Seriously, why Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) still the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs? I totally get his desire to be the chair of a major Senate committee - he gets to make broad, somber statements about "protecting the homeland" and holds these open meetings to ensure that the press gets to headline his concerns. But he's really not doing anything to either improve homeland security or to boost the Democratic platform (other than providing the occasional vote in cloture calls that still fail to move legislation forward).

On Wednesday, Lieberman and fellow moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) held a hearing titled "Nine Years After 9/11: How Can We Keep Fear Alive Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland"(also see WaPo coverage here). Featured witnesses included DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and NCTC Director Michael Leiter. Here's a summary of their talks:

Opening Remarks:
Sen. Lieberman: "Thank you for being here to remind the American people about Teh Terrorist Threat. So let me point out the concern over the 'home-grown' threat of 63 Americans arrested in 2009 on terrorist-related issues amidst our population of 310 million people."

Sen. Collins: "I, too, am worried about the possibility of Americans being recruited and trained to use automatic rifles and explosives against our populace. No, I didn't mean the Tea Party activists and white militia groups, only the brown people who speak with accents."

Witnesses:
Sec. Napolitano: "We're just now figuring out that terrorists do, in fact, prefer small arms and explosives to CBRN hazards. We're still paying out billions in grants to state and local agencies, because you like us to do that. And we intend to make travel on America's rails just as painful as flying."

Dir. Mueller: "Since it is the FBI's job to counter 'home-grown' terrorists as well as look out for the foreign-based terrorists, let me assure you that we are on top of things. But rest assured, we're not going to bother watching those Tea Party activists until they shoot someone."

Dir. Leiter: "There are lots of flavors of al Qaeda out there. We're watching them all, but don't blame us if another 'underwear bomber' slips through. And we're intent on retaining the Cheney doctrine on WMD terrorism - maximum focus on the lowest probability events."

I jest - a little. But I find it curious that the three witnesses want to promote this common thesis that "al-Qa‘ida, and its affiliates and allies, will attempt to conduct smaller-scale attacks targeting the Homeland but with greater frequency." Is it really a general trend, or are they projecting their fears that they might miss another "lone wolf" who flies into the United States with a bulge in his pants?

I'm going to just suggest here that the general foreign terrorist community was always focused on small-scale attacks - that 9/11 was a "black swan" and future terrorist incidents may never be repeated on that scale. Small arms and explosives remain easy to purchase and easy to master. We're FINALLY getting acknowledgment that WMD terrorism is overblown and is not in fact the future mode of attack for terrorists coming to the United States (but we're still going to spend a lot of time and money on countering WMD terrorism, just in case).

If there is an increase in frequency of attacks, maybe, just maybe that's because of a general failure in US strategic communications and the extended period of US military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention increased "kinetic" involvement in Yemen and Somalia. These events tend to foster AQ's recruiting drive. I know that's difficult for some to believe, but I'm just putting it out there as a possibility.

Finally, note these witnesses and their organizations. Did you see any DOD officials there? Protecting the homeland from foreign terrorists is not a military-led activity. It's a law enforcement and intelligence activity. Add the State Department when you want to talk about preventing terrorist growth overseas. Let's just get past the chest-thumping and try to develop coherent government policy based on that understanding, and we'll be a whole lot better off.

Sen. Bill Frist discusses Arlen Specter and the "Nuclear Option," to filibustering.

Sen. Joe Lieberman counters the charges that Frist makes, stating his case for the Dems and criticizes the Republicans for blocking many more of President Clinton's nominees.

Video

Updated version.

The Agonist: Wake up and smell the drug war

Pacific Views: This type of frenzied opposition has been seen before

The Monkey Cage: Did Gays in the military lead to the fall of Srebrenica? Of course not!

Fables of the reconstruction: McCain and Lieberman propose bill to strip U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism of all rights

Seeing the Forest: China's currency manipulation manipulates the world. This is not a small issue

Prairie Weather: A solid foundation of lies may be cracking

President Obama gave a very forceful SOTU tonight. He was very engaging throughout and brought his oratory skills to the table as he did during the election. I wish he was much more partisan though. He hemmed the republicans in on not supporting the bank fees to pay back the bailouts. He blasted the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court and asked Congress to create some legislation to overturn it. Obama finally threw some blame for the sorry state of this country at the feet of George Bush and conservatism. Cutting taxes and starting wars doesn't lead us to economic prosperity.

The camera caught McCain mouthing "blame it on Bush."

He called for Congress to get HCR finished. Really, he was calling the Democrats in Congress cowards and to get on with it. Axelrod is responsible for the tactics they've used from the outset which has resulted in this debacle, but I've been hearing HCR is not dead just yet.

I can't stand when he mentions Ronald Reagan in a positive fashion and he did that again tonight. When will he realize that conservatives will never support him and to suck up to the Gipper is a mistake?

As Chris Hayes tweeted: There are not enough villains in this speech.

We all know who they are and he should name a few. Tightening the government's belt is a horrible idea. He wants us to export more goods, but we have to actually make goods to export. He attacked the 60 vote obstructionism that's been taking place in the Senate.

Seeing Lieberman and Nelson sitting together was disturbing. Josh Marshall called them the "axis of weasels".

He brought back DADT and at the same time tried to bring back the idea of bipartisanship. Major Garrett had a soft porn problem.

Republicans sitting on their hands for Obama calling for the banks to pay back bailout funds!

Chris Matthews said that he forgot President Obama was black tonight. Good to know...

I've been writing for weeks that the House needs to step up and improve the Senate health care bill in conference. They are co-equal branches and when a bill is to be merged, there are usually compromises made. Sen. Conrad screamed out on FNS and said that if the House tinkers with their precious bill, it won't pass.

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

My sources on the Hill have told me that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes from progressives to pass the Senate bill as it stands. I know the White House doesn't want to play hardball now, but we do. What will Lieberman say if they do make changes to strengthen the bill? Will he be the man that killed health care reform to Americans?

mcjoan had an article posted yesterday that said the progressives appeared to be caving.

It's beginning to look like the House is going to cave into Lieberman and Nelson, too. TPMDC And co-chair of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva seals it.

In the interview, Grijalva confirmed that House Dems were beginning to discuss the idea of revising the Senate bill in conference to move up the implementation date for insurance coverage and make it more in line with the earlier date in the House bill. I asked Grijalva if he could support the bill if such a change were made, even if it lacked a public option or other similar concessions sought by liberals. "It would sweeten it somewhat," Grijalva said, "if they speed up the coverage mechanism."

He added: "That would be something I’d have to look at very closely."

Asked if he was suggesting that he’s open to supporting such an outcome, Grijalva answered in the affirmative, but insisted that he would have to evaluate the changes in conference before making any decision. He said House liberals would continue to push for a public component and a repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. And he demanded that conference negotiations not merely "rubber stamp" the Senate Bill.

Moving up implementation dates would help, and that appears to be a House leadership might use as a "key arguing point" in the upcoming conference.

But today a new Politico piece paints somewhat different picture: House Dems: We won't roll over

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

Members will return the next week, and aides said they would still like to pass a bill by the State of the Union at the end of January or the beginning of February. But leadership staff in the House said that that doesn't mean they're prepared to just accept the Senate bill. {..}

"We want to move a bill by the State of the Union, but we want to do it because we're ready, not because we have to," an aide said.

Here are a few key points that can be fixed in conference, but please add your own...read on

Again, I've been writing that the House needs to stand up and be counted and they seem to be listening to our calls not to roll over for the Senate. I've contacted several members of the House for comment and will get back to you soon on that.

There's plenty of info on-line that explains what's wrong with the Senate bill, but here's a few key points. Add to the list in the comments.

* National exchange (rather than state exchanges)

* Public option

* Repeal anti-trust exemption

* Wealthy surtax, rather than middle-class insurance tax

* Better affordability provisions in House bill, including level of subsidies and Medicaid to 150% poverty.

* Repeal Stupak language.

DOWNLOADS: 1054

PLAYS: 377

Embed

As you know from Susie's post, on Friday Howard Dean and Wendell Potter held a blogger conference call to address their concerns about the Lieberman/Nelson Senate Health care bill. Mike Lux was the moderator and a host of bloggers asked questions about the bill. What followed was a detailed discussion debating Gov. Dean's problems about the Senate bill. As much as the Villagers try to smear Dean, it's all about policy and not ideology when it comes to health care.

It's a long call that features more actual policy debate than what you would find on most political TV programs that are supposed to actually carry the same type of substance, but often fail to do. They are more interested in shouting matches than a substantive debate. You can go to DFA's website where they want you to call Harry Reid's office and say no mandates without a public option.

And as mcjoan notes while looking at the new CBO scores, the public option had a better cost saving effect for the federal government in the Health care bill than it does without it.

TPM has more:

The CBO has concluded that, on average, premiums will be the same as they would have been if the Senate had the public option, but that the public option saved the federal government more money by putting downward pressure on the premiums of low-cost private plans, which will be heavily subsidized.

The bill remains a big deficit slayer--$132 billion in the first 10 years. Over the next 10 years, CBO warns all estimates are very uncertain. But here's a key conclusion: "CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP."

Update: Of special note from the CBO report--which Pelosi should be trumpeting:

[FN 11] The presence of the public plan had a more noticeable effect on CBO’s estimates of federal subsidies because it was expected to exert some downward pressure on the premiums of the lower-cost plans to which those subsidies would be tied.

If the deficit scolds are really so worried about the federal deficit why aren't they backing the public option to be in the bill too?

I think Marcy Wheeler makes the single most compelling argument here about the precedent of a private health insurance mandate:

And for those who promise we’ll go back and fix this later, once we achieve universal health care, understand what will have happened in the meantime. The idea, of course, is to establish some means to get people single payer coverage (before Lieberman, this would have been through a public option or Medicare buy-in) and, over time, expand it.

In fact, this bill will move toward single payer, too–though not the kind we want. For the large number of people who live in a place where there is limited competition, this bill will require them to get health care through the oligopoly or monopoly provider. It’ll work great for the provider: they will be able to dictate rates. But the Senate bill allows these blossoming single payer providers to keep up to 25% of the benefit in profits and marketing costs, and pass little of that benefit onto citizens. If we make private corporations our single payer, how are we going to convince them to cede control when we ask them to let the government be the single payer?

The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

It’s the 9.8% tithe that bothers me the most. But for those who think we can fix it, consider this, too. If the Senate bill passes, in its current form, it will mean that the health care industry was able to dictate–through their Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson–what they wanted the US Congress to do. They will have succeeded in dictating the precise terms of legislation.

Now, that’s not the first time that has happened. It certainly happened on telecom immunity. It certainly has happened, repeatedly, on Defense contracting (see also Randy Cunningham). But none of these egregious instances of corporations dictating legislation included a tithe–the requirement that citizens pay corporations to provide their service, rather than allowing the government to contract the service.

This is a fundamentally different relationship we’re talking about–one that gives corporations vast new powers. And the fact that–with one temper tantrum from Joe Lieberman–the corporations were able to dictate the terms of this new relationship deeply troubles me.

When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

We’ve seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different–but every bit as significant way. We don’t mandate tithing corporations in this country–at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.

AMERICAblog News: White House thanks Lieberman for blocking president's reform promise, criticizes Dean for defending it. Enough...

Economist's View: Cutting wages won't help

TPM LiveWire: Franken rape amendment included in Defense Spending Bill

Oliver Willis: No longer just a handful of crazyass fringe dwellers, the John Birch Society is BACK!

Constitution Project: We welcome the enhanced transparency recommendations from the Obama administration. The rules for handling “controlled unclassified information” would standardize the system and increase government transparency, but stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed.

Bitch Ph.D.: My 3 least favorite holiday ads

The news in the last few days has continued the drumbeat of demoralizing events which started in the Bush administration, and with only a few hiccups has continued through the Obama administration. It is clear that Obama is, fundamentally, Bush's 3rd term.

First we have the health care "reform" debacle, where it has been confirmed that the White House pushed Harry Reid to accept Lieberman's ultimatum, not go to reconciliation. There will be no public option in the Senate bill. There will be no Medicare expansion. There will be no cap on yearly limits. What there will be is a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, some subsidies which can still leave people spending money they can't afford, and guaranteed issue of lousy plans (Plans where only 70% of the premiums have to be spent on care, for example.) Unless progressive Senators are willing to filibuster, or House progressives are willing to vote against en-masse, something very close to the Senate plan is what will pass, because as I noted some time ago, the White House's bottom line is that something, anything must pass, and conservative Dems are willing to kill the bill to make sure it doesn't actually threaten health industry profits in any way, shape, or form. (Thus why drug importation, which would cost Pharma money, will be made illegal.)

All of this was completely predictable. Furthermore the weakness of progressive and liberal legislators, is largely to blame:

Obama and the Democratic leadership's bottom line is they must pass some bill called "health care reform". Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn't progressives bottom line

This is Negotiation 101, and progressive legislators either don't understand it, or are spineless. As a result they, and Americans, have been rolled yet again. What is depressing about this is that it should be a surprise to no one, but apparently has surprised many.

It is also noteworthy that spending billions on turning brown people into a fine red mist (a.k.a. the Afghan war) is acceptable, but health care (a.k.a. saving actual American lives) is something which can't cost money. What an interesting--and clearly evil--set of priorities that reveals. I guarantee that real healthcare reform would save more American lives than the entire war on terror—assuming said "war" hasn't cost more American lives than it's saved, which is almost certainly the case.

Next we have what Glenn Greenwald is calling the creation of Gitmo North, in which people whom the government judges there is not enough evidence to convict, will be held indefinitely without trial. This is the very definition of tyranny. Any nation which does this is a nation of men, not laws. America has forsaken its fundamental premise and proved its degradation. Yes, this started under Bush, but as Obama embraces this, it because a bipartisan project and the new elite consensus. This is now something which has been confirmed as US policy which is extremely unlikely to change no matter who is in power.

Then we have bankers are giving themselves bonuses larger than the entire economy's GDP growth this year.

Continue reading »

Recently the Senate passed Sen. Barbara Mikulski's Women's Health Amendment, which requires health insurance companies to provide free mammograms and other preventive health services for women. Sounds good, doesn't it? Women's health needs have traditionally been underserved by the insurance system. But, ironically, the Senate's excise tax will force many women to pay indirectly for these "free" services.

Here's how: For one thing, the cost of the services mandated in the Mikulski Amendment will cause even more health plans to exceed the cost cap for the excise tax. And it's expected that 20% of plans will already be over the limit when the tax takes effect. In practical terms, any added costs for new services provided by these plans (like those mammograms) will be taxable. So, in one very real sense, the Senate plans to tax some of this preventive care for women - at a staggering 40% of cost.

The Mikulski Amendment looks like a step forward, but many women will pay for these services indirectly - in the form of higher premiums or increased out-of-pocket costs. One hand giveth and the other taketh away. And speaking of irony ...

Guess who voted for the Mikulski amendment? Some Senators who haven't even committed themselves to voting for the final bill, including Lieberman, Landrieu, and Snowe (who even cosponsored the amendment. Here's an idea: They can make sure these women's services really remain "free" by supporting the Sanders-Franken-Brown Amendment, which would replace the excise tax with a tax on the extremely wealthy (the way the house does it.)

That would remove the irony in the Senate's actions and replace it with fairness.