Blog entry

Billionaires For Wealthcare Thank Bachmann Mob For Their Support

Alex Lawson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:25:18 -0800

Yesterday the 912ers were whipped up into an undifferentiated rage against most everything that is not Michele Bachmann or Fox news. The protest was brought to DC on an astroturf wave of Billionaire Koch dollars.

The Billionaires for Wealthcare thought it would be a great idea to sing their praises for a job well done on protecting the status quo.

The Billionaires singled out particular Representatives at the event for their service:

* Rep. Michele Bachmann (R – MN) – who has taken $200,000 in campaign donations from health care interests
* Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) – who has taken $2.4 million
* Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) – $1.3 million
* Rep. Scott Garret (R-NJ) – $240,000
Source: Center for Responsive Politics

At the 1:00 minute mark you can see some glad-handing with Randall Terry.

And a peek behind the curtain, what does the glamorous life of a Billionaire for Wealthcare really look like?

My favorite is the woman at the end who keeps yelling, "get a job!"

h/t StarkReports.com
Also posted at Kos

The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It

Jacob S. Hacker — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:54:28 -0800

with Diane Archer

How short memories are in Washington. A few weeks ago, when it looked possible that Nancy Pelosi could marshal enough Democratic support to create a “robust” public insurance option with rates tied to Medicare’s, everyone was talking about the big savings and reduced premiums that a series of estimates by the CBO showed this option could create. Then, the concern was that the public insurance plan would put private insurers out of business by using the government’s bargaining power to drive too hard a bargain with providers, creating an “un-level” playing field.

Now, however, the punditocracy is abuzz about the latest CBO estimates that show that the public plan eventually embraced by Pelosi--one that would negotiate rates with providers, rather than base them on Medicare’s--might actually charge higher premiums than the average private plan. No matter that the CBO estimates clearly state that the higher projected premiums reflect its expectation that the public plan will disproportionately enroll less healthy Americans--which might be seen as a virtue, since these are folks private insurance tends to serve most poorly. And no matter that a subsequent CBO letter to the House stated that even a public plan with negotiated rates would still place “downward pressure on the premiums of private plans.” Suddenly, in the commentariat, the public plan isn’t a fearsome predator. It’s a complacent kitten. Initially not worth having because it would be too strong, it’s now, according to critics, not worth having because it would be too weak.

In truth, both the initial fears and current dismissals are overblown. The CBO’s declining estimates of savings certainly make a strong case for having the public plan use modified Medicare rates, as we have long argued. It’s a shame the House will not be considering a bill that shows how substantially a public plan can contribute to freeing up federal dollars to help Americans afford coverage. But we should keep in mind that the prime argument for the public plan has never been about a particular payment formula. It has been that a public insurance plan is vital as an institutional check on private plans, its role evolving to reflect the emerging weaknesses (or strengths) of regulated private competition. Put simply, health reform is much more likely to succeed with a public health insurance option, even one with negotiated rates, than if private insurers are left to run the show.

Let us start with the obvious: No one knows for sure the exact role that the public option will play. CBO may be correct that the public plan will attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, and that risk-adjustment (paying plans with higher-cost patients more) will not fully compensate for this. And it is surely correct that the public plan will have lower administrative costs than private plans. (It should be emphasized that if the public plan has higher premiums primarily because it’s attracting less healthy enrollees, then it is still reducing average premiums and hence federal subsidies for premiums. That’s because average premiums would be even higher if the people enrolled in the public plan enrolled in private plans. That’s what the CBO’s more recent letter discussing “downward pressure” on private premiums implies.) But while the CBO estimates are rightly the authoritative source for Congress, they are by no means infallible. CBO has made clear that an unusually high level of uncertainty attaches to its analysis of the public plan.

Take the CBO’s projections that the public plan would pay the same rates as the private sector. Nothing in the bill requires this. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, empowered to negotiate rates for the public plan, is simply barred from paying more than private plans do. The Secretary may end up being able to negotiate lower rates than the CBO projects. (When this issue was being debated in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius actually suggested that she could get better rates than Medicare, which raised more than a few eyebrows.) If the public plan is able to obtain more favorable rates, it will not only lower its premiums and increase its membership. It will also, through competition, bring down private plan rates. Private insurers overpay preferred providers at least in part because it’s a way for the insurers to keep competitors out of the market. But if a public plan is now in the mix, the game changes, and insurers may finally feel pressure to drive greater efficiencies.

The same uncertainties surround the CBO’s prediction that the public plan will attract just one in five Americans within the health insurance exchange because of its higher projected premiums (down from earlier estimates of one in three). After all, the price of coverage is only one reason why people choose a health plan. The vast majority of older and disabled Americans enroll in the public Medicare plan--even though by choosing (excessively subsidized) private Medicare private plans, many can get broader benefits for less than they pay for Medicare plus supplemental insurance. By the same token, nonelderly Americans--even healthy non-elderly Americans--might be willing to pay a little more for a public plan if it offers the same transparency and accountability the public Medicare plan offers. Healthy people might choose the public plan because they will have the security of knowing that if they get sick or injured and need costly care, their plan will not be conjuring up ways to deny them needed coverage. (To be sure, if the private plans were required to be transparent about the services they covered and the rates they paid, it might be a different story. But the current congressional bills do little to require they disclose this data to enrollees.) And, of course, the more healthy people join the public plan, the more bargaining power the public plan will have and the more public plan rates will come down.

The public plan is also critical to reform as a cost and quality benchmark, one that is particularly crucial if private premiums accelerate upwards. The insurance industry has threatened that premiums will skyrocket if an individual mandate is not tough enough. It may be an idle threat, but if a final reform bill ends up looking more like the Senate Finance bill than the House bill, it might not be. In most local markets, competition is likely to be anemic, and regulation of insurers inadequate. There will be little to prevent insurers from raising rates as they have threatened.

Having a public plan in place should also help keep down the rate of growth of health insurance premiums over time. Over the past twenty years, the public Medicare plan has had a substantially slower rate of growth than private insurance. The CBO report on the House bill states that private insurers are better at controlling utilization than a public plan would be. But, to date private insurers have failed to prove their value at cost control and demonstrated they have strong incentives to delay and deny needed care rather than drive efficiencies in the system.

And remember: If the private plans continue to misbehave, drive up costs excessively, and otherwise engage in practices that are detrimental to our health security, Congress can later decide to strengthen the public plan and give it greater leverage to rein in costs and serve as a check on private insurers. Creating a public plan down the road is not realistic; that's one reason we seriously doubt any proposal to trigger the public plan would really work. Strengthening an existing public plan would be a far more likely prospect, especially if the public plan is proving its value in the market, as we believe it will.

What’s more, as far as payment and delivery system innovations are concerned, the public plan is really the only tool available for testing and implementing reforms in the market for the non-elderly. Private plans are notorious for keeping their innovations private--when they have them--and have little financial incentive to improve health care if it will not increase their bottom line. Yes, we can continue to rely on the public Medicare plan to test innovations. But working families have somewhat different needs, and it seems appropriate to pursue delivery and payment reforms more broadly, through both Medicare and a public plan focused on those younger than 65.

In short, it’s no time to be despondent about the fate of the public insurance option. For sure, pegging rates to Medicare and obligating Medicare providers to accept these rates would be far preferable, and a public plan with negotiated rates may do less to keep the insurers honest and drive down costs. But it’s still immensely valuable to give Americans an out--another choice--to let the insurers feel the heat of not being the only game in town. The fierce and continuing opposition of the insurance industry suggests that they think that a public option will prove a serious counterweight in an increasingly consolidated private market. The overwrought pessimism of the pundit class should not aid them in their cause of protecting themselves from a public-spirited competitor.

This article originally appeared in The New Republic.

New Unemployment, Old Solutions

Eric Lotke — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:09:34 -0800

Today’s unemployment data contain gloomy news. Gloomy, but expected. The interpretation of the data is even worse.

First, the data. Unemployment rose to 10.2 percent last month, breaking the double digit barrier. Most people expected it to happen, though the job loss (190,000) was a bit worse than most economic forecasts (175,000). We can maybe be happy that the October job loss wasn’t as high as September (263,000), but this modest deceleration doesn’t mean much to the 15.7 million people without work, the 9.3 million people working part-time but looking for full-time, or the 3.2 million people who are discouraged or marginally attached to the work force and barely even looking anymore. Nearly 20 percent of the workforce isn’t where it wants to be.

In other words, it’s bad. You don’t need me or the Bureau of Labor Statistics to tell you that.

The interesting part is where it’s bad and what to do about it.

The biggest job losses in October were in construction (62,000) and manufacturing (61,000). In the last year, these sectors have lost over 2.5 million jobs between them. Job losses in these sectors hurt worse than most other sectors. Manufacturing jobs have a bigger economic “multiplier” than other sectors, creating more jobs and more economic activity around them. Manufacturing creates jobs “downstream,” as production workers buy sandwiches from restaurants; and “upstream,” as steelworkers and coal miners work to provide raw material. The benefits of construction obviously count for more and last longer than just the construction itself. Anybody who doesn't live in a cave knows that.

But manufacturing and construction are losing more jobs than any other sector. Health care and temporary jobs are the only positive — if we can cheer sickness or a temp job.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

This isn’t just a temporary blip. Construction is sinking from the burst of the housing bubble and general economic doldrums. Manufacturing is suffering from long term structural declines and a trade policy that favors imports over domestic production.

The solution leaps out from the data. These two sectors respond most clearly to public sector investment. During this downturn, we can build roads, rail lines and bridges. During this downturn, we can fix school roofs and turn temporary trailers for overcrowded schools into permanent classrooms for eager students. During this downturn, we can build the windmills and install the solar cells to move us towards energy independence. During this downturn we can rebuild a productive economy for the future.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Maybe a quarter of the 800 billion stimulus package pushed in this direction. We need more. First, we need more stimulus. Good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus during the downturn. Put people to work laying those rail lines and fixing those school roofs.

Second, we need to make sure the money stays in our own economy. We can’t ask American taxpayers to foot the bill or expect American workers to cheer when the windmills of the new energy economy are imported from Spain. It’s no gift to our economy to fix the water main with pipes imported from China that were dumped in US markets at below market costs, driving our own domestic pipe industry out of business. We can do better. We need to do better.

I’ll close with the thing we don’t need, the interpretation I warned against in the beginning. The Associated Press story about today’s unemployment data put it this way: “A robust economic recovery won't be sustainable if consumers don't pick up their spending.”

Wrong wrong wrong. The debt-driven consumption economy was the problem. The solution is not for consumers without jobs to start spending again. The solution is to rebuild our economy. From the ground up. The old fashioned way.

Message To Energy Department: U.S. Greenbacks For U.S. Green Jobs

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:47:13 -0800

News of the potential use of U.S. stimulus funds for a wind power project in Texas that will produce 2,000 Chinese manufacturing jobs—but a scant number of American jobs—has generated justifiable outrage, including a letter from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to Energy Secretary Steven Chu urging him to "deny Recovery Act funding to this project" unless the majority of the manufacturing of the wind turbines is done in the United States.

It's therefore not surprising that today the Chinese firm that is a primary investor in the project, A-Power Energy Generation Systems, is doing some PR tap-dancing to quell the fury.

But PR tap-dancing from A-Power, and especially from the Department of Energy, which opened the door to the potential of this happening, is not enough. Energy Secretary Steven Chu needs to heed a simple demand: American tax dollars for America's economic recovery must support American jobs. Period.

That's the thrust of the grassroots push the Campaign for America's Future is launching today, which aims to flood Chu's office with this message:

The news that a Texas wind farm is seeking stimulus money to create only 30 jobs here but 2000 jobs in China is disturbing, especially since unemployment in America has surpassed 10%.

China has understandably taken steps to stimulate its economy with its funds and move towards clean energy. We should be taking similar steps at home, not using our tax dollars to offshore jobs that could be created here.

I support Sen. Chuck Schumer's call for you to reject any request for stimulus money unless the high‐value components, including the wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States.

This battle goes to the heart of the economic strategy that this nation will pursue to work its way out of recession and lower unemployment, which today was announced at 10.2 percent.

One reason we are having to fight this battle to begin with is the flawed conservative ideology pursured by the Bush administration and its predecessors. A must-read investigation published lat month by Russ Choma at the American University School of Communications pointed out that while European governments were laying the groundwork for a green manufacturing economy, we "dithered."

The reliance on foreign companies for development of wind energy appears to be at least partially tied to the U.S. government’s resistance to subsidize a home-grown wind energy industry until now. With so few U.S. companies in the business, the door was open for foreign companies to walk away with the bulk of the grants. European companies, in particular, are well positioned to collect stimulus benefits for clean energy.

“Europe was light years ahead of us, in terms of developing these alternative resources,” said Gregory Jenner, a tax attorney and former acting and deputy assistant secretary of the treasury for tax policy, who co-authored a guide for energy companies hoping to collect stimulus money. “The fact that a lot of the European companies are coming over to the U.S., they just see this as an untapped market. Now that the incentives are starting to work out ... it's going to be just like a gold rush for them.”

While the U.S. has dithered with temporary tax incentives for producers, European governments have awarded permanent tax breaks and large subsidies to wind energy companies and poured vast sums into research and technology.

As a consequence, the article says, "European turbine-manufacturers have dominated the world market and continue to do so in the U.S. Indian-manufactured turbines are swiftly moving into the U.S. market as well, complementing Japanese manufacturers who have long been here."

As for China, The Washington Post reported last month that "the government has closed down old cement and coal plants [and] subsidized row upon row of new wind turbines," seeking to generate 120 gigawatts of power from wind by 2020, four times what the United States generates from wind today. And China's government, unlike the United States, sets demands for domestic production.

Earlier this year, a report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a think tank that has worked with labor and environmental groups, warned the Obama administration and Congress that it was important that the country has a deliberate policy of focusing government green-energy resources on creating American jobs.

For every megawatt of new wind power capacity — enough potential clean electricity to power up to 300 homes — REPP estimates 4.85 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs are created to manufacture, install and then operate and maintain the wind farm. About 70-75 percent of the total labor required for a typical wind turbine or solar panel is in manufacturing the various component parts that could be supplied by existing U.S. businesses. These are the potential “green jobs” that are key to revitalizing the U.S. and global economy. Without new policies promoting domestic manufacturing, an unnecessarily large portion of these jobs will remain overseas.

We are now seeing that prophecy about to come true. It is time for the Obama administration and Congress to work together on the policies and incentives that will foster the growth of green-energy manufacturing, not just green-energy consumption. It makes no sense to substitute dependence on Middle Eastern oil with dependence on Chinese or European wind and solar technology—not when we have the expertise, the workers and the facilities to build renewable energy products, and especially when taxpayers rightfully demand that every stimulus dollar possible be used to get U.S. workers back into solid jobs.

Let's send Chu that message today.

Progressive Breakfast: Hunt For Jobs As Unemployment Breaks 10%

Bill Scher — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:46:34 -0800

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

BREAKING NEWS: Unemployment Breaks 10%, Though Pace of Job Loss Continues To Slow.

Labor Dept. release: "The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000) ... The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade. In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points."

Politico on WH struggles to create more jobs without increasing deficit, transportation bill opportunity: "To help the jobless through the holidays, Congress sent Obama a bill Thursday that would add up to 20 weeks in assistance for those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. But the future of the highway program, hurt by a drop-off in gasoline tax revenues, remains a bone of contention. The White House has said it wants to extend the current program only through the 2010 elections and then address increased funding. But 15 states are already so short of cash they can’t meet their 20 percent matching requirement. And that number could double next year — greatly reducing the chance to let contracts and create jobs. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) has argued for an upfront investment of $80 billion over two years to get over this hurdle. 'The concrete is cracking,' Oberstar said, laughing, hinting that the administration’s resistance is weakening."

Also from Politico, highway funding could come from tax on Wall Street: "House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told POLITICO: "We have to reauthorize that highway bill for at least four years. I would prefer five or six,” Clyburn said, even if it meant imposing a securities transaction tax on the financial community to cover the costs ... Rep. Peter DeFazio, a major player on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a gymmate of Emanuel’s, has been drafting legislation along these lines ... [He] argues that the proposed 0.25 percent excise tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and yield sufficient revenues to both cover increased highway funding and make a down payment toward reducing the deficit. The financial industry is sure to fight any such levy and enjoys powerful allies, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). But the anti-Wall Street sentiment in Congress goes well beyond DeFazio’s populist caucus."

Sen. Schumer looks to stop stimulus funds from creating green jobs in China for a Texas wind farm. Green Inc.: "Mr. Schumer said he had sent a letter on Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, urging him to 'reject any request for stimulus money unless the high-value components, including the wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States.'"

Pelosi Prepares For Health Care Vote Tomorrow

Speaker Pelosi confident before tomorrow's vote, GOP won't accept CBO score. The Hill: "Pelosi insisted 'we will' get the 218 votes Dems needed for passage. She must find supporters within her 258-member caucus because Republicans are united against it ... Meanwhile, Republicans are pressing Rick Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, for a score of the House bill before the weekend vote..."

CBO scores Speaker Pelosi's final version (PDF file): "CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

Abortion issue not yet resolved. CQ: "Abortion is the most serious problem for the leadership. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leading abortion opponent, has warned that up to 40 Democrats might vote against the bill unless stronger language is added to restrict federal funding of insurance plans that cover abortion. With the majority now 258 members strong — once a newly elected Democrat from New York is sworn in on Friday — Democratic leaders can afford to lose up to 40 votes from their party’s ranks. But Thursday night, Diana DeGette of Colorado said the Democrats’ 190-member Pro-Choice Caucus will not accept abortion language more restrictive than that proposed by Democrat Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and accepted by the leadership ... Backers of abortion rights do not like the Ellsworth wording but will not oppose the bill because of it, she said."

W. Post's Dana Milbank chronicles hateful messages at anti-health care Tea Party rally: "In the front of the protest, a sign showed President Obama in white coat, his face painted to look like the Joker. The sign, visible to the lawmakers as they looked into the cameras, carried a plea to 'Stop Obamunism.' A few steps farther was the guy holding a sign announcing 'Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds' [sic], accusing Obama of being part of a Jewish plot to introduce the antichrist. But the best of [Rep. Michelle] Bachmann's recruits were a few rows into the crowd, holding aloft a pair of 5-by-8-foot banners proclaiming 'National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945.' Both banners showed close-up photographs of Holocaust victims, many of them children." Media Matters finds conservatives inflating tiny protest turnout numbers.

Jacob Hacker and Diane Archer urge support for House version of public option. The Treatment: "The public plan is ... critical to reform as a cost and quality benchmark ... should also help keep down the rate of growth of health insurance premiums over time ... the public plan is really the only tool available for testing and implementing reforms in the market for the non-elderly ... pegging rates to Medicare and obligating Medicare providers to accept these rates would be far preferable ... But it’s still immensely valuable to give Americans an out--another choice--to let the insurers feel the heat..."

Latest CNN poll (PDF file) still finds solid support, 55%, for public option.

Boxer Passes Climate Bill Over GOP Boycott

The Vine's Brad Plumer assess Boxer's 11-1 victory in committee: "Basically, the climate bill's out of the hands of Barbara Boxer and [Environment and Public Work Committee] at this point. The Republican boycott was circumvented. A few of the other committees—like Finance—could now take a whack at it, but it's mainly going to be shepherded by Harry Reid from this point forward."

W. Post notes attention is shifting to Kerry-Graham-Lieberman compromise talks, Gore blesses: "Former vice president Al Gore, in a meeting Thursday with The Washington Post's editorial board, said he hopes the negotiations between Kerry and Graham, with the aid of the administration, will 'produce a consensus bill before Copenhagen,' empowering U.S. negotiators at the talks. Gore added that he knows President Obama and his aides are 'having discussions' about Obama attending the climate talks in December. He said, however, that he 'has no indication' that a final decision has been made."

Politico gets Graham's reaction to Boxer bill: "Graham said that he would have voted against the EPW bill. 'Now, it’s time to find a bill that will make good policy,' said Graham. 'Clearly, there are not 60 votes for that product.' Graham said his group would take the 'good pieces' of the work by Boxer and the five other committees ... Boxer (D-Calif.) stressed that her committee was only the first step in a long process."

NYT spotlights Baucus' no vote: "Mr. Baucus’s vote against the bill was another ominous sign. He is the influential chairman of the Finance Committee and a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, both of which will have major input in any final climate and energy legislation. He said the bill’s emission reduction targets were too ambitious and its agriculture provisions too weak. He said the measure had a long way to go."

"Boxer avoids repeating Baucus' mistake with dragging out health care talks argues OurFuture.org's Bill Scher.

Enviro strategy to accept compromises attracts criticism. ClimateWire: "...some question whether in their quest to get a bill, environmentalists and their allies are far too willing to compromise on historic priorities such as offshore drilling and nuclear power ... Officials from major environmental groups contend that simply building political momentum for climate change legislation is not an insignificant task, arguing that some lawmakers and voters still need to be convinced of the benefits of a cap-and-trade bill."

W. Post notes dispute on whether to emphasize carbon cap or green jobs: "some groups have muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers and rising seas. Not because they've stopped caring about them -- but because they're trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill's non-environmental side benefits, such as 'green' jobs and reduced oil imports. Smaller environmental groups, however, say this is the wrong moment to ease up on the scare because that might send the signal that a weaker bill is acceptable."

Getting Serious With China -- New Pipe Tariff

Dave Johnson — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:03:52 -0800

The Obama administration is taking steps to begin rebalancing trade with China -- and creating JOBS. In this case it looks like China has been "dumping" steel pipes --selling at prices that are below market -- to capture business away from American companies, causing them to close factories and lay off workers. This is illegal, and the Obama administration just imposed a tariff designed to begin correcting this.

Just on the newswire, NY Times with a Bloomberg report,

The United States imposed duties of as much as 99 percent on steel pipes from China after American producers led by the U.S. Steel Corporation complained they were being dumped at below-market prices.

The duties on $2.6 billion in annual imports of the pipes, used in oil and gas wells, will be 36.5 percent for the 37 largest exporters, the Commerce Department said in a preliminary decision. The tariffs will be on top of separate duties announced in September averaging 21 percent to counter subsidies to Chinese producers.

From Financial Times, US slaps anti-dumping duties on steel pipe imports from China,

Anti-dumping duties are used when companies sell their products unfairly cheaply into foreign markets. Imports of the Chinese pipes, which are used in oil-drilling, surged 203 per cent between 2006 and 2008, according to the commerce department.

The duties range from 36.53 per cent for a select group of Chinese companies to 99.14 per cent for the rest. One manufacturer, Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co, was exempted from the ruling.

. . . A final anti-dumping order will be issued if both the commerce department and the International Trade Commission decide that the imports "materially injure" the domestic industry, or at least threaten to do so.

In another sign of its muscular approach, the US this week asked for a World Trade Organisation disputes panel to investigate Chinese restrictions on exports of specialised raw materials used in industry. It was joined by the European Union and Mexico in claiming that China's restraints on some raw materials were driving up the cost of end products.

President Obama travels to China in ten days. It appears he is going there with a message that they are going to have to be a "fair and balanced" trade partner from now on.

We will post more information as it comes in.

P.S. The EU imposed tariffs on Chinese steel pipes in July for this reason.

CBO Score? Check. Bill Online For 72 Hours? Check. No Excuses To Vote Against House Healthcare Bill.

Bill Scher — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:09:28 -0800

The House is expected to vote on comprehensive health care reform Saturday. And conservatives have no excuse for voting against it. Their main concerns have been addressed.

Conservatives have continually complained that committee votes occurred without full cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. They argued we should not blindly approve legislation that is likely to increase the budget deficit.

Now, the final House bill has been scored by the CBO, and it shows that the bill would reduce the budget deficit. It would cut the deficit more than the Republican alternative that CBO found wouldn't even increase the percentage of Americans with health insurance.

So if cutting the deficit is your concern, you would vote for Speaker Pelosi's bill.

Conservatives have also complained that the congressional leadership hasn't been providing the full text of bills online for the public to review 72 hours before a vote.

On Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi did just that. Seventy-two hours will have passed before Saturday's expected vote.

So if you were concerned that something insidious was being slipped into the fine print at the last minute, now you have no reason for concern.

However, I have yet to hear a single conservative critic give credit where credit is due, let alone announce that since these concerns have been addressed, conservatives can now happily support the legislation.

Could it be that conservatives only like citing CBO data when it serves their immediate political interest?

Could it be that conservatives only wanted the extra time for last ditch obstructionist tactics?

I suppose we have 48 hours to find out.

UPDATE: The Weekly Standard is arguing Speaker Pelosi is breaking the 72-hour pledge because there is still some last-minute haggling over side issues -- abortion and immigration language in particular, and there won't necessarily be another 72-hour wait after those matters are resolved. If conservatives want to hag their hat on that, be my guest. Most reasonable people will be satisfied that the actual health care reform is online with ample time for congressional members and the public to review before a final vote.

Boxer Avoids The Baucus Trap

Bill Scher — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:22:16 -0800

Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer rammed through the Environment and Public Works Committee her version of clean energy jobs and climate protection legislation without any amendments, in order to circumvent the Republican boycott of the committee proceedings.

There's no way that bill will become law without further changes, but Boxer did exactly what needed to done to get any bill passed.

Already we are hearing the tut-tutting. CQ speculated that Boxer risked "alienating Republicans and frustrating moderate Democrats." Primary candidate for compromise GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham declared he would have opposed the Boxer bill if he was on the committee.

None of that matters. In fact, the supposed friction is probably helping.

As we learned in the health care debate, what happens at the committee level is far from the final word. Multiple committees weigh in, and at the end of the day, the congressional leaders and White House make the last calls before sending legislation to the floor of each branch of Congress. The tricky part is just getting through the slog of the committee process, so you can get to point where the top folks can make the last calls.

Sen. Max Baucus failed to understand this. He wasted everyone's time futilely negotiating with people who fundamentally disagreed with the entire premise of reform, giving opponents extra time to organize and spread misinformation.

Sen. Boxer today essentially said, I'm not going to waste everybody's time.

She got her homework done ahead of schedule. One more committee down. The process moves forward.

The fact that so-called moderates will complain about the Boxer bill is simply an additional opportunity to portray the expected "tripartisan" compromise from Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Grahan and Joe Lieberman -- talks clearly blessed by the Senate leadership and the White House -- as an politically safer alternative.

If Boxer's move somehow made those three scrap their talks -- and getting Graham on board at this point is the only possible way the Senate is going find 50 votes let alone 60 for a carbon cap -- then you could say Boxer was politically reckless. But nothing of the sort is happening.

One can only hope the other relevant committee chairs learn from her example.

Unfortunately, one of the committees with jurisdiction is the Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Baucus. And because he didn't get a chance to pass his amendments today, he voted "No" in Boxer's committee.

Something tells me he still doesn't get it.

The Republican Party Is a Party of ‘NO’

Rebecca Lehrman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:52:07 -0800

The Republicans in Congress are at it again, stonewalling everything. Last time we called it “block and blame.” Stop everything, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done.

Republicans last year in the 110th Congress filibustered more legislation, and required more cloture votes to break those filibusters, than any Congress in history. The tactic was used to stall and halt key legislation, and give Congress the stigma of a “do-nothing Congress.” As former Republican Sen. Trent Lott remarked, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us.”

Now there is a new form of obstructionism in the Senate. Senate Republicans have been blocking the confirmation of a large number of the Obama administration’s nominees, and it’s not because of past scandal or competency worries, but mainly because of egregious holds that have little to do with their politics or suitability for the position.

Holds on nominations are certainly not, on their own, an audacious tactic. Used reasonably, they allow Congress time to more comprehensively question a nominee’s legitimacy. But the current practice by Republicans of extensive use for uncertain duration for even the most qualified and uncontroversial of Obama’s nominees is pure obstructionism.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) chastised his former party on Fox News Sunday morning, saying there's no working with the GOP.

"On the Republican side, it is no, no, no. A party of obstructionism," he said.

In years past, uncontroversial nominees who received bipartisan support made it easily through Senate confirmation. But nowadays uncontroversial nominees are simply pawns in the larger war against Obama’s agenda. By preventing the confirmation of almost all nominees, Republicans are forcing Sen. Reid to negotiate or waste floor time on each unreasonable count of obstructionism.

During President Bush’s time, only a handful of partisan nominees received opposition, and the filibuster was used as an extreme of last resort. By Sen. Reid’s count, the Senate has confirmed 366 Obama nominees. In contrast, by their first term, Bush had 421 nominees in place, Clinton had 379 nominees, and 480 of President Regan’s nominees had been confirmed. 53 of Obama’s nominees are still waiting for a full Senate vote, and another 175 are pending in committee. Furthermore, since its conception in 1949, cloture votes have been forced on only 24 nominees, but in the first nine months of the Obama administration there have been 5 such cloture votes.

Sen. Reid spoke on the floor last week:

"I would try to explain the Republican reason for their refusal, but as with so many other things they oppose, a rationale simply doesn’t exist. Senate Republicans are simply so opposed to everything – absolutely everything – that they even oppose putting people in some of the most important positions in our government.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that those who have chosen to serve our country must be able to get to work without delay.

M. President, perhaps those watching and listening think this is how the Senate always operates. It is not."

Last week, Obama declared a national emergency after the flu outbreak, and yet the Senate has yet to confirm Dr. Regina Benjamin as the surgeon general. Well-qualified nominees who receive bipartisan support should be able to be rewarded with a smooth Senate confirmation process. The unchecked use of “block and blame” methods poses precarious consequences. These obstructionary tactics are unprecedented for both parties and the practice needs to stop. The Republicans need to stop furthering their political interests and begin to concern themselves with American interests. Obstruction hinders progress; well-qualified candidates should be supported and not tied up in encumbering red-tape while our country continues to suffer.

Green Shoots. For Whom?

Eric Lotke — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:43:58 -0800

Today’s “Productivity and Costs” data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics contain what looks like good news. Productivity increased at a 9.5 percent annual rate during the third quarter of 2009, the largest gain since 2003.

The Associated Press called it “sizzling.” The New York Times said we “surged.”

It’s good news and I’m happy about it. I especially like the 4.0 percent increase in outputs, led by a 12.4 percent increase in the manufacturing of durable goods. It almost starts to look like green shoots in a gray economy.

But keep the cork in the bottles. The hours worked last quarter dropped by fully 5.0 percent. The productivity gain came from doing more work in fewer hours. In the durable goods sector, the hours worked dropped a full 7.2 percent. The increase in productivity is fundamentally about people working harder.

And people aren’t getting paid for their hard work. Real hourly compensation rose only 0.2 percent last quarter. So if somebody is pocketing the gains from 9.5 percent increase in productivity, it isn’t the people working on the lines. Yes, they’re happy to have jobs. Yes, it’s nice to see any gain at all after a decade of decline in wages and income. But no, we don’t want to recreate the bubble that popped. We need to make sure these gains are widely shared and that the people doing the work reap their fair share of the benefit.

Source: BLS