Shut up, Chuck Grassley

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.

You had your chance, Senator, and you chose partisan obstructionism over bipartisan compromise, like every other Republican on Capitol Hill:

Grassley has been among the most vocal opponents of Democratic reform over the past year, but he's also known as one of the biggest flip-floppers on the issue.

At the start of the process, Grassley was expected to be among those Senators working to craft a bipartisan bill. But it wasn't long before he abandoned that effort, and helped to start the "death panel" meme heard at town halls across the country throughout last summer.

And you have zero credibility.

**********

For more on Grassley and health-care reform, see:

-- A tale of two Republican sentators (on health-care reform and those "death panels");

-- Chasing rabbits;

-- Quotes of the Day: Paul Krugman and Robert Reich; and

-- The truth about Charles Grassley (and health-care reform).

The truth about Charles Grassley (and health-care reform)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The truth is that he has no interest in reform. In fact, for all his Gang of Six efforts, he's pretty much against it. I delved into Republican opposition to reform, including Grassley's, yesterday.

Here -- our Quote of the Day -- is Grassley himself, who has been emphasizing his opposition to reform in his recent fundraising efforts, speaking on a conference call with Iowa reporters:

There's a feeling that the only way to get a bipartisan agreement is to defeat a Democratic proposal on the first hand and then the Democrats will come to Republican leadership and then, at that point, they'll know the only way they're going to get health care reform is bipartisan.

Translation: Bipartisanism is Republicanism. On health-care reform, it's either the Republican way or no way at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's time to move on, and to do what is right, which is health-care reform with a robust public option. Republicans have had their say. It's with the Democrats now, the Democrats alone, and they, and Obama, must take charge.

The truth about Republicans (and health-care reform)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's often edifying when Republicans show their true colours, even if they're not exactly "beautiful like a rainbow."

On health-care reform specifically, Republicans on Capitol Hill have for the most part either been obstructionists or outright opponents, hurling their lies and propaganda about "socialism" and "death panels" with all the strength they could muster, much of it latching on with an irresponsible media establishment that emphasizes not the facts, not the truth, but the partisan battle, thereby giving credence to Republican dishonesty, as well as with the public, much of which lacks the capacity to be able to make an informed decision.

And the whole bipartisanship angle has been, from the start, a charade -- and a farce. Republicans simply aren't serious compromise, about making a deal. Most are against reform altogether, preferring the status quo, or more of it, to fixing what is a broken and costly system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without adequate care or without coverage altogether, on the outside looking in. A few, including the three in the so-called "Gang of Six" on the Senate Finance committee, supposedly seek compromise -- meaning, concessions from Democrats -- but what they really want, at most, is to water down the legislation to such a point that reform is meaningless.

But, let's face it, even those supposed compromisers, the supposed moderates, don't really want reform at all, as we've suspected -- indeed, as we've known -- all along.

As Ezra Klein reports, for example, Charles Grassley, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has actually been fundraising against reform back home in Iowa. Furthermore, as Brian Beutler notes, Mike Enzi, another GOP Gang of Six member, has "trashed Democratic reform ideas," even picking up on the "death panel" lie. The White House, apparently, has had enough. Elsewhere, RNC Chair Michael Steele said that Republicans won't be "guilted" into reform, as if this is what Democrats are trying to do, as if the only way Republicans will do reform is out of guilt. And now we learn that Republicans would actually repeal health-care reform if they won in 2010.

Joe Klein is right. The charade is over:

It is not impossible that other Republicans who are not Senators from Maine can be located to support health care reform. But it's also entirely possible that the Republicans will continue their kamikaze ways and oppose a reform that is likely to prove very popular with the American public when it's enacted (which is why, in truth, the GOP nihilists oppose it).

Which is why the Democrats should, as I and many others have argued many times, go it alone. Which won't, of course, be easy, given Democratic opposition to the so-called "public option," not least from the Blue Dogs. But what is the alternative? To continue to negotiate with an opposition party that has no interest negotiating in good faith? To continue to seek compromise with an opposition party that has no interest in compromise? To continue to work for a bipartisan solution with an opposition party that is unwaveringly partisan and that puts party before all else, including the good of the country?

Simply put, it's time to move on, and to do what is right, which is health-care reform with a robust public option. Republicans have had their say. It's with the Democrats now, the Democrats alone, and they, and Obama, must take charge.

Quotes of the Day: Paul Krugman and Robert Reich

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Krugman, today on This Week:

The argument against the public option is sheer nonsense, we know that, it's nothing except the insurance lobby.

Reich, at his blog on Friday:

Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the Administration.

They're both right, of course, and Reich asks the key question: Why are six "centrist" senators -- the Gang of Six on the Finance Committee, three from each party -- essentially being allowed to determine the fate of health-care reform, and hence the future of health care for all Americans?

And what makes it worse is that the senior Republican, Charles Grassley, isn't even negotiating in good faith. He has no interest in meaningful reform, remains a partisan before all else, and has been one of the loudest purveyors of the "death panel" lie.

Here's some common sense from Reich:

I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.

So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?

It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems on the gang are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota -- states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.

That's right, millions and millions and millions of Americans either don't have health insurance or have inadequate coverage and these six senators, including three gullible Democrats, are telling them their situation won't improve, that they will defeat any effort to extend coverage through a "public option."

This is American "democracy," I suppose, which has never been majoritarian, but it's nonetheless disgusting.

I expect such ideological obstructionism from Republicans. As for the Democrats -- including those in the White House (if in fact they're seriously going along with the Gang of Six) -- they should be ashamed of themselves.

Chasing rabbits

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, a member of the Finance Committee, says that the so-called "public option" is dead. Given that, in his view, there just aren't the votes for it -- 60, to override a Republican filibuster -- it doesn't make sense to "chase that rabbit" anymore. He may very well be right -- and he has an interest in seeing it fail. He is one of the handful of Democrats pushing a bipartisan bill, after all, an alternative to "ObamaCare." (Instead of a "public option," with the government ensuring that people aren't shut out by the insurance industry (and ensuring that people have at least a choice with respect to their health-care coverage, Conrad proposes the creation of non-profit cooperatives that would negotiate insurance coverage for their members.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The time for bipartisanship, if there ever was one, is over, and it is simply appalling that a minority of senators would be able to block any reform bill it doesn't like. I understand that the rules of the Senate allow for filibustering, but there is also something to be said for majority rule, as well as for the rule that ends a filibuster (cloture) and allows for the passage of legislation with a simple majority (reconciliation). If Republicans want to play hardball, why should the Democrats?

The fact is, Republicans have never been serious about bipartisanship. What they support, insofar as Grassley et al. support anything other than the status quo, is not so much compromise but obstructionism. They want to water the bill down so much that it would hardly be reform at all -- so it would either be passed as not-reform "reform" or not passed at all because it would lose the support of liberal Democrats who support more substantive reform, including a "public option." In other words, bipartisanism plays right into the hands of Republicans, an effort, with the support of Democrats like Conrad and Baucus, to split the Democrats and give Republicans either the reform they want or no reform at all, which is what most of them prefer.

Some Democrats, like Harry Reid, are talking tough, but will it be enough. As Jon Cohn put it at The Treatment the other day:

As it happens, Reid's tough talk could (that's "could," not "will") end up making a bipartisan bill more likely. The more that Republicans believe Democrats are wliling to pass reform on their own -- either by maintaining enough party discipline to break a filibuster or by trying to use the budget reconciliation process, in which legislation can pass with a simple majority vote -- the more likely Republicans are to compromise. It's possible Reid's show of pique could actually strengthen Baucus's hand for dealing with Grassley, while also strengthening the hand of those on the right -- be they individual lawmakers or special interest groups -- who would prefer a modestly unacceptable bill to one they really hate.

I hope that's right. Democrats are in the majority, with a large majority, and they need to act like it. It's bad enough that Republicans are winning the spin war with their fearmongering propaganda. Will they now lose the legislative war -- the one that really matters -- because they lacked the resolve to do what they needed to do to get meaningful reform passed?

Specter v. Grassley @twitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously, who ever thought that twitter would become such a phenomenon? So much of one, in fact, and now so much a significant part of our culture and our politics, that two rather elderly men, Senators Specter and Grassley (both born in the early 1930s!), are using it to battle over those supposed "death panels."

Crazy. (And kudos to Specter, a quasi-Democrat, for telling Grassley, a Republican, to stop lying.)

By the way, I'm new to twitter, but I'm into it -- you can find me, and follow me, @mjwstickings. Come on, have a look. It's much more fun that I thought -- useless, in a way, but fun.

A tale of two Republican sentators (on health-care reform and those "death panels")

By Michael J.W. Stickings

1) Charles Grassley (Iowa): "In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life. You have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."

NOTE: There is no such euthanasia provision in the proposed legislation. Grassley is fearmongering. He is lying. He is doing what many of his fellow reform opponents are doing. It is shameful, if also predictable.

2) Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): "It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels. Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."

NOTE: Murkowski is absolutely right. She's being sensible and responsible. Which is to say, she's being rather un-Republican. I understand that most Republicans want reform to fail, but should they not at least argue on the merits of the issue? They should, but they don't -- and Murkowski should be applauded for coming out publicly against the lies and the fearmongering.

NOTE 2: In so doing, Murkowski distinguishes herself clearly from that more famous -- and more extremist -- Alaska Republican, Sarah Palin, who is partly (if not mostly) responsible for the current right-wing "death panel" craze.