Must Read from Ezra Klein: Do Democrats Realize They're in Charge?

[flpoljunkie]

By this point, I could write the transcripts in advance. Every interview with members of the administration involved in health-care reform goes the same way: A reporter asks if they support the public plan. They do. Then the intrepid reporters asks if it's non-negotiable. And, like everything else in health-care reform "except for success," the public plan turns out to be negotiable. And that's the headline.

Today, everyone is up in arms about a Wall Street Journal story in which Rahm Emanuel goes through those motions. I'm not particularly up in arms about this, because it's not a change in rhetoric. At all. They've been saying the same thing since the first day. Barack Obama has said this. Kathleen Sebelius has said this. Nancy DeParle has said this. And Rahm Emanuel has said this previously. As it has been, so it still is.

But I was struck by the rationalization Emanuel provided for the so-called "trigger" public plan. This is not an argument I've heard before:

Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet Mr. Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.

Putting aside the success, or lack thereof, of Medicare Part D, this is a bit of a weird comment. In 2003, Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. As such, when they tried to pass their legislation adding a private prescription drug benefit to Medicare, they allowed a small concession to Democrats: a weak public plan that would be activated if certain conditions weren't met by private industry.

What Emanuel is saying here, however, is that in 2009, when Democrats control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate -- and have larger margins than Republicans ever did in the latter two -- that they are interested in settling on the same policy compromise: a weak public plan that would be activated if certain conditions aren't met by private industry. That's a bit weird. Weren't elections supposed to have consequences?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/do_democrats_realize_theyre_in.html

[DJ13]

1. I think how we see "being in charge" differs from the definition that politicians use

To us being in charge means pushing through the policies that attracted voters to vote for a particular party.

To the politicians being in charge just means they now have sufficient leverage to name their price in promoting corporate sponsored legislation.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. The tone was set by Harry Reid on JANUARY 7th when he said "I don't work for Obama"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/harry-reid-i-dont-work-fo_n_155838.html

Nice way to set the tone Harry! Because, number one NO ONE said you did work for Obama! You could have said something like I will enjoy working with the President and advancing the agenda the American people elected us to advance , but noooo - you had to be clear to undercut our new Pres from alamost day one.

Harry Reid - you couldn't suck more as Majority Leader!!!

[tblue37]

8. He set the same tone when he said that having Al Franken and a 60-vote

super majority didn't mean anything. Both times it meant: Don't expect any progress in the Senate!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. You know I wouldn't even have a problem with a majority leader saying that.

Because that should be the case. But coming from this guy it translates into "Please Mr. Republican stop being so mean I'll do whatever you say.".

[inna]

3. i_am_so_sick and tired of this corpocracy, i just want to throw up.

:grr:

:mad:

:banghead:

[OHdem10]

4. They do not want the responsibility of leadership. Leadership means

you are willing to take a risk. A risk means you may be l00%
correct. It may mean you could make a mistake. They have taken
to appeasing Republicans from the beginning. Why? If some
mistake occurs in their health plan, whatever, the GOP voted
with them. They believe this covers their behind. Wrong.

There is and has been a serious leadership vacuum in our party.
It will remain such. This is the way they like it. No one
has to assume responsibility for anything.

IMO, they would love for the GOP to be in charge now. (Democrats
on the Hill).

Two parties within one party means one side can fingerpoint the
other. In the end, the Conservatives win. What is new?

[maxsolomon]

5. We are a Plutocracy in the clothing of a Republic

and that's the bottom line. There is too much money and too much power in the health care "industry" for the senate, who are the tools of the Plutocracy, to allow a reform which would destroy corporations while benefitting 300 million citizens.

Think of the Senate as equivalent to the House of Lords, but with actual power. The Senate represents $, period.

[BlueJac]

6. They don't have the balls to be in charge...........

they just want the lobbyist money too!!!

[Uncle Joe]

7. The link isn't working but regarding the issue of triggers,

the last time I heard, there were 18,000+ triggers being pulled every single year.

That's how many Americans were dying due to the government abrogating it's responsibility; under the Constitution to represent the American Peoples' best interest and instead to allow "health" insurance corporations to run roughshod over the health care system; such as it is, by profiting from the Peoples' injury and illness. The whole concept is ludicrous and has no logical base for it's foundation if you believe the Preamble of the Constitution as the guiding principle for our democratic republic.

So if 18,000 annual triggers being pulled aren't enough, how many triggers does it take to trigger some serious representation?

How immoral, inefficient and dysfunctional can a corporate system become before realistic, pragmatic moderates become outraged, saying without equivocation that enough is enough!?

Quit feeding the American People to the dogs!

[flpoljunkie]

9. Perhaps you need to be registered with the Washington Post. I did post his entire comments on this.

Congress does not work for us, for the most part. It is the special interests they seek to appease--so their campaign coffers will remain filled.

We need public campaign financing in the worst way. Legislation in both Houses submitted this session, have gone nowhere--as you might expect.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Thanks, flpoljunkie and I agree

we should have public campaign financing and start a net/grassroots movement to change the Constitution guiding the Congress to the principle of working for/representing the people along with eliminating the concept of corporate person hood.