Attacking Baucus

The Washington Times ^ | November 21, 2003

[Clintonfatigued]

Some Senate Democrats are so angry at Max Baucus that they want to strip the Montanan of his seniority on the Finance Committee, writes Al Hunt in The Wall Street Journal.

[Clintonfatigued]

PING!

[Pubbie]

Clintonfatigued - you do NOT have to excerpt WashingtonTimes articles.

Anyway, this is amazing, I thought the Democrats got everything they wanted in this bill!

[Paleo Conservative]

I wish they had done this prior to the 2002 elections. The people of Montana would not have had the seniority excuse to reelect Baucus again.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We'll only take him if he lets Mike Taylor give him a haircut and a shave-- with boom-chicka-boom music playing in the background.

[Pubbie]

By AL HUNT

A fraudulent Medicare bill, on the verge of congressional approval, is a testament to the skills and resourcefulness of Republican congressional leaders and to the lack of skills -- and backbone -- of a top Democrat, Max Baucus.

Without the support of Sen. Baucus, the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, this bill, giving new prescription drug benefits to seniors and desperately desired by the White House, would have been sent back to the drawing board. But the veteran lawmaker, along with the American Association of Retired Persons, has given sufficient political cover to pass this measure.

The Montana Democrat is a case study in legislative weakness. More than ideology or seniority, effective legislators, whether a liberal Democrat like Sen. Ted Kennedy or a conservative Republican like Rep. Bill Thomas, are knowledgeable, resourceful, tough and politically calculating; they know when to hold, and when to compromise.

In more than 30 years as an elected legislator -- 25 in the Senate -- these are skills Max Baucus never acquired. He's always looking over his shoulder politically, usually willing to accommodate and often more interested in a result than the result.

For the Democrats, in disarray on both the presidential and congressional level, this has created a huge problem, far greater than conservative Sen. Zell Miller, who merely blasts his party rhetorically. Max Baucus, first with the fiscally reckless tax cuts two years ago, and now with a deeply flawed Medicare bill, has greatly facilitated the 2004 agenda for George W. Bush and Republicans.

He usually starts off fine, and then wilts under pressure; he gives far more than he gets in his relationship with his GOP counterpart, Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, and he's politically timid. Initially he was against the 2001 Bush tax cuts but, fearful of GOP attacks back home, he caved. (He won re-election handily last year when Democrats charged the Republican candidate was a gay hairdresser -- not a popular combination in Montana.)

Even with re-election five years away, he followed a similar pattern in the current prescription-drug deliberations, promising the Democratic caucus he'd hold the line on key provisions and blasting others, such as health savings accounts, which would establish a new precedent in tax law by giving a tax break both when funds are deposited in a health-care savings account and when they are withdrawn. "HSAs would revolutionize tax law," Sen. Baucus complained less than two weeks ago, "that's wrong."

The Baucus slide, however, began after both houses enacted different Medicare bills and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences. Rep. Thomas thought most Democrats, including Senate party leader Tom Daschle, would be unfriendly so he dictated that only Sen. Baucus and one other Democrat could attend. If Max Baucus had said that's unacceptable, Republicans would have faced a choice of relenting or killing a politically popular measure. Incredibly, Sen. Baucus caved.

"It's disgraceful that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee stiffed his party," says congressional scholar Thomas Mann. "Baucus abdicated his institutional responsibilities."

The result is that substantively, unlike the earlier Senate-approved measure -- a true bipartisan effort, spearheaded by Ted Kennedy among others, that some liberals opposed -- this is a Republican-dictated measure that actually will hurt some poorer seniors, and weakens traditional Medicare.

On cost containment, the bill threatens to cut back on Medicare benefits if costs soar. But, at the behest of the drug industry, a provision that would have permitted the federal government, with its huge purchasing power, to negotiate cheaper drug prices for seniors was dropped. Where was Max?

The HSAs, which Sen. Baucus declared unacceptable, are in the bill. No doubt this novel double-barreled tax break will create a precedent in other areas and further drain the treasury.

Then there's what's called the premium support system, where the federal government eventually will encourage and subsidize private plans for millions of Medicare recipients. The likely result, according to economist Henry Aaron, who crafted the concept of premium supports -- with protections, however: private insurers will "cherry pick" the most affluent and healthiest customers leaving Medicare with the high-cost elderly and disabled, and ultimately traditional Medicare will "become unaffordable."

This is an open invitation for rip-off by HMOs. There is a reason most Americans -- and virtually all who've endured serious medical issues -- despise HMOs; they are, with few exceptions, vultures. (This is why enrollment in the current Medicare Plus plan is dropping sharply.) Conservatives, many of whom want to kill Medicare, fought for this measure. If Max Baucus had made it a deal-breaker, the White House would have dropped it.

The bill's apologists, led by the AARP, which has financial ties to the insurance and drug industries, spin that whatever the bill's imperfections it can be fixed. But a very unlevel playing field would be created and the poor and disabled elderly who would be hurt don't have political clout.

There was an opportunity to pass a genuine bipartisan prescription drug/Medicare bill; it would have been opposed by some right-wing Republicans and some left-wing Democrats. There would have been imperfections but the architecture to build better benefits for seniors would have been created. The Montana Democrat's failure to achieve that attainable goal is generating serious buzz among his caucus colleagues that he be denied his senior position on the Finance Committee.

{Snip}

[Clintonfatigued]

I wish, but very unlikely. BUT, perhaps he'll call it quits in 2008.

[Southack]

Democrats can't even manage to demote Zell Miller, who's retiring, much less Baucus.

Democrats stand to lose 6 seats in '04, while gaining only 2, for a net loss of 4 and a +8 advantage to Pubbies.

Should Thune make a serious run against Daschle, then Dems will be down 5. Should Guiliani run against Schumer, then Dems will be down 6.

Should Dems demote Baucus, then Dems will be down 7, for a 14 seat Senate swing in favor of the Republicans in 2004.

Ain't no way. That would leave a 58 to 41 & 1 Senate, with Republicans able to pick up Jeffords at their whim by dangling a committee chairmanship and the Milk Compact at him (i.e. Repubs would have 59 in the Senate versus 41 Dems).

The Dems simply can't afford these losses (thus, they won't demote Baucus). If Repubs gained a 59 to 41 edge in 2004, then at least two more Democrats would jump ship to the Republicans (can you guess who).

Demoting Baucus could equal a filibuster-proof Republican Senate in 2004 rather than delaying it until 2006. Campaign funds for Dems would dry up overnight. Unions would desert the Dems for the all-powerful Republicans.

That being said, let's hope that they do it to him!

[Clintonfatigued]

Thanks, that was very thoughtful of you.

[Clintonfatigued]

Well, I don't think that Baucus would resign from the Senate, especially with a Republican in the governorship. But he probably would not seek reelection in 2008. Doesn't the name U.S. Senator Bob Brown have a nice ring to it?

[PeteFromMontana]

If the Republican party had put up a real candidate last time Max baby would be selling bibles door to door by now.

He really is a pretty conservative Democrat but when it all comes out in the wash he is still a Democrat.

Rush said it this week, a tiger is a tiger and does tiger type things.

[Pubbie]

"(can you guess who)."

Nelson will switch, but who do you think the second guy would be - Bayh (Breaux is going to retire)?

PS: You think Jeffords would come back? (I would let him come back if I were Frist just to get us near a Filibuster proof majority.)

[Pubbie]

"Doesn't the name U.S. Senator Bob Brown have a nice ring to it?"

I could go for Senator Denny Rehberg or Senator Marc Racicot.

[okie01]

"at least two more Democrats would jump ship to the Republicans (can you guess who)."

Nelson & Nelson?

Or Schumer & Kennedy?

[Lancey Howard]

PS: You think Jeffords would come back? (I would let him come back if I were Frist just to get us near a Filibuster proof majority.)

Jeffords would be the same scumbag who voted liberal whenever the Democrats needed him. He could NEVER be trusted and I would not count on anything being "filibuster-proof" if Jeffords' vote is needed.

[Pubbie]

I'll bet he would come back if we resurected that Dairy Compact and he got some obscure Committee Chairmanship again.

I agree we shouyldn't trust him - but if we have 59 Senators on election night, then we should try to get him.

[Clintonfatigued]

I don't see Evan Bayh switching parties. His father, Birch Bayh, was a 'Rat U.S. Senator from 1962 until his defeat by Dan Quayle in 1980. The younger Bayh talks more conservative than he votes.

[Clintonfatigued]

Those are also good choices. The way Montana is trending, maybe it will have two Republican Senators for the first time in its history.

[Pubbie]

Who else besides Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

PS: what do you think of taking back Jeffords?

[Clintonfatigued]

You have a valid point. But even now, Jeffords isn't always in lockstep with the 'Rats. Did you know that he voted to confirm Judge Charles Pickering?

[expatpat]

Boy, Al Hunt really doesn't pretend to be non-partisan, does he.

[Clintonfatigued]

What would be great would be if Nelson were to switch partys in 2005, after endorsing George W. Bush in 2004. Perhaps he and Zell Miller could address the G.O.P. convention next year.

[StriperSniper]

Boy, Al Hunt really doesn't pretend to be non-partisan, does he.

He doesn't pretend to be non-commie!

[Sonny M]

You have a valid point. But even now, Jeffords isn't always in lockstep with the 'Rats. Did you know that he voted to confirm Judge Charles Pickering?

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, he's one of the senators who's voted against the filibuster. For some odd reason, he does seem to personally like Pickering. He's actually spoken up for him and was one of the senators who was quick to point out that the family of Medgar Evers is backing Pickering and that Medgars brother is close friends with Pickering.

[Kuksool]

Jim Jeffords and Trent Lott used to be a part of a Senate barber shop quartet. When Lott was in hot water over the Strom Thurmond comments, Jeffords actually defended him. I guess Jeffords voted for Pickering because he and Lott must still have amicable relations on a personal level.

[Sonny M]

I guess Jeffords voted for Pickering because he and Lott must still have amicable relations on a personal level.

That makes sense. Alot of these senators are friends with each other. Its always been known that Cheney and Lieberman are/were friends. Hatch and Kennedy, etc. As much as I loathe Jeffords, and I do believe he is a corrupt and dishonorable person, I would feel better, if he at least acted like a true independent.

[BooBoo1000]

Bob Brown could not organize the " Beer Concession" for a Sunday School Picnic.

I have known Bob for many years, and he is nothing but an un-educated teacher. Mark, would make a good Senator. I hope they might work on him and get him to run.

Max, has just as much spine as a jellyfish./ Always has had a real lack of stature.

[Impy]

"Democrats stand to lose 6 seats in '04, while gaining only 2, for a net loss of 4 and a +8 advantage to Pubbies."

What 2 seats do you see us picking up besides the dixie 4?

[Impy]

I'd let him come back if he admits he's a douchebag. :)