(This is as good a place as any to discuss a rising issue: should progressives vote against a health care reform package that does not include a public option. Markos says vote for Obamacare. Kucinich says kill the bill and try again later. I'm with Markos and Historian. (Oops, promoted this over Charley's bump of Lanugo's post. Switchboards are lighting up here at BMG folks). - promoted by Bob Neer)
Just when it seems that the Democrats might actually be able to stand for something and take a major step toward curbing insurance industry abuses and making certain that tens of millions of Americans gain health insurance out comes Representative Capuano prepared to stab President Obama in the back with a strong suggestion that mighty Mike will vote against HCR.
Just a quick word from the ground in the MA-8th. I called the office a couple of hours ago, and it sounded as though they were pretty busy...I got put on hold five times in the course of our conversation. When I did manage to register my profound disappointment in anything other than a strong "yes" vote for HCR, they said thank you and hung up. My co-worked called five minutes ago, though, and when he got through they made a point to say that Rep. Capuano isn't actually voting no, just "leaning" towards a no vote. So they're definitely hedging, and this may be an opportunity for democracy to act...I'm calling all my friends to call the district office, and get the sense this will rightfully be a lead balloon in our district.
Putting it mildly. Keep calling. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
Just picked this up over at Talking Points Memo - saying my main man Mike is wary of voting yes for the Senate bill because he's afraid it can't get fixed. Gives some sound reasons but still I think he has to keep the eye on the prize.
I guess he emailed supporters saying this:
House Members will now likely be asked to vote on the Senate bill without changes, making it available to the President for his signature.
Congress will then vote on amendments to that legislation through a process known as reconciliation. At this writing, it is not at all clear what legislative changes will be made to the final bill. Reconciliation is a complicated and dangerous process. In this instance, it requires the House to adopt the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign the reconciled bill that "fixes" any problems in the existing Senate bill. There is great risk in this course of action.
Maybe this is a negotiating tactic. Caps is tight with Pelosi and I can't see him letting her down come game time. But to be sure, it probably is time to get on the phones to his office.
They have come this far and have to get it done. If it requires the House taking a leap of faith that the Senate does what needs doing on reconciliation then its a leap worth taking.
In testimony this afternoon, and in a press availability immediately afterward, Governor Patrick strongly urged the legislature to pass his jobs bill that would (among other things) control health insurance premium hikes and provider costs -- and called out Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill for failing to propose anything constructive on these crucial issues. In case you missed it, the Gov's bill would control insurance premiums and provider costs by conferring enhanced authority on the Commissioner of Insurance (who actually already has the authority to disapprove premium hikes) and the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (which would be given new authority over providers). Rate increases that exceed benchmarks based on the rate of inflation for medical services would be presumptively disapproved.
First, the video of the presser, in which the Gov explains some of what his bill does; why it's needed now; and who isn't offering any constructive solutions (hint: their names rhyme with "faker" and "mayhill"):
Excellent. "The challengers are missing in action." Anyway, the Gov's testimony is here. Here are highlights of what the bill does (from a Gov's office press release):
Hey, he's got his book deal and a cushy new job. Why should he care about Massachusetts families who are hurting: they are not the out of state conservatives who funded his campaign and will try to push him through again in two years. As to health care, Senator Brown continues his long march to the Republican villages of Too Bad for You and Sorry, I Can't Help You. Link to H.R. 4213. DNC email:
U.S. Senator Scott Brown voted Wednesday against legislation that would extend jobless benefits such as unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies for families in Massachusetts who are struggling to find work. Senator Brown's vote could have cost many families in Massachusetts unemployment insurance and health care, further hurting already-struggling folks in these difficult times.
Please find below a statement from DNC Northeast Regional Press Secretary Michael Czin:
"It's bad enough that Republicans spent eight years backing the policies that led to the current economic crisis, but now Republicans in the Senate like Senator Brown are slamming the door on Bay Staters by voting against extending unemployment benefits and health care assistance for jobless workers.
(And if Scott Brown has anything to say about it, they may struggle to get health care too, if they are a pregnant woman in an emergency room. The first response to Senator Brown should be to elect a Democrat to his seat in the MA Senate. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Dear BMG,
We have a crisis on our hands in Massachusetts.
Every day as a doctor in the emergency room, I see that people are struggling. They are struggling to find affordable health care. They are struggling to find good, sustainable jobs. They are struggling to find some hope of recovery in a recession that is weighted on the backs of working families and has taken from those who already have the least.
You met me recently through a Left Ahead podcast and a follow-up blog post on BMG. I'm the candidate running for the State Senate seat formerly held by Scott Brown who believes that progressive values can make real, meaningful change in the Commonwealth. Now is not the time to disown government, but to make it work better for us.
With this election, we have the opportunity to show Massachusetts - and symbolically, the nation - that our progressive values of affordable, quality health care, sustainable job growth, and a fair, solid public education belong in crucial debates regarding our future. But, I need your help to make this happen.
Here are some of the best ways you can help the campaign today:
1. Contribute to our campaign at www.petersmulowitz.com. Then, join Act Blue and help us continue to raise the money needed to get our message out by asking your friends, family, and colleagues to donate along with you (www.actblue.com)
2. Host a phone from home party from your house with you and your friends to identify supporters.
3. Come join us knocking on doors and volunteer on primary day, Tuesday, April 13th.
If you can do any of the above, please contact our campaign today at smulowitzforsenate@gmail.com or 781.444.0881.
Your support today brings us one step closer to putting a progressive Democrat in the State House. The stakes are high. With just under five weeks left until the Democratic Primary, we must come together and not lose this chance.
And as always, if you have any questions or want to find out other ways to get involved, please visit www.petersmulowitz.com.
Thank you so much,
Peter Smulowitz
Candidate for State Senate
Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex
(Bumped, for glory, and because this is great advice for Massachusetts. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Adam Reilly's got a great article about the power -- and ubiquity -- of conservative talk radio, yes ... even in Massachusetts. He correctly faults Candidate Coakley for not bothering to show up and call in to these stations, thus giving herself an opportunity to explain herself, and blunt or divert criticism. (Call this "Massachusetts-specific contigency" #53,006.)
Look, I've been on Graham's show. I've been on Braude's NECN show, which is not softball BP, even for libs. Hey, it's challenging. But you know what? It's fun. It forces a discipline of making your point forcefully and economically -- before the commercial break. I mean ... if you can't do that, you just shouldn't be in politics, IMO. It's not some kind of ancillary skill -- it's one of the most important for a candidate.
And when you're the governor or US Representative, the host is more likely to treat you with a modicum of respect than some blogger.
And if Dennis and Callahan (or whomever) say no, they're "not interested" in having you? Put that out in public! "Talk Show Hosts XYZ Afraid Bill Democrat Will Eat Their Lunch On Air".
This is very good, and quite unexpected news -- yet another item in the Governor's current winning streak.
A staunchly pro-free enterprise business group yesterday embraced price controls for the state's health-care industry, saying sykrocketing medical expenses have reached a "crisis point" that's financially crushing small businesses.
The surprise move by the Associated Industries of Massachusetts went one step further than Gov. Deval Patrick, who recently proposed "soft caps" on insurance-premium rate increases and on medical-provider contracts with insurers.
Richard Lord, AIM's president, said his group backs temporary caps on specific medical procedures and services, tied to the 2009 median prices for services throughout the state.
As the article says, AIM actually goes further than the Governor's plan. But that's great for the Governor, because by doing so, AIM has given substantial cover to legislators who otherwise might be worried that Patrick's cost control proposal would be perceived (incorrectly) as anti-business. In fact, it is very much pro-business, because these costs are killing small businesses around the state. AIM sensibly recognizes that:
[AIM president Richard] Lord said he's aware that AIM's support for heavy government intervention, via price controls, is unusual for a business group.
"We don't take this lightly," he said. "But we do feel we've reached a crisis point for small businesses."
Meanwhile, our friends at RMG hilariously claim that Patrick is "lying" about Charlie Baker being MIA on this issue because, well, Baker thinks transparency is a good idea. Look, everyone thinks transparency is a good idea, and in the long run it might help bring down costs as part of a comprehensive cost control strategy. But transparency by itself is not going to do a damn thing for the small businesses who are facing gigantic hikes in their health insurance rates this year. Patrick has a plan to do something about that. AIM -- traditionally one of the most free-market, anti-regulatory groups in the state -- is pretty much on board with it. Where is Charlie Baker?
His campaign said that Baker was not available to comment.
Gov. Deval Patrick says he's "open" to doing battle in the lion's den of conservative talk radio.... [Said Patrick:] "I'm proud to be a Democrat. But I didn't run to be governor of the Democrats. I'm not running to be governor of the Democrats this time."
A Patrick aide said the governor's advisers are even considering putting him on with Howie Carr, the Herald columnist and WRKO-AM (680) afternoon-drive gabber who many Bay State liberals and Patrick backers consider public enemy number one.
As Charley and I said a few weeks back, this is a great idea. There's very little downside -- of course the host and many of the callers are going to be hostile. They're hostile already. But the upside is considerable, because a lot of the listeners who don't call in, but who listen to WRKO and WTKK regularly, are persuadable. If Howie, Michael, and the rest of the gang are never challenged, then the message is completely one-sided, and those listeners are lost. But if the Gov goes on and makes his case in person, you may just get some of those folks to listen, and to realize that their hosts have not been telling them the whole natural truth.
I do adore the self-importance of these talk radio guys, though. Check this out.
"Sure, I'll have anybody on," said Carr. "He has to call me. That's the deal."
HAHAHAHA!! No, Howie. The Governor comes on your show when he wants to. That's the deal. I will say, as I've said before, that I think it is much better for the Gov to do these appearances in-studio rather than via call-in. You go into their house, you shake the host's hand, you sit down, and you have a conversation. Governor Patrick does that better than anyone. It's worth the extra time out of the schedule to get right in their faces.
And then there's this:
WTKK afternoon-drive host Jay Severin said he's never invited Patrick on his show. "No, this governor has never appeared, nor has he ever been invited to appear on my show. The reason: candor," Severin wrote in an e-mail. "Should he ever appear, my duty to my audience (and myself) would be a series of brutal questions."
Ooooooh, "brutal questions." I'm sure the Gov is shaking in his booties. Please. Jay, you seriously think the Gov can't handle your little radio show? The truth is, you can't handle the truth. To coin a phrase.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this. It's good for the Governor, and it's good for the process. Bring it on.
With 40 Senators on the record in support of passing a public option by majority vote, we've proven that the majority of Senate Democrats are ready to get the job done. All it takes now is leadership. It only takes one senator to offer an amendment from the Senate floor to bring the inclusion of a public option to a vote this year.
It would be a truly marvelous thing if the election of Scott Brown scared the Obama administration and the Democratic Party enough to make them actually lead on this and other issues and enact substantive change in accordance with the Constitution, which requires only 50 votes in the Senate plus the VP to make laws.
Patrick told the Herald he would reject a compromise that would allow slots at racetracks up until the first resort-style casino is built in the Bay State.
"I don't think we will ever get the destination resort casinos if we have slots at racetracks," he said. "The slots are a cash cow for the developers, and a destination resort casino can be very prosperous too, but they have to commit to a significant investment to do that." ... "I am not trying to be a jerk," he said. "I am crazy about the speaker. We have a great working relationship. But I haven't seen anything to persuade me to change a position I've held since I settled on this subject a couple of years ago."
Here's one way this could play out. The legislature is not going to move a bill without racinos, IMHO; Speaker DeLeo has made that clear enough. So a bill with a destination resort or two, plus slots at the tracks, makes it through the House -- but quite possibly not with a veto-proof majority -- and easily clears the Senate. Patrick then vetoes it, on the ground that racinos run the risk of too many social costs without the countervailing economic benefits. Then, if the House can't override, it dies.
If you hate casinos, and if your enthusiasm for Governor Patrick suffered as a result of his casino position, how would you take his veto of a racino bill? If you wrote him off as a result of the casino thing, could you be persuaded to reconsider?
Didn't get a chance to post on this when it was first announced last week, but it's still excellent news. Press release (no link):
Governor Deval Patrick today announced that the Commonwealth's bond ratings have been affirmed by the three major rating agencies, all of whom cited the Governor's responsible and proactive stewardship of the Commonwealth's finances during the current economic downturn as a leading credit strength.
Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investor Services and Standard & Poor's all affirmed the Commonwealth's credit ratings at AA, Aa2, and AA, respectively, with a stable outlook.
And what, exactly, do they like so much?
Moody's cites as the first credit strength of the Commonwealth, "Effective management during economic downturns, with a willingness and ability to promptly identify and close gaps through use of both new revenues and spending reductions." ...
In affirming the Commonwealth's bond rating, Fitch acknowledges the Governor's "record of prudent financial management" and says its "key rating driver" is the Governor's "continued timely action to ensure budget balance and maintenance of an adequate budgeted reserve position to protect against further downside risk."
Standard & Poor's explains that its stable outlook for the Commonwealth reflects the Administration's "proactive approach to managing budget volatility throughout this recession. Revenue adjustments have been frequent and gap-closing actions have been swift, successfully restoring balance. While diminished, the budget stabilization fund retains a balance that will continue to provide flexibility to manage the current fluid revenue environment."
Well, big deal. The other states must be doing just as well -- after all, surely any state government would do whatever was necessary to keep up its bond rating, right? Er, not so much.
Following on akloftus's post about Charlie Baker's ignorance of what's actually been happening on Beacon Hill recently, the Patrick administration announced today that it has reached agreements with a number of public employee unions that will save the Commonwealth tens of millions of dollars and will allow the administration to protect key services.
The Patrick-Murray Administration has reached agreement with nearly 14,000 union workers on two new contracts that will save the Commonwealth more than $40 million and help mitigate employee layoffs.
About 11,000 members of Units 1, 3, and 6 represented by the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) ratified by an 85% margin contract revisions that will save taxpayers an estimated $36.4 million over the next three years, including roughly $4.5 million this fiscal year.
Similarly, about 3,000 members of Unit 9, represented by the Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists (MOSES), ratified by a 75% margin contract revisions that will save taxpayers an estimated $6 million over the next three years, including roughly $760,000 this fiscal year.
But, hey, I'm sure Charlie Baker could say the same about the Welducci administration, right? Ummm...
These contracts, along with others the Governor announced earlier this year (here and here), mark the first time since collective bargaining was established in the Commonwealth that a Governor has successfully negotiated such compromises.
(Charles Baker served hot and bothered on BMG. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Lt. Gov. Tim Murray has called out Charlie Baker for his perpetual dishonesty on the campaign trail, while responding to a story that first appeared here on BMG about a state employee named Erica.
For those who haven't heard it, here's the original audio of the call from Erica, who talked to a very condescending Charlie Baker on WBZ radio March 4.
Read the LG's response below from State House News Service. I can’t post the entire story yet due to SHNS copyright rules, but excerpts follow:
L.G. HITS BAKER ON HARVARD PILGRIM SALARY, QUESTIONS FACTS
By Michael Norton STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MARCH 9, 2010 -- Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray attacked Republican gubernatorial contender Charles Baker Monday night, likening him to Pinocchio and questioning his claims regarding his role in Harvard Pilgrim Health Care’s turnaround, the financing of the Big Dig and the payroll sacrifices made by state employees.
“He’s had a problem during the course of this campaign, I think, with the truth,” Murray said of Baker, the former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim and a high-ranking member of the Weld and Cellucci administrations, during a radio interview. “For a guy who some people describe as the smartest guy in government, he just consistently doesn’t seem to have his facts right.”
Murray took issue with Baker’s assertion during a radio interview last week that state government hasn’t made payroll sacrifices similar to those made in the private sector. Murray said he and Gov. Deval Patrick, as well as “thousands” of government managers, had taken unpaid furloughs, that public employee unions had made contract “concessions” and that state managers were paying more towards the costs of their health insurance.
“The last person who should be lecturing anybody about taking pay cuts is a health insurance executive,” Murray added, noting that Baker had made $1.7 million at Harvard Pilgrim in 2008 and $1.3 million for seven months of work at the health insurance company last year. “That’s over $6,000 a day,” Murray said.
(Excellent work GGW. We'll winnow this down each week based on scores reported in the comments with the final, of course, in April. Tweet! Jump ball! - promoted by Bob Neer)
March Madness is again upon us. Let's name the BMG Sweet 16!
Apologies in advance for misclassifications, errors, and omissions. Off top of my head.
Criteria: Quality 70%, Quantity 30% (else we wouldn't have much to read).
Eb3 Top Seed - Bye to Finals
ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY BRACKET
(only 2 competing)
Sabutai
vs
KBusch
BROOKLINE BRACKET
BrooklineTom
vs.
StomV
BIG HEART CONFERENCE CHAMPS
Judy Meredith
v
AmberPaw
COUCH FIGHT
Lynne
v
Mr. Lynne
K-12 SHOWDOWN
(*Among people who don't seem to work for schools, and nonetheless like this stuff)
RyePower12
vs.
Petr
RED REGIONAL "MATURE" BRACKET
Peter Porcupine
vs.
JohnD
Why do I ask, you might wonder? Well, here's the first line of Michael Graham's Herald column on Mitt Romney and his health care problem:
How do you say "chutzpah" in Mormon?
Hmm. I didn't realize "Mormon" was a language. But apparently it's OK to ask how you would translate certain Yiddish words into different faiths. And I think it's certainly fair to call "wingnut" a faith to which Michael Graham subscribes. Hence the title of my post. The hilarity just never stops around here.
Anyway, gratuitous Mormon-baiting aside, Graham's column supplies an interesting rundown-from-the-right of the disastrous position Romney has put himself in by trying the thread the needle between opposing President Obama's health care plan and not completely repudiating the one he had a role in here.
Mitt Romney is out on a book tour insisting that Romneycare and Obamacare have very little in common. "It's the difference between a racehorse and a donkey," is Romney's line. And besides, the former Bay State governor writes in his new book, "the plan is working." ...
But for Romney to say "there's a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing" is . . . well, my Mormon friends would call it a violation of the 9th Commandment. [Oy. There he goes again.] ...
But the basic elements of Obamacare are all there: an individual mandate that nearly everyone buy insurance; subsidized insurance based on income; a non-insurance "tax" and employer mandates. The Cato Institute calls it a mirror-image of Obamacare.
Romney, on the other hand, calls the individual mandate "the ultimate conservative plan." So Barack Obama is a conservative?
Mitt, you gotta lay off the unpasteurized milk . . .
In related news, yet another aspect of the health care issue is a threat to Romney:
Romney's landmark 2006 universal health-care law allows low-income residents covered under Commonwealth Care to get taxpayer-funded abortions. Abortion has become a lightning rod in the highly charged battle over President Obama's health-care push.... The plan's abortion funding came under renewed attack this weekend, with political blogger and former Atlantic Monthly writer Matthew Yglasias speculating on Twitter that it was "enough to sink (his) 2012 bid." ...
Though Romney has virtually disavowed his health-care plan - the first of its kind in the nation - White House aides have acknowledged it was a "template" for Obama's proposal, which could only mean for grief for Romney, according to Boston University political professor Thomas Whalen.
Said Whalen: "He's been running away from the single accomplishment of his administration now that the Obama health-care bill is using the Massachusetts model of health-care reform."
While we unfortunately have to wait several years to replace Senator Brown as a US Senator, thankfully there's already an ongoing special election to replace his seat in the State Senate. Today, LeftAhead spoke with Dr. Peter Smulowitz, a progressive running as a Democrat in the primary.
His resume is impressive -- a physician in the ER and deeply involved in forming health care policy across the state, with degrees from Cornell, the University of California and Harvard. His opponents are State Reps Lida Harkins (D) in the primary and Richard Ross (R) in the general, should he make it that far.
The front page of today's Herald blares, in its usual 143-point type, "Buyback Bonanza - Cash me if you can: Even Deval's staffers took advantage of vacay perk." The article goes on to report that the Gov's
top strategist and 21 other exiting staffers cashed in more than $90,500 in unused vacation days last year. Three of Patrick's ex-staffers, including former chief of staff Doug Rubin, got $11,000-plus in vacation pay upon leaving. Rubin, who made $128,000 as his top dog, now acts as the governor's re-election campaign guru, refused to comment.
Oooooh - shocking! An $11,000 payout! By calling this a "vacay perk," the Herald is apparently trying to make the case that this is some government boondoggle that is unavailable to Joe and Jane PrivateSectorEmployee. But the fact is that state law requires all employers, private or public sector, to compensate departing employees for vacation days accrued but not used. Employers have some leeway in making rules about whether you have to use vacation days within a certain time of accruing them, and those rules vary from employer to employer. But the basic principle is the same: if you earn a vacation day and haven't used it when you leave your job, you get paid for it.
Furthermore, I have confirmed that the Governor's Office practice is the following: (1) you can roll over a maximum two weeks of vacation time from one year into the next; and (2) rolled-over time expires at the end of the year into which it was rolled. That is to say, if an employee entitled to 4 weeks vacation had rolled over 2 weeks from Year 0 into Year 1, potentially allowing him to take a total of 6 weeks off in Year 1, he could roll a maximum of 2 weeks into Year 2, regardless of how much or how little vacation time he actually took in Year 1. And you can cash out only when you leave your job. That seems to me a reasonable policy. It is no doubt more generous than some in the private sector, but it certainly doesn't strike me as unduly so.
(Thanks for this, Brian and Health Care For All. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
Health Care For All has released a powerful new video in support of national health care reform. Massachusetts patients, doctors, students, consumer advocates, and representatives of small business and labor come together and talk about why we need national health reform and why it is good for the Commonwealth.
A quick follow up to my post on 2 March about Governor Patrick's laudable effort to ban the sale of baby bottles and spill-proof cups made with the chemical Bisphenol-A, a substance viewed with "some concern" by the FDA for very young children, that has been declared a toxin in Canada and banned from such products -- and the otherwise-excellent-in-many-respects Senator Benjamin Downing's startling opposition to the measure (perhaps because he has a big chemical company in his district, or maybe because he thinks a long-term experiment on the health consequences of this substance using Massachusetts babies as the subjects is a reasonable economic trade-off -- positions on legislation speak louder than carefully parsed statements -- or perhaps for some other reason).
The bottom line is that this is worthy legislation that every Massachusetts Senator should support, and the chemical companies too, for that matter, unless they want to wind up as PR pariahs like the cigarette companies over the long run through opposition to this and other sensible health regulations.
