Progressive Breakfast - 7/28/2009

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

Bipartisan Deal Drops Public Plan, Adds Regressive Tax

AP reports Baucus bipartisan compromise will lack public plan and employer mandate: "After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits two key Democratic priorities but incorporates provisions to slow the explosive rise in medical costs, officials said. These officials said participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option ... [they are] considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs. Also likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare through recommendations that would take effect automatically unless overturned by Congress."

Snowe confirms report to Politico, though noting nothing is final: "Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) confirmed that the three Republicans and three Democrats negotiating the Senate Finance bill are moving away from a broad-based mandate that would force employers to offer insurance. The senators instead are leaning toward a 'free rider' provision that requires employers to pay for employees who receive coverage through Medicaid or who receive new government subsidies to purchase insurance through an exchange ... On the nonprofit insurance cooperative, Snowe also said no final decisions have been reached, but 'it is safe to say it is probably one that will remain in the final document.]"

Howard Dean rips reported bipartisan deal as "not health care reform" on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show:

Angry Bear's Robert Waldmann rips 'free rider' provision: "This would be the most regressive tax ever. If I am an employer and I don't provide health insurance than my tax liability is higher if the family income of my employee is lower. More regressive than a poll tax (Baroness Thatcher must be put out that she didn't think of it). What's worse it depends on family income. Let's say I don't provide insurance and have two job applicants one is a single mother and the other is a man with a low salary but a high income wife (say Bill Clinton when he was working as governor of Arkansas for $30,000 per year). I hire the guy, because he can't get subsidized health insurance so I don't have to give him insurance or pay him a dime. This is the Baucus Grassley jobs only for people who don't need jobs preliminary draft bill of 2009. "

Wonk Room's Igor Volsky cautions against assuming "Cadillac" plans go to the wealthy: "While some plans are certainly too generous, others cost more because they insure a sicker workforce, workers in dangerous occupations or higher cost areas. As Merrill Goozner explains, 'the only thing "Cadillac" in the health insurance costs of that GM worker is the nameplate of the car rolling off the assembly line. His higher premiums are a direct function of he and his co-workers’ higher claims, not more generous benefits.'"

FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher issues call to arms to beat back Baucus bill: "...we need 40 (probably more) votes in the House to say 'with 76% of the country behind us, we'll block anything that doesn't have a strong public plan. No triggers, no co-ops.' Because the weaker the bill is, the more likely it is to pick up Republican votes. Keep calling."

On Fox News, Dick Morris encourages conservatives to call Blue Dogs and thank them for obstruction.

Unspecified House deal in works between Waxman and Blue Dogs. The Hill: "Reps. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.) emerged from more than three hours of negotiations late Monday to say that the Blue Dogs were weighing an offer from Waxman. Blue Dogs have asked Waxman to get a cost estimate for the bill ... Ross and Waxman would not discuss any specifics of the proposal. But Ross said it addresses all 10 of the concerns Blue Dogs have raised with the bill. Waxman emerged from the negotiations saying, 'I feel very good right now. I don't think failure is a reasonable option.'"

House Maj. Leader says fill vote won't happen this week. Bloomberg: "The House is scheduled to adjourn on July 31 for a recess until Sept. 8. Hoyer left open the possibility the leaders may delay the break or postpone the vote until September when the lawmakers return.

Bloomberg looks at what happened to health care costs since the last time reform was blocked: "The last time a president tried to overhaul U.S. health care, Americans were spending $912 billion on the system and 40 million were uninsured. Today they’re spending $2.5 trillion and almost 50 million lack coverage ... Health-insurance premiums for families have risen 119 percent since 1999 ... Premium costs are projected to rise another 9 percent next year, an increase that 42 percent of employers plan to pass on to their workers..."

Krugman smokes out actual agenda of "centrist" pundits: "I’ve been watching commentary from Broder and other 'centrist' pundits like Robert Samuelson, and I think I see a pattern. They complain a lot about rising public spending, but confronted with any actual proposal to control spending, they reject it — unless it has one crucial attribute: it must weaken the social safety net. Unless you end up slashing benefits, or denying health care to more people, it’s not what they’re looking for. And so the cost-saving measures under consideration now — which are the first real effort to tackle Medicare costs, ever — are pooh-poohed, because they’re part of a plan that would expand coverage, not contract it.

Jacob Hacker amicably tells the Blue Dogs to stop being hypocrites: The Blue Dogs are right to hold Obama and Democratic leaders to their commitment to real cost control. But they are wrong to see this goal as conflicting with a new national public health insurance plan for Americans younger than 65. In fact, such a plan, empowered to work with Medicare ... it can encourage private plans to develop innovations in payment and care coordination that could spread through the private sector ... [But i]ncreasing what doctors and hospitals are paid by the new public plan, as the Blue Dogs desire, would only raise premiums and health costs for their constituents. It would also fail to address excessive payments to hospitals and specialists that private insurers say they have lacked the leverage to bring down. Offering public plan rates at close to Medicare levels while giving doctors and hospitals the choice of accepting them -- as the House legislation does -- is a way to test the market. If providers accept the rates, as the CBO projects they will, the Blue Dogs will get what they want: lower costs. If not, the bill in the House contains provisions for adjusting the rates, including nearly $10 billion to raise rates in rural areas if an independent study determines that higher rates are needed. "

Mark Thoma seeks to explain the Blue Dogs motivation: "Maybe their most important constituents aren't the voters in their districts?"

Bill Clinton urges Dems not to overhype CBO, reports Marc Ambinder: "Former President Bill Clinton ... implied today that the agency wasn't connected enough to the real world to know whether programs would save money or not ... Clinton urged policy-makers -- and here he means Democrats -- to not accept the CBO's scores without adding a dollop of common sense. 'I recognize that if you're in that budget office, you've got to project the future,' Clinton said. But certain programs would realize savings 'regardless of whether the mathematical rules they are now up with will prove it or not.' ... Lost in the debate about how much health care reform will cost, Clinton said, is the debate about whether the reforms will work. (I took this to be an implicit criticism of Blue Dog Democrats who focus near-obsessively with the impact of health reform on the deficit and of committee chairs who have imbued the CBO with near mystical powers.)"

The Treatment's Jonathan Cohn urges greater attention to securing sufficient subsidies: "... lower subsidies could be particularly tough on older workers ... [and] a lower subsidy threshold means less assistance for those who still receive help, since the subsidies are on a sliding scale that phases out gradually. In a downsized bill, somebody earning twice the poverty line--for a family, around $33,000 a year--would receive less assistance than they would under the current House measure ... Thankfully, the issue is now getting attention. Last week, a coalition of liberal interest groups sent a letter to Congress urging it to keep to the 400 percent subsidy level. And they have an apparent ally in Senator Olympia Snowe..."

Conservatives Seek to Protect Excessive Exec Pay

More foot-dragging from conservatives on executive compensation reform. Wonk Room: "With [legislation creating a consumer financial protection agency] not moving until September, the next item on the financial regulation docket is reforming executive compensation practices, particularly a provision known as 'say on pay,' which would ensure that shareholders receives a vote on their company’s executive pay practices. But Republicans on the committee want this markup to wait as well:"

Citizen Palin Becomes Face of Climate Bill Opposition

New MoveOn ad in the support of strong clean energy and climate protection bill says "Tell Congress: Don't Side With Palin."

Coal Tattoo finds coal industry execs still wallowing in global warming denial at a meeting of the West Virginia Coal Association.