Progressive Breakfast: Waiting For CBO ... Again

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

Health Care Deal In Hands of CBO

Sen. Landrieu says CBO analysis will dictate terms of deal. Politico quotes "There was a lot of agreement to send a package, but until it’s scored, we really just can’t talk about the specifics because the scores will have a great effect on what can be done."

Sen. Nelson sounds positive. TPMDC quotes: "I'm not aware of anything that was raising serious objections about it, I think it was about, 'Well, that sounds okay, let's see how it scores.'"

Split among liberals over Medicare buy-in. The Hill: "Liberal activist groups such as MoveOn.org and Healthcare for America Now rejected the apparent move away from the public option, but prominent liberals such as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) praised the Medicare buy-in. ... Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a liberal and staunch proponent of the public option, went so far as to argue that the Medicare buy-in might be superior to the forms of public option previously under discussion."

Insurance lobby opposed to Medicare expansion. Drugmakers try to stop importation amendment. Bloomberg: "The U.S. Senate today may vote on an amendment that would allow the importation of cheaper medicines from Canada and other countries ... 'It would be a huge mistake for Congress to pursue policies that could expose Americans to counterfeit and substandard drug products,” said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ... Insurers, hospitals and doctors objected to a plan that would increase participation in Medicare because of the potential for lower payment rates. And insurers such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc. took aim at a proposal that would mandate that 90 percent of premiums go to benefits."

HCAN open to Medicare buy-in component. Politico: "Health Care for America Now said the nonprofits were not a sufficient alternative to a robust public option, but the Medicare buy-in is. 'We’re glad to see there would be a robust public option for those 55 and over and are deeply disappointed that there’s not a robust public option for people under 55. And we’ll keep fighting for that.'"

The Atlantic's Chris Good interviews House Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Lynn Woolsey: "Progressives are looking for affordability and competition for private insurance plans, Woolsey says, and if they aren't satisfied, they'll 'have a hard time voting' for the final bill. But Woolsey does not go so far as to say that House progressives will try to block a final package if it's modeled on the reported Senate deal."

Rep. Weiner appreciates the irony. LAT quotes: "This is the weirdest Kabuki dance. To get conservative Democrats, we have to expand the Medicare program."

LAT reviews argument to focus on workers 55-65: "Todd Swim, a partner with the health benefits consulting firm Mercer, said that a Medicare expansion could have profound effects on employers and their workers ... 'Those 55 to 65 are the most expensive for employers to cover, and they pay the most if they have to buy coverage on their own. . . . Access to medical care is one of the biggest inhibitors to retiring early, and a lot of people are going to be looking at that as an option.' ... they often have a difficult time getting coverage if they change or lose jobs because of preexisting medical conditions. Depending on how an expansion is structured, Medicare could offer many of these people a relatively affordable alternative to commercial insurance ... 'The price point will be much more affordable than any option they have,' Swim said."

FireDogLake's Jon Walker cautions about the details: "My greater fear is that this 'Medicare buy-in' has already been gutted or will soon be gutted of all value. Kent Conrad is pushing to decouple this Medicare buy-in from Medicare ... He wants people in this fake Medicare to pay much higher reimbursement rates. and be placed in a separate risk pool. The people in fake Medicare might not even be able to use the Medicare provider network. This will make the premiums for Medicare buy-in dramatically higher ... It is also possible that the criteria for qualifying for Medicare buy-in will be so stringent that almost no one could take part. It was reported that talks took place about restricting it to only those 55-64 who qualify for the high risk pools. This would mean only people who could not find “affordable” insurance, and have been uninsured for least six months."

GoozNews argues for dealing with rural Senators to secure Medicare buy-in: "The political solution is to buy off the rural legislators (like Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota) with special payments to maintain needed health care facilities in declining regions, just as we now provide special payments to urban hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of poor people. Those fighting for this needed Medicare expansion shouldn't forget the health-related arguments that favor it. It will save Medicare billions of dollars annually down the road. The decade before people enter Medicare (55 to 64) is the time of life when many people develop the chronic diseases that will make them the most expensive patients ... Intervening when the warning signals of these diseases first appear can moderate or even eliminate many of these costly conditions."

W. Post finds differing views over proposed national non-profit plan: "The Senate bill always sought to have people choose plans from separate state-based exchanges, and skeptics worried that many states would offer poor oversight. Laying two national plans over those state-based marketplaces is designed to guarantee some well-regulated options for consumers everywhere ... Aside from the 50-state reach, skeptics say, it is unclear how the new national plans would differ from the plans that private insurers would already be offering. The nonprofit status of the proposed plans would not necessarily guarantee low costs -- many private insurers today are technically nonprofit."

Bank Lobby Scores Victory

Bank-friendly House Dems win concession on financial reform. Politico: "...the moderates hammered out a compromise on the issue of whether national banks should be subject to tougher state consumer protection laws. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) had promised Bean a vote on her amendment to shield national banks from state rules – a situation known as pre-emption, since the federal rules set by the new consumer watchdog would pre-empt those made by the individual states. 'The differences have been narrowed' on the pre-emption language, Frank told reporters as he left Pelosi’s office a few minutes ahead of Bean. The reworked pre-emption language will be included in the manager’s amendment, a House Democratic aide said."

Bank to try shift blame for foreclosure crisis. Wonk Room: "...the [House Financial Services] committee brought representatives of Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase in to testify, and both banks claimed that, actually, the problem is borrowers can’t get their documents together ... [But] stories abound about workers submitting their documents, only to be run in circles by the servicers and asked to resubmit."

Undemocratic Conrad-Gregg Deficit Commission Formally Proposed

CNN reports on new legislation to short-circuit legislative process and gut Social Security and Medicare: "Specifically, the commission would suggest ways to curb spending growth - especially in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - and to boost tax revenue ... The commission's report would be due after the 2010 elections. And at least 14 of the 18 members must agree to the report's recommendations before submitting it to Congress. Congress would then have to vote yes or no to the commission's suggestions without filibustering or amending them. And they would need to do so before Dec. 31, 2010. To pass, the recommendations would need to garner at least 60 votes in the Senate and a 60% majority of votes in the House. Conrad said the bill so far has 27 co-sponsors in the Senate - including 12 Democrats and 15 Republicans ... 'The American people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive investment,' opponents of a deficit commission wrote to leaders of the House and Senate and to President Obama."

Right-leaning Dems still threatening to block increase of debt limit to get commission passed. CQ: "The centrists have said that unless they get a vote on a commission or a similar proposal, they will not support an increase in the debt ceiling ... Conrad said the Treasury Department has told him it needs the debt limit raised by the end of the month, but he acknowledged there are rumors that the department could resort to accounting maneuvers that would allow a vote to occur in January. He also suggested it was possible that a smaller rise in the debt limit could be enacted this year, which in effect would buy some time for negotiations with the centrists to continue. But that would necessitate another politically difficult vote next year to raise the ceiling — something lawmakers would prefer to avoid during an election year. 'I think we are going to have to do the debt limit before the end of the year,' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., warned leaders in his chamber not to test the group’s resolve and assume that its members will buckle and vote for a debt limit increase if it is presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion."

Public can vote in federal government contest to identify creative budget savings idea. W. Post: "Julie Fosbender works for the U.S. Forest Service at Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. She suggested that each national forest should deposit its revenue at a nearby local bank, instead of sending the money to a central processing facility ... Huston Prescott works for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Alaska and noticed that different federal housing agencies sent different inspectors to the same subsidized housing units to conduct similar inspections. Prescott wants HUD to send just one person to do the inspections for all of the agencies ... Nancy Fichtner works at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Medical Center in Grand Junction, Colo. She wants the department to permit veterans leaving VA hospitals to take any leftover medication home with them ... Christie Dickson works for the Social Security Administration in Birmingham, Ala., and wants the agency to give people the option to schedule their appointments online instead of only over the phone."

Campaign for America's Future joins Frances Perkins Center in petition effort to kill commission.

Jobs Plan Hit For Doing Too LIttle

House Progressive Caucus pushing direct job creation. The Hill:" The Congressional Progressive Caucus met Wednesday to consider more direct jobs measures. 'We feel like government should have a significant role in creating these jobs,' said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the Progressive Caucus’s co-chairman.

Black Caucus pushes measures targeted at high minority unemployment. LAT: "Black House members reserved time in the chamber Wednesday night to call for measures to reduce the jobless rate among African Americans. Impatience among black leaders is mounting. Hours after Obama laid out his new jobs plan Tuesday, black lawmakers noted that the first African American president was silent on ways to help minorities hit hardest by the downturn ... [Rep. Barbara] Lee said the caucus would offer its own proposals, including targeted job training and more direct federal hiring in black communities."

Economist's View's Mark Thoma details where Obama jobs plan falls short: " First, it does not create jobs directly, all job creation occurs indirectly through incentives such as reduced capital gains taxes for small businesses, other measures that make investment cheaper, rebates for home weatherization, etc. The program relies upon people acting upon these incentives, which they may or may not do, and even if the incentives are acted upon job creation is likely to be slow due to its indirect nature. Second, the amount, $70 billion, is too small to make much of a difference given the size of the unemployment problem. Third, it's disappointing that one of the best job creation/preservation measures the administration could have proposed, more help for state and local governments battered by budget problems arising from the recession is not part of the proposal."

Bloomberg poll find support for government job creation, taxes on wealthy: "... two- thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit. ... Two-thirds of Americans back boosting spending on infrastructure. Six of 10 also support more spending on alternative energy to stimulate job growth..."

Obama high-speed rail plan cut in omnibus bill. The Transport Politic: "Once President Obama push to include $8 billion for high-speed rail development in the stimulus bill this spring, the race was on to convince Congress to make the mode an annual recipient of transportation funds. The release last night of the Conference Committee’s consolidated appropriations bill, which will be voted on in the next few days by both chambers, suggests inroads in that campaign. Yet believers in the power of high-speed rail to transform communities and reshape movement between cities will be disappointed by the bill’s inclusion of only $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2010 ... If this news is a let-down, it still is $2.4 billion more than has ever been obligated to fast train development in a congressional appropriations bill. It allows the DOT to fully fund very promising projects from Florida and California and still have billions left for other states with less intensive rail programs. It also implies that Congress will continue to fund high-speed rail at these levels, at least over the next few years."

NYT on China's policies stoking boom during global recession: "China is pulling ahead at this particular moment partly because Americans, debt-laden and worried about their jobs, are pulling back. After decades of gorging on consumption, Americans are saving. And the Chinese, whom economists thought were addicted to saving, are spending more ... The Beijing government is increasing consumption with rebates, subsidies and heavy bank lending. Whether China can turn the spending spree into the seeds of a true consumer society matters not just to China, but to the world."

Republican leaders meet with Obama, offer little constructive. NYT: "... the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, handed Mr. Obama a letter and a copy of what the House minority calls its no-cost jobs plan calling for no tax increases, new trade agreements and fewer regulations. (Mr. Obama had already read it, and later said he disagreed with some ideas and would talk with Republicans about others.) Then Mr. Boehner shot back at Mr. Obama. 'Mr. President, we do a lot of politics in this town but we are committed to working together in areas where we agree to get the American people back to work,' he said. Administration aides did not dispute the Republicans’ account, but said the meeting was never confrontational and in fact was a constructive exchange of views. 'I think politics has clearly played a role' in their united opposition to the economic recovery plan, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters afterward."

Rift Forms Among Developing Nations At Copenhagen

Split among developing nations. AFP: "The tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu drove a wedge in the bloc of developing nations by calling for discussions on an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. For the first time, it would require China, India, and other fast-growing, high-population nations to take on legally binding commitments to slash CO2 pollution after 2013 ... Until now, the group has stood by a diplomatic axiom that has prevailed since the U.N. climate convention came into being in 1992: rich countries caused global warming, and it was their responsibility to fix it ... But small island states and least-developed countries—which supported Tuvalu’s move—have become increasingly worried that such an approach will not rein in a dangerous surge of emissions in the future."

Soros proposes financial tool to help aid poor nations with climate mitigation. NYT: "...the financier George Soros appeared on the sidelines Thursday to identify a new pot of $100 billion that could help pay the bills ... As the global financial crisis played out, he explained, the International Monetary Fund issued $283 billion in S.D.R.s, $150 billion of which went to the world’s 15 biggest industrialized countries. These instruments are a 'virtual currency' with a value set by a basket of real currencies. More than $100 billion in S.D.R.s is sitting in reserve accounts, he said. They are backed by the monetary fund’s gold reserves, and currently the excess value of the gold is supposed to be used to benefit the world’s least developed countries, he added. He acknowledged that the S.D.R.s normally serve as a source of liquidity, but in this case would be used as a financing tool. But given the limits on what rich countries are able to offer in the climate talks with budgets tight and deficits high, he said financial innovation was vital to breaking the deadlock in the negotiations."

US and China trade words in Copenhagen. W. Post: "...the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, made clear that the United States sees carbon reductions by China and other major developing countries as 'a core part of this negotiation.' 'Emissions are emissions. You've just got to do the math,' Stern told reporters, citing estimates that 97 percent of future emissions growth will come from the developing world. 'If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass.' Responding to Stern, China's climate change ambassador, Yu Qingtai, suggested that the United States needed to reexamine its negotiating stance. 'What they should do is some deep soul-searching,' Yu told reporters."

Mother Jones' David Corn speculates on US-China friction or lack thereof: "Some observers at the summit believe that China and the United States have already reached a deal and much of what is transpiring in Copenhagen is little more than diplomatic theater. Yet members of the US delegation, speaking not for attribution, insist there's no deal."

International climate disputes over trade on the horizon. CQ: "...the two-week United Nations climate talks in Denmark constitute the precursor to a new set of global trade negotiations, as governments stake out positions that ensure that their own carbon-intensive industries don’t lose out to nations with less stringent rules ... Senators from the Rust Belt say they will not support any bill to curb carbon emissions unless it includes a tariff to protect U.S. industries. Meanwhile, lawmakers also want to break down barriers abroad to American-made 'green' technology exports ... . Under World Trade Organization rules, lawmakers would have to demonstrate that their objective is to get other countries to reduce carbon emissions — not simply to protect U.S. industries."

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