POLITICS SEPTEMBER 19, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction," James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 10. "The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice." Consider us alarmed.
Our sense of alarm has been growing for some time. From the moment Barack Obama entered the White House, the Republican Party has cast itself as the Party of No. Whether it was the stimulus bill--which garnered not a single Republican vote in the House--or the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court--which only nine of 40 Senate Republicans supported--the GOP has defined itself in its opposition to Obama. But our alarm has been tempered by the knowledge that, in a way, this is as it should be: In our form of government, the minority party should be the opposition party; and, while the Obama administration did make overtures to the GOP on the stimulus and its selection of Sotomayor, those overtures were largely symbolic. The factionalism, while regrettable, was understandable. But, this week, as the health care reform battle reached a crucial juncture, the violence of faction has become gratuitous.
We refer, of course, to Max Baucus's long-awaited health care reform bill--and the resounding thud with which it landed on Capitol Hill. There are many flaws in Baucus's bill, but there is one thing that can be said for it: It represents as sincere an attempt in recent memory to achieve consensus. For the last three months, Baucus, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, worked with five other committee members--two Democrats and three Republicans--to draft legislation that could garner bipartisan support. As the leader of the so-called "Gang of Six," Baucus was the target of frequent criticism from fellow Democrats, who complained that he was taking too long in drafting his legislation or that he was being too solicitous of Republicans. And, while these criticisms had merit, Baucus labored to come up with a bill that represented at least a rough compromise.
In almost Solomonic fashion, Baucus crafted a bill that gives something to--and takes something away from--each faction. Virtually every industry group--from hospitals to drugmakers to device manufacturers to insurers--that faces new fees or budget cuts in the Baucus bill is rewarded with additional revenue from the legislation. And, when it came to winning over Republicans, Baucus went more than halfway: eliminating the public option, strengthening protections against federal funding of abortions, and lowering the legislation's price tag.
And what did all of Baucus's efforts get him? Well, from most key interest groups, outright support or, at the very least, not much indication of outright opposition. But, from one of the two major political parties that, theoretically at least, is supposed to represent many of those interest groups? Absolutely no Republican support--not even from the three GOP members of the Gang of Six, two of whom (Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley) voiced their outright opposition and one (Olympia Snowe) who remains on the fence.
To be sure, Baucus's bill failed to elicit much in the way of Democratic support, either. Jay Rockefeller, who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, announced that he would vote against Baucus's bill as drafted. But it's not hard to imagine Democratic critics ultimately supporting the bill—especially if, as appears likely, changes are made and Obama encourages them to do so.
Alas, there appears little chance that any Republicans will be similarly moved. Already, Orrin Hatch, the number two Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is demanding that Democrats "take a deep breath and start over on a truly bipartisan bill"--as if Baucus's legislation was something else entirely. And there is no Republican figure who appears capable of rallying the GOP to the side of health reform.
The Republican reception of Baucus's bill doesn't so much represent a crisis for health care reform as it does a crisis for our system. The GOP is no longer representing interest groups; rather, it has become an interest group itself--and an implacable one. So that a compromise piece of legislation that achieves a rough consensus among the various factions in the debate fails to get even one vote from one of the two major parties.
Where to go from here? Having failed to win over Republicans, Baucus should now labor to win over Democrats. If that means having Massachusetts appoint an interim replacement for Ted Kennedy's seat--or even passing some of the reform through reconciliation--then so be it. If Max Baucus's months of work achieved nothing else, he has unmasked the true nature of the contemporary GOP and, in the process, revealed just how broken our political system has become.
12 comments
James Madison [Federalist Number 10]: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction"...."The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice." george: That is, a "well-consrtucted union" that excludes from government, women, native americans, blacks and virtually all non-white anglo protestant males of property born. Sorry, I'm picky about things like that. Few are nearly as cynical as I am about the relationship between "democracy" and "health care reform" inside the beltway. But even I am stunned by the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh coup. Not that, in the context of the economic crisis, the times weren't ripe for demagoguery. That is understood. Fear brings this out like nothing else. Especially fear with no systemic end in sight. But this stuff has been ratcheted up behind the scenes by the health care industry in ways that are truly scary. Is the health care industry using the Beck/Limbaugh agenda more or less than Beck and Limbaugh are pimping for them? Too close to call, no doubt. But enough about the narrative TNR editors would not touch with a ten foot inflection point. Let's talk about the inflection point they do have in mind: Pumping up Max Baucus. Needless to say the editors feel no need whatsoever to point its readers in the direction of Baucus's role in exchanging legislation for millions and millions of dollars FROM the health care industry. As though it would have no relevance whatever. Just as the Geithner-Summers-Rubin-Emanuel axis in the White House has no relevance regarding the Obama Wall Street agenda. Do the editors take us for fools? Or are we children to be matriculated into the world of the "liberal" realists. Another faction of the DLC agenda at Bilderberg? Now the toiling Baucus is King Solomon. Or maybe The Editors missed this in the 9/15 Huffington [Puffington?] Post: "President Barack Obama last week quoted Wendell Potter's recent Congressional testimony. Yesterday, speaking before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, Wendell "warned that if Congress 'fails to create a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to the president might as well be called the Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act. ... Potter, who was previously a vice president of communication at Cigna, also sharply criticized Democratic Senator Max Baucus' health care reform bill in a conversation with reporters Monday, calling the plan an 'absolute gift to the industry.'" In his testimony, he stated that the Baucus plan "would create a government-subsidized monopoly for the purchase of bare-bones, high-deductible policies that would truly benefit Big Insurance. ... It's hard to imagine how insurance companies could write legislation that would benefit them more." george: The Editors strike me as a coterie of DLC Intellectuals who approach health care as a coterie of DLC Intellectuals would: academically. The sort of pragmatic academics that are more than willing to trade away the health care interests of others who actually live right on the precipice of ruin out in the real world. After all, what's it to them? You know, for all practical purposes? No wonder so many Americans have come to see Obama as juat another academic stooge himself. Or, maybe I'm wrong. To be sure, even So, am I? Baucus and The New Republic editors. What a team!! Or maybe, as in other criminal trials, we should poll the jury. Any dissidents among you? george walton d/a
- iambiguous
September 19, 2009 at 2:14am
At this point in history the Republican Party represents the producers in our society: small business people, the working class, the honest middle American types that "liberals" look down on. The Democratic Party is the party of all who want to live at the expense of others: "minorities" who believe that the taxpayer owes them a living, the vast sea of overpaid and underworked government employees, the media rabble who make a living running down this country, and worst of all, the charlatans who dominate the education system in this beleaguered country. The Democratic Party is venal and corrupt. It deserves the contempt of all honest and freedom loving Americans. Judging by the news it is getting what it deserves.
- bulbman1066
September 19, 2009 at 6:28am
Terrific editoral! It reflects what I've been feeling for weeks. But what do we get for comments? Pretentious blather and Randian nonsense.
- zardoz67
September 19, 2009 at 8:50am
Um, Earth to center-left: Democrats have large enough majorities in both houses of congress to pass whatever legislation they want without a single Republican vote. The stumbling blocks are all within the Democratic party. Thankfully, there are a handful of Democrats principled enough to brave the storm and stand up for some minimal standard of responsible government.
- JohnGalt101
September 19, 2009 at 10:06am
Earth to John Galt: It appears that you would be well served by looking up the feature of our government called the fillibuster. Either that or brushing up on your numeracy skills. Also, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats had 70 senate votes, because Democrats have at least some deference to the concept of democracy, which requires messy compromise, rather than acting as a monithic block. Or are you telling us that basically every Republican feels that it is better to do nothing about the costs of the health system (or exacerbate them, as they did) rather than something, imperfect as it may be?
- Nari224
September 19, 2009 at 2:18pm
Earth to Galt: It appears that you would be well served by looking up the feature of our government called the fillibuster. Either that or brushing up on your numeracy skills. Also, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats had 70 senate votes, because Democrats have at least some deference to the concept of democracy, which requires messy compromise, rather than acting as a monithic block. Or are you telling us that basically every Republican feels that it is better to do nothing about the costs of the health system (or exacerbate them, as they did) rather than something, imperfect as it may be?
- Nari224
September 19, 2009 at 2:20pm
Earth to Galt: It appears that you would be well served by looking up the feature of our government called the fillibuster. Either that or brushing up on your numeracy skills. Also, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats had 70 senate votes, because Democrats have at least some deference to the concept of democracy, which requires messy compromise, rather than acting as a monithic block. Or are you telling us that basically every Republican feels that it is better to do nothing about the costs of the health system (or exacerbate them, as they did) rather than something, imperfect as it may be?
- Nari224
September 19, 2009 at 2:20pm
Apologies for the multiple posts - the new site appears to be a little iPhone unfriendly.
- Nari224
September 19, 2009 at 2:22pm
zar: But what do we get for comments? Pretentious blather and Randian nonsense. george: It would help considerably if you would substantiate your charges. Give us an example of "pretentious blather" above. Note why it is both pretentious and blather. Note how The Editors are neither pretentious nor blatherers in their take on it. For example, let's focus on Max Baucus and the millions of dollars he has gotten from the healthcare industry. Let's focus on the relationship between that and the legislation he toiled on. Then let's examine this in the light of the points the folks at Huffington Post raise. Finally, let's explore this as The Editors just explored "inflection points" in our political economy. And I suspect you confuse polemics with blather. But there's a cure for that. As for the charge of "Randian nonesense", that, of course, is self-evident. I never substantiate it either. Those folks are just downright EVIL!!! ; o ( george
- iambiguous
September 19, 2009 at 3:27pm
galt: Um, Earth to center-left: Democrats have large enough majorities in both houses of congress to pass whatever legislation they want without a single Republican vote. george: Are you folks still in the Gultch? In New Hampshire this time, right? Has Colorado become another People's State? When are you finally coming out to save us? You know, from ourselves. ARE you a real live Objectivist? Or has the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin triumvirate sent you in here to spy on us? Please. You make the usual mainstream media distinction between Democrats and Republicans here. As though the healthcare industry does too. Sure, there ARE a number of Democrats who AREN'T Republicans in Congress. But when it comes to fundamental economic and foreign policy issues, the Democratic leadership in both Congress and the White House are state capitalists down to the bone. Consider the insurance industry in depth. Since 1990, these folks have contributed $320,802,051 to the election campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans. In the 1990, 1992 and 1994 election cycles, the millions were more or less evenly devided betweens the Dems and the Reps. But, admittedly, in 1996 the Delay/Gingrich agenda started to kick in: Dems: 11 million, Reps 23 million 1998: Dems 9 million, Reps 21 million 2000: Dems 14 million, Reps 27 million 2002: Dms 12 million, Rep 26 million 2004: Dems 12 million, Reps 25 million 2006: Dems 11 million, Reps 20 million But the Dems won that election, didn't they? So, in 2008: Dems 21 million, Reps 26 million The gap closes considerably. And in the 2010 election cycle OpenSecrets.org notes that so far the Dems have manage 4.5 million to the Reps 3.5 million. Any honest Objectivist [like most honest Libertarians today] would be furious at what passes for "capitalism" today. Instead, Rand's fairy tale has just metasticized into another one. Crony capitalism may as well be socialism to the AynDroids. In fact it's worse because it dupes many into thinking this is what Rand would have wanted. After all, it's still called "capitalism", right? Instead, it's an inside job perversion of laizze-faire market capitalism. What say you, Mr Galt? george walton d/a
- iambiguous
September 19, 2009 at 3:55pm
More for Galt: According to the data at OpenSecrets.org, the health care industry [as a whole] contributed the following to the folks in Congress 2010* $23,700,000 * so far 2008 $166,600,000 2006 $100,200,000 2004 $123,900,644 2002 $95,600,000 2000 $97,600,000 1998 $59,100,000 1996 $69,000,000 1994 $49,800,000 1992 $43,900,000 1990 $21,900,000 Total: $851,500,000 That's nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS. But reading the stuff from The Editors at TNR you would hardly suspect this is even a pawn on the domestic/economic policy game board, let alone a bishop, rook or queen. Why is that? Really, WHY DO THEY ELIDE THIS IN TOUTING MAX BAUCUS?! In other words, checkmate. Same with the economic crisis. Niall Ferguson had an excellent article in last week's Newsweek magazine on what he [or the magazine] called "Wall Street's New Guilded Age": Between 1990 and 2008, according to Wall Street veteran Henry Kaufman, the share of financial assets held by the 10 largest U.S. financial institutions rose from 10 percent to 50 percent, even as the number of banks fell from more than 15,000 to about 8,000. By the end of 2007, 15 institutions with combined shareholder equity of $857 billion had total assets of $13.6 trillion and off-balance-sheet commitments of $5.8 trillion—a total leverage ratio of 23 to 1. They also had underwritten derivatives with a gross notional value of $216 trillion. These firms had once been Wall Street's "bulge bracket," the companies that led underwriting syndicates. Now they did more than bulge. These institutions had become so big that the failure of just one of them would pose a systemic risk. Last year's crisis made this problem worse in two ways. First, it wiped out three of the Big 15: goodbye Bear, Merrill, and Lehman. Second, because the failure of Lehman was so economically disastrous, it established what had previously only been suspected—that the survivors were TBTF [To Big To Fail], effectively guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Yes, folks, now it's official: heads, they win; tails, we the taxpayers lose. And in return, we get … a $30 charge if we inadvertently run up a $1 overdraft with our debit card. Meanwhile, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs executives get million-dollar bonuses. What's not to dislike? None of the regulatory reforms proposed so far do anything to address the central problem of the TBTFs. What did Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner propose over the summer? • The Fed should become the "system risk regulator" with power over any "systemically important" institutions, a.k.a. TBTFs. But wasn't it that already? • The originators of securitized products should be required to retain "skin in the game" (5 percent of the securities they sell). What, like Bear and Lehman did? • There should be a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. So what were the other regulatory agencies doing? Oh, yes, protecting the TBTFs. • There should be a new "resolution authority" for the swift closing down of big banks that fail. But such an authority already exists and was used when Continental Illinois failed in 1984. • And "federal regulators should issue stand-ards and guidelines to better align executive compensation practices of financial firms with long-term shareholder value." I can't wait to hear what those will be. george: Isn't Geitner the secretary of treasury for a Democratic administration? How would Rand react to all this? Hell, even Glenn Beck is quick to point out that Wall Street and the federal government are partners in this scam. I point it out from the left. Shouldn't you be pointing it out from the right? george walton d/a
- iambiguous
September 20, 2009 at 12:46am
I have been the parent of a two-year old child. I have been the grandparent of a two-year old child. The "terrible twos" is a real phenomenon. Around the age of two, a child starts to answer every question and instruction with a loud cry of "NO!" I guess all we can do is wait for the Republican Party to reach the age where they outgrow the "terrible twos."
- skahn
September 20, 2009 at 11:28am