“Norms And Rules Are For Suckers”: Don’t Believe The Republican Cries Of Vengeance
So now the Democrats have exercised the “nuclear option,” which is not particularly nuclear. They’ve changed existing Senate rules so that judicial nominations can not be filibustered, but can pass with a majority vote. Over the next couple of days you’ll hear Republicans say that this is the most horrifying power grab since the February Revolution of 1917. They will weep and beat their breasts, lamenting the death of fairness and democracy, predicting all manner of horrors, perhaps culminating in a zombie apocalypse, now that a judge nominated by the president can be confirmed with a vote of a majority of senators. But then, their grief will turn to steely determination. “You shall rue this day!”, they will cry. “Revenge shall be ours!”
And that might sound like a reasonable argument for why this rule change was ill-advised. After all, as Iowa senator Chuck Grassley recently threatened, “So if the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we’d love to put on the bench.” In other words, without the restraint of the filibuster, the next time Republicans have the White House and the Senate, which will happen eventually, they’ll go hog-wild, appointing the most radical conservatives they can find. But there’s one big reason that argument fails: They would have done it anyway.
Let’s not be naive here. The Republican party of today is not only ideologically radical but procedurally radical as well. They’ve taken virtually every opportunity they could to upend whatever rules and norms stood in the way of them getting what they want. Let’s say that it’s 2017 or 2021, and they’ve won the presidency and the Senate. Can anyone believe that if on this day in 2013 the Democrats decided to keep the filibuster for judicial nominations, Republicans would then do the same out of a sense of fair play? This is the party that over the last five years has filibustered literally every bill of greater consequence than renaming a post office. This is the party that got conservatives on the Supreme Court to upend the Voting Rights Act, then literally within days began passing one law after another to make it as hard as possible for minorities, students, and anyone else likely to vote Democratic to cast their ballots. This is the party that shut down the government in its endless quest to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is the party that sincerely believes that its opponents are attempting to destroy America, and therefore any tactics are justified in order to stop them.
You can put the start date of this procedural radicalism at the inauguration of Barack Obama, but I’d date it back to the Florida mess in the 2000 election. In case your memory of that episode has faded, the whole election came down to a series of counts and recounts in a state in which the Republican candidate’s brother was the governor and his campaign co-chair was the state’s chief election official. Throughout the weeks that followed, Republicans did things like organize a small riot to intimidate election officials into not counting ballots, and the election was ultimately decided by five members of the Supreme Court who were so shamelessly partisan that they included in their decision an instruction that it could never be used as precedent in a subsequent case. And you know what price the Republicans paid for their ruthlessness? None.
It was then that Republicans realized once and for all that norms and rules are for suckers, and at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not you win. That belief hasn’t changed, even as the party has grown more ideologically extreme over the last five years. You can make an argument that Democrats should have taken the high road and not changed the filibuster rule today. But if you think Republicans wouldn’t have changed the rule to benefit themselves at the first chance they got—no matter what Democrats did—then you haven’t been paying attention.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 21, 2013
“Everyone Just Chill Out”: Memo To Democratic Chicken Littles, The Sky Is Not Falling
Ah, now this is what politics is supposed to be like: Ruthless Republicans, gleeful at the prospect that they might increase the net total of human suffering. Timorous Democrats, panicking at the first hint of political difficulty and rushing to assemble a circular firing squad. And the news media bringing out the “Dems In Disarray!” headlines they keep in storage for just this purpose.
The problems of the last couple weeks “could threaten Democratic priorities for years,” says Ron Brownstein. It’s just like Hurricane Katrina, says The New York Times (minus the 1,500 dead people, I guess they mean, though they don’t say so). “On the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective presidency after this debacle,” says Dana Milbank, “it’s starting to look as if it may be game over.” Ruth Marcus also declares this presidency all but dead: “Can he recover? I’m sorry to say: I’m not at all confident.”
Oh please. Everyone just chill out.
It’s incredible how often reporters and pundits proclaim that what’s happening this week is the most important political development in years, and the balance of political advantage today will remain just as it is indefinitely into the future. Then a few weeks or months later things change, and they forget about what they said before, declaring once again that today’s situation is how things will be forevermore. Not long ago, people were saying that the fact that Obama couldn’t get a congressional vote authorizing a bombing campaign in Syria had crippled his presidency. Then the Republicans shut down the government, and people were saying they wouldn’t win another election in our lifetimes. That’s just in the last few months. And now people are saying that Obama’s second term, which has three years left to go, is an unrecoverable disaster.
So let’s try to see things from a less panicky perspective. The rollout has been a mess, but it’s important to remember that this period is all a preparation for the actual implementation of the law. Nothing that’s happening now is permanent. People have gotten cancellation notices, but no one has lost their coverage. The website sucked when it debuted, it sucks slightly less now, but there’s still lots of time for people to sign up for plans that take effect next year. And if things aren’t working properly by December, they’ll probably extend the open enrollment period to a point at which everything’s working. That’s a hassle, sure. But you can’t call the Affordable Care Act a failure until it takes effect and does or does not achieve its goals. That would be like calling your team’s season a failure because they lost a couple of pre-season games.
A few Democrats will probably vote today for the Republican bill that purports to address the problem of cancellations but it’s an attempt to gut the entire ACA. That’s because they’re cowards and fools, who think that they can protect themselves from a momentary political headwind by rushing into the Republicans’ arms. And you know what will happen? Nothing. You can just add this vote to the 47 prior ones repealing the law; it’ll have the same impact. It won’t ever get to the Senate, and even if it did it wouldn’t ever be signed by the President. It isn’t even worth paying attention to.
Here’s what’s going to happen. The administrative fix Obama announced yesterday will temporarily staunch the political bleeding. But it will have very little effect on the actual insurance market, which is a good thing. In some states, insurance commissioners won’t let the insurance companies continue to sell the junk plans we’ve been talking about. In others, insurers won’t want to go back and re-offer the plans they cancelled. Some of the people with the junk plans will end up keeping them, but most of them will end up going to the exchanges. Many will find that they can get subsidies, or even without them find an affordable plan. Some may find that they’re paying more for a plan that offers real insurance. Those in the latter group will grumble, but it won’t be front-page news anymore, because the media are extraordinarily fickle, and they’ve already told that story.
Over the next year, the rest of the law will be implemented. There may be problems here and there, but overall it will probably go reasonably well. There will be plenty of things Democrats can point to in order to convince people that it was a good idea, like the fact that now nobody can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or the fact that millions of people who couldn’t afford coverage or were denied before now have it. There will also be things Republicans will say to try to convince people it was a terrible idea, like the fact that premiums didn’t plummet, and health care is still expensive, and Obamacare didn’t give every little girl a pony.
And what else will happen in the next year? Other things. The economy may get worse, or it may get better. There may be a foreign crisis. Controversies we can’t yet anticipate will emerge, explode, then disappear. A young singer may move her posterior about in a suggestive manner, causing a nation to drop everything and talk about nothing else for a week. We might start talking about immigration reform again. There’s going to be another budget battle. In other words, all sorts of things could affect the next election, and the election after that.
So yes, this is a difficult period for President Obama, and for the Affordable Care Act. But everyone needs to take a deep breath and remember that things will change. They always do.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 15, 2015
“The Last People We Should Take At Their Word”: In Shocking Development, Health Insurance Companies Still Suck
The Affordable Care Act was designed to solve the big problem of health security—namely that nobody in America had it—and find a way to get coverage for the 50 million Americans who were uninsured. It also attempted to address lots of other problems, and this week it’s a good time to remind ourselves that many of its provisions came about because, to put it bluntly, health-insurance companies are despicable scum who will literally kill people (more on this below) if it makes them more money. I bring this up because now, people in the news media are learning about a scam insurance companies are trying to pull on some of their customers, and are not only not portraying it as such, but are simply taking the insurance companies’ word and blaming the whole thing on the Obama administration.
I realize that part about “despicable scum” is a little intemperate, and without question there are employees of the insurers who are good people. But as a whole, outside of the tobacco companies or gun manufacturers it’s hard to find an industry that so frequently destroys people’s lives when they’re at their most vulnerable and fools so many people into thinking they’re safe when they aren’t. Because of the shocking behavior insurance companies are capable of, the ACA had a number of provisions meant to rein in the companies from their most horrific abuses. It made lifetime caps on coverage illegal, meaning that people with the worst illnesses and accidents won’t go bankrupt because their insurance companies abandon them. It outlawed denials for pre-existing conditions. It banned “rescission”—remember that one? That’s when you get the worst news of your life, for instance that you have cancer, and the insurance company swings into action. They start poring over every document you’ve ever signed to see if they can come up with a reason to kick you off your coverage and avoid paying for that expensive treatment. Like the woman who got a cancer diagnosis and was scheduled for a double mastectomy, then got booted from her policy because her insurance company’s diligent efforts unearthed that she had forgotten to tell them she had once been treated for acne, which allowed them to claim that her original application for insurance was fraudulent and therefore they could rescind her whole policy.
That’s what I mean when I talk about them literally killing people. If someone has a life-threatening illness and will die without treatment, and then the insurance company to which they’ve been dutifully paying premiums decides to say “screw you” and make it impossible for them to get treated, then that’s an accurate way to describe it.
And as you’ve heard, these very same companies are now sending letters to thousands of their customers, telling them that the policies they’re on (which in many cases are junk insurance that covers virtually nothing) are being cancelled, and they’ll now have to pay hundreds of dollars more every month. Those customers are naturally aghast. And reporters are running to find them and air stories about the horrible “rate shock” Obamacare is producing. What those reporters aren’t doing is asking what you’d think would be relevant questions, particularly since it’s health insurance companies we’re talking about. Questions like: Is this letter accurate? Is there something the insurance company isn’t telling this customer? Might they be trying to pull a fast one, to maximize their profits at this person’s expense?
Even though it was only last week, I think I was among the first to raise the possibility that these cancellation letters are a scam, and now it’s looking more and more like that is indeed the case. One after another of the people who have been featured on breathless news stories about insurance cancellations turns out to have much better options on the new health insurance exchanges, in many cases for better coverage at lower prices than they’re paying now. The letters appear to be an effort to lock customers into high-priced policies before they discover that they have other options available to them. But we aren’t finding out about that from the big media outlets, who just prefer to run the same credulous story over and over about the 60-year-old Florida woman with a $54 a month joke of an insurance plan whose insurance company is trying to sell her a plan for many times as much.
This whole thing should serve as a reminder that while the ACA tried to create a regulatory framework that would curb the worst abuses of the insurance industry, the whole thing was also engineered to maintain the position and profits of that very industry. And if you think they suddenly decided to value their customers’ physical and financial health over their own profits, you’ve got another thing coming.
While we’re on the topic, Brian Beutler gives us something else to think about:
Let this be a reminder to the Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House who killed the public option. It could’ve been designed as a default plan for cancelees. And its very existence would have imposed discipline on the system — if everyone knew they can enroll in a plan modeled on Medicare, insurers would be less inclined to swindle their customers. Ironically, but predictably, the Democrats who will face the greatest political consequences of the turbulent final throes of the old individual market are in many cases the ones responsible for leaving it in the hands of for-profit insurers. But there’s plenty of blame to go around here, including to reporters treating missives from health insurance companies as reliable testimony.
You’ll remember the absolute horror with which Republicans greeted the possibility of a public option being included in the law. They were terrified that if Americans were allowed to choose to enter a Medicare-like program, lots of them would do it, and the insurance companies would lose customers. This was a perfectly legitimate fear; if Medicare is any indication, a public option would have likely been less expensive than private insurance and produced happy customers, and every person who chose to get their insurance from it would represent a rejection of conservative ideology. President Obama claimed he favored the inclusion of a public option, but never displayed any enthusiasm for it and seemed eager to drop it as one of the many failed gestures intended to win the Republican support that never materialized.
That may be a topic to revisit on another day. But if there’s any rule that reporters should follow when reporting on the rollout of the ACA, it’s this: Don’t take insurance companies at their word. They’ve already shown us who they are, and there’s no reason to think they’ve changed.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 5, 2013
“A Winning Hand”: Democrats Up The Ante And Push Back Against GOP Tea Party Bullies
A crazy thing is happening in shuttered, dysfunctional Washington: Democrats are pushing back.
This phenomenon is so novel and disorienting that many Republicans in Congress, especially the tea party bullies, seem unable to grasp what’s going on. They keep expecting President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to fold like a cheap suit because, well, such a thing has happened before. I guess it’s understandable that the GOP might have forgotten the difference between bluffing and actually holding a winning hand.
Late last week, Reid began demanding that Republicans not only reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling, but that they also make concessions on the draconian, irrational-by-design budget cuts known as sequestration. In political terms, he is demanding that the GOP pay a price for putting the country through all this needless drama.
Suddenly, Republicans who thought it was fine to hold the government and the economy hostage in order to nullify a duly enacted law — the Affordable Care Act — are shocked that Democrats would even suggest tampering with another duly enacted law: the Budget Control Act of 2011, which established the “sequester” cuts.
Was Reid moving the goal posts? Of course he was. That’s what negotiators do when they have the upper hand.
It seemed clear from the beginning that House Republicans had overreached by shutting down the government in an attempt to block the health-insurance reforms popularly known as Obamacare. For one thing, many of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions were already in force. For another, any residual questions about the law had been thoroughly litigated in last year’s election.
Indeed, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday pronounced a devastating verdict: Fifty-three percent of those surveyed blamed Republicans for the shutdown, as opposed to 31 percent who blamed Obama — a worse pounding for the GOP than the party suffered when Newt Gingrich shut down the government during the Clinton administration. A separate Gallup survey showed the Republican Party with an approval rating of just 28 percent, the lowest the firm has ever measured for either party.
Such stunning numbers not only threaten to dash the GOP’s hopes of winning control of the Senate next year but also challenge the party’s ability to hold its majority in the House.
So there’s no question who’s winning and who’s losing. Still, it’s refreshing to see Democrats act accordingly.
The standard pattern since Republicans captured the House in 2010 goes something like this: House Speaker John Boehner makes outrageous demands. Obama negotiates a “compromise” package heavily weighted toward Republican priorities, but Boehner can’t deliver his caucus. Fearful that tea party vandals might burn down the house, Democrats end up agreeing to a short-term deal that gives the GOP much of what it wants.
It is understandable that the activist Republican base might think victory through blackmail is the natural order of things. It’s not. It’s a distortion of American democracy that weakens the nation, and it has to end.
The fact that the GOP controls the House means that its views cannot be ignored. But the fact that Democrats control the Senate and the White House means that Republicans have no right to expect that they will always get their way. This concept of basic fairness is the sort of thing most of us learned in second grade. Apparently, Sen. Ted Cruz was not paying attention.
Before the tea party tantrum that caused the shutdown, Democrats had already agreed to sequester-level government funding of $986 billion — the number that Republicans had insisted on. Because of sequestration, funding will suffer a further $21 billion cut in January. Last week, as the Senate struggled to clean up the mess that the House majority had made, Reid said hold on a minute.
Senate Democrats now want only a brief extension at the sequester level, along with further negotiations that could raise government funding closer to $1.058 trillion, the number they originally sought.
Republicans reacted with shock and horror, most of it feigned. This is the way politics is supposed to work. Obama and Reid are now in a position to win gracefully by compromising on their new spending demands. Republicans could then portray the outcome as something other than a rout — and hope the focus on spending makes the hyper-caffeinated GOP base forget about that whole Obamacare-is-the-devil thing.
This should be a lesson: When you negotiate from strength, you’re not only helping yourself. You’re helping your adversary, too.
BY: Eugene Robinson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, October 14, 2013
“A Clarifying Moment”: No Negotiations On Debt Limit Means Exactly What It Says
The good thing about the fiscal madness that’s gripped the GOP is that it creates a good, clarifying moment for progressives. The president and congressional Democratic leaders have repeatedly announced a policy of refusing to negotiate over a debt limit extension, on grounds that (a) the economic stakes involved in messing around with this are just too high, dwarfing in importance anything either side could “win,” and (b) the debt limit accommodates existing debt from previous spending, and thus is not an appropriate vehicle for changing spending or taxes. (It would have been nice had the president taken this position back in 2011, but better late than never).
It is of great importance that Obama, Pelosi and Reed not flinch from this position, no matter what. This is a point on which all progressives, regardless of how they feel about specific fiscal issues, ought to be able to agree. Indeed, this is of particular importance to Democratic “centrists” who might be tempted to agree with this or that detail of the debt limit bill Boehner is putting together–say, approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is insanely popular in certain parts of the midwest, or greater means-testing in Medicare. Once Democrats head down the road of discussing any of these concessions in exchange for allowing the economy to continue to function, the hostage-takers in the GOP will have won, perhaps for good.
Matt Yglesias argues that negotiating over the debt limit this time would represent a vast abandonment of responsibility by the president:
Republicans are essentially asking for an end to constitutional government in the United States and its replacement by a wholly novel system….
Things like this do happen. The British system of government used to feature a ruling monarch who was checked in limited ways by two houses of parliament. Over time, those houses of parliament leveraged their control over tax hikes into overall control of the government. On a somewhat slower time frame, the elected House of Commons nudged the House of Lords out of almost all of its de facto political power. And that’s the House’s proposal here. The president should become an elected figurehead (not dissimilar to the elected presidents of Germany, Israel, or Italy) whose role is simply to assent to the policy preferences of the legislative majority.
That’s the logic of bargaining over the debt ceiling, because this isn’t really a bargain at all. A bargain is when Obama wants something the GOP doesn’t want (universal preschool, say) and then the GOP says “look we’ll do it, but only if you do X, Y, and Z for us.” Increasing the debt ceiling isn’t like that. It isn’t a pet policy priority of Obama’s and it isn’t something House Republicans oppose. It’s something both sides agree is necessary to avert a legal and financial disaster.
Matt goes on to point out that today’s demands are attributable to Obama’s failure to take the same position in 2011. Then, at least, one could make the argument that both parties were very interested in taking steps to reduce long-term deficits and debt. Now it’s reasonably clear the Republican agenda is to permanently shrink government, to overturn the duly enacted Affordable Care Act and nullify the Supreme Court decision and the presidential election that kept it in place, and to prove once and for all that most intransigent brand of “constitutional conservatism” can work politically. To the extent that both parties claim to care about the economy, there is no one, not even debt default enthusiasts, who think wrangling over the debt limit is going to be good for the economy.
So the answer to this vicious “opening bid” from Boehner needs to be “no,” not “maybe” or “maybe something else.” If no negotiations occur, then there is a reasonably high probability that the GOP’s corporate allies will make Boehner walk the plank and cooperate with House Democrats to pass a “clean” debt limit increase. That’s actually the only sane way out of the dark place Boehner is leading the country towards right now.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, September 26, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 