^{Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye on debt ceiling and deficit reduction.}

In the dark days before the debt ceiling compromise vote, with the doomsday “debtapocalyspe” countdown dominating the media, several polls struck a common theme: The public demands bipartisan compromise. Taegon Goddard’s Wire summarized the gestalt of the moment:

“A new Pew Research poll finds 68% of Americans say that lawmakers should compromise on the debt ceiling debate, even it means striking a deal they disagree with. Just 23% say lawmakers who share their views should stand by their principles, even if that leads to default.”

So it follows that when our representatives and leaders in Washington D.C finally got together and crafted a truly bipartisan deal, the country cheered wildly. Or not:

“A majority of Americans disapprove of the deal struck Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders that will raise the country’s legal borrowing limit, and three out of four believe elected officials have acted like “spoiled children.”

Since that legislation was signed, nothing but cries, lamentations and the rending of garments has been heard across the land. The animus from the right, left and center for the debt ceiling compromise is quite extraordinary. Q&O had a good survey of the early reaction and little in the popular assessment has changed in the weeks since.

Congressional and presidential approval levels plunged to new lows. When describing the debt ceiling compromise and the process to get there, the media pejorative of choice: Our government is… DYSFUNCTIONAL! And it must be true. I mean ~750,000 Google search hits on “debt ceiling dysfunctional” can’t be wrong. Who am I to argue with that? But maybe, just maybe – Our government is working exactly as it was designed to work, and our representatives are doing exactly what we, the voters, sent them to Washington to do.

For all of the lip service paid to the virtues of bipartisan compromise from pundits and bloggers across the political spectrum, there appears to be very little support for a picture perfect example of a bipartisan centrist compromise when Congress does enact one.

There is simply no way to characterize this vote except as an overwhelming bipartisan compromise victory. Moreover, to the extent that “Centrist” actually means anything in concrete policy terms, this was a purely Centrist piece of legislation. The extremes of both parties voted against it. It required a bipartisan coalition of more moderate, centrist, practical Democrats and Republicans to pass this legislation. Liberal votes were not needed. Tea Party votes were not needed. It passed overwhelmingly. It is exactly this model that future deficit reduction legislation will follow.

Don’t get me wrong – to call it thin gruel is to give this legislative stew more flavor than it deserves. It does not solve the deficit problem. Not even close. However it did accomplish several difficult objectives. It started turning our ship of state toward a course that will solve the problem. It started the process of making difficult cuts. It put a mechanism in place that can and will take more meaningful steps toward solving the problem. It erected an artificial deadline for a solution to be enacted by Congress, which is a necessary if not sufficient condition for our Congressional leaders to make the hard deficit decisions. In short, it offers real hope for the first meaningful steps toward fiscal sanity in decades.

Navigating the Titanic at full speed through an iceberg field is a tricky proposition at best. The steps taken in the debt ceiling compromise were considered significant enough that two of the three rating agencies immediately reaffirmed our AAA status. S&P is the odd man out (I’ll have more to say about S&P in a future post). Fitch has since reaffirmed our AAA status with no expectation of a downgrade. Moody’s does not appear inclined to follow S&P. So with our “dysfunctional” Congress at the helm, our ship of state managed to dodge two icebergs and glanced off a third. We are still floating, we’ve throttled back and we are on a course that may steer us clear of any more icebergs.

A course correction to the predominantly One Party Rule excesses of the last 10 years by a divided government that has been in place less than 10 months will be neccessarily incremental. It cannot be otherwise. No one could or should expect otherwise.

The fact that neither you or I or the rest of the passengers on this ship particularly liked the compromise nor the embarrassing partisan performance by the captain and crew does not change what it is – and it is a picture perfect example of a bipartisan centrist compromise. If you don’t like it, you may just not like bipartisan centrist compromises as much as you think you do. And you probably will not like the bipartisan centrist compromise that will almost certainly be delivered from the Deficit Reduction Committee at the end of this year.

Conventional Wisdom in both main stream and non-traditional media have passed judgement on the debt ceiling legislation and the bipartisan deficit reduction super committee it begat. Conventional Wisdom informs us that we have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Conventional Wisdom tells us the bipartisan Super Committee will fail. It will fail just like the plan formulated by the Simpson-Bowles committee, just like the bipartisan plan floated by the Gang of Six Senators, and just like the bipartisan “Grand Bargain” negotiation between President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner. There is no point in holding out hope, the judgement of Conventional Wisdom has been rendered. This is an exercise in futility.

^{Nick Anderson – Houston Chronicle}

Problem being – Conventional Wisdom is wrong. The Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations are alive and well. They were the starting point for the Paul Ryan proposal. They were the basis for the bipartisan Senate “Gang of Six” proposal. They were the basis for the Obama/Boehner “Grand Bargain” which came within a relatively trivial $400B revenue gap of being enacted. With each iteration it gets closer to passing.

To put in in the parlance of Vice President Biden, this is a BFD. An important, extraordinarily difficult compromise between two wildly different views of the role of government is in the offing. It is perfectly understandable and desirable for our leadership to take the time and go through the pain, partisan histrionics, and debate to be sure we solve the problem and get it right, or at least as close as we can get in our divided country.

Conventional wisdom also informs us that Tea Party intransigence on taxes and Liberal intransigence on cutting entitlements will doom the Committee. The membership of the committee is too partisan and too ideological to leave room for compromise.

^{x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) just may have come up with something to bridge the gap between Dmes and the Repubs on the debt ceiling negotiations.

It even has Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) coming back to the table…

“The plan has moved significantly, and it’s where we need to be — and it’s a start,” Coburn said. “This doesn’t solve our problems, but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.” [...]

Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.

He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.

What’s more Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) says she’ll back it…

“Likely 60 [votes],” she said. “The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts and I believe it will spur the economy.”

Hutchison said she would vote for it and urged House Republicans to back it as well.

“It think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete, and that’s what I think the House is looking for, and [so are we],” she said.

So…is this now a Gang of Seven?

And we just now hear that Obama is in favor…

In an appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama urged congressional leaders to embrace the proposal, which contains both significant cuts and a revenue component. The plan is, he said, “broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged: what it says is we’ve got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending, both in domestic spending and defense, we’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending, and entitlements in a serious way, and we’ve got to have some additional revenue.”

In all, Obama said, the group’s plan amounts to “an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up something.”

If you want to take a look at the proposal, check out a pdf here.

In other news, Republicans are set to vote on “Cut, Cap and Balance,” which is little more than a symbolic gesture to their base. After that, I’m sure many will start to fall in line with the Gang’s recommends.

Or at least let’s hope…

It’s come to the attention of this reporter that the Rapture is, in fact, going to occur.

Documents leaked earlier today describe how a bi-partisan team of Senators, dubbed the Gang of 14, working closely with President Obama have developed and set into motion a plan to save Humankind – FROM GOD!

It seems a heretofore unreleased portion of the Apocryphal manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, brought to the President’s attention by a Muslim scholar studying in Jerusalem, clearly and believably lay out God’s rapture plans. In all likelihood the Rapture will occur on May 21.

The plan developed involves the US Space Shuttle Endeavor and it is very clever. The budget crisis? TARP? The deficit? Nothing is what it seems. All the money spent by the US government in the past two years has been on outfitting Endeavor for it’s last and most important mission.

Endeavor is currently docked at the International Space Station, packed like Noah’s Ark with plants, animals and people – ready in a moments notice to speed away toward Gliese 581g. Upon their arrival on this Earth-like planet they will begin “seeding” it with Life, effectively saving Humankind.

The shuttle has been modified with upgrades such as an FTL drive to get us there fast and advanced weaponry in the event that Gliese 581g is already blessed with Life. All the partisan bickering and childish behavior from inside the beltway lately has been a distraction to keep the electorate busy while our government saves life as we know it.

Russ Feingold, who continues to lead the Gang of 14 despite being ousted from the Senate last year, said yesterday “If God wants a fight we’ll give him a fight.” John McCain, standing behind him looking grim but resolved, nodded his head in agreement. “As a conservative I don’t like this,” he said, “but as an American I have a duty to my country to ensure that God doesn’t destroy the way of life of everyone left behind.”

This reporter says “God speed Endeavor!” and also “Thank you Mr. President and the Gang of 14. I’ll be thinking of your bravery and cunning as I and my family are swallowed up by the hot lava of God.”

Obama, GOP freshmen win in jet engine budget fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — Determined to reduce deficits, impatient House Republican freshmen made common cause with President Barack Obama on Wednesday, scoring their biggest victory to date in a vote to cancel $450 million for an alternative engine for the Pentagon’s next-generation warplane.

“Right here, right now was a surefire way to reduce spending,” declared Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a second-term lawmaker whose summons to cut money from the F-35 fighter jet was answered by 47 Republican newcomers…

Strictly by the numbers, the vote was a bipartisan one, with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats supporting cancellation of the funds, while 68 Democrats and 130 Republicans wanted to leave them in place. But that breakdown obscured the change wrought by the voters last fall. A similar vote in May ended in defeat for opponents of the alternative engine.”

Let’s review. The alternate engine is a defense pork barrel project that will not die because it is supported by legislators determined to bring home the bacon to their respective district or state. It was opposed by Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as both of the their Secretaries of Defense as unneeded and a waste of taxpayer money. Nevertheless, Congress continued to allocate billions on an engine the military did not want or need.

Last May, with a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, this project continued to be funded, passing in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives by a vote of 231-193.

Last week, in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner supporting the continued funding of the unneeded engine, it was finally defeated. Credit to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates for reaching out to Republican legislators and the new crop of Tea Party supported freshmen Republican representatives who stood up to their own leadership.

Of course, this is still not over. The Democratic controlled Senate may yet restore the funding. Having demonstrated my difficulty identifying Senator party affiliation in a previous post, I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out where the problem in the Senate may lie:

Postscript: Some of you may remember Justin, who used to be a regular contributor here. He had some things to say about this very issue shortly after the election.

From his post:

“If Republicans are serious about tightening our belts, cutting the budget deficit and the overall deficit, then programs like this need to be shelved. Tea Partiers, I’m looking at you. Want to prove you’re more than just a marketing gimmick? Take a stand on issues like this.”

From his comments:

“If it is revealed that a wide swath of GOPers don’t agree with his assessment, I will write a post about that. Trust me, I would GLADLY write a post about that.”

I am considering offering him an opportunity to follow up with a guest post.

Big time speech today from the guy who definitely has his eye on the White House.

Here’s the video…

I’ll offer the transcript below after my analysis.

Personally, this feels disingenuous from a guy like Bloomberg who has repeatedly used the government to regulate New York City businesses and consumer behavior six ways to Sunday. Not that I’m opposed to many of his moves, but the idea that he’s setting up this canard of “between a government that would stand on the sidelines and one that would take over the game” is pretty transparent.

Let’s remember, Bush started the bailouts. Obama merely finished them. And, by the way, the government recently sold its stake in Citigroup and turned a $12B profit. Obama doesn’t want the government to be overly involved in the private market, and his administration hasn’t taken any sort of active, day to day role in the corporations we bailed out. This is not a statism approach. And yet Bloomberg is positioning it as such. That’s unfortunate and I expected more from Mike. Oh well.

But what this type of rhetoric tells me is he wants to run in 2012. Imagine a third party candidate who is literally one of the most trusted and successful businessmen in recorded history. And he’s held elected office. And he’s a moderate Republican who is really a Dem, but who’s paying attention to labels these days.

Another theory…he wants to force Obama’s hand to adopt his policies.

Whatever the reason, Mike knows he has a seat at the table and he’s not letting that go to waste.

Here’s the transcript…

**************

MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG OUTLINES SIX CRITICAL STRATEGIES TO TACKLE UNEMPLOYMENT, SPUR JOB CREATION AND BRING ABOUT LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH

Mayor Bloomberg’s Remarks as Prepared for Delivery at a Breakfast at the Brooklyn Navy Yard Co-Sponsored by the Association for a Better New York and the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce Follow:

“Thank you, Bill, for those kind words – and it’s a pleasure to welcome everyone to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which we’ve turned into one of the most successful, private sector urban manufacturing districts in the country.

“This is the place where America used to make battleships – the Maine, the Arizona, the Missouri. And now, the private companies you see out these windows make everything from the kevlar vests worn by the U.S. Army’s special forces to the Sweet and Low that you just put in your coffee.

“We’re here this morning to discuss the most pressing and immediate challenge facing our country: helping more people get back to work. The national recession that began in 2008 hit New York – like everywhere else – hard. And today, many New Yorkers are still feeling the pain.

“But over the past 12 months, New York City has been leading the nation in private sector job growth. In fact, our economy has grown twice as fast as the country’s – and eight times as fast as the rest of the state’s. Our economy has grown faster than any other major city’s in the country – and none of that growth has come on Wall Street. Since last October, we have added 55,000 private sector jobs – in industries with average salaries between $35,000 and $92,000. These are middle-class jobs – in accounting, engineering, advertising, health care, retail, tourism – even construction. Here at the Navy Yard, we’ve added 2,300 jobs over the past eight years, and we’re set to add 3,100 more over the next three.

“The economic policies that we have pursued to drive this growth have been neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. Despite what ideologues on the left believe, government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics. Federal spending to stimulate the economy had a temporary, positive impact – but we are two years past the economic meltdown of 2008, and unemployment is still too high, the underlying economy is still too weak and the federal deficit is still rising too fast.

“At the same time, despite what ideologues on the right believe, government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable, given the enormous unemployment we face, and the worsening job prospects for the 15 million people who are trying to find work.

“Government is not an innocent bystander in the marketplace, and it should not pretend to be. In the face of the current economic weakness, government must act: decisively, responsibly and immediately.

“For New York City to continue our growth, we need our federal and state governments to chart a middle way – between a government that would wash its hands of the problem and one that seeks to supplant the private sector; between a government that would stand on the sidelines and one that would take over the game.

“This is not to say that we should try splitting the difference between Democratic and Republican positions – that’s thinking too small. While it’s true there are no simple solutions to complex problems, fortunately there are solutions that can get us out of this mess, that can be embraced by those across the political spectrum, and that can start us on the road to long-term sustainable recovery.

“Common sense solutions that are straight-forward and relatively cost-free: things we can do together, to put people on private payrolls and encourage new investment; things that increase personal opportunity, instead of dependence on taxpayer bailouts and taxpayer handouts; things that encourage entrepreneurship and attract global talent and capital.

“By taking these steps, we can do a far more effective job of unleashing capitalism’s most powerful force – innovation. Unless we innovate, we cannot hope to succeed. And if we do innovate, there is no way we can fail.

“The current barriers standing in the way of innovation and job creation are much more political than economic. We need change, and whether the recent elections will be a cure for America’s economic problems – or just another symptom of our dysfunctional politics – remains to be seen.

“What is clear is, though, is that the country is growing more and more frustrated with government’s inability to keep America prosperous and fair and more skeptical that the jobs we need are coming soon. As families struggle to get by, they have seen little but partisan gridlock, political pandering and legislative influence-peddling. Finger-pointing, blame games, and endless attacks. Put simply: when it comes to creating jobs, government hasn’t gotten the job done. The central defining issue of the day is jobs, and that is what government at all levels must be focused on. Washington and Albany are not working, and as a result, too many Americans are out of work, out of savings and out of patience.

“Last month, voters turned against Democrats in Washington for the same reason they turned against Republicans in 2006. Democrats now, and Republicans then, spent more time and energy conducting partisan warfare than forging centrist solutions to our toughest economic problems. This abdication of responsibility has many causes, including party primaries that take place in gerrymandered districts where moderates are out-numbered and independents are often excluded. Bloggers and partisan pundits feed a 24-hour news cycle that values conflict over consensus, rewarding people at the extremes who scream the loudest.

“The result? Both parties follow the mood of the moment – instead of leading from the front. They incite anger instead of addressing it – for their own partisan interests. They tell the world about every real or imagined problem in America – and not what is right with America. Especially in these tough times, we need our leaders to inspire the whole country – not criticize half of it.

“It’s time to take a step back and ask ourselves: when did success become a bad word in America? When did cooperation in government become treason? The new ‘politics as usual’ is making a mockery of our democracy – and a mess of our country. We’ve got to stop it – because we’re paying a heavy price. In fact, right now, we are falling behind the world in education, technology, economic opportunity – even life expectancy.

“This can’t go on. We’ve got to pull together, and focus on what’s important for America – and then roll up our sleeves and fix the things that need fixing. This is the greatest nation on earth – the Shining City on the Hill as Ronald Reagan called it. And I believe, as Bill Clinton said, that there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

“Our freedom, our ingenuity, our work ethic, our creativity, our openness to new ideas and new people, our belief in a better tomorrow – these are the qualities that have allowed us to confront and overcome the toughest of challenges. And these are the qualities that elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels must work to unleash right now. To do that, we need to shift course. We need those in government to stop demagoguing and start delivering.

“The conventional wisdom that the two parties hold diametrically opposed beliefs on how to promote economic growth is simply wrong. It’s very encouraging that the White House and Republican congressional leaders have reached a compromise agreement to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefits – and it’s proof that bi-partisanship really is possible in Washington. But this cannot be the end of bi-partisanship – it must be the beginning. Cutting taxes is easy enough – cutting the deficit is another story. The Deficit Reduction Commission offered a good start, but it’s disappointing that Congress is choosing not to debate its recommendations. We can’t afford to keep pushing these tough decisions off. We need more than a commission, and more than lip service. We need results. And not next year or the year after – but now.

“Forging bi-partisan agreements around economic issues is not easy, but I believe common ground exists not only on tax relief and not only on deficit reduction but on many other areas that drive job creation. Lying at the heart of that common ground is an idea that has the potential to fire our economic engines by sparking the powerful economic force I mentioned at the outset: innovation.

“Throughout American history, innovations combined with government investment have created fundamental and lasting structural changes to the economy that spurred new private sector investment, new jobs, and new prosperity for the country. For instance, after the financial panic of 1819, it was New York Governor DeWitt Clinton who built the Erie Canal – ushering in a new era of westward development and growth. In the 1860s, with the Civil War tearing the country in two, Lincoln’s transcontinental railroad set the stage for America to fulfill its manifest destiny, by opening new markets and allowing private sector innovations – in industries like steel and oil – to drive a new era of national growth. When the country was seemingly near collapse in 1907, it wasn’t long before people like Henry Ford pioneered mass production techniques that ushered in a new age of industrial growth, with government building new roads, bridges, and tunnels to support it.

“President Roosevelt’s New Deal helped mitigate the Great Depression. But it was the aftermath of World War II – which saw the development of new industries like aircraft technology and nuclear energy – that gave birth to the modern economy. When the G.I. Bill of Rights opened college to the working class for the first time in history, ‘The Greatest Generation’ – using the infrastructure created by FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower – built the strongest, most advanced economy the world has ever known. Then, when recession came in the late 70s early 1980s, we climbed out of it with the help of technologies – like microchips and lasers – that gave rise to entirely new industries, and millions of good-paying, high-skilled jobs. At the same time, America made big investments in basic science and let the free market work its wonders.

“After the recession of the early 1990s, the internet – which originated from both public and private investment – launched a boom that has revolutionized the world. And today, cell phones have shown the potential to alleviate more global poverty – by empowering users to tap into commerce, education, health care, and information – than any government or private aid program in history.

“What are we doing to unleash innovation today?

“The answer is, unfortunately: not enough. Unfortunately, very little of the stimulus package passed in Washington promotes innovation. Very little of the health care bill passed in Washington promotes innovation. And the Obama administration will have to be very careful to make sure that the financial services bill passed this year doesn’t hinder innovation.

“Creating an innovation-based economy means linking our policy and spending decisions to economic goals – not political goals. ‘Shovel-ready’ projects is a nice political slogan, but it is not an effective long-term economic recovery strategy – or even a strategy for addressing unemployment. Most of those shovel-ready projects require physical skills that the unemployed don’t have – and in most cases, those jobs are only open to members of trade unions. The same is true for many of the so-called “green jobs” that the stimulus bill supported.

“We need strategies for putting people in all industries back to work, doing jobs they have the skills to do – or that they can learn. And that means the federal government must do more – right now – to create the conditions, and pursue the strategies, that will lead to more private sector investment.

“The good news, I believe, is that these engines for growth are not liberal or conservative – left or right. They are made-up of centrist, fiscally-responsible measures that majorities in both parties should support – and I’ll briefly touch on six of them. You might call them the Six Steps to Economic Recovery and Job Creation. And they are the very same six steps we are using here at the Navy Yard and across the five boroughs.

“First – and this is an easy one – instill confidence.

“Building confidence is a big part of getting the private sector to invest. There is much pessimism in the system because there is much uncertainty about what Washington might or might not do – on taxes, regulations, and policies. And that uncertainty breeds economic paralysis. Banks have money but are reluctant to loan. Businesses have money but are reluctant to invest in new equipment or new hires. Families, fearing a double-dip recession, are reluctant to spend. The potential for progress is there but nothing is happening. Why? Because government solutions ooze ambiguity.

“Right now bureaucrats in Washington – at the direction of lobbyists – are writing thousands of regulations over the health care and financial services industries – the ‘fill in the blank’ sections in the bills that Congress passed this session. Writing these regulations will probably create more jobs for lawyers and accountants to interpret, explain, and evade than the number of real jobs created by the legislation itself. With billions of dollars at stake, this process has chilled economic activity. We need certainty, rationality, consistency and predictability in the rules of the game. Improving individual business confidence is the most powerful way to stimulate the economy – and best of all, it’s free.

“One of the reasons why New York City has been leading the nation in job growth over the past year is that people have confidence in our City’s future. In fact, fewer people left New York City in 2009 than in any other year since these records first started being kept in 1991. Why are more people staying – and coming? Because they believe in New York. They believe in our future. They want safe streets, good schools, beautiful parks, exciting cultural opportunities – and mostly, they want career opportunities. And they know that no other place in the country is delivering as much in all of these areas – as consistently and effectively – as New York City. And so – even through the worst national recession America has faced in decades – people are continuing to move to and invest in our city.

“Second: Promote trade.

“New York City was founded on international trade, and it is the reason why we became the country’s largest and strongest economic engine. The more trade we do with foreign partners, the more markets we create for domestic producers, the lower the prices we pay for the goods we buy, and the better off we all are.

“I was glad to see President Obama travel to India to make the case for investment here. We need our federal representatives to be salespeople for America – not just in India, but in China, the Middle East, Latin America, and all over the world. Most governments around the world take attracting foreign investment, and selling the products they make at home, to be one of their primary responsibilities. Our state and federal governments, too often, take it for granted. And too often governments do even worse: they block overseas companies from investing here, and selling their products here.

“Protecting domestic industries from foreign competition is a sure way to stifle innovation and job creation, as our experience protecting the American auto industry sadly attests. The trade agreement the Obama Administration has hammered out with Korea, which should win support from a majority of both parties, would help create jobs in our most promising industries, while also allowing American consumers to save more of their paychecks.

“America is still a nation of producers – but what we manufacture has changed. Instead of making t-shirts and televisions, we now make products that require greater skill – from designing fashions to writing software to creating content for the media and arts, like here at the Steiner Film and TV Studios. The more international markets we can open up for these products, the more jobs we can create here at home. And if we don’t get into those markets, other countries will. Already, more and more of those who have been competing on wages are now competing on skill, and that’s a competition we can’t afford to lose.

“Third: Reform regulations.

“It’s not that we need more regulation or less regulation – it’s that we need smarter regulation – regulation based on what companies do today, not what their industries have been called for decades.

“Today, derivatives are as important to agricultural and insurance companies as they are to banks. But they’re all regulated by different government agencies that are dominated by lobbyists, guided by partisanship, and overseen by a laundry list of legislative committees. And as we all know, government agencies inevitably become more consumed with their turf and their power than with the quality of service they provide to their customers. Legislatures inevitably layer more and more rules and regulations on the agencies, carefully tailored around the needs of industries that support their re-election campaigns.

“Here in New York City, we’re tackling the challenge head-on, by re-thinking the entire way our agencies interact with the public – so that an agency’s work is focused around its customers, not its rules.

“We need more of this approach at both the state and federal level. We need to re-think and re-build government with the consumer in mind – that is, the American workers and taxpayers, not bureaucrats and special interests.

“Four: Cut business taxes.

“High federal business taxes can lead companies to move operations overseas – look at how tightly Ireland is clinging to its low corporate tax rate. Similarly, high local taxes can lead businesses, and business leaders, to move out of state.

“It’s very encouraging that this week’s compromise agreement between the White House and Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts also cuts taxes for companies that invest in new plants or equipment. It’s critical that Congress pass these cuts so that new spending and new investments can create new jobs.

“In New York City, we’ve cut taxes for 17,000 small businesses and sole proprietors, which has given a real boost to businesses just getting off the ground and it helps encourage more out-of-work New Yorkers to launch their own start-ups.

Five: Invest in job training.

“We’ve seen what a difference it can make here in New York City. Up until 2004, our Workforce One Career Centers were placing about 500 New Yorkers in jobs a year. Last year, in the depth of the national recession, we made 25,000 job placements – a fifty-fold increase. And this year, we’re on track to reach 30,000 job placements. How did we do it? We did it by completely revamping our Workforce centers, by connecting our job-training programs to our economic development programs and offering training in the skills that companies are looking for now – not five years from now. By doing this, we’ve been better able to connect the supply of labor to the demand for labor. And we’ve also improved access to our training and placement services, by expanding the number of centers and their hours of operation.

“Today, we are announcing that we will open 10 new Workforce One Express Centers across the City over the next year. The Express Centers will focus exclusively on screening and matching jobseekers to jobs – and they will partner with community colleges, public libraries, and neighborhood organizations in areas where there are high concentrations of unemployment. Our goal is to increase job placement to 35,000 in 2011, and to 40,000 in 2012.

“Cities across the country have expressed interest in our approach – and the federal government is wisely funding the replication of our approach in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and parts of Ohio. But it could help many more unemployed people by opening more centers like ours around the country, especially in areas with high concentrations of unemployment.

“Making sure that companies are able to hire the people they need brings us to our sixth and final step: Fix immigration.

“There is nothing we could do to unleash innovation and job growth that would be more powerful than fixing our broken immigration system. Right now, our immigration policy is a form of national suicide. We educate the best and brightest from around the world, and then we tell our companies that they can’t hire them. We ship them home where they can take what they learned here and use it to create companies and products that compete with ours. The rest of the world is thanking us! They’re doing everything they can to attract those very people – and we’re doing our best to help them.

“Any person with the skills our companies need ought to be able to work here. And any entrepreneur with capital to invest ought to be able to immigrate here. Immigrant-owned companies have created over 400,000 jobs nationwide since 1990 – and one-quarter of high-tech companies founded in the U.S. since 1990 have had immigrants as founders. The next generation of immigrant entrepreneurs is waiting in the wings – and letting them in would be one of the best ways to start solving our unemployment problem.

“In New York, we know the economic power of immigration – because we see it every day. Nearly 40 percent of city residents were born outside the U.S., and beyond the cultural, religious, and civic contributions they make to our city – they do something else: they work. They start businesses. They create jobs. They pay taxes. We need more of that, not less.

“Here at the Navy Yard, we took advantage of a federal program that provides a green card to anyone who is willing to invest more than $500,000. That helped the Navy Yard attract $60 million in new investment – and now Steiner Studios has used the same program to attract another $65 million to fund its expansion.

“We want even more foreign capital to come here – so that more jobs are created here. The federal government could do that very simply: by making it easier to qualify for the program. And it should go further, by creating a new visa that allows immigrant entrepreneurs who have U.S. investors to come to America to launch their businesses. Any elected official who says he or she is pro-business ought to be able to get behind this idea.

“Even if the road ahead for comprehensive immigration reform may be tougher in today’s climate, the two parties ought to be able to join together in making it easier for businesses to hire the people they need. Right now, there are many high-skill jobs that American companies cannot fill, because they cannot find the workers – and other companies are struggling to fill low-wage jobs that Americans will not take. Family reunification is a compassionate goal, but when it comes to assigning visas, we can no longer afford to disregard the needs of our businesses. Allowing companies to far more easily hire and keep the best and the brightest and the hardest-working would be perhaps the most powerful economic stimulus package Congress could create. It would not cost a nickel, and most importantly, it would help businesses expand and hire more unemployed Americans.

“In New York City, we have made innovation the centerpiece of our economic development and job creation strategies. Whether it’s the small business incubators we’ve created in industries ranging from food service to fashion or the investments we’ve made in large bioscience labs or the infrastructure we’ve funded here in the Navy Yard and around the City, we have created the conditions that incentivize private investment, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract global talent.

“That is not a liberal or conservative approach to job creation – it’s an effective approach. And it’s an approach we need more of at the state and national level.

“We don’t have all the answers here in New York City. But we do understand that if we embrace our strengths as a country – our entrepreneurial foundation, our culture of innovation, our world-class higher education system, our freedom and social mobility, and our diversity – if we embrace these strengths, we can grow our economy, create jobs, and reconstitute our broken system. If we make the choice to commit to these goals, we will have the change we want.

“We all know that hard choices await us – at every level of government. Here in New York we faced similar tough fiscal choices following the devastating attacks of 9/11. Back then, we made the tough decisions. They weren’t always the popular decisions – but they were the right decisions. And they laid the foundation for the City’s resurgence.

“Today, we again have our future in our own hands. We can blame others or we can put our nose to the grindstone and get back to work. We can keep kicking the can down the road and allow the country to fall farther behind, as we have in recent years or we can face up to the hard choices and do what Americans have done so well in the past: Pull together, remembering who we are, and why our ancestors came here.

“Hard-working New Yorkers inspire me every day – and I believe in the American work ethic and the American Dream more than ever. We are strong as a nation and resolved as a people and if we act and seize this moment, we can continue to be the greatest country ever brought forth in this world.

“Thank you.”

Ezra Klein throws it out there, and I could see it working.

From Wash Post:

On Feb. 5, 2011, the president signed the Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction Act of 2011 into law. The legislation lifted the employer-portion of the payroll tax for a year, approved more than $50 billion in infrastructure investments, and cut the deficit. The markets cheered the move, and employers, realizing that consumers were about to have more money in their pockets and that hiring new employees had suddenly become a bargain, quickly moved to expand their labor forces. It was a coup not just for the president, but for the new speaker of the House.

Six days after the 2010 election, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were invited to the White House to meet with President Obama. When they got there, they found Obama and Pete Rouse sitting at a table with a single piece of paper in front of them. It was a clipping of Gov. Mitch Daniels’s September op-ed proposing a conservative stimulus plan. “Congratulations on your win last week,” said the president. “You really thumped us. What do you think of this?”

Frankly, this is the type of bi-partisan legislation that makes sense…but I doubt Republicans in the House (especially the Tea Party crew) will want to work on any legislation that appears as if they’re spending money. Because let’s remember, they derided legislation to help the unemployed that was paid for by spending cuts and would have reduced the budget deficit (according to the CBO). If that’s the case, any agreement on bills like the above are doubtful.

For some people, the development of the new Coffee Party USA organization seemed like a godsend in response to the more extreme elements in the Tea Party movement. At first I thought that this could be the grassroots movement I’d been waiting for – one that actually included moderates independents, and actively worked across ideological divides to look for common ground, rather than partisan gain. In short, I was wrong.

After spending a few months helping organize the Nebraska chapter, helping upgrade sections of the national website and working on a few ad hoc subcommittees trying to build some structure in the organization… it became clear to me that the public reputation of the Coffee Party as a liberal answer to the Tea Party was actually quite true.

Some rumors about the organization showed no evidence of being true however.

The rumors about this being funded by some wealthy liberal entity showed no sign of being true from the inside, or the outside if you’re someone who knows what money looks like in an organization. At every turn, the leadership asked how we could accomplish our goals using free to nearly free options, and a number of things were turned down as options that cost merely a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars.

However, there really isn’t any transparency in the organization, so I have no way to verify whether any of these claims are true or not. I did overhear some upper level people talking about low five digits having been raised, on a conference call, but have no idea where, or if, any of it is being spent, and while there has been talk of there being a board… I have no idea who these people are. For an organization claiming to be bottom up, both of these things are inexcusable, easy to fix, and were ignored when brought up by volunteers internally.

Problems like this… fundamental organizational issues, easy to fix and ignored by the leadership… are endemic internally at Coffee Party USA. If I had to pick one reason, other than the ideological bent, that I left, this would be it.

I also saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA having any direct coordination with Democratic party groups. They did seem intent on being sure to remain independent actors, not pawns of larger forces. This being the case, they had no problem hawking liberal talking points, from liberal icons and sources like President Obama, Paul Krugman, several Huffington Post articles and even Daily Kos.

I saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA being “astroturfed” either. Much to the contrary, they’re easily the most disorganized group of any size I’ve ever been a part of that had been around for more than a few months. The leadership of the organization claimed that they did not have time to do the work necessary to put the foundation of the organization on solid ground, but they of course had plenty of time to put together panel discussions, make promotional videos, pontificate and go on TV shows, among other things.

I took a few weeks off after expressing some of my concerns (along with other people) to see if the leadership would actually do anything about them, and left recently because I saw no efforts towards that. The main selling points for me, were the nonpartisan & non-confrontational tack they took, and how they appeared to look for common ground, rather than further raising the political temperature.

Early communications built an image of a somewhat left leaning organization who’s core was nonpartisan. But over time, as the conversations turned into action, it became clear that this wasn’t the case, and were neither nonpartisan, non-confrontational nor committed to working across traditional partisan divides.

While I was there, there was no active effort to bring people in from the center or right, while the liberal messaging, unwillingness to make it plain that we weren’t in fact a liberal response to the Tea Party (this was brought up several times internally, but rebuffed because they didn’t want to discourage liberal activist members), and with the media predictably painting the Coffee Party as such allowed the organization to be defined as what it in fact is… a liberal grassroots-ish organization.

A quick look at CPUSA’s Facebook page, the website, emails they’ve sent out, message boards and especially the internal conversations, among other things… show a fairly standard liberal grassroots organization. To be plain, this organization wishes to be seen as a nonpartisan group only so it can have a glean of high minded nonpartisanship and gain members in the center so they can better justify their liberal positions.

It didn’t help that the leadership flip flopped on early promises to only support the use of non-confrontational tactics by local chapters. They also flip flopped on a promise to make decisions on what issues the organization would take stances on through open votes among the general membership… among a number of other issues that were brought up internally.

Again, the leadership claimed to not have enough time to do the foundational work that an organization needs to do to be effective. If they have the time to be on panel discussions, make videos, develop new campaign after new campaign, podcasts, blogs, etc etc etc… they have plenty of time to focus on developing the organization. They just choose not to, showing where their priorities were. The most preposterous side of this whole mess was that they actually used the organization as a vehicle for self promotion, promoting the two founders’ documentary through official organization channels. This is clearly unethical.

When people spoke up about some of these issues, the leadership ignored those threads, and usually the conversations would die off after a day or two, with no response or action taken. The issues kept coming up every week or so, and I began to see that they were in no way interested in actually addressing these issues when I received two calls from Billy Wimsatt, one of the top level people, that offered a position higher up in the organization… but only if I would stop bringing up issues I had.

This was unacceptable to me, and should be to most. Independents and moderates beware. Unless you want to be token non-liberals that will be used to reach liberal ends, this is not the organization we’ve been waiting for.

Could the following be the new Crossfire? Let’s hope, and we have 4 different programs to show us.

First, the War on Drugs…

I encourage you to follow this program and share it with your friends. Because that’s the only way we’ll be able to get this type of debate into the mainstream.

Next up is a debate on corporate farming. I’ll have that soon…

Almost exactly 5 years ago, Wired.com ran an article chronicling the various reasons why nuclear energy was a decent idea. At the time, I was skeptical upon reading the headline, but once I dug into the article I was swayed and considered this alternative more seriously.

It was definitely a controversial piece, but it was hard to refute the conclusion: nuclear energy is essential to our long term “green” plans…

On a cool spring morning a quarter century ago, a place in Pennsylvania called Three Mile Island exploded into the headlines and stopped the US nuclear power industry in its tracks. What had been billed as the clean, cheap, limitless energy source for a shining future was suddenly too hot to handle.

In the years since, we’ve searched for alternatives, pouring billions of dollars into windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. We’ve designed fantastically efficient lightbulbs, air conditioners, and refrigerators. We’ve built enough gas-fired generators to bankrupt California. But mainly, each year we hack 400 million more tons of coal out of Earth’s crust than we did a quarter century before, light it on fire, and shoot the proceeds into the atmosphere.

The consequences aren’t pretty. Burning coal and other fossil fuels is driving climate change, which is blamed for everything from western forest fires and Florida hurricanes to melting polar ice sheets and flooded Himalayan hamlets. On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor – right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.)

Burning hydrocarbons is a luxury that a planet with 6 billion energy-hungry souls can’t afford. There’s only one sane, practical alternative: nuclear power.

Sure, we had the boogeymamn of Three Mile Island, but that was a blip on the radar of this new energy revolution. Also, when you consider that many other first world nations have embraced this tech (including France…in a big way), it becomes even more compelling.

Maybe that’s why we didn’t see too many objections in the left blogosphere to Obama’s nuclear energy proposals in the State of the Union speech? After all, there are over 100 nuclear reactors in operation right now in the US and they provide almost 20% of the nation’s electricity.

Well, now we hear he’ll be freeing up some tax credits to catch up with the rest of the world…

President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades, an administration official said Friday.

The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan administration officials hope will draw Republican support. Obama’s direct involvement in announcing the award underscores the political weight the White House is putting behind its effort to use nuclear power and alternative energy sources to lessen American dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

Loan guarantees for other sites are expected to be announced in the coming months, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been made public. The federal guarantees are seen as essential for construction of any new reactor because of the huge expense involved. Critics call the guarantees a form of subsidy and say taxpayers will assume a huge risk, given the industry’s record of cost overruns and loan defaults.

I think criticism is fair when it comes to cost overruns, but as far as the science goes…this is essential. We need to put the demons of the past in proper perspective and focus on the future. Nuclear is safer than many energy technologies and we should pursue it until something can replace it. So, for the next 50 years, this will help us move away from “clean” coal and to a more productive, environmentally responsible solution.

Agreed?

For my money, Scarborough is one of the best political talking heads around. He’s sincere, thoughtful and genuinely seems like he wants to get to the bottom of the issues.

Recently he penned a must read column over at Huffington Post that’s already feels timeless.

Here’s how he starts…

Ten years ago, Charles Krauthammer took note of what seemed to be conventional wisdom at the turn of the century: that the United States dominated the world economically, culturally and militarily in a way that no other empire had done since imperial Rome. The Washington Post columnist was right, but not for long. [...]

Americans’ hubris at the end of the 20th Century gave way to an time of cynicism and doubt. In a few short years, our unipolar world became multipolar and America looked less like Julius Caesar’s Rome than an empire besieged by an assortment of invading barbarians.

His strategy is straight forward…

1. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS OVERSEAS

Over the past decade, America has found itself bogged down by two occupations that drained our Republic of blood, treasure and credibility. And while we have been exhausting our resources in the pursuit of war, China has been making strategic gains across Asia, Africa and with our economic allies.

America can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman. Instead, we should only go to war as a last resort and then follow the strategy laid out by Colin Powell before the first Iraq War: “We will find the enemy, we will cut off the enemy, we will kill the enemy and we will come home.”

2. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS AT HOME

George W. Bush decided to increase spending at record rates at the same time he added a $7 trillion debt to Medicare, passed massive tax cuts and fought two wars on the other side of the globe. Choosing guns and butter–and trillions of dollars for a new entitlement program–put America’s future in the hands of foreign creditors.

President Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt and doubled it.

Barack Obama inherited a $11 trillion national debt and his budget plans will double that debt over the next decade.

By the time the 44th president leaves office, his own administration admits that US debt will equal 100% of America’s GDP.

3. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS IN OUR RHETORIC

Ask a Republican why they refuse to give President Obama the benefit of any doubt and they will tell you it is because of how badly Democrats treated George W. Bush. But Democrats justified those attacks against Bush by pointing to the terrible treatment that Republicans like myself gave Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Many Republicans who attacked Clinton without pause pointed back to the liberal establishment’s harsh, personal attacks against Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Unfortunately, there will always be party hacks and political extremists on both sides. But my belief is in this new decade, there will be a growing majority of Americans who will rise to the challenges that face us over the next decade and punish politicians who engage in nasty political campaigns.

This is my belief too, although Scarborough and I certainly differ about reforming health care. But there’s a lot we line up on here, and if an independent candidate can capture the zeitgeist Scarborough sums up here (Maybe as a campaign slogan? “An End To Recklessness?”) it could resonate.

Thoughts?

I found this over at Power Line and I’m reprinting it in full…

I’m delighted to be collaborating with Joe Trippi, one of my favorite liberals, on a bipartisan project to support America’s veterans. The project is called the Eleven Eleven campaign; the objective is to get 11 million Americans to contribute $11 apiece to support America’s vets. The campaign will be internet-driven, and all bloggers are invited to participate. Here is a description of the campaign:

This Veterans Day marks the beginning of The Eleven Eleven Campaign — a nationwide campaign by BeyondTribute.org to change the way America honors its Veterans.

The objective of the campaign is simple: to get 11 million Americans to donate $11 to support America’s Veterans. We’ve made giving back to our Vets simple through a national Text to Give Campaign (simply text “VETS” to 85944 to contribute).

Contributions are distributed directly to Beyond Tribute’s 11 coalition partners, who specialize in providing direct services and advocacy for Veterans of all eras and conflicts, including World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, and the present day conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We’re asking bloggers from around the web and across the political spectrum to join us in making this Veteran’s Day a holiday not about sales in the stores, but about making a difference in the lives of our Veterans.

To that end, we’d like to invite you to a special campaign announcement call for bloggers this Monday, November 9th at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Join Gold Star Mother Ruth Stonesifer, Democratic political consultant Joe Trippi and Power Line blogger John Hinderaker to learn more about the campaign and how you can help make this November 11th a day when bloggers come together to support our Vets.

Please RSVP to the conference call here:

http://action.eleven-eleven.org/t/5400/signUp.jsp?key=2817

Dial-in Number: 1-213-289-0500

Participant Access Code: 4670471

The Eleven Eleven Campaign begins on Veterans Day, 2009 – but it continues every day until our goal is reached: bringing 11 million Americans together to change the way America honors its Veterans – moving beyond tribute to action and support.

The organizations that will receive support from the campaign include groups like American Gold Star Mothers, the Wounded Warriors Project, the VFW Foundation, and more. If you have a web site, please join us on the conference call tomorrow at 5 Pacific, 8 Eastern for more information. Thanks!

Do you have $11 to spare on November 11th? Hope so, but if not please promote this on your blog and/or social spaces so the word is spread far and wide.

The bill that Baucus passed today didn’t have a public option in it. Let me repeat that…Baucus’ bill had NO PUBLIC OPTION in it.

Yes, there are decentralized not-for-profit co-ops, but that’s definitely not a public option as had been proposed.

Here’s more about what’s in the bill, from Politico:

The bill requires individuals to buy insurance, or else face a penalty of between $750 and $950 annually, depending on income level, and a maximum of $3,800 for families with incomes 300 percent of the poverty line. The Senate HELP bill sets the fine at $750 per year, while the House bill levies a two percent tax on the adjusted gross income of an individual who does buy insurance.

The Finance Committee bill would not mandate businesses to provide coverage for their employees – as the House and Senate HELP bill does – but it would require them to defray the cost of any government subsidies for which their employees would qualify.

To pay for the overhaul, the legislation calls for raising $214 billion through a 35 percent excise tax on high-end insurance plans, assessing $93 billion in fees on industry players, including device manufacturers, insurers and clinical laboratories, and making a series of tax code changes.

And yet no Republicans will support it? Not even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe? What gives?

Personally, I think this says a lot about the GOP and their sincerity. It seems to me that all they really want to do is block health care reform because it’s good politics. Sure, there are big costs involved, but they’re paid for with new revenue generation and cuts in Medicare and CHIP. So Snowe’s explanation that she won’t support it due to costs are, well, pretty thin.

And to that point about Medicare…how many Republicans do you hear talking about cutting this program or crying foul about being able to pay for it? Answer: all of them.

Well, their tune changes when Dems actually propose cutting funding and/or paying for it…

“This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy.

Isn’t it a conservative principle to not give people everything for free and make sure folks pay for things so you can balance the books?

I’m getting so tired of this, and it’s one of the reasons why I haven’t been posting lately. Nobody on the right seems to want to actually compromise on this stuff and it’s beyond frustrating.

However, Republicans beware…if you don’t accept something that you’ve had a say in you might be presented with an option that you really don’t like.

But hey, maybe that’s what they want. Let the Dems pass something with a robust public option so they can just complain about it, call it fiscally irresponsible, cry socialism, etc. Perhaps smart politics, but they can’t say they didn’t have a seat at the table. Baucus’ bill is not a kabuki dance and he has compromised on a lot. Too bad Republicans haven’t held up their end of the bipartisan bargain.

And [our predecessors] knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
-Barack Obama in his speech tonight before Congress.

I’ll have more tomorrow, but yes…this was a big, big, big speech. He put it all on the line and presented health care reform in such a way that he had Republican standing up and applauding 75% of the time. Truly impressive.

And yes, there will still be a lot of yelling.

And yes, the health care fight will still be tough.

But what Obama showed the country tonight very clearly is that he’s not a partisan warrior, nor a crypto-socialist. He is a serious, thoughtful man who genuinely believes that bipartisanship is achievable. That’s why I voted for him and he didn’t disappoint tonight.

Again, more tomorrow…

As many of you already know, Obama is set to give a speech next week that will either save or scuttle health care. I think we can all agree on that much.

The question is: what will he propose?

Well, at least one unlikely Republican health care reform advocate is already floating his trial balloon and it sounds a lot like the Wyden-Bennett bill that
mw and I agreed on last week. (PS – Yes, we actually agreed. You should go read that now before I change my mind. :-) )

Here’s more about Corker’s proposal from Wash Post:

“There is a common ground,” Corker said Wednesday in an interview before his final town hall meeting. “It’s half a loaf, possibly, from the administration’s viewpoint. But what it does is take us way down the field.” [...]

Many of the proposals Corker mentioned to his constituents are ideas that Democrats also support and have included in their own reform plans. As he sees it, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, Corker told the crowd, and would offer an array of plans via a new insurance exchange, unrestricted by the current boundaries of state insurance laws. To help the uninsured gain coverage, the government would provide vouchers or tax credits, and would tax the most generous employer-offered plans to pay the cost.

But Corker is making it very clear: no public option.

As I mentioned last month on a couple of occasions, there was really no hope for it anyway and we were headed down a path towards compromise once Dems were unable to get these bills out of committee.

And even though some think Obama will still pass a bill with a monolithic public option via reconciliation, I don’t buy it. This thing is too big, the stakes are too high and he could, in one fell swoop, completely alienate the independents who voted for “change” last fall.

That’s why these signs from Republicans are encouraging. Even the Gang of Six, which had fractured after Enzi and Grassley inexplicably started actively campaigning against healthy care reform last week, is coming back together to try and work through some things. I have no idea if they’ll actually come up with a solution, but it’s at least a sign that Republicans might be having second thoughts about not being part of this thing. Now we just have to hope that they’re genuine.

More as it develops…

The Finance Committee keeps plugging away and the Maine senator talks to Andrea Mitchell about it…

Yes folks, it’s all about co-ops. That will allow the moderate Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats enough cover to vote for this thing.

The only question now is will the left wing of the Democratic party accept this bill and give themselves the much needed win on health reform that they need?

More as it develops…

Not a whole lot of good has come the way to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) these days. The only organization I can think of that gets more right wing scorn has been ACORN, who I think mostly get picked on because they don’t fight back. Another ally, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), is seeing similar problems getting its legislative priorities passed.

While you could point out any number of mistakes these organizations have made in the last few months, perhaps the most glaring is their belief that they could use the momentum from the 2008 election to push their dream bills through to passage. Their sometimes misplaced tactics haven’t helped their cause either, pulling silly publicity stunts and waging a terribly mismanaged media push. The real meat of it was their misconstrued overall strategy of shoving this legislation through, over the opposition of nearly all republicans and a good chunk of moderate Democrats.

This was just plain foolish. They had to know that they would have a hard time getting moderate Dems to vote their way on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or card check if you prefer). They couldn’t have been so blind as to think the Blue Dogs would just roll over on their health care plan, with it costing so much… right?

Some polling has shown a bit of a shift, but numbers have been relatively steady on the issue of the secret ballot being favored over card check, and how wary the public is when it comes to expansion of government into health care. With the debt rocketing into the sky at an historic pace, and promised cost savings being debunked by the CBO, rather than work with the swing votes in the Senate to find a compromise these groups, and liberal organizations like them, have chosen perhaps the most ineffective strategy they could take.

Demonize the moderates.

There is a reason why politicians tone down the partisan their rhetoric after winning primaries, and why many are now saying that 2010 might not be so bad for Republicans after all. Attacking representatives who speak for those of us who worry about liberal overreach and a need for fiscal sanity helps nobody but the Republican party. Democrats may have the majority, and 60 votes in the Senate, but liberals do not… and this will not change any time soon.

Realizing this and working with the center, rather than attacking us, will allow these organizations to make progress on their legislative goals, keep their solid majority and stem the tide of independents that are now beginning to peel their support off. The silver lining of all of this, from my more centrist perspective, is this is leading to even more people leaving both parties. With over 40% of the population now identifying as independents, it is just a matter of time before something happens that turns the independent groundswell into a movement.

In my last post I detailed some of the roadblocks that have kept the Democratic leadership in Washington from finding a way to pass a major health care reform bill with a public option. They’ve whittled the cost of the bill down a few hundred billion dollars by negotiating concessions from drug companies and hospitals, as well as settling on a provision that would have employers pay a fee for each employee they do not already cover. The two main proposals to fill the budgetary gap have stalled, and are possibly dead in the water. So what other options are there?

Past the constant calls for saving money by eliminating wasteful spending, which never seem to materialize into actual legislation, we need to find new forms of income to pay for this bill. They seem to be failing at convincing enough senators to support taxing benefits and the more affluent, so what else is left?

For the most part, we pay for our governmental services through income taxes (both individual and corporate), property taxes and consumption taxes. Property taxes are used for other things and rightfully shouldn’t be on the table here. The two proposals that were trotted out for discussion by the Democratic leadership were both taxes on types of income. What remains are consumption taxes.

In a way, consumption taxes are the most fair. For instance it makes perfect sense to tax gasoline and tires to pay for roads, as those driving on those roads need those things to do so. So doesn’t it make sense to tax those behaviors that create high health care costs? The American people seem to think so.

Kaiser Family Foundation poll

A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, from back in April, found that reforming health care is one of the public’s highest priorities, that a majority of Democrats and Independents believe that we need reform now and that a majority support taxing unhealthy behaviors as an acceptable way to pay for some of these reforms. When asked it they would support raising taxes on “items that are thought to be unhealthy, such as soda, alcohol, junk food and cigarettes,” 61% approved (39% strongly favoring, with 22% somewhat favoring the idea). I’m a huge fan of proposals that kill two (or more) birds with one stone, and I think this is a textbook example of such.

To fund a health care program, it makes much more sense to tax behaviors that lead to health problems than it does to tax income in general. By doing so we can, in one fell swoop, put more of the costs of the system in the hands of those who are causing the most problems, lower the consumption of these products AND help pay for universal health care. We already have taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and items deemed luxuries like jewelry, hotel stays and amusement parks. So why not extend similar taxes to the most unhealthy ‘food’ items in the market? (I put food in quotes because one could argue that high fat and sugar content items like pop, potato chips and many fast food items can hardly be described as food)

First on the cutting block is alcohol, with 68% of respondents strongly or somewhat favoring raising taxes on it to help pay for health care reform. Smoking is more demonized in our country, but alcohol related health costs actually outweigh those related to smoking. The Marin Institute lists several alcohol related health care costs, among them $175.9 billion on alcohol related problems, also saying that they bring about “$184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths.” This being the case, I see it as nothing but reasonable to levy a higher tax on alcohol, possibly in relation to which forms of it result in the worst outcomes, that is equal to the cost to society it incurs.

Still with a few hundred billion dollars to go, we come to tobacco. I was a bit surprised that a higher cigarette tax was supported by fewer than the increased alcohol tax, but this may be because tobacco products are already taxed at a high rate. Florida alone loses $20 billion dollars when you compare the taxes it collects to the money it pays out, amounting to nearly $7,000 per smoker. A study released by the CDC in 2002 showed that “For each of the approximately 22 billion packs sold in the U.S. in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking, and $3.73 in productivity losses were incurred, for a total cost of $7.18 per pack.” These numbers are sure to have risen since then, and with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 billion packs of cigarettes sold in the US last year, it seems more than fair to tack on at least another few dollars per pack.

Whether or not this fills the gap entirely, we also should look at taxing the most unhealthy food items. A study at University of Victoria (British Colombia) found that all income groups would benefit, although more so near the top of the economic spectrum, from a tax on junk foods that sent money towards health care programs. I would suggest that this disparity would be less pronounced in the US, where many people near the bottom of the economic spectrum have much more to gain from such an arrangement, given that it will help pay for health insurance that many of them currently do not have.

Put all of these together, and you might piece together enough to get over the hump. At the very least we could make it easier to pass one of the income tax ideas by lowering the amounts they’d have to raise through it.

One might argue that this would cause people to consume less of these products, thereby reducing the income from the levies. My response would be that we should then increase the taxes to keep up with the costs. This would hopefully create a cycle where more people would consume less, making the purchase of such products even more expensive, driving more out and lowering costs to treat those people over the long run. Herein lies the killing two birds with one stone situation.

One might also argue that this is a regressive tax. In effect it will be that way, at least at first. It is the lower end of the spectrum that spends a larger amount of their overall income on food. They also tend to eat less healthy foods. However, nobody forces them to choose to purchase these particular food items. Nobody should force them to quit, but if they want to continue to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, the rest of society should not be forced to subsidize it.

If people want to smoke, drink or eat themselves to death, then they can make a down payment on the hundreds of thousands of dollars the government will pay to take care of many of them during the last months of their lives. If we can save some of them from that fate by enacting the proposals mentioned above, thats even better.

Universal Health Care... How?

The Obama administration has managed to collect some concessions from hospital groups and drug companies, to the tune of over $200 billion in savings over ten years. This is nothing to sneeze at, but it still leaves the lion’s share of the proposed legislation searching for funding. Setting a requirement for employers to pay a fee to help cover uninsured employees takes another bite out, leaving hundreds of billions still to be found.

The Democratic leadership has brought up two major ideas fill that gap:

1. taxing the medical benefits of higher earners
2. a surtax on those who make more than $280,000 a year.

After some early indications otherwise, the proposal to tax medical benefits seems to be dead in the water. Support in the Senate dissolved when several polls put the opposition to such an idea among the public at around 59%. Unions, many of whom have negotiated higher benefits in lieu of higher pay over the last few years, were especially vocal in their opposition, which assured the proposal would lose enough support among democrats to block its passage.

It’s unclear whether the surtax proposal has enough support to make it through the senate either. Polls show people’s potential opposition of higher taxes to fund better coverage has been mixed. However, about 60% of those polled are for taxing those making over $280,000 a year to fund reform, lending weight to the surtax proposal. Charlie Rangel, who proposed the surtax plan, is expected to introduce the legislation Monday, but comments by several influential Senate Democrats suggest its chances of passage may be slim.

Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate (and Obama’s Blackberry buddy), has come out saying that the proposal is unlikely to pass. Kent Conrad, prominent member of a moderate group of Democratic Senators that would have to support any proposal entirely to block a filibuster, has said that he thinks the senate is heading in a direction other than controversial ideas like these two proposals. If these two senators are correct, and no other major solutions are being offered, then what options are left?

Passing a reform bill of this magnitude was not expected to be a walk in the park. Reforming a massive and labyrinthine system – with interests holding considerable clout and an opposition bent on stopping a public option – would be difficult even if the Democrats had a few more seats in the Senate. So far, Obama has been fairly hands off in his approach to working with congressional leaders on legislation. He seems to favor dealing out broad strokes of what he’d like to see in a bill that he would sign. This time he’s going to have to put more skin in the game and put some of that political capital to the test. If he can’t push either of these two funding proposals pushed through the Senate, he will have to explore other options.

Read on about some of those options in my next post, How TO pay for Health Care Reform.

Does anyone care about the opinions of former Senate majority leaders? What if one was once his party’s presidential nominee and another one nearly became President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services?

Today, former Senate majority leaders Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and Howard Baker released a health care plan they claim includes the kind of compromises necessary to win significant support from both parties.

The plan seeks to reconfigure health care reimbursement to focus on health outcomes, a tricky maneuver to say the least. But that’s just one of the ways they hope to reduce costs. It’s not where the compromise comes in. The former senators want to tax health care benefits over a certain level (something most Dems are against), mandate coverage (something Republicans don’t like), cap premiums and out-of-pocket percentages (market controls that aren’t usually popular with the right) and create state-level insurance systems rather than a federal one (and you know the left has their heart set on a Big Daddy system coming out of Washington).

Whether this plan is any good or not is up for debate. But at least Dole, Daschle and Baker are making a concerted effort to draft bipartisan legislation. Rather than trying to ram through one side’s idea or saying no to every idea, this plan takes a shot at bringing everyone to the table.

Dole says a true bipartisan bill should be able to win the votes of 20 Senate Republicans. That’s a tall order. But if enough congress people buy into the idea of compromise (and there is some common ground out there), it might be possible. Whether a compromise bill ends up being any more effective than one forced through by Democrats is unknown. But I think it’s definitely the way we should be heading.
———

Looking for cheap health insurance? Get individual health insurance quotes from top companies simply by completing a quick interview form.