Why the Gang of Six is deciding healthcare for 300 million of us

Six senators representing 3 percent of the population are running things because the White House wants it that way

By Robert Reich

Topics:U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Healthcare Reform, Republican Party

On Thursday, the so-called Gang of Six – three Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee – met by conference call and, according to Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee’s chair, reaffirmed their commitment “toward a bipartisan healthcare reform bill” (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). The Washington Post reports that the senators shared tales from their home states, where some have been besieged by protesters angry about a potential government takeover of the nation’s healthcare system.

It’s come down to these six senators. The House has reported a bill, as has another Senate committee, but all eyes are fixed on Senate Finance – and on these three Dems and three Republicans, in particular. But who, exactly, anointed these six to decide the fate of the nation’s healthcare?

I don’t get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. In recent weeks Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House’s healthcare bill will spawn “death panels,” empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi “intellectually dishonest” for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul healthcare in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But – wait – the anger is largely about distortions such as the “death panels” that Grassley refuses to debunk.

This week on Fox News, Grassley termed the House bill “the Pelosi bill,” and called it “a government takeover of healthcare, exploding the deficit because it’s not paid for and it’s got high taxes in it.”

I really don’t get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control 60 votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass healthcare legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that’s what George W. Bush did with his tax-cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no healthcare reform bill without a public option.

So why does the fate of healthcare rest in Grassley’s hands?

It’s not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems in the gang are from Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota – states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.

So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that’s what I’m repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the administration. “The Finance Committee is where the action is. They’ll tee up the final bill,” says someone who should know.

: Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. He is also a blogger and the author of "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." More Robert Reich

Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

The former Nebraska senator probably prefers Greenwich Village to Omaha

By Jeff Smith

Do I have to move to Omaha? (Credit: AP)

Topics:U.S. Senate, Bob Kerrey

Given the tenuousness of Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, I imagine more than a few people in Washington are hoping former Sen. Bob Kerrey will run for the seat vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. As both local and national sources are reporting, Kerrey is seriously exploring the bid – and Republicans are taking his possible entrance just as seriously. Operatives of both parties seem to agree that he may be the only Democrat who could hold the seat. I hope that he makes the race. But I don’t think he will.

First, some politicos call Kerrey a serial floater. They refer to his frequent Hamlet routine, in which he contemplates but ultimately declines to run for various offices: in 2000 for president, in 2005 for New York City mayor, and in 2008 for the last open U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska.

Second, after a decade in the private sector, I doubt Kerrey is excited by the prospect of a year of retail campaigning. He was famously aloof in his 1992 presidential campaign, which reinforced the regrettable nickname “Cosmic Bob.” As a former aide to ex-presidential candidate Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., I traveled with Kerrey briefly in western Iowa in late 1999 as he helped campaign for Bradley before the caucuses. During a break between events, an advance man suggested that Kerrey shake hands in a small-town square; Kerrey suggested bowling instead. While I appreciated his quirky charisma, obvious intelligence, and willingness to speak hard truths, I found him miscast for the practice of politics. Accounts of his time in the Senate suggest a similar distaste for schmoozing.

Third, he could lose. Nebraska has reddened quite a bit since his last race in 1994. Back then, Nebraska had a Democratic governor and two Democratic U.S. senators; now, Nelson is the last elected Democratic statewide officeholder (and likely would’ve lost in ’12, which was why he bowed out). And surely, his having spent his last decade heading one of the nation’s most liberal universities — located in the lefty bastion of Greenwich Village — would take a little explaining to culturally conservative Nebraska voters. Attempting a comeback in such a risky race, after an unblemished career record of wins, may seem unappealing.

Fourth, Kerrey might be haunted by the results of his last election. That election was a non-binding no-confidence vote brought by the faculty of the New School, where he served as president from 2001 to 2010. The overall vote was reportedly 271 to 3 against Kerrey, with the vote among senior faculty 74-2 against, and Kerrey announced his resignation soon thereafter. This occurred after Kerrey went through five provosts in seven years before naming himself provost in addition to president, which helped trigger student occupations of the administration building (back before the word “occupy” was capitalized). To say that Kerrey’s New School tenure was rocky would be like saying that Nixon had a bumpy presidency.

Even Kerrey’s New School detractors concede that he spearheaded some impressive achievements during his tenure on a number of fronts, substantially growing the endowment and streamlining operations. But he apparently had no constituency beyond the trustees and a few senior administrators; notably, the university quickly hired a new president with unsurpassed interpersonal skills whose early efforts at university-wide outreach have been widely hailed. New School veterans say that Kerrey could’ve benefited from even a small effort at retail politics within the university. That he did not attempt one further suggests a pattern of unease with the quotidian mechanics of politicking that could hinder Kerrey’s interest in returning to elective politics – especially in such a challenging climate for Democrats as Nebraska.

The last reason for my skepticism that Kerrey will run is simple: Would you want to spend a year in Nebraska — not to mention weekends for the next six years — after a decade in the Village? If he does, though, voters should choose him, if only for his deep commitment to his home state.

: Jeff Smith is Assistant Professor of Politics and Advocacy at the New School in New York City, and a former Missouri state senator. More Jeff Smith

- 16Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

"Partisan gridlock" is to blame for "both parties" blocking jobs bills, according to Politico

By Alex Pareene

Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Joe Lieberman (Credit: AP/Reuters)

Topics:U.S. Senate, Unemployment, Republican Party, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Politico, Media, Media Criticism

Politico gets a gold star today for writing a story that could be used by journalism professors as a textbook example of everything that is wrong with mainstream reporting on Congress. The story is about “Senate gridlock,” responsibility for which rests with “both parties.”

Here’s the first sentence:

Rival Democratic and Republican jobs bills failed in the Senate on Thursday, the latest sign of the partisan gridlock gripping Washington as Americans look for relief from high unemployment and a sagging economy.

: Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene

- 52Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Every single Republican opposes $60 billion measure

By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press

Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., right, accompanied by, from left, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011. (Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Topics:U.S. Senate, U.S. Economy, From the Wires

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy and spending totals they said were too high.

The 51-49 vote fell well short of the 60 votes required under Senate procedures to start work on the bill. Every Republican opposed the president, as did Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who still aligns with the party.

Obama’s loss was anything but a surprise, but the White House and its Democratic allies continue to press popular ideas from Obama’s poll-tested jobs package in what Republicans say is nothing more than a bare-knuckle attempt to gain a political edge by invoking the mantra of jobs but doing little to seek compromise.

“The truth is, Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “And frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that.”

“Their goal is to do everything they can to drag down this economy, to do anything they can to focus attention negatively on the President of the United States in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps, and that President Obama will be defeated,” Reid said. “So let’s not talk about campaign speeches here on the Senate floor. Let’s talk about reality.”

After Republicans blocked Obama’s infrastructure plan, the president’s Democratic allies immediately turned to kill a competing GOP infrastructure plan that would have extended existing highway and transit spending programs and paid for the spending with a $40 billion cut in unspent funding for other domestic programs.

Obama unveiled his $447 billion jobs plan in September and has launched a campaign-style effort — featuring multiple rallies in states crucial to his reelection bid — to try to get it passed. In votes last month, Republicans blocked the entire $447 billion jobs package and a subsequent attempt by Democrats to pass a $35 billion piece of it aimed at preventing layoffs of teachers and firefighters.

Another political flash point is the way Democrats have sought to pay for Obama’s jobs measures — a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. The idea enjoys wide backing in opinion polls but is stoutly opposed by Republicans, who say it would hit small business owners and therefore threaten job growth.

With the demise of Thursday’s measure, an announcement could come as early as Friday on what’s the next piece of Obama’s jobs agenda to break out for a stand-alone vote. Democratic aides say the next measure would be legislation to provide a $4,800 tax credit for hiring an unemployed veteran and increasing the tax credit for hiring a veteran with a service-related disability to up to $9,600.

Republicans back the idea of the veterans hiring tax credit.

Thursday’s legislation would have provided an immediate $50 billion investment in roads, bridges, airports and transit systems. It also called for a $10 billion bank to leverage private and public capital for longer-term infrastructure projects.

The measure would be financed by a 0.7 percent surcharge on income over $1 million.

After Obama’s full $447 billion jobs bill was filibustered to death last month, the White House immediately announced it would seek votes on component pieces. That’s a way to exert political pressure on Republicans sensitive about their own jobs agenda, which so far has centered on relaxing regulations and boosting offshore oil exploration and drilling.

Obama last week uncorked a “We Can’t Wait” initiative that relies on executive authority rather than legislation from a bitterly divided Congress to help homeowners refinance “underwater” homes and give borrowers relief from their student loans.

Meanwhile, House GOP leaders are casting blame on the Senate for failing to act on 15 “forgotten” jobs bills, including a measure to repeal a law requiring federal, state and many local governments to withhold 3 percent of their payments to contractors until their taxes are paid.

Also Thursday, the House approved legislation to allow small companies to sell more shares to potential investors and community banks to increase the number of shareholders they can have before they have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The bills are part of four measures the House is taking up this week to ease SEC registration rules that have been seen as an impediment to small businesses attracting investors and expanding their operations.

“While the president is out doing campaign events all over the country, what he could do is to actually come to Washington and be focused on trying to help pass bills that would create a better environment for job creation and help put the American people back to work,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

: More Andrew Taylor

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

In which we help Nebraska's "centrist" senator make a 2012 decision

By Alex Pareene

Ben Nelson, horrible senator (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

Topics:Ben Nelson, U.S. Senate, 2012 Elections, Democratic Party, War Room

According to the Lincoln Journal Star, Senator Ben Nelson has not yet decided whether or not to run for reelection. Consider this my open letter to the distinguished Democrat from Nebraska: Please, please, I beg you, Senator Ben Nelson, do not run for reelection.

“I’ll sit down with my family to discuss the future,” Nelson said Tuesday during a telephone interview. “They are my sounding board. I value what they say.”

Nelson said he will weigh his family’s views along with a personal judgment on “whether I believe I have a role to play in dealing with a very divided Congress in a very divided country, whether I could be constructive in finding some solutions, whether I am convinced I can be a positive force for the following six years.”

Senator Nelson, you have never been a “positive force” during your time in office thus far, and it seems unlikely that you will become one at any point in the next six years.

Please, retire quietly, or even with an alternately self-righteous and self-pitying editorial about the death of “bipartisanship” and “civility” and “Senate decorum.” Promise to devote yourself to good deeds outside of office and then get rich lobbying for the corporate interests that currently sponsor you, I don’t care. Just get out of office, because you are horrible. You’re a miserable excuse for a senator. You have made millions of people’s lives worse in real and tangible ways, and you will continue to do so as long as you remain in the United States Senate.

You opposed capping ATM fees because you are so old and rich and stupid that you have never used an ATM. “I know about the holograms,” you said in your defense, because you’re a useless fool.

You joined the cadre of “centrist” Democrats who attempted to sabotage every major legislative priority of the Democratic Congressional majority, and you went back and forth on the public option before definitively coming out against it and the hugely popular “Medicare buy-in” compromise. Then you won a sweetheart Medicaid funding deal solely for Nebraska that almost killed the entire healthcare reform bill and led to everyone in the country calling you venal and corrupt.

And you opposed a measure to stop federally subsidizing usurious private student loan providers — calling a money-saving anti-corporate welfare proposal “a government takeover of student lending” — because you think representing the interests of usurious lending institutions that donate millions to your campaigns is actually an example “being constructive” and “finding solutions.”

You supported the Stupak Amendment, voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment, and supported the Iraq war. You supported both horrible, wasteful Bush tax cuts.

You have no major legislative accomplishments, either. Not one! I can’t name a single important bill you ever sponsored or co-sponsored and I suspect most other longtime Senate observers could, either. You are a failure as a Senator with no legacy to speak of beyond trolling your own party, repeatedly.

Consider this an official endorsement of your retirement from politics. Please go crawl into a hole.

Yours,
Alex

: Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene

- 26Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

The obstruction will only get worse as the election draws closer

By Alex Pareene

Topics:U.S. Senate, Republican Party, 2012 Elections, Politics, Congress

Our useless vestigial Senate remains a lavish old folk’s home for America’s worst people, and it will only get worse next year. Joe Lieberman has announced his intention to block a bill that will send states money to hire and retain public employees, because he is Joe Lieberman, the mascot of all this is awful and detestable about the world’s most deliberative body. This after Senate Republicans “defeated” the larger jobs bill by preventing it from being debated in a vote that they won with a minority. That is business as usual, reported by the objective political press as “gridlock” that “both sides” are responsible for. And as Al Kamen writes today, the Senate’s slow trickle of judicial confirmations will likely cease once the presidential election is underway.