Progressive Breakfast: Senate Cmte Passes Public Plan Option

Oh Noes! Senate Bill Not Bipartisan. How Did It Ever Pass?!

Senate health committee passes public plan option. Insurance lobby cries. W. Post: [1] "President Obama's ambitious drive to overhaul the nation's $2.3 trillion health-care system cleared a key Senate committee yesterday. But the administration was promptly buffeted by criticism from some of the industry players and moderate Democrats it has courted for months, calling into question the prospects for a bipartisan landmark bill ... From one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other, lawmakers, lobbyists and the president himself all moved quickly to position themselves for the intensifying battle. In the House, a mini-rebellion was erupting over cost controls in its $1.2 trillion bill, while several influential industry groups broke their polite silence and issued pointed attacks on core elements of the legislation."

LA Times reports special interest talking points falling flat: [2] "...the National Federation of Independent Business, a conservative small-business group that is influential in the House, sent a letter to lawmakers saying that the bill 'threatens the viability of our nation's job creators . . . , destroys choice and competition for private insurance and fails to address the core challenge facing small business -- cost.' But the dire predictions were contradicted by a preliminary Congressional Budget Office assessment of the public insurance option contained in the House bill. The CBO estimated that by 2019, just 9 million people would get their insurance from the government plan, while more than 175 million people would get their coverage from private insurers."

CQ explains how surtax on wealthiest would barely affect small biz: [3] "...69.7 percent of the taxpayers who would pay the surtax have some business income. However, those numbers can be misleading ... because a family with some income from a small business may still get the vast majority of its money from wages or investments. A better measure, experts say, is looking at taxpayers who get more than half their adjusted gross income from businesses. Using that metric, 493,000, or 22.8 percent, of the households affected by the surtax are small-business owners, according to the Tax Policy Center. But most of the income subject to the surtax in those households would come from sources other than the business. Only 28.3 percent of their total income is derived from small business. That’s a much different picture than if the Democrats had chosen to finance the health care bill with a more traditional income tax boost. Instead, they chose a surtax on adjusted gross income, which includes long-term capital gains and dividends, spreading the burden to investors in addition to business owners and wage earners ... 'The jobs effect, if there is one, is it makes it cheaper to hire people if we get health care costs under control,' said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group."

Change.org's Tim Foley contrasts the Senate health committee bill with the House draft bill: [4] "The employer pay (contribute to a fund) or play (give your employees benefits) is weaker than what’s in the House: Wall Street Journal did some estimations and found that a 50-person company with a $2.5 million payroll would pay $200,000 as part of the employer mandate in the House bill, but only $37,500 in the HELP bill. The cost of premiums in the Gateway/Exchange for families at 400% of poverty is a little higher than the House. The cap on how much you spend out-of-pocket is higher, too. The eligibility for people to get their insurance through the Gateway/Exchange would be more closed (the Congressional Budget Office thinks we’d be talking 20 million+ in the Gateways instead of the 30 million + for the House, with those extra millions staying in employer-provided insurance). The 'community health insurance option' would need to negotiate rates with providers from the get-go, meaning it’d take longer to set-up and would have less of an immediate effect on costs – although hey, the Senate HELP bill doesn’t suggest that it will push off creating a public plan until 2013, so it may be faster after all. All true. But considering that the Senate is traditionally the place where a good reform goes to get crushed or die, it’s remarkable all the same that we’re really talking about degrees rather than a fundamentally different or even a gutted plan."

Wonk Room's Igor Volsky on the GOP reaction to the Senate bill: [5] "Republicans Respond To HELP Bill Passage By Lying About The Bill"

NYT on the diminishing appetite for empty bipartisanship: [6] "Senators said the White House had been sending mixed signals. For months, they said, it emphasized the need for a bipartisan bill. But in the last 10 days, one Democrat said, the message has been: 'Hurry up. If you have to go without Republicans, it’s not the end of the world.'"

House progressives playing hardball. HuffPost's Ryan Grim: [7] "Progressive Democrats are taking a hard stand on health care reform, with a majority committing to oppose any health care reform package that doesn't include a robust public option ... [A] whip list was obtained by Joan McCarter, a DailyKos contributing editor [8]. It names fifty members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who have firmly pledged to oppose any bill that doesn't meet the group's standards. Without those fifty votes, Democrats would be unable to pass the reform effort without Republican support."

NYT editorial board sounds the call for the House health care bill: [9] "This is a bill worth fighting for."

Roger Hickey and Diane Archer tout House bill as benchmark in OurFuture.org video: [10]

Senate considers funding reform in part with fees on insurers. Bloomberg: [11] " Insurance companies should use their profits to help fund as much as $100 billion of a landmark overhaul of the U.S. health-care system, senators including Democrat Charles Schumer of New York said. Schumer and other Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee, which is leading the effort to forge a bipartisan compromise on health care, said they will probably assess fees on insurers, a plan that drew fire from the industry ... 'I personally wouldn’t have a problem' with imposing fees, said Senator Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican."

Senate Finance Committee timing unclear. Politico: [12] "Asked Wednesday if he told the president he would produce a bill this week — an impression left with those in the meeting — Baucus stepped into the Senate elevator, smiled and waved goodbye as the doors closed."

President to meet with [13] Sens. Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe today.

The Plum Line [14] and Media Matters slap AP [15] for inflating cost of House bill.

WH looks to reduce Medicare costs with new executive agency. Politico: [16] " the White House began circulating draft legislation Wednesday spelling out President Barack Obama's proposal that Congress surrender much of its authority over payment rates for Medicare to a new executive agency. The proposed five-member Independent Medicare Advisory Council would be charged with making two annual reports dictating updated rates for Medicare providers including physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health and durable medical equipment. Congress could block the recommendations only if lawmakers agreed within 30 days on a resolution, and the greater veto power would lie with the White House itself."

Pecora Commission Members Are Named

NYT reports: "Congressional Democrats announced on Wednesday that Phil Angelides, a former California treasurer, would lead a commission to examine the causes of the financial crisis. [17] The vice chairman of the panel, which has 10 members, will be Bill Thomas, the former Republican representative from California ... Other Democratic-appointed members of the committee include Brooksley Born, the chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Bill Clinton; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Heather Murren, a retired managing director at Merrill Lynch; Byron Georgiou, a Las Vegas businessman; and John W. Thompson, chairman of Symantec. The other members of the committee appointed by Republicans are Keith Hennessey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush; Peter J. Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, a former top adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain."

OurFuture.org's Isaiah Poole praises the chairman: [18] "The good news is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have named a commission chairman—Phil Angelides—who has a solid record of standing on the side of sound financial regulation and accountability. The unfortunate news is that at least some of the Republican appointees have a track record of standing for precisely the opposite and of spreading falsehoods about the roots of the crisis ... A few of them have particularly promising track records. Brooksley Born, who was director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, warned about the dangers of deregulation in the derivatives trading markets. Byron Georgiou, a Las Vegas-based businessman and attorney, not only has one of the most respected blogs in financial regulation, but has also defended investors against abuses by financial firms."

D-Day also has positive words for Angelides: [19] "I'm pleased that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid went outside of Washington for this task, not to any of the typical high priests of bipartisanship. I hope Angelides can get this job done, and it seems to fit with his skills."

TPMDC's Brian Beutler finds some potential conflicts of interest: [20] "...commission vice chairman Bill Thomas--a former Republican Congressman from California--raised $1.8 million for his campaigns from financial, insurance, and real estate interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These are many of the same interests he'll soon investigating ... former Florida Senator and Governor Bob Graham raised $2.1 million for his campaigns from similar interests, including tens of thousands from employees and PACs of Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs."

Senate Climate Bill Expected Early Sept.

Climate Progress: "'Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from the August recess [21], she said today…. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican co-sponsor on her bill, though she would not name names.' So E&E News PM reported last night. I see this delay as a sign that she is serious about trying to craft a bill that can garner 60 votes, which will not be easy."

Grist reports Big Ag fighting for weaker climate bill, while denying climate science: [22] "The American Farm Bureau Federation, not content with the major concessions for agriculture that its congressional allies secured during the House climate debate, is now lobbying the Senate for a better deal. Appearing at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday, Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman not only pushed for provisions that environmentalists believe would limit the efficacy of a climate bill, he also repeated climate skeptic talking points, questioning whether climate change is even happening, according to written testimony submitted to the committee ... Stallman will likely have a willing ear in [Senate Ag Chair Sen. Tom] Harkin, who has said he wants to ensure that the Senate bill contains all the goodies in the House package, and then some."

WH Seeks To Win Unions Over On Trade Policy

Bloomberg previews speech from top trade official: [23] "U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk says the Obama administration is 'going to bat for American industrial workers' through greater protection of labor rights and more aggressive monitoring of overseas trade practices. Kirk, in a speech today at a U.S. Steel Corp. plant near Pittsburgh, will pledge to force countries including Peru and Guatemala to live up to labor commitments they made in trade agreements, according to a copy his prepared remarks ... Kirk, who has been on the job for four months, has had to drop plans for a quick congressional vote on a pending free- trade agreement with Panama after Democratic lawmakers ... protested. ... Obama faces a September deadline to decide if he will put tariffs or quotas on $1.7 billion of Chinese automobile tires, in a case brought by the United Steelworkers. 'The action Obama takes in September will speak much louder than any words Ron Kirk says this week,' Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a coalition of steel companies and the Steelworkers union, said on July 14."

Kirk lays out strategy to WSJ: [24] "In a bid to revive support for free trade within the U.S., the Obama administration plans to press foreign nations to increase imports of U.S. agriculture and manufacturing -- but not to push so hard as to ignite a protectionist backlash. 'In order to save trade, we've got to deal more honestly with those who feel like [trade's] benefits haven't been manifested for them,' U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in an interview Tuesday. 'We've got to be serious about enforcement.' ... To win over a public skeptical about trade, he is now following a course plotted by earlier Republican and Democratic administrations: appear to get tough with trade partners and show that trade deals can boost exports and jobs, then use that credibility to push for new trade deals."