The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.
Senate Rules Not An Obstacle To Simple Majority Vote on Health Care
Who needs conservatives to pass public option? NYT: "Senate Democrats said Sunday that they were fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes that would ordinarily be needed to overcome a filibuster. After consulting experts in Senate rules and procedure, the Democrats said they were increasingly confident that they could legislate creation of a public plan in a way that would withstand challenges expected from Republicans ... by demonstrating that the public plan would save money or cost money."
Conrad not the only Senator allowed to count votes. Sen. Schumer on Meet The Press: "I believe that at the end of the day we will have a public option. And frankly, I believe we could get a public option that could be passed with the 60 Democratic votes we had. A level playing field public option, where the public option competes on a level playing field with the insurance companies, was backed in the House by both Blue Dog Democrats and more liberal Democrats. And I think that's the direction we're going to end up in."
LA Times reports insurance lobby getting its devils in the details: "In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies. Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans ... Consumer advocates argue that a lower government minimum might quickly become the industry standard, placing a greater financial burden on patients and their families." Slinkerwink responds at DailyKos: "The Senate Finance Bill Forces You To Pay 35% of The Bill!"
Insurance lobby whining about congressional investigation. Politico: "A committee spokeswoman defended the probes — saying lawmakers need to know that private insurance money is being spent effectively as part of the effort to control costs. But the trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, is crying foul ... 'Congressional oversight is not a tool that should be used to chill dissent,' said AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach."
The Treatment's Jonathan Cohn warns the Senate Finance bill will simply do less substantively, for no gain politically: "Scaling down legislation basically means gutting the benefits that would go to the working and middle class. In other words, it would help fulfill the fear many of these voters already have and that opponents of reform have tried hard to stoke: That reform doesn't have much to offer the typical middle-income American."
Politico Pulse reports RNC launches attack while Prez on vacation: "The Republican National Committee today makes a play for senior support by rolling out a 'Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights,' aimed at amplifying concerns -- already clear in polls -- about the effect of health-care reform on Medicare ... The first point in the six-point 'Bill of Rights': 'PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.' And, of course, it includes: 'PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING WITH END-OF-LIFE CARE DISCUSSIONS.'"
Look to San Francisco. In These Time's Art Levine: "the [Healthy San Francisco] program provides subsidized care to San Francisco residents at approved clinics and hospitals -- and pays for it with a small, graduated tax on employers. And guess what? Businesses haven't lost jobs as a result, and private insurance companies are still flourishing. (And, of course, it doesn't kill grandma, either...)" Workplace Prof Blog adds: "increasing evidence is out there that health care reform with a public option and an employer pay or play mandate might be just what our system needs to rein in health care costs while at the same time providing health insurance to a much larger segment of American society."
Wall Street Insists It Can't Sacrifice Bonuses
Politico plays up claims that exec pay crackdown would harm industry: "Nothing spurs public outrage like Wall Street bonuses and huge payouts to banking execs whose risk-taking behavior helped contribute to the nation’s economic woes. But executive compensation experts warn that the public’s desire to crack down on outsized bonuses could conflict with the need — greater now than ever — to keep companies competitive. And no one is feeling that conflict quite as much as Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department czar ... his team has 60 days to reject or accept the plans submitted by the companies. While he can’t meddle with existing contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009, Feinberg is authorized to 'claw-back' some of the compensation from firms that got government bailout funds."
Bloomberg: "Central bankers warned that a global economic recovery shouldn’t delay an overhaul of financial- market regulations following the worst banking crisis since World War II. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke used a weekend Fed symposium to single out the creation of rules limiting risk as one of the 'difficult challenges' ahead. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said 'green shoots' aren’t enough for him to declare the recovery sustainable and cautioned that officials must do 'an enormous amount of work.'"
Oil Lobby Hard At Work To Derail Climate Bill
American Petroleum Institute releases paper-thin "report" to attack climate bil. WSJ: "The report's findings, which are expected to be released Monday, project that by 2030, U.S. refining production could drop 17% from today's levels if the climate bill is passed as currently proposed. The drop would have to be made up by foreign imports, the study says, meaning the U.S. could end up relying on other countries for 19.4% of its refined fuel -- nearly twice the amount it imports today ... [The report assumes] scant use of nuclear power or new technology to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases ... The study also assumes there will be no international program allowing companies to offset their emissions by buying pollution credits."
Climate Progress' Brad Johnson exposes who is behind the American Energy Alliance: "...a new polluter front group, is touring the nation to smear President Barack Obama’s clean energy reform agenda. Employees riding the 'American Energy Express' bus are spreading the conservative lies that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will 'cripple our sluggish economy.' AEA is the 501 c(4) offshoot of the Institute for Energy Research, a right-wing oil-industry think tank run by Robert Bradley, a former speechwriter for Kenneth Lay ... AEA is tightly connected to the Republican Party and right-wing oil interests. In fact, all of its employees are former House Republican staffers."
Grist's Kate Sheppard on the lobbyists behind the "Energy Citizens" rallies: "Here’s more evidence that the “Energy Citizens” rallies against climate legislation are anything but grassroots uprisings. We already knew that the American Petroleum Institute was behind the whole idea. Now it turns out that even the local organizers of individual rallies are oil-industry lobbyists."
Climate Progress' Joe Romm says climate bill's prospects tied to health care: "...every sharp political analyst I know believes that if health care reform goes down, so will the climate bill ... if Obama’s climate messaging in the fall is as lousy as his health care messaging from this summer, the Inhofe-led deniers in the Senate won’t bother waiting for lunch, they will eat him for breakfast."
Beat The Press' Dean Baker rips Robert Samuelson's broadside against high-speed rail: "The density for the United States as a whole would be relevant if the plans were to build a train network going from Florida to Alaska, but that is not what is on the agenda. Instead, the issue is about deepening and improving the network in relatively densely populated parts of the country, like Ohio (277 people per square mile), New York (402), and New Jersey (1134) ... Samuelson also bizarrely compares long-distance train with the 140 million daily trips to work each day. He then compares President Obama's goal of replacing 1 million cars by train travel with the 240 million on the road. Of course most people do not travel between cities every day, so it's not clear what the point of the comparison is. And, most of the 240 million registered cars in the country are not driven to work every day."
Breakfast Sides
The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt says labor must be central to the progressive movement and Democratic Party: "A party of professionals and young voters risks becoming a party that overlooks the core economic crisis--not the recession but the 40-year crisis--that is wiping out the American dream for millions of workers and communities that are never going to become meccas for foodies and Web designers."
NYT's Al Hunt assesses Obama's education agenda, and emphasis on charters: "A policy centerpiece for Mr. Duncan is almost $5 billion for the 'Race to the Top' initiative, federal money that will be distributed to states that make the most measurable progress in improving educational outcomes and school districts that devise innovations that can be replicated elsewhere. In suggesting how to win Race to the Top funds, Mr. Duncan is emphasizing charter schools, which, while a part of the public system, are operated independently and often permit more innovation. The lure of this money and the prestige of winning it have already led seven states, including Mr. Duncan’s home turf of Illinois, to remove limits on the growth of charter schools."
