the best way to do that is a public option." But if there are better ideas out there, Burton said, President Obama is open to them.

"Change" to me doesn't come in the form of a transformational president being held hostage by a half-dozen centrist lawmakers, three from the president's own party.

Paul Krugman wondered last month whether a different "gang of six"--Ben Nelson (D-NB), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and two Maine Republicans, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe--were working to doom reform:

Will the destructive center kill health care reform? It looks all too possible.

What’s especially galling is the hypocrisy of their claimed reason for delaying progress — concern about the fiscal burden. After all, in the past most of them have shown no concern at all for the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

Case in point: the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which denied Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug prices, locked in overpayments to private insurance companies, and did nothing, nothing at all, to pay for its proposed outlays. How many of these six self-proclaimed defenders of solvency voted no on the crucial procedural vote? One. (Joe Lieberman, to my surprise.)

And let’s not forget that Ben Nelson, who appears to be the ringleader, has fought tooth and nail against competition from a public option — which would almost certainly save a significant amount of money, as well as providing much-needed competition.

If the Gang of Six really does kill reform, remember their names; they will bear the responsibility for vast, unnecessary suffering over the years to come.

Here are the six senators on the Finance Committee who are fighting a public option:

Max Baucus (D-MT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Remember their names, too.

"Change" to me means that Democrats who argue against a public option should change parties. "Change" to me means what I'll be open to when it comes to casting future Democratic votes if a public option isn't included in final health care reform legislation.

Rachel Maddow: "The Democrats Are Too Scared Of Their Own Shadow..."

No More Mr. Nice Guy.

Gallup Graph Shows Shrinking GOP.

But they sure do make a lot of noise...

More here.

Should Democrats Be Sent To Reform School?

Democrats control Congress, right? They are supposed to be able to ram through their agenda, right? So--WTF?

From the Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

Health reform is, I think it fair to say, in danger right now. The news out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee was bad. The Congressional Budget Office had scored a partial bill and the result was a total fiasco. But the news out of the Finance Committee is much, much worse.

Put simply, the Finance Committee wanted its bill to cost $1 trillion over 10 years. The CBO returned an early estimate to the panel on Tuesday night: $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The specifics of the estimate have not been made public. But the final number changed everything. Max Baucus, the chairman of the committee, pushed markup back behind the July 4th recess. He has promised to get the bill below $1 trillion over 10 years.

That's very dangerous.

It is, for one thing, an arbitrary target. Why $1 trillion? Why not $1.3 trillion or, for that matter, $700 billion? And it's an arbitrary financing target. It's not $1 trillion with coverage expanded to 40 million people. Just $1 trillion.

There are two ways to make a $1.6 trillion bill a $1 trillion bill. The first is to do less reform. The second is to do more reform. That sounds confusing. But it shouldn't be: In health care, the less you change, the more it costs.

The rest of Klein's piece is here.

What about a public option, you ask? Sam Stein on HuffPo reminds us that if President Obama pals around with friends like Tom Daschle, does he really need GOP Confederates as his enemies?

The man once slated to head Barack Obama's health care system overhaul is now coming out against one of the chief components of that effort.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said on Wednesday that the Obama White House would likely have to scrap a public option for health insurance coverage if it wanted to get the votes needed to pass systematic change.

"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue," the Senator and one-time HHS Secretary nominee said, according to ABC News.

In coming out against a public plan, Daschle adds kindling to an already roaring debate on health care reform. On Thursday morning, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean repeated the mantra that you cannot have effective legislation if it does not include a public option. At the White House on Wednesday, several state legislators who had met with current HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued the same point.

Certainly, the public seems to be weighed in Dean's favor. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted on Wednesday night showed that 76 percent of respondents wanted a choice between a public option for insurance coverage and private providers.

So are Democrats going to shy away from the bold action--and, yes, initial expense--needed to reform the most wasteful, least-comprehensive health care system in the industrialized world? Are Frank Luntz's talking points helping GOP Confederates control the debate? Will a public option be on the table or out the door? Will insurance companies, Big Pharma and the AMA get their way, yet again?

There are almost 50 million of us anxiously awaiting answers to those questions, and we are sick of D.C. sell-outs.

UPDATE: According to this, Tom Daschle might be the biggest sell-out of all.

Swiftboating Health Care Reform.

From the Washington Post:

The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn't get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment.

"Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care," intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. "Tell Congress to listen, too."

Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the "Harry and Louise" ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

Imagine that! Conservatives are swiftboating health care reform! 

What makes them think they'll need to do that? Even with Democrats in charge of Congress, never underestimate their ability to screw things up all by themselves.

Meanwhile, read this from Paul Krugman.