Public Wants Bipartisanship & Compromise From Government

 

The charts above are from the CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between October 4th and 9th of a nationwide sample of 1,255 adults, with a3.4 point margin of error.

The American people are disgusted with the way the federal government is acting right now. They want problems solved -- and they want both parties to act in a bipartisan way to compromise and solve those problems.

McCarthy - Stop The Extremists & Pass A Budget W/Dems

From The Washington Post editorial board: 

The U.S. government will almost certainly shut down on Oct. 1, the work of ultraconservative holdouts who want to “burn the whole place down,” as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) put it. Yet, for now, Mr. McCarthy does not appear willing to take away the matches. He could sideline the objectors by calling House Democrats and agreeing to pass bipartisan legislation to fund the government. . . .

 The resisters had plenty of chances to bargain, and they have refused. They won’t even approve a defense bill that has everything in it they want. And even if legislation passed the House, the Democratic-controlled Senate would reject it.

Those Democrats have good reason to object to House GOP spending-cut proposals. President Biden and Mr. McCarthy agreed in May to a 2024 and 2025 budget outline that includes some spending cuts (about$180 billion worth of savings in those two years). But the holdouts demand more — and big — cuts. They argue a government shutdown is better than approving a bipartisan budget.

If the objectors’ goal is to control government spending, as they claim, forcing a destabilizing and expensive shutdown over what amounts to only about 10 percent of the federal budget is counterproductive. They don’t want to touch Social Security or Medicare. They refuse to discuss tax policy. They want to increase spending on defense, veterans aid and border control. Their deep concern about federal spending falls entirely on a portion of the “nondefense discretionary” budget, which funds education, transportation, science research, policing, parks, support for low-income Americans and other popular programs.

Meanwhile, a shutdown would hurt the economy. Historically, consumer confidence drops during shutdowns. This could be especially harmful now, as consumers and businesses pull back on spending and banks issue fewer loans. It would also demoralize federal workers at a time when many agencies are struggling to recruit. And it would reaffirm why Fitch downgraded U.S. debt last month, a decision owing largely to political dysfunction. Moody’s — the only one of the three major credit rating agencies that has not downgraded U.S. debt — has already warned a shutdown would be a “negative” in its assessment.

In an ideal world, the House and Senate would pass the necessary 12 agency budget bills by Sept. 30. But that has rarely happened this century; instead, federal budgeting usually involves smashing funding bills into one big package and passing it at the last minute — perhaps after lawmakers have given themselves an extension. That is the only realistic course now: passing a continuing resolution to keep the federal government running until December to give lawmakers time to debate and advance a full 2024 budget. The Senate is expected to approve a bipartisan “CR” by this weekend, a deal far from what the House GOP holdouts are demanding.

There is discussion of a discharge petition in the House, through which a majority of members — Democrats and some Republicans — could force a vote on a CR without Mr. McCarthy’s approval. In return for signing such a petition, moderate Republicans could insist that a bipartisan debt commission be included in any compromise deal. They could also push for Ukraine aid and other supplemental funding requests from the White House to be offset by revenue increases or spending trims elsewhere. At some point, moderate lawmakers from both parties, who represent a much broader swath of the country than the ultra-partisans, have to retake control of the legislative process.

Yet, it is hard for even the most frustrated of moderate Republicans to break ranks with their party leadership by signing on to a discharge petition. Until that changes, Mr. McCarthy is in charge, and the speaker is worried he could lose his job if he strikes a deal with Democrats to pass a CR, because the resisters would move to oust him. He should tell them, “Good luck.” Eventually, he will have to. The only way out of this impasse — in which Republicans control just one chamber of one of the two branches of government responsible for budgeting — involves bipartisan agreement.

Mr. McCarthy can’t lead the Freedom Caucus holdouts to accept this reality. But he can win over the public by putting the nation first, standing with the majority of his own party and getting a deal done — with Democratic votes.

13 Presidential Centers (Both Rep. & Dem.) Call For Respect For Rule Of Law And For Diversity Of Beliefs

 

Public Wants Politicians To Be Bipartisan And Compromise

 

The chart above reflects the result of a recent YouGov Poll -- done between June 21st and 29th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3 point margin of error. Note that a majority of adults want to see bipartisanship and compromise -- Democrats (71%), Independents (57%), and Republicans (52%).

President Biden Abandons Bipartisanship - Attacks GOP

 

President Biden has finally realized that bipartisanship is impossible with this current crop of Republicans. That's a good thing. If anything is going to get done, it will have to be done by Democrats alone.

The following is part of an op-ed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post:

President Biden spent a year trying to extend olive branches to Republicans, refusing to call out their lies about covid-19 and the 2020 election and pursuing deals with a group of Republicans on his agenda. He got a bipartisan infrastructure bill and not much else.

With the only conceivable bipartisan win already in his pocket, Biden has shifted to a feistier, more confrontational tone with Republicans. It’s about time.

In remarks about the December jobs numbers on Friday, Biden made clearthat whatever economic progress has been made came over the objections of Republicans. He took credit for robust job creation and rising wages, arguing, “How did that happen? Well, the American Rescue Plan got the economy off its back and moving again, back on its feet, getting over 20 — 200 million Americans fully vaccinated; got people out of their homes and back to work, even in the face of wave after wave of covid.”. . .

He also returned to a theme that has consistently helped Democrats win elections: Republicans are for the fat cats; Democrats are helping the little guy. “For too long, Republicans have thrown around terms like ‘pro-growth’ and ‘supply-side economics’ to drive an economic agenda that didn’t deliver enough growth and supplied more wealth to those who were already — were very well off.” Biden repeated a line he used to great effect during the campaign: “I’m determined to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out because, when we do, we get more growth, higher wages, more jobs and, over time, lower prices.”

Coming on the heels of his fiery Jan. 6 speech, Biden’s criticism of the GOP is noteworthy. A few things are going on here.

First, with all the legislative sausage-making and fights with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Biden and fellow Democrats have allowed Republicans’ obstructionism and plutocratic economics to go unchallenged. Shifting focus from the stalled, ungainly and poorly understood Build Back Better bill to an economic recovery that Democrats jump-started through the American Rescue Plan without the help of Republicans is long overdue. Talking about a success rather than an incomplete legislative effort makes perfect political sense.

Second, even if Build Back Better does not get through — or is dramatically downsized — Biden will want to run on his party’s economic record. Democrats need to take credit for job and wage gains if they are going to convince voters not to turn Congress over to the GOP. Especially because Republicans opposed any tax hikes for big corporations or the super-rich, Biden can help Democrats recapture their favorite populist message. (Once upon a time, “live like a Republican, vote Democratic” summed up Democrats’ success in delivering for working- and middle-class voters.)

Third, inflation is largely within the purview of the Federal Reserve, although Biden continues to work on untangling supply chains and cracking down on monopolistic pricing. His ability to influence inflation is minimal, but what is within his control is the ability to remind voters that Republicans oppose things that would reduce health-care, child-care and prescription drug costs. He should stress to Americans that he has held down health-care insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have tried to destroy.

Biden’s legislative slog has largely obscured his impressive economic results. His fight with Manchin has convinced many voters that the Democratic camp is the problem, not the Republicans who insist on protecting big corporations and the very wealthy from paying taxes. If Democrats are going to survive the 2022 midterms, they will do so because the economic and covid crises have receded, and because voters understand that Republicans have never been on their side.

A Majority Favors The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

The chart above reflects the results of the newest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 31st and August 3rd of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,233 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.6 points, and for registered voters is 2.9 points.

Donald Trump is upset that it looks like Republicans will let the bipartisan infrastructure bill pass. He called them weaklings, and said the bill should be defeated. But the public disagrees with him.

About 51% of adults support the bill, while only 19% oppose it. Among registered voters, it is 53% supporting to 20% opposing. Majorities of both Independents and Democrats support the bill, and even a plurality of Republicans (47%) support it.

Solution To Infrastructure Problems Is Still Far From Done

On Thursday, President Biden held a news conference with 10 senators (5 Democrats and 5 Republicans) to announce that a bipartisan agreement has been reached on an infrastructure bill. All of them celebrated this as a major accomplishment. It's not.

The agreement only provided about $600 billion in new infrastructure spending -- far from the $2.1 trillion that President Biden had asked for. And it's not even assured that this inadequate bill could be passed in the Senate. Only 5 Republicans were at the news conference, but 10 would be needed to pass the bill in the Senate.

And progressives have said they will not vote for the bill unless a companion reconciliation bill accompanies it that will provide far more than the bipartisan bill. Currently, those progressives have their reconciliation bill up to between $5 and $6 trillion. They are throwing every dream they have into the bill. But that is unrealistic. To pass a reconciliation bill, they will need the votes of all 48 Democrats, both Independents, and the Vice-President. Some moderate Democrats (like Manchin and Sinema) are not going to vote for a $5 to $6 trillion bill. 

Speaker Pelosi has said she will not allow a vote in the House on the bipartisan bill unless it is accompanied by a reconciliation bill (and President Biden has said he would not sign it with a reconciliation bill). I think the most that could be hoped for is a reconciliation bill between $1 and $2 trillion -- a bill that would restore what was cut out of President Biden's original proposal to reach bipartisan agreement.

Even that would be very difficult to achieve. Minority Leader McConnell has said he would try to kill the bipartisan bill if it is accompanied by a reconciliation bill -- and he may have enough votes to filibuster it to death.

To be blunt, infrastructure is still a mess. And there's a long way to go to get the problem solved. We would be lucky if two bills on infrastructure could reach Biden's desk by September -- and the odds are still good that no bill will be approved!
 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan Raises Taxes On Wrong People

There is a lot of talk on cable news lately about a "bipartisan" infrastructure plan. The plan would spend about $1 trillion over the next eight years. That's only about half of what President Biden had asked for, and would not do everything he wanted to accomplish. But half is better than nothing, and if the plan was fair then I would support it.

But I can't support it. The Republicans are bragging that the plan doesn't raise taxes. That's not exactly true. What they mean is the plan doesn't raise taxes on corporations or the rich. They don't seem to mind that the plan would raise taxes on working and middle class people.

President Biden had wanted to pay for his infrastructure plan by raising taxes on those making over $400,000 a year slightly, and by raising the corporate income tax to 28%. He later said he would accept raising the corporate tax to only 25%, and even floated the idea of a 15% corporate minimum tax. Those were certainly not onerous tax levels, but the Republicans opposed that. They didn't want corporations or the rich to have to share any of the burden of paying for infrastructure.

Instead, they have suggested some other ways to pay for it. They want to index the gas tax to inflation. That's a fancy way of saying they want to raise the gas tax. They also suggested taxing electric vehicle on the amount of mileage driven. Both of those would raise taxes on working and middle class people, while giving corporations and the rich a free ride.

Wouldn't the corporations be one of the biggest winners in an improved infrastructure? Of course they would. Many corporations would benefit from better broadband internet connections throughout the country, because they do a lot of business over the internet. And all corporations would benefit from better roads, bridges, ports, and airports -- because that would enhance their getting supplies and delivering their products.

We already have a very unfair economy -- with the richest Americans benefitting the most, while workers struggle to keep up. This has caused a huge and growing income/wealth gap between the 1% and the rest of America. Taxing working and middle class people while letting the rich (and their corporations) not pay more will only increase that income/wealth gap even further.

Democrats in Congress should vote against this bipartisan infrastructure plan -- at least until it is paid for in a fairer way.

Voters See Biden As Most Bipartisan - GOP Leaders As Least

The chart above is from the Morning Consult Poll -- done between May 18th and 20th of a national sample of 1,994 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

It shows that a majority of voters think President Biden cares about getting bipartisan support. They also see GOP leaders (McConnell and McCarthy) as being the least caring about bipartisanship.

That may make McConnell and McCarthy look good to the Trump-loving base of the Republican Party, but it doesn't impress the Independents (who will decide the 2022 election results).

GOP Killing The Jan 6th Investigation Bill Was A BLUNDER

 

The House-passed bill to create a bipartisan committee to investigate the January 6th Capitol riot was a gift to the Republican Party. The committee would have had 5 Democratic and 5 Republican members. That would have given Republicans control over the subpoenas issued by the committee (since 6 members would have to agree to issue a subpoena), and it would have given them an equal say in the report issued by the committee. It was the best of all possible outcomes for the GOP.

That makes it weird that most House Republicans voted against the bill, and Senate Republicans filibustered it when it arrived. And when Majority Leader Schumer tried to invoke cloture to stop that filibuster, enough Republicans voted against that to keep the filibuster alive. In effect, that killed the bill.

Does this mean there will be no investigation in Congress? Not at all! It just means there won't be a bipartisan investigation. Speaker Pelosi will make sure the investigation proceeds. She could assign the investigation to a standing House committee (like Intelligence or Judiciary), or she could create a new committee in the House to do the investigation. Either way, Democrats will control the committee by having the most members, and will be able to issue any subpoena they want (without being blocked by the Republicans). And they will be able to run that committee investigation for as long as they want -- maybe right up until the 2022 election.

If any Republican thought they had killed an investigation that would hurt them in the 2022 election, they were very wrong. All they did was give up any control they might have had in any investigation.

Minority Leader McConnell is smart enough to know this. You might wonder why he did such a stupid thing. It was to save his job. Donald Trump, and his base supporters, are not smart enough to know they were giving up control over the investigation -- so they opposed the committee's creation. And if McConnell had not actively opposed the committee's creation it could easily have cost him his leadership position. Trump and his minions would have demanded that.

Any way you look at it, the Senate Republicans committed a MASSIVE BLUNDER in killing the creation of the January 6th bipartisan investigation committee!

There Won't Be A Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

The talking heads on cable news have been playing up the "negotiations" between President Biden and the Republicans in Congress regarding an infrastructure bill. But don't be fooled. There is no chance that a bipartisan bill make it through Congress.

That's because the Republicans don't want a bipartisan bill. The offers they have made were far below what President Biden has asked for. They intentionally lowballed their offers because they know Biden can't accept them. And frankly, if he did accept one, the GOP would find a way to oppose it. They don't want a bill.

Why? Because they think that any infrastructure bill passed and signed into law would be viewed as a victory for President Biden, and they can't allow that to happen. They need the Biden administration to fail, which is why they are opposing everything the President tries to do. If they can brand Biden as a failure, they think that will give them control of Congress in the 2022 election.

Here is how Paul Waldman puts it in his column in The Washington Post:

Politics in Washington is full of playacting, but few recent charades have been as absurd as the extended negotiation between Democrats and Republicans over whether they can agree on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. . . .

Let’s start by considering three possible outcomes of this effort. First, Congress could pass a meaningful infrastructure bill with support from members of both parties. This is what both sides say they want (though that isn’t quite true, which we’ll get to in a moment).

Second, Democrats could pass an infrastructure bill with zero Republican votes. This is probably what will end up happening, provided that Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), self-appointed guardians of bipartisan compromise, can be persuaded that the effort to win the support of Republicans was performed with sufficient enthusiasm.

Third, the bill could fail altogether, either because Manchin or Sinema pulls their support, or because a Democratic senator falls ill and can’t vote for it in the 50-50 Senate, or for some other reason.

Here’s where we get to the important part. This is how President Biden would rank those three outcomes in order of his own needs and desires:

1. Bipartisan passage of the bill
2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
3. Failure of the bill

And here’s how Republicans would rank those outcomes in order of their needs and desires:

1. Failure of the bill
2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
3. Bipartisan passage of the bill

As you can see, they’re precisely reversed. Which is a big problem if you’re hoping for an agreement.

If the bill passes on a bipartisan basis, Biden gets a double victory: He can claim a big legislative win, and also tell voters that he has achieved his goal of bringing cooperation back to Washington. He’ll have done what other presidents failed to do, breaking the partisan logjam and showering benefits on communities across the country for years to come.

Which is precisely why that’s the least desirable outcome from the GOP’s perspective: Biden will get the credit, and voters will be a little less likely to believe that Washington can’t get anything done. That would be terrible for Republicans, since dysfunction and gridlock increase voter dissatisfaction and produce a big win for the opposition party in midterm elections.

If the bill fails, on the other hand, it’s a huge win for the GOP, a black eye for Biden, and proof that Democratic rule isn’t delivering for people. They show their own partisans that they’re mounting an effective opposition, and show everyone else that Biden is ineffectual and weak. . . .

Hold on, you might say: Why am I not giving Republicans more credit for sincerely wanting infrastructure to happen? Don’t their constituents need better roads and sewer systems and broadband? Wouldn’t they like to see those people’s lives improved?

Sure they would. But if their sincere desire for infrastructure held any real power for them — if it was more than just “I guess we could do that, but I’m not going to put much effort into it” — then they would have done it when Donald Trump was president.

After all, in the first two years of Trump’s presidency they had control of both houses of Congress. But they didn’t pass an infrastructure bill. They and Trump kept claiming they would — to the point where “Infrastructure Week” became a running joke — but they never did it. Once they passed their big tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, they stopped bothering to do much legislating at all.

There is no outcome, substantive or political, that Republicans would rather have than to see the infrastructure bill go down in flames. Democrats could let them write every word of it, and that would still be true.

Which is why there will be no bipartisanship on this subject. And on every other important piece of legislation during the Biden presidency, the calculation will be just the same.

Partisanship Is Just The Reality Of The 117th Congress

Bipartisanship is all that's being discussed these days by the talking heads of cable news. They seem to think that's the only way any legislation can be passed. But is that a reality-based view? The 117th Congress is the most partisan Congress in decades, and it's a legitimate question to ask if bipartisan legislation is even a possibility in this Congress.

Consider the following. It is part of a guest essay in The New York Times by John Lawrence:

There is nothing wrong with reaching across the aisle to seek common ground.

But insisting on bipartisanship — given the major policy divide between the parties on economic recovery, tax reform, climate change and health care — usually guarantees gridlock (which promotes voter cynicism) or actions that are watered down and ineffective (which are condemned by everyone, right and left).

There is nothing wrong with being partisan. . . .

In the decades after World War II, bipartisan policymaking became the norm because the ideological divisions within both parties — for example, there were numerous liberal Republicans who, since Reconstruction, supported civil rights — compelled cross-party alliances. Most issues did not break down ideologically by party. In fact, for much of the 20th century, supporters of political reform, environmentalism and civil rights could be found as easily in the Republican as in the Democratic Party.

A sizable cohort of moderate to liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits, Clifford Case and Mark Hatfield provided the votes to pass progressive legislation. Similarly, during periods of conservative activism, Republicans could reach across the aisle to find conservative Democrats (like “boll weevils”) to help pass their priorities.

But those circumstances no longer exist, and as a result, bipartisanship has become the Sasquatch of American politics: rarely seen but fervently sought. The opportunities for finding cross-party support for significant legislation, except in response to a national calamity, like the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the financial crisis, have evaporated. The parties have fundamentally changed — there are now very few liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats — and that transformation has hollowed out the middle ground of American politics. Continuing to demand bipartisanship as the validator of sound policy is not only fanciful but also self-defeating. . . .

In the past half-century, the parties have become far more ideologically unified and distinct. In a 2014 report, Pew Research found that a persuadable middle — moderate to liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats — in Congress shrank from 240 representatives and 29 senators in the 1970s to nine and three, respectively, 20 years later to none in 2014. Members of Congress voted with their party leadership 60 percent of the time just a few decades ago but now vote well over 90 percent along party lines, and even more so when voting on major policy issues.

Seeking bipartisanship looks more and more like a fool’s errand. President Barack Obama offered significant concessions to Republicans in hopes of attracting their support on legislation like the 2009 stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, but he came up almost totally empty-handed. Many Democrats were furious that their broader designs — especially on health care — had been trimmed to attract nonexistent Republican support. The consequences of this caution are still with us.

The aspect of political divisiveness that we can do something about — and that exacerbates the partisanship we probably cannot completely undo, at least for a while — is the incendiary rhetorical overkill of political debate. . . .

Our ideologically segregated parties should use political power to accomplish objectives promised in campaigns and then let voters decide if the party has earned the right to govern. True, this approach could result in sweeping policy changes, but voters would then have clarity about whom to hold responsible for governing successes and failures.

Bipartisanship Is Dead In This Congress - And That's OK

When President Biden was elected, he called for bipartisanship to solve the country's problems. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, the first group from Congress invited to the White House was a group of Republicans. President Biden wanted their help to pass a COVID relief bill -- to stimulate the economy and help hurting Americans.

He did not get that help from Republicans. They made it clear that their version of "bipartisanship" involved nothing less than Democrats surrendering to Republican demands. There would be no negotiating. It was the GOP way or no way at all.

The bill was passed, but without any Republican help. And Republicans didn't stop there. They have made it clear they won't negotiate on any bill Democrats (and President Biden) want to pass.

To be blunt -- bipartisanship is dead in the 117th Congress. The Republicans have killed any chance for it. So, what can President Biden and the Democrats do?

Here's a novel concept -- do what a clear majority of the American people want done. Let the Republicans oppose that at their own peril. And when the 2022 elections roll around, remind voters endlessly of which party supported their wishes and which party opposed them'

What does a clear majority of Americans want? Here are a few things:

* A majority wants the minimum wage raised to a livable wage.

* A majority wants the rich and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

* A majority wants all Americans to have decent health insurance (and a public option covering those who can't afford private insurance is supported by most).

* A majority wants all gun buyers to have to pass a background check.

* A majority want voting made easier for citizens -- not harder.

* A majority wants DACA "dreamers" protected and offered a path to citizenship.

These are just a few of the things that the American public would like for the government to accomplish. And Democrats should do their best to get them done. Let the Republicans oppose these things if they want. The public will support them -- and punish Republicans for opposing them.

Maybe bipartisanship can be re-established in a future Congress. I hope so. But for now, it is dead. Just do what the public wants done and don't worry about it.

McConnell Shows Himself To Be A Master Of Hypocrisy

(Caricature of Mitch McConnell is by DonkeyHotey.)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote an op-ed for Fox News a couple of days ago. In it, he bragged about how bipartisan the Senate had been under his leadership, and called for House Democrats to be bipartisan when they take control in January. Here is just part of what he wrote:

The Senate has proven its ability to reach bipartisan solutions to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation.

And looking ahead to the coming year, there will be no shortage of opportunities to continue this impressive record of cooperation across the aisle and across the Capitol.

What we can make of those opportunities will depend on our Democratic colleagues. Will they choose to go it alone and simply make political points? Or will they choose to work together and actually make a difference?

Last week, the American people made it abundantly clear that they prefer that Congress focus on making a difference.

That message may have been lost on a few House Democrats, who have made clear their preference for investigations over policy results. After years of rhetoric, it’s hardly news that some are more interested in fanning the flames of division than reaching across the aisle.

All the ridiculous op-ed shows is that McConnell is a master of the art of hypocrisy. He evidently thinks the American people will forget his actions of the last 10 years. No one in Congress has been more partisan than Mitch McConnell since 2008.

He made it his objective to oppose everything President Obama tried to do -- with no regard as to whether it might be good for the country or not. It was enough for him to oppose it just because it was proposed by a Democratic president. That never changed throughout the full eight years of the Obama administration.

And when a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, McConnell refused to act on Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland -- delaying any action on the nomination until a Republican took the White House.

Once Trump took office, McConnell continued his partisanship. Never once did he invite Democrats to participate in creating legislation, and he blocked any effort to compromise -- refusing to bring any Democratic -supported bill to the Senate floor. He also made  sure the whitewash of Trump was successful in the Senate. Even after calling on Democrats to be bipartisan, he killed an effort to bring a bill to the floor that would protect the Mueller investigation.

There have been many majority leaders (of both parties), but there has never been one as blatantly partisan as Mitch McConnell. His claim of being bipartisan is absurd, and so is his call for Democrats to reach across the aisle -- something he never did!

Plan To Fix Obamacare That Many Democrats Could Support

(Cartoon image is by Jimmy Margulies at jimmymargulies.com.)

In their effort to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a plan of their own, the Senate Republicans (and Trump) have been telling two huge lies.

The first is that Obamacare is imploding, and if nothing is done, it will fail on its own. That is not true. While Obamacare does have some problems that should be fixed, it is NOT imploding. And the problems it does have (especially with rising insurance premiums) have been exacerbated by Republican threats to stop funding the Obamacare subsidies. This has resulted in many insurance companies rising premium costs more than necessary to protect themselves if the subsidies are stopped.

The second is that Democrats think Obamacare is fine as it is, and have no suggestions for making it better. The truth is that Democrats were locked out of the process in the Senate, while Republicans crafted their terrible plans in secret. Democrats were not asked for input, which makes it more than disingenuous for McConnell and his minions to now claim Democrats offered nothing.

Democrats would love to join a truly bipartisan effort to fix the problems of Obamacare -- and they do have some ideas of how to do that. Here is one suggestion for a bipartisan solution from Neera Tanden and Topher Spiro at the Center for American Progress:

First, the legislation would need to guarantee continued payments for ACA subsidies that reduce enrollees’ cost-sharing—removing the administration’s threat of sabotage. This guarantee would not actually add any costs to government spending because these subsidies are already being paid. But resolving the uncertainty would lower premiums significantly: The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that premiums would be 19 percent lower with guaranteed cost-sharing payments.

Second, the legislation would follow the model of states like Alaska and Maine that reimburse insurers for high-cost enrollees. In Alaska, this so-called reinsurance recently lowered premium increases from 40 percent to less than 10 percent. Similarly, Maine implemented a reinsurance program in 2011 for the state’s pre-ACA individual market that helped reduce premiums by 20 percent in the first year. This is not hypothetical or abstract; it is a solution that works in the real world.

If the legislation provided $15 billion to states for reinsurance, this would lower premiums by more than 14 percent. Because this funding would lower premiums, it would save money on tax credits—resulting in an overall cost of slightly more than $4 billion per year.

If the legislation provided this reinsurance for 2018 and 2019, senators working together in good faith could easily find $8 billion in savings to pay for it. CAP presents here just two options:

• When there is a generic version of a drug, Medicare could eliminate beneficiary costs for the generic drug and increase costs for the brand drug. Congress could also speed up discounts for brand drugs for beneficiaries in the doughnut hole. These two policies would save $32 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO.
• Reform payment for health care to pay for value and quality. For instance, when he was a member of Congress, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price sponsored legislation to reform Medicare payments for care after discharge from the hospital. Under Price’s bill, Medicare would pay a fixed rate for a bundle of services over a period of time, allowing providers to share any savings. CBO estimates that such bundled payments for post-hospital care would save about $10 billion over 10 years.

Third, the legislation could use carrots to encourage insurers to enter markets where there is a single or no insurer. With respect to counties that were underserved as of June 1, insurers that enter such counties could be exempted from the health insurance tax. The government could offer a Guaranteed Choice Plan in areas where there are not sufficient choices, particularly in rural areas. People in underserved counties could be allowed to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have all supported the concept of filling in the gaps in underserved counties until the other stabilization policies have a chance to change market dynamics.

Conclusion

These policies are commonsense solutions. Insurance commissioners, actuaries, economists, the CBO, and policy experts across the political spectrum can all testify that such policies would stabilize insurance markets and lower premiums. The only barrier standing in the way of real improvement in insurance markets is the partisan rush to repeal the ACA.

Personally, I think the best fix would be to go to a single-payer system (something like a Medicare-for-all). But that would require some political courage from Congress, and that is currently not something they have much of (in either political party).

Senator McCain Chastises The Senators Of Both Parties

(This photo of Senator McCain addressing the Senate last Tuesday is from azcentral.com.)

I am not a big fan of Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). His beliefs and policies are far too conservative for me. But upon his return to the Senate last Tuesday, he gave a very good speech (and even as a die-hard left-winger, I agreed with much of what he said).

In that speech, he chastised his fellow senators (of both political parties) for engaging in purely partisan politics and refusing to work together to find compromises that would benefit the people of this country. Here is most of that speech:

I’ve known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history, true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties, and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. And they often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important, to the continued success of our Republic. And our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America’s problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world’s greatest deliberative body. I’m not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today.

I’m sure it wasn’t always deserved in previous eras either. But I’m sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions.

Our deliberations today – not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities – authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role – are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline – either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it. Certainly I have. Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes, I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes, I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy.

Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn’t glamorous or exciting. It doesn’t feel like a political triumph. But it’s usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours. 

Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments, and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, is a magnificent achievement.

Our system doesn’t depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections, and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on earth.  It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than ‘winning.’ Even when we must give a little to get a little. Even when our efforts manage just three yards and a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounce us for timidity, for our failure to ‘triumph.’ 

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That’s an approach that’s been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires. . . .

What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We’re not getting much done apart. I don’t think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn’t the most inspiring work. There’s greater satisfaction in respecting our differences, but not letting them prevent agreements that don’t require abandonment of core principles, agreements made in good faith that help improve lives and protect the American people.

The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We’ve seen it before. I’ve seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved even in a modest way with working out a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat are the proudest moments of my career, and by far the most satisfying.

This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour.

We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and in many respects to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President’s subordinates. We are his equal!

As his responsibilities are onerous, many and powerful, so are ours.  And we play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the cabinet, in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies. Our success in meeting all these awesome constitutional obligations depends on cooperation among ourselves. 

The success of the Senate is important to the continued success of America. This country – this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, good and magnificent country – needs us to help it thrive. That responsibility is more important than any of our personal interests or political affiliations. . . .

What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of the dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us.

Public Views GOP As Being Too Partisan

The congressional Republicans want Americans to think their fight with President Obama and the Democrats is over policy. While that may have been true in the past, it no longer is. A perfect example is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which they are currently labeling as some kind of evil socialist program that will destroy America. The truth is that this health care reform law was actually a Republican idea (created by Senate Republicans as a counter to health care reform proposed by Democrats during the Clinton administration). It only became "evil" after being accepted by President Obama.

The truth is that the congressional Republicans haven't operated on a policy basis since the election of President Obama. When the president was elected in 2008, they met and decided to oppose everything the president proposed (even if it was one of their own ideas, like the ACA). They now only operate on a political partisanship basis, where all of their actions are determined by opposing whatever the president wants to do. And that partisanship requires they not compromise on anything.

Fortunately the American public is finally figuring this out. They know the Republicans are operating out of pure political partisanship with no effort to compromise for the good of the country -- and they don't like it. Americans want both parties to compromise, and get the economy moving again (as both parties have done in the past). The teabaggers in the GOP base may love this "hate on Obama" strategy, but most Americans don't -- and this could bite the Republican Party in the next election.

The chart above reflects information from a recent Rasmussen Poll (conducted on October 14th and 15th of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points).

Obama - The Great Compromiser ?

Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise of delivering "change". Like many other leftists, I bought into that idea. It was exciting to think that after the dark years of President Bush a Democrat would turn the country around and give us the change that was badly needed.

But those of us who thought that wound up being very disappointed. From the very first weeks of his administration President Obama's favorite word has been "bipartisanship". I had wanted him to treat the Republicans as they had treated Democrats when they were in power and play a little political hardball, especially since the Democrats had substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.

I don't know if President Obama really believes in compromise and bipartisanship, or whether he knew all along that he just couldn't count on the "blue dogs" in the party to support real change. Either way, he charted a middle-of-the-road course. Even his best accomplishments have turned out to be a rather tepid brand of change. Both the health care law and the Wall Street re-regulation fell far short of what those on the left side of the political spectrum had hoped could be accomplished.

The re-regulation of Wall Street left much still to be done and allowed the financial giants to pretty much resume business as usual. And the health care reform that was passed was what many Republicans had themselves proposed in the past (and almost identical to what Republican Mitt Romney signed in Massachusetts). The right-wingers may have screamed about "socialized medicine" but the law was anything but that -- leaving the private insurance companies in charge of medical care for everyone but the elderly.

And while I am still very disappointed by what has been accomplished, I am starting to realize that maybe he has taken the right course. It has served him well in this new Congress where the Republicans control the House of Representatives. I had honestly thought they would shut the government down over the recent budget bill, but somehow the president charted a course to a compromise and got the Republicans to go along with it.

And he comes out looking better than anyone else from that showdown. Whether it's true or not, the perception is that the right-wing House and the liberal Senate had faced off in a political game of chicken, and the president convinced them to compromise. He comes out smelling like a rose.

Some pundits are saying that he has intentionally positioned himself as a middle-of-the-roader for the 2012 election. Maybe that's true, but I suspect he has always been in the middle (because he has never acted as a liberal in spite of the charges thrown at him by the right-wing). And maybe right now that is what is needed.

With the Republicans in charge of the House there is no chance of any liberal programs getting passed by the federal government. The best that can be hoped for (at least until after the 2012 election) is to stave off the Republican attempts to abolish the EPA and the Education Dept., abolish Medicare, destroy Social Security, take away women's right to control their own bodies, and cut social programs that help Americans that are hurting. I do believe the president will do that (even if he has to veto some right-wing bills).

He will do that because those are really middle-of-the-road positions. While the teabaggers and their right-wing corporate cohorts would like to see that Republican agenda accomplished, most Americans don't want that. They would like to see the deficit brought more under control, but they don't want it done on the backs of workers, children, the elderly or the poor.

I am not happy that the best we can hope for until the next election is to preserve the status quo, but that is true nonetheless. And a middle-of-the-road president may be just what is needed to do that.

Obama will never please the teabaggers. He could pass the whole Republican agenda and they would still hate him. That's just a fact (probably because he's African-American and too many of them are upset about that). But they are a minority and he doesn't need to worry about them. He has positioned himself well to appeal to Independents (and Democrats, even those very liberal ones, have to support him because the alternative is too terrible to consider -- Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Trump, etc.). This will serve him well in the 2012 election.

And his favorability numbers show that. They are much higher than those of any possible Republican opponent. While I don't like it, it seems the country is in the mood for a middle-of-the-road compromiser right now -- and that fits President Obama to a T.

Maybe after his re-election in 2012 he can accomplish some things without compromise, but that would be against his nature (and would require huge Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate to push him further to the left).

Some of us voted in 2008 hoping we were electing another Franklin Roosevelt. What we got was another Bill Clinton. And we'll just have to settle for that right now -- at least until 2016.

Reid Is Still An Ineffective Leader

It has become obvious that the Republicans really don't care that our country is in a deep recession and sliding fast toward a depression -- the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1930s. They have ignored the opinions of almost all respected economists, who are saying we must act fast to stimulate the economy or face disaster.

But they don't want a real stimulus plan. They just keep screaming for tax cuts, and they don't mean tax cuts for working people -- those have already been proposed by the Democrats. No, that's not good enough. They want more tax cuts for their rich buddies. They're still parroting the Bush administration policy, which says if you just give rich people lots of extra money they'll share it with the rest of us.

It's just not true. During the Bush administration, the rich took their big tax cuts, stuffed it into their bank accounts and immediately began asking for more (which the Republicans are willing to give them).

It's not the rich that need help. They have more money than ever before. It's the middle, working and poor classes that need help -- and that's who the Democratic Stimulus Bill is designed to help. The bill not only cuts taxes for all of these groups, but pumps billions of dollars into the economy that will create new jobs and stave off further job losses.

But these aren't the people the Republicans are interested in helping. When the bill passed in the House of Representatives, it did so without a single Republican vote. Then it went to the Senate, and once again, it looked like every single Republican was opposed, and they threatened to block the bill with a filibuster. What was poor old Harry Reid to do?

Reid could have stood up to the Republicans, and told them to go ahead and filibuster the bill. The majority of Americans know that something must be done, and done quickly. It wouldn't have taken long for the Republicans to be seen for the obstructionists that they really are, and public pressure would have seen to it that enough of them came to their senses to stop the filibuster and let the bill pass.

But that would have required a backbone and some political courage, and Reid doesn't have either one. So he wrung his hands and acted helpless, until a "blue dog" Democrat, a turncoat independent and three Republicans came to his rescue.

Senator Nelson (D), Senator Lieberman (I), Senator Collins (R), Senator Specter (R) and Senator Snowe (R) got together, took out their knifes and hacked away at the Stimulus Bill. They claimed they had only cut those things that wouldn't create or save jobs, and now the bill was worthy of passage. That's a bunch of crap!

Look at some of the things they cut:

$122 million for Coast Guard icebreakers/cutters -- A reasonable person would think building new ships would require some jobs.

$16 billion for school construction -- Can this really be done without workers?

$3.5 billion for higher education construction -- again, I guess they think this will be done magically, and won't need workers filling actual jobs.

Frankly, the only things these cuts accomplished is get rid of some badly-needed things, and give the three Republicans a little coverage with their party, so they could go ahead and vote like their constituents already wanted them to vote. If Reid had any leadership skills, he could have gotten the bill passed without the cuts.

When are Senate Democrats going to come to their senses and replace Harry Reid as Majority Leader?