Max Baucus on The Huffington Post

Michael Kieschnick: How to Make Lieberman and Baucus Irrelevant

2009-12-23T13:32:39Z

After Joe Lieberman and 40 Republicans forced Senate Democrats to abandon real health reform, insurance company stocks jumped on Wall Street.

After the Copenhagen talks collapsed with no binding agreement to lower carbon pollution, the price of carbon contracts in Europe fell sharply.

Insurance stocks up and carbon contracts down - this is unmitigated bad news. Financial markets are far from perfect, but they got right what many pundits and elected leaders are getting totally wrong.

At the center of each disastrous case is the United States Senate, whose rules magnify corporate power to resist progressive change even when polling makes clear that change is clearly popular with the American people.

Three rules in particular stand out.

Senate rules, adopted on the first day of each session by majority vote, provide for successful filibusters if 41 senators stand firm. From a progressive point of view, this means that the 59th and 60th votes - senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh - all firmly controlled by corporate interests - decide policy if the minority party is disciplined.

Small states are substantially overrepresented. The Constitution provides for two senators from each state. The 640,000 citizens of North Dakota have as much representation as the more than 36 million citizens of California.

Committee chairs are selected based on seniority. This allows senators like Max Baucus to rule the Finance Committee in the interests of insurance companies for decades. In the House, where the rules are different, environmental leader Henry Waxman could challenge General Motors' representative John Dingell to a vote to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee and make climate change legislation at least possible.

It is beyond difficult to change the Constitution, but it is both possible and essential to eliminate the filibuster and elect, rather than perpetuate, committee chairs. No significant progressive change that requires Congressional action will happen without these changes. Period. Both changes will be easiest to adopt when the Senate organizes itself after the 2010 elections.

And if progressive change is not sufficient motivation, just imagine a day where Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus are irrelevant and off the front page of the newspapers and have no place on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. That is change worth fighting for.

Rick Horowitz: Nelson the Hard-Nosed Reindeer

2009-12-22T15:48:59Z

"Gather 'round, you little lovelies -- how'd you like your Grampa to tell you a bit of a Christmas story?"

"Tell us, Grampa! Tell us!"

"Well, I think I just might then. Have you ever heard the tale of Nelson the Hard-Nosed Reindeer?"

"You mean Rudolph!"

"And his nose wasn't hard, Grampa -- it was red!"

"Not so fast, my lovelies -- you can't know what you haven't been told, can you? Now, Rudolph's a perfectly fine reindeer. And you're certainly right about his wonderful old nose -- quite the piece of work it was!"

"That's why the reindeer loved him, Grampa!"

"Well, if that's the way you heard it, I won't quibble with you. But come settle down, and I'll tell you a story I'll bet you've never heard, not a one of you. This is the story of a different reindeer, name of Nelson."

"There wasn't any Nelson reindeer, Grampa! We said all their names in school! It was Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and...and..."

"And Vixen! And Comet!"

"And Cupid!"

"And Donner!"

"And Blitzen!"

"Exactly the one I was talking about -- Blitzen! But they had nicknames, you know, same as children do. And Blitzen's nickname was -- "

"Nelson!!!"

"Precisely! Which is what all his friends called him. So anyway -- "

"Did he have a lot of friends, Grampa?"

"Well, you see, that's kind of the story. Because there they all were, up at Santa's workshop at the North Pole, with Christmastime coming closer and closer. Now, all the presents had been wrapped and boxed and tied up in the brightest of ribbons."

"Red ribbons!"

"Red, and gold, and even a silver ribbon that looked just like snowflakes. Anyway, come Christmas Eve, and those reindeer were getting ready to take Santa's sleigh straight to the rooftops of every good girl and boy all over the world."

"But it was foggy!"

"Exactly. It was foggy. There was a mist as thick as pea soup rising from the snow, and -- "

"Was it global warming, Grampa? Were the ice caps melting?"

"You know, global warming could have been precisely what it was! Anyway...where was I?"

"Pea soup!"

"Right. Because of the pea-soup mist, Santa had already gone to see Rudolph -- "

"With his nose so bright!"

" -- and Rudolph, being a lovely little reindeer, signed on quick as a flash. But what you haven't heard is what happened next. And what happened next is -- "

"Nelson!"

"Exactly. Just as the reindeer were all in their harnesses and ready to go, with Rudolph in the lead -- just at that precise moment, Nelson the Hard-Nosed Reindeer said, 'Not so fast!'"

"But they'll be late!"

"Didn't matter -- not to Nelson. He said he wasn't going anywhere until he got a few 'adjustments.'"

"What are 'adjustments,' Grampa?"

"Well, they're kind of like special favors. For instance, when you -- "

"That's not fair!"

"They should go without him!"

"See, that's where the problem was: They couldn't go without him. They needed exactly eight reindeer lined up behind Rudolph. Any less than eight, and the sleigh wouldn't budge."

"Like horsepower! Only with reindeer!"

"Exactly! Only with reindeer. And Nelson wasn't pulling that sleigh until Santa agreed to give him a nicer stall, and fancy feed, and even a special collar with all sorts of bells and whistles on it."

"That's not fair!"

"It certainly wasn't. But Nelson the Hard-Nosed Reindeer knew how to count."

"Did they stop being his friend?"

"Well, first things first. First they had to deliver all the presents, which they finally did -- and just in time, too. And then Santa gave Nelson everything he'd promised him. But then none of the other reindeer wanted to be Nelson's friend anymore."

"He was mean to them!"

"Yes he was. And he was taking advantage. In fact, in the whole North Pole, the only one who would be his friend anymore was Lieberman."

"Lieberman?! Lieberman the Reindeer?!!"

"Actually, Lieberman the Weasel -- but that's a story for another day."

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Health Care Bill Contains Specific Benefits For Montana Asbestos Victims

2009-12-21T10:35:14Z

Buried in the deal-clinching health care package that Senate Democrats unveiled over the weekend is an inconspicuous proposal expanding Medicare to cover certain victims of "environmental health hazards."

The intended beneficiaries are identified in a cryptic, mysterious way: individuals exposed to environmental health hazards recognized as a public health emergency in a declaration issued by the federal government on June 17.

Melinda Gopher: The Baucus-Hanes Flap: Status Quo in Montana Politics

2009-12-19T12:13:00Z

The latest revelation of Senator Baucus' attempt to gain a political appointment for his girlfriend, Melodee Hanes, is nothing new to Montana politics and the entrenched "Baucus political party machine," that has Montana politics in a strangle hold. Senator Baucus' abuse of power is only now becoming evident because of his mishandling of the health care reform agenda of President Obama.

There are many worthy community leaders who are more deserving of the Senator's attention to gain political appointments in the Obama administration. The state party political operatives are becoming increasingly antagonistic as the health care debate wears on. A good example of this is the President's speech to the nation on health care reform.

I blogged about my experience during that speech, where I went and listened at a local bar to report on local reactions earlier this fall. The President Obama Watch party was sponsored by Organizing for America at the Badlander, a small bar on Ryman street in downtown Missoula. This city is the heart and soul of the Montana progressive movement. I came to listen with the crowd; a rare Presidential address before a joint session of Congress.

Missoula is a haven for free-thinkers, liberals, writers, and artists; it is one of the most politically astute cities in America. It is the major urban center in western Montana. It was a major social event on April 5, 2008, when then-candidate Obama visited this city and spoke before a packed arena at the Adams Center. The who's who of the Montana political landscape was there; welcomed and cheered on by Missoula's enormously popular mayor, John Engen. This is a diverse city where the progressive movement and the state's tribal population interconnect and interface; culturally, politically and economically. If and when the Rocky Mountain west turns from red to blue; you can be sure Missoula will be the lynchpin of a progressive sweep.

We arrived at this hole-in-the-wall, out of the way bar. Its plain interior belied its reputation where the best and brightest of the Montana progressives gravitate, imbibe and recharge. Forward Montana, a health care reform effort uses the Badlander as sort of a war room. There were about a couple dozen or more people watching the small screen TVs all above the bar and along the wall. The crowd in this small bar cheered the loudest when President Obama declared he would "not back down" on the public option.

They were silent and listened attentively when the President described the last letter he received from the late Sen. Kennedy. The president paraphrased Kennedy on health care as; "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He quoted Kennedy that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but "he also reminded me that it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." The room was still and this crowd at the Badlander felt a sense of affinity and loyalty to the late Senator.

The crowd held on to every word as the President described his vision for a public option and declared that he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform would be realized. The crowd seemed reassured by the final paragraphs of the President's address; that in summary seemed to be an expression of a commitment to ensure a public option. He had reiterated governmental intervention in the health care crisis to the room's satisfaction.

The room's reaction to the close up of Sen. Max Baucus during the President's comments regarding the Finance Committee was that of loud boos and hisses; exasperation and anger. This is very telling of the stature the Senator now has in Montana; he clearly has fallen. Missoula, along with the Native American and women's vote; largely have been determining who fills the seats in the U.S. Senate and the Governor's chair. These voting groups share common goals and ideologies. Lately, these groups have been sharing a mounting sense of frustration over the Senator's perceived mishandling of the health care issue. There have been times his constituency has been at odds with Baucus, notably his vote for the Iraq war; this time it is different. He is conceivably at a threshold in his political career -- the beginning of the end.

The grassroots in Montana have mobilized; yet, it is as if their Senator has not noticed. During a Labor Day health care reform rally, Montana's other Senator, Jon Tester, attended and spoke to a crowd of several hundred people in Great Falls. During a recent 24/7 project to illuminate health disparities, Montana Native Americans sent in their health care stories to Montana's Congressional delegation. One terse response by a Baucus Finance Committee staffer was: "I get it." Now if Montanans could just be convinced the Finance Chairman gets it; that would do much to placate public option supporters. This of course has not happened.

Montana Native Americans are used to the Senator's aloof, sometimes obtuse and snarly contempt for this constituency. Now, constituents demand more. The health care debate has exposed the dark side of Max Baucus; one which his tribal constituents have been long aware of. Civic engagement, dialog and discussion between the Senator and Native Americans is limited to the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. This Billings based non-profit oversees "federal Indian policy" for the Senator. It is a love slave relationship. It is very much an ironclad good-old-boy network; the grassroots are effectively banished and out of the loop. The Senator and his token Indian organization have been extremely ineffective at curbing the high unemployment on Montana's seven Indian Reservations, and restoring the political status of two landless and non-recognized Chippewa bands in the state. The health reform legislation fiasco has been politically costly for Baucus personally and has left the state party at odds with its most experienced elected official. His mishandling of it exemplifies his weakness as a unifier.

The power struggle evident in the Democratic party over health care reform is as much a generational struggle as it is about differing ideology. Baucus' old school methodology in trying to cram through this legislation to industry's liking is not sitting well with his constituents. It is an odd and uncomfortable ground for Montana progressives who want to support a "public option" but were not given specifics from the Finance Chair; he is clearly beholden to industry interests to the exclusion of his constituency.

The challenge for the President will be to redefine and shape the policy aims of the party he leads at the national level. Every day that passes with party infighting is a day lost and the fraying of the party base. The Democratic Party cannot continue to be at war with itself. It is time for decisiveness. The President must undo and correct Baucus' mishandling of health reform legislation; or risk his own political future. The latest controversy, this time about Senator Baucus' handling of his girlfriends appointment makes it clear that he did, in fact, submit her name for nomination. There is no dispute to this fact and he has admitted it. This illustrates Baucus is again willing to sacrifice the public interest for his own gain.

This does not bode well for those of us who are trying to make a difference at the local level -- vote-by-vote. Baucus's self-serving arrogance must be challenged by Democrats who want to win elections in 2010 and beyond. With this health care debate that has gone on far too long in spite of critical and serious unemployment problems both in Montana and nationwide -- it can be said Senator Baucus has single-handedly derailed the change people sought in 2008. It is sad and at the same time, disgusting to see the Senate Majority leader stand by him today, as if to say -- business as usual.

http:www.melindaformontana.com

http:www.urbannativemagazine.com

http:www.melindagopher.com

Chris Prevatt: Health Care Reform: The Real Price is in "Brother can you Spare a Dime"

2009-12-18T12:22:52Z

It has become readily apparent that efforts to achieve health care reform in the Senate have become a disaster and effectively dead. This seems to be clear to everyone, with the exception of several senators, including Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

At any chance, GOP senators have obstructed the progress in reaching meaningful reform in their attempt to ensure the status quo remains. If the current Senate health care bill were to be enacted into law, the health insurance industry would experience a financial windfall from millions of customers forced to purchase coverage at whatever price they choose. This is simply unacceptable.

Dr. Howard Dean said in a radio interview on Wednesday that it is time to KILL this BILL:

This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.

If Democratic leaders cater to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), they will be left with a bill that is not worth supporting.

The failure of Senate lawmakers to address the need for meaningful reform does not fall squarely on the heads of Republicans in the chamber. Conservative Democrats like Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and the so called "maverick senator" from Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are also culpable.

Perhaps most disappointing of all, we have President Barack Obama to thank for not having yet achieved comprehensive health care reform. The President campaigned on the platform of real health care reform, but since elected has not fulfilled his word and has failed to lead.

The Obama administration has effectively caved to the interests of health insurance industry executives. The president has provided little, if any direction or pressure on the matter; he has produced no change at all.

We're really not talking about a lot of loose change here. With 308 million Americans, health care coverage would cost about fifty-cents a day, for every person in the country. Yeah, that's all it would cost.

For the sake of comparison, each year we spend three times that amount to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. More than twelve and a half times that amount has been spent this past year alone to bail out Wall Street bankers.

One of the best known songs of the Republican Great Depression, "Brother Can you Spare a Dime," was written in 1931 and released just prior to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Made famous by Bing Crosby and Rudy Vallee, the song was viewed as the anthem of the shattered dreams of the era. As we now endure this current economic recession, and our shattered dreams of Change, this song seems to be strikingly relevant.

So to Barack Obama and the United States Senate I have just one question.

Brother, can you spare five dimes? Just fifty-cents a day to fund health care for all?

Below is a video of the song "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" as sung by Rudy Vallee.

Max Baucus Named Brooklyn's Player Of The Year

2009-12-12T20:18:11Z

Instead, these Made-for-Cable-TV dramas have given veteran character actors their moment in the haze. It has indeed been the hour(s) of a Ned, rather than Warren, Beatty. And in 2009, no not-quite star shone as dimly as that of the senior senator from Montana, who reliably portrayed a man fighting the popular will in order to serve the many private interests who support him. For uniquely embodying the Democratic Party's dilemmas, Max Baucus is the Brooklyn Rail's 2009 Player of the Year.

Max Baucus Gave Staffer Girlfriend $14K Raise

2009-12-11T09:19:57Z

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer in 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty.

Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com. But he said that Hanes withdrew from consideration for the job when the relationship became more serious. The next day, he dismissed calls for an ethics investigation, saying, "I went out of my way to be up and up."

Peter Dreier: Obama's Biggest Mistake

2009-12-10T15:08:38Z

Last February, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) asked the White House to appoint his girlfriend and former staffmember, Melodee Hanes, as Montana's U.S. Attorney.

As chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus has led the opposition of a handful of moderate Democrats to President Barack Obama's proposal for a public option health care plan. That opposition has forced Obama and progressive Democrats in Congress to make numerous compromises to accomodate a few Senators, including Baucus, who have been tools of the insurance lobby.

How different history might have been had Obama said:

"Max, your girlfriend seems like a highly qualified lawyer and I'd be happy to name her to the U.S. Attorney post. So I'll give her the job if you promise to support a strong public option when your Senate Finance Committee comes up with its health care reform bill. No waffling. No "whatever can get 60 votes." I want your commitment and leadership to support bold legislation that gives consumers a choice of a public health insurance plan and taxes the very rich to pay for it. Have we got a deal?"

If offered that deal, Baucus would have had to choose what's more important -- his devotion to Ms. Hanes (whom he's now shacking up with in D.C.) or remaining in bed with the medical industrial complex, which has contributed $2.8 million to the Montana Senator, including $464,850 from health insurance companies. Two of Baucus' former chiefs of staff are now lobbyists for the health industry.

Baucus eventually withdrew Hanes' name and she took another job in the Obama administration as a top official in the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Baucus swears that she got that job "independently" and "on her merit." Perhaps so. But its too bad that nobody in the White House was willing to barter that plum position in exchange for a pledge from Baucus that he put the health care needs of his Montana constituents over those of his deep-pocket insurance donors.

Didn't Obama, or his chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, learn anything from their years in Chicago surrounded by the patronage politics of the Daley machine?

Stanley Kutler: Financial Oversight: There Is No Change (Again)

2009-12-08T17:47:24Z

Even if President Barack Obama doesn't deliver the change he promised, at least he could restore basic oversight in key financial areas.

The need was highlighted by a story out of Cleveland last week. On Friday, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. regulators seized the AmTrust Bank, the fourth-largest U.S. bank or savings institution to fail in 2009. The AmTrust debacle -- the FDIC had dutifully guaranteed the bank's deposits at a cost of more than $2 billion -- vividly reflects the Obama administration's steadfast commitment to the status quo.

Founded in 1889 as the Ohio Savings Bank, the company eventually morphed into a prominent player in northeastern Ohio, along with the National City Bank, which was seized by the FDIC a few months before the action against AmTrust.

During the wild speculative days of the late 1980s and the 1990s, and as banking regulations were overthrown, AmTrust expanded beyond its Ohio settings into southeastern Florida and Arizona, which proved fertile grounds for selling dubious mortgages and other investments.

Regulators periodically questioned some AmTrust practices, but apparently the bank had enough political influence during the Bush administration to keep the overseers at bay. On Dec. 5 the Wall Street Journal reported that the FDIC had been poised to seize the bank week earlier. After the FDIC finally acted, the New York Community Bancorp bought AmTrust at a much lower price than it would have fetched a year earlier, when the feds already recognized the bank's precarious status.

AmTrust joins the legions of banks that abandoned any notion of prudence, once the financial community's First Commandment. The bank's troubles stemmed from ill-considered gambles in the housing market. It ventured into new geographic markets, offered aggressive mortgage and construction lending and racked up mind-numbing losses in derivatives that dominated its unbalanced sheets.

AmTrust did not receive funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) in 2008 or 2009. Without assistance such as its larger rivals received, AmTrust could not extricate itself from a mountain of bad debts. It apparently was not too big to fail.

President Obama and his advisers now have had more than a year since the election to devise programs needed to prevent another financial meltdown. The buccaneers of the financial community simply remain free to restore the disaster from which they were rescued with taxpayers' money.

We have a "regulation czar," but so far we have no new regulations. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the White House's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, have proposed some new laws, but we can expect little from those with a track record of enabling the bad policies and actions of the past three decades.

Senate and House bills offer a modicum of new regulation, but the legislative measures are floundering, damned for proposing too much or not proposing enough. Restoring the government regulation that both enabled and watched over the nation's prosperity since 1945 appears as remote as gaining meaningful health care reform.

How do you achieve regulation when the leading players are the recipients of campaign backing from those they are supposed to regulate? Sens. Max Baucus, Christopher Dodd, Charles Grassley and Richard Shelby, the chairs and ranking committee members charged with effecting such reforms, rank among the top recipients of campaign contributions from those they are supposed to regulate. Surely, some bad joke is being played on us.

President Harry Truman, in his famous 1948 campaign, never hesitated to strike a partisan chord; appeasing opponents was not his style. He lit into the 80th Congress, his favorite adversary, saying that "the biggest lobby in the history of the country was at work [in that Congress] and they accomplished their purpose, they did." You could not, he continued, expect Republicans to "come out in the open" and acknowledge their masters. "You'd take them out and hang them if they did."

Today's Democrats, as well as Republicans, openly serve their campaign paymasters, whether in the financial industry or the health industry. Hanging is not an option for President Obama. Alas! Obama is no Harry Truman when it comes to taking on Congress and special interests. Change has left the room.

Stanley Kutler is the author of "The Wars of Watergate" and other writings.

John McCain Gets Mad On Senate Floor During Health Care Debate (VIDEO)

2009-12-05T20:46:47Z

John McCain Is mad. During Senate debate Saturday over cuts to Medicare home health care spending, Sen. McCain got very worked up. On at least two separate occasions, Sen. Max Baucus objected to McCain. The Senator from Arizona did not take it too well and was visibly upset. For his part, Baucus seemed to be smirking at McCain's reactions.

C-Span has the whole debate right here (McCain's first outburst to Baucus begins at the 3-minute mark).

A critic for The Baltimore Sun weighed in on McCain's performance, calling it "fabulous stuff."

This is the feisty and tart John McCain who was missing on the campaign trail last fall to the regret of many GOP backers.

WATCH:

Max Baucus Nominated Melodee Hanes, His Girlfriend, For U.S. Attorney

2009-12-04T23:05:50Z

***UPDATED, SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTO OF MELODEE HANES***

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is defending recommending his girlfriend for appointment as Montana's U.S. attorney.

Baucus said the he and former state office director Melodee Hanes began dating when they were both separated from their spouses. The Montana Democrat said they did not have an affair.

In a statement issued by his office Saturday, Baucus said he recommended Hanes to become Montana's U.S. attorney because she is a highly qualified prosecutor who tried more than 100 jury trials, and said she is widely regarded as an expert in child abuse prosecution.

Baucus, who is helping Democrats expand health care, nominated Hanes for the post in March. But she later withdrew, saying she had been presented with other opportunities she couldn't pass up. Baucus said the two now live together in Washington.

---

EARLIER: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus was romantically involved with a former staffer when he recommended her earlier this year to become the next U.S. attorney for Montana, a spokesman said.

The Montana Democrat and his former state office director Melodee Hanes began their relationship in the summer of 2008 after Baucus separated from his wife, Ty Matsdorf told The Associated Press late Friday.

The story was first broken by MainJustice.com's Andrew Ramonas -- you can read his full write-up here.

Baucus, a Senate leader helping to shepherd President Barack Obama's efforts to expand health care, nominated Hanes for the U.S. attorney post in March. But she later withdrew, saying she had been presented with other opportunities she couldn't pass up.

Baucus had submitted six names to a third-party reviewer, who whittled those to Hanes and two others. Matsdorf said the senator sent the three names to the White House with no ranking to select a nominee.

Matsdorf said Baucus' relationship with his girlfriend had nothing to do with his decision.

"Senator Baucus recommended each of the three candidates based solely on qualifications, and merit, knowing whichever one the White House selected would serve Montana well," Matsdorf said.

The spokesman said Baucus and Hanes decided during the nomination process that she should withdraw her name because the couple wanted to live together in Washington, which they later did.
ad_icon

The senator disclosed the circumstances surrounding the nomination after inquiries from Mainjustice.com, a news Web site focusing on the Justice Department that first reported Baucus' relationship with his nominee.

Baucus has played a major role in managing the Democrats' health care overhaul efforts. He joined Senate debate Saturday on the health bill, receiving a nod of support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Max is a good friend, an outstanding senator and he has my full support," Reid said in a statement released by his spokesman.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she didn't think the issue would affect Baucus' leadership in the health care debate. "I don't think it's going to distract from the substance of the debate," she said in a brief interview Saturday during the Senate's rare weekend session.

Baucus and his ex-wife Wanda announced last April that they planned to divorce after 25 years of marriage, his second. In a joint statement, they said they had "parted ways amicably and with mutual respect."

Hanes started working for Baucus in 2002 and was his state director before leaving his office earlier this year for a Justice Department position.

"Mel is supremely qualified and she got to her current position based solely on her merit," Matsdorf said.

President Barack Obama eventually nominated Helena attorney Michael Cotter for the U.S. attorney post, which supervises prosecutors of all federal crimes committed in Montana and the state's seven Indian reservations. Cotter is awaiting confirmation.

Word of Hanes' nomination follows other recent disclosures of romantic liaisons by political leaders, including South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and two-time Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards.

Sanford faces a possible impeachment following his affair with a woman in Argentina. Ensign, who has acknowledged in June to having an affair with a former member of his campaign staff, has made it clear he intends to serve out his second term. Edwards' political career was damaged when he acknowledged last year he had an affair with a videographer in 2006. The admission came just months after Edwards dropped his second presidential bid.

Baucus was elected to the Montana House in 1973 and to the U.S. House in 1974 and 1976. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1978 at age 36, and his current term runs until 2014.

The senator has played increasingly visible roles in Congress, sometimes willing to buck his Democratic Party on certain issues. He seems to take the position that the state that sent him to the Senate for five terms is fundamentally conservative and its voters want someone willing to vote outside the party line.

Most recently Baucus has been at the center of an effort to move sweeping health care legislation through the Senate with a bill aimed at meeting Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's health care system to cover 30 million more Americans over the next decade.

On Friday, Baucus went against his party and backed a Republican effort to eliminate a long-term care insurance program to help seniors and the disabled. Republicans argued that the new plan would be a drain on the federal budget.

The Democrat has also been in the middle of other congressional battles: He played a key role in 2003 legislation adding a prescription-drug benefit to the Medicare program and enactment of President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001.

Peter Dreier: Waffling Democrats' Health Care Hypocrisy

2009-12-02T07:32:11Z

In the battle over healthcare reform, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the former Democrat turned independent, and Democratic Senators Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad have at least two things in common. They all oppose a public option in healthcare reform, but each is nevertheless a fervent advocate of socialized medicine. How can Senate watchers make sense of this ideological contradiction?

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid must get all six of these senators (or one renegade Republican) on board to pass a healthcare reform bill with the sixty votes needed to stop a filibuster. But although each of them recently voted to allow the Senate to debate the measure, they all say they oppose the public option President Obama supports. "I've already alerted the leader," said Lincoln, "and I'm promising my colleagues that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included."

"I don't believe Americans want a government-run healthcare system," Landrieu said in October. "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be." "People who support a public option," Lieberman, who has also threatened a filibuster, recently said on CBS's Face the Nation, "really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system. That's their right. I think they're wrong."

For years, however, Lieberman and the five Democrats have been boosters of one of the world's largest government-run healthcare programs--the Veterans Health Administration (part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, often just called the VA). Whereas Obama's proposed "public option" plan, and even Medicare, is simply a government insurance scheme that pays private providers, the VA actually owns hospitals and clinics. Last year, the VA, which has a $45 billion budget, treated 5.1 million veterans at its 153 hospitals and 900 outpatient clinics throughout the country. The VA's 200,000 employees, including 14,500 doctors and 60,000 nurses, are government employees. You don't get much more "socialized" than that!

Lieberman has often voiced strong support for the VA. In 2002 he fought the Bush administration's efforts to close VA facilities in Connecticut. In 2004 Lieberman co-sponsored a budget amendment that would have increased veterans' medical care by $2.7 billion. The next year, he helped pass $1.5 billion in supplemental funds to the VA to meet the growing medical needs of military retirees and the Iraq War. In 2007 Lieberman said, "Our nation has no greater moral and patriotic responsibility than to ensure that these brave Americans receive first-class treatment--not only immediately after their injuries but for their entire lives--through the Veterans Administration."

Likewise, the five Senate Democrats who are still sitting on the fence on the public option support VA hospitals and clinics without waffling or hedging. Earlier this month, for example, Lincoln issued a statement, posted on her website, declaring that she is "Fighting to improve heath care for servicemembers and veterans by providing the VA with the biggest funding increase in its history, which has allowed the VA to better meet its current and future challenges by making needed investments in quality health care, expanding access and improving delivery of care, and enhancing numerous benefits provided to the estimated 257,000 Arkansas veterans and their families."

In August, Conrad cut the ribbon at the opening of a new VA community-based outpatient clinic in Grand Forks, North Dakota. "Today is a good day," Conrad said. "It is the culmination of years of hard work to bring quality healthcare closer to our veterans. This clinic here in Grand Forks will ensure many of these men and women have access to the vital care they need and deserve." Similarly, Nelson has consistently pushed to expand VA facilities in Nebraska, especially in rural areas.

Last year, Louisiana's Landrieu proudly announced her success in getting the VA to build a new hospital in New Orleans to replace the one destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The facility, she noted, will serve more than 39,000 veterans and employ more than 1,700 people. Last year, too, Baucus, the powerful chair of the Senate Finance Committee, claimed, "I've been working hard to expand the locations and services of the VA primary care facilities in Montana," citing funding for three new outpatient clinics and the expansion of four other clinics.

The overwhelming support for the VA isn't surprising. The VA provides first-class healthcare. Two decades ago, it had a lousy reputation. But in the 1990s, the VA underwent a dramatic transformation that improved the quality of care and made it a model of medical efficiency. Experts say that the VA has an excellent track record for containing healthcare costs. A recent Congressional Budget Office report concluded that the VA had found a "substantial degree of cost control." The VA has been a pioneer in the use of electronic medical records, which has led to significant cost savings and better medical practice.

In 2003 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing the VA and fee-for-service Medicare. On all eleven measures, the quality of care in VA facilities was "significantly better." Last year, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, patients at VA facilities gave the program an 85 satisfaction rating compared with 77 for private hospitals. Phillip Longman titled his 2007 book about the VA The Best Care Anywhere. He concluded that VA facilities provide "the highest quality care in the country."

Despite their support for the VA's system of socialized medicine, all six senators say they oppose the public option because it expands government and raises the deficit. The Senate plan "doesn't do enough to control costs, that's for sure," Nelson said on ABC's This Week. "If it's a robust public option plan, you bet I'm sticking to my guns." "There is general concern from constituents about spending and increasing the size of government," Lincoln said recently.

"I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free," said Lieberman. "It's not. It's going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now; and if it doesn't, it's going to add terribly to our national debt." He told Politico he opposed "creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers."

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Democrats' bill raises enough money to reduce the deficit. Most experts agree that a government-backed insurance plan would force private insurers to lower their costs in order to compete. Such competition, experts suggest, would keep the private insurance companies honest.

Of course, the health insurance companies prefer the status quo. In almost every state, one or two companies dominate the health insurance market, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Under those conditions, insurance corporations can drive up premiums, restrict coverage and take advantage of consumers. Nationwide, for example, health insurance premiums have been rising much faster than family incomes. The insurance companies don't want any competition from a government plan that would provide American consumers with a choice.

In Montana, one insurer--Blue Cross Blue Shield--controls 75 percent of the market, with New West Health Services a distance second, with 10 percent of the business. Blue Cross Blue Shield dominates the market in Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska; its closest competitor, United Health Group, covers most of the rest. Blue Cross Blue Shield has a stranglehold in South Dakota, too, with 61 percent of the market. In second place is Dakotacare, with 10 percent. The health insurance market in Connecticut is dominated by two companies--WellPoint, with 55 percent of market share, and Health Net, with another 11 percent.

To maintain an oligopoly, the insurance lobby has been a generous contributor to Congress, including all six waffling senators. Over his career, the healthcare industry (including insurers, drug companies, hospitals and nursing homes, and medical professionals) has contributed $2.8 million to Baucus, including $464,850 just from health insurance companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Lincoln (who has received $1.7 million from the healthcare industry, including $241,599 from insurers), Conrad ($1.4 million overall; $201,015 from insurers), Landrieu ($1.3 million; $169,005) and Nelson ($1.1 million; $141,950) have also learned how to play the game. Since he started in the Senate in 1989, Lieberman has received $2.4 million donations from the health sector, including $255,417 from health insurance companies. Critics sometimes refer to him as the "senator from Aetna," which has headquarters in Connecticut. He's received $56,200 from Aetna employees in the past five years alone.

After years of feeding at the health insurance industry trough, it's no wonder these senators oppose a public option plan to compete for consumers.

Voters in those six states have a right to ask these senators: which side are you on?

Peter Dreier is professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. This article originally appeared in The Nation.

Tequila, Jazz And Show Tunes: How Congress Is Raising Money This Week

2009-11-30T13:40:32Z

Members of Congress are fighting the holiday blues with a vengeance, at least judging from the flamboyant fundraising events scheduled for this week.

Jammin' with John On Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is scheduled to be the beneficiary of a fundraiser hosted by Del Bryant, the President and CEO of music licensing corporation BMI, at the New York Friars Club. According to an invitation received by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, cost of attendance is a campaign contribution ranging from $500 to $2,000. Guests will be treated to a performance by jazz bassist Ron Carter. Conyers, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has accepted over $66,000 from the music, television, and movie industries for his current reelection campaign -- more than all but a dozen other members of the House and Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Tequila! Later Tuesday evening, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) is scheduled to have a tequila tasting fundraiser, where donors will be charged up to $5,000 to have a shot with the congressman. The event is hosted by a lobbyist representing a number of biotechnology firms, among others who might be attracted to Rep. Ryan, who serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services; Energy and Water Development; and the Legislative Branch. Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.) is scheduled to attend as a "Special Guest."

Bring your mom! New York congressman Mike McMahon (D) is scheduled to have a fundraiser Tuesday at a performance of Jersey Boys in downtown Washington. A pair of tickets will cost up to $1,500, but donors also get to party with the cast of the show afterward. McMahon might miss Obama's speech on the war in Afghanistan, which is scheduled to begin half an hour before the show starts. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, though, he is scheduled to discuss the U.S. military strategy there the next day. Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) is scheduled to attend as a "Special Guest."

Happy Birthday! On Thursday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is planning to host a fundraiser in honor of his 68th birthday. The party will be hosted in a credit industry-owned townhouse on Capitol Hill, and cost of attendance ranges from $250 to $500.

Stock Ownership Up In Congress: Maximizing Public Good Or Portfolios?

2009-11-23T09:08:46Z

When Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) this summer proposed a $4 billion tax on medical-device firms to help offset the cost of health-care reforms, an unusual mix of lawmakers joined in a chorus of protest.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a liberal from the Northeast, warned that the tax could undermine companies developing "new technology that saves lives and money."

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [102] -- Harry Reid's Glacial Progress Grinds On

2009-11-20T20:31:53Z

Our illustrious (cough, cough) White House press corps showed it could get to the bottom of a story with impressively journalistic and probative skills this week. The story that so obviously required multiple questions to President Obama on his trip to Asia? Whether he's eating enough, and whether he's losing weight. Oh, and his gray hair.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Somebody, obviously bored on the excruciatingly long plane ride, decided they'd float the rumor that Obama was skipping meals and getting dangerously thin. Because the reporters were all trapped in the same flying aluminum can, they all decided it was a big deal, patted themselves on the back for doing so, and then took lots of valuable interview time with the president to ask him about it. Over and over again (since they all wanted the "scoop"). Obama's response was that he was eating just fine, thank you, and he wasn't any skinnier than he's always been.

Whew! Good thing we have such an illustrious cadre of journalists, to reassure Americans that the president is not starving himself or anything! After all, it's not like there are any other issues to talk about, or ask the president about.

Such as Sarah Palin, for instance. Palin sure ate up a lot of "news" time last week, which must have overjoyed her publicist and publisher (oodles of free publicity, in other words).

Seriously, there are a few things going on in the world that are actually more important than what the president had for lunch, and what Palin's ghostwriter cobbled together in "her" book.

Such as health care reform legislation, to name but one. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally woke up from his weeks-long nap, and is moving a bill to the Senate floor for debate. It was reported this week that the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, then on Thursday, then on Friday, and (currently) on Saturday. Which pretty much sums up the last few months of waiting on Harry. But Harry will be discussed later in the program, so I'll just move on here.

I thought it was appropriate to review exactly what is left to do on the health care reform effort. There are a few hurdles left to clear, and it's going to be a long and drawn-out process. The media will trumpet each one of these hurdles as it happens, but will (my guess) fail to lay out exactly what to expect next at each stage of the process. So I thought I'd fill this lack. Matt Osborne at Huffington Post also has a good overview of the 11-dimensional chess game we're playing, if you'd like an alternate summation of where we are in the process.

The first step is Saturday's vote. Or, I should probably say, "the vote which is currently scheduled for Saturday." This vote will be held in the Senate and is a vote to "end debate about the debate," or to overcome a filibuster/closure attempt to block the bill before it gets to the floor for debate. The media will portray this as a "vote to move the bill to the floor," but this is technically inaccurate, as it is a vote against killing the bill's progress. It's confusing, but this is the Senate we're talking about.

Democrats need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster attempt. Harry Reid thinks he's got them, but then this is the reason why the vote keeps getting pushed back -- because he's obviously still scrambling for the final few votes before he moves ahead. But they can't push it back much further without eating into their own valuable vacation time, because they're all itching to fly back home for a leisurely week off for Thanksgiving.

Once Democrats get the 60 votes they need (throughout this whole explanation, I am assuming Democrats will succeed at each stage, although I should point out that any of these hurdles could derail the entire process and kill health care reform for the year), the Senate will start debating the bill. Amendments will be offered. It's a little unclear which amendments will require only a majority (50 votes plus the Vice President, or 51 votes), and which will require the supermajority of 60 votes. Look for lots of Republican amendments to fail during this stage, and lots and lots of grandstanding by senators who are hoping to see their face on the news.

So, assuming some amendments pass and others fail, eventually Reid will move to close debate and actually vote on the bill as a whole. This is when the second major filibuster will be attempted. And getting 60 votes to overcome it will be even harder, since some of the senators who have publicly committed to killing the first filibuster attempt have pointedly not committed to moving the bill to a final vote. But, probably with some wheeling and dealing, Reid rounds up the 60 votes he needs and defeats the filibuster once again.

Which brings us to the final vote. This vote only requires 50-plus-one, meaning Democrats who don't like the bill can vote against its passage, after voting with the Democrats to kill filibusters. This sort of thing, I should add, is common. John Kerry got lambasted in his bid for the White House, for expecting Americans to know how the Senate actually works, when he said he "was for the bill before he was against the bill" (or was it the other way around?). This is called "having your cake and eating it too," when it comes to explaining your votes to your constituents, and is common practice by both parties in Washington.

But ignoring all of that, a bill passes the Senate! Woo hoo! We're done, right?

Well, no.

This is the trickiest phase of the whole process -- the dreaded conference committee. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid name a limited number of negotiators (which names are on this list will be crucial) to a committee of both House and Senate members, and they get a chance to totally rewrite the bill. Their goal is to come up with a bill that can pass both houses in exactly the same form. This will be challenging indeed, since the vote margins are going to be pretty thin for both houses. A handful of Democrats from the left or the "center" could play the "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" tantrum game at this point.

Many are the bills which die in conference committee, it needs emphasizing. It's a tightrope wire to walk that sees many, many ideas fall off the wire to perish below (no safety net down there). This will be the toughest part of the whole process.

Eventually, though (assuming success at every stage, as I said), a compromise bill emerges from conference committee. Then it goes to the House and the Senate, where individual senators and the Republican Party en masse will try to derail it by adding amendments willy-nilly. But sooner or later, the House and the Senate vote on the same bill. Over in the Senate, of course, this will mean more filibuster attempts to be dealt with, but in both houses the final vote requires just a simple majority to pass.

The bill, after achieving passage in both houses, then goes to the Oval Office for President Obama to sign.

If this all sounds like a very long and drawn-out process, well, it is. And the new "operative" deadline (as they say in D.C.) is now the State Of The Union address which President Obama will deliver to a joint session of Congress in late January. That is not a lot of time. With so many formidable hurdles left in place, the clock running out becomes more and more of a serious possibility.

In any case, while the news media will portray Saturday's vote (or Sunday's, or Monday's... sigh) as a gargantuan-sized Big Deal, please keep in mind that we've got a long way left to go.

A Democrat this week hit a most impressive milestone, as Senator Robert Byrd became the longest-serving member of Congress in history. This benchmark adds service in both chambers, meaning Byrd's six-year term as a member of the House is added to his impressive 50 years and ten-and-a-half months in the Senate. Byrd's Senate record is already the longest in history, passing Strom Thurmond's a few years ago. So now Robert Byrd is not only the longest-serving senator in American history, but also the longest-serving member of Congress in history as well. For this, he receives an Honorable Mention from us this week.

Representative Alan Grayson also gets an Honorable Mention as well (with special "strange bedfellows" oak leaf cluster), for joining with Ron Paul to win passage of language in a bill to mandate an audit of the Federal Reserve. Other Democrats wanted to water this down, but Grayson and Paul prevailed. For now. Their opponents shut down a vote on the bill after this happened, though, which the White House is reportedly not happy about.

Also annoying the White House is Representative John Conyers. Conyers, however, is on the right side of this issue. He's pressuring President Obama and Rahm Emanuel with some very blunt language: "You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself." For pressuring Obama to stand up for the ideals he campaigned on, Conyers is also awarded an Honorable Mention this week.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Attorney General Eric Holder. I have already written twice this week (in Tuesday's column and Wednesday's column, in case you missed them) about Holder's decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a civilian federal court mere blocks from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about Holder's decision, but we are awarding him the MIDOTW award for how he has handled himself this week. It's a rare thing in Washington to see a government official make a strong decision, and then defend it as the right thing to do without either (a.) trying to blame everyone else for the idea's shortcomings, or (b.) immediately apologizing for the decision, or (c.) "walking back" or even overturning the decision at the slightest sign of political stormclouds on the horizon.

All in all, Holder admirably defended his decision and admirably faced his critics when dragged before a congressional committee. So, as I said, whether you agree with his decision or think it was wrong, Holder was still impressive in the way he strongly stood up for himself after announcing it -- a rare thing in Washington. And for that, we award him the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Attorney General Eric Holder on his Department of Justice contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

So, here we are on the health care reform front. A bill may make it to the floor of the Senate tomorrow. But you know what? We could have been here in July. Or September. Or October. This endless series of delays and time wasted can be laid at the feet of one man -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Because it is an inescapable fact that a stronger leader would have moved the legislation a lot further by now.

Now, in Reid's defense, the bill he came up with is a lot stronger than a lot of people thought it would be at this point. The number of times the public option has been declared dead by serious and important people inside the Beltway is staggeringly high. And yet, there it is in Reid's bill. No trigger (at least not yet) is in the bill either -- denying yet another piece of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom for the past five months. Given what he had to work with, it's not a horrible effort by Reid. Fairness dictates we point this out here.

But Reid has shown over and over again that he simply does not know how to negotiate in a timely fashion. He usually begins negotiating by publicly stating he will be throwing away all his best leverage in the negotiations -- making it much easier for his opponents to defeat him. He has put up with so many delaying tactics on health care reform that we find ourselves only moving a bill to the floor right now -- just before Thanksgiving. Because the Senate is going to go home for a full week next week, it won't be until early December that the floor debate even begins. And after such debate, and after a vote on passage, there still remains the conference committee -- which is going to take a few weeks, at the very least. With the end-of-year break in there, it is already an extremely tough schedule to meet if Congress really wants to pass this by the State Of The Union speech in late January.

Meaning Reid has left everyone with very little elbow room. Which makes it all the easier for opponents to defeat the whole effort -- because now they don't need to absolutely shut it down, they just need to run out the clock for a few more weeks. While Max Baucus certainly deserves some of the scorn for this situation, the buck stops at Harry's desk, as the leader of the Senate Democrats.

As if all of this weren't enough, Reid just announced that he's no longer even considering reconciliation as a last resort. Once again, Reid takes the most powerful weapon at his disposal and, instead of wielding it forcefully, actually chucks it over the side of the boat instead. This seems to be Harry's standard operating procedure -- surrender before the fight begins.

But there's a way to change all of this. The Democratic caucus in the Senate traditionally chooses its leadership in December. Meaning that any Democrat could soon challenge Reid for his leadership role. If a movement started among Senate Democrats to rally behind a more forceful personality, this could put some serious pressure on Harry Reid to get things moving along. Democrats could let it be known privately that if health care reform isn't at least in conference committee by the time they choose next year's leadership, then they would be handing Harry his hat, and repainting his office for his successor.

There are many, many Democratic senators who could fill the void of leadership Harry Reid carries around with him. Pretty much anyone who knows how to negotiate and knows not to throw away their best leverage before the fight begins would get my support, at this point.

Oh, and while they're at it, Democratic senators could also strip Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee if he votes with Republicans to kill health care reform. Just a suggestion.

But for this week, Harry Reid wins his fourteenth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. That is twice as many as anyone else has won. Get a move on Harry, or else stand out of the way for someone who can. Please.

[Contact Senator Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 102 (11/20/09)

I'm going to remain optimistic at the end, here, and write my talking points this week for Democratic politicians (to use on the Sunday morning chat fests) while assuming that the Senate has managed to vote to bring the health care reform bill to the floor. That's right, I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume that Harry Reid manages to get his 60 votes tomorrow night. Because, really, if he doesn't, there won't be a whole lot for Democrats to talk about this Sunday morning.

Anyway, remaining cheerfully (some would say "blissfully," or perhaps "idiotically") optimistic, here is what Democrats should say on Sunday to bring all the pressure they can bear to their fellow Democrats in the Senate who may waver in future votes.

Rushing? Um, no.

The standard cry of the obstructionists in this debate is that we are somehow "rushing" health care reform. Attack this with the disdain it deserves.

"Excuse me, did you say rushing? You think we're rushing into health care reform? The effort to bring quality affordable health care to every American started seventy years ago. This effort has been going on currently ever since the 1960s. We've taken months -- sometimes years -- to come up with portions of this bill. We've debated them non-stop for the past six months. We've spent weeks and weeks putting together final legislation. How, exactly, is any of this 'rushing'?"

The wrong side of history

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was actually the one to use this line the best so far in this debate.

"History is calling, in the form of health care reform. History will judge us on what we do in Congress in the next few weeks. We Democrats must make a simple choice: do we want to stand on the right side, or the wrong side of history? Do we want this vote to be a proud achievement for our party, and for all of America, or do we want to be shamed later by voting against such wide-sweeping reform? I know which side of history I want to be remembered on, and that is why I will be voting for health care reform."

Party unity

This is a phrase which got quite a bit of scorn in last year's campaign (see: PUMAs, or "Party Unity, My Ass" soreheads). But it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and given the proud placement it once had.

"The Democratic Party needs to show some unity, for once. Party unity means voting against Republican filibuster attempts in the Senate. I don't care whether Democratic senators vote for or against the bill on the final vote, but I think it is shameful for any Democrat to join the 'Party of Obstructionism' or the 'Party of No' in a procedural vote. It is the coward's way out. The courageous thing to do here is to keep party unity intact, and guarantee an up-or-down vote for the final bill on the Senate floor. Robbing the Senate of that vote, and robbing the people of seeing how you would have voted on the final bill is nothing short of shameful. Party unity used to mean something in Washington, and I hope it means something in the filibuster-killing votes in the Senate in the next few weeks."

Maybe we need new leadership

This one only really works if you are a Democratic senator. Although other Democrats could use it, prefaced with something like "well, you know the scuttlebutt I'm hearing is..." or language to that effect.

"The end of the year is traditionally the time we Democrats caucus to choose our leadership and committee chairmen for the upcoming year. If we can't manage to get a health care bill through a floor vote in the Senate, I and many of my colleagues are going to have to think long and hard about who will be the most effective leaders for the Senate next year. I'm not going to name any names, but there are quite a few of our leaders who seem more interested in causing unconscionable delays to the process rather than exhibiting true leadership. And we will be looking at that quite closely in December."

Want to get re-elected?

These last three are a direct appeal to those mugwumps sitting on a fence on the health care reform debate. Don't appeal to their better interests, appeal to their fear of losing power. It's the best leverage to use in Washington, when you get right down to it.

"Any Democrat thinking of voting against health care reforms should take a good hard look at the opinion polls coming out of their state or district. The American people want health care reform, they expect us to deliver health care reform, and if we are instrumental in blocking health care reform, then they are going to let us know about it. For all the so-called 'moderate' Democrats that I've heard about, when you look at the polls from their own constituents, time after time they show that people want not just health care reform, but actually stronger health care reform than is currently in the bill. These Democrats need to think long and hard about their own political future if they vote against the needs and wishes of their own constituents. Because voting with the Republicans is going to make it a lot harder for you to get re-elected."

Democrats are toast in 2010 without health care reform

In fact, expand this to the whole party.

"Democrats are going to be toast in the midterm 2010 congressional elections if we don't deliver on health care reform. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, if we can't follow through on the biggest agenda item that got a Democrat elected to the White House, then voters are going to be disgusted with the Democratic Party as a whole come next election day. They are either going to stay home and not vote, or they are going to vote for anyone who isn't an incumbent. Our party's future in Congress hinges in a big way on whether we can pass healthcare reform or not. If we don't, President Obama is going to be a lot weaker next year, and Congress is going to be universally held in contempt by the voters. And a lot of Democrats who are now sitting in office are going to be looking for jobs this time next year."

Democrats deserve to be toast in 2010 without health care reform

This is "part 2" of the previous point.

"And you know what? We Democrats are going to deserve to be toast in the 2010 elections if we can't pass health care reform. We've got the biggest majorities in Congress we've had in a generation, and the voters sent us here for a reason -- to get something done. If we prove that we are incapable of delivering this to the voters who sent us here, then we will absolutely deserve to be stripped of our majorities and our power come next year. I wouldn't blame the voters in the least if they see us fighting amongst ourselves so much, and more worried about our own egos than in producing some legislation to improve people's lives. The voters would be entirely justified in 'throwing the bums out' if we can't manage to get something done. I say this as a warning to all my fellow Democrats, and I sincerely hope they will take it to heart."

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

Melinda Gopher: The Historic Obama Tribal Summit: Uphold the Spirit of America's Founding

2009-11-12T12:25:32Z

On this week of Veteran's Day 2009, Indian Country witnessed the historic meeting of the Obama administration with Indian tribes on November 5, 2009. What should have been a national celebration was a staid, meaningless political affair. Indian country felt excluded, Mr. President. We have powwows, we celebrate, we eat, we dance. Our drums are the powerful heartbeat of this nation.

As things go in Washington, the meeting was a rushed affair. This is very understandable and noting there has been an outpouring of tribal sympathies--this year's President's closing address was cut short by the tragedy in Fort Hood, Texas. President Obama delivered a few short remarks--less than five minutes, at the Department of the Interior before rushing to attend to the aftermath of the tragedy. That being said; the tribal summit of 2010 must rise in relevance, importance and in spirit. I cannot help but note the White House Halloween party seemed to garner more effort from the Obama White House. Please invite the Indian children to the White House next year during the summit, they are a part of this nation's legacy.

I am a candidate for the U.S. House in 2010 in the state of Montana. I am an otherwise private person about my convictions, but I think there's relevance in addressing a couple of issues that hopefully will be corrected by next year's summit. I am an Ojibwe traditionalist--meaning that I follow the Peace Pipe spiritual tradition of the Ojibwe people--my main tribal lineage. Our spirituality was hard fought for by ancestors in a country where the government and church worked systemically and in a genocidal manner to eradicate all vestiges of tribal culture. This fact is irreconcilable in a nation that guarantees freedom of religion. Our past is a tragic reminder of cultural and racial exclusion; today is a new day.

My ancestry originates from the Great Lakes. Our experience with tribal dispossession most profound; the preservation of the Thirst Lodge (Sun Dance) and the Midiiwiin, or Grand Lodge was no small feat. People suffered greatly; through starvation, land loss, and cultural disruption. This made the Peace Pipe faith (not the same as the Native American Church--two distinct and separate faiths) more important than ever before; it is all the more precious to my tribe. Government policy post -1934 to the early 1970s (Self Determination Act of 1973)--entrenched an assimilation dogma and tribes reached the brink of losing cultural competency. My late Father, Uncle and others were land dispossessed Ojibwe leaders retrenching their efforts to keep the last of our cultural traditions alive for future generations. I am happy to say they succeeded. Many of the songs of the great Thirst Lodges of the Montana region come from this small band of Ojibwe--one element of a disrupted culture saved.

The Peace Pipe culture and the vast tribal cultural array of civilizations pre-date the "city on the hill" Christian ideology. This inter-tribal array of entities are the original givers of nationhood in the truest sense. The earliest Eastern treaties pre-date the U.S. Constitution. Treaties were always sealed with a Peace Pipe ceremony. No President, to my knowledge--ever participated in a Peace Pipe ceremony, despite the fact this is the original source of his power, existence and authority. This is the original source of nationhood--the U.S. simply would not exist without the underlying foundation of the U.S.-tribal treaty relationship. Instead, the Peace Pipe is often mocked as with other aspects of tribal culture; we are the only race of people turned into sports mascots. A famous euphemism often bantered about casually is "they smoked the peace pipe," to indicate a conflict has been ironed out.

The Obama tribal summit seemed out of whack and culturally inappropriate on several levels. A press picture circulated by Lee Newspapers depicts a tribal leader donning a full plains style warbonnet raising his hand to ask President Obama a question. I believe this is the leader of the Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota; (who went on to give the President the headdress). It took me a couple of minutes to digest just how culturally inappropriate that was. Our native leaders wearing the warbonnets of eagle feathers; should never be put on the level of having to raise their hand--to anybody. Tribal leaders of these original nations were treated like the White House press corps. President Obama missed a great opportunity to begin to restore the nation-to-nation relationship; he chose to follow the same failed path of his white predecessors. When he greets foreign heads of state--they are accorded formal reception and there is a stature of equality, there is a photo opportunity with both leaders seated side by side. Obama must stand out.

The stage craft matters and the culturally appropriate manner of discourse matters most. I call for a grand peace pipe ceremony to start next year's summit--led by an elder from a tribe knowledgeable about the peace pipe traditions. My late Father, a keeper of the sacred pipe tradition, and who led a plains Indian cultural renaissance had a saying that holds here; "Indian people should always be accepted on our terms as people from an original culture--accept us for who and what we are--not what you think we should be." We are co-founders of this nation, and the givers of an American reality spanning a five centuries. The respect owed has been well earned. As a native American leader and traditional woman who carries the Ojibwe women's peace pipe, this is my way of life for which a life time of preparation and training has gone into; I would like to see next year's summit improved to reflect the historical significance of native people in a culturally meaningful way. I will be glad to help, this is a standing offer.

View Parts II and III here:

www.melindaformontana.com

David A. Love: Absolute Corruption Is the Rule in America

2009-11-09T13:41:21Z

Often,
people will look at a high-profile example of corruption, and conclude that the
egregious act is an exception to the rule.
In reality, it might be the tip of the iceberg.

On
October 29, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did a wonderful thing when
it expunged the
records of as many as 6,500 juveniles in Luzerne County.
That’s not a misprint.

Two
judges in that county were sent up the federal river for locking up thousands
of innocent children over five years, in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks
from private juvenile detention centers.
Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan helped the developers
secure the county contracts to build the prisons. Moreover, they filled the detention centers
with warm bodies— many of whom were first-time offenders with minor infractions—
and illegally denied the teens access to an attorney.

In the
case of Luzerne, the “cash for kids” scheme was a coldblooded expression of
greed, and we should not downplay the seriousness of the crimes committed. Yet, what happened in this rural county in northeastern
Pennsylvania is a reflection of what America’s criminal justice system has
become— a for-profit, money-making enterprise.

Often,
our poorer children, disproportionately of color, are funneled into a
cradle-to-prison pipeline through adulthood.
With a criminally negligent public school system, and job opportunities
outsourced abroad, many children at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are
ensured a future of little else than street corners or prison bars. In fact, many urban schools are nothing more
than prison prep, complete with police and metal detectors.

Interestingly,
the children of Luzerne, a county which is nearly 97% white, did not resemble
the “usual suspects” in the criminal justice system. But that really is not the point— when
prisons are a capitalistic endeavor, warm bodies are needed as the raw
materials, and so they must come from somewhere. And consequently, justice takes a backseat to
dollars. From the foodservice industry and
the phone companies, to the Wall Street bankers and the investors, many people
have a vested interest in filling up those empty prison beds and maximizing
their cut. American capitalism made the
U.S. prison population the world’s largest at 2.5 million, with mass
incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses and victimless crimes.

And
American-style capitalism is problematic for the culture of corruption it has
enabled, in the absence of an effective regulatory framework. Much attention has been paid to Bernie
Madoff, that poster child of the Ponzi schemes, who defrauded investors out of $65
billion. The damage he created is
impressive, from the family savings that were forever lost, to the charities
that went under. But like the judges in
Luzerne County, Madoff was merely a cog in a wheel of corruption that enabled
greed.

Madoff himself
said he was surprised his
scheme lasted so long, and that the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigators were so clueless about
his fraudulent activities over 16 years.
The fact is, some members of the SEC staff were inexperienced or just
idiots. Further, Madoff
had too much credibility with the SEC and was not properly investigated,
with red flags uncovered yet ignored.

With the
deregulation of the financial sector and the evisceration of the Glass-Steagall
Act came the financial crisis of 2008.
The system had become the Ponzi scheme.
The economy was built on paper shuffling and no tangible products. Consumers were preyed upon with sketchy,
deceptive and destructive subprime mortgages.
Banks gambled people’s money in high-risk, high-stakes poker games. And with a revolving
door between Wall Street and the Treasury department, the same people with
the gambling problem are running the casino, and “monitoring” it as well.

The banks
that ruined the country swore by the free market when it suited them. But now, they gladly accept their corporate
welfare bailout checks, and scoff at the rest of us. Wall Street has rebounded, business as usual,
and Gordon Gekko is smiling. Meanwhile,
America’s former middle class is joining the ranks of the poor, and the
foreclosed are filling the nation’s homeless shelters. Short of bold government action of
Rooseveltian proportions, there will be no economic recovery for everyday
people. After all, the unemployed, the
homeless, and the soon-to-be unemployed and homeless generally are not big
spenders.

The moneyed
interests also have corrupted the political process, and a prime example is the
behavior of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and the “Blue Dog” Democrats in the
health care reform debate. Lieberman has
earned a special place in the hearts and minds of progressives of late for
vowing to stand with Republicans, and filibuster any health care bill that
contains a public option. He has even
said he would
rather have no bill at all than a bill with a public option.

In
American political folklore, the Senate is presented as an august deliberative
body where cooler heads prevail, where genteel statesmen and stateswomen put
the brakes on rash and potentially harmful legislation, for the betterment of
all. In reality, the Senate is a place
where bold legislation for the public good is killed, because industries put a
contract out on democratic ideas. And
they instruct their employees, the senators, to stop these ideas in their
tracks. This is a bipartisan endeavor. The Blue Dog Democrats, who are the
self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives of their party, distinguish themselves
from other Democrats by their greed and hypocrisy. They receive the most corporate money, and
have rejected less costly health reform bills that would hurt their benefactors. Ask Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the
Senate Finance committee, and a key player in this year’s health reform
debate. Baucus received $3.4 million
from health and insurance industry interests between 2003 and 2008, more than
any other member of Congress. Judging
from the sad excuse for a health reform bill that came out of his committee,
the industry got its money’s worth.

And Lieberman,
the dirty dog that Democrats love to hate, is a fully-owned subsidiary of the
insurance industry. Over the course of
his career, he has received $2.6 million from the insurance companies. In addition, his wife is a health care
industry lobbyist. Despite the
overwhelming popular support in Connecticut for a public option, Lieberman has
decided to follow the money. The
Democrats must take Lieberman to the woodshed for his
double-crossing ways, and relieve him of his coveted chair in the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee. Not to be outdone, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN),
whose wife has made at least $2
million sitting on the board of a major health insurance company, hinted
that he would filibuster the public option as well. Apparently, faced with the prospect of the Democratic
leadership opening a big can of whup ass on him, he backed off.

The
problem here is not just Senators Lieberman, Baucus, Bayh and a few other
unscrupulous politicians. The fact is
the entire political game, the link between money and politics, is rancid and
is killing democracy. In the case of
health care reform, the corrupting influence of money is literally sucking the
country’s life blood.

As in the
days of old before the 1929 stock market crash and the New Deal, corporations
have far more influence in this society than they are entitled. Citibank gleefully proclaimed in a series of
reports in 2005 and 2006 that the
U.S. is a plutonomy— a system of wealth inequality in which the richest 1% hold
a disproportionately large share of wealth.
The rich are likely to get even wealthier, at the expense of labor. This rising inequality, Citibank predicts,
will lead to a political backlash.

And some
backlash is needed now. It is certain
that the outrageous displays of greed and corruption deserve our attention and
our outrage. But to dismiss them as
exceptions to the rule, rather than products of a systemic, vulturous culture
that must be attacked, is to choose a perilous path.

David A. Love is an Editorial Board member of BlackCommentator.com, and a contributor to the Progressive Media Project and theGrio. He is a writer and human rights advocate based in Philadelphia, and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. His blog is davidalove.com.