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...
The biggest fall in this health care debate has be that of Chuck Grassley's integrity. Usually a Senator that usually works in good faith with Baucus in the Senate Finance committee, over health care he's devolved into a scrub. To wit: "We should not have a government plan," said Grassley last week, "that pulls the plug on grandma." And the news today?
Sen. Charles E. Grassley a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.
Get it? Apparently we progressives have going about reform the wrong way. You know, peacefully, and by appealing to reason. I guess we should strap on our assault rifles, push and shove whoever stands in our way, and shout down our elected representatives.
By the way, make no mistake: the traditional media has legitimized this kind of discourse with its coverage of the Tea Baggers.
Meanwhile, anonymous White House sources still think that progressives will be thrilled about a health care bill in which progressive reform is gutted:
The president continues to operate under the belief that liberals will warm to the bill when presented with a goodybag that includes includes an individual mandate, community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum required package. There's no chance, really, that a bill WON'T feature these reforms. Quietly, to secure and keep Democrats on board, the White House is going to bargain, providing inducements, like more money for favored projects, etc., in order to secure individual votes.
The public option is the last line of defense for most progressives I know, and even that, for many, is too far. Jed Lewison:
Keeping in mind that this anonymously sourced report could be total bunk, it's worth pointing out that axeing the public option and requiring individuals to purchase coverage under a private health insurance plan would be a horrible political miscalculation. If you think we're having problems selling health care reform now, just wait until we try to explain why all adults under 65 will be required to purchase health insurance from the private sector with no public option.
Oh, you're not interested in making that argument? I didn't think so.
Seriously, who thinks, even with the community standard and other regulatory reforms, that private insurers won't find a way to wiggle out of their obligations? IMHO, even with all the reforms in the bill, without the public option and with an individual mandate and taxing health care benefits make this bill actively bad.
Update: Forward Montana is running a "smoking Grassley" campaign, urging you to contact his office and ask him to get out of our way and let us have health care reform:
Senator Charles Grassley
Washington, D.C. Office: (202) 224-3744
Or contact him on the web.
Excuse me for not jumping into the love-fest for the new Pentagon budget.
Here's the deal. Yesterday, Secretary Gates announced "cuts" made to the US military budget, which put a few weapons programs onto the cutting-room floor:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed budget would cut back some of the industry's largest deals, from a big upgrade of Army fighting units to contracts for new cargo planes and stealth destroyers.
Gates said Monday the Pentagon's weapons strategy will focus on equipment that can be used against the insurgencies and irregular threats faced in places like Afghanistan, rather than older programs designed for conventional wars. He also expressed skepticism over some programs with newer, yet unproven technology, like elements of the plan to build a shield from missile attacks.
The big news is that the budget includes a phase-out for the F-22, the world's most technologically advanced -- and, at just over $361 million per -- the most expensive fighter jet ever.
The LA Times calls the budget "just about right." Matt Duss says "Gates' recommendations are an important...move towards a responsible re-balancing of America's defense spending priorities." Noah Shachtman calls Gates' proposals, "the most sweeping overhaul of America's arsenal -- and of the Pentagon's budget -- in decades," lauding the Pentagon's moves towards programs that "concentrate on the dirty, irregular wars America is actually in" and touts the Secretary for "trying to shake the defense establishment free of the Cold War."
Well...for starters, the Pentagon's budget isn't being "cut." It's being increased by about forty billion. The "cuts" bandied about by the press and the administration are really cuts to the proposed increases. So, by "cutting," they mean "increasing less."
And don't get me started on the F-22. Yes, I think it's a good idea to phase out the plane. While Black Hawk Down author Michal Bowden's paen to the fighter jet makes it sound as if the existence of the American Empire hinges on the 60 planes Gates yesterday announced we won't be building, it's likely the nation's security would be better served by cheaper, "more austere" planes "tailored to the missions that actually win wars." Not to mention that the F-22 has yet to fly a combat mission, currently useless in any combat zone where there's an overabundance of radio signals. You know, like...well...everywhere.
And while Montana "boosters" are ruing Gates' decision to scrap the 60 F-22s, warning whoever they can pigeonhole that jobs! will! be! lost! at places like Summit Aeronautics in Helena, it turns out those claims are...er...not exactly true. It was only a year ago that the industry was crying over a labor shortage...and it's not as if the Pentagon has suddenly halted production of all its planes. Quite the reverse: Gates announced that we're doubling down on the F-35, the bomber/strike version of the F-22, and built by the same manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Likely the jobs lost to the F-22 will be picked up by the near endless orders for the Pentagon's other planes.
(Incidentally, Lockheed Martin's stock rose by about nine percent immediately following Gates' comments yesterday on the Pentagon's new priorities.)
And...the F-22 isn't really dead! HuffPo blogger Chris Kelly points out that the 2009 budget still contains money to build the last four F-22s we've contracted...but leaves the door open for the budget presented in 2010 to buy more of the advanced fighter jets! Or, as aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia commented, it was "just enough of a tactical victory to keep the F-22 going and allow political pressure to be brought to bear." That is, Lockheed Martin's lobbying corps will have a year to focus on Congress to get those 60 planes built.
So, yeah. I'm not sure I'd call this a "victory" of any sorts, especially of government over wasteful spending and big, corporate boondoggles.
Speaking of dealing with the finance industry with kid gloves, check out Simon Johnson's piece in The Atlantic.
The former chief economist at the IMF and MIT economics professor, Johnson notices the similarities of the collapse of the US economy with other collapses overseen by the IMF in "emerging markets." Basically a financial elite partners with its government to undertake ever increasing financial risks where profits are gobbled by the elites and losses underwritten by the government. According to Johnson, during the first throes of financial trouble, the government always ponies up to the economic oligarchs with tax breaks or government bailouts.
Sound familiar? It should. In essence, the financial industry has been leveraging its power over the US government into increasingly favorable deals, in which it receives oodles of taxpayer money while only delaying or mitigating the roots of the current crisis.
Johnson:
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people at the IMF. If you hid the name of the country and just showed them the numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF hands would say: nationalize troubled banks and break them up as necessary.
This may seem like strong medicine. But in fact, while necessary, it is insufficient. The second problem the U.S. faces-the power of the oligarchy-is just as important as the immediate crisis of lending. And the advice from the IMF on this front would again be simple: break the oligarchy.
The financial elite has too much power over the government and is blocking the most effective solutions to the financial crisis, which would put their power and money at risk. To do that, Johnson recommends breaking up the banks into smaller institutions after nationalization, policing them with robust anti-trust legislation, and capping executive pay.
Basically recreate the banking industry into something that's boring -- and safe. And preferably an industry that doesn't hold disproportionate power over our government.
Still and all, don't you wish that Obama were willing to treat bankers the same way he's treating the carmakers? It's pretty much impossible not to compare his tough words this morning with the conciliatory tone and even more conciliatory actions he's taken with the financial industry.
If anything, this only underscores how weak the auto industry is, both economically and politically.
Okay. I haven't been paying much attention to all the hubbub about AIG bonuses, etc. It's chump change! It has nothing to do with the state of the economy or our ability to get us out of the current crisis! It's just political noise, an issue that serves as an outlet for the public's wrath.
In other news, we're still in the middle of a recession.
For one, James K Galbraith thinks the Obama administration is underestimating the depth of the current crisis and isn't spending enough to blunt it. He argues that doling out cash to banks won't solve our problem: without borrowers -- that is, a financially robust middle class -- the credit crisis won't end:
A brief reflection on this history and present circumstances drives a plain conclusion: the full restoration of private credit will take a long time. It will follow, not precede, the restoration of sound private household finances. There is no way the project of resurrecting the economy by stuffing the banks with cash will work. Effective policy can only work the other way around.
To restore "private household finances," Galbraith puts forth an ambitious government program:
The first thing we need, in the wake of the recovery bill, is more recovery bills. The next efforts should be larger, reflecting the true scale of the emergency. There should be open-ended support for state and local governments, public utilities, transit authorities, public hospitals, schools, and universities for the duration, and generous support for public capital investment in the short and long term. To the extent possible, all the resources being released from the private residential and commercial construction industries should be absorbed into public building projects. There should be comprehensive foreclosure relief, through a moratorium followed by restructuring or by conversion-to-rental, except in cases of speculative investment and borrower fraud. The president's foreclosure-prevention plan is a useful step to relieve mortgage burdens on at-risk households, but it will not stop the downward spiral of home prices and correct the chronic oversupply of housing that is the cause of that.
Great. It now sounds as if the administration is jumping on board Baucus' proposal to tax health care benefits. And on the same faulty premise of "moral hazard":
Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.
They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits encourage what Mr. McCain called "gold-plated" policies, resulting in inefficient and costly demands for health care and pressure on employers to hold down workers' pay as insurance expenses rise. And, they say, the policy discriminates against those - many of whom are low-income workers - who do not have employer-provided coverage.
In short, they're considering taxing some benefit payments for two reasons: to raising revenue, and to discourage use of "gold-plated" policies.
Just curious, but does anyone have any evidence that good health insurance policies lead to higher, patient-driven insurance costs?
As for the policy discriminating against those who don't have employer-provided coverage, why not offer those consumers tax deductions for their health-care policy purchases?
TPM's Zachary Roth recently noted that a bill proposed by Senators Carl Levin and Barack Obama -- the Stop Tax Have Abuse Act (pdf) -- might have prevented the kind of fraud perpetrated on investors by Allen Stanford...only the legislation was tabled in Max Baucus' Tax and Finance Committee.
Now if any of this sounds familiar, it should. Way back when the bill was first routed to Baucus' committee, I noted the legislation would go a long way to fulfilling Baucus' own rhetoric on closing the tax gap. Later, in the context of Chuck Rangel's bald attempt to protect campaign donors from IRS scrutiny into Virgin Islands acounts, I noted the Levin/Obama bill seemingly had died in Baucus' committee; the Senator's office responded by saying that he was working on legislation "to help curb the use of tax havens."
Well, Roth this week received a detailed reply from a Tax and Finance committee aide that included a list of committee accomplishments in fighting offshore tax havens:
The Finance Committee actively fights offshore tax havens - in the JOBS bill with inversions policy, tax shelter penalties, and increased transparency with regard to tax shelter promoters; in last year's military bill, with provisions to stop US companies with Federal contracts from setting up entities in tax havens to run employees through in order to avoid employment taxes. FOGEI/FORI in the energy bill tightened up a bit the way oil and gas pay US tax on foreign-earned income. Other proposals have been made public as well, particularly with regard to Bermuda reinsurance. The Committee also sent the GAO to Ugland House in the Cayman Islands to investigate one of the most notorious suspected tax havens in the world. And the Committee will take this issue up again at a hearing in March.
Now, the Senate moves slow, and I'm not accusing Max Baucus of purposefully dragging his feet on this issue. After all, in 2007 the political environment in the Senate was night compared to February 27th's day. And when Franken is finally seated, attaining cloture on important votes will be all the easier. And that's not to mention the co-sponsor of S681 is sitting in the White House. H *ll, Obama is banking on the closure of tax havens in his budget to reduce the deficit.
Which is a long way of saying that I, too, will be eagerly awaiting the hearings on tax haven legislation in March.
In this piece from The Hill, which focuses on the tough vote that faces appointed NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on a possible assault weapon ban, Jon Tester had this to say about the proposal:
"It's baloney."
Tester and Mark Warner's opposition to the bill (and one assumes Baucus' as well?) means that there would have to be crossover Republican votes for the ban to pass.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
This element of Obama's impending energy policy hasn't gotten nearly the attention it deserves. If he does it right, it could be the secret weapon that kills new coal plants for good -- with far greater certainty than a middling cap-and-trade program. Obama has always said, to those who were listening closely, that he plans to prevent the construction of a new fleet of dirty coal plants, if not by carbon pricing then by other means. EPA regs are the other means. Beyond that, and perhaps even more importantly, EPA regs could hasten the demise of existing coal plants.
Now. Anybody want to bet Montana's future on coal? Time to start thinking up new strategies for bringing in state revenue for schools, folks.
One of the positive effects of the Obama administration is that it's going to allow California to implement its new, strict emissions and mileage standards for cars sold in the state, standards the Bush administration has refused to allow. Why?
As California goes, so goes the country -- and even the world. According to the state Air Resources Board, 71% of the world's population lives in countries with vehicle emissions standards modeled on California's. If the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, grants California's latest waiver, 40% of the country will be driving cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases from their tailpipes, and other states are likely to follow the lead.
Letting California set tighter mileage standards for cars is verboten for an Oil Man.
And following Obama's decision was this nice surprise!
A Democratic legislator and the governor's office say Montana should follow in California's footsteps by adopting stricter fuel efficiency standards for some cars and trucks.
"We ought to be concerned in Montana for Montana, and we also ought to be concerned for the planet as a whole," Democratic Sen. Ron Erickson of Missoula told a Senate committee Friday.
The measure would make Montana one of more than a dozen states to take on the more stringent California system.
Representatives of Gov. Brian Schweitzer's office testified in support of the change.
The last sentence is the kicker. It's a complete reversal for the Good Guv from his stance last May, in which he rejected the notion that states regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
And if Montana doesn't follow California's lead, the state will become a dumping ground for the auto industry's leftover low-efficiency autos, something Montanans, living in a small town with very long streets, can't afford...
Matt touched on the hubub over the economic stimulus bill. Matt's bummed they stripped mass transit from the proposal in favor of tax cuts, and I am, too.
There's a lot of reasons to like mass transit infrastructure investments. John Judis notes that high-speed rail would be the "most energy-efficient and quickest means of getting between places like Boston and New York," and that the huge investment (estimated between 30 and 40 billion) would mean a revival of US manufacturing -- jobs producing "green" technology. Additionally, infrastructure investment would produce jobs at a much higher rate and more quickly than tax cuts. Which makes sense, if you think about it. Building a bridge, say, has the immediate benefit of creating jobs to build the bridge, and the long-term benefit to the economy of improving commerce across the river. Building green infrastructure has the additional benefit of being more energy-efficient. Conservative tax-cutting plans give rich people a lot more money, but the rest of us little.
Oh yeah, and infrastructure investment is wildly popular.
Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations -- including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery -- have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found.
This whole tax haven thing has got to be addressed by the new government. Baucus aimed some rhetoric at these people with his talk of closing the tax gap, and Obama co-sponsored a bill with Carl Levin to end tax haven abuse (pdf), so there's hope here something happens. It'd be nice if the next stimulus package included some strings requiring companies to start paying taxes.
On the other hand, Baucus' committee was where the Obama/Levin bill went to die, and there are plenty of Democrats who'll fight to protect their corporate sponsors. And you know the free-maket mavens, who for some reason still have access to power, will tell you requiring companies to pay their taxes will just drive them overseas...
...or maybe we just do what David Cay Johnston proposes:
The Obama administration could tell the Caymans - now fifth in the world in bank deposits - to repeal its bank secrecy laws or be invaded; since the island nation's total armed forces consists of about 300 police officers, it shouldn't be hard for technicians and auditors, accompanied by a few Marines, to fly in and seize all the records. Bermuda, which relies on the Royal Navy for its military, could be next, and so on. Long before we get to Switzerland and Luxembourg, their governments should have gotten the message.
Now there's a war I could get behind!
Update: Speak of free-market mavens slamming corporate tax rates, and lo! Enter Grover Norquist:
The other tax cut you could do is cutting the corporate rate. The U.S. corporate rate is 35 percent; the European rate is 25 percent. Obama is a more international guy, so we should be close to the European average. We'll stop torturing people, we'll stop torturing corporations, and that will make us more like Europe.
Obama said his team is still evaluating the whole issue of interrogations and detentions.
"Obviously, we are looking at past practices and I don't believe anyone is above the law," he told ABC in an interview.
"But my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law," he added.
I'm sorry, but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years - and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama's remarks to mean that we won't - this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Now added to the pantheon of "liberal" dogma is the shrill, ideological belief that high government officials must abide by our laws and should be treated like any other citizen when they break them. To believe that now makes you not just a "liberal," but worse: a "liberal score-settler." Apparently, one can attain the glorious status of being a moderate, a centrist, a high-minded independent only if one believes that high political officials (and our most powerful industries, such as the telecoms) should be able to break numerous laws (i.e.: commit felonies), openly admit that they've done so, and then be immunized from all consequences. That's how our ideological spectrum is now defined.
Greenwald goes on to claim, quite rightly I suspect, that probably the main reason Obama -- and more importantly, Congresss -- doesn't want to go there is because they were complicit with Bush's extralegal activities. In short, if they investigate, everyone will be swept up. I suspect the DC Establishment is content with Obama's promised kinder, gentler anti-terror activities, which probably will preclude torture, if Eric Holder's recent testimony during his confirmation hearings is any indication.
Still, it's torture. Those that green-lighted torture, those leaders that approved its use, should be prosecuted to the fullest, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. It's not a matter of "settling scores," it's about holding the guilty accountable, about ensuring that government officials respect the law.
Okay, so I was away last week. To Baja to kayak on the Sea of Cortez, a trip taken to celebrate my 10th anniversary, and man! An amazing trip. It was also my first trip to Mexico, and I have to say, I enjoyed getting away from everything.
I'm not fully caught up yet, but I see the headlines blazing with Israel's invasion of Gaza - and the Patriots missed the playoffs, but the Eagles already won a playoff game? Anyway, the first thing that made me stutter-step in political news was the news that Bill Richardson withdrew as Obama's nominee for Commerce because of an investigation into the New Mexican's political dealings during his tenure as governor.
While Steve Benen wonders how Richardson slipped through the Obama transition team's vetting process, I'm left scratching my head that Richardson thought he had a shot at the presidency while this was ongoing. His chutzpah in this thing reminds me of Edwards' - running an outside chance at the Democratic nomination with a gigantic scandal hanging over his head.
Now it still may turn out that there's nothing here - but, besides Edwards', has anyone's political stock fallen as far as Richardson? He started out the campaign season as everyone's dark horse pick, then blundered his way through the early primaries, and frankly embarassed himself during the debates. He subsequently alienated himself from his closest allies - the Clintons - with an endorsement of Obama, and alienated himself from the Obama administration with this recent brouhaha. With both New Mexico Senate seats now occupied by Demcrats, there doesn't look like there's much upwards room left for the governor for the forseeable future.
John Richardson has raised the subject in a mainstream publication: the legalization of pot, and suspects that Obama might be the president to do it.
Why?
How about the $10 to $14 billion in tax revenue legalization of marijuana would provide to government coffers? How about the legalization of pot rising to the top spot for the concerns of Obama supporters in an online poll on change.gov? (Yes, online polls are easily manipulated - but still!) How about the contributions to his campaign from "friends of the legalization movement"?
While Richardson admits Obama's rhetoric on the issue and rumors that he'll appoint "anti-drug warrior" Republican Jim Ramstad as drug czar don't indicate a clear path to legalization, he does quote an interview with Rolling Stone in which he said this:
I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.
The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives - it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense.
Which bodes well that the Obama administration will make an effort to curb the Drug War and focus on dealing with addiction as a disease rather than a crime.
Personally, I'm indifferent to the legalization movement. While I do favor decriminalizing pot - turning it into, say, a misdemeanor for possessing small amounts - I'm no gung-ho advocate for making the stuff legal. Of course it isn't a problem drug - not on the scale of methamphetemines, say - but...I dunno...what's wrong with making it difficult to get and still socially unacceptable? (Feel free to answer in the comments.)
But here's the thing - the War on Drugs attacks the supply of drugs. Not to mention all the crazy empowerment and money spent on questionable law enforcement practices associated with the War on Drugs. We should be attacking the demand for drugs, eliminating customers through treatment.
Salazar has served in the Senate since 2005, and where he has been a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as well as the Agriculture Committee. Salazar has been active on a number of Western resource issues, and has been an outspoken opponent of Bush administration moves to open up land in Colorado and other Western states to oil-shale development.
Salazar was raised on a ranch in Colorado, and farmed for 30 years. He and his wife also owned several small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and radio stations. Before entering politics, he was a private-sector attorney focusing on water and environmental law, and from 1987 to 1994 he was chief legal counsel to Colorado Gov. Roy Romer (D) and executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. From 1999 to 2005, Salazar was the attorney general of Colorado. His predecessor as state AG, Gale Norton, was Bush's first secretary of the interior.
Salazar got an 85 percent score from the League of Conservation Voters for his voting during the 110th Congress, and has an 81 percent lifetime score.
Not too many are speculating about how Salazar might do as Secretary of the Interior -- Kossak McJoan, for example, responds with a lukewarm "meh" -- but many observers note that it might be good to get Salazar out of the Senate, where he was a force for Democratic capitulation on key issues and a strong supporter of Joe Lieberman.
Does anybody have thoughts on how Salazar might do as Sec. of the Interior?
As the cabinet positions are named, one-by-one, the Interior position is still vacant. That post, of course, is where the buzz swirls around Brian Schweitzer. Heck, this blog has noted that Schweitzer could still preside over this legislative session and then slip off to DC with hardly a stutter step.
Schweitzer continues to deny any interest in the Interior post, saying, "I like being outside too much to be an Interior Secretary." Heh.
Schweitzer has long been a high-profile guy among the netroots, and his splash at the Democratic National Convention got some attention from Democratic stalwarts across the country. The question is, will the Good Guv ever cash in on this adulation? And if so, how?
Bless ol' Mike Dennison! Did you read his "Reporter's Notebook" report yesterday? Check it out:
When it comes to health care reform in America, there is a relatively simple solution that will cover everyone's basic health care, control costs and save businesses, most people and the country a lot of money.
It's called a single-payer health plan, where the government collects taxes to finance national health insurance. The government, which is the "single payer," covers all citizens and pays the bills when they visit private (or public) doctors, hospitals and other facilities for medical care.
All would have basic coverage, regardless of whether they have a job, or where they work. Nobody gets billed for basic care. No-body goes broke because of medical bills.
Yet this option has been declared "off the table" by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who's among those leading the charge for health care reform in America.
Single! Payer! Health! Care!
As many long-time readers know, single-payer healthcare is the favorite solution to the health care crisis for this blogger. Many of us in the left 'sphere have been touting its benefits for years. Honestly, it's quite refreshing to see a Montana reporter bring it up as if the benefits of single-payer health care were obvious, and rages against the insurance industry like a good old-fashioned Western populist.
If there's any doubt that this isn't a "center right" country, it's this deft argument for progressive health care found in a Billings, Montana, newspaper.
So. Why aren't we talking about it? Dennison here seems to lay the blame solely on Baucus et al's fear of, or subservience to, Big Pharm, the insurance industry, and other well-financed sectors of the health-care industry. And there's no doubt some truth to this accusation. (It should be noted here that general practitioners overwhelmingly favor a single-payer system.) While Democratic leaders claim a single-payer system "doesn't poll well," Dennison argues that good messaging would win the day.
So...what are we waiting for? Is now the time to push for single-payer health care?
The polls are wildly contradicting on this issue. Two oft-quoted polls by single-payer advocates include a 2003 ABC/Washington Post poll, and a 2007 Yahoo poll show a pretty broad base of support for government-financed health insurance systems. But then, polls around the recent federal CHIP bill (which Bush vetoed) showed that Americans were nervous that CHIP would lead to a government health care plan and a 2007 Field poll of Californians showed that only 36 percent favored a single-payer system, as opposed to 33 percent wanting to implement reforms in the current system and the rest apparently either undecided or not wanting to implement changes to the system at all.
What's obvious from these polls is that the output changes based on the wording in the questions, and the number of options respondents are given. In short, single-payer health care is not a slam dunk. And Dennison is right: how the system is explained would likely dictate its fate. And given that the multi-billion dollar insurance industry would be fighting for its very existence, and put all its money down on the table to fund a messaging campaign, exactly who do you think would win that fight?
Which is a short way of saying that what's likely to come out of Congress from the Baucus plan (pdf) and the Obama administration will give us something, now. Baucus' plan isn't comprehensive or revolutionary change; instead, it expands and strengthens the current employer-based health care system, augmenting it with more access to public health care plans. In short, it means more people get covered at lower prices. Sure, I have some specific questions as it relates to my own personal situation -- for one, what about the self-employed? Can we get affordable coverage? And the plan doesn't seem to address how private health insurance actually works -- or doesn't work. What about the industry's byzantne bureaucracy designed to discourage claims? What about the industry's penchant to spending resources, not on paying out claims, but on finding reasons to reject them?
Here's the thing. The Baucus plan will be implemented in some form or other. That's a slam dunk. And it also represents a radical change in health care. Make no mistake, this isn't a small, concilatory gesture, it's real reform. Will it be enough? Probably not. But it's a decent start.
It's official: Hillary Clinton's been offered the SoS gig.
Among the myriad immediate reactions comes the utterly expected, from USA Today:
The question for Hillary Rodham Clinton, slated to be named secretary of State on Monday by President-elect Barack Obama, is whether she can forge the sort of close relationship with a former rival that is crucial to giving the nation's top diplomat the credibility to get things done.
Er, can't we put this meme to rest, that Hillary Clinton is an active enemy of Obama? That was the storyline of the DNC for days, whether Clinton and her supporters would derail the process and pull some stunt to steal the nomination. And after that, it was how Clinton might not help Obama get elected, and her supporters might flock to McCain. How did that all turn out?
Sure, Clinton is ambitious and will likely fight to have her ideas and influence prevail in the administration...but...well...isn't that what every cabinet member does?
And here's another thing: Mary Ann Akers points out that John Kerry must be feeling a little disappointed at missing out on the SoS job, but staying in the Senate shouldn't be seen as just a consolation price. Folks, the Senate is where the action over the next four years is going to take place. It's the Senate that's the lynchpin for Obama's agenda. Any senior member in that body is going to put his or her stamp on legislation that decides where we're headed as a nation from here out.
