The US Chamber of Commerce is declaring Montana a target on banking reform. With only six small and mid-size states in the mix, we can expect to see a healthy piece of the $3 million budget headed our way no doubt.
The Hill article portrays this as potentially being about seeking some changes to the bill. Frankly, a lot of this shit is in the weeds and well outside my areas of expertise, but my sense also is that here, as in healthcare, the Chamber isn't playing to amend or fix. They're playing to kill because a small number of their members care deeply about this sector of the economy.
Wall Street is obscenely out of hand, especially for a sector of the economy that fundamentally doesn't do anything. We don't need financial innovation. We need fucking banks that work. More of those, please.
The idea of reimporting cheap prescription drugs from Canada, where drugs cost a fraction of what the identical medicine costs here, has been dormant for many months, if not years. Then, yesterday, Schweitzer stormed into the china shop and shattered some dishes.
Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.
That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.
The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?
This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.) But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it.
Today David Sirota warns of the demise of the Democratic party if high-finance candidates represent the party, using the upcoming Illinois Senate Democratic primary as an illustration. In that race, the bank owned by Senate candidate and Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias' family was chided recently by state regulators for essentially funneling depositors' funds into owners' pockets instead of the institution's reserves. As the Bloomberg analysis Sirota linked to points out, it's a bad time to run a high-fiance scandal-plagued candidate for office.
Sirota:
Thus, if Giannoulias, it would be a clear disaster. He is literally the walking personification of all that the public clearly despises right now - an Establishment politician closely connected to the industry that has destroyed the economy.
With him as the nominee, Democrats could lose yet another senate seat, and more broadly, they could lose any national high ground they need to reclaim. At a time when the Democratic Party desperately needs to reclaim the populist economic mantle and prevent Republicans from being able to mount their own right-wing populist campaign, Giannoulias would become the face of a Democratic Party that has already become increasingly synonymous in voters minds with the most hated aspects of the financial industry.
Like Sirota, I've been railing against big business and its too-cozy relationship with government for...years? At least ever since I've had a blog to write on. And one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money was the recent bank bailout, in which the high-finance institutions that caused the recent financial crash with rampant and irresponsible investing after lobbying the government to deregulate its industry received billions. (Meanwhile, we can't even pass a health care bill that would give subsidies to people without health insurance.)
There's been some financial regulatory bills circulating in Congress - most notably Chris Dodd's, which, among other things, would create a Consumer Protection Agency intended to streamline bank and finance regulations and protect consumers from the predatory actions of lenders. (Hint: you can't have a "free" market without consumer access to information and protection from swindlers.) And in the SOTU speech yesterday, President Obama vowed to impose a "fee" on the high-finance institutions that caused the crash.
Tester is less enthusiastic about the administration's plan to impose a new tax on financial firms that received government aid through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
"I'm very concerned that the tax could be passed on to customers," said Tester, who called for the idea to get close examination by lawmakers....
Proposals to create a new consumer financial protection agency aren't high on Tester's list of desired changes, though.
"Fundamentally, I'm not crazy about building another agency," he said, but added that the idea "wouldn't be a deal-killer on my part" and indicated that Senate lawmakers are debating whether the consumer-protection function might be folded into an existing agency, rather than assigned to a newly created one.
That's right. Our progressive populist Montana farmer is planning to use his Senate Banking Committee to...oppose consumer protection and a tax on big banks?
Let's be frank. Banks are not popular. And the Democratic party is quickly becoming identified with high financial interests, not only in Illinois, but apparently closer to home, in Montana.
And hasn't Jon seen the results of the Massachusetts special election? They weren't clamoring for more backroom dealing and a cozier relationship with corporate America. They voted against Coakley because she was seen as the establishment candidate. This position is electoral suicide. And it's bad policy.
Look, I'm fine with Jon being a one-term Senator...if he lost his seat fighting for his core values. But this? Defending huge, East Coast financial institutions' interests from the little guy?
Fresh in my inbox is a statement from Jon Tester following his vote in favor of creating a deficit reduction commission:
"For a decade, both parties have swept America's debt problem under the carpet. And like most Montanans, I'm fed up with the mess.
"The only way to get our fiscal house in order is to put politics aside and work together to create good-paying jobs, making Wall Street work for Main Street."
"That's why I crossed party lines to vote against the bailouts of Wall Street and the U.S. auto industry. And that's why I voted today to create a bipartisan panel to recommend spending cuts."
I know Jon well enough to know that this stuff is heartfelt from him. He really isn't a fan of the massive deficit we've racked up. And I don't even really have a problem with this commission, except that I don't really see how it works.
The basic idea is that most of the real solutions for dealing with the deficit -- bending the health care curve, raising taxes, or seriously rethinking the defense budget -- are politically difficult votes. That's why a health care bill that does two of those three is currently stuck in Congress with some small chance left to pass. On the third issue -- the defense budget -- it means actually building some sort of willingness to stand up to military contractors, their significant lobbies, and the "weak on security" storylines that they and their Congressional lackeys will spin if you seriously evaluate their spending.
How does any of this get easier with a bipartisan commission whose recommendations require a super-duper-pooper majority? It doesn't.
Reality is that fixing America's fiscal outlook isn't at this point a policy problem. We have a bill in Congress that will seriously reduce the long-term deficit. We can write additional bills tomorrow to do the same. The problem is that Judd Gregg, for all his hemming and hawing about budget deficits won't do anything about it. The problem is that Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln crow about deficits but continue to vote for massive tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit picture (Jon has cast some of these votes, as well).
Governing is occasionally about making hard choices. Those hard choices are compounded by a press corps whose understanding of the federal budget often seems downright abysmal. But there's no reason to believe that a blue ribbon panel will convince a single GOP member of Congress to vote for a tax cut or meaningful health care cost controls or the kinds of defense cuts that don't really threaten national security.
For now, anyone seriously interested in long-term deficit reduction should be acting to get the health care bill moving again. If that means reaching across the rotunda and pledging to work with House members on sidecar provisions to move through budget reconciliation or publicly or privately stepping up pressure to get something passed, that's what it will take to get this deficit reduced.
Virtually everything else is basically a game of kick the can.
Under the terms of the Settlement in Cobell v. Salazar, the federal government will create a $1.412 billion Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and a $2 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Settlement also creates a federal Indian Education Scholarship fund of up to $60 million to improve access to higher education for Indian youth. The Settlement also includes a commitment by the federal government to appoint a commission that will oversee and monitor specific improvements in the Department's accounting for and management of individual Indian trust assets, going forward.
The Missoulian's Buffalo Post has links related to the story, and video of the Interior Department's announcement of the settlement.
The news of the settlement followed just a couple of weeks after the president's promise that he would raise the Indian Health Service budget by 13 percent - not nearly enough money to fully fund tribal health care services, but a welcome infusion of cash for a system in great trouble. Certainly, both the settlement and the increase in the IHS budget are policies that are the exact opposite of the Bush administration's, which stonewalled any dealing with the lawsuit, and cut funding for IHS.You have to think that Montana's late 2008 primary had a lot to do with the recent attention paid to First American interests. Without Obama's effective wooing of tribal support in the state, he might not now have paid as much attention to tribal issues as he is.
And let's not forget that Jon Tester's defeat of Conrad Burns removed a considerable roadblock to Native American interests. As part of his platform, Jon vowed to fight both to raise HIS funding and help settle the Cobell lawsuit. Who knows what role Jon played in all this; what we do know, is that Montana voters removed an obnoxious roadblock to fair restitution for federally managed tribal lands.
Elections have consequences.
Don't mistake this as giving praise to Obama and Tester for this settlement. Obama's administration is merely doing what other administrations should have, and Jon's role - whatever it was - pales in comparison to Eloise Cobell's. She's an excellent example of how dogged determination combined with a just cause can make significant change...
There's a critical bill in danger of going extinct in the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd's financial regulation bill:
Dodd said outdated rules leave regulators unable to keep pace with the industry.
"Our financial regulatory system, created piece by piece over decades with little thought given to how it would function as a whole, is simply unable to prevent staggering greed and unthinkable recklessness from threatening our economic security," said Dodd....
Dodd's legislation would create a single bank agency aimed at preventing regulator "shopping" by firms seeking lenient oversight. He also proposed setting up a systemic-risk agency and a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to police firms for credit-card and mortgage lending abuses.
The bill would also remove the bank oversight powers of the Fed and FDIC and create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, whose function would be to monitor and regulate financial institutions and the products they offer, including credit cards, mortgages, and other traded investments:
Under the proposed legislation, the agency would have the power to monitor the financial marketplace, including loans and credit cards, with consumers' interests top of mind. Existing agencies that have that power today have other industry monitoring responsibilities as well.
The agency would focus on making sure financial product disclosures are easy to understand so consumers know what they are getting themselves into as well as on financial literacy education and research. It also would have the power to write rules and enforce them on issues such as arbitration for credit card disputes.
The bill has hit a familiar snag: "centrist" Democrats, and nay-saying Republicans.
One of the Democrats on Dodd's Banking Committee is Jon Tester. In recent statements, Jon's reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring that "members of the insurance industry" have their "feet to the fire," and that national financial institutions are "held accountable" while local banks aren't subject to excessive regulation. One way he can be true to his rhetoric is to support Dodd's banking bill when it comes up to vote....
Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg met with Republican recruiters about a 2012 Senate run against Democrat Jon Tester on Thursday.
Rehberg, who was seen exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters Thursday morning, is the state's lone representative in the House.
There's mutual interest between Rehberg and NRSC officials, according to a source familiar with both sides.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday night that Tester's represented his constituents well and will be formidable when he seeks re-election in three years.
"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.
The good news remains that health care reform is largely on track. We've passed the low point that any bill is likely to hit in terms of the public option and some other key progressive priorities and we're in the process of improving the bill.
But people have no doubt seen the commentary in the last 48 hours regarding the fact that we don't have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate yet. As I have been before, I'm fundamentally optimistic about this. I think the CBO scoring of the merged bill will come back favorable. I think scores on amendments to remove the public option will put the deficit burden on opponents of the public option. I think choice is fundamentally popular and that Republicans and the sell-out Democrats are facing an uphill battle against polling.
All that being said, the fact that we can't move to a consensus point yet on the public option means that progressives have less leverage on three other important points: financing mechanisms, subsidies for affordability, and the strength of the employer mandate. That may be the reason for the foot dragging. Who knows?
But a few other thoughts:
I don't know if Max Baucus has been trying to gut this bill like a fish or busting ass to strengthen it back to his white paper while making sure he has the votes to move forward. I do know that the general momentum in this fight right now is with reformers and specifically with public option advocates and that is both a result of progressive pressure, progressive insiders, and the slow and steady work of Max and his staff and others like him in Congress.
The last 48 hours should have proven that while the problem in DC is with 40 given bad votes that require a bill that "runs the table" with Dems and the two Independents, that still means that putting together a bill that can pass is a damn tough thing to do. Both the Senate and the House will be moving toward floor consideration of their respective bills soon. That is historic. It is amazing. But we don't have the votes for cloture yet.
The Senate is a uniquely messed up institution. If you've been in the weeds, you've read that Joe Lieberman has agreed to let the health care bill be considered...because the world's greatest deliberative body requires sixty votes for debatee to even begin if a single Senator objects. This same body requires 60 votes to end debate in such a manner that the most unpopular political party in the history of the country or something can literally find one grandstanding member of the majority and lock down the chamber. Why no one has launched a full-frontal assault on the chamber's structure and existence in American political life is, frankly, beyond me.
Anyways, I know I keep getting described as a fool in comments. Maybe I am for having the policy stances that I do. But so far this game is playing out close to how I imagined it...and I think we're on the path for an OK bill.
Saw it on the b'birds, who saw it on Kos, who read it on a Chris Bowers' post, who heard "word" that Jon Tester supports Chuck Schumer's version of the public option.
Which pushes the Senate whip count in favor of the public option to 51.
Matthew Koehler has several times brought attention to this Martin Nie write-up on Jon Tester's forest bill. I got a chance to read about 2/3 of Nie's piece the other day and highly recommend it.
There seems to be a sense in comments that I think questioning this bill or its content is unacceptable. For the record, that's absolutely false. My impression is that it is completely untrue from Jon's perspective as well (although I haven't spoken with him about this).
Reality is that Nie's approach is super academic and, maybe as a result, non-confrontational. Nie also has the sense to note that Jon's approach here is groundbreaking not just in ways that deserve questioning and critical thoughtfulness but in ways that create large-scale opportunities.
What I like about Jon's bill, what I've liked from the beginning, is that it is place-based, that it is collaborative. For others, that's been a primary bone of contention, that forest policy should be driven primarily by bureaucrats and science. I think our current systems for land management in the West are fairly broken and that our democracy has been suffering as a result.
But let me also say this, I've heard from enough skeptics of this bill to be glad that Jon's hitting the road, going to Troy, going to Dillon, going to Bozeman, and, presumably, going to more towns and taking feedback. There is work to be done on this bill (and, fortunately, a lengthy process known as Congress making decisions that will allow for serious consideration).
As far as I can tell, the most vocal critics of this bill has decided to lock themselves outside of the process and then refer to it as closed off. They've made unprecedented demands, like asking for legislation before it had been written. And once the first draft of the bill was released, declared the process a sham.
Anyways, read Nie. He knows a lot about forest policy and he asks some good questions. And he rightly concludes:
The above questions are not driven by politics. Nor are they asked with the purpose of trying to defeat the Senator's bill or to criticize his courageous entry into Montana wilderness politics. They are meant instead to get the public thinking about the big picture and how the parts are going to fit or not fit together. The stakes are high. If the FJRA becomes law, place-based proposals throughout the West will take a big step forward. The FJRA would be the first one out of the gate, setting precedent for others, and this is reason enough why it must be scrutinized so carefully.
For critics who have questioned Jon's ethics on this matter to claim political cover from an expert who refers to bill as "courageous" and specifically notes that it is not his desire (at least yet) "to defeat the Senator's bill," I think it is dishonest.
Enjoy your weekend -- I might see y'all at the homecoming parade or game tomorrow.
Jon Tester is holding an open house on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in Troy on Saturday:
Senator Jon Tester will host an open house to discuss the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in Troy Saturday, October 10.
Tester introduced the unique legislation in July after seeking input from stakeholders across the state.
Tester's open house is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Troy High School auditorium. The event is free and open to the public.
After a presentation, Tester and his staff will be on hand to gather feedback and answer questions about the legislation.
EVENT: Forest Jobs and Recreation Act open house with Sen. Jon Tester
DATE/TIME: Saturday, October 10, from 10-11:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Troy High School auditorium
Update -- I've been notified in comments that this is all a sham and that no one listens, so we're taking a different tact: REVOLUTIO!N!@N!!!!
You voted for him. You walked the streets, knocking on strangers' doors for him. You manned the phone lines for him. Not only because there was a Senator representing the state who was bloated with corruption, but because Jon Tester was one of us, someone who didn't live and breathe politics, a farmer who was as far removed from DC as you could be. Someone who promised to be a progressive populist, looking out for our concerns.
So. Where did he go? We haven't heard a peep from Jon on healthcare. Well, except for the news that jhwygirl related, as reported in Roll Call, that he - and Schweitzer - are concerned about the share of the Medicare expansion that states are expected to bear, and will lobby Baucus to have that provision struck from his bill. (And while Republican Senators have adopted that concern as their new means to oppose any and all reform efforts, it's actually a legitimate concern, especially for small states like Montana.)
But what we want to hear about is Jon's stance on the public option. Where does Jon Tester stand on the public option? Based on the usual fare we get from Tester's office, who can say?
A spokesman for Sen. Jon Tester said the public option makes sense to Tester, but Montana's junior senator "wants to make sure whatever the Senate does is right for Montana."
"Jon isn't ruling out supporting a public option, as long as it's done right so that it works for Montana families and small businesses," said Tester spokesman Patrick Devlin. "He knows that our health care system is badly broken and the status quo is the worst option on the table for working families."
We are left knowing less than before.
As Yellowstone Kelly pointed out today, Democrats have really scr*wed themselves with their lukewarm (at best) approach to reform and public policy. Hiding from healthcare reform is only going to hurt Jon Tester in 2012. On the other hand, with Democrats and independents overwhelmingly supporting a public option, seizing the issue and advocating for it can only benefit Montana's junior Senator.
Oh, and supporting the public option is the right thing to do.
And I'm glad to see that Health Care for America Now is asking Jon to sign a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he ensure a public option is contained in the healthcare reform bill that passes the Senate.
Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio signed it. This is why:
As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn't forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option. Four out of five congressional committees passed health reform legislation that includes a strong public option. We owe it to hardworking families, small businesses, and taxpayers to pass a public option that lowers costs and ensures much-need competition in the insurance industry.
For anyone who missed it, Jon Tester had a public meeting on the forest bill yesterday in Dillon and he's doing another in Bozeman tomorrow:
DATE/TIME: Monday, September 28, from 9:30-11 a.m.
LOCATION: 3rd Floor Community Room of the Gallatin County Courthouse
311 West Main Street, Bozeman
This is all part of a complicated strategy to ram the bill down people's throats in a smoky backroom while pretending to have an open process where they go out and take feedback from thousands of Montanans. Or something.
I'm not really sure what the conspiracy theory will be here. Notably, these meetings are coming before a hearing has been called on the bill, more evidence that this bill ain't exactly being rammed through Congress (anyone following the health care debate will actually note the Democrats' unwillingness to ram anything through Congress).
Anyways, go check out the open house, offer feedback, etc.
Worth noting as well, although on places like Left in the West, you'll note that the there's a lot of criticism of this bill from the left, the loudest voices against it are particularly anti-wilderness voices. If this bill dies, the CW in Montana will remain that wilderness is not politically defensible and no more wilderness will be protected.
Huffington Postnotes that with Sen. Ted Kennedy's replacement headed for the Senate soon, pressure is increasing for commitments from Democrats to support an up or down vote on health reform. Basically, the call is to prevent Republican filibusters on the bill from succeeding it.
If the bill isn't filibustered (and Democrats alone have the power to prevent a filibuster), a majority determine the fate of the legislation.
Majority rule -- quite the concept.
Note: Neither Max nor Jon has given any indication EVER that they would be part of a filibuster. The problem Democrats on this are more like Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, the Nelsons, and Blanche Lincoln. Joe Lieberman is a problem, but he ain't a Democrat.
Ahhh. August. Usually, it's pretty quiet in the Big Sky state. Not a lot of political craziness, even in hot election years.
But this is different. A bus is coming to town. To towns, rather.
This August congressional recess a load of well-heeled right-wingers will pass through a few towns in Montana, trying to tip the political balance away from health care reform. Check here for their schedule.
Their goal: to pack town hall meetings and other events organized by our congressional delegation.
At town hall meetings across the country, this group has show what they're about. They include a segment of the population known as "birthers" - (It's the latest paranoid theory about President Barack Obama; the scheme is to spread the false rumor that he was not born in the U.S.) Others flocking to the right-wing banner include anti-taxers, pro-lifers and other right-wing extremists. Generally, what they've done is shout down members of Congress and staff .
The efforts are well-funded by outfits like Conservatives For Patients' Rights, the organization that funded the Tax Day Tea Parties. CPR was founded and funded by Rick Scott, the former head of Columbia HCA - the health care company that was successfully prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for bilking the federal government out of billions of dollars in the single largest fraud case ever prosecuted by the U.S. government.
And... CPR is headed our way!
Montana's ripe for their antics. We've got two key Senate votes and a right-wing Representative who needs political cover. How could they avoid us?
In just a few days (August 14th - 17th), they'll begin their Montana tour, which includes communities as small as Roundup and as big as Great Falls.
It's our hope that when they hit each of our communities they'll encounter reasonable people who understand that the time has come for health care reform.
Regardless of whether you support single payer, a public option, or just simple insurance reform and regulation, we hope you'll be out there to greet them.
Tester's been taking a back-seat during health-care reform. He's being noncommittal. You get the feeling he's taking Baucus' lead on the issue. From the Chron:
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester said Friday in Bozeman he could support a controversial public option insurance plan as part of health care reform.
"If it's designed right," the Montana Democrat said. "The devil's in the details."
Any reform bill, Tester said, would have to control costs, improve access and affordability, improve people's health, focus on wellness and prevention, and preserve choice.
Tester said he'd like to cover the 46 million Americans with no health insurance, but, "we need to do it without running up the national debt."
There you go. Tester's promising us everything and nothing at the same time.
I know a lot of folks want Max and Jon to spearhead real (single-payer?) health care reform, but state politics and Baucus-ian electoral strategy dictates something else entirely. I expect professional strategists are urging them to tack "moderately" with an eye to Montana's political middle.
Whether that strategy is good or not is a moot point. What's not moot is that there are a few other Democratic Senators in the same situation. (Conrad, Nelson, etc.) The question for those politicians isn't, "do you support a public option," but "would you support a filibuster of a Democratic bill that included a public option?"
I don't think this is going to help Montana shake its growing reputation for harboring wingnuts and corporate owned lawmakers.
AlaskaReport has learned today that Todd Palin and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are to divorce. Multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage (including a former Palin staffer) have confirmed the split.
Palin's divorce
A National Enquirer story exposing previous affairs on both sides led to a deterioration of their marriage and the stress from that led to Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska last week.
This was such an excellent idea, I thought I'd make it a post. Written by Hoomai29 in response to Jaques' call for protest at the upcoming Tester fundraiser:
Embarassing Max and Jon at their fundraiser is nuts. This could just as easily be a Conrad Burns fundraiser and then where would we be?
However, getting 1000 activists to politely pay their $50 and go to the events and then to wear nice stickers that support either the Public Option or Single Payer Health Care, while making nice, and talking to Jon and Max, and eating the excellent barbecue they always serve would make great sense.
Of course, the fact that about a thousand constituents made their fundraiser a roaring success because they supported a public option would certainly have an impact wouldn't it?
Oh, and I have stickers to distribute. They say,
"A Public Option Lets U.S. Work."
A nice reminder that there's another option besides confrontation that might sway or influence our Senators. (And I've argue that protests are often counter-productive.) After all, it's hard to argue with a 1,000 public-option supporters who show up for your fundraiser...
After all, if they're beholden to lobbyists as their critics maintain, wouldn't it make sense to become lobbyists?
You could probably still bring your stilts and puppet suits.
