home

Was The Excise Tax Worth It?

A lot of people who championed the excise tax are very upset that the House Dems will not pass the Senate health bill stand alone. I've spent most of the past few days arguing that without a fix of the excise tax (via a companion reconciliation bill), House Dems will never pass the Senate bill because the unions, one of the most important constituencies in the Dem coalition, especially when it comes to electoral activities, will vehemently oppose passage. Of course, it is not clear that even with the excise tax fix, passage would occur. But without the fix, it definitely will not be passed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply can not even approach the 218 vote number without an excise tax fix.

Which raises the question - was the excise tax worth it? If the health bill dies now, the main reasons for its death will be the decision to let Max Baucus hijack the process last summer and then allowing Baucus to insert the excise tax financing mechanism instead of using the House mechanism of a tax on the wealthy (those earning over $500,000 a year.) If the health bill fails, the overreach of Baucus, endorsed by most Village Dems, will be the main culprit. Was it worth it? I assume there may be some regrets on that score now.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Night TV and Open Thread | Does Krugman Have A Good GOTV Operation? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The main (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:20:47 AM EST
    blame IMO goes to Obama who never decided what he wanted in a bill and then handing it all off to Baucus.

    I think it is more accurate to (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    say Obama never told the people what he wanted, but he certainly was decided and told his band of merry men to follow Baucus' lead.


    Parent
    It was an overreaction (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    to the last Dem Healthcare Debacle- instead of ignoring congress and thus getting denied by them, Obama allowed Congress to craft the entirety of the bill- both approaches are obviously wrong.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    Obama had no say-so in the process.

    (rolls eyes).

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    you are forgetting that President Collins made the decision on the stimulus. This is his MO. Just shove the job off on somebody else adn when it fails pretend you didn't have anything to do with the failure.

    Parent
    I'll say it again (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:25:54 AM EST
    Max Baucus did not hijack the process.  Obama made the deliberate decision to defer to him and the rest of his party followed suit.  Obama could've just as easily focused attention on the Senate HELP bill, but he chose to work with Baucus at the outset, presumably knowing who Max Baucus is and what is conservadem political beliefs are.

    The Senate bill is the bill Obama wanted.  And so Max Baucus didn't hijack anything.  He was the President's point man and he did his job.

    The mistake liberals and progressives made was in believing the White House somehow disagreed with Max Baucus and would magically fix everything and so they just had to keep pushing for an increasingly lousy bill because at the end of the process they'd still get ponies!

    Took the words right out of my mouth. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:43:56 AM EST
    Baucus makes an easy fall guy, but he was just doing the White House's bidding.  How do we know this?  Because if Obama had objected - to the excise tax, to the dropping of some variety of public component, to the Nelson "compromise" on Stupak - there was nothing stopping him from having a little come-to-Jesus meeting with Baucus and "suggesting" the Senate take a different course.  There was nothing stopping Obama from making on-the-record comments in opposition to what Max Baucus was putting together.  

    This was never part of some master plan of head-fakes and 11-dimensional chess that was going to result in the kind of reform necessary to achieve the goals the people want: better access to, and affordability of, health CARE.

    And it still amazes me that, almost a year later, the WH, the Congress and the so-called pundits are still trying to shine us on about what has been taking place, and whose fault it is that it hasn't worked out.

    Parent

    Obama, himself, recently stated (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:07:47 AM EST
    he was in favor of the excise tax.

    Parent
    Well, that's because of Obama's (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    political skill. He is slippery like the best of them.

    Parent
    How skillful is he if people have (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    figured him out?

    The "help me fight the banks" is the first salvo in Campaign 2010, and as he cranks that up, make sure to listen carefully, because no matter how eloquently he packages it, no matter how stirring his cadence and tone, there will be very little about the content of his rhetoric that will actually be true.

    I'm expecting a lot of split-screen, fact-checking video over the next year, and it's going to be almost impossible for Obama - and Democrats - to counter.

    It's going to be interesting, because usually, right around the time Obama has had to face the possibility of being accountable for his record, he has moved on to campaigning for a higher office; this might be the first time in a long, long time that he has had to face the music - and I don't think he's going to do it well.

    Parent

    It's about time (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    for another prime time speech on something to feature soaring rhetoric.  Every time Obama gets in trouble, we get one.  Then the media can have tingles running up their legs and will slobber all over themselves about what a great speech it was, and we all are supposed to forget about substance.

    Parent
    Did you see him on Nightline Wednesday (none / 0) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:44:39 AM EST
    night? He had a lengthy interview with George Stephanopolous...nothing off-limits, they claimed. Full of excuses and others to blame. George did say one good thing to him, though..."this isn't the campaign, anymore, what are you doing?"

    Obama never uses the "buck stops here" phrase until after he has laid out who we are to blame. It's interesting to watch, and he does it with such ease.

    Parent

    Isn't half of the question: was the (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:08:27 AM EST
    delay and dawdling worth it?
    If we were having a do or die argument over the excise tax in September, we wouldn't be at the current impasse.
    I think the delay was part of the plan, and its a disturbing feature of a lot of important votes in recent years. It was a specialty of Rove, IMO. Making Congress vote on this huge bill with such limited time is plain wrong.
    The Village position is a huge joke. They've been saying "just pass the facking bill", when there wasn't even a bill.


    So what? It is what it is. (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    What's the point of having labor being the most important part of the Dem coalition?  So more Democrats can get elected?  So they can do ...NOTHING ANYWAY?

    Labor unions are more important politically, but they are not more important MORALLY over the people who will remain uninsured or the ones who will be getting the recission letters.

    So much of the bill doesn't even take effect for years--lots of time to work on things.

    Maybe the whole point of the past decade is that there is NEVER EVER going to be a "permantent majority" of any party, and the thing to do when the cycle is in your favor is to get things done and stop worrying about the next game in November.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:22:50 AM EST
    and the Dems have promised to fix a lot of things that they haven't fixed so why would anyone believe they are going to fix this bill?

    Parent
    Maybe in 2010, the youth vote (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    can replace the Unions with their votes and their GOTV activities.

    About 15% of Massachusetts citizens between the ages of 18-29 turned out to vote.* For citizens age 30 and older, turnout was about 57%.
    ...
    While national youth turnout was very strong in 2008 (when 52% of young American citizens voted), youth turnout in the 2009 Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial races was poor (17% and 19%, respectively), and even lower in Massachusetts this Tuesday. link

     

    Parent

    If the bill doesn't take effect for (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:21:45 AM EST
    several years, and it causes Dems to lose Congress, after which the Republicans do a McCain number on health care---what's the point?


    Parent
    The parts of the bill that take effect right away (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:23:11 AM EST
    are popular--and history shows anyway that repealing something on the books is very very difficult.

    Parent
    So Dems should give up (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    Congress to pass this bill?
    Why not pass something better?

    Parent
    Because at this time there are no votes to (none / 0) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:31:30 AM EST
    pass anything better in the Senate.

    I think even 50 is just a magical pony, at least for a while, until they can get some other things done, like a jobs bill.

    IMHO, it's this bill (with hopefully fixes sometime in the future) or nothing for many years.  And there are political losses either way, so why not help some people?

    Parent

    There aren't enough votes in the House (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    to pass the Senate bill stand alone.

    do you not understand that?

    Parent

    Of couse I do. (none / 0) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    And I think they are wrong and making a big mistake.

    Every blog should have someone who doesn't believe what 99% of the others do.

    Parent

    Do you think the Senate is making a mistake (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:48:44 AM EST
    in not doing a companion reconciliation fix of the excise tax?

    Parent
    It depends on how you define mistake (none / 0) (#24)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    I would personally want the Senate to pass a companion reconciliation fix. However, the electoral fortunes of Nelson, Lieberman, Webb, Baucus, Conrad, MacCaskill, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln and a number of other Senators do not really depend on a HCR Bill (that would be satisfactory to House progressives and you) getting passed. BTD, this is a political reality that you often ignore.

    Parent
    If the Senate does not want to do the fix (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    then the bill is dead.

    Forget about satsifying me. I am sick of hearing that line from Senate bill supporters. I am irrelevant.

    Who is not irrelevant is the unions. They will not support the Stand Alone Senate bill thus House Dems will not either.

    It is that simple.

    Railing at me does not change that reality.

    Parent

    I am not railing at you (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    I am just stating a political reality. Neither am I a Senate bill supporter. I am coming around to the view that the bill is most likely dead. This brings forth another question. You had mentioned that the Senate Bill is a very big giveaway to the insurance industry; if that is the case, will the insurance industry let it die?

    Parent
    And there never were enough votes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    in the Senate to force the House bill through- its become pretty obvious.

    Parent
    This is the equivalent of screaming (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:28:07 AM EST
    at the wind.

    The political reality is the political reality.

    Your thinking is no different than that of a single payer purist.

    Parent

    Don't underestimate the value of a good (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    cathartic scream every now and then.

    The only difference between me and a single payer advocate is that the Senate bill has passed.

    Look at the negotiations--they ere whittling down the differnce to a 2017 start date for the excise tax, indexing to inflation, and a small bump in the dollar amount.

    That just seems too small a difference right now.  But then, I'm not worried about my re-election, just the real reality.

    Parent

    the House won't pass it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:48:07 AM EST
    they simply will not.

    you want a bill? Scream at the senate to fix the excise tax in a companion reconciliation bill.

    If you do not see that is the only viable path, then you are precisely like a single payer purist.

    Parent

    The political reality (none / 0) (#18)
    by hookfan on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    is the political reality unless or until it's not. . . =)

    Parent
    Interesting to re-read this LAT (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    article about the WH HCR team:  Oct 21 09 LAT

    Per the team, WH didn't dictate.  Did set "guardrails."

    SURE they didn't (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    I believe ANYTHING the WH tells me.....

    Parent