Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MORE ON BAUCUS AND HEALTH REFORM.
Matt is right to remind folks that Max Baucus is arguably the very last Democrat liberals would want to put in charge of health reform. His blog post has some good reasons why, and so too does his article from a few years back, and Ari Berman's article on "K Street's Favorite Democrat." This is a guy, as I say in my piece yesterday, who folded so easily and eagerly to Bush on Medicare Part D and the tax cuts that The New Republic editorialized in favor of stripping him of his chairmanship. The New Republic!
That said, I've also talked with Senators and Hill staffers who are longtime Baucus skeptics -- including the most liberal members of the body -- and they uniformly pronounce themselves surprised and impressed with how he's handled health reform thus far. That's not to say they're relaxed. One Senator fretted that Baucus is the type of Democrat who could give health reform a try, back down to a couple piece of incremental legislation, and still sleep easy at night. But the fact that he's cleared Finance's schedule, that he's holding preliminary hearings, that he's publicly and repeatedly committing himself to reform, that he's weighting witnesses towards reform, that he's staffing up on health care, that he's often the last Senator in the room at reform hearings -- those are meaningful signs, and for now, they've left observers cautiously optimistic.
This is where organizing matters. The argument of my article was that the Senate Finance Committee (and, for that matter, the Senate) is the key body for health reform. Absolutely enormous amounts of energy -- including by me -- have been expended pushing the presidential Democrats towards better positions in campaign proposals that won't be implemented. That was useful insofar as it effectively conveyed the importance of health reform to the Democratic base. But that message has been conveyed, and the organizing energy now needs to shift to the Senate. As I wrote in the piece, "By publicly asserting jurisdiction on health reform, the Finance Committee is also taking responsibility for it. If the effort fails, it will be on their heads. And none will receive more blame then Baucus." The question is whether he, and his colleagues on the Committee, will fear failure and the consequences of blame, or whether they'll figure a couple irritated editorials will be better for their careers then sticking their neck out on this issue.
At the end of the day, for better or worse, Baucus is the key figure here. Progressives can't have him as an enemy, or there simply won't be health reform. But nor should they assume him an ally. They need to watch, organize, and agitate. They need to make it easy and rewarding for him to do the right thing, and hard and dangerous to fold before industry. If comprehensive health reform ends up being the right political play for Baucus, he'll happily make it. He's not ideologically opposed to the issue. But nor is he likely to lead in the absence of such an environment.
COMMENTS (11)
A few of us up in the Montana outback WILL be....
watching.
Certainly a disappointing guy
so far..and maybe WA-a-y
long in D.C.
Posted by: has_te | June 19, 2008 1:39 PM
Speaking for myself, I don't care what some Washington insiders who happen to be your friends think about it. I do care what his record has been, and what that says about his level of actually not capitulating once the battle that's going to occur starts to happen. A la FISA. You seem to be doing a lot of backpeddling lately. It's really disappointing. But not unsurprising to see these things happen whenever the outsiders start to get a taste of being on the inside.
Posted by: akaison | June 19, 2008 2:02 PM
What kind of pressure is effective with somebody like Baucus? What's the right game plan here?
Wait for Obama to give the signal (perhaps he and Michelle will do a secret handshake), and then pounce?
Posted by: Chris | June 19, 2008 2:03 PM
I always find this argument weird, but it's not about whether you care what they say. And it's not about whether you like or dislike Baucus. And it's not about who my friends are (I have sources on the Hill, but no friends who work there).
Baucus is the chair of the relevant committee for health care reform. If you care about the issue, you have to watch him closely, try to figure out what he's doing, and try to figure out what his incentives are and how to shape them. Whining about the fact that he's there doesn't do you any good. In 1994, the relevant players (the Clintons) alienated the relevant Senator (Moynihan, Baucus's predecessor), saying things like they'd "run over him," and health care went down in flames. It's not exactly a good model, though I'm sure it gave some folks a warming sense of ideological purity.
Posted by: Ezra | June 19, 2008 2:17 PM
Shorter (and improved!) Ronald Reagan:
(Sort of) Trust, but Verify!
The key may be finding out what winds Baucus' clock. We know he luvs him some (lots!) lobbyist money.
Hardball!
What kind of (effective) pressure can be brought to bear? Would grooming a potential MT challenger for his seat make a difference in having him not cave? Do we need to kidnap his family LOL? Threaten removal of his manhood? Make him a premature hero? Offer hot and cold running bimbos? Threaten to strip mine his entire state?
He must not only LEAD, he must use the chairs 'persuasive' tools on his colleagues - Senate Finance has lots of potential leverage over the entire Senate in regard to favorite programs of the Senators.
We' got to SQUEEZE and HUG, likely. Who's gonna play LBJ's role in obtaining a good result: a case where maybe ends justifying the means is correct.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | June 19, 2008 2:27 PM
This isn't about purity, but I can certainly see why you would want to pretend it is.
Posted by: akaison | June 19, 2008 2:31 PM
Baucus is the chair of the relevant committee for health care reform. If you care about the issue, you have to watch him closely, try to figure out what he's doing, and try to figure out what his incentives are and how to shape them. Whining about the fact that he's there doesn't do you any good. In 1994, the relevant players (the Clintons) alienated the relevant Senator (Moynihan, Baucus's predecessor), saying things like they'd "run over him," and health care went down in flames.
Ezra,
Wholeheartedly agree and I like that you're providing this level of legislational perspective, its relatively unique. That said while the Clintons overshot one way (Executive Branch), you're overshooting a little the other way (Legislative Branch). We've pretty much gone 10 years without an effective President (Monica years plus Bush) which may also be tainting your viewpoint. But to say that Baucus is the "key figure" is a stretch. Obama (presumably) is the key guy- first, whether health care is a 100 days priority and then second, the shape of reform needs to be consistent with his vision. Within those constructs, Baucus has a central role, but het isn't the key figure.
Posted by: wisewon | June 19, 2008 4:23 PM
Unless "reform" means a single-payer national health care system, I don't see much reason for optimism about this. And given Baucus' history, I don't have much faith that we're headed in that direction. If we wind up with something like Medicare Part D writ large, whining will be a very appropriate response. Where do you apply the pressure to turn a long-time inside player into a someone who views health care as a right rather than a profit center for insurance and pharmaceutical companies?
Posted by: janine | June 19, 2008 5:06 PM
When is the last time Progressive successfully agitated anything? Look at the total collapse on FISA which we went to the mat for.
We are fucking powerless and everyone knows it.
Posted by: MNPundit | June 19, 2008 5:15 PM
Ezra,
The last post is example of "purity" or at least closer to it than myself. My concern is univerality. How we ge there can vary. But, janine does bring up the crux of the problem. Is universality (her point about right) no longer on your table as the line to be drawn? This isn't about Obama at this point. It's a question about your position, and the difference between what politicians may say, and where an effort to push them may take them. Or have I misunderstood you? Do you not see this as the line.
Posted by: akaison | June 19, 2008 5:17 PM
I haven't read Ezra's piece or any of the recent Baucus literature linked above, so maybe this issue has been addressed and dispensed with...
What are the Senate Democratic rules on chairmanships? What discretion does the leadership have to pick their man or woman? Is it even remotely possible that an emboldened and enlarged Senate majority could engineer a Gingrichian mini-coup?
Ezra would know better than me which of these guys would be good but Rockefeller and Wyden both have impressive health care cred IIRC. Other senior Finance Committee Dems: Conrad, Bingaman and Kerry.
Posted by: BA | June 20, 2008 11:34 AM