The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.
Trigger and Co-Op Talk Fills The Air
Pelosi soothes Blue Dogs, public option to be debated by full House. Politico: "During a breakfast with freshman Democrats on Wednesday, Pelosi [said] her leadership team would start finalizing the bill toward the end of this week. She said the rank and file would have a chance to debate the merits of a public option versus the nonprofit insurance cooperatives ... [She said] the final bill could include some combination of a so-called millionaire’s tax on Americans who make the most and an excise tax on high-end health insurance plans ... she also told them not to believe everything they read in newspapers about the shape of a bill or the timing of a vote. That would have been a welcome message for members of the Blue Dog Coalition after stories surfaced Tuesday night that Pelosi was moving forward with a bill that included two things they don’t like: a public option that relies on Medicare rates ... and the surtax."
HuffPost reports Dem leaders are pushing moderates to "commit to cloture" and prevent any filibuster: "Right now, there is no exact count as to how many of the senators in the Democratic caucus who would oppose health care reform -- if, say, it included a public option for insurance coverage - would nevertheless be willing to allow it to come to an up-or-down vote."
Plum Line reports WH pushing trigger compromise with key progressive leaders. HuffPost reports a careful WH denial, "The story about us reaching out to groups is not accurate." DailyKos' mcjoan notes: "Peter Orzag tells Bloomberg that a trigger or a co-op would be acceptable ... there has been no walk-back or clarification on Orszag's statements."
SEIU signals flexibility on public option. Politico: "...pressed as to what Service Employees International Union will do if — as some suggest is inevitable — a public option is not included in the final version of the legislation, Burger said even getting an imperfect bill is preferable to passing nothing at all. And, she said, this year’s efforts may be just a first step."
CQ reports on Dem efforts for biz backing: "[Pelosi and Baucus] are looking for an alliance with business that they hope will help them break the stalemate ... The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) — a critic of the House bill — plans a campaign to promote Baucus’ alternative ... The [Business] Roundtable has opposed a government-run health plan and other parts of the House bill. But the group’s president, John J. Castellani, said members came away impressed when 75 executives met with Baucus..."
Sen. Pat Roberts wants bills posted online 72 hours prior to vote so special interests lobbyists can pick it apart and push for more delay. FDL quotes: "...we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say 'hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?'"
LA Times reminds that individual mandate + co-ops ≠ affordability: "The House bill also features a new government insurance program -- or 'public option' -- that advocates believe could offer consumers a lower-priced alternative to private plans and, in turn, pressure insurers to rein in premiums. The Baucus proposal, which addresses widespread industry and business opposition to a new government plan, would instead set up a series of nonprofit health insurance cooperatives. These may not offer much relief to consumers, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the co-ops outlined by Baucus 'seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.'"
Change.org's Tim Foley notes the conservative flip-flop on individual mandate: "What's funny to me while listening to Jon Kyl thunder that the individual mandate is a 'stunning assault on liberty' or Chuck Grassley proclaim 'Individuals should maintain their freedom to chose health-care coverage, or not,' isn't that this represents a flip-flop for both gentlemen. Kyl was in the room with all the other Republican Senate Finance Committee members months ago when Max Baucus publicly asked if anyone disagreed with the notion that individuals who can afford insurance should be required to buy it (Sen. Kyl's hand remained down). Grassley was defending the mandate a month ago by saying, 'That's individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.' But you know, I kind of expect that level of about-face politics.No, what tickles my funnybone about this political theater is that the individual mandate was sold in Massachusetts just a few years ago as 'the ultimate conservative idea, which is that people have responsibility for their own care, and they don't look to government to take of them if they can afford to take care of themselves.' The man pitching that argument was then-Governor, presidential aspirant, and czar of lookin' good Mitt Romney."
Medicare Advantage Overpayments Find Defenders
NYT on Sen. Bill Nelson's attempt to maintain overpayments to private insurers for existing Medicare Advantage plans: "[President Obama] cannot afford to lose Mr. Nelson’s vote. White House officials have offered to work with him to address his concerns ... The cost of Mr. Nelson’s proposed fix ... could total $40 billion over 10 years, and that could also be a problem for the White House. Mr. Obama has promised not to sign a health bill that increases the deficit, and so far Mr. Nelson has not said precisely how he would pay for his amendment."
Washington Monthly's Steve Benen slaps conservatives for trying to let Humana send customers false propaganda to save Medicare Advantage overpayments: "...at the request of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the CMS asked Humana to stop the misleading mailings and shut down the form-email website ... Republicans aren't happy ... Just so we're clear, Republican politicians, some of whom get plenty of money from Humana, are defending an insurer misleading Medicare recipients with taxpayer-subsidized communications."
OurFuture.org's Monica Sanchez refutes claims that Medicare Advantage provides better benefits: "...just who is getting the advantage when it comes to private plans in the Medicare program? I’ll give you a hint: Just this past July, UnitedHealthcare reported its profits had soared 155 percent:... what of the claims that people will suffer if they lose their Medicare Advantage plans? The fact is Medicare Advantage plans can be quite disadvantageous for people with Medicare. Two separate studies found that people could end up with higher out-of-pocket costs in a private plan than in Medicare, or in one private plan over another."
Financial Reform Poised To Be Weakened
LA Times reports WH concession on consumer protection agency: "Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner backed down on a key component that has stirred opposition -- a requirement that companies providing financial products offer a 'plain vanilla' option, such as fixed-rate mortgages or no-frills credit cards."
Reuters' Felix Salmon laments: "There’s no good reason for this capitulation, except for the financial lobby has so effectively captured Congress that no reform would be able to get through with such a common-sense provision in place. This has nothing to do with the government 'approving and disapproving a wide array of financial products', it just says that anybody who wants to call themselves a bank should provide simple, basic banking products which aren’t prone to hidden fees and lucrative opacity."
Slightly less negative take from The Stash's Noam Scheiber: "Is Barney Frank Weakening the Consumer Financial Agency? The short answer, per this Journal piece, is yes. The longer, fairer answer is 'yes, but,' with the but being that he may be making the minimal number of changes he needs to get it through the financial services committee, given the opposition from community banks and their conservative Democratic water-carriers..."
Paul Volcker to testify to Congress today, back restoration of Glass-Steagall rules. The Big Picture: "Reaffirm the principle separating banking from commerce as our approach to financial regulation ... Regulate Derivatives as a typical financial product ... Encourage more prudent compensation practices ..."
TARP inspector general unhappy with degree of transparency. The Hill quotes: "TARP largely remains a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested."
Fed won't end stimulus yet. Bloomberg: "The Federal Reserve signaled that the U.S. economy’s return to growth is insufficient to withdraw stimulus as officials seek to reduce the highest unemployment rate in a quarter century."
G-20 Meets In Pittsburgh
McClatchy previews G-20 summit: "Organizers don't expect to announce major new spending at this G-20; nothing like the summit last April in London, where leaders committed more than $1 trillion to manage the economic crisis and help poor nations. On the contrary, they'll talk about how to dial back spending as they cautiously congratulate one another on using central bank coordination to avert a global depression."
OurFuture.org's Dave Johnson previews his liveblogging of the summit: "We should call it the JOBS summit because that is what this is really about. How will the world restructure the economic system after the financial crisis? How can we change things to regular people share the wealth? Of course Wall Street wants everything kept just the way it is. But the rest of the world is demanding that we make changes. Then there will be a lot of talk about 'protectionism,' because President Obama actually enforced a trade agreement! Here's the thing, agreements are not agreements unless they are enforced. By enforcing this agreement with China, it means we might start having fair, honest, balanced trade again."
WH may ban lobbyists from trade advisory panels. Eyes on Trade: "Some of the committees must be re-chartered next February and sources close to the situation say that the administration is likely to either tell agencies to ban lobbyists from the panels or to provide the agencies influential guidance suggesting they avoid having lobbyists serve on the committees ... As expected, this is causing some tremors on K Street..."
AFP reports WH will push end to fossil-fuel subsidies at G-20: "The plan is part of efforts to combat climate change, enhance energy security, improve public health and the environment, promote faster economic growth, and support more effective targeting of government resources for the poor, officials said ... It is not clear whether the United States would move unilaterally to erase its fossil-fuel subsidies if there were no G20 agreement."
Senate Climate Bill Next Week
Change.org's Emily Gertz reports Kerry announcement, via Teresa Heinz, from Pittsburgh: "[Kerry] and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce a climate bill in the Senate next Wednesday. The bill will be backed by a strong and broad coalition according to Kerry's message, which Heinz delivered at a pre-G20 party sponsored by the US Climate Action Network, and 'will take a more comprehensive approach to dwindling oil reserves than any prior legislation.'"
Al Gore deems quick Senate action crucial at Clinton Global Initiative, reports Earth2Tech: "The United States must play a crucial role in the Copenhagen negotiations but in order for that to happen, President Obama must go there with a credible bargaining position, the former U.S. Vice President said. To do that, the U.S. Senate must pass climate legislation, even if the House and Senate haven’t worked out differences between their proposed bills by the time of the international meeting."
Sen. Jeff Bingaman open doors to separating out carbon cap from energy legislation, to Grist's David Roberts: "I would like to see us do both, and do both this year if possible. If we’re not able to do both, I’d like to see us do all that we can do this year."
W. Post highlights major green jobs initiative in Spain: "Through a combination of new laws and public and private investment, officials estimate that they can generate a million green jobs over the next decade. The plan would increase domestic demand for alternative energy by having the government help pay the bill -- but also by compelling millions of Spaniards to go green ... Spain's ambitious effort is being closely watched by the Obama administration and other governments forming their own green-job plans." (NOTE: W. Post heavily quotes right-wing Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada criticizing plan. Wonk Room reported debunking of Calzada's work earlier in the year.)
W. Post reports on India's revisiting of greenhouse gas cuts: "India had thus far rejected emission cuts, declaring that they would compromise the populous nation's economic growth, even as developed countries criticized its intransigence. But under a proposed national law, India may set limits on greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decade, focusing on energy efficiency, new building codes, clean energy and fuel economy standards. India's leadership hopes that by acting on its own, rather than responding to what are likely to be tough demands from other countries during the December climate conference in Copenhagen, the measures will garner more domestic support ... The cuts would be a national goal; they would be neither an internationally binding commitment nor open to international verification."
Attempt to stop appropriations amendment handcuffing EPA on climate possible today. CQ: "...senators are expected to vote to cut off debate on the Interior- Environment spending bill unless a deal can be reached by Thursday morning ... pending is an amendment by Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources, such as power plants, for one year."
