Ezra Klein: The Supercommittee...built to deadlock.

So start looking at that trigger folks, because I'm betting that's where we're headed:

House Speaker John Boehner has chosen Reps. Dave Camp, Fred Upton and Jeb Hensarling, and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has chosen Sens. Rob Portman, Jon Kyl and Pat Toomey. Of the six, Portman has expressed the openness to the Senate Gang of Six’s deficit plan, as The Hill points out. In late July, at the height of the debt-ceiling negotiations, he called the group’s work “a step in the right direction.” 

But Portman never came out fully in support of the Gang of Six’s plan, and his commitment to the GOP hardline seems to have firmed up. Just yesterday, Portman told the Columbus Dispatch that any tax increases should be off the table. While he also affirmed his support for raising revenue through tax reform — eliminating loopholes and the like — Portman made it clear last month that he doesn’t think that tax reform should be part of a deficit deal. As his spokesman told ABC News last month, Portman “believes we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that tax reform should be used not to increase revenue but to bring about a more efficient and competitive tax code by lowering rates while clearing out underbrush.” 

In other words, even the GOP’s most moderate supercommittee member has ruled out tax increases or tax reform as part of a grand bargain. And without any concessions on revenue from Republicans, there’s not much chance that they will sign on to a plan that will also be acceptable to Democrats. As Senate Majority Harry Reid’s picks confirm, Democrats will be advocating a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction that pairs spending cuts with new revenue. Sens. Max Baucus, John Kerry and Patty Murray may willing to consider entitlement reforms, to varying degrees. But it seems clear that they won’t sign on to a cuts-only package with only nominal revenue increases. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has yet to announce her choices for the committee, but they’re likely to tack further to the left than the Senate Dems and push back even harder against a deal without significant revenue increases. 

There was a lot of skepticism about the supercommittee to begin with. And the leadership’s announcements will just add to the chorus of cynics — and prompt Capitol Hill to look even more closely at what cuts will be triggered if the group fails to come to a deal.

"If"?  What "if", Ezra?

The main shock for me is that two people I assumed were going to be on this train wreck: Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, are nowhere to be see.

Still, what the hell do I know?  I'm a Screenwriter from Maryland.

Think Progress has the names of the Democratic Senators on the Supercommittee. Prepare to be pleasantly shocked!

Wow.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly tapped Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), and Max Baucus (D-MT) to join the super committee created by the deal that raised the federal debt ceiling. The super committee is charged with crafting a deficit reduction package by Thanksgiving; seven of the twelve members have to approve the plan to send it to the full Congress.

I was resigned to Baucus (how can you not put on the Chair of the Senate Finance Commitee?), Kent Conrad and a token Liberal. But Murray and Kerry? I am actually pretty stoked.

The enemy isn't the Opposition, it's not the Senate...it's Max freakin' Baucus.

Max Baucus (almost) does it again. Reaching out to his best-buddy Chuck Grassley almost derailed Health Care Reform, and it almost diluted the Jobs Bill to near worthlessness. But this time, his screw up looks to have been caught by Harry Reid, and should be fixed this time.

Honestly. We need jobs! I know, Max Baucus says, let's cut the Estate Tax and the Gift Tax.

But we need Republican votes, don't we?

No, Max. That's not necessarily the plan.

Baucus is making a good argument for another change that needs to happen in the Senate: the elimination of the Seniority rules.

Senatespeak...

Following up on Rahm's non-comment today (also reported in the Huffington Post and the Hill), we now have:

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), saying that Rahm is wrong about the Public Option...

...and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) both saying that we're going to get a Public Option.

Either these three men (only one of whom -- Brown -- I consider a true Liberal) are putting themselves waaay out on a limb here, or...they know something we don't.

Oh, and here is some lovely video of Rockefeller tearing into Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), calling him a whore for the Insurance Lobby...in Senate-speak, of course:



And finally, according to Huffington Post (whom I'll always kick around, but cite when they have...you know...actual news), the Public Option Amendment is being debated tomorrow.

At the end of the day, Progressives will have one of two things:

Either a Public Option in the Finance Committee Bill.

or...

The names of Democrats who are going to require a Primary Challenge in their next elections.

And if Rockefeller's Amendment doesn't make it this time, worry not. He'll get plenty of other chances when:

They merge the HELP Committee (that has the PO) and Finance Commitee Bills...

...When the Final Senate Bill hits the Floor...

...and in the Conference Bill merges the House Bill (with a PO) with whatever the Senate passes.

It's the 3rd Quarter people...

...or Seventh Inning, depending on your sports metaphor.

WaPo: Health Care is being taken out of Baucus's hands...

More Erza:

But Baucus now has a legitimacy problem. A dealmaker needs credibility and respect on both sides, and Baucus has lost it. The Democrats on his committee don't trust his instincts or his core commitments or his legislative skill. Nor do the Democrats outside his committee. They feel he gave away too much in return for not just too little, but nothing at all. That means the Republicans on his committee have further reason to distrust his ability to make a deal, because restive Democrats are going to want to change his bill. Meanwhile, House Democrats are enraged that he left them to suffer through August, and have little interest in passing a bipartisan compromise that doesn't come with any Republican votes.

Attacking Baucus, in fact, has become an applause line for liberals: Gerald McEntee, president of the powerful AFCSME union, responded to Baucus's proposal by leading delegates at the AFL-CIO's annual convention in a chant of "bulls**t." The blog response hasn't been much better.

Indeed, the only group that does seem happy with Baucus, or at least relatively forgiving of him, is the White House. They think he tried to get bipartisan support, and though failure was regrettable and delaying the August deadline was damaging, the effort had enough potential upside that it was worth trying. At the very least, it exposed Republicans as unwilling to cooperate, and demonstrated that Democrats had indeed been willing to reach out. They're also very happy he's given them a framework that CBO has scored as not only deficit-neutral, but deficit-improving.

But that leaves Baucus with little evident power at this juncture. Even within his committee, it's not obvious he can secure the votes of the liberals, and if he does, he almost certainly sacrifices Snowe. That means the White House and the Senate leadership are going to play the primary role in both offering concessions and guaranteeing their preservation in the process. The bill remains in Max Baucus's committee, but at this point, it's largely out of his hands.

WaPo: True friendship

Erza Klein:

I actually find Grassley's behavior throughout all this a bit shocking. Grassley's friendship with Baucus is long and deep. And he has made Baucus look like a weak, ineffectual fool. He has absolutely hung him out to dry.

Baucus assumed enormous personal risk to try and secure Grassley's support. He formed the "Gang of Six," infuriating the other members of his committee. He blew through the White House's August deadline, angering Senate Democrats and harming the White House. He compromised on a raft of liberal priorities, infuriating the Democratic base. And he got ... nothing.

Less than nothing, in fact. Grassley went on TV to trash the Democratic bills and proclaim that he was closed to an actual compromise. He let Baucus end the process with a compromised bill and not a single vote of confidence from his Republican colleagues. He made Baucus look like a knave. If there was any evidence that Grassley hated Baucus and wished him ill, it would count as one of the truly masterful political defenestrations in recent decades.

WaPo: Neutered Co-ops???

So the watered down Public Option, is, in itself, watered down???

The co-ops have never been a satisfying alternative to the public option. But the version in Baucus's bill isn't even a satisfying alternative to the co-op option. It's a neutered version of the co-op idea, which was in turn a neutered version of the public option.

The co-ops are on the state level, with each state pretty much required to have one. The 50 co-ops can then band together to leverage their national purchasing power. Sounds good, right? Sort of.

The co-ops can only compete in the small group and individual markets. That is to say, if the co-ops prove effective, and The Washington Post would like to offer co-op coverage as an option to its workers, it can't. The co-ops are not allowed to contract with large employers, which is to say, they can't compete with private insurers in the largest market, and they can't get the purchasing power that would come from a serious foothold among corporate customers.

Not only is their size restricted, so too is what they can do with their size. The co-ops can band together to increase their purchasing power, but they can't set national payment rates for their members, a la Medicare. As I understand it, they have to bargain with each provider and drug manufacturer and hospital and so forth separately, meaning they're denied one of the main advantages of size. The insurance industry is, in other words, being protected from not just public competition, but co-op competition.

Yeah, this idea is dead on arrival.

The Hill: Hmmm....

On the one hand, we got (TPM Alum) Greg Sargent saying this:

While Obama did offer far more expansive support for the public option than expected, he hinted at the possible use of coops or a trigger, which are both unacceptable to liberals. Combine this letter with the fact that Tom Harkin, the chair of the Senate HELP committee, said today that a public option won’t be a dealbreaker, and you’ve really got a serious intra-Dem split in the works.

A serious what?

Looking at the...you know...actual article where Tom Harkin is quoted. He says this:

The new chairman of the Senate HELP Committee said a public option won't be deal breaker for moderate Democrats.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who just replaced Ted Kennedy as head of the committee, said his centrist colleagues might accept a bill with a public option even if they aren't crazy about it.

"Some of my colleagues may not like a public option, but they like all the other things and I don't think they'll vote against the bill just because it has the public option in it," Harkin said on MSNBC.

Maybe Harkin's wrong. Granted, HELP shares jurisdiction with Finance over Health Care Legislation, and Max Baucus is out there saying there aren't the votes for a Public Option.

But maybe, the key word that's not being used is, there aren't votes for a Public Option...yet.

WaPo: Erza Klein on the Baucus Bill...

...also not so bad.

How you'll judge Max Baucus's framework depends on how you understand the goal of health-care reform. Insofar as the effort is aimed at filling in the cracks of the current system — making it more affordable, more transparent and less cruel — it's not a bad bill.

The legislation really would protect millions of Americans from medical bankruptcy. It really would insure tens of millions of people. It really will curb the worst practices of the private insurance industry. It really will expand Medicaid and transform it from a mish-mash of state regulation into a dependable benefit. It really will lay down out-of-pocket caps which are a lot better than anything people have today. It really will help primary care providers, and it really will make hospitals more transparent, and it really will be a step towards paying for quality rather than volume.

To put it more starkly, it really will be the most important progressive policy passed since Lyndon Johnson. The subsidies should probably sit at 400 percent of poverty, and the employer mandate should be reworked, but such failures are relatively easy to fix, and may well be patched over by the time the legislation arrives on the Senate floor. The fact that a bill of this size and scope can still be considered disappointing is evidence that the doors of the possible have been thrown wide open.

The main disappointment is that insofar as you see the bill as a vehicle for moving us towards a better, more efficient, less costly system, there are some problems. In particular, this bill seems to block off a lot of its own possible points of expansion. The health insurance exchanges are limited to the state level, and appear to split the individual and small-group markets apart from each other. There's no mention of a possible expansion toward larger employers, either. Similarly, the co-op plan is an interesting policy proposal, but unlike a public insurance option, it's difficult to imagine it growing into anything significantly stronger than what's outlined in the paper.

The early reaction to Baucus's bill has been overly negative. It's an imperfect improvement to the current system, but an improvement nevertheless. Where it really falls short — even in comparison to the rudimentary framework released by HELP and especially when compared to the more complete package offered by the House — is in imagining a system that is different and better and fairer than our own, and working to make it a reality. Baucus talks often of building a "uniquely American" system, but this proposal largely plugs some holes in the one we already have. As such, the failure is not so much in the bill as in its unwillingness to lay the groundwork for the bills that may need to succeed it.

Think Progress: Matthew Yglesias on the Baucus Plan...

Not...so bad?

And this is Matthew Yglesias saying this, not a Blue Dog poser...

I hope that my bona fides as a Max Baucus detractor are not seriously in doubt. And as a Max Baucus detractor, I certainly have my criticisms of the plan he put out. A plan that’s relatively stingy to working Americans would be more forgivable were it not also so friendly to industry. Deficit concerns would be easier to take seriously if not for Baucus’ willingness to cast such worries aside in order to pass conservative bills in the past. It’s not a flawless piece of legislation and its flaws aren’t in there for good reason.

That said, I think a lot of the blog response to this proposal is overblown. There’s just no reason to think that the system envisioned by Baucus would be either a political or a substantive disaster. Instead, it would create something comparable to the situation that currently prevails in Switzerland or Massachusetts. Is that great? No, it’s not. Health care in Massachusetts is substantial worse than health care in any number of foreign countries. That said, the Massachusetts health care system is better than the health care system that exists in any other American state. Similarly, if it were up to me Switzerland is about the last country I would choose to emulate. In terms of excessive costs—spending that lines the pockets of medical providers with little real medical benefit—it’s worse that everyone except . . . the United States of America.

And there’s the rub. The status quo in the United States is really bad. Baucus’ plan would make it better. There are people right now who could use health insurance, but they’re too poor. Baucus would make many of them eligible for Medicaid and more of them eligible for subsidies to let them afford private insurance. Hopefully something better than this plan can be worked out between the merger of the Finance bill and the HELP bill and the conference committee and all the rest. But even in its meager Baucusish form, the health reform currently on the table would be the biggest piece of progressive social policy in decades.