2012 MT-Sen as Practice for 2014 Max Baucus Retirement Party

by: Bob Brigham

Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 11:31:32 AM MST

One of the top arguments against Denny Rehberg is all of his votes for the Patriot Act. If you're a Democratic Party activist and volunteer to write a letter to the editor against Rehberg, it's quite likely you'll be asked to complain about his support for the Patriot Act. The same practice Democrats will get this year whacking Rehberg for his Patriot Act support will come in handy next cycle when it's time to hold Max Baucus accountable for his support of the Patriot Act. It's the same argument, all you have to do is switch the names.

Another big topic iss the REAL ID Act. Same thing, another example of Montanans hating something Rehberg did, campaigning on it all year and getting practice to hold Max Baucus accountable for being as wrong as Rehberg.

Iraq War? Ditto.

Cosiness with big money special interests? Baucus is even worse.

Bush Tax Cuts? Rehberg just voted for it, Baucus was so instrumental pushing it through the senate that he was rewarded with a photo-op by "getting" to stand right next to Bush when he signed it into law.

In short, this entire year is practice for the 2014 Max Baucus Retirement Party.

Now I don't know if Brian Schweitzer will primary Baucus. I doubt he knows. I do know that if he runs, he wins with a huge, double-digit margin.

Because it's not just the current race that is reminding everyone of the problem with Max Baucus chairing the Senate Finance Committee, all you have to do is read the news.

The latest Max Baucus scandal that everyone is talking about is the emails released that show how Max Baucus blocked reform to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs and prevented Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices. How is that going to stack up in a Democratic primary against the guy who made a national name for himself by taking busloads of seniors to Canada to get the exact same prescription drugs for lower prices?

And now Max Baucus says he's going to do a major overhaul of the tax code? Come on. Everyone knows this is just a transparent play to raise big corporate bucks. He's saying he's going to do major reform, but won't say how? That's like putting a for-rent sign on his senate office, it's a clear signal to everyone with a loophole that they'd better pony up to Max. With everyone familiar with his transactional approach to legislation, it will work. He's going to raise a boatload of money off this stunt.

But will it really matter? In Montana, is there really much of a difference between running a $5 million campaign and a $20 million campaign? At a certain point, there aren't just diminishing returns, but backfire as voters are reminded by his over-saturation of how Max got his money. I don't think anyone in politics doubts that if Brian Schweitzer runs against Max that the good guv will be easily able to raise enough money to run a solid campaign. No, he won't raise as much as Max, but he can raise enough. And with every left of center organization with an email list chomping at the bit to take out Max, he'll have lots of nationwide support.

I don't even think it takes a figure as beloved as our governor to beat Max. Sure, as the most popular elected official in the state, Schweitzer would start out with a big lead in the polls (he's again up by double-digits in the latest poll). But after spending all this year making the arguments against Denny Rehberg that are the same arguments against Baucus, Montana Democrats will be primed for change. Forty-years in DC is too long and it shows.

And if Montana Democrats don't replace Baucus as the nominee, it's likely we'll lose the seat. Baucus got lucky in 2002 with an opponent who dropped out of the race and again in 2008 with an opponent who never even really joined the race. But it's foolish to plan on Baucus being lucky enough to again run unopposed and with his record and negative approval rating, Democrats are toast if he's the nominee. Especially considering Max can't even relate to voters on the stump anymore, he can barely even read off a tele-prompter anymore.

We're going to have to wait until the snow starts melting next spring to see who steps up to challenge Baucus. But Montana Democrats don't have to wait to practice the campaign, we just have fight Denny Rehberg.

Support the public option, Jon

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:01:42 AM MST

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.

Support the public option, Jon.

Letter after the jump:

Medicare veto overridden

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 20:49:07 PM MST

Thanks go out to Jon Tester, Dennis Rehberg, and Max Baucus for supporting this bill all along. I'll give Rehberg special credit for bucking the insurance industry -- a courageous move for him -- and supporting doctors and their patients. And a loud shout out has to go to Baucus for making this happen in the Senate -- it was his baby, and a masterful political stroke. Let's see if it can carry over to discussions on universal health care...

Bush veteos stop to Medicare payment cuts for doctors

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 21:23:15 PM MST

Why? He wants to prevent cuts to Medicare Advantage, his "boondoggle" for private insurers. Better that insurers get their government subsidies than seniors get affordable health care!

Fortunately, the bill passed both bodies of Congress in bipartisan fashion by veto-proof majorities. Let's hope clearer minds prevail, and nervous Republicans don't scamper back to their president on this one. We'll certainly keep an eye on our representative...

Good news, bad news (Senate version)

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM MST

Steve Benen has a nice summary of the various battles over amendments to the FISA bill - all of which lost. Incidentally, both Baucus and Obama voted to strip telecomm immunity from the FISA bill.

But let me call attention and praise to Jon Tester who yesterday did the right thing and voted to preserve the Fourth Amendment. Thanks, Jon. That's why we voted for you.

On Baucus, leadership, and the Medicare payment decreases for doctors

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 21:31:50 PM MST

Back in 1997, President Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act which contained a new payment schedule for physicians in Medicare. The basic principle of the SGR is to keep the growth of Medicare costs in line with the overall growth of the US economy. This idea works great when you have more individuals entering the workforce than entering Medicare age and keep a good (2-3%) growth in the overall economy. Of course in the past couple years, especially in 2007-08, we have seen baby boomers entering the system and an overall economic slowdown. The formula being what it is says that in order to keep Medicare costs roughly in proportion to what they were last year huge cuts are needed to balance everything out.

I, of course, assumed that President Bush had a hand in enacting the cuts. An easy, if careless, mistake, given the president's reason for his impending veto (to protect the insurance industry) and the effect that a payment decrease would have - it drives doctors from participating in government health care. Sabotaging such programs has been a goal of conservatives for some time.

Brad also pointed out that a majority of House Republicans voted for postponing the cuts, among them, Dennis Rehberg. So, hat's off to Dennis - for now. (We'll see how he votes on it again, should Bush get a chance to veto it.)

But what is strange is Brad's condemnation for Baucus' "leadership" on the issue, faulting the chair of the Tax & Finance Committee for not getting enough Republican Senators to sign on to a postponement of the payment decrease and for not getting the sitting Republican president to not veto the bill, should it avoid a Republican-led filibuster.

If Brad is as concerned about the payments as I am - and his post hints that he is - his condemnation should center on those Senators that will filibuster the bill and the president that will veto it. Don't trash Max Baucus; pressure Arlen Specter for, so far, standing in favor of the cuts.

Baucus fights to stave off cuts in Medicare payments to doctors

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:45:55 PM MST

So, House Democrats passed a bill that would prevented the cut.

Senate Republicans (naturally) blocked the bill's passing. But Senate Democrats, led by Baucus, are working to find 60 votes for the bill. Even so, President Bush is threatening a veto. Why?

Mr. Bush and many Republicans oppose the bill because it would finance an increase in doctors' fees by reducing federal payments to insurance companies that offer private Medicare Advantage plans as an alternative to the traditional government-run Medicare program.

(You remember Medicare Advantage. That's the boondoggle for private insurers. And, no, I didn't say that, the GAO did.)

So if the pay cut goes through, doctors will be less willing to treat Medicare patients, making it harder to find providers if you're on Medicare, pushing people towards private insurers and Medicare Advantage, which...well...benefit insurance companies, but, as most of us with private insurers know, not seniors.

Not a sexy issue - like FISA! -- but critical to millions of seniors. Keep your eyes peeled...

A Few Things - Bill Kennedy Announces, Max Baucus Trounces, Bridge Access Bounces (Back)

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:16:41 PM MST

• Bill Kennedy is in. Good. I didn't support Kennedy in the '04 SOS Primary and I think he made some mistakes in the general. But from what I know of him, he's a smart and good man. The biggest concern about him that I hear is that he lacks the "edge" to take on someone like Rehberg, but since the biggest complaint I hear about Rehberg is that he is an *, we just might need a nice guy to beat him.


• Meanwhile, Max Baucus is close to the 60 votes he needs to get a Medicare Part D drug negotiation bill through the Senate. Why does he need 60 votes? Because Finance Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is threatening to filibuster (this is literally the kind of stuff Republicans filibuster -- low drug prices). Of course, now that he's near 60 votes, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is saying that the bill doesn't go far enough. But rather than working to whip her fellow GOPers into, y'know, not supporting an * filibuster against senior citizens, she might try to amend the measure in such a way that it loses a few votes, lacks the support to overcome a filibuster and nothing happens. End result? Olympia runs back to Maine touting her moderate cred while drug companies probably send her fat checks for helping to scuttle a bill that would undermine their record profits. The long-term argument against Max's deal-cutting is that it treats these *es too well. The short-term argument is that they are such * that without some sort of deal-cutting, literally nothing would happen except the sucking of corporate * in Washington D.C.


• Similar stuff is happening back home where the Governor is forcing the Republican House to decide just how much they hate the idea of stream access. Brian used an amendatory veto to insert stream access language into a bill that has already passed. Still, the caucus that apparently cares for "nothing except permanent tax cuts" has apparently changed their position. They don't just want tax cuts for out-of-state landowners. They want exclusive fishing rights for them as well.

  They have a good point, too. These rich folks from out-of-state probably invested big time in pharmaceutical companies and their pay can't keep rising at 3 times the rate of inflation forever, can it? They'll hardly even be able to afford the property taxes on their 30,000 square foot summer homes soon.

  It's just not fair.



• Finally, U.S. Attorney William Mercer, the guy who (sorta) runs federal prosecutions in Montana, testified in a closed hearing about his role in the firings of multiple U.S. Attorneys around the country. Some of these other U.S. Attorneys were let go for failing to really be in charge of their offices. Of course, unlike Mercer, most of them were just U.S. Attorneys and, unlike Mercer, I don't think any of them ever got accused of failing to do their job adequately by a sitting federal judge in their district.

Good folks running this country. Yes sirree.

For 60 Minutes Fans

by: V

Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 17:39:23 PM MST

You can call Max's folks at (800) 332-6106.

Or you can send him an auto-e-mail using this page.

Remember three things when you call.  First, Max is up for re-election in 2008.  Second, every new election is a chance for Max to prove himself to us, again.  Third and most important, Max works for us--not the pharmacos, not the richest few, but each and every Montanan.

Update - There are two editorials in the Gazette today that discuss this and associated topics.

First, According to an AARP poll, around 85% of Montanans support Medicare bargaining for lower prices with big pharmaco.  This is not surprising because it makes good old fashioned Montana sense to bargain for a lower price, rather than giving the big guys exactly what they want.

Second, this editorial reminds us that Max is in a powerful seat on these decisions.  He has said that CHIP is his number one priority, and that is not a bad number one.

The Emerging (Non-Washington) Consensus on Part D Price Negotiations

by: Matt Singer

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:54:28 AM MST

Unfortunately, the current bill and what Senator Baucus support do not really do anything. We're getting smoke blown up our tuckuses, in other words.

But don't take my word for it, here's Robert Reich, economist and labor secretary under Clinton:

But in what appears to be a bow to the political clout of Big Pharma, the bill does not authorize Medicare to drop from its approved list drugs on which manufacturers fail to offer good deals. This is like Wal-Mart telling its suppliers "we're going to use our bargaining clout to get from you the lowest prices for our customers - but regardless of what price you offer we'll still carry your product in our stores." What kind of incentive is that?

Meanwhile, a very smart economist (who prefer anonymity) emails me a good explanation:

"The drug price negotiation issue is a good one for your econ students. People have this notion that the federal government ought to be able to negotiate a low price because it purchases on behalf of so many patients. But size alone doesn't get you discounts. You need to be able to threaten something if you don't get those discounts. Many folks in Congress don't get that. The federal government can get discounts if it threatens to revoke intellectual property rights (Cipro might fall in that category), it threatens with legal penalties (rebates in Medicaid backed by legal sanctions), or it threatens to not purchase (formularies in the VA). It can't get discounts just by 'negotiating'."

A better question might be, "If it doesn't do anything, why are you pretending it does?"

Senator Baucus Moves a Bit on Medicare Part D

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 18:13:59 PM MST

The issue is expected to have a tougher time in the Senate. However, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., gave supporters of the measure a lift on Thursday when he said the total prohibition on government negotiations for Medicare beneficiaries should be eliminated.

"I do not buy the argument that the sky will fall on the prescription drug market if we remove this clause," said Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare.

Max has also been trying to add tax cuts to the minimum wage hike, touting the argument that increases in the minimum wage hurt business. Never mind that we've had year-after-year of tax cuts now and the minimum wage has been stagnant for years. And certainly ignore this New York Times article comparing the small business climates of high minimum wage Washington and low minimum wage Idaho. Turns out small business fares pretty well in Washington and low-wage employers have been majorly helped by the higher wage. Even conservatives are realizing that higher minimum wages are a good thing. Andy Hammond is now just disappointed that the higher minimum wage hasn't completely eliminated poverty. Such lofty goals...