Paying the Liebergeld

Ugh. It grates terribly to have the health care bill seriously weakened out of pure spite — and that’s clearly what’s happening, as Joe Lieberman demands the withdrawal of a feature he himself was advocating just three months ago.

Paul Starr — a veteran of the Clinton attempt — says that we should just pass the thing and try to fix it later. I guess I grudgingly agree — unless Lieberman demands further changes, gutting the bill. And I have a sick feeling that he’ll do just that.

But no more. On the next big challenge, financial reform, I say do it right or not at all. And we really need to talk about changing the way the Senate works; at this rate we’re well on our way to becoming a failed state.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Louis December 15, 2009 · 12:58 pm

Try to fix it later? Fat chance. How is it possible that Joe Lieberman can gum up the works? One man? He has great health care. Lucky him.

Inthenameofprogress December 15, 2009 · 1:00 pm

Do away with the filibuster. If our country has crazily disapproves of congress, and wants them to actually do something, it’s that simple.

Either that, or make them filibuster. Is that so crazy? Make them do it.

Lisa Hirsch December 15, 2009 · 1:06 pm

I think we need to vote Joe Lieberman out of office. Sadly, I live on the other side of the country….

Servius December 15, 2009 · 1:06 pm

The more Congress does the more we disapprove. We want them to undo things.

Amon Fischedick December 15, 2009 · 1:11 pm

Professor:

You are right all socialist governments are “failed states”, and we are currently headed in that direction under this administration.

Adrian December 15, 2009 · 1:12 pm

Pass something now, extend coverage to everyone. Fix the finances later. Fix the performance after that. Fixing the performance next would be nice but I don’t see it happening w/o the funding getting squared away.

Matt December 15, 2009 · 1:12 pm

The US Senate: where good bills go to die.

Thomas Jefferson was right, we don’t need a senate.

Do away with the senate and let the people be accurately represented with their congressman (with term limits). The Senate is too corrupt…..

Mike@pvl December 15, 2009 · 1:13 pm

Paul, how is it that you can clearly see the dysfunction in our government and still call for them to have more power and authority?

Raven December 15, 2009 · 1:13 pm

If we cave on this, you think we’ll do better on the next challenge?

This is, I think, the normal way of the Senate; the not-completely-dominated-by-the-right-wing Senate we grew up with was a historical exception. From the very beginning of the Republic the Senate has been deadlocked by conservatives: the Senate that could not resolve conflicts between North and South, the Senate that could not pass anti-lynching law for 100 years.

morrishagerman December 15, 2009 · 1:15 pm

With some exceptions, the Constitution says we only need a majority to pass legislation. With the filibuster in place, we need a super majority. Do away with it… but of course, legislation that would do just that would be filibustered. Hmmm, isn’t there a book like this, “Catch 22.”

Nicole December 15, 2009 · 1:17 pm

Joe Lieberman is yet another poltician who insists on putting himself before his country or constituency. He’s becoming the Paris Hilton of Congress: self-aggrandizing and getting far more attention than his work merits.

Ben December 15, 2009 · 1:19 pm

Is it too late for campaign finance reform? Single term limits? The Cowardice of the career politician is really messing up this country.

Daniel Krause December 15, 2009 · 1:20 pm

It sounds like it is about time that the citizens of Conneticut start organizing a recall effort of Mr. Lieberman. He completely untrustworthy and insincere, and will likely not be helpful on cap n’ trade or other key legislation.

– Allan Clark December 15, 2009 · 1:21 pm

Let the filibuster go forward. Let the country watch as Joe Lieberman and the GOP senators keep the Senate from voting reform by talking against health care.

Take away Lieberman’s committee chairmanship. Write him off. If he is not with the Democrats on health care reform, nothing else matters as much.

The fact is the system is so corrupt it cannot function anymore. We are at the mercy of lobbyists at every turn. No health care reform although it is needed desperately by millions, no financial reform because it might take away huge bonuses.

Cliff December 15, 2009 · 1:21 pm

I’m not so sure it’s the structure of the Senate, rather the lack of statesmen we have running it. The Land of Jefferson is now the Land of Rove.

Robert Johnston December 15, 2009 · 1:27 pm

At this point the content of bills in the Senate no longer matters. Progressives and other Democrats who care about policy at all should support the filibuster of every bill until the nuclear option is invoked. If a health care bill is passed with Lieberman’s vote then, whether or not further watering down is involved, every piece of legislation for the remainder of the term will be held hostage by Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieux, Snowe, etc. Passing health care reform with Lieberman makes meaningful financial reform and meaningful climate legislation impossible.

If health care were the only crisis facing the country then it might be worth passing a weak but incrementally positive bill and holding off on shutting the Senate down; that, however, is not the case. The case is that paying to free the hostage will only result in further hostages being taken, and it’s time to round up and kneecap the hostage takers. The worst that happens is that nothing gets done, and that’s better than allowing things to continue as they will if Lieberman can declare victory.

Besides, the way the Democrats are going right now the Congress will be in Republican hands by 2012, and Republicans will have no qualms about holding the entire budget hostage to force a repeal of health care reform that hasn’t even been implemented yet, even though they won’t have 60 Senate seats. Any reform that passes but leaves the Democrats looking weak and hands the Senate over to Republicans is entirely chimerical.

Justin Hahn December 15, 2009 · 1:27 pm

What is the point of Lieberman even caucusing with the Democrats anymore? Why haven’t they tossed him out on his heels? He doesn’t vote with them reliably, can’t be trusted to co-operate, and just overall works his agenda.

Let the Republicans have him. The 60 person “supermajority” isn’t any good if it can’t actually be trusted on.

Pam December 15, 2009 · 1:27 pm

The Senate is an 18th century relic that should be abolished. It is profoundly unrepresentative of the population (e.g., Alaska has as many Senators as California). Because there are so few Senators and they last so long, corporations can buy power cheaply and permanently . The Senate has cheerfully approved the Iraq War, the deregulation of finance, the Bush tax cuts, and the “Patriot” Act, while fighting voting rights, civil rights, and now health care. It won’t be easy to get rid of it, but I doubt the country will survive the 21st century as a great nation with such a dysfunctional political system.

carrobin December 15, 2009 · 1:27 pm

Why are we paying salaries to these people in Congress? Obviously they’re the (already wealthy) employees of big pharma, big insurance, and big corporations on Wall Street. I’m ready to lead a dump-the-Congress movement–but I don’t have the money.

sgrAstar December 15, 2009 · 1:30 pm

For god’s sake, let them filibuster, for real. What a bunch of craven, self-interested buffoons we have in the US Senate. You’re right, Professor- we are well on our way to becoming a failed state. Argh!

book December 15, 2009 · 1:36 pm

Sensible health care reform would actually cut costs, improve care, keep insurance companies honest, and make sure that all Americans have access to American health care services, with their high cure rates and life expectancies (the best in the world), and which could also be commensurately priced, if bad Federal policies were to be corrected. To do so, it would need to have the following:
• Tort reform (cutting costs $100 billion per year, enough to pay for universality).
• Interstate insurance (which ensures markets for all).
• Insurance for catastrophic care only, not routine care (the “Whole Foods” model).
• Individual ownership of policies (which will prevent the “horror stories”).
• Removal of mandates from policies (Reid is going in exactly the wrong way).
Unfortunately, people like Paul Krugman believe in “command and control government” with the premise that he and other intellectuals with access to power should control how we citizens care for our health. Hence, it is unlikely that sensible health care reform will get done.

JefferyK December 15, 2009 · 1:37 pm

Looks to me like Lieberman (and/or his wife) was paid off by health insurance lobbyists. Changing the way the Senate works must include ending the ability of corporations to buy politicians and, therefore, legislation.

Greg December 15, 2009 · 1:38 pm

The Democrats would be far better off proposing a series of small bills, each one simple and designed to be hard to vote against.

Pass “Health Insurance Bill of Rights”, providing much better consumer protections for private health insurance, including eliminating pre-existing conditions, outlawing many common exceptions and requiring simpler language for policies, regulating the appeals process in ways favorable to consumers, and preventing insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.

Pass “Medicare for Kids”, extending Medicare coverage to everyone under 18 whether they have insurance already or not. Not only would this make sure all children have health care, but also it would relieve beleaguered state budgets for the states that try to do this themselves now.

Pass “Buy Medicare”, allowing anyone, regardless of age, to buy-in to Medicare. This puts pressure on the private health insurance industry by offering a strong public health care option to everyone.

Each of these are simple, easy to understand, very popular in polls, and hard to vote against. If Republicans want to oppose these, let them go on record as voting against them, then slam them in the 2010 elections.

Dave December 15, 2009 · 1:41 pm

Don’t you think its possible the Senator may have objections to specifics in the bill? The fact that pols call it “reform” shouldn’t fool anyone. It may simply be a lousy piece of legislation. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Even Democrats can create bad laws. All this name calling is ridiculous.

Paul December 15, 2009 · 1:41 pm

A cop in the 80’s once said “the crack epidemic will be over in ten years, because everyone on crack will be dead by that time.”
Well, the problems with the Senate will be over in 40 years.