Morning Must Reads – Survey says… No health bill soon

The Senate Finance bill is important to the effort because it allows many Democrats who would have to walk away if faced with only the Kennedy and Waxman bills to say they are still at the table.

That’s why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been so hopeful that the group of six bipartisan negotiators led by Finance Chairman Max Baucus would have something done next week. But Baucus closed the door on that hope late Thursday night, saying that there might be a draft… maybe, but no committee votes as the full Senate takes up the matter of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

The news came as House Democrats got well underway with ripping each other apart before they leave town today.

The dog days for health care continue.

“The Energy and Commerce Committee began what was expected to be a marathon debate on the legislation, a day after Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) cut a deal with four moderate Blue Dog Democrats on his panel that pulled the bill toward the political center.

Among other things, Mr. Waxman, who hoped to finish action Friday, agreed to changes that would ease the bill’s impact on small business and dilute the power of the proposed new public health plan. Under the deal, the public plan would negotiate payment rates directly with health-care providers, rather than relying on the already-low rates used by Medicare, the health program for the elderly.

The change outraged liberals. They warned that if rates weren’t pegged to Medicare, the new plan couldn’t guarantee it would be a low-cost alternative to private insurers. More than 50 liberal Democrats vowed to oppose the legislation on the floor if the changes aren’t reversed. “We’re going to fight this with every bit of our strength,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.).”

For Email Marketing you can trust

 
Washington Post — Industry Is Generous To Influential Bloc

 

Writer Dan Eggen sees nefarious motives for House Blue Dog Democrats to oppose outlandish deficit spending on health care. The money they get from health companies, Eggen takes particular offense at Rep. Mike Ross (a former Arkansas pharmacist!) taking PhRMA dough and then barking up a storm over spending a trillion dollars on health care. The overcooked implication is that the Blue Dogs are trying to stop a health care plan to protect the profits of their political patrons.

But Eggen and the liberal groups he approvingly quotes as saying the dogs are no better than Republicans miss the point. The Blue Dogs are in the process of selling out on health care and they’re doing so to the benefit of the companies that donate money to them. And that’s easy because the plans supported by the White House and the Democratic leadership could be a bonanza for insurers and drugmakers with just a few tweaks.

“Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two “health-care lunches” at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.

Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign contributions from the health-care sector than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and  John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.”

 
Washington Post — Polling Helps Obama Frame Message in Health-Care Debate

Someone at the White House decided that it would be OK to let their chief pollster give a speech about how the message on health care is shaped by constant, obsessive polling. Maybe they assumed that because Joel Benenson was speaking to the Economic Club of Canada, no one would notice. But writer Michael Shear got a transcript of the remarks made in June and found Benenson to be pretty far out of touch for guy whose business is supposed to be public opinion.

Aside from reinforcing the image of Admiral Obama dithering on the poop deck and looking for constant reassurance from polls, the speech was shockingly overconfident about a plan that is now sinking fast in public esteem. If this guy is so good, why is the message he helped craft doing so badly?

“Benenson said Obama’s polling operation goes beyond the ‘top-line questions’ that most pollsters ask, delving into areas that sometimes seem like tangents. He said that many pollsters think voters are ‘rational and logical’ but that his team also focuses on their fears and emotions.

‘I believe the more we know about underlying values and attitudes, and those deeply held attitudes that shape what people think, what they bring to the table, the more we can fine-tune a message,’ Benenson told the audience.”

 

New York Times – Big Banks Paid Billions in Bonuses Amid Wall St. Crisis

The White House today will be touting soon-to-be released GDP numbers as an indication that the recession is fading. Economists predict that the economy will have shrunk by 1.5 percent from April through June, as opposed to 5.5 percent on the previous quarter.

But in an uncertain climate where taxes, carbon regulations and health insurance requirements are all prone to change, businesses still aren’t hiring.

And if there is one thing that people hate in a recession, it’s fat cats getting fatter at someone else’s expense.

And New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that the seven forms that soaked up the most money from the Wall Street bailout gave bonuses of $1 million or more to at least 5,000 employees for their work in 2008.

This will spur President Obama to get even tougher on executive pay and remind voters just how much they hate bailouts, because it’s not the bonuses, it’s who pays for the bonuses.

Writers Louise Story and Eric Dash explain:

“The report suggests that those roughly 5,000 people — a small subset of the industry — accounted for more than $5 billion in bonuses. At Goldman, just 200 people collectively were paid nearly $1 billion in total, and at Morgan Stanley, $577 million was shared by 101 people.

All told, the bonus pools at the nine banks that received bailout money was $32.6 billion, while those banks lost $81 billion.

Some compensation experts questioned whether the bonuses should have been paid at all while the banks were receiving government aid.

 ‘There are some real ethical questions given the bailouts and the precariousness of so many of these financial institutions,’ said Jesse M. Brill, an outspoken pay critic who is the chairman of CompensationStandards.com, a research firm in California. ‘It’s troublesome that the old ways are so ingrained that it is very hard for them to shed them.’

 

New York Times — ‘Clunkers’ Auto Rebate Plan So Popular That It’s Broke

Who knew that free money would be so popular?

Congress put a billion dollars into a plan for encouraging people to buy new cars with $4,500 rebates. Four weeks later, all the money had been given away.

A bit of a misnomer, the bipartisan “clunker” bill was said to encourage fuel efficiency, but was so lax that in some cases participants were able to buy the same models they already drove. The pass-through subsidy for carmakers moved 250,000 vehicles in a month as subsidized buyers came into contact with dealers – some of whom are soon to close – with massive overstocks.

But if a little is good then a lot is better, and don’t be surprised if Congress decides to double down on clunkers.

Writer Matthew Wald explains how it happened and the effect on the scrap market:

“The Transportation Department had begun accepting applications for the rebates on Monday, when rules putting the program in place took effect. But car dealers had been accumulating the applications since July 1, when Congress put the law into effect.

The program had two goals: aiding the ailing car industry and improving fuel economy of the vehicles on the road.

Cars submitted under the program were to be junked. They had to be less than 25 years old and have a fuel economy, as rated by the window sticker, of 18 miles a gallon or less.

The size of the rebate depended on the fuel economy of the replacement vehicle. Consumers were also supposed to receive the scrap value of their trade-ins.”

Image


For Email Marketing you can trust