| Just a short and random series of links... Happy 4th!
From a New York Times profile of Max Baucus: "He conceded that it was a mistake to rule out a fully government-run health system, or a 'single-payer plan,' not because he supports it but because doing so alienated a large, vocal constituency and left Mr. Obama's proposal of a public health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position."
Matt Yglesias: "The 60-vote threshold, by contrast, is important because that's how many votes it takes to break a filibuster. But while the Democratic caucus presumably could get together and collectively commit to refrain from joining any filibusters, there's no sign that they actually will. This means that to move legislation in the modern era, the majority party still needs to painstakingly assemble 60 votes. And it's going to be a difficult task.
"For example, considerably more people live in the Bronx than live in Montana. But while the Bronx's 1.4 million people need to share Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand with 18 million other residents of the Empire State, Montana's cozy crew of 960,000 people has Max Baucus all to themselves. And not only does Baucus' vote count as much as Schumer's or Gillibrand's, he actually has dramatically more power than the senators from New York (or, for that matter, California) because as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, all health-care legislation absolutely must meet with his approval. The fact that Obama only secured the support of 47 percent of Montana's voters is the kind of thing that must weigh on Baucus' mind."
jhwygirl: "We - we who want to see health care reform - we who want to see single-payer or a strong public option - don't need to be convincing ourselves with all these heart-tugging stories. I'm sorry...that might sound harsh, but until we start translating the cost of not doing reform into the cost to the economy - in real dollars....we aren't going to budge over this line in the sand that has been drawn by our elected officials in Washington and industry and PhRMA that was drawn to protect them from us."
McJoan, writing for New West, notes that Chuck Grassley is letting Baucus hang out to dry on health-care reform. Will Baucus let him? McJoan: "He did make some headlines with that collecting of campaign contributions, particularly last weekend in the form of a lobbyist party back home in Montana, hosting a bunch of lobbyists and political supporters for his Fly-Fishing & Golfing weekend in Big Sky at $2,500 a pop, $5,000 for a political action committee. He's going to do it again at "Camp Baucus," at the end of July. One activist characterized this all as 'unseemly,' since he is at the center of the most critical reform debate of the session. Unseemly? Not in Max's mind. 'There's no problem. I've been doing these events for more than 10 years.'
"This all should raise some key questions for folks back home, where Baucus's constituents, and lots of them, need real, substantive reform. Particularly the more than a third of Montana's residents under age 65 who are uninsured. Who matters more to the Senator? Senate Republicans, lobbyists, or the people of Montana who need his help?"
Obama on Honduras: "'We do not want to go back to a dark past,' Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. 'We always want to stand with democracy,' he added." Apparently the WSJ feels differently.
Governor Sanford to leave office with tail between legs after his Argentinian jaunt and news of his affair? Not so, says God.
Joe the Plumber to run for office? Not so, says God. |
