Don't kid yourself, those former staffers are writing the actual legislation. That's because we've cut so much money from congressional staffs, they don't have enough independent, experienced staff members to handle complex legislation. So all that "fat" we cut, all that money we "saved"? It only made the lobbyists more powerful:

WASHINGTON — Restaurant chains like McDonald’s want to keep their lucrative tax credit for hiring veterans. Altria, the tobacco giant, wants to cut the corporate tax rate. And Sapphire Energy, a small alternative energy company, is determined to protect a tax incentive it believes could turn algae into a popular motor fuel.

To make their case as Congress prepares to debate a rewrite of the nation’s tax code, this diverse set of businesses has at least one strategy in common: they have retained firms that employ lobbyists who are former aides to Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which will have a crucial role in shaping any legislation.

No other lawmaker on Capitol Hill has such a sizable constellation of former aides working as tax lobbyists, representing blue-chip clients that include telecommunications businesses, oil companies, retailers and financial firms, according to an analysis by LegiStorm, an online database that tracks Congressional staff members and lobbying. At least 28 aides who have worked for Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, since he became the committee chairman in 2001 have lobbied on tax issues during the Obama administration — more than any other current member of Congress, according to the analysis of lobbying filings performed for The New York Times.

“K Street is literally littered with former Baucus staffers,” said Jade West, an executive at a wholesalers’ trade association that relies on a former finance panel aide, Mary Burke Baker. “It opens doors that allow you to make the case.”

Continue reading »

The White House is lining up the players for implementation of the health insurance reform provisions coming up in September.

Via the Billings Gazette:

HELENA — Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law.

Fowler, chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chairs, will become deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“Liz Fowler is an extremely knowledgeable and dedicated adviser, and while I’m very proud of her new position, she will certainly be missed at the committee,” Baucus said in a statement Tuesday.

Baucus, D-Mont., led the Democrats’ efforts in the Senate the past two years to draft and pass a major health-reform bill, which President Barack Obama signed into law March 23.

Fowler's appointment has fired up a hot discussion about her past association with Wellpoint.

Marcy Wheeler:

This is the kind of “oversight” that resulted in the BP disaster.

And remember Obama’s lobbyist restrictions? The ones that prevent someone from working in the Executive Branch on an issue that they’ve lobbied Congress on for two years? Fowler was not a registered lobbyist; rather, she was the VP of Public Policy and External Affairs. But in any case, it appears that Fowler returned to MaxTax Baucus’ staff on March 4, 2008, so nothing prevents the former VP of WellPoint from writing the “consumer and oversight” rules that are the only thing protecting Americans from policies — like WellPoint’s — that screw consumers.

Marcy is correct: Fowler was not a registered lobbyist, nor was she acting as a lobbyist in her two years with Wellpoint. In fact, if you look over Fowler's entire career, she is a career public servant. One might even argue that private industry and Ms. Fowler were not a great "fit", as noted here:

As far as I have been able to tell, she has spent most of her career in public service. She spent her early years in at Hogan & Hartson, worked for Senator Pat Moynihan, Rep. Pete Stark and Senator Max Baucus, and then later rejoined Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee in 2008.

So what exactly is the problem? She's not a lobbyist; most of her career has been spent in public service; and she was the head of a 20-person team that drafted the Senate Finance Committee version of the reform bill.

Fowler headed up a team of 20-some Senate Finance Committee staffers who helped draft the bill in the Senate. She was Baucus’ top health care aide from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurer.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Reform committee version was certainly included in the Senate version of what ultimately became the Affordable Care Act, but so too were provisions from the Senate HELP Committee's version. Harry Reid, as you might recall, combined pieces of both to make the Senate bill, and that version included a watered-down, ineffective public option which was ultimately stripped away from the final version because Joe Lieberman wanted to punish liberals more than he wanted to see people have access to health care.

Liz Fowler didn't take out the public option. She didn't kill it. And she didn't lobby against it. Is it possible that she simply has a different policy opinion from others? Or that she actually doesn't have a different opinion but made a calculation about what was possible with this Senate Finance Committee?

Health care, whether it's government-run single payer or covered by private insurers, is one of the most complex areas of public policy there is. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act needs policy wonks at the helm. If Liz Fowler is anything at all, she is a policy wonk, one who has earned a doctorate and a law degree, and who has spent her entire career in the policy area of health care.

Seems like a natural choice to me. Don't forget she also worked for Pete Stark (an ardent single payer advocate). Why does the Wellpoint 2 years carry more weight than the Stark/Moynihan? Because it fits the narrative or because there's evidence of malfeasance? If there's evidence, where is it? A difference of opinion over policy does not mean corruption is afoot.

Something to consider, anyway.

DOWNLOADS: (1968)

PLAYS: (5989)

Embed

Do you want to know why men are superior? "Because every Sperm is Sacred."

John Boehner clearly isn't upset over abortions in his latest screed. It's all about banning contraceptives now. Now, there's something that the GOP should get behind if they really care about being a pro-life party.

Dante Atkins:

The GOP's assault on women in light of the health insurance reform law may have started with a special ops attack on nursing mothers, but Minority Leader Boehner has just significantly expanded the theater of operations. See, Leader Boehner is outraged that contraception could be funded through Medicaid:

"Tucked into the health reform legislation is a controversial provision allowing states to expand coverage for family planning services under Medicaid without a waiver from the federal government. Democrats had tried to insert the language into the Recovery Act in January 2009, but pulled back after it became a lightning rod for GOP attacks ... Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) championed the provision in the Senate, adding it to the Senate Finance Committee version of the legislation during mark-up, sources said, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pushed for it in the House. ... ‘How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?’ House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the provision, according to Reuters.”

There are two major sources of concern here. First, the fact that Leader Boehner is attacking birth control funding just goes to show that the forced birth cult wing of the Republican Party isn't really interested in snowflake babies. After all, it would stand to reason that making contraception readily available would make a significant dent in the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, they are far more concerned with making sure that women--especially poor women--suffer consequences for daring to have sex unless they make sure to do it with a strong, powerful man who they know can provide for them--in other words, the medieval model of gender relations.

But even more alarming is the fact that Boehner and the GOP are now so bold as to think that attacking the pill is a sound political idea. Either Boehner and the GOP are just that out of touch with political reality, or we will have a fierce battle ahead to protect the freedoms we all take for granted.

Throw a few bucks towards Connie Saltonstall's campaign if you can since she's taking on Bart Stupak. He's the one who made this such an issue in the HCR debate.

Stupid ladies. Didn't you know that the pleasure of sex was only for men?

Digby writes:

If anyone ever wondered whether the right is sincere in its concern for fetuses as opposed to the sexual behavior of women, this would seem to spell it out pretty clearly. Boehner is calling provisions for birth control "controversial" and the only thing he can mean by this in this context is that he thinks Americans believe women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to bear children. ("Just keep your legs closed, girl, and you won't have a problem.")Otherwise, it would be "uncontroversial" that a health care bill would provide for family planning and those who care about preventing abortion would be supportive since it would result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. (But then we know that isn't what the religion industrial complex is all about, don't we?)

It is only a matter of time before we start hearing about a new conscience clause for people who don't believe in paying for other people's contraception.

And don't forget ladies, "Every Sperm is Sacred."

This is a big step in the right direction, and it's something that would go a long way toward easing national insecurity (and not incidentally, expire after the midterms, leaving a possible Republican majority with a ticking time bomb):

With unemployment still hovering in double digits and no real relief in sight, a group of 30 Senate Democrats today is urging party leaders to extend emergency unemployment benefits through the end of 2010 — 10 months longer than current law dictates. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the lawmakers argue that shorter extensions might be cheaper, but they leave state budgeters in a state of constant uncertainty.

Short term extensions, while still helpful to families, only add strain to state agencies that must constantly re-tool their computer systems, and at the same time, continue to assist the millions still searching for work. As our economy continues on a path to recovery, we need a robust extension of safety net programs that have provided a lifeline to families since the recession began.

Signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Bob Casey (Pa.), Jack Reed (R.I.),
 Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
, Chris Dodd (Conn.),
 Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.),
 Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.),
 Al Franken (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
 Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), 
Roland Burris (Ill.), Arlen Specter (Pa.),
 John Kerry (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.),
 Ron Wyden (Ore.), Edward Kaufman (Del.),
 Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.),
 Patrick Leahy (Vt.),
 Robert Menendez (N.J.),
 Herb Kohl (Wis.),
 Tom Udall (N.M.), Ben Cardin (Md.),
 Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
 Daniel Akaka (Hawaii),
 Jeff Merkley (Ore.),
 Barbara Mikulski (Md.),
 Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), as well as Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

Democratic leaders are working on legislation to tackle the continuing problems related to the economic downturn. The package is widely expected to include an extension of unemployment insurance, COBRA health benefits, food stamps and help for states faced with budget crises. They’d hoped to have health care reform out of the way first. Now, that’s looking unlikely.

DOWNLOADS: (3217)

PLAYS: (3605)

Embed

If I hear "He's with us on everything but the war" one more time, I'm going to go medieval on somebody.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, said Tuesday that he will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that includes a government-run insurance plan.

This means that as things now stand, Democrats will not have enough votes to pass healthcare reform with a so-called public option unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) can pick up unexpected GOP votes.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), the only Republican to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare bill, said Tueday that she would vote against bringing up a bill that included a government-run insurance program unless the implementation of such a program were set to a trigger.

Lieberman said he would vote with Reid and other Democrats on a motion to begin debate on a healthcare bill because he believes it is an important issue that needs to be considered. But he said he would not lend his support to an effort to cut off debate on a bill including a government-run insurance program.

Lieberman said he told Reid of his position in a recent conversation and that the leader “respected and understood.”

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” said Lieberman. “To put this government-created, government-run insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayer, for the premium payer and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”

Lieberman said he was not placated by allowing states to opt out of the public option “because it still creates a whole new federal government entitlement program, for which taxpayers will eventually be on the line.”

The motion to begin debate and the motion to move to a final vote are two actions that would require 60 votes and are considered the highest hurdles to passing a reform bill through the Senate.

Can we strip this traitor of his chairmanships already? I have several choice descriptors for Lieberman, but party/caucus loyalist is not one of them. Mr. Gang of 14/Up or Down Vote is more interested in letting insurance companies make a profit off you than helping Americans. He's afraid of doing "too much."

Too late. He already has done too much. Too much to ever be allowed to caucus with the Democrats again.

It's nice to hear some people are actually fighting for our interests. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was:

The forces in favor of a public health insurance option roared back Thursday on Capitol Hill after weeks when their cause looked bleak.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) looked closer than ever to including a robust U.S. government-run insurance program in the House bill — saying recent attempts by the health insurance industry to undercut reform prove insurers can’t be trusted.

And in the Senate, a weekly policy lunch turned into a heated debate when liberals went after the Senate Finance Committee bill and made clear they won’t roll over for legislation that doesn’t include a public option.

Reflecting deep divides within the caucus, the Senate luncheon turned tense, with voices elevated and senators venting. “In today’s lunch, it even involved a little performance theater,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said, describing it as an “emotional catharsis.”

In a week when the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill without a public option — raising questions about whether that would prove the public option’s last gasp — progressives in both houses showed they won’t go down without a fight.

And Thursday proved that if President Barack Obama hoped the public option question would fade of its own accord, he probably won’t get that lucky — but will be forced to referee a compromise between liberals and moderates.

But in the House, moderates stand to suffer the most if Pelosi goes ahead with plans to include the most ambitious public option — forcing them into a tough vote that will surely be used by Republican opponents in 2010.

In the House, Pelosi told her rank and file Thursday that the time has come to “freeze the design,” meaning she wants unveil a completed House bill as early as next week.

Pelosi favors a public-option plan supported by liberals that reimburses doctors at rates that are 5 percent higher than Medicare — one of the strongest versions of the public option on the table.

Pelosi used the reports put out this week by the insurance lobby — which said reform would add thousands to family insurance premiums — to show the public needs some defense against the industry.

“Anyone who had any doubts about the need for such an option need only look at the behavior of the health insurance industry this week,” Pelosi said. “If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion’s den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?”

This is just plain crazy. Why should one woman in the opposing party have so much power over our futures, just because Obama has a "bipartisan" fetish? This is about offering a protective cover to Blue Dogs; I get that. But man, it's galling that everything gets pulled down to the lowest common denominator by one woman who's been enjoying taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for a very long time:

WASHINGTON — As the White House and Congressional leaders turned in earnest on Wednesday to working out big differences in the five health care bills, perhaps no issue loomed as a greater obstacle than whether to establish a government-run competitor to the insurance industry.

One day after the Senate Finance Committee approved a measure without a “public option,” the question on Capitol Hill was how President Obama could reconcile the deep divisions within his party on the issue. All eyes were on Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Maine Republican whose call for a “trigger” that would establish a government plan as a fallback is one of the leading compromise ideas.

No "deep divisions" out here with the overwhelming majority of Democrats, or anyone else for that matter. It's only the Democratic Blue Dogs who have such "dainty" concerns. Oddly enough, the more those members got in contributions from the death-for-profit healthcare industry, the stronger those "concerns" are! Hmm.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan. But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the Finance Committee’s bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks.

“It’s one vote, she won’t make the commitment on the final product, and she says she’s got to have the trigger,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, who is leading an effort in the House to round up votes for a government plan akin to Medicare. “I think the administration has put her in the driver’s seat; it’s very disconcerting.”

Of the many difficult decisions remaining — including how to pay for an overhaul and how many people will be left uninsured — few carry as much political weight for the president as the public option. The plan, which would be for people who do not get health care through their employers, has become a proxy for a larger debate over where Mr. Obama is taking the country.

“What’s going on here is not simply health care and the public option,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff in the Reagan White House. “In light of the auto bailout, the bank bailout, the stimulus package, the public option fight is a surrogate for how much government is too much.”

I wish all those Members who have such concerns would turn back the government-funded healthcare largesse they enjoy and turn instead to the free market. Perhaps I wouldn't despise them quite so much.

With Democrats split, an array of compromises are being floated — including the nonprofit cooperatives in the Finance Committee bill and the latest idea to capture some Democrats’ fancy, leaving the public option to the states. But economists say few would fulfill Mr. Obama’s stated goal of injecting “choice and competition” into the marketplace.

Mr. Obama’s health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle, said she was convinced that Democrats could “find convergence.” She and several other officials, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Peter R. Orszag, the budget director, met Wednesday with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, to discuss merging the Senate’s bills.

Aides say Mr. Obama has reviewed the alternatives to the public option but has not settled on which, if any, he prefers. And some Democrats say a backlash against insurers is creating renewed interest in a public plan. But in private conversations with Ms. Snowe, Mr. Obama has brought up her idea for a trigger that would create a government-run plan in states where at least 5 percent of residents lacked access to affordable care. One senior White House official called the idea “very reasonable.”

Must. Go. Hit. Head. On. Wall. Now.

I can't help wondering: Do you suppose Obama actually believed the insurance industry was on his side? I can't tell if they're really surprised or just pretending. But I don't think anyone here was all that shocked by these developments:

As the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday approved a 10-year, $829 billion bill to remake the health-care system, Obama's top advisers and the insurers moved into a more intense stage of conflict.

"The insurance industry has decided to lead the charge against health reform, and everyone recognizes their motives: profits," said White House deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer. "We are going to make sure they can't sink this effort at the last minute."

Pfeiffer castigated the industry for releasing a report Monday that concluded that the finance panel's bill would increase costs for consumers. "They made themselves a very good foil," he said.

The insurers, however, showed no sign of being chastened. America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, opened a fresh line of attack with a multistate advertising campaign warning that senior citizens enrolled in private Medicare plans could lose benefits under the legislation.

"Is it right to ask 10 million seniors on Medicare Advantage for more than their fair share?" the television spot asks. "Congress is proposing $100 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says many seniors will see cuts in benefits."

The Finance Committee's bill would reduce spending on the plans AHIP cites by $113 billion over the next decade, which could mean reduced insurer profits, higher co-payments by beneficiaries or fewer extra benefits such as eyeglasses and gym memberships.

"We want to begin to build an awareness of the potential implications to seniors," said AHIP President Karen Ignagni.

She declined to say how much money would be spent on the commercials airing in six states, but one advertising analyst said the industry has enough cash to pose a serious threat. "They can spend whatever they feel they need to influence this," said Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. "Seniors are a very important group politically."

The insurance sector and health maintenance organizations spent more than $116 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Olympia Snowe said she would vote for the Baucus bill and she did.

She has voted and the bill has passed 14-9.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the lone Republican to support the package. "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow," she said, although her vote does keep her at the negotiating table and at the center of the health care reform debate. Snowe risked marginalizing herself with a no vote.

The year after both Truman and Clinton's failed efforts, the Republican Party retook control of Congress and any hope of reform faded to minority status. President Obama intends to avoid the same fate.

With the bill having officially moved through the panel, deliberations will migrate to the Capitol, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will huddle with Senate leaders to merge the finance bill with a more generous version from the health committee which passed earlier this year.

There are more votes to come in the Senate, so this thing is far from over.

And she is getting heat from the GOP for her vote and are looking to strip her of a chance at a chairmanship. Adam Green writes:

From The Hill, "Sens: Snowe may be risking a high perch on healthcare reform vote":

Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) is risking a shot at becoming the top Republican on an influential Senate committee by backing Democratic healthcare legislation, according to senators on the panel.

..."A vote for healthcare would be something that would weigh on our minds when it came time to vote," said a Republican on Commerce, who said Snowe would otherwise be assured of the ranking member post if not for the healthcare debate.

Wow. The GOP is doing something to her that we've been asking Harry Reid to do to Holy Joe. Remember when we asked Reid to strip Joe of his chairmanship because he campaigned with McCain?

Harry told us that Lieberman is with the Dems on everything except the war?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."

Here's Joe attacking the public option.

Lieberman is a big NO on the Public Option, now calls it 'universal access' for health care. I'm NOT kidding

Lieberman has been standing in the way of health-care reform all along.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman affirmed on Tuesday what progressive health care reform advocates have long feared: At this juncture, he is likely to oppose a public option for health insurance coverage.

--

For Democrats, it was a shot to the gut -- the latest so-called centrist lawmaker from within their own party ranks speaking out against one of their most cherished aspects of health care reform. For all the angst Lieberman has caused within Democratic circles the past few years, he was supposed to be an ally on domestic issues.

He also joined the Republicans when they said they wanted to slow things down.

We want Lieberman stripped if he stands in the way of an up-or-down vote, but as usual the Democratic leadership refuses to dig in.

From Politico, "Dem leaders brush off the left":

Now, more than 79,000 people have signed a Progressive Change Campaign Committee petition urging Reid to strip the chairmanship of any Democratic senator who votes to filibuster health care reform.

The response from Reid’s No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): "We’ve never done that. We’re not going to do that."

Durbin said the petitioners needed to "count to 60 and understand we need to be together, and there are times when we need to work out our differences."

"This is a silly and unnecessary distraction that is not going to happen — period," added a Senate Democratic leadership aide. "Given how important this is to the rest of his agenda, it is up to President Obama to help the leadership to hold the caucus together."

The GOP threatens Snowe and the Dems do nothing to the appeasers of the obstructionist right. It's infuriating.

It's all about that up-or-down vote, and it's something we need to push hard on, as Digby says:

Anyway, those last comments probably tell us where the filibuster issue is, in my opinion. The leadership aide says that Obama needs to step up to twist those arms, which one assumes from the comment, he is not doing. And Dick Durbin, who is Obama's staunchest supporter in the Senate, is basically saying that nobody's going to play hardball. So, there you have it. At least for today.

As I've been writing for a while, it's all about cloture. There's no need for them to vote for the final bill, they just need to allow their president and the people of the United States to have a simple up or down vote on health care reform. And there is a cluster of egos in the centrist caucus (not the least of whom is Holy Joe) that is getting ready to stamp their little feet and hold their breath until they turn blue unless someone, goddamn it, finally understands that they are the most important people in the world.

Please sign Adam Green's petition to Harry Reid:

I'd expect weakness from Reid and lameness from Lieberman/Bayh/Landrieu. Dick Durbin being completely unstrategic -- I wouldn't have expected that as much. Shame on him. Tomorrow, the PCCC delivers our petitions to Harry Reid telling him to get a backbone. Sign it here.