Progressive Breakfast: Changes Expected To Baucus Bill

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

Dems & Snowe Prepare (Some) Changes To Baucus Bill

Snowe, right-leaning Dem Senators release statement supportive of Baucus bill [1] but short of endorsement.

TPMDC's Brian Beutler speculates in Snowe is warning her party she could leave [2] if they attack her for supporting health care reform.

Senate Finance cmte member Maria Cantwell joins Rockefeller in opposition legislation without public option [3], raising questions if Baucus bill has votes to clear committee.

Massachusetts House backs bill [4] allowing for interim Senate appointment.

Baucus gets pushback from Dems and Snowe for tax on some insurance plans and weak subsidies. NYT: [5] "The tax, proposed as a way to help finance coverage of the uninsured, would be levied on insurance companies. But the senators said they worried that it would be passed on to individual policyholders, families and employers who buy insurance for their workers ... Many Democrats said they were also concerned that insurance would still be unaffordable to many middle-income people. [Snowe] voiced the same concern ... Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who first proposed the insurance tax, said Mr. Baucus had set the thresholds too low. As a result, Mr. Kerry said, “working folks with a lower level of income will get dragged in,” and the tax could affect union members who have sacrificed pay raises to get health benefits.

Baucus signals some flexibility to Time's Karen Tumulty: [6] "...one idea 'very much on the table' is to increase the refundable tax credits for those purchasing insurance ... Baucus also expressed some flexibility with regard to his proposal to impose a 35% excise tax on insurers who sell 'gold-plated' insurance policies ... and hinted that the threshold for taxation is likely to be raised ... one place where Baucus does not appear to be so flexible is on the question of adding a government-run 'public option' ... [but] one 'live possibility' is the idea of adding a so-called 'trigger'..."

NYT's Krugmans lays out what it takes to make Baucus bill minimally acceptable: [7] "...trying to tie each employer’s fees to the subsidies its own employees end up getting [which] would make companies reluctant to hire workers from lower-income families ... This provision has to go ... Second, the plan is too stingy when it comes to financial aid ... Third, the plan doesn’t create real competition in the insurance market. The right way to create competition is to offer a public option..."

NYT reports Obama plans to improve Baucus bill, to a point: [8] "The White House is quietly reassuring liberals that the subsidies will be increased. But it is giving no such assurance about a public option."

Howard Dean launching campaign for simple majority vote [9] in the Senate on health care, reports TPMDC.

Obama's tort reform compromise gesture dismissed by conservatives and special interests: [10] "The White House rolled out a modest program Thursday examining ways to discourage frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, but what was meant as a bipartisan overture was quickly denounced by Republicans and business and consumer groups as an empty gesture. The Obama administration said that it would offer $25 million in grants to identify practices that would reduce medical errors, scale back malpractice insurance premiums and spare doctors from nuisance litigation." W. Post adds: [11] "tensions flared again this week when doctors discovered that the Baucus bill does nothing substantively to address malpractice costs and offers them only modest gains on the high-priority issue of Medicare reimbursement."

The Treatment's Noam Schieber rejects CBO chief's attempt to deny bias against crediting health care reform with cost savings: [12] "Elmendorf's point about uncertainty may be part of the answer, but it doesn't explain why the estimates would systematically lowball savings."

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Begins Investigation

OurFuture.org's Isaiah Poole reports on the first meeting of "Pecora II": [13] ""One obvious question will be whether the quest for unanimity [on the bipartisan panel] will short-circuit the need for a frank assessment of the policies as well as the players responsible for bringing the nation's economy to the brink of collapse. Angelides and Thomas both promise that it won't."

Tapped's Tim Fernholz assesses the first day: [14] "though some tensions showed, I thought the conservative New Pecora commissioners seemed open-minded ... One concern: There is no liberal economist on the committee ... The Democratic appointees have regulatory, legal, political and private business experience, but no specific economic expertise."

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh worries the commission won't be tough enough: [15] "While he enjoys subpoena power as Pecora did (and as the last famous Washington blue-ribbon panel, the 9/11 Commission, did not), [chairman Phil] Angelides says he's not eager to use it; he prefers 'voluntary' cooperation. Beyond that, despite the presence of a few standouts like Brooksley Born, the derivatives whistle-blower from the '90s, the commission is manned with partisans of the left and right who could easily tie themselves—and the investigation—up in ideological knots. Still, Angelides and his team may yet surprise us. It's happened before."

New Deal 2.0's Marshall Auerback offers guidance: [16] "...to have any long-lasting relevance, it must establish the larger purposes that economic policy in general, and financial policy in particular, should address. A difficulty of regulatory reform lies in the underlying desire, sometimes unstated, to return to the previous status quo ante, without asking whether that system actually met society’s needs or was coincident with broader public purpose. The challenge of the Commission is to align the financial sector’s interests with the broader purposes of public policy via a sensible new regulatory framework. This principle has been conspicuously lacking in Obama’s 'reforms' thus far."

Will the Fed restrict executive pay? WSJ: [17] "Under the proposal, the Fed could reject any compensation policies it believes encourage bank employees -- from chief executives, to traders, to loan officers -- to take too much risk. Bureaucrats wouldn't set the pay of individuals, but would review and, if necessary, amend each bank's salary and bonus policies to make sure they don't create harmful incentives. A final proposal is still a few weeks from completion and could be revised along the way, according to people familiar with the matter. It requires a vote by the central bank's board, but no congressional approval."

Dodd ready to take on overdraft fees. W. Post: [18] "Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to introduce legislation in the next few weeks cracking down on overdraft fees, the controversial charges that banks slap on customers who overspend their account balances. The bill is likely to require companies to obtain permission from customers before enrolling them in overdraft programs, in which the bank automatically lends as much as a customer needs in exchange for a fee on each transaction. Consumer advocates have fiercely criticized the practice for years because customers are not notified in advance that they are getting what amounts to an expensive loan."

Student Loan Reform Passes House

House passes end of subsidies to private student lenders. W. Post: [19] "Democrats have long sought to end the subsidized lending, and Republicans have fought to keep it. Democrats now have the upper hand because subsidies have become a ripe target in a time of public skepticism toward bankers. They say students would benefit from direct lending because the government offers a more reliable source of capital for loans at the same rates and terms as the guaranteed loan program. Thursday's 253 to 171 vote, largely along party lines, moves the bill to the Senate. There, it faces more obstacles even though Democrats control the chamber, because senators sympathetic to the lending industry wield significant influence. But the Obama administration is pushing hard for passage, in large part because the lending overhaul would free up an estimated $80 billion over 10 years for its education agenda."

OurFuture.org's Armand Biroonak previews the Senate fight ahead: [20] "...look for message framing from opponents to mar the truth with descriptions of SAFRA such as, 'anti-consumer choice,' 'big government takeover,' and 'deficit busting' –all which are flat-out false claims. [21]"

Conservatives May Try To Handcuff EPA on Climate

ClimateWire reports of possible amendment to upcoming appropriations bill: [22] "[GOP Sen. Lisa] Murkowski, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, may introduce an amendment to the fiscal 2010 Interior and environment appropriations bill that would ... prohibit the agency from regulating heat-trapping emissions from stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities ... Environmentalists assailed the amendment, saying it would basically instruct EPA to ignore the law."

EU ambassador criticizes US for possible delay on climate bill until next year. Dow Jones: [23] "The European Union's ambassador to the U.S. Thursday criticized the Senate for potentially delaying action on climate legislation ahead of a major international summit, accusing the chamber of 'dragging its feet' [and warning it] could jeopardize the success of international negotiations ... [Senator Harry] Reid spokesman Jim Manley said his office appreciated hearing [the] concerns, 'but President Obama has a number of important issues that he wants addressed this year and we will get to all of them as quickly as we can.'"

House Passes Broad, Yet Unconstitutional, Ban on Funds for ACORN

NYT: "Republicans added the prohibition [on funding ACORN] to a Democratic bill [24] on college lending by a bipartisan vote of 345-75."

Rep. Nadler reminds folks of the Constitution: [25] "Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution says that Congress shall never pass a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder, no matter what their form, apply either to a named individual or to easily ascertainable members of a group, to inflict punishment. That’s exactly what this amendment does. It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and, if so, it ought to be vetted, or maybe sanctioned, by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary. Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial."

Salon.com's Joe Conason reminds what ACORN actually does: [26] "ACORN's troubles should be considered in the context of a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished. No doubt it was fun to dupe a few morons ... but what ACORN actually does, every day, is help struggling families with the Earned Income Tax Credit (whose benefits were expanded by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton). And while the idea of getting housing assistance for a brothel was clever, what ACORN really does, every day, is help those same working families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes ... the indignation of the congressional Republicans screaming about ACORN and the phony streetwalker is diluted by the presence of at least two confirmed prostitution clients -- Rep. Ken Calvert and Sen. David Vitter -- in their midst. Neither of those right-wing johns has been even mildly chastised by their moralistic peers. Nobody is cutting off their federal funding."