Progressive Breakfast: Public Option Limbo

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

Jockeying Continues As Reid Drafts Health Care Bill

Sen. Harkin does a public option whip count for NYT: [1] "'There are 52 solid Democrats for the public option,' said Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the health committee. 'Only about five Democrats oppose it. Should the 52 give in to the five? Or should the five go along with the vast majority of the Democratic caucus?'"

Public option remains negotiable for the White House. W. Post: [2] "Obama continues to support the concept of a government-sponsored insurance option, but 'he is not demanding that it is in' the final legislation, Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'He thinks it's the best possible choice.' White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in two television appearances, noted that the public option could provide much-needed competition, but that 'it's not the defining piece of health care.' Liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is involved in the negotiations, said they will push for the government option to be included in the bill that goes to the Senate floor. 'I haven't given up on this,' Dodd said on NBC."

Roger Hickey notes moderates Dems are beginning to reassess the politics of opposing the public option: [3] "Concentrating their minds is the realization that they are about to vote to force every American over the age of twenty five to purchase health insurance. Moderate Democrats are the ones most receptive to the demands of the insurance industry, and the price the insurance industry is demanding in exchange for insurance reform (like preventing companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions) is the 'individual mandate' – which means voters are forced to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. At this moment, all Democratic politicians, even the most conservative, are realizing that their voters will blame them, not the insurance companies, if the policies the voters are required to buy are so expensive that premiums consume over 20 percent of those voters’ annual incomes. Suddenly, more generous tax subsidies to cover middle-class premiums seem like a good idea. And if the public option can bring down the cost of premiums those subsidies have to pay for, then the overall size of the reform price tag can be kept under control – a long time demand of moderate Democrats."

PCCC runs Nevada ad pressuring Sen. Reid to be "strong enough" [4] to pass public option.

WSJ concludes Big Pharma makes out better than Big Insurance: [5] "The drug industry stands to gain in a health-care overhaul by getting tens of millions of newly insured customers, while insurance companies -- especially those that cater to the individual market -- look like they are in for a tougher time."

The Walker Report criticizes the White House for criticizing AFSCME president for demanding stronger health care bill: [6] "Having top progressive reform priorities (like allowing Medicare to save billions by directly negotiating drug prices) sacrificed in a back room in exchange for campaign ads from PhRMA is what is beyond the pale."

W. Post gets around to raising inherent uncertainty, questionable methodology by CBO (now that the numbers look good for reform): [7] " Lately, the CBO has come under fire from liberal bloggers and champions of supposedly money-saving ideas, such as disease-prevention programs. Harvard economist David Cutler, a member of the CBO's health advisory panel, has complained that the agency is too cautious in estimating potential savings from changing the way doctors are organized and paid."

Sen. Harkin to use budget rules to have simple majority vote on ending subsidies for private student lenders. The Hill questions if there is a simple majority: [8] "...Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said enacting policy changes isn't reconciliation's purpose ... Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Begich (Alaska) Ben Nelson (Nebraska) have come out against the bill because they said it would restrict options for loans. New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Sen. Tom Udall have also objected to the proposal ... Several lawmakers who have opposed or questioned the bill have student loan companies in their states that stand to lose out on business if the proposal becomes law. ... Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) has voiced concern over the effect of the plan on the 2,200 people in his state who work for [Sallie Mae]. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said he's mostly worried about whether the bill will save the $87 billion anticipated by the administration ... The bill won't move in the Senate until lawmakers make more progress on healthcare legislation, Harkin said. If Democratic leaders decide to use reconciliation rules for the healthcare bill, they would have to package it with the education reforms, since Senate rules allow for consideration of only one reconciliation bill each year."

GOP looking to use doctor payment issue to claim health care reform would not cut deficit. W. Post: [2] "The health-care battle will be tested this week in the Senate, as Democrats push a bill that would set aside nearly $250 billion over the next decade for higher Medicare payments to physicians. The reimbursement rates are scheduled for automatic reductions. But each year, Congress overrides the formula, which would trim fees by 21 percent in 2010. Fixing the payment gap is of enormous concern to the American Medical Association, but lawmakers have yet to find the money to pay for it. Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) kept the provision out of health-care reform legislation, saying it is something Congress would do regardless of broader reform. ... 'This is so transparent,' said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). 'They're taking this issue out of health care, suggesting that we spend a quarter of a trillion dollars, not pay for it, so that they can then argue, the very next week potentially, that this trillion-dollar health-care bill is paid for.'"

Bank Lobbyists Hungry For More Watering Down

Community bankers and credit unions not yet satisfied with amendments to consumer protection agency. The Hill: [9] "They praised the amendment, but are not planning to endorse the bill as it stands ... Dan Berger, executive vice president at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), said ... the association would like to a see a “full exemption from this costly and unnecessary regulatory burden.”

Politico notes Senate Banking Cmte is working in bipartisan fashion on financial reform: [10] "Dodd and Shelby talk about regulatory reform on a nearly constant basis, both men say, and their staffs are deep in discussions. Dodd hasn’t gotten down to hashing out legislative details with newly appointed Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), but her committee staff, which shares jurisdiction over some portions of the reform bill, did attend all the briefings."

Obama aide Larry Summers privately warned Wall Street last month to expect tough reforms. Bloomberg: [11] "White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers told leaders of top financial companies last month the Obama administration 'will not be lectured' by opponents of a proposed consumer-protection agency. In a closed-door speech to the Financial Services Roundtable in Washington on Sept. 24, Summers, 54, told the executives they were beneficiaries of an unprecedented government bailout and should brace for a regulatory overhaul, according to one participant."

Climate bill splits energy industry

NYT on the divided the energy industry: [12] "Producers of natural gas are battling their erstwhile allies, the oil companies. Electrical utilities are fighting among themselves over the use of coal versus wind power or other renewable energy. Coal companies are battling natural gas firms over which should be used to produce electricity. And the renewable power industry is elbowing for advantage against all of them. Some supporters of global warming legislation believe that the division in the once-monolithic oil and gas industry, as well as other splits among energy producers, could improve the prospects for the legislation."

Senate energy cmte to look at carbon permits. The Hill: [13] "Although it lacks jurisdiction [over carbon permits], the Senate energy panel includes a number of key players in the debate, including several Democrats who have raised concerns to varying degrees about the effect a climate change bill will have on energy prices and by extension jobs. These include Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana ... At a hearing this week on the costs of the climate change bill, Landrieu worried that it would force [oil] refiners in her state out of business. She doesn’t believe they receive enough free emissions allowances in the House bill to offset the higher compliance costs."

It's Getting Hot In Here reports The Action Factory plans protest actions against the Chamber of Commerce [14]: "...disrupt the PR machine and keep them off balance as they try to start another week of undermining climate progress while member companies weigh the bad press and consider joining those who have already left in protest. Because helping splinter mega corporate power blocs is a fun way to start the week."

Politico reports the WH looking to "marginalize" the Chamber: [15] "The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce ... by going around the group and dealing directly with the CEOs of major U.S. corporations ... [They] ager to paint the group as grounded more in political ideology than in business reality."

Freakonomics duo pummeled for misrepresenting scientists and economists to attack carbon cap. EnviroKnow: [16] "When Paul Krugman [17], the Union of Concerned Scientists [18], Joseph Romm [19], Bradford Delong, [20]Brad Johnson [21], Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick [22], David Roberts [23], Tim Lambert [24], Felix Salmon [25], Corbin Hiar [26], William Connelly [27], Oliver Willis [28], Scott Lemieux [29], Ezra Klein [30], Daniel Davies [31], Brian Dupuis [32], and Mark Thoma [33] have all published scathing criticisms of your book [34] — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong."