The Baucus Factor
Ezra Klein takes a look at Max Baucus, one of the most powerful members of the U.S. Senate, and a man who’ll have a mighty hand in shaping tax or health care reform. The story makes me more inclined to believe that a major health care bill will be signed into law, but somewhat more skeptical that a good health care bill will be signed into law. A lot of people seem so jazzed up about the vital importance of passing a bill that they’ve basically committed themselves to agreeing to go along with whatever it is corrupt special interests demand.
Meanwhile, I think these are the key elements to the profile:
His appetite for pork — and his skill at wresting it for his state — is so legendary that The Washington Post branded him a “High Plains grifter.” As one former Baucus staffer put it to me, “He’s like the city councilman for the state of Montana.” And, he’s well known for his tendency to break with the Democratic Party. In 2001, he was so instrumental in passing Bush’s tax cut that he stood behind the president at the bill-signing ceremony, a visual that featured prominently in his 2002 campaign ads. [...] Much of Baucus’ cash comes from the industries most affected by his committee’s legislation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, this cycle has seen Baucus raise almost $800,000 from securities and investment firms, $565,000 from the insurance industry, and $462,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. [...]
The key event was the 2003 Medicare vote. The original Senate bill had broad bipartisan support, including from such progressive luminaries as Ted Kennedy. But the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives was a demonstration of Tom DeLay’s ability to wield raw partisan power. The two chambers met in conference committee to come up with a final bill, but Republicans largely locked Democrats out of the process. Only Baucus and John Breaux — two Democrats known and mistrusted for their moderate tendencies — were allowed in. [...] As conservative congressional analyst Norm Ornstein said at the time, Democrats with any loyalty to their party would have said, “If you don’t let in Tom Daschle — our leader, elected by the Senate to be in the room — then we’re not going in the room.” But Baucus and Breaux participated, and the bill passed.
The aftermath of the fight was rough. Many in the Democratic Caucus felt betrayed by Baucus, and there was talk of stripping him of his position on the Finance Committee. Daschle mused publicly about the need to impose more party discipline. But others I spoke to sided with Baucus. Their argument went something like this: The resulting legislation may have been deeply flawed, but it was also the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society.
To me, that Medicare rationalization is just that — a BS rationalization. Simply observing that a bad bill was also “the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society” is like a caricature of what progressive politics is supposed to be about. And this makes me worried about bigger picture health care reform.
I’d like to see health care reform in this country. But I want it to be reform that actually accomplishes something — better public health, more take home pay, more labor market flexibility, more economic growth. What I fear is a bill that’d be two parts special interest giveaway for every one part assistance to those in need, while doing little if anything to really address the structural dysfunctions in the system or tackle the roots of our public health problems. Something, in other words, like the 2003 Medicare bill.
35 Responses to “The Baucus Factor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
This is exactly what I fear, in the end what gets passed may be some bad bill that’s supported by Republicans and so-called centrist/moderate dems that would be a give away to special interests more than something that’s good for the people.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The resulting legislation may have been deeply flawed, but it was also the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society.
Please say it isn’t true that they used this justification. What a travesty, as if the objective were simply to increase entitlements rather than ameliorate a particular social condition (i.e., prescription affordability). Interesting that it was the moderates rather than the liberals offering this justification. Why not just everybody a huge SUV – that would be an even stupider and bigger entitlement giveaway.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The Medicare drug benefit has many problems, but it really was a significant step forward. We’ll never, ever go backward on it; and its biggest flaws will be repaired, eventually.
The same will be true of whatever reform comes out of the next health care initiative. In the short term, the worst case scenario would be getting the uninsured coverage without doing anything to control costs. But then we’ll have already committed to getting everyone, or almost everyone, some health care and we won’t be able to go backward on that any more than we can go backward on Medicare. I’d hope that eventually we’ll figure out we have to adopt some form of a single-payer system to achieve both universal coverage and cost control; but from a progressive perspective, getting the uninsured coverage at all—real coverage—is the main thing, at any short term cost.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I was living in MT during the 2000 election and I felt that Baucus’ decision to support the first round of tax cuts was pure opportunism — MT was intensely pro-Bush and Baucus made a decision to put his own 2002 electoral prospects over principle. He’s certainly in a better place today, so hopefully he will be less of a negative force this session.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
From: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Health care expenditures per capita 2007:
U.S. $6,096
Norway $4,080
Canada $3,173
France $3,040
Sweden $2,828
Japan $2,293
We already spend more than enough to fund a universal health system, we just don’t spend efficiently. Any “reform” that requires us to spend more (i.e. mandated insurance) is just insane, and a giveaway to special interests. We’ll see if Obama and the Democrats can reform the system without turning it into another pig out by campaign contributors.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The Baucus Factor? Don’t you mean the Max Factor?
November 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
This is the problem with Dems. No party discipline. After a move like that, Baucus should be persona non grata. Instead, we’ll be welcomed to another round of heaping pork to get him on board with any legislative agenda we want to pass.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’d like to see health care reform in this country. But I want it to be reform that actually accomplishes something — better public health, more take home pay, more labor market flexibility, more economic growth.
I also would like to see health care reform that accomplishes something.
Insuring people!
All the items you listed are important, but are for pretty obvious reasons secondary concerns. People die because they don’t have good health coverage, and they are bankrupted because they can’t pay for good health coverage. We need to fix that.
If in the process we make other progress as well, then that’s great. But writing a piece on health care reform without even talking about the uninsured and the underinsured is profoundly bizarre to me.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
DivGuy, insuring people is a means to an end, not an end in itself. What is the point of insuring people if it doesn’t accomplish exactly what Matt is advocating, i.e. better public health?
November 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Look, the guy likes him some pork. Not perhaps the most virtuous desire, but one that’s comparatively easily and readily assuaged. Rahm makes a deal: “Max, you get this pile of tasty pork chops (pointing to large pile of carefully selected pork chops – pork chops that don’t undermine what Obama is trying to do); and we get no trouble from you with health care deals. You be a good boy and we throw in a nice ambassadorship for you, OK? We all good?”
November 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Matt,
It seems to me that you left out the most important text from Ezra’s article. He says:
November 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Insuring people is economic redistributionism as much as a public health measure. That’s a big, big part of it.
But, yes, assuming good faith, public health is the other really important thing that universal health care can create, and I should have acknowledged that and been clearer.
To explain my initial skepticism, the thing is, how in the holy fuck would insuring everyone not produce better public health? It seems to me that if it didn’t, the problem would more likely be in the way we theorize and measure “public health” than in the reform itself. I think that’s where I hesitated – in context, MY’s use of the notion of “public health” seemed to be a way of obscuring real suffering assuaged under a mess of statistical measures that may or may not best map to the real situation of real bodies.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Klein doesn’t make the case that Baucus’s involvement in the Medicare bill was a decisive factor in either its passage or its overall crappiness, but he does show Baucus possesses some ability to act in the public interest otherwise. Meanwhile, lots of people voted for the incoming President and Congress on the premise that they have substantially different priorities than was the case in 2003, and a lot of those same people are paying attention to health care in a way they weren’t in 2003. A bad health care bill may still be possible, but perhaps there’s reason to think it’s a lot less likely.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Then Baucus should be Obama’s Treasury Secretary.
He can’t be any worse in the post than Larry Summers or any of the other names floated. And it gets him out of the Senate, and in particular the Senate Finance Committee. Schweitzer would appoint the replacement.
It would also reassure the Village that Obama supports the globalization consensus, without having to appoint a Clinton administration veteran who would likely backstab him later.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
People die because they don’t have good health coverage, and they are bankrupted because they can’t pay for good health coverage. We need to fix that.
There is little evidence that health insurance (or health “coverage”) has a significant effect on either the health of the population or its economic security. There is little evidence that spending more money to expand health insurance would produce a greater benefit to the health of the population than spending the money in other ways that promote better health, such as more free clinics for the uninsured, or more incentives for healthy lifestyles.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
What state is Baucus from?
Ah yes, Montana.
If the guy were from NY or Maryland or some such I’d be pissed COUGH Joe Liebermann COUGH, but considering where he’s from, I think you take what you can from the man….
(which is why I truly hope that Al Franken comes out ahead in his recount. MN is a state that SHOULD have 2 Dem Senators. Also why I’m in favor of going full out against Arlen Specter in 2010. PA is closing in on full blue status…).
November 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
while I understand fully that passing a bad health care bill would be terrible. probably enough to, ‘94 style, cost the Dems significantly in Congress, but I don’t understand what evidence there is that this is somehow entirely up to Max Baucus either. really, why is this being suggested. after all this time, all of these promises, publicly stating that Hillary Clinton would have a major role in the passage of this bill – and Obama’s going to just hand the process over to Baucus?
what are you talking about?
November 8th, 2008 at 5:06 am
It’s enough to make you think that taxpayers are better at spending their own money. More often than not, somebody like Baucus is going to be in charge.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I think that issues liek this have to be taken into account when dealin with the claim that the GOP was rejected because they “Stopped behaving like the GOP and spent like drunken sailors.”
While liberals would clearly love to beleive that the GOP was rejected fob being fiscally conservative, and that the people really want confiscatory tax rates and a huge welfare state, the fact of the matter is that to the extent that the budget hurt Republicans, it was because they were seen as spending as wildly as Democrats – but on worse bills. In other words, instead of using more fiscal discipline and spending less money than the Democrats, which was supposed to be the GOP’s strength, the GOP simply spent the money on different things, things that were generally more foolishand less popular than what the Dems would have spent on.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Re: There is little evidence that health insurance (or health “coverage”) has a significant effect on either the health of the population or its economic security.
If that were true why does anyone bother to get health insurance?
What next: “No evidence that seat belt usage reduces death and serious injury”. Which is actually true in people who aren’t in collisions just as your claim above is true for healthy people.
Sorry, some things just don’t pass the smell test, and this smells of cooked numbers. Indeed, someone’s been in the kitchen at Cato or Heritage a long time whipping up that souffle!
March 1st, 2009 at 6:04 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:54 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra