Less Than Transformative

Noting the announcement by President Biden of the framework of a $1.75 billion soft infrastructure bill, The Washington Post reported

The architect of the original $3.5 trillion plan, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), similarly encouraged House Democrats to hold off on voting until “clear language” is finalized on the safety net bill with the support of 50 senators. He said he continues to work to advance issues including a more robust expansion of Medicare, but he also described the $1.75 trillion compromise as transformational, saying it is “the kind of legislation [that hasn’t] passed in Congress since the 1960s.”

Thursday’s new framework includes prekindergarten programs that White House aides described as part of the largest one-time education investment[s] since the creation of public high school. The $1.75 trillion plan also includes new aid to help families afford child care and extends tax credits that millions of parents are receiving in the form of monthly checks.

When it comes to health care, the White House plan expands Medicare to cover new hearing benefits. The plan would lengthen the life of tax credits that have helped roughly 9 million Americans afford health insurance purchased on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. And it would provide new tax credits to help roughly 4 million low-income people afford health insurance in a dozen states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Charlie Peters argues

Liberal carping notwithstanding, these are not small beer to those of us who lived through Bill Clinton’s pitching for school uniforms and Barack Obama’s hiring of Bob Rubin and Timothy Geithner. Neither are they consolation prizes to the millions of families who will see their kids off to pre-K without having to take out a home equity loan, or the millions of people who will be able to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act now in spite of their wingnut governors. Take the win and press on is not a bad strategy. You can get there that way.

I don't know what "take the win" means, especially because as of Friday afternoon, there is no bill but only a framework, and no assurance that even if the tepid bill is enacted as described by the President that the approximately $1.75 billion reconciliation bill will be enacted. Progressives have demanded that the two measures be passed in tandem because if the tepid bipartisan bill is passed and signed first, any reconciliation bill passed afterward is likely to be a shell of its former self.. Once upon a time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed the progressive strategy, as did President Biden.

We now know who holds the cards within the Democratic Party and it's not the left, the Speaker, or even the President.   Upon reaching agreement in July with the budget committee on a bill which could be passed by reconciliation

"The budget committee has come to an agreement. The budget resolution with instructions will be $3.5 trillion," (Senate Majority Leader Chuck) Schumer said, speaking to reporters with Sanders and other members of the panel. "Every major program that President Biden has asked us for is funded in a robust way."

The deal will also include funding for expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing and addressing climate change — key asks from progressives, including Sanders. A Democratic aide familiar with the deal said that the budget resolution will also include language prohibiting taxes from being raised on individuals who make less than $400,000 or small businesses.

It hasn't worked out that way. Medicare will not be expanded to cover dental and vision care- though hearing aids were left in- and the full-scale attack on climate change is looking like a small foray.

Presently, Democrats may have no choice but to "take the win," though if this is the transformative change Joe Biden, Charlie Pierce, and others claim it is, one might legitimately ask what President Obama was doing for eight years (hint: very little). 

However, that "win" looks a lot like progressives being rolled. Consider that when Schumer cited the $3.5 trillion figure, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, one of the two Democratic opponents of the ambitious proposal, already had

previously suggested to ABC News that he was interested in a smaller figure, saying that "if that’s $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion, whatever that comes out to be over a 10-year period, that’s what I would be voting for."

Manchin at that time, in July, was willing- given a little cajoling, ego enrichment, and maybe a couple of things for West Virginia- to approve a $2 trillion package. Fourteen weeks later, after intense negotiation, progressives and Mr. Build Back Better reportedly have been able to get Manchin up to $1.75 trillion.

Even those of us who never advanced in math class beyond Algebra know that $1.75 trillion is less than $2.00 trillion. Nonetheless Pierce, whose sentiments probably will be echoed along the ideological gamut of Democrats from John Bel Edwards to Ilhan Omar once this process is complete, maintains

It is a radical rethinking of national priorities, and implicit in Sanders’ remarks is the undeniable truth that, if you want this package of proposals improved, and if you want to maintain the momentum for change that it signifies, elect more Democrats to the Senate and watch their smoke.

Electing more Democrats clearly is the best solution. For now, however, that smell wafting through the air is the Democratic left getting smoked.

 

Share |

Grandiosity

Perception is reality, some say. Actually, perception isn't reality, or they would call it "reality."  Still, none other than the third ranking Democrat in the US Senate, Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street), apparently does believe perception and reality are synonymous.

All through the media- sports and otherwise- one hears references to the Super Bowl (or "The Big Game") as being in New York, even to be played in New York (or, more specifically, New York City).Accordingly, Blue Jersey has caught Schumer tweeting a welcome to the Denver Broncos, Seattle Seahawks, and the worldwide media to "the greatest city on earth."

As a New Jersey resident, I say: Bravo, Senator Schumer.  It's time East Rutherford is recognized as the greatest city on earth. Or given that East Rutherford (where the game Sunday will be played) is a suburb, perhaps Schumer meant Jersey City, NJ, where the organizations of the Broncos and Seahawks are being sheltered.

But if Chuck Schumer really was referring to New York City as "the greatest city on earth," perhaps he should explain why (choose one):  a) NYC had been conducting a racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk program; b) NYC had to conduct stop-and-frisk of some sort; or c) both.  It's a great city for Schumer's pals in the financial industry to make millions, not so good for some of the others who have to live there.

Share |

Courting Conservatives

Yesterday, I drew attention to the statement of Reagan and World War II historian Craig Shirley "There really aren't any conservative Democrats anywhere and there really are very few liberal Republicans anymore." Judging by their actions, I argued, there are very few, if any, liberal or even moderate Republicans in Congress but a few conservative Democrats.

That would have been better substantiated if posted today, when we learn from Manu Raju and John Bresnahan of Politico

The White House and top Senate Democratic leaders are quietly mounting a pressure campaign to keep Sen. Ben Nelson from retiring, fearing their majority will be in greater peril if the two-term Nebraskan decides to quit.

In back-channel discussions, private meetings over Chinese food and in conversations on the Senate floor, party leaders have been regularly checking in with the conservative Democrat to talk to him about the race, assuring him that not only would he have greater influence and seniority in another term, but the Democratic machine will fully engage in his race if he runs again....

Democrats find themselves in an intense courtship with one of the least loyal members of their caucus — Nelson is a perennial swing voter who frustrates his leaders by often refusing to take sides on key bills until the last minute. But keeping the majority is far more important for Democrats than fealty to the party, which is why Nelson has become the center of attention.

Elsewhere in the article, the reporters describe Nelson as a "moderate," though if Ben Nelson is a moderate, Barack Obama really is a socialist. Digby notes the GOP is "engaged in hand-to-hand political combat" while "Democrats are still fighting the last war, moving their useless Maginot Line ever backwards to the point where having the majority translates into slightly less kooky conservative policies than what we'd have with the Republicans."

Politico, which has become a virtual arm of the political Establishment, appears to applaud the party for emphasizing "keeping the majority" over "fealty to the party." It is fair to ask, however, what constitutes fealty to a party led by Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer eager to assume the position toward Wall Street For nearly the past three years, it really has been less fealty to party than disregard and distaste for principle.

Next Up: Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief

Share|

Did He Really Say That?

No, not Barack Obama, in whom it is difficult to be disappointed anymore, the President long ago having abandoned any modicum of progressive/liberal economic policy. The New York Times informs us

Obama Administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues....

Before the talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.. broke off 12 days ago, negotiators said, they had reached substantial agreement on many cuts in the growth of Medicare, which provides care to people 65 and older, and Medicaid, which covers lower-income people. Those proposals are still on the table when Congress reconvenes this week, aides said, and are serious options that Democrats could accept in exchange for Republican concessions that raise revenues.

In mid-June, some liberals were relieved when the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, New York's Charles Schumer, asserted

We want to make our position on Medicare perfectly clear: No matter what we do in these debt limit talks, we must preserve the program in its current form, and we will not allow cuts to seniors' benefits.

It was at least somewhat reassuring that cuts in Medicare benefits apparently were not being pursued by high-ranking Democratic officials. Now, the Times reports, the changes to the Medicare program being considered by Administration officials and legislators are:

¶ Gradually eliminate Medicare payments to hospitals for bad debts that result when beneficiaries fail to pay deductibles and co-payments. Medicare reimburses hospitals for 70 percent of such debts after the hospitals make reasonable efforts to collect the unpaid amounts.

¶ Reduce Medicare payments to teaching hospitals for the costs of training doctors, caring for sicker patients and providing specialized services like trauma care and organ transplants. Medicare spends $9.5 billion a year for its share of those costs.

¶ Reduce the federal share of payments to health care providers treating low-income people under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The administration wants to establish a single “blended rate” for each state. The federal government now reimburses states at different rates for different groups of people and different services in the two programs.

The excuse is starting to become clear. Schumer recently stated "We are very willing to entertain savings in Medicare. Medicare gives very good health care very inefficiently."

Medicare gives very good health care very inefficiently. Yes, compared to Finland, Italy, Ireland, Japan and every other OECD country, health care in the U.S.A. generally is delivered less efficiently, and that probably also applies to government-provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) .

But compared to private health insurance in this nation, hardly. As the chart below (from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, by way of Ezra Klein) illustrates, Medicare (and Medicaid) spending is lower per capita than that of private insurance and has been growing more slowly over the past 20 years.

There may be no better symbol of the Democratic establishment than Chuck Schumer. The President is focused on the independent vote, which he believes obtainable throught pragmatism untethered to principle; Senate Majority Leader (Reid) is center-right; the Senate Whip (Durbin) is caught between his staunchly liberal instincts and that President. The House Minority Leader (Pelosi) is, well, a Democrat in a party with very few. Schumer, though, is a reliable liberal except when the interests of his major constituent- Wall Street- is involved. And when Charles Schumer advocates "savings in Medicare," citing imaginary inefficiency, that is where the Administration is heading.

Share|