« Blood for Oil | Main | It's Not You, It's the Gays »

Everything's Coming Up Baucus

19 Jun 2008 10:10 am

One thing I'd forgotten during the long debate about Clinton versus Obama on health care, and in speculation about the Senate filibuster, is that the key legislative player, the chokepoint through which health care reform must pass, is Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. But he's not just Finance Committee Chairman, he's also a terrible Senator! Indeed, on core economic policy issues he's probably the worst Senator -- a little bit right-wing, a lot corrupt and unprincipled. Ezra Klein has a piece on Baucus and health reform that nods in the direction of Baucus' critics but then waxes optimistic:

This time around, however, Baucus has given health reformers reason for optimism. He has staffed up, hiring Liz Fowler, a well-regarded health-policy staffer with immense Hill experience. He's held a series of hearings on the need to reform the system, inviting experts to testify on everything from the explosion in costs to the failures of the insurance market. More importantly, his statements at these hearings have been invariably action-oriented. He opened a recent session by saying, "Today let us talk again about health-care reform. Let us hear from the experts about how to do it right. And let us plan, next year, to actually do something about it."

I'm not actually sure what the reason for optimism is. At a minimum, while Baucus' evident interest in the subject does seem to boost the chances that something called "health care reform" will pass, I don't see any reason to be confident that good health care reform will pass. Baucus was an architect of the 2003 Medicare Reform bill so we might get something like that -- a bill that does, just as liberals wanted, provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit under Medicare but does so at enormous fiscal cost in terms of bribes to drug companies and pharmaceutical companies and bad structural changes to Medicare.

But I dunno. Maybe Baucus has changed his ways. His campaign website does include this stirring section on economic justice:

  • As Chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Max was a chief architect of the 2008 Stimulus Bill designed to limit the economic downturn in the U.S. by boosting Main Street economies through tax relief for individuals and businesses. Using his seniority on the Senate Finance Committee, Max co-wrote the largest tax cut in a generation, providing $1.35 trillion in relief, including more than $115 million for Montanans to pump into local economies.
  • Max improved the 2001 tax relief package to make sure that more than 34,000 moderate and low-income Montanans got the tax relief they deserve by expanding the child tax credit. That money is best spent in neighborhood stores.
  • Coming from a seven-generation ranching family, Max know how important passing family farms and businesses on to the next generation is, which is why he fought to repeal the estate tax in the 2001 tax package.

That's right -- thanks to Max Baucus, Bush's hugely unaffordable and massively regressive tax cut package cut ever-so-slightly less regressive at the cost of a bipartisan imprimateur that scuttled any hopes of defeating in the Senate. And he fought for estate tax repeal, because if you're a rancher who also happens to be a multi-millionaire -- or, indeed, if you're an extraordinarily wealthy person of any sort -- then Max Baucus is on your side.

Needless to say, his number one, three, four, and five contributors this cycle are firms in the health care or insurance industries. Of course it's natural for anyone who has his job to rake in a lot of bucks from those kind of companies as they seek to influence legislation, but Baucus isn't exactly the kind of guy with a long record of standing up to special interests.

Share This

Comments (20)

Didn't Baucus' chief of staff just join the Obama campaign? That seems to me an intersting coincidence, at the least ...

Obviously, chairing this committe is where Hillary needs to be next year.

So should the Obama campaign spend some capital campaigning to have the rules altered that will in practice block large scale reform? Is it worthwhile to campaign on carefully crafted health and climate policies without also campaigning against the procedural blockages (e.g. the filibuster and these kind of chairman powers) which everyone knows will stop the policies getting enacted in anything other than a totally neutered form?

Matt, I know, secretly, you wanted to link to the TNR piece but couldn't because of the cursed archive debacle, so I decided to accidently post it here:

The New Republic
July 10, 2006 - July 17, 2006
Rank Disloyalty

There is something a bit troubling about the Democrats' current obsession with discipline, as though there were no higher aspiration than matching the ruthless efficiency of the House Republicans. A political party is not the same as a Third World liberation movement. It ought to accommodate moments of dissent and occasional deviations from the party line without the forms of retribution that have recently taken hold in the liberal blogosphere.

But apostasy comes in gradations: There is heterodoxy, and then there is Montana Senator Max Baucus.

Baucus isn't in the mold of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who flirted with reasonable ideas taboo among Democratic constituencies. He doesn't take quirky procedural stands, a la Russ Feingold. He's not even a Zell Miller-like figure who rhetorically strafes his party but does little substantive damage. What Baucus does is use his influence as the top Democrat on the Finance Committee to systematically undercut his party and enable George W. Bush's most egregious domestic legislation. So why does his party entrust him with so much responsibility?

We were reminded of this question during this month's estate-tax debate. On one side was the vast majority of Republicans, who kvetch about the cosmic unfairness of taxing the top 1 percent of family fortunes. On the other side was the vast majority of Democrats, who see the estate tax as a reasonable, if modest, curb on the excesses of dynastic wealth. And in the middle was Baucus, an opponent of the tax, pushing a last-minute compromise that would dramatically scale it back. Baucus says he was trying to make the best of a difficult situation, since the tax will be reined in one way or another. But his compromise doesn't merely split differences; its price tag is nearly 70 percent of the cost of outright repeal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And it reveals precisely why Baucus shouldn't be in such a sensitive position: He understands statesmanship strictly in terms of the size of the concession he makes; the more he concedes, the more Churchillian he thinks he is.

If you look closely enough at recent domestic policy debacles, you'll invariably see his fingerprints. Facing George W. Bush's massive tax-cut proposal in 2001, Baucus undermined the Senate Democrats' strategy of forcing concessions by maintaining a united front. In private negotiations with his GOP counterpart, Chuck Grassley, Baucus produced a bill that handed the White House virtually all of its top priorities. Afterward, he boasted that he'd done Democrats a favor, since they "would have been in trouble in 2002 just saying no to every one of the president's proposals." We shudder to think what might have happened had the Democrats been labeled "obstructionist."

Then there was the 2003 Medicare debate. Baucus, true to his method, agreed to a set of procedural conditions that undermined Democratic unity and preordained a disastrous outcome. Then he used the little authority he retained to--how to put it?--give away the store. In addition to agreeing to Health Savings Accounts--a gambit that he had once condemned as irresponsible--Baucus assented to a provision preventing Medicare from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Baucus and his defenders--alternately known as his press office--make two arguments on his behalf. The first is that Baucus is simply doing what he needs to do to get reelected. (This argument usually masquerades behind the mantra of doing what's best for the "people of Montana.") But, unless the way to get ahead in Montana is to insist on overcharging Medicare patients by billions of dollars, the senator has been going far above and beyond the call of duty.

Baucus's second argument is that Democrats get substantively better legislation when he engages Republicans on their behalf. But this argument assumes the Bush administration has the votes to pass legislation without Democratic support. Often, it's Baucus who provides the margin of victory--either with his own vote or by crafting pseudo-compromises that provide cover for a small number of Democratic defectors. Indeed, the Democrats' only real victory of the last five years--stuffing the administration on Social Security--came after Harry Reid explicitly ordered Baucus not to negotiate with the White House.

Well, we'll do Reid one better and suggest he boot Baucus from the Finance Committee altogether. If we miss out on a few deals by not having Max Baucus at the table, that's a risk we're prepared to live with.

My favorite guest editorial written by Sen. Baucus.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33420

I recall an Al Hunt WSJ column from around Nov. '03 that really took a piece out of the esteemed gentleman from Montana along similar lines.

Noteworthy in that Hunt, the ultimate DC establishmentarian, has never really been the type to jump on veteran senators for not being change agents.

Is it worthwhile to campaign on carefully crafted health and climate policies without also campaigning against the procedural blockages (e.g. the filibuster and these kind of chairman powers) which everyone knows will stop the policies getting enacted in anything other than a totally neutered form?

Only if you're certain progressives will forever hold the levers of power.

Liz Fowler has worked for Baucus and the finance committee since at least '04. Lot of good it's done.

Hopefully Baucus will lose to the Republican in November. Who happens to be this guy. Who has run for office under the Green Party repeatedly in the past.

At the AARP Blog, Sen. Baucus (and Sen. Grassley) guest post about their competing plans for dealing with Medicare Premiums. Check it out

http://blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/2008/06/senator_baucus_going_the_extra.html

What's really impressive here is that Max is bragging about using his awesome power as chairman of the Senate Finance Committtee to ensure that the 2008 Stimulus Bill directed a full 0.008% of the money (115 million / 1.35 trillion) to Montanans.

I realize that Montana is a small state, but not _that_ small -- this would only be a fair share if Montana's population was around 25K. With about 1 million people, it looks like Montanans got only 2.5% of their fair share.

Way to go Max!

I often judge people by the behavior of their pets. Having lived near Baucus's Georgetown residence during my college years, I'd have to say that I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him.

Speaking - er, writing - as a resident of Montana, I really wish we could get rid of Baucus. He's worthless. Unfortunately he's got so much name recognition and most voters are woefully uninformed that he keeps handily winning elections.

Although, we did manage to dump Conrad Burns. Perhaps there is some hope.

Isn't there some way to raise money on ActBlue for a huge bribe to Baucus? Like half a million dollars in hard money, contingent on substantive health care reform passing his committee and the senate? As long as the money is raised in accordance with campaign finance law, we can even call it a bribe out in the open, can't we? Say, "Here, Max, pass substantive legislation and this money is yours. Fail to pass it, and it goes to a primary challenger." Then, the bigger it gets, the more pressure he will feel.

Needless to say, his number one, three, four, and five contributors this cycle are firms in the health care or insurance industries.

It's been illegal for corporations to contribute to federal campaigns for a century. What do you mean by this, Matt?

I'm curious -- are there actual allegations that Baucus is corrupt? Can you spell them out?

Last election he ran a campaign that mostly consisted of his picture and "Max".

This time it won't be that hard.

And Ned, Green Party or not, Kelleher really is a loon. He might be saner than the guy who turned himself blue, but not by much. A parliamentary form of government isn't the change we've been waiting for.

"Hopefully Baucus will lose to the Republican in November."

Not very likely when the Montana Republican party won't even let Kelleher address their convention.

http://missoulian.com/articles/2008/06/19/news/local/news04.txt


Comments closed July 03, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.