Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Only in Washington would the release of a CBO score cause pandemonium. I love this town.
CBO SCORE: Chairman Max Baucus received his much coveted cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, and the news is quite good. The Senate Finance Committee bill, according to a preliminary estimate costs about $829 billion and would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. It would extend coverage to about 29 million people who do not currently have coverage. That would mean 94% of American citizens would have health insurance. That's not as high as the House bill or the Senate HELP bill, but it would be a lot better than what we have now.
Perhaps most importantly, the score means that the bill will probably clear the Senate Finance committee, which is the only thing that will move this process along. Moderates like Senator Lincoln (D-AR) and Snowe (R-ME) on the committee probably have found something they can support. In terms of the policy shortfalls in the bill, hopefully these can be addressed when the Finance bill is merged with the HELP bill, and when the Senate bill is merged with the House bill.
Chairman Baucus promised members of his committee that they'd get 72 hours to read the CBO estimate before the committee votes. Therefore, the vote will probably come early next week. Of course, this is just a way for Republicans to kick the can down the road a little bit. As soon as Baucus agreed to this, they started making more demands about having more time to read the bill. I say, no more giving in to these ridiculous demands. According to polls, the political climate has shifted slightly over the past month and half or so towards health reform, and we need to keep the process moving forward.
Speaking of health care, the House looks like it may be on the verge of settling on a bill to send to the floor. Since three House committees passed legislation in July, Democratic leaders have struggled with trying to figure out how to bring the 256 member caucus together around a single proposal. According to the chairman of the Education and Labor committee, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), we may be hearing about a breakthrough very soon. Stay tuned.
THE SENATE: Besides the CBO score of the Baucus bill, it was a pretty quiet day in the Senate. Senators voted on one amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill. Not exactly a productive day for the upper chamber, which still has two appropriation bill conference reports to vote on. Senators voted to kill an amendment by Senator Vitter (R-LA) to do prohibit government funding to sanctuary cities, cities that do not prosecute illegal immigration cases (like San Francisco!). Luckily, the amendment was killed by a vote of 61-38. Republicans Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich (OH) voted yes. Democrat Landrieu, from Vitter's home state of Louisiana voted yes. There will be votes on additional amendments tomorrow.
Also, we neglected to report yesterday that the Senate confirmed Thomas Perez to be head of the Civil Rights Department at the Department of Justice. Perez was confirmed by a vote of 72-22, with all no votes coming from Republicans. Republicans had held up the nomination because of concern that Perez wasn't tough enough on immigration. Go figure.
THE HOUSE: The House today voted to approve the conference report for the Agriculture Appropriations bill. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it will presumably be voted upon and sent to the President in the next week or so. The bill is only the 3rd of 12 appropriations bills that have emerged from House-Senate conferences. The conference report passed by a vote of 263-162, with 23 Republicans voting yes (the ones with earmarks in the bill!) and 11 Blue Dog Democrats voting no.
The House also voted on several bills under suspension of the rules.
The most exciting part of the House's legislative day was a vote to kill a Republican "privileged resolution" that sought to remove Charles Rangel as chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. Rangel (D-NY) is incredibly corrupt, having used his position to seal all sorts of shady property deals (I won't go into detail). But Democrats have insisted that Rangel be investigated by the House Ethics committee. Only two Democrats, Reps. Childers and Taylor (both of MS) voted against their embattled leader. 6 Republicans broke party lines and supported Rangel. 6 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted "present." Democrats have succeeded in killing this issue for another day.
THE WHITE HOUSE: Not a lot of news from the White House today. This morning, the President held a meeting with House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to discuss possible measure to spur additional job growth. The still dismal job numbers have reignited discussion about a new jobs-only stimulus package, which I think is desperately needed. Democrats have floated some ideas that would theoretically win bipartisan support, like a payroll tax holiday on the first $20,000 of income. Of course, Republicans know that their path out of the political wilderness is high unemployment, so you may not see them rushing to support any job-creating measures in the near future.
Obama met this afternoon with his national security team to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once again, nothing new to report on the President's new strategy.
That's it for today, see you tomorrow! Leave comments!
Showing posts with label Baucus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baucus. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Daily Strike-9/29/09-Public Option Setback
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today was not a good day for advocates of the Public Option. Let's get to the day in politics. Please leave some comments.
FINANCE MARK UP: Today was the most important day yet in the Senate Finance committee. The committee voted on two amendments related to the public option, and the outcome makes all of us progressives dismayed and a bit angry. First, the details. All three committees of jurisdiction in the House have passed bills with public options. Two of those committees voted for a public option that reimburses providers based on Medicare rates. This is what's referred to as the "robust" public option, because it would give the government real bargaining power to force private companies to lower rates. It would also bring down the cost of reform by an estimated $80 billion, which in theory, should make it a no-brainer to fiscal conservatives. Rural Representatives are against the robust public option because they think it unfairly reimburses rural providers at low rates. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate HELP committee, passed public options that's rates were not tied to Medicare. Instead, rates are to be negotiated with individual providers. This is better than our current system, because it introduces some competition into the market, but it does not introduce enough competition to sufficiently bring down prices. Democrats on the Finance Committee tried both of these approaches. Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed an amendment to include a public option tied to Medicare rates. If that amendment failed, as expected, Democrats would settle for a Schumer (D-NY) amendment that would be a so-called "level playing field" public option where rates would be negotiated with individual providers.
Democrats have a 13-10 advantage on the committee. Despite this advantage, the fact that a clear majority of Americans favor the public option, and the pleas of the Democratic base, both amendments failed. The Rockefeller amendment came up first. Rockefeller gave an impassioned defense of the public option, saying that it was the only way to check the power of private insurance companies. Republicans gave the expected response: the public option is a government takeover of health care that will lead to rationed care. Senator Conrad (D-ND) echoed his Republican cohorts by saying that Medicare reimbursement rates would bankrupt hospitals in his state (no evidence that would happen). The Rockefeller amendment failed by a vote of 8-15. Democrats Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL) and Carper (DE) voted no. All Republicans, including moderate Senator Snowe (R-ME) voted against the amendment. This vote was discouraging, but not unexpected. Conrad had made these arguments before, Lincoln is in a tough reelection race next year, Nelson and Carper prefer a public option not tied to Medicare rates.
The next vote was far more discouraging. Schumer's (NY) amendment is a compromise of a compromise. Progressives, who won last year's election I might remind you, already conceded that we wouldn't get a single-payer system. We had basically conceded that we couldn't get a robust public option tied to Medicare rates, a la the Rockefeller amendment. Still, Democrats on the Finance committee could not muster the votes to include any sort of public option in the bill. On this vote, Carper (DE) and Nelson (FL) switched sides. Lincoln, worried about her political future, voted no. Baucus and Conrad, though, opposed the amendment for reasons that just totally confound me. In a true case of twisted logic, Baucus and Conrad opposed the amendment because they think the amendment would bring down the whole bill. In their view, any bill with a public option won't get 6o votes in the full Senate, so they shouldn't let it come out of the finance committee. If both Baucus and Conrad had switched their votes, the amendment would have passed in committee, and would have much brighter prospects on the Senate floor. These two Senators, in my view, are hiding their industry-influenced opposition to the public option behind the false notion that Democrats don't have the votes to pass a public option. Democrats now have 60 votes in the Senate. If Baucus and Conrad didn't act in such a way that made the public option seem "radically liberal," maybe these Democrats might actually vote like Democrats.
Here's The Big Pictures take:
Beyond what the public option would actually do, it's clearly THE symbol for how even Democrats will defy the good of the country, not to mention their own professed goals, and public opinion, purely in service to corporate backers and "what sounds good" ideology. I think that's what has people so angry about it - it just sums up progressives' frustration with the Democratic Party, corporate power, the way the media obscures the truth, how narrow corporate interest and ideological buzzwords stand in the way of what people really need.
This is a pretty dark day. Some of our worst fears coming true. At this point it was pretty expected but it is still very distressing. We can win elections by big margins and get 60 votes in the Senate and yet can't even do the most watered-down form of government health care, the compromise of a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.
Despite today's setback, the public option is not dead. Whatever comes out of the Finance committee will still have to be merged with the HELP committee bill. That bill then must be reconciled with the House bill. Also, there's still a chance that the Senate could adopt Senator Snowe's idea of including the public option as a fallback if the private companies don't make necessary changes. But, today was a sad reminder that even with a Democratic President, and large Democratic majorities in Congress, it is enormously difficult to enact meaningful change.
The committee continues it's work late into tonight and will continue in the morning. We'll bring you continuing coverage as more key amendments are considered tonight and tomorrow.
THE SENATE: As for the full Senate, it was a relatively quiet day. The Senate voted 99-0 (with only ailing Senator Byrd (WV) absent) to confirm Jeff Viken as a District Judge in South Dakota. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report, which is also the legislative vehicle for the continuing resolution. In plain English, that means that if Senators vote yes, the government won't shut down when the fiscal year ends tomorrow night. Following that, Senators will resume consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, which we talked about in this morning's Weekly Strike.
THE HOUSE: It was a quiet day in the House as well. Members voted on a few suspension bills, and a motion to instruct conferees on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I expect tomorrow to be an equally uneventful day on the House floor.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama had a mostly uneventful day as well. He met this morning with NATO Secretary General Rogh Rasmussen to discuss NATO commitments in Afghanistan. Both Obama and Rasmussen said the meeting was productive, but neither elaborated on the details of the discussion. I would expect Obama to make some announcement in future plans for Afghanistan in the coming weeks, as lawmakers from both parties are growing skeptical about ongoing war efforts.
Before we go, we offer you a special treat today, I want to show you some comments Father Strike gave in response to my unenthusiastic reaction to Obama's trip to Copenhagen to push for the Chicago 2016 Olympics. Father Strike makes some compelling points here. The Big Pictures then chimes in (small black font) with an opposing view. As Bill O'Reilly might say, "you make the call."
FATHER STRIKE: I disagree about going to Copenhagen. You and I can do our jobs from home now and the President can do his from AF One. He loses only part of one work day. Why would it be ok for Tony Blair or Putin to go, or for leaders of Chicago's rivals for the 2016 slot to come to Copenhagen for that matter, but not for Obama. I know that there is a risk involved, that the trip is unsuccessful. However, it very well may be: the last two Olympics were in Europe and Asia and 2012 will be in London. I'd guess that our chief rival is Rio.
THE BIG PICTURE: I agree that this Obama Copenhagen trip is pretty ridiculous. In general he really needs to get back to focusing on JOBS here at home. It's always seductive for Presidents to want to focus on foreign policy because they have so much more uncompromised power, little checks and balances, compared to domestic policy, but that has been the ruin of many a President. Really needs to be touring the rust belt and Appalachia and Sun Belt suburbs, seeing what's going on, reassuring people, explaining what we're doing and why.
FINANCE MARK UP: Today was the most important day yet in the Senate Finance committee. The committee voted on two amendments related to the public option, and the outcome makes all of us progressives dismayed and a bit angry. First, the details. All three committees of jurisdiction in the House have passed bills with public options. Two of those committees voted for a public option that reimburses providers based on Medicare rates. This is what's referred to as the "robust" public option, because it would give the government real bargaining power to force private companies to lower rates. It would also bring down the cost of reform by an estimated $80 billion, which in theory, should make it a no-brainer to fiscal conservatives. Rural Representatives are against the robust public option because they think it unfairly reimburses rural providers at low rates. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate HELP committee, passed public options that's rates were not tied to Medicare. Instead, rates are to be negotiated with individual providers. This is better than our current system, because it introduces some competition into the market, but it does not introduce enough competition to sufficiently bring down prices. Democrats on the Finance Committee tried both of these approaches. Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed an amendment to include a public option tied to Medicare rates. If that amendment failed, as expected, Democrats would settle for a Schumer (D-NY) amendment that would be a so-called "level playing field" public option where rates would be negotiated with individual providers.
Democrats have a 13-10 advantage on the committee. Despite this advantage, the fact that a clear majority of Americans favor the public option, and the pleas of the Democratic base, both amendments failed. The Rockefeller amendment came up first. Rockefeller gave an impassioned defense of the public option, saying that it was the only way to check the power of private insurance companies. Republicans gave the expected response: the public option is a government takeover of health care that will lead to rationed care. Senator Conrad (D-ND) echoed his Republican cohorts by saying that Medicare reimbursement rates would bankrupt hospitals in his state (no evidence that would happen). The Rockefeller amendment failed by a vote of 8-15. Democrats Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL) and Carper (DE) voted no. All Republicans, including moderate Senator Snowe (R-ME) voted against the amendment. This vote was discouraging, but not unexpected. Conrad had made these arguments before, Lincoln is in a tough reelection race next year, Nelson and Carper prefer a public option not tied to Medicare rates.
The next vote was far more discouraging. Schumer's (NY) amendment is a compromise of a compromise. Progressives, who won last year's election I might remind you, already conceded that we wouldn't get a single-payer system. We had basically conceded that we couldn't get a robust public option tied to Medicare rates, a la the Rockefeller amendment. Still, Democrats on the Finance committee could not muster the votes to include any sort of public option in the bill. On this vote, Carper (DE) and Nelson (FL) switched sides. Lincoln, worried about her political future, voted no. Baucus and Conrad, though, opposed the amendment for reasons that just totally confound me. In a true case of twisted logic, Baucus and Conrad opposed the amendment because they think the amendment would bring down the whole bill. In their view, any bill with a public option won't get 6o votes in the full Senate, so they shouldn't let it come out of the finance committee. If both Baucus and Conrad had switched their votes, the amendment would have passed in committee, and would have much brighter prospects on the Senate floor. These two Senators, in my view, are hiding their industry-influenced opposition to the public option behind the false notion that Democrats don't have the votes to pass a public option. Democrats now have 60 votes in the Senate. If Baucus and Conrad didn't act in such a way that made the public option seem "radically liberal," maybe these Democrats might actually vote like Democrats.
Here's The Big Pictures take:
Beyond what the public option would actually do, it's clearly THE symbol for how even Democrats will defy the good of the country, not to mention their own professed goals, and public opinion, purely in service to corporate backers and "what sounds good" ideology. I think that's what has people so angry about it - it just sums up progressives' frustration with the Democratic Party, corporate power, the way the media obscures the truth, how narrow corporate interest and ideological buzzwords stand in the way of what people really need.
This is a pretty dark day. Some of our worst fears coming true. At this point it was pretty expected but it is still very distressing. We can win elections by big margins and get 60 votes in the Senate and yet can't even do the most watered-down form of government health care, the compromise of a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.
Despite today's setback, the public option is not dead. Whatever comes out of the Finance committee will still have to be merged with the HELP committee bill. That bill then must be reconciled with the House bill. Also, there's still a chance that the Senate could adopt Senator Snowe's idea of including the public option as a fallback if the private companies don't make necessary changes. But, today was a sad reminder that even with a Democratic President, and large Democratic majorities in Congress, it is enormously difficult to enact meaningful change.
The committee continues it's work late into tonight and will continue in the morning. We'll bring you continuing coverage as more key amendments are considered tonight and tomorrow.
THE SENATE: As for the full Senate, it was a relatively quiet day. The Senate voted 99-0 (with only ailing Senator Byrd (WV) absent) to confirm Jeff Viken as a District Judge in South Dakota. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report, which is also the legislative vehicle for the continuing resolution. In plain English, that means that if Senators vote yes, the government won't shut down when the fiscal year ends tomorrow night. Following that, Senators will resume consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, which we talked about in this morning's Weekly Strike.
THE HOUSE: It was a quiet day in the House as well. Members voted on a few suspension bills, and a motion to instruct conferees on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I expect tomorrow to be an equally uneventful day on the House floor.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama had a mostly uneventful day as well. He met this morning with NATO Secretary General Rogh Rasmussen to discuss NATO commitments in Afghanistan. Both Obama and Rasmussen said the meeting was productive, but neither elaborated on the details of the discussion. I would expect Obama to make some announcement in future plans for Afghanistan in the coming weeks, as lawmakers from both parties are growing skeptical about ongoing war efforts.
Before we go, we offer you a special treat today, I want to show you some comments Father Strike gave in response to my unenthusiastic reaction to Obama's trip to Copenhagen to push for the Chicago 2016 Olympics. Father Strike makes some compelling points here. The Big Pictures then chimes in (small black font) with an opposing view. As Bill O'Reilly might say, "you make the call."
FATHER STRIKE: I disagree about going to Copenhagen. You and I can do our jobs from home now and the President can do his from AF One. He loses only part of one work day. Why would it be ok for Tony Blair or Putin to go, or for leaders of Chicago's rivals for the 2016 slot to come to Copenhagen for that matter, but not for Obama. I know that there is a risk involved, that the trip is unsuccessful. However, it very well may be: the last two Olympics were in Europe and Asia and 2012 will be in London. I'd guess that our chief rival is Rio.
THE BIG PICTURE: I agree that this Obama Copenhagen trip is pretty ridiculous. In general he really needs to get back to focusing on JOBS here at home. It's always seductive for Presidents to want to focus on foreign policy because they have so much more uncompromised power, little checks and balances, compared to domestic policy, but that has been the ruin of many a President. Really needs to be touring the rust belt and Appalachia and Sun Belt suburbs, seeing what's going on, reassuring people, explaining what we're doing and why.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Daily Strike-9/23/09-Slogging Through
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. A very busy day in the world of politics, with the President in New York, and the Senate Finance committee hard at work. Let's get to it.
MARK UP: The mark up of the Senate Finance committee health care bill is coming along very slowly. The United States Senate is designed to move at a snail's pace, and today's committee action confirmed that reputation. The first part of the bill deals with delivery system reform, which was supposed to be the focus of today's amendments. Instead, the committee spent over an hour on a trivial procedural issue. Republican Senator Jim Bunning proposed an amendment that would prohibit the committee from passing the bill until they had full legislative language, and the bill was available for 72 hours. I hate when members of Congress disguise dilatory tactics behind good governance. The Finance Committee writes bills in "conceptualized" language, meaning basically, pure English instead of legislative mumbo jumbo. It takes at least 2 weeks to write out the actual legislative language, which no one would understand anyway. So basically, it would be a way to delay the legislation for another two weeks, as if it hadn't been delayed enough already. Senators debated for an hour whether this constituted good governance or useless drivel. Luckily, by a 12-11 vote, the committee confirmed that it was useless drivel. All Republicans voted yes, include Olympia Snowe (ME), the crucial swing vote on the committee. Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas voted yes as well. Did I mention that Bunning will not vote for the bill under any circumstances and that he fell asleep during the hearing yesterday?
At about 11, after close to 10 hours of hearing time, the committee finally got down to considering serious amendments. Err...amendments. The key vote of the day so far (the committee is scheduled to continue meeting after 8pm this evening) was on an amendment offered by Senator Hatch (R-UT). The bill, wisely, seeks to cut spending on the Medicare Advantage program, which gives taxpayer money to private companies to do what the government does more efficiently (aka providing quality health care to seniors.) Republicans, who have tried for years to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and every other entitlement program, love the Medicare Advantage program, because it gives loads of money to the insurance companies. Senator Hatch's amendment would block cuts to the program if hte cuts afect people's benefits. Democrats, rightly in my view, argued that people can receive the exact some care under regular Medicare at a much lower cost. The amendment failed by a vote of 14-9, with Senator Snowe joining all Democrats in voting no. The vote is significant because it maintains a main, and appropriate source of funding in the bill.
The next big amendment had very little to do with health care at all. The committee spent an hour debated the case of Humana Health. The insurance company receives government money through the Medicare Advantage program. When they saw that the program was targeted for cuts, they sent out letters to customers warning them about the cuts, which was a breach of their contract with the federal government. Baucus has started an investigation into the company. Republicans are complaining that this investigation violates freedom of speech (even though it was codified in a contract!!) Senator Kyl (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to basically protect Humana. Go figure. The amendment was defeated on party lines.
One amendment that was not considered today was a very important one from Senator Nelson (FL). This amendment would kill the agreement made between the White House and drug companies. It would require the drug companies to pay more to support the cost of the bill, and would redirect some of that money back into Medicare Advantage (I'd rather the money be relocated somewhere else, but I would still support the amendment). The amendment would lower the cost of the bill by about $50 billion without making cuts to any of the key affordability provisions. Baucus, one of the negotiators of the deal, has put off the vote until tomorrow. I expect it to pass narrowly.
The committee will now move to amendments dealing with cost and affordability. These will be some of the most crucial amendments the committee will consider. We will give you full details tomorrow. Because of the snail-like pace of the committee, they probably won't be able to finish the mark up by Friday. As a result, Senator Reid's (D-NV) plan to merge the bill with the HELP committee measure will have to be put off until October. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she could put a bill on the House floor in the next couple of weeks.
Yes, these delays are irritating. But after all the hubbub of the Summer, we are actually getting close to holding votes in both chambers on what will be, at the very least, pretty good health care bills. They key is to keep Democrats unified and resolved to get this done. Massachusetts just passed a law today allowing for the interim appointment of a replacement Senator for Ted Kennedy. When that nominee is sworn-in, the Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate. There are some centrists who don't want to vote for this bill without Republican support, but they must be steamrolled by the leadership, plain and simple.
THE PRESIDENT'S DAY: President Obama today gave his first address to the U.N. General Assembly. The speech was signature Obama to a tee. He opened by highlighting his differences with the Bush administration. He pledged that the U.S. does not torture in any form. He reiterated his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Turning the tables though, as Obama always does, he told the U.N. that he will never apologize for protecting the country. This started the portion of his speech where he got tough with other world leaders. He said that it's time for other countries to not wait around for the U.S. to act. We will seek improved diplomatic relations, but we need a renewed support from the international community.
On specific issues, the President offered no surprises. He warned Iran and North Korea that their nuclear programs cannot be tolerated. He said, to muted applause, that the U.S. is getting serious about addressing climate change and financial regulation (do the rest of these countries understand that we have to deal with the United States Senate???). He also got a huge (well-deserved) applause for saying that the U.S. does not view Israeli settlement growth as legitimate.
It seems like the speech was a strong, well-delivered message of renewed optimism combined with a bit of tough love.
The President spent the rest of the day in a series of diplomatic meetings, including one with Russian President Demitri Medvedev.
THE HOUSE: Not much to report from either House of Congress tonight. The House passed one bill today under regular order. The bill would designate a portion of the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona a national heritage area. The bill passed 281-142, with all no votes coming from Republicans. The Republicans did succeed in passing a motion to recommit that protects the rights of property owners in the area. That motion passed by a vote of 259-167, with all no votes coming from Democrats.
The House also passed several bills under suspension of the rules, including those extending various small business and and surface transportation programs.
Tomorrow, the House will vote on a continuing resolution that will keep the government running when the fiscal year ends a week from today. Still no word on when the House and Senate will agree to a compromise on any of the appropriations bills that have passed both chambers, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a conference report or two tomorrow.
THE SENATE: The Senate today continued its consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill. Only two record votes were taken today. The first was to table (kill) a Clown motion to recommit that instruct the appropriations committee to make significant cuts to the bill. The motion was tabled by a vote of 56-42. All Republicans voted no, as did Democrats Begich (AK) and Nelson (NE). Next was a motion to table a McCaskill (D-MO) amendment that would strike earmark funding for the "Save America's Treasure" program. It looks like McCaskill is channeling her inner John McCain with her earmark-hating amendments! Her amendment was killed by a vote of 72-26. Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI) and McCaskill (D-MO) were the only Democrats to support the amendment.
The Senate will hopefully finish this bill tomorrow. They need to take action on a House-passed extension of unemployment benefits and the continuing resolution by the middle of next week. I'll believe it when I see it.
That's it for tonight. Leave us more comments! We love to see them!
MARK UP: The mark up of the Senate Finance committee health care bill is coming along very slowly. The United States Senate is designed to move at a snail's pace, and today's committee action confirmed that reputation. The first part of the bill deals with delivery system reform, which was supposed to be the focus of today's amendments. Instead, the committee spent over an hour on a trivial procedural issue. Republican Senator Jim Bunning proposed an amendment that would prohibit the committee from passing the bill until they had full legislative language, and the bill was available for 72 hours. I hate when members of Congress disguise dilatory tactics behind good governance. The Finance Committee writes bills in "conceptualized" language, meaning basically, pure English instead of legislative mumbo jumbo. It takes at least 2 weeks to write out the actual legislative language, which no one would understand anyway. So basically, it would be a way to delay the legislation for another two weeks, as if it hadn't been delayed enough already. Senators debated for an hour whether this constituted good governance or useless drivel. Luckily, by a 12-11 vote, the committee confirmed that it was useless drivel. All Republicans voted yes, include Olympia Snowe (ME), the crucial swing vote on the committee. Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas voted yes as well. Did I mention that Bunning will not vote for the bill under any circumstances and that he fell asleep during the hearing yesterday?
At about 11, after close to 10 hours of hearing time, the committee finally got down to considering serious amendments. Err...amendments. The key vote of the day so far (the committee is scheduled to continue meeting after 8pm this evening) was on an amendment offered by Senator Hatch (R-UT). The bill, wisely, seeks to cut spending on the Medicare Advantage program, which gives taxpayer money to private companies to do what the government does more efficiently (aka providing quality health care to seniors.) Republicans, who have tried for years to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and every other entitlement program, love the Medicare Advantage program, because it gives loads of money to the insurance companies. Senator Hatch's amendment would block cuts to the program if hte cuts afect people's benefits. Democrats, rightly in my view, argued that people can receive the exact some care under regular Medicare at a much lower cost. The amendment failed by a vote of 14-9, with Senator Snowe joining all Democrats in voting no. The vote is significant because it maintains a main, and appropriate source of funding in the bill.
The next big amendment had very little to do with health care at all. The committee spent an hour debated the case of Humana Health. The insurance company receives government money through the Medicare Advantage program. When they saw that the program was targeted for cuts, they sent out letters to customers warning them about the cuts, which was a breach of their contract with the federal government. Baucus has started an investigation into the company. Republicans are complaining that this investigation violates freedom of speech (even though it was codified in a contract!!) Senator Kyl (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to basically protect Humana. Go figure. The amendment was defeated on party lines.
One amendment that was not considered today was a very important one from Senator Nelson (FL). This amendment would kill the agreement made between the White House and drug companies. It would require the drug companies to pay more to support the cost of the bill, and would redirect some of that money back into Medicare Advantage (I'd rather the money be relocated somewhere else, but I would still support the amendment). The amendment would lower the cost of the bill by about $50 billion without making cuts to any of the key affordability provisions. Baucus, one of the negotiators of the deal, has put off the vote until tomorrow. I expect it to pass narrowly.
The committee will now move to amendments dealing with cost and affordability. These will be some of the most crucial amendments the committee will consider. We will give you full details tomorrow. Because of the snail-like pace of the committee, they probably won't be able to finish the mark up by Friday. As a result, Senator Reid's (D-NV) plan to merge the bill with the HELP committee measure will have to be put off until October. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she could put a bill on the House floor in the next couple of weeks.
Yes, these delays are irritating. But after all the hubbub of the Summer, we are actually getting close to holding votes in both chambers on what will be, at the very least, pretty good health care bills. They key is to keep Democrats unified and resolved to get this done. Massachusetts just passed a law today allowing for the interim appointment of a replacement Senator for Ted Kennedy. When that nominee is sworn-in, the Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate. There are some centrists who don't want to vote for this bill without Republican support, but they must be steamrolled by the leadership, plain and simple.
THE PRESIDENT'S DAY: President Obama today gave his first address to the U.N. General Assembly. The speech was signature Obama to a tee. He opened by highlighting his differences with the Bush administration. He pledged that the U.S. does not torture in any form. He reiterated his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Turning the tables though, as Obama always does, he told the U.N. that he will never apologize for protecting the country. This started the portion of his speech where he got tough with other world leaders. He said that it's time for other countries to not wait around for the U.S. to act. We will seek improved diplomatic relations, but we need a renewed support from the international community.
On specific issues, the President offered no surprises. He warned Iran and North Korea that their nuclear programs cannot be tolerated. He said, to muted applause, that the U.S. is getting serious about addressing climate change and financial regulation (do the rest of these countries understand that we have to deal with the United States Senate???). He also got a huge (well-deserved) applause for saying that the U.S. does not view Israeli settlement growth as legitimate.
It seems like the speech was a strong, well-delivered message of renewed optimism combined with a bit of tough love.
The President spent the rest of the day in a series of diplomatic meetings, including one with Russian President Demitri Medvedev.
THE HOUSE: Not much to report from either House of Congress tonight. The House passed one bill today under regular order. The bill would designate a portion of the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona a national heritage area. The bill passed 281-142, with all no votes coming from Republicans. The Republicans did succeed in passing a motion to recommit that protects the rights of property owners in the area. That motion passed by a vote of 259-167, with all no votes coming from Democrats.
The House also passed several bills under suspension of the rules, including those extending various small business and and surface transportation programs.
Tomorrow, the House will vote on a continuing resolution that will keep the government running when the fiscal year ends a week from today. Still no word on when the House and Senate will agree to a compromise on any of the appropriations bills that have passed both chambers, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a conference report or two tomorrow.
THE SENATE: The Senate today continued its consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill. Only two record votes were taken today. The first was to table (kill) a Clown motion to recommit that instruct the appropriations committee to make significant cuts to the bill. The motion was tabled by a vote of 56-42. All Republicans voted no, as did Democrats Begich (AK) and Nelson (NE). Next was a motion to table a McCaskill (D-MO) amendment that would strike earmark funding for the "Save America's Treasure" program. It looks like McCaskill is channeling her inner John McCain with her earmark-hating amendments! Her amendment was killed by a vote of 72-26. Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI) and McCaskill (D-MO) were the only Democrats to support the amendment.
The Senate will hopefully finish this bill tomorrow. They need to take action on a House-passed extension of unemployment benefits and the continuing resolution by the middle of next week. I'll believe it when I see it.
That's it for tonight. Leave us more comments! We love to see them!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Daily Strike-9/16/09-De-Bauc-le
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was a very busy day in Washington, so let's get right to it.
BAUCUS BILL: Oh, boy. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) released the full version of his health care proposal today. This plan is mostly a major, major disappointment. Baucus spent three months seeking bipartisan support in the so-called "Gang of Six." He offered concession after concession, first giving away the public option in favor of co-ops, then he weakened the co-ops, then he cut subsidies so people could afford coverage. The result? Zero Republican support. And, of course, he has angered pretty much everyone in his own caucus, as well as the House Democratic leadership. Even President Obama, who has stood by Baucus, offered only tepid support for his plan. Already, Finance Committee Democrat Jay Rockefeller (WV) said that he can't support the bill in its current form. Let's run down some problems with the bill. Our main source here, as usual, is Ezra Klein.
1. As we mentioned yesterday, Baucus gutted subsidies for people who will not be able to buy insurance. This is one of the most popular parts of the bill, and would make it far more politically appealing to the middle class. The Baucus bill has reduced subsidies for those making over 300% of the poverty line. He did this to gain Republican support, which he now does not even have. The bill also does not do enough to lower costs for people who get sick (by setting hard caps on annual expenditure etc. Not only will 4 million currently uninsured Americans be forced to buy insurance with no assistance from the government, but they'll be increasingly bitter towards those at the lower end of the spectrum who are getting generous subsidies. This principle explains why Social Security is popular, and welfare is not.
2. The co-ops were supposed to be a more politically appealing version of the public option, but in the Baucus bill, they amount to pretty much nothing. The co-ops would exist at the state level, but states could ban together to increase purchasing power. The problem is that the co-ops are only allowed to contract with individuals and small businesses. They can't contract with large employers, and therefore wouldn't be able to compete with private insurers in the private market. If you work at a big business, or a large non-profit, in other words, the co-ops would be unavailable to you, and there would still be no competition with the private insurance companies. (They would, in fairness, have to abide by new consumer protection rules). They will also not be allowed to set national payment rates, like Medicare. They'll have to negotiate individually with each provider or hospital. Thus, not very effective competition for private insurance companies (just like Baucus wants it!).
3. I have to think that with all the criticism from policy wonks that the so-called "free rider" provision will not survive the legislative process, but for now, it is in the Baucus bill. Unlike the House bill and the Senate HELP committee bill, the Baucus bill contains no requirement that employers either provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fee. Instead, it has a penalty for employers who hire workers that would require subsidies. As Ezra points out, this would incentivize companies to NOT hire low income employees (hire the teenager instead of the working mother, maybe). In fact, the penalty increases if the employee needs subsidies for his/her whole family. I don't even know what the point of this penalty is. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it, but right now it appears pretty nonsensical.
These are just a few of the problems that jump out to me at first glance. Here's The Big Picture's take:
Let's just throw out this Baucus plan - I will be furious if a single one of these changes meant to get Grassley and Enzi and Snowe make it into the final bill if they're not going to vote for it. Which is why you don't negotiate against yourself and make concessions without ensuring final support!!!! I find it hard to believe that Baucus is just a complete idiot, so I think at least part of this is that he wanted to water it down a ton to please his industry backers, but is saying that he did it to appease the GOP.
If I were Obama, I would highlight the exchanges and the subsidies as key improvements, which appeal to some basic conservative and liberal sensibilities that most people agree with - more competition, you should have choice, insurers competing to get your business; and health care is a right, government will help the hardworking middle class afford it. Talk a LOT more about those things.
As with the stimulus, a huge mistake by Obama in the marketing of how much this is going to cost. Should have been done by year. He should have set a much higher target. Most of all, he should have explained WHY we needed that money, that it's going to real people to help them afford health care. There's still time to make that point. But right now people are like "Why are we spending this money? I thought this was going to bring DOWN costs?" Totally incoherent messaging on this crucial front.
There are a few good things about this bill. For one, the Congressional Budget Office says that it will actually reduce the deficit by about $200 billion over ten years. Those are the best deficit numbers that any health plan has seen this year. Of course, the reason for this is that Baucus decreased subsidies and instituted an excise tax on expensive health plans that could potentially be passed on to consumers. Second, the Baucus plan does apparently have a strong, national insurance exchange. The House plan allows only companies with 20 or fewer employees to join the exchange, whereas the Baucus plan would allow companies with 50 or fewer employees to join. It will be much better to have more people join the exchange, so that risk can be pooled more effectively.
Even with cuts to subsidies and all the other bad stuff in the bill, it still would institute strong new insurance market reforms that would eliminate preexisting conditions and rescission. In other words, it's better than nothing. If we were down a vote at the last second and we had tried everything in our power to get this over the finish line, maybe we could accept the Baucus bill as a compromise. But by compromising the way Baucus did, we gained absolutely nothing. In fact, in all the time we've wasted waiting for Baucus to come up with a bipartisan plan, we've allowed opposition to harden on the right, and Obama's popularity to significantly drop.
So the bottom line is that Baucus has acted like a complete idiot. There's no way around it. But we can't let that deter us. There will be ample opportunity for Democrats to amend the bill in committee, and Ezra offers some decent suggestions. Then the bill has to be merged with the HELP bill, and eventually, the House bill. There's still time to get this right. But this much is clear: the Baucus debacle has proven once and for all that: a) Republicans can't be trusted, b) Democrats have to go it alone on health care and c) never make concessions to anyone without getting something in return. Stay tuned for the markup of the bill next week.
THE HOUSE: There was plenty of legislative action today apart from the release of the Baucus bill. The House passed a good bill that authorizes spending on research and development for advanced vehicles. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peters (D-MI), provides money for the Department of Energy to develop "cutting-edge, commercially viable vehicle technology." Sounds good to me (and to the state of Michigan!). The bill passed easily by a vote of 312-114. 62 Republicans voted yes, and only one Democrat, Harry Teague of New Mexico, voted no. Prior to a vote on final passage, the House voted on a few amendments.
The most threatening amendment, offered by Texas Republican Ralph Hall, would have frozen funding for the program through 2013. Sort of defeats the purpose of the bill, doesn't it? The amendment lost 179-253. The House voted to accept some amendments, including one by Rep. Donnelly (D-IN) that would have included recreational vehicles as part of the new research, and one by Rep. Massa (D-NY) to allow for public-private research partnerships. Democrats successfully beat back a Republican motion t0 recommit that would have allowed money to be spent only if the deficit went below $500 billion. I expect to see a lot of amendments like this as Republicans try to hammer home those deficit talking points. The motion failed 180-245, with 14 deficit hawk Democrats voting yes, and 9 Republicans voting no.
The House then started its work on the comprehensive student loan/education bill. Votes on amendments and final passage on this important piece of legislation will come tomorrow. We'll tell you more about what's in the bill then.
THE SENATE: The Senate was supposed to finish the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill today. But it didn't quite get across the finish line (shocker!). They will have to vote for 5 more amendments and final passage tomorrow morning. Several amendments to the bill were considered today. Here's a rundown (most of these are unbelievably stupid, so enjoy the ride).
1. The first amendment, offered by Senator Coburn (R-OK) would eliminate the mandate on states that requires them to spend a certain amount of money on road-kill reduction and highway beautification. What a typical Coburn amendment. These are things that may sound silly, but they're actually very important. And these types of programs create good paying jobs! Luckily, the amendment failed 39-59. Democrats Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), Klobuchar (MN), Lieberman (CT) and McCaskill voted yes, while Republicans Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich voted no.
2. The second amendment, also from Coburn, sought to eliminate funding for transportation museums. I love transportation museums. I take his amendments very personally sometimes. Luckily, the amendment failed 41-57. Democrats Bayh (IN), Conrad (ND), Feingold (WI), Kohl (WI), McCaskill (MO) and Udall (CO) voted yes. Republicans Alexander (TN), Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Shelby (AL) and Wicker (MS) voted no. They must have some good transportation museums in Mississippi!
3. This next one really grinds my gears. We seem to get some sort of gun-related amendment on every bill these days, as Republican Senators try to do the NRA's bidding. They almost always pass too, because most Democrats are scared of losing those coveted 100% ratings from the NRA. Today, Senator Wicker (MS) offered an amendment to allow guns to be carried in carry-on baggage on Amtrak. I guess since it's carry-on baggage, it shouldn't pose a danger to passengers. But it still could potentially pose some safety hazards. The amendment passed by a vote of 68-30, with all no votes coming from Democrats.
4. Next was an amendment from the clown to "affirm the continuing existence of the community service requirements under section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937." No idea what that means, but it passed 73-25. All no votes from Democrats.
5. This one also is purely silly. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) once had a museum named after him, but now he's upset that a tiny amount of money is being spent on signs that say "This construction was made possibly by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." As Senator Boxer (D-CA) wisely pointed out, nobody made these complaints when Bush spent money on letters to taxpayers telling them about rebates! Those signs make me proud to be an American! Thankfully, the Gregg amendment, designed really to embarrass the President and Democrats, failed by a vote of 45-52. Democrats Gillibrand (NY), Klobuchar (MN), Lincoln (AR), Schumer (NY) and Shaheen (NH) voted yes. No Republicans voted no.
6. Finally, the Senate rejected an amendment from Senator Ensign (R-Extramarital affairs in Nevada) that would have significantly cut funding from the bill across the board. The amendment failed 33-64. Democrats Bayh (IN) and McCaskill (MO) voted yes, while Republicans Alexander (TN), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), and Voinovich (OH) voted no.
That's it for a very busy day in politics. Please leave us some comments!!
BAUCUS BILL: Oh, boy. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) released the full version of his health care proposal today. This plan is mostly a major, major disappointment. Baucus spent three months seeking bipartisan support in the so-called "Gang of Six." He offered concession after concession, first giving away the public option in favor of co-ops, then he weakened the co-ops, then he cut subsidies so people could afford coverage. The result? Zero Republican support. And, of course, he has angered pretty much everyone in his own caucus, as well as the House Democratic leadership. Even President Obama, who has stood by Baucus, offered only tepid support for his plan. Already, Finance Committee Democrat Jay Rockefeller (WV) said that he can't support the bill in its current form. Let's run down some problems with the bill. Our main source here, as usual, is Ezra Klein.
1. As we mentioned yesterday, Baucus gutted subsidies for people who will not be able to buy insurance. This is one of the most popular parts of the bill, and would make it far more politically appealing to the middle class. The Baucus bill has reduced subsidies for those making over 300% of the poverty line. He did this to gain Republican support, which he now does not even have. The bill also does not do enough to lower costs for people who get sick (by setting hard caps on annual expenditure etc. Not only will 4 million currently uninsured Americans be forced to buy insurance with no assistance from the government, but they'll be increasingly bitter towards those at the lower end of the spectrum who are getting generous subsidies. This principle explains why Social Security is popular, and welfare is not.
2. The co-ops were supposed to be a more politically appealing version of the public option, but in the Baucus bill, they amount to pretty much nothing. The co-ops would exist at the state level, but states could ban together to increase purchasing power. The problem is that the co-ops are only allowed to contract with individuals and small businesses. They can't contract with large employers, and therefore wouldn't be able to compete with private insurers in the private market. If you work at a big business, or a large non-profit, in other words, the co-ops would be unavailable to you, and there would still be no competition with the private insurance companies. (They would, in fairness, have to abide by new consumer protection rules). They will also not be allowed to set national payment rates, like Medicare. They'll have to negotiate individually with each provider or hospital. Thus, not very effective competition for private insurance companies (just like Baucus wants it!).
3. I have to think that with all the criticism from policy wonks that the so-called "free rider" provision will not survive the legislative process, but for now, it is in the Baucus bill. Unlike the House bill and the Senate HELP committee bill, the Baucus bill contains no requirement that employers either provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fee. Instead, it has a penalty for employers who hire workers that would require subsidies. As Ezra points out, this would incentivize companies to NOT hire low income employees (hire the teenager instead of the working mother, maybe). In fact, the penalty increases if the employee needs subsidies for his/her whole family. I don't even know what the point of this penalty is. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it, but right now it appears pretty nonsensical.
These are just a few of the problems that jump out to me at first glance. Here's The Big Picture's take:
Let's just throw out this Baucus plan - I will be furious if a single one of these changes meant to get Grassley and Enzi and Snowe make it into the final bill if they're not going to vote for it. Which is why you don't negotiate against yourself and make concessions without ensuring final support!!!! I find it hard to believe that Baucus is just a complete idiot, so I think at least part of this is that he wanted to water it down a ton to please his industry backers, but is saying that he did it to appease the GOP.
If I were Obama, I would highlight the exchanges and the subsidies as key improvements, which appeal to some basic conservative and liberal sensibilities that most people agree with - more competition, you should have choice, insurers competing to get your business; and health care is a right, government will help the hardworking middle class afford it. Talk a LOT more about those things.
As with the stimulus, a huge mistake by Obama in the marketing of how much this is going to cost. Should have been done by year. He should have set a much higher target. Most of all, he should have explained WHY we needed that money, that it's going to real people to help them afford health care. There's still time to make that point. But right now people are like "Why are we spending this money? I thought this was going to bring DOWN costs?" Totally incoherent messaging on this crucial front.
There are a few good things about this bill. For one, the Congressional Budget Office says that it will actually reduce the deficit by about $200 billion over ten years. Those are the best deficit numbers that any health plan has seen this year. Of course, the reason for this is that Baucus decreased subsidies and instituted an excise tax on expensive health plans that could potentially be passed on to consumers. Second, the Baucus plan does apparently have a strong, national insurance exchange. The House plan allows only companies with 20 or fewer employees to join the exchange, whereas the Baucus plan would allow companies with 50 or fewer employees to join. It will be much better to have more people join the exchange, so that risk can be pooled more effectively.
Even with cuts to subsidies and all the other bad stuff in the bill, it still would institute strong new insurance market reforms that would eliminate preexisting conditions and rescission. In other words, it's better than nothing. If we were down a vote at the last second and we had tried everything in our power to get this over the finish line, maybe we could accept the Baucus bill as a compromise. But by compromising the way Baucus did, we gained absolutely nothing. In fact, in all the time we've wasted waiting for Baucus to come up with a bipartisan plan, we've allowed opposition to harden on the right, and Obama's popularity to significantly drop.
So the bottom line is that Baucus has acted like a complete idiot. There's no way around it. But we can't let that deter us. There will be ample opportunity for Democrats to amend the bill in committee, and Ezra offers some decent suggestions. Then the bill has to be merged with the HELP bill, and eventually, the House bill. There's still time to get this right. But this much is clear: the Baucus debacle has proven once and for all that: a) Republicans can't be trusted, b) Democrats have to go it alone on health care and c) never make concessions to anyone without getting something in return. Stay tuned for the markup of the bill next week.
THE HOUSE: There was plenty of legislative action today apart from the release of the Baucus bill. The House passed a good bill that authorizes spending on research and development for advanced vehicles. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peters (D-MI), provides money for the Department of Energy to develop "cutting-edge, commercially viable vehicle technology." Sounds good to me (and to the state of Michigan!). The bill passed easily by a vote of 312-114. 62 Republicans voted yes, and only one Democrat, Harry Teague of New Mexico, voted no. Prior to a vote on final passage, the House voted on a few amendments.
The most threatening amendment, offered by Texas Republican Ralph Hall, would have frozen funding for the program through 2013. Sort of defeats the purpose of the bill, doesn't it? The amendment lost 179-253. The House voted to accept some amendments, including one by Rep. Donnelly (D-IN) that would have included recreational vehicles as part of the new research, and one by Rep. Massa (D-NY) to allow for public-private research partnerships. Democrats successfully beat back a Republican motion t0 recommit that would have allowed money to be spent only if the deficit went below $500 billion. I expect to see a lot of amendments like this as Republicans try to hammer home those deficit talking points. The motion failed 180-245, with 14 deficit hawk Democrats voting yes, and 9 Republicans voting no.
The House then started its work on the comprehensive student loan/education bill. Votes on amendments and final passage on this important piece of legislation will come tomorrow. We'll tell you more about what's in the bill then.
THE SENATE: The Senate was supposed to finish the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill today. But it didn't quite get across the finish line (shocker!). They will have to vote for 5 more amendments and final passage tomorrow morning. Several amendments to the bill were considered today. Here's a rundown (most of these are unbelievably stupid, so enjoy the ride).
1. The first amendment, offered by Senator Coburn (R-OK) would eliminate the mandate on states that requires them to spend a certain amount of money on road-kill reduction and highway beautification. What a typical Coburn amendment. These are things that may sound silly, but they're actually very important. And these types of programs create good paying jobs! Luckily, the amendment failed 39-59. Democrats Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), Klobuchar (MN), Lieberman (CT) and McCaskill voted yes, while Republicans Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich voted no.
2. The second amendment, also from Coburn, sought to eliminate funding for transportation museums. I love transportation museums. I take his amendments very personally sometimes. Luckily, the amendment failed 41-57. Democrats Bayh (IN), Conrad (ND), Feingold (WI), Kohl (WI), McCaskill (MO) and Udall (CO) voted yes. Republicans Alexander (TN), Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Shelby (AL) and Wicker (MS) voted no. They must have some good transportation museums in Mississippi!
3. This next one really grinds my gears. We seem to get some sort of gun-related amendment on every bill these days, as Republican Senators try to do the NRA's bidding. They almost always pass too, because most Democrats are scared of losing those coveted 100% ratings from the NRA. Today, Senator Wicker (MS) offered an amendment to allow guns to be carried in carry-on baggage on Amtrak. I guess since it's carry-on baggage, it shouldn't pose a danger to passengers. But it still could potentially pose some safety hazards. The amendment passed by a vote of 68-30, with all no votes coming from Democrats.
4. Next was an amendment from the clown to "affirm the continuing existence of the community service requirements under section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937." No idea what that means, but it passed 73-25. All no votes from Democrats.
5. This one also is purely silly. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) once had a museum named after him, but now he's upset that a tiny amount of money is being spent on signs that say "This construction was made possibly by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." As Senator Boxer (D-CA) wisely pointed out, nobody made these complaints when Bush spent money on letters to taxpayers telling them about rebates! Those signs make me proud to be an American! Thankfully, the Gregg amendment, designed really to embarrass the President and Democrats, failed by a vote of 45-52. Democrats Gillibrand (NY), Klobuchar (MN), Lincoln (AR), Schumer (NY) and Shaheen (NH) voted yes. No Republicans voted no.
6. Finally, the Senate rejected an amendment from Senator Ensign (R-Extramarital affairs in Nevada) that would have significantly cut funding from the bill across the board. The amendment failed 33-64. Democrats Bayh (IN) and McCaskill (MO) voted yes, while Republicans Alexander (TN), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), and Voinovich (OH) voted no.
That's it for a very busy day in politics. Please leave us some comments!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
