Category: Uncategorized

Inverted Hubris

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As we count down towards the health reform vote(s) in the House, it’s clearer than ever that there are two distinct but mutually reinforcing conservative takes on the bill. The most obvious, of course, is the bizarre construction of “ObamaCare” that the Right has been building for nearly a year now, based on distortions, fear-mongering, a few outright lies and sweeping smears, all in order to make legislation pretty close to what moderate Republicans have promoted for years seem like a socialist revolution if not a coup d’etat. This is the hard sell, and it will continue up to and well beyond this weekend’s votes.

But then there’s the soft sell, beloved of today’s model of “moderate” Republicans, such as they are, which involves lots of tut-tutting at the unedifying spectacle of the health reform debate, constant if unsupported claims that there are plentiful opportunities for a bipartisan “incremental” approach, and above all, phony concern for what Barack Obama is doing to his party and his country. This approach typically ignores or rationalizes the hard sell that most conservatives have undertaken, and the lockstep obstructionism of the congressional GOP, and blames Obama and Democrats for all the problems they are encountering in getting this legislation done.

A pitch-perfect example of the soft sell is Peggy Noonan’s latest Wall Street Journal column, presumably her final pre-vote expression of contempt for the president in the guise of respect for the presidency, which alas, isn’t what it used to be when her mentor, Ronald Reagan, stood astride Washington and the globe like a colossus.

The column begins with an extended expression of horror that Obama would postpone a trip to Indonesia and Australia in order to lobby for this little domestic bill that would deal with the trifle of health coverage for 40 million or so Americans:

And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America’s back and been America’s friend. How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid’s stuff.

It’s characteristic that Noonan does not mention that Obama is trying to give Americans the universal health coverage that Australians have and take for granted, or that final passage wouldn’t have been delayed until now if Scott Brown hadn’t come to Washington pledging to kill “ObamaCare.”

Noonan then engages, with the air of someone examining an especially loathsome insect, in a lengthy attack on the procedural issues involved in House passage of health reform, asserting that Obama’s trying to hide something in the legislation via the “deem and pass” (which she suggests sounds tellingly like “demon pass”) mechanism that House Democrats are apparently going to deploy this weekend. She endorses as self-evidently correct the complaint of Fox News’ Bret Baier, in his obnoxious interview of the president last week, that “deem and pass” means nobody will know what’s in the bill that’s “deemed” and “passed.” Like Baier, Noonan doesn’t seem to understand the simple fact that the underlying bill we are talking about here is exactly the same bill passed by the Senate in December — long enough even for Peggy Noonan to have gotten wind of it. The changes in the bill — namely, the reconciliation measure — were made available, along with a CBO scoring of their impact, before the votes were scheduled, and will be voted on explicitly by the House (and later the Senate). Yes, this is complicated, but you’d think someone with Noonan’s experience and pay grade would be able to figure it out, and again, Democrats would have never resorted to this approach if Republicans weren’t using their 41st Senate vote to thwart the normal process after a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate had already passed similar legislation.

But whatever — Republican obstruction is never much mentioned in Noonan’s stuff on health reform. And so it is entirely in character that Noonan concludes her column by blaming Obama for the rudeness exhibited by Baier in last week’s interview, and hence for diminishing the presidency! Ah, if only we had a real president like you-know-who:

[W]e seem to have come a long way since Ronald Reagan was regularly barked at by Sam Donaldson, almost literally, and the president shrugged it off. The president—every president—works for us. We don’t work for him. We sometimes lose track of this, or rather get the balance wrong. Respect is due and must be palpable, but now and then you have to press, to either force them to be forthcoming or force them to reveal that they won’t be. Either way it’s revealing.

I’d say it’s hardly as revealing as Peggy Noonan’s inveterate habit of not only ignoring conservative hubris, but attributing it to its victims.

This item is cross-posted on The Democratic Strategist.

The Big Misconception About “Deem and Pass”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Over at TNR, congressional expert Sarah Binder provides a very useful and detailed explanation of the procedures the House will go through this weekend in dealing with health reform. There will be (assuming things go as planned and Democrats have their votes) four separate votes: one on a Republican motion to recommit the rule for consideration of the reconciliation bill, one on the rule itself, one on a Republican motion to recommit the reconciliation bill, and one on the reconciliation bill. If the first or third motions pass, or the second or fourth votes fail to pass, health reform will have been defeated, at least for the moment if not forever.

But it’s the vote on the rule that will (assuming the Rules Committee goes in the direction Speaker Pelosi has indicated is likely) “deem” the Senate health care bill as having been enacted. This “self-executing rule” is what all the yelling and screaming on the Right is about. But since everybody understands what’s going on, it is fundamentaly erroneous to say that the House is trying to avoid a vote on the Senate bill. The vote on the rule is a vote on the Senate bill, and will have exactly the same effect as an explicit vote on the Senate bill, no more and no less.

That fact obviously does raise the question of why the House leadership is utilizing the “deem and pass strategy,” since anyone voting for the rule is actually voting for the Senate bill. I can’t answer that question, but presumably this basically meaningless distinction matters to at least one House Democrat. But in any event, the conservative charge that the House is going to enact the Senate bill without voting on it just isn’t true, and is simply part of the fog Republicans are trying to spread over the fact that by the end of this process (again, if all goes as planned), majorities in both Houses will have twice approved health reform.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Did North Korea Execute a Government Official?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Reports of just how warped the North Korean regime is occasionally filter out to the broader world from time to time. This dispatch in the New York Times has got to be one of the more grotesque stories we’ve heard in a while:

North Korea has arrested and possibly executed its top financial official as it struggles to contain chaos set off by its botched attempt to halt inflation through a radical currency revaluation, according to news reports Thursday in South Korea.

[…]

Mr. Pak “was executed at a firing range in Pyongyang on the trumped-up charges of being an antirevolutionary element as public sentiments worsened over the failure of the currency reform,” reported the South Korean news agency Yonhap, quoting unnamed sources in North Korea.

Here’s where Mr. Pak screwed up:

In late November, North Korea suddenly told its people that it would introduce new banknotes, ordering them to turn in their old bills for new ones at a rate of 100 to 1. It also put a cap on how much old money they could swap for the new currency.

The shock measure was meant to arrest runaway inflation and crack down on illegal markets in the socialist state. But it only aggravated the food crisis, creating shortages and soaring prices, and reportedly led to isolated but highly unusual outbursts of protest in the totalitarian state.

I should note that Mr. Pak’s execution hasn’t been confirmed. But if it is, this is really serious stuff that the U.S. can’t ignore. When it comes to the internal machinations of a completely isolated society like North Korea, the West often writes off these kinds of stories. “They’re nuts,” you can almost hear a few desk officers in Foggy Bottom exclaim as they throw their hands in the air, “What are we supposed to do with this?”

But sooner or later during the Obama administration, the West will sit down with North Korea. The temptation is often to focus only on the nuclear issue, because it is obviously the most pressing concern for American national security. However, it’s critical that Western negotiators engage Pyongyang on human rights as well — if nothing else (and here’ s the cynic in me), asking hard questions about Mr. Pak’s disappearance creates diplomatic openings on other fronts, and will create incentives for the North Koreans to give ground elsewhere. And if we’re lucky, raising the issue might just protect Mr. Pak’s successor, too.

Progressives and Poker

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There’s been some interesting talk going on this week involving a post mortem assessment of “the Left’s” strategy on health reform, particularly in terms of the ultimate emptiness of threats from progressive House Democrats that they would vote against any bill that didn’t include a “robust” public option.

Glenn Greenwald argues that progressives have once again exposed–and possibly even increased — their “powerlessness” within the Democratic Party. Chris Bowers challenges the premise by arguing that progressives did secure significant changes in the Senate bill, most notably the agreement to “fix” it, which certainly wasn’t the path of least resistance.

Meanwhile, Armando of Talk Left has compared the lack of leverage of progressives over items like the public option to the success of the labor movement in forcing concessions on the “Cadillac tax.” And Nate Silver has responded by arguing that progressive threats didn’t work because they weren’t credible in the first place.

I think everyone in this debate would agree that it’s generally a bad idea in politics to make threats you are entirely unwilling to carry out, but the real division of opinion is on whether such threats should be tempered or in fact intensified. But Nate makes one point that bears repeating: the political value of aggressiveness and posturing can and often does get exaggerated.

It feels good to assert that progressives just need to be tougher — perhaps even to the point of feigning irrationality. These arguments are not necessarily wrong — a reputation for being tougher bargainers would help at the margins — but it misdiagnoses the problem on health care. The progressive bloc failed not because of any reputational deficiency on the part of the progressives but because their bluff was too transparent — they claimed to be willing to wager enormous stakes (health care reform) to win a relatively small pot (the public option). That would have been beyond the capacity of any poker player — or activist — to pull off.

I’ve never much liked the strain of progressive analysis that endlessly promotes “fighting” and “spine” and “cojones” as the answers to every Democratic political problem. Sometimes “brains” or “heart” are more important, and moreover, if politics is reduced to a willingness to project brute force, the bad guys are going to win every time; it’s like getting into a selfishness competition with the Right — we’ll never win. But in any event, however you feel about the Will to Power theory of politics, Nate’s right, people aren’t all stupid, and macho posturing by progressives when it doesn’t make sense isn’t going to convince anybody. Poker playing is a relatively small and overrated part of politics. Real conviction and strategies based on conveying those convictions to friends and potential friends are the best building blocks for successful strategy.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

The Dodd Plan Is Good — But It Can Be Made Better

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), looking for a capstone to his 30-year career in the Senate, unveiled his vision for financial regulatory reform this week. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee has long been dogged by claims that he’s in the pocket of the financial industry and hedge funds, but his plan is a robust effort to address the systemic issues that led to the 2008 financial crisis. While it’s far from perfect, the Dodd proposal is a good one that could be made even better with a few tweaks.

A robust Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) is vital. Concerns over creating a whole new bureaucracy have to be balanced against developing a consumer watchdog agency that has teeth to rein in subprime mortgages, hidden banking fees and the like. I got to hear Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) talk about this with Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) at a panel sponsored by the National Journal, where they described striking that balance by housing the CFPA in the Fed. The new autonomous agency would get Fed funding for its activities but would not fall under its oversight. That responsibility would fall on a CFPA director appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This should give it enough independence from the financial institutions that fund the Fed to make the agency a real force for protecting consumers.

However, as described in the bill, the CFPA would exempt some lenders from oversight. An improvement would be to follow President Obama’s lead and create a CFPA that covers retail activities from all financial entities, including small banks, auto loan and mortgage originators (like Countrywide or GMAC), and payday lenders. The Department of Defense got military personnel protected from such lenders four years ago, finding that such loans “undermine military readiness, harm the morale of troops and their families, and add to the cost of fielding an all-volunteer fighting force.”

The Dodd bill includes the so-called Volcker rule, limiting the scope of bank activity, which I’ve argued before won’t make a real difference in prop trading, as banks can mask it behind market-making and client trading. However, the excess leverage tax in the Volcker rule — if properly beefed up — will discourage firms from becoming Too Big Too Fail (TBTF). And where the bill as envisioned doesn’t seem to rein in behemoths like Citi or Bank of America, increasing the capital requirements on overly large firms is a relatively easy fix, if the political pressure from bank lobbyists can be overcome.

The bill looks to wind down TBTF through a special financial panel of bankruptcy court, which would allow systemic risk overseers — envisioned in the bill as comprised of representatives from Treasury, the Fed and the CFPA — to take vulnerable firms into receivership and liquidation in times of crisis. The FDIC would manage a $50 billion fund that banks would pay into to provide liquidity in these situations. As envisioned, the treasury secretary petitions the court, the financial firm in question responds, and the court has 24 hours to decide. But a decision can be appealed to a Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court, a process that could take up to 30 days. In a financial era in which multibillion dollar institutions like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers can evaporate over the course of a weekend, giving management 30 days in which to stonewall means that an orderly wind-down as the new rule envisions is unlikely.

We’re waiting to see what will come from Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) on derivatives, but the existing language encourages increased transparency and centralized clearing for standardized derivatives (the maligned CDS’s and the like) and increases margin requirements for non-standard derivatives. All trades being reported will help regulators understand the evolution of the financial system better.

The inclusion of a non-binding shareholder vote on executive pay will give shareholders a greater role in compensation. While it won’t solve the “heads I win, tails you lose” problem of Wall Street’s bonus structure, it will give outsiders more say on pay and hopefully check the worst excesses.

Like the CFPA and the chairman of the Fed, the proposed legislation would also make the New York Fed presidency a White House appointment. That role, which was vital at the height of the 2008 crisis when now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner held it, and was central in previous crises, like the LTCM meltdown of 1998, has long been seen as beholden to Wall Street. A presidential appointment would increase its independence form investment banks.

As presented, the Dodd bill has its flaws — in addition to the ones mentioned above, others have argued that political realities have compromised the force of the bill, and because it hasn’t addressed leverage, the seeds of an asset-bubble-driven crisis like the most recent one are still there. It’s true, as Sen. Dodd said when he announced the bill: “This legislation will not stop the next crisis from coming. No legislation can…” But this bill — with improvements — can give regulators the tools they need to address future crises in a more proactive manner.

Stupak: The Man and the Movement

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Given the importance of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his allies in the struggle for health care reform in the House, it’s worth thinking a bit about what actually makes him tick. A very revealing moment came yesterday, when Stupak blew off a communication from Catholic religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns urging approval of the health reform bill. According to Fox News’ report of Stupak’s reaction:

The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”

Stupak’s meaning couldn’t be clearer: in figuring out his position on health reform, he’s not identifying with fellow Catholics who are struggling to balance various ethical considerations; he’s acting as an agent for the Right-To-Life Movement and its often-machiavellian political game plans. It’s particularly interesting that he mentioned Focus on the Family, the right-wing evangelical Protestant “ministry,” as a greater influence on him than 59,000 nuns.

Why does this matter? Well, aside from the fact that any serious ethical review of the bill has to include the positive impact of reform on maternal and childhood health, it’s also pretty clear that the net effect of the bill will be to reduce federal subsidies for abortion. As Matt Yglesias reminds us today, current law massively subsidizes abortions via the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored private health insurance, which frequently includes abortion coverage. By encouraging (especially over time) people to move from employer-sponsored coverage to the new health exchanges for individual coverage, which under the Senate language will make insurance for abortion exceptionally inconvenient, it’s a sure bet that the overall use of federal money to pay for policies that include abortion services will decline. Indeed, a group of twenty-five prominent pro-life Catholic and Protestant leaders recently penned a letter describing claims that the pending bill would expand abortion subsidies as “misinformation.”

So official right-to-lifer opposition to the health reform bill isn’t really “about” abortion. It’s “about” the desire of the Right-To-Life political movement to score a big symbolic triumph, and it’s “about” the non-abortion political agenda of some of the movement’s constituent members. For a group like Focus on the Family, to which Stupak listens so closely, that agenda includes the Republican takeover of Congress and a wide variety of right-wing policy measures that have zero to do with abortion.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

The Wait Is Over

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It took longer than expected, but the wait was worth it. The CBO score for the Senate health care reform bill and amendments that the House will vote on this weekend is now out (well, in leaked form anyway) and the numbers, at first glance, look good for reform’s prospects.

According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the legislation got slapped with a price tag of $940 billion over the next decade, more expensive than the Senate version, which makes sense since expanding coverage is one of the fixes the House wants to enact. But the CBO reportedly said the legislation would cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade and $1.2 trillion the decade after that — steeper deficit cuts than the Senate bill had. As Ezra Klein summed it up, “that’s more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.” Hoyer noted that it’s the biggest deficit reduction act since the 1993 Clinton budget.

It’ll be interesting to see how the bill achieves that goal. There had been word in the last 24 hours that the excise tax on Cadillac plans — something labor unions had opposed — had to be tweaked to make sure the legislation met its deficit-reduction aims. Will a more robust excise tax on high-end plans weaken labor’s support for the bill? One thing is certain: with the release of the CBO’s numbers, moderate Democrats concerned about the fiscal impact of the bill can now rest easier and support it.

One wait is over, but another one begins. With the official release of the CBO score later today, the clock officially begins on the 72-hour window that Democrats had promised to give members before voting on the legislation. This pegs the vote for Sunday — though Republicans have promised to pull out all the stops to delay the process.

Erick the Red

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There’s been a lot of buzz, mostly in the progressive blogosphere, over the news that the proprietor of the notable right-wing RedState blogging site, Erick Erickson, of Macon, Georgia, has been given a perch on a new CNN show hosted by John King.

Most of the talk has featured some of Erick’s more colorful utterances, particularly his description of Supreme Court Justice David Souter as, well, a child molester who also enjoys carnal knowledge of certain barnyard animals, and his reference to First Lady Michelle Obama as a “Marxist harpy.” As a fairly regular reader of RedState, if only to get the juices going on slow days, I can say I’m most impressed with the casual cranky extremism of Erick’s stuff on a day-in, day-out basis, and particularly his bully-boy determination to play a role in Republican primaries around the country. His obsession, for example, with the defeat of Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, a pretty conventional conservative by most standards, has long since passed Carthago delenda est levels and must be viewed as a matter of sheer ego, if not a clinical disorder. The sheer-ego interpretation finds support in another recent Erickson encyclical, wherein he judiciously gave Mitt Romney a partial indulgence for his endorsement of Bennett upon the news that the Mittster had also endorsed RedState favorite Nikki Haley, a candidate for governor of South Carolina (in the real world, Romney predictably endorsed both for the obvious reason that they both endorsed him in 2008).

Last month I spoke at a municipal association meeting in Georgia, and was asked by a lot of people there how seriously Erick, a city councilman in Macon, was taken by national political types (much as Georgians used to ask me the same question about Newt Gingrich when he first exploded on the national scene). Seems he was already letting it be known that he was entertaining various national media offers, and was about to go big-time. I have a hard time begrudging any blogger a shot at mainstream media exposure. But it’s a sign of the times that CNN filled a mandatory conservative slot with a guy like Erick, who seems to alternate between moods of blind rage and smug triumphalism, and who (like me) also has a face made for radio.

We’ll see how ol’ Erick handles the transition to a national audience composed of people who don’t already agree with him. But he couldn’t have been happy with CNN’s press release, which lauded him as a spokesman for small-town values “who still lives in small-town America.” This will not go over well in Macon, a proud old city whose metropolitan area has a population of close to a quarter million people.

Hey, President Obama: What Are You Doing for Nowruz 1389?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Nowruz is Iran’s new year, celebrated every spring. You may recall that last year, President Obama scored a ton of points from just about all quarters by sending this personalized Nowruz video message directed straight at Iran’s people. It was a great move that bypassed any formal communication with the mullahs in Tehran and successfully engaged Iranians on a personal level. From last year’s video:

You, too, have a choice.  The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.  You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.  And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

This year’s Nowruz (#1389 if you’re scoring by the Persian calendar) takes place on March 20th. And suffice it to say that some things have changed since then: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole an election last June from Mir Hossein Mousavi, which triggered millions-strong, largely peaceful (on the civilian side, anyway) demonstrations in Tehran over several weeks. The mullahs actually remain fairly divided lot, but since the Revolutionary Guards hold the balance of power in Iran, the status quo will reign for the time being. However, the protests continue to flare up, but with diminishing strength, on every subsequent public holiday or event. Their potency has been contained in large part because the Ayatollah learned the importance of crushing momentum from the country’s experience in 1979.

This raises the question: After a tumultuous year in American-Iranian “relations” that has seen the Obama administration change tack from guarded optimism of dialogue to renewed talk of targeted sanctions, what (if anything) will the administration do this Nowruz? With Tehran’s crackdown on social media and internet freedom, it might be more difficult to get a similarly successful message through. But it’s worth a try, given the negligible price of recording a three-minute message from the Oval Office.

If he does record something, part of the president’s Nowruz goodwill message to Iranians should focus on expanding Internet access in Iran, which began in earnest earlier this month when the White House lifted restrictions for the first time on U.S. companies exporting online software like chat and data-sharing programs. That’s an incredibly important step, and has been generally described as a win-win-win for Iranians, companies and American diplomatic efforts. But lifting restrictions is just one side of the equation — actively promoting this kind of software in Iran should follow next.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arasmus/ / CC BY 2.0

Underdogs Have Their Day in Colorado

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Another day, another angry right-wing challenge to “establishment” Republicans once thought to be very conservative. In Colorado, the two parties held precinct caucuses accompanied, as always, by a straw poll among candidates for statewide office. On the Republican side, prohibitive front-runner for the Senate and former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton ran almost exactly even with self-styled Insurgent from the Right Ken Buck, a district attorney who’s an ally of famed immigrant-baiter Tom Tancredo.

Other than her backing of a controversial ballot measure to relax Colorado’s draconian tax limitation law, Norton’s main sin seems to be her friendship with John McCain, also under attack from the Right.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff actually beat appointed Sen. Michael Bennet in the caucus straw poll. This, however, was no surprise; Bennet is a political newcomer while Romanoff has deep roots among the party activists who attend these events.

Neither straw poll is necessarily predictive of what will happen in the primaries for the Senate that will be held in August. On the Democratic side, it’s noteworthy than the senator whose term is being filled this year, current Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, didn’t win the caucus straw poll in 2006, and still went on to win the primary handily.

But if nothing else, the Colorado results kept underdogs alive, and on the Republican side, confirmed that this will be a difficult year for anyone with the dreaded “E for Establishment” label.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/writetomikek/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The 2010/2012 Endorsement Game

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the important sideshows in the 2010 campaign cycle is the intervention of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates in current GOP primaries.

Sarah Palin has received considerable attention for endorsing Tea Party favorite and libertarian scion Rand Paul for the Senate in Kentucky over Mitch McConnell’s buddy Trey Grayson, and also for endorsing her old running mate, John McCain, in his fight with right-wing talk show host and former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

Mike Huckabee has been more aggressive in his endorsements, mainly by supporting candidates who endorsed him in 2008. Huck struck gold by getting out early in support of Tea Party/conservative icon Marco Rubio’s challenge to Charlie Crist in Florida — long before Rubio began crushing Crist in the polls. Beyond that, Huck has endorsed controversial gubernatorial candidates in two early 2012 caucus/primary states: Lt. Gov. Andre (“Stray Animals”) Bauer, and Iowa social conservative Bob Vander Plaats. The latter is an especially interesting endorsement; if Vander Plaats upsets former Gov. Terry Branstad (who is closely affiliated with Mitt Romney supporters in that state) in the Iowa gubernatorial primary in June, Huck will be in good shape to repeat his 2008 victory in the Iowa Caucuses.

Like Huckabee, Mitt Romney has kept his endorsements so far limited to 2008 allies (with the exception of John McCain). Those include front-running California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and longshot Alabama gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivy. But two recent Romney endorsements (again, of people who endorsed Mitt in 2008) have drawn national attention: embattled incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah (a Romney hotbed, for obvious reasons), for whom conservatives have long knives out, and then state Rep. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, a big favorite of the right-wing blogosphere.

Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty, after doing the Right thing by endorsing conservative Doug Hoffmann in a red-hot New York special election last year, announced he would eschew further interventions in competitive Republican primaries. But he made an exception for John McCain, presumably after ensuring he would receive cover for this step from Palin and Romney.

If Hayworth manages to beat McCain, he won’t owe any 2012 candidates a thing. But there are plenty of other competitive primaries later this year where the presidentials haven’t weighed in, and the chess game of endorsements will be very interesting.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

The Furor Over “Deem and Pass”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the ridiculous attention that the media — cued by the GOP — lavished on process in general and budget reconciliation in particular:

Regardless of the outcome of the Democratic health reform push, one point is obvious: at every turn, they lost the messaging battle to Republicans and the Tea Party. The latest reminder came this morning, as the umpteenth story on budget reconciliation came on the radio. These days, to talk about health care reform is to talk about process — exactly where the GOP wants the conversation to be.

Replace “reconciliation” with “deem and pass” and the same post pretty much applies to today. “Deem and pass” is the procedure by which Democrats are reportedly planning on using to pass health care reform, allowing House members to “deem” the Senate bill passed while voting on the bill fixing it. The reasoning is that this would enable House Democrats to say that they didn’t technically vote for what they see as a flawed Senate bill. Let me repeat that: they’ll be voting for the Senate bill but can claim that they didn’t vote for the Senate bill. Really, what could go wrong with that strategy?

Republicans have pounced, and the media have been right there with them. Today’s Washington Post headline: “House Democrats’ tactic for health-care bill is debated.” From a New York Times on the “controversy”: “Democrats struggled Tuesday to defend procedural shortcuts they might use to win approval for their proposals in the next few days.” Clearly Dems did not think through the politics of this move.

But its head-slapping idiocy notwithstanding, is “deem and pass” really all that controversial? Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, hardly a lefty advocate, calls out Republicans for their hypocritical rending of garments over its anticipated use for health reform:

In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?

Steve Benen sums up my thoughts on the latest demonstration of GOP faux outrage and media complicity nicely:

Let me get this straight — the single biggest story in the political world yesterday was over consideration of a House procedure, used many times before by both parties? Republicans decided they don’t like “self-executing rules” anymore, so the matter dominated the discourse?

As with the moronic furor over reconciliation, the same dynamic is at work: a relentless GOP messaging machine that puts process ahead of substance — canny on their part because it’s the process, rather than the policy, that voters are fed up with; a tone-deaf Democratic caucus (They really thought that adding a layer of complication to the process was what health care reform needed? Really?) and feckless communications operation that seems to perpetually be on the defensive; and a mainstream media expertly played like a piano by the GOP.

It’s All About Democratic Unity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Politico

Forget about reconciliation and other parliamentary maneuvers. Forget, too, about Cadillac plans and the Cornhusker Kickback. On health care, we’re down to the heart of the matter: Can Democrats act like a disciplined, cohesive political party?

For decades, they’ve fought for the principle of universal and affordable health coverage. If they don’t pass health reform now, with medical costs mounting, with a president willing to go for broke and with sizable — and perishable — majorities in Congress, you have to wonder if they ever will.

There will be no shortage of excuses if they fail: a populist backlash against bailouts and joblessness; GOP obstructionism and rising public antipathy for Washington and Big Government in general.

But let’s face it: If health care reform crashes and burns, it will be because Democrats couldn’t summon the courage and internal coherence to deliver on a key progressive commitment.

Labor unions, Blue Dogs, single-payer stalwarts, favor-extorting moderates, Latinos, anti-abortion Roman Catholics — it’s no use singling out one culprit, because all the party’s tribes will have contributed to the debacle.

By holding firm for comprehensive reform, President Barack Obama has put his party, especially House Democrats, on the spot. He’s asking doubters to put their party’s collective interest above their personal interests and views.

That’s a tough ask, especially for those from marginal districts who could lose their seats by voting for the Senate bill. It’s easy for self-righteous lefties to brand them as trimmers or cowards, but swing-district Democrats can argue plausibly that a “no” vote would more accurately reflect majority sentiment among their constituents. Liberals from overwhelmingly Democratic districts have no such excuse.

Still, Congress is a national legislature, and its members have a responsibility to act in the national interest. For most Democrats, that surely means ending the injustice of leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to financial ruin or death due to illness or injury. It also means beginning to get a handle on the runaway growth of health care costs that bedevils U.S. workers and businesses.

While party unity isn’t the highest political value, being a member of a party does carry some obligation to its fundamental principles. Tactically, it makes sense for party leaders to give Democrats in tough districts a pass on tough votes — as long as there are votes to spare.

That’s not the case on health care reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs every vote she can get.

Not one Republican will vote for the Senate bill. About a dozen or so anti-abortion Democrats say they won’t either. Pelosi can afford to lose only 37 of the party’s 253 members to get to the magic number of 216. That probably means persuading some of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan to support the more centrist Senate blueprint.

Moderate Democrats, including those in the 49 districts that Sen. John McCain won in 2008, face political risks. Voting to support a major health reform bill on a party-line vote could, conceivably, cost them their seats. But if Democrats again stumble on health care, it could also trigger a “wave” election, like 1994, which would engulf marginal seats.

Some party pollsters claim that Democrats already have lost the debate and can only make things worse by passing reform anyway. But a careful reading of polls shows that many skeptical voters don’t think the bills go far enough, and most favor key provisions such as banning insurers from cherry-picking healthy patients and setting up insurance exchanges.

Reasons for this ambivalence are complicated, but it’s probably not because voters have pored over the details of the Senate health bill or the “fixes” Democrats aim to pass on reconciliation. In any case, who thinks Democrats will gain public respect by giving up on their top priority?

Obama was elected on a promise to tackle the nation’s biggest challenges — with health reform as Exhibit A. Independent voters have drifted away from his winning 2008 coalition during the past year, in part because they are losing confidence in the Democrats’ ability to govern.

The party may thus have more to fear from wasting a year to produce nothing than from passing a controversial bill. Failure won’t just make Democrats look bad; it will also vindicate the Republicans’ hyperpartisan campaign to torpedo comprehensive reform.

Sometimes, parties gain even when they lose — especially when they stand on principle. The odds facing Obama and Pelosi and company are daunting.

But the task is doable — as long as enough Democrats recognize that their careers won’t amount to much if their party can’t deliver on its core commitments.

Read the column at Politico.

The Progressive Policy Institute And Americans For Campaign Reform Unite To Make Case For Campaign Reform Legislation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

MEDIA ADVISORY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2010

CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the White House takes up its next legislative priority, the Progressive Policy Institute and Americans for Campaign Reform on Wednesday, March 17, will host Senator Dick Durbin and a bipartisan panel to address the public’s appetite for campaign reform and how the Fair Elections Now Act offers a solution to fix the broken political system.

WHO:                Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Dan Weeks – President, Americans for Campaign Reform

Mark McKinnon – Former advisor to President George W. Bush and Vice Chairman of Public Strategies                  

John Samples – Director, Cato’s Center for Representative Government

Andrew Baumann – Senior Associate, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner

Will Marshall – President, Progressive Policy Institute

WHAT:             AFTER CITIZENS UNITED: A NEW PARADIGM FOR CAMPAIGN REFORM

Senator Dick Durbin will offer remarks on the Fair Elections Now Act and the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case lifting the ban on corporate spending in elections.  Following Senator Durbin’s remarks, a panel discussion moderated by Will Marshall will examine voter opinions on campaign reform, Democratic and Republican support for the Fair Elections Now bill and its prospects for passage.

WHEN:           Wednesday, March 17 — 10 a.m. – 12 p.m.

WHERE:         Dirksen Senate Office Building – SD-106, U.S. Capitol Complex, Washington, D.C.

MEDIA COVERAGE:  The event is open to the media and panelists will be available following the discussion for individual interviews.

For further questions, please contact Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org, 202.525.3931 (office), 202.556.1752 (cell).

# # #

Why an EPA Rule for Traditional Pollutants Matters for Greenhouse Gases

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the sexy pollutant. “Traditional” pollutants like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides or NOx (which are themselves GHGs, though their climatic effects are not the basis for their regulation) get less attention, with media, legal, research, and to a lesser extent regulatory attention devoted to GHGs. These pollutants have much greater health impacts than GHGs, however. Moreover, how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates them under the Clean Air Act (CAA) might shed some light on how they will regulate GHGs under the same statute.

Unfortunately, the EPA’s master plan for new  SO2 and NOx regulations, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), is in legal limbo. In North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit found such substantial flaws in the rule that it vacated CAIR completely in 2008, before backing down somewhat and directing the EPA to fix a number of problems. In the meantime, the rule has remained in effect — CAIR is zombie regulation.

Nobody likes zombie regulation. It’s hard to determine environmental benefits and for industry to determine costs, and markets in tradable allowances don’t work very well when the future structure of those markets (and even whether they will exist) is unclear. Whatever the EPA does to address the court’s concerns with CAIR is therefore likely to be an improvement on the current situation.

The EPA is expected to release the required revisions to CAIR soon. Some of the issues the court identified with CAIR in its original form are that compliance deadlines for it and other regulations do not match, and that the EPA exceeded its authority by making changes to the congressionally created Title IV trading program for SO2.

The largest problems for the court, however, were with the trading programs created or modified by CAIR. How the EPA addresses these concerns will be the most interesting part of the new CAIR and will shed the most light on how far the EPA can go in using emissions trading methods under existing CAA authority — something that may be important for future GHG regulation.

Will Emissions Trading Survive?

 

The original CAIR created new interstate trading programs for SO2 and NOx or expanded existing ones. The court, however, cast real doubt on whether these trading programs are viable. Specifically, the court held that the CAA authority (NAAQS) used by the EPA requires actual reductions in emissions from each state that contributes to pollution in downwind areas (it is largely this interstate pollution “transport” problem that CAIR is designed to address). The trading programs in the original CAIR would have reduced pollution from upwind states, but free trading among states meant that the EPA could not guarantee that every upwind state would reduce its emissions.

It’s hard to see how the EPA can comply with the court’s interpretation of the CAA here and keep interstate trading as part of the revised CAIR. If you have interstate trading, you reduce costs of compliance but at the expense of certainty over where emissions will be reduced. It is just this certainty that the court claims the CAA requires. Trading may survive in the form of purely intra-state markets, or the EPA may devise some hybrid regulation that includes some command-and-control elements that would force reductions in emissions in all upwind states.

The structure the EPA chooses — and whether the court deems it permissible — is important. There is some chance that the EPA will choose (or be forced) to regulate GHGs under the NAAQS program. If the EPA does go down this route, CAIR and the courts’ treatment of it will provide the precedent for a GHG trading system. Can such a system be implemented nationwide under the CAA if only intrastate trading is permitted for other pollutants? If GHG regulations are not driven by contributions to other states’ pollution problems, the EPA might be able to distinguish them from the CAIR regulations. But SO2 and NOx are the best examples by far of emissions trading programs under the CAA. If the new CAIR kills or guts these programs, the precedent for any GHG trading scheme – at least under the NAAQS – will be weakened.

The proposed new CAIR should be released by the EPA in the near future. The character of the emissions trading programs it creates will tell us a lot about the future of the Clean Air Act for greenhouse gases and beyond.

This item is cross-posted at Weathervane.

Reason #178 Not to Negotiate with the Taliban: Women’s Issues

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I’ve written before about why we shouldn’t negotiate with any Taliban member who ranks higher than “low- and mid-level fighters.” I think it’s a fool’s errand to believe that the Taliban’s leadership would negotiate in good faith, especially when the likes of Taliban chief Mullah Omar starts sounding like he’d rather spend his time in Haight-Ashbury in 1968.

However, the idea has gained more-than-superficial traction with some highly respected individuals — Vice President Biden, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, to name a few. Of course, details like with whom we would negotiate and under what circumstances remain relatively opaque, but the fact that the Pakistanis are now vacuuming up the Taliban’s higher-ups suggests that the idea is a serious one and Islamabad wants to control the bargaining chips.

But today, the Washington Post reports yet another reason not bark too far up the Taliban’s tree — women’s issues:

The Taliban’s repressive treatment of women helped galvanize international opposition in the 1990s, and by some measures democracy has revolutionized Afghan women’s lives. Their worry now is … that male leaders, behind closed doors and desperate for peace, might not force Taliban leaders to accept, however grudgingly, that women’s roles have changed.

[…]

“We don’t want them to stop us from getting an education or working in an office,” said Jan, 18, wearing a rhinestone-studded head scarf at her rebuilt school. Women, she said, should be “the first priority.”

Karzai, the Afghan president, has endorsed the idea of talking with all levels of the Taliban, and his aides insist that women need not worry about the equal rights the Afghan constitution guarantees them. But they also say they are performing a difficult balancing act, and suggest that making bold statements about the sanctity of such topics as women’s rights might kill talks before they start.

Is there any question about women’s fate in an Afghanistan that includes Taliban governing officials? There shouldn’t be — even if the Taliban holds a minority of, say, ministries or seats in parliament, it’s obvious that women’s development in all walks of Afghan life would be serverly hampered.