Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A LESS EXPANSIVE PLAN? There was a fair bit of chatter this morning about John Edwards' proposal to revoke the health insurance of "all political appointees," as Mike Allen reported this morning. A statement by the Edwards campaign later in the day described the plan as applying to "all senior political appointees in both branches of government." Senior appointees are generally understood as those who require Senate confirmation, which includes a fairly deep bench in some of the agencies, but is not so broad a category as "all political appointees." Now, at the SEIU Political Action Conference, Edwards described the plan as applying to "every Cabinet member," which is an even smaller group of people, and only one branch of government (the executive).
A health insurance-revocation plan restricted to Cabinet members would not have any impact on Edwards' ability to recruit the best people he can for the essential political appointee jobs that were so poorly filled during the Bush years -- and will impact considerably fewer people than we were hearing about this morning.
UPDATE: Mark Korblau, national spokesman for Edwards, says that no changes should be inferred from the above statements, and that the plan does indeed apply to "all political appointees." So my earlier objections stand; I just don't think it's a good management practice to threaten revoke the health insurance of public servants and their families as a legislative pressure tactic.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (7)
Well, then, that's a terrible plan. He needs to revoke the health benefits of all elected officals, appointees, and employees of the federal government until Congress figures out how to lower the national health care bill. After all, it's our tax money.
You know, if the Republican Party wanted to lower the national healthcare bill, that's what they would do.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 6:44 PM
It's a gimmick.
I HATE it when people like Michael Bloomberg serve and make a show of only taking $1 dollar in pay or no pay. Being a civil servant is an important JOB and should be paid accordingly. Monkeying with benefits says government service is a game - it isn't.
This Edwards proposal is a silly sideshow to his serious healthcare proposal.
Posted by: joejoejoe | September 17, 2007 8:12 PM
"Monkeying with benefits says government service is a game - it isn't."
It is a game if they make it a game, and I believe they have. Pull their pay, too.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 8:30 PM
I don't want to hear about proposals that score political points by making Congress look bad. That's electioneering, not governance.
I want plans that actually have a shot at passing and causing some real change.
Posted by: lux | September 17, 2007 8:59 PM
Being a civil servant is an important JOB and should be paid accordingly.
My spouse is a fed so I wholeheartedly agree.
However, don't forget that no matter what, Congress always manages to vote itself a pay raise.
Posted by: corinne | September 17, 2007 9:38 PM
They used to say a conservative is a liberal who got mugged-now they say a liberal is a conservative who got sick.
Congress seems to mobilize really, really well when it comes to taking care of diseases that have affected them or their families personally. there's lots of obscure diseases that have had reserch money poured into them because someone a politican cared about had them.
Frankly, I think it might be interesting to see how motivated some of them--especially the sick ones--get in solving the uninsured problem when they find out that in their red state, nobody will send them a policy.
Posted by: anon | September 17, 2007 9:59 PM
"Frankly, I think it might be interesting to see how motivated some of them--especially the sick ones--get in solving the uninsured problem when they find out that in their red state, nobody will send them a policy."
I agree. We have a real problem solving this issue in that *a lot of people* have been systematically pampered by their employers and they're not in touch with what it means to go without. Nobody talks about this because people seem to prefer to portray everyone as victimized by the current system. I don't necessarily agree.
Not that I'm in favor of employers dumping everyone in the open market just so they get the same experience as people who do find themselves dumped in the open market, through job loss etc. But it might not be such a terrible idea to let the peoples' representatives have that experience, thereby representing the have nots instead of the haves.
It's only temporary. What's the problem?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:26 AM