Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) was named by John Boehner to be part of the Super Committee on Debt, due in part to his chairing the Ways and Means Committee. It is a choice assignment which Camp has been eager to cash in on:

On the same day that House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., got picked to join the 12-member Congressional super-committee that is charged with deciding the country’s spending and taxation fate, his political action committee sent out [an invitation to a $2500 a head "meet & greet"]

Just think, for $2,500, you too can have “fun” as Camp’s PAC refills your wine glass over chats about mortgage interest deductions, profit repatriation and S-Corporation pass through rates.

We need no longer guess whether Pfizer will have a chance to play a role in the upcoming negotiations, thanks to the Pfizer PAC host duties.

Ah...capitalism! The privilege of hosting Camp's meet and greet came with a steep $5,000 price tag as well. So being on this extra-constitutional Super Committee is a profit deal...that makes so much sense. But if you can't pony up the cash, it appears to be much more difficult to get through to Rep. Camp, no matter what lip service he pays to being available to his constituents. After attending the American Dream rally in DC, internet radio goddess Nicole Sandler, Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel, Andrew Harman of Change to Win, Sandy Carpenter of ForRespect.org paid a visit to Camp's office on the Hill. After being told that Camp was in Congress and they could speak to an aide, the group was asked to wait in the hall. But Camp's staff wanted to make sure they stayed there, locking the door of the office. Then a gentleman came out and distributed the card of the Legislative Director they should speak to, saying that the director was busy with the congressman.

Funny thing, that. Turns out that Camp's Legislative Director, Rob Guido, was the guy handing out the cards, telling the protesters that the Legislative Director was busy with the congressman.

Bet you if they had $2,500 checks in their hand, Guido would have had no problem introducing himself properly.

And that's why we have Occupy Wall Street protests.

That all six of the Republicans selected to the Congressional debt reduction "Super Committee" are signers of Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge is hardly surprising. But the choice of Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, is an especially fitting one for the GOP. After all, Kyl didn't merely define a generation of Republican talking points when he explained earlier this year that his was "not intended to be a factual statement." As it turns out, from regurgitating bogus claims that "tax cuts pay for themselves" and spur "job creators" to his war on the estate tax, Jon Kyl has long been a leading fabricator of GOP tax cut myths. And when it comes to super lies on taxes, his fellow Republican super committeemen are not far behind.

In June, the second ranking Senate Republican joined House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in walking out of debt reduction talks led by Vice President Biden because of their refusal to accept even a dime of new tax revenue. As Jon Kyl explained last summer (starting around the 1:20 mark above), tax cuts don't increase the national debt:

"You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

Kyl's was just the latest repackaging of President Bush's long ago debunked claim that "you cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison parroted that line, "Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue." Then House Minority Leader John Boehner agreed, insisting last June that the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the depleted U.S. Treasury, "It's not the marginal tax rates ... that's not what led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago." For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rushed to defend Kyl's fuzzy math:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

Continue reading »

Today's "summit" between the House and Senate leaders and President Obama looks a little like Bristol Palin pretending to be a dancer on TV. Everyone shuffles around, but it doesn't look pretty or feel quite right. Everyone has a favorite and everyone's rooting for theirs to win.

After the summit, the first couple stepped up: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They mentioned bifurcation as a compromise on the vote. Looked pretty, sounded good, but they knew they had Dave Camp on the judges panel waiting to shoot it down.

On the other side, President Obama stepped up with an optimists' view and sunny outlook, claiming that these summits would continue, that people wanted them to work together, and naming his priorities. Extending middle class tax cuts, ratifying the START treaty, and extending unemployment were on his to-do list. Applause all around.

And now the voting begins. Here's what's on the table with a 12/24 deadline looming large:

• Unemployment extensions: Democrats want a year-long extension. Republicans want no extension.
• Extension of Bush tax cuts: Democrats want middle class tax cuts and the stimulus tax cuts extended. Republicans want all tax cuts extended for all income levels. Wild card: BlueDog Democrats
• START Treaty: As amazed as I am to even include this in the list, here it is. It must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate before the end of the 111th Congress or the entire committee process begins again in the next session, meaning it could be delayed as much as another year, for nothing more than political grandstanding.
• Medicare "Doc Fix": This delays the cut to doctors' reimbursements for 20% as it has each year. Note: It looks like this has now been pushed into the next session of Congress, since the president signed a 30-day extension today.
• Defense Appropriations Bill, which currently includes DADT repeal and DREAM Act: DADT is the sticking point, of course, despite today's report from the military affirming minimal disruption if it's repealed. The only leverage the administration has on DADT repeal beyond the principle of the thing are pending court challenges, which they've kept alive in order to have that leverage. If it is not repealed in this session, it creates a policy mess for this administration and those who come behind it.

Those are the bargaining chips. How do they fall, in light of this appearance of bipartisanship which isn't really that at all? Assume the Republicans will not give an inch on tax cuts. Assume they're willing to allow unemployment extensions to expire. They should feel some duty toward our military and national security, so I imagine START and appropriations will be on the table.

Will they trade a one-year extension of the full tax cut package for a one-year extension of unemployment insurance? Will the DREAM Act survive or be sacrificed for DADT repeal? It really comes down to this: No side will get everything they want. All sides may get something they want. What do we want most?

How would you put all this together and get it done before December 24th?

DOWNLOADS: (1280)

PLAYS: (1467)

Embed

(h/t Shoq Value)

This incident is a perfect illustration of how the right's noise machine is fooling the American people all over again, using easily debunked lies and misinformation, and how this very kind of irresponsible broadcasting—which they so often pretend is "journalism"—is empowering them to do it.

We came thisclose from having an honest discussion of health care reform this morning on Morning Joe. Not surprisingly, the "journalists" at the table dropped the ball, instead allowing two Republican congresspeople free airtime to lie to the American people once again. Hey GOP, where's your alternative plan again?

Republican Representatives Tom Price (MD--he's a doctor, you should listen to him!) and Dave Camp--having no constructive things to do to address Americans' health care concerns--appear on the Morning Joe show to field concern trolling, er...questions from no less than four "journalists" on health care. And Mike Barnicle gets the closest to actually digging for the truth when Rep. Price drops the name of The Lewin Group and Barnicle asks who funds The Lewin Group. Price deflects it with a mealy-mouthed answer about their foundation, but since he's a Republican and he's moving his lips, you gotta know he's a big fat liar:

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.[..]

Lewin's clients include the government and private groups with a variety of perspectives, including the Commonwealth Fund and the Heritage Foundation. A February report contained information that could be used to argue for a single-payer system, the approach most threatening to private insurers, Sheils noted.

But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

Well, they might not be partisan, but they sure as hell ARE biased--they are paid by the LARGEST health insurer in the nation (remember when Elizabeth Edwards said that $1 out of every $700 spent in healthcare went in the pocket of United Health's CEO?) and bury reports that are unfavorable? Where's that report on single payer? Why aren't the Republicans quoting that one?

Price also spews out another patented Luntz-crafted lie about the House bill, claiming that the bill states that in five years, all insurance will have to look the same, claiming this is proof of government intervention into your well-being. Price isn't the only one to give this zombie lie:

(G)reat message discipline! That's always been their forte. But it makes a tiresome chore to smack down all the odd lies they come up with, again and again, just like in the old zombie movies. You give it both barrels of a 10-gauge, but it shambles forward mindlessly. "Braaaiinssss..."

The one I have seem pop up most recently is the odd lie that the House Tri-Com bill (HR 3200) will "outlaw individual private coverage."

Huh? I thought that's what the National Insurance Exchange was for?! Where did that come from?

I remembered that I had seen some crazy rant from Rep Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon) along these lines:

It’s over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you’re not going to have in five years. What you’re going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all.

And some commenters on Kevin's blog linked to this unsigned opinion piece from Investors.com:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

How odd that they both cite "page 16" in their rants, both of which were published on the same day. It's almost as if this were somehow coordinated... Nah. I must be getting paranoid.

The provision they are referring to, by the way, is this [..]

So what does this mean in the real world?

1. Individual health insurance policies already in effect may continue but may not be altered.
2. Employer-sponsored plans have five years to get in compliance with the new regulations.
3. New individual health insurance policies will only be available through the National Insurance Exchange (NIE).

Remember, the NIE is where the private insurers will be competing against one another as well as against a possible public plan, if it survives. It is not synonymous with a "government plan," though I hope that consumers will have the choice of a government-sponsored insurance policy. The new regulations referred to are simply those I've outlined many times before -- community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum benefits floor.

Ezra Klein has more on the disingenuousness of the Republican talking points.