Progressive Breakfast: R.I.P. Mythical Bipartisan Compromise

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.

Democrats May Go It Alone

The futile quest for bipartisanship may be dead. NYT: "...Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks ... 'The Republican leadership,' [Rahm] Emanuel said, 'has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.'"

House digging in on public option. HuffPost: "House Democrats dialed in Tuesday for their weekly caucus meeting and uniformly expressed support for a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive reform. Not a single member spoke up on behalf of co-ops, according to both people on the call and people briefed on it ... 'I was surprised there were so many people who were still so firm on [the public option],' said a participant. 'A lot of people were saying this is what they're hearing from their constituents.'"

TNR's Noam Scheiber credits strong pushback from Left: "Around the conference table at TNR, we've been saying for weeks that what Obama really needed was a group of equally vocal, equally zealous critics on the left, pulling the debate's center of gravity in the other direction. And, wouldn't you know, that's exactly what's happened over the last 48 hours."

GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley dumps cold water on negotiations in CQ interview, indicates politics trumps policy: "The climate has changed a little bit in the last month ... But I can’t measure it at this point. We’re only the second week into a recess. I think it has changed. But I don’t know exactly how, except it’s more chancy ... Maybe it’s more difficult now than before, because there is kind of a feeling out there that there might be something wrong with our health care system but we think Congress is going to screw it up, so maybe it’s better to do nothing ... The town meetings obviously have to cause me to reassess, but I can’t do the reassessment just because of two weeks ... First of all I’m representing Iowa. I got to think about what Iowans are telling me. Secondly I have to observe how the impact nationally might affect Republicans.”

Ezra Klein argues for a different policy approach if Senate budget procedure is used to prevent filibuster: "the 2004 Dean proposal, which I've been talking about lately, offers a good example of the sort of bill you could pass. Dean basically folds the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid into one program called the Families and Children Health Insurance Program and makes everyone up to 185 percent of the poverty line eligible for it. He also allows people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare. He creates a tax credit for people in the middle ... That's not a great outcome, but that's probably the best you can get in reconciliation, and it would be a step forward."

HCAN knocks NBC/WSJ poll for dropping the word "choice" from its poll question on public option, resulting in weaker support. NBC responds.

WH Aides Blame Progressives, Not Blue Dogs

Condescending remarks towards progressives from unnamed WH aides in W. Post: "'I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,' said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.' 'It's a mystifying thing,' he added. 'We're forgetting why we are in this.' Another top aide expressed chagrin that a single element in the president's sprawling health-care initiative has become a litmus test for whether the administration is serious about the issue. 'It took on a life of its own,' he said."

Robert Borosage puts the burden on the Blue Dogs to get out of the way of reform: "There are a lot of talking heads out arguing that the 'left' shouldn't be so extreme as to risk health care reform by insisting on the public option or the lifting of the absurd ban on negotiating lower drug prices. The reality is exactly the reverse. It is the handful of Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats in the House and Senate that are standing in the way of the majority in favor of a comprehensive plan. The question isn't whether the progressive majority is unreasonably resisting reform to save the public option. The question is whether a small minority of conservative Democrats will sabotage reform simply to stop the public option."

Co-Ops Fail To Impress Experts

ABC hears little support from health experts for co-ops: "Many policy experts, however, don't see co-ops as a simple substitute for the public option. 'Starting up new co-ops across the country that would effectively compete with the mammoth insurers,' said Timothy Jost, a health law expert and professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, 'is like expecting people to start up electric companies in their garages to compete with the dominant regional power company.' ... 'Without a public option, there will be no effective cost-control mechanism in the health care reform package,' said Dr. Daniel Blumenthal, associate dean for Community Health at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta ... 'The abject, 50-year failure of the private sector to contain costs and broaden the base of those covered has been so obvious, complete and certain for a half-century, that a "reformed" system without a public option is almost certain to continue that failure,' said [Paul Duncan, professor in the department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy at the University of Florida in Gainesville.]

NY Times edit board counsels don't junk public option without getting something as good in return: "If the White House and Democratic leaders decide to go it alone, and they may well have to, they should restore a robust public plan. It is the best way to give Americans real choice."

USA Today edit board rips public plan critics as wasteful spenders: "in 2003 ... Congress, then under Republican control, passed a Medicare drug benefit estimated to cost about $500 billion over a decade. Even though every dime was taxpayers' money, the government was barred from using its clout to negotiate the most advantageous deals with pharmaceutical companies. Borrowing trillions from future generations was OK. Trying to get taxpayers the most for their money was not. Something similar is happening with the public option. This entirely voluntary plan — that's why it's called an 'option' — would bring some cost control to health care by applying government's purchasing power as leverage against medical providers and insurance companies. Yet the idea is cynically cast as a 'government takeover of health care' — rhetoric worthy of the Mad Hatter."

W. Post's Steven Pearlstein doesn't listen to experts: "The public option is nothing more than a political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market."

EARLIER Prof. Jacob Hacker's policy papers and independent review of his plan making the case of the necessity for a robust public option.

Astroturf Effort on Climate Gears Up, As More Fake Lobby Letters Surface

NYT on the kickoff of the oil industry funded effort to kill climate bill: "...another citizen movement seems to have sprung up, this one to oppose Washington’s attempts to tackle climate change. But behind the scenes, an industry with much at stake — Big Oil — is pulling the strings. ... the oil industry plans to raise the pressure in coming weeks through its public rallies so that it can negotiate more favorable terms in the Senate than it got in the House. The strategy was outlined by the American Petroleum Institute in a memorandum sent to its members, which include Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. The memorandum, not meant for the public, was obtained by the environmental group Greenpeace last week ... The rallies have opened a rift within the industry. Royal Dutch Shell, an initial supporter of climate legislation, said that it had told the institute that it would not participate in the rallies..."

The Green Grok wants truth in advertising: "Rallies are as American as … tea parties. And if [the American Petroleum Institute] wants to organize rallies so be it. But let’s have some truth in agitating. If it’s a rally organized by API and whose attendees are composed of employees of API companies who were encouraged to attend the rally by those very same companies, then call it an API rally."

Grist's Kate Sheppard reports on the latest discovery of forged anti-climate bill lobby letters: "More fake letters opposing climate legislation have come to light, with this latest batch being falsely attributed to senior-citizen organizations. As we’ve reported previously, forged letters were sent to three U.S. representatives from Bonner and Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based group that specializes in astroturfing. Bonner was subcontracted by the PR firm Hawthorn Group to do work on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal-industry group that wanted to stop passage of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill in the House. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday released copies of five letters that hadn’t been seen publicly before, including one we hadn’t heard about previously, upping the total number of confirmed fakes to 13."

Politico adds: "In total, the firm sent 58 letters, and committee investigators suspect several more may be revealed to be fakes. The newly discovered letters included one, allegedly sent from a senior center in Charlottesville, Va., that the lobbying firm originally claimed was legitimate, the committee said.

Breakfast Sides

Labor laws might actually get enforced. WSJ: "[The U.S. Dept. of Labor] is adding staff and signaling it will soon begin putting in practice the more assertive regulation of business she promised early in her tenure. [Secretary Hilda] Solis has begun hiring 670 new investigators to enforce labor regulations. There will be 150 investigators added in the Wage and Hour division to enforce wage rules and child-labor laws. Another 100 staff will be added to ensure contractors on stimulus projects are in compliance with applicable laws. The additions will boost the division's staff by more than one-third. The Employee Benefits Security Administration, which helps to regulate private retirement, health and other benefit plans covering 150 million Americans, is adding 75 staffers to conduct nearly 600 more criminal and civil investigations."

Transit reform delay prompting states to shelve projects. CQ: "State transportation officials say uncertainty about future funding is forcing them to foreswear expansive surface transportation plans in favor of simple maintenance projects because of the likelihood that Congress will put off a multi-year transportation authorization bill until next year ... The draft authorization bill in the House, written by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., would not only increase funding, it also would refocus the national program on larger projects to move goods and people faster and more efficiently. But because such a commitment requires raising revenues during a recession, the White House has urged Congress to hold off for now."

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future