Wade Rathke and Health Care Reform

When I interviewed Wade Rathke for the third time, he recounted a story from the 1970's in which proponents of welfare reform wound up killing a reform package because it didn't go far enough.

He also said that the public option wasn't a litmus test for his support. He went back nearly four decades to frame the issue. In the early 1970's, welfare rights groups he had previously been alligned with were fighting for welfare reform. They wanted a bill that would give a family of four earning less than $5,500 welfare benefits of $5500 when unemployed. The bill proposed $1800. So, the groups opposed the plan. By doing so, they actually joined forces with conservative groups who wanted the bill to give zero. The bill was defeated. So, sometimes, it's better to get some of what you want than be an ideological purist and oppose unless you get all.

There's members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that appear determined to repeat that history. Here's how Howard Dean characterized the compromise.

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me. The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal.

Markos Maloutsos has a similar though not as tough a thought.

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Don't expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. They're in it for their industry pals.

If you want a similar model, watch how universities increase tuition to absorb increased financial aid opportunities. And since the Senate and its industry-bought Senators won't allow insurance premium caps or an end to the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption (much less a public option to compete against them), there is nothing keeping those companies from jacking up rates to screw people. In fact, that's been their modus operandi for years.

Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington calls it "absurd" to "cede health care reform to Joe Lieberman". Roland Burris still hasn't committed to the compromise. The far left is ready to lay down the marker. Either health care reform will have what they want in it or they are ready to kill it. The far left will then put pressure on the Russ Feingold's and Bernie Sanders of the world and attempt to force a showdown over health care reform.

It's unclear what they think they will accomplish. There aren't the votes to pass health care reform with the public option. So, that would mean they'd want to kill the bill. It's much like the situation that Rathke described. Supporters of health care reform are on the brink of going for nothing if they don't get everything. They're ready to create the surreal situation in which Russ Feingold would vote with Jim DeMint.

Opponents, like me, would like nothing more than to watch the far left do its damdest to sabotage health care reform because they didn't get everything they want. There's nothing better than having your opponents arrange a circular firing squad and begin firing. They're not there quite yet, but their rifles are loaded and they're ready to fire.

Public Option Medicare Buy In Out?

The Senate caucus has met and the latest news appears to be that the public option is out and so is the Medicare buy in.

Senators emerging from the special Democratic caucus confirmed that the Medicare buy-in proposal will have to be stripped from the Senate bill in order to achieve 60 votes, marking a major concession on behalf of liberal Democrats fighting to have a public option, or some kind of alternative.

Now, the question remains whether or not the liberals in the Senate and in the House will go along. That's still unclear. Roland Burris is already balking but no one seems to take his bluster seriously.

If the liberals are smart, they take this deal, and the House agrees to the Senate compromise. This would still create a massive 2000 page bill. It still has over 100 new bureaucracies. There still plenty of government control. Even if they aren't offering insurance themselves, the government will now dictate health insurance in all sorts of new ways. That still gets the liberals plenty close enough to their dream of single payer.

Censure for Burris

The Senate Ethics Committee handed down punishment for Roland Burris today.

Sen. Roland Burris was rebuked today by the Senate Ethics Committee, which issued him a "public letter of qualified admonition" for his actions in connection with his
appointment by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.The letter informed Burris that the Senate committee had concluded that "your actions reflected unfavorably on the Senate."

"The committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate," the letter said.

Burris, who was appointed to the seat vacated by President Barack Obama, sought to cast the committee's action as a vindication, noting that the panel had cited a state's attorney's conclusion that there were no "actionable violations of law."

Now, some, like me, would consider this a slap on the wrist. There's been an unwritten agreement between Burris and Senate leadership. He won't be thrown out of the Senate as long as he doesn't run in 2010.

Burris, as most remember, was chosen by then Governor Blagjojevich to replace Barack Obama in the Senate. Blago did it following all the revelations. Most other pols shied away from being chosen after it was revealed that Blago had allegedly tried to sell that seat. Not so for Burris and he gladly accepted the appointment.

Initially, most of the media claimed that Burris was of a reputation beyond reproach. We needn't worry as Burris wouldn't have involved himself in such under handed dealings. I was skeptical. After all, Burris was an Illinois pol. Soon enough, the initial analysis turned far too rosey.

Now, it appears as though Burris was less than truthful in answering questions about the nature of the contacts between himself and Blago. It's still unclear if anything untoward occurred in securing his seat. It's even less clear if there will be any further investigation. What is clear is that Burris' time is running low in the U.S. Senate. Come January of 2010, someone else will fill his seat.

Burris Speaks

In politics, it's impossible to know just how serious such a statement is.

For Democrats determined to get a health care bill, Sen. Roland Burris is like the house guest who couldn't be refused, won't soon be leaving and poses a plausible threat of ruining holiday dinner.

Suddenly, he can no longer be ignored.

The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.

Max Baucus has stated there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill with the public option. If Burris holds to his guns, then there aren't enough votes unless the public option is in there. You can see how that's a problem.

I won't speculate on whether or not Burris is serious. Furthermore, there's a number of things that the leadership can do to either placate him or simply remove him. The article points out that leadership has an unwritten agreement with him that 1) he stays around for the two years he's supposed and no more and 2) he does nothing to rock the boat. Clearly, he's rocking the boat and so the leadership can do things to stop him. Of course, if that's the case, that will get ugly and the Democratic party will be the one that gets hurt.

More than that, this is yet another sign that the public option has wound up splitting the Democratic party. In politics, if you engage in jujitsu, then you are able to split your opponents. You propose legislation that gets some of the opposition to support and some to oppose. That's how you win.

In this case, the public option has split the Democratic party. The Republicans don't like the bill with or without it. They're united. The Democrats can't decide if they want it in or out, and there are plenty of Dems for which this is a deal breaker. They are on both sides of this. Just as folks like Burris are saber rattling that they'll vote against any bill without the public option there are also plenty of moderates that will vote against any bill with a public option. They exist in both the House and the Senate. I believe one of the main reasons that we still have no bill is that there simply aren't the votes to get one no matter what.

The Democrats have split themselves on the public option. The President needs to head to the front of the line in blame for this. First, he obviously didn't get a feel for his caucus before pushing it. Then, his support wavered on the idea and supporters pushed back. He's still totally wishy washy. Today, the White House pronounced that they want the public option in the bill but they won't demand it. That's a signal that they will throw the public option under the bus to get a deal. It's still not taking a stand. So, it may just be a coincidence that Burris came out with this today, or it maybe that supporters of the public option are pushing back against the president.

That happens when you fail to take a stand. Because the president has refused to take a stand, he gets push back constantly. It's why nearly into November there's still no bill to look at.

ACORN, the Media, and Culture

In my capacity as a citizen of Illinois, I took it upon myself to contact both Roland Burris and Dick Durbin to see why they voted to continue to fund ACORN. Senator Burris has a press release but it's not available on line. I may receive an email in a bit and then I will post it. The basic idea of the release is this. Senator Burris is deeply troubled by the allegations. He believes that there needs to be strict oversight over the group. He also believes the group should not be defined by a few "bad apples". ACORN does a lot of good work providing services to low and mid income families in the inner cities and cutting off funding would cut off that good work.

Senator Durbin's statement was similar. Senator Durbin's office believed that this is a criminal matter and not a matter for the Congress. His office believed also that these videos showed a few bad apples and shouldn't reflect on the group as a whole. Senator Burris' office told me they were in no position to answer any questions. In other words, he laid this hand grenade on his staff, gave them a statement, and expected them to figure it out from there. Senator Durbin's staff took questions but frankly they were in no better position to answer any questions. I pointed out that Dale Rathke embezzled $1 million from ACORN, that Wade Rathke covered it up along with severl lieutenants, and that they've owed millions in past due taxes. Of course, the Issa report concluded that ACORN is a criminal organization. His office told me that they would relay my concerns to the Senator.

The manner in which both Burris and Durbin treat these latest revelations is similar to the way some in the media treat the entire issue. Burris doesn't even have the statement available on his site yet even though there's a page set aside for press releases. His staff wasn't even in a position to take questions. Durbin's statement is also not available yet on line. His staff took questions but clearly weren't prepared for many. That's not the fault of the staff. They weren't prepped for questions. The Senators clearly didn't think that prepping them was necessary.

It's this sort of dismissive attitude that many in the media take to ACORN. There's the now infamous exchange between Charlie Gibson and two Chicago radio personalities. In that exchange, Gibson admits that he knows nothing of the story. He further goes on to say that this is a story for cable. We all know that the MSM has all but ignored the story.

So, this ACORN story is now the latest reincarnation of our culture wars. There are those in our culture that think it is their duty to decide what is and isn't a major story. That's the position that both Burris and Durbin take. To them these incidents are merely isolated incidents that shouldn't be treated as anything more than that. They have obviously ignored the years and years of evidence of wrongdoing by ACORN and now treat these incidents as isolated.

The MSM is doing much the same. There is a collective yawn. Of course, no one should decide what is and is not news. What is or is not news is defined by its worthiness, impact, fascination, verifiability, etc. There are certain characteristics that are either there or they aren't. In this case, the ACORN story has all the characteristics. Some just choose to ignore it regardless.

So, what's happening is that this story is unfolding with some literally standing on the sidelines. There are those that care about this and those that don't. When 83 of 90 Senators vote the exact same way, that's news. We can't get that many Senators to agree to name an airport. Yet, we got that many to agree to defund ACORN. That's news and yet only some in the media This is NOT a partisan issue. Greg Hall is a liberal and a Democrat and he's a former ACORN employee. He knows where the proverbial bodies are buried. He wants ACORN investigated and he isn't shy about saying so. The folks at ACORN 8 are almost universally liberal and Democrat. Many have told me that they believe in ACORN's mission. They want to see a group like ACORN battling for the lower and middle classes in the inner cities.

This isn't a partisan issue but a corruption issue. That should be a bi partisan issue. Corruption isn't liberal or conservative but wrong and it's corrossive. It must be stopped. There is overwhelming evidence that there is something really wrong at ACORN. Yet, we have a schism in our society between those that think this is a very bad thing and those that dismiss it as background noise. That's another reincarnation of our culture wars. There are those that find corruption wrong and want it stopped. Then, there are those that see corruption and dismiss it as minor incidents. Everyone must decide which side they are on.

Just Another Week In Illinois Politics...

Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool announced this week that he wouldn't seek the office of Cook County Board President, as he did in 2006. This drew a rather crude response from fellow Cook County Commissioner William Beavers.

The ever outspoken William Beavers says fellow Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool - in a shocking announcement this week - decided against running for county board president because he's a "born loser" who doesn't have a shot at the top job.

Beavers is allied with current Cook County President Todd Stroger. Stroger has been embattled ever since he raised the sales tax to over 10%, making it among the highest in the country. More recently, the scandal surrounding the hiring of former bus buy and con Tony Cole has further embarrassed Stroger. Beavers, for his part, believes that the voters will give Stroger their vote of confidence once his record of balanced budgets comes out. Of course, it's much easier to balance the budget when you raise taxes to record levles.



Meanwhile, in Niles, a suburb of Chicago, their board recently discovered that one trustee, George Alpogianis, is a former con and is looking to remove him.

Niles Trustee George Alpogianis is a convicted felon and the Cook County state's attorney's office will seek to remove him from the village board if he doesn't resign, spokesman Andy Conklin said.

Conklin said Alpogianis' attorney, Mike Lavelle, had told the state's attorney's office that his client would resign before Monday

Illinois law stipulates that no former felons are allowed to run for any state office. Alpogianis, for his part, is determined to stand on principle and is now refusing to step down because he has "got a duty to serve the village".

Finally, the sad saga of Roland Burris took another turn this week when Sangamon County State's Attorney reported that they wouldn't seek perjury charges against him.

Senator Roland Burris was back in Chicago after finding out he won't face a perjury charge over statements he made about how he got the Senate job.

Burris announced the very next day that he would seek re election for his seat in 2010. The Democrats are hoping that he will face plenty of challengers as his representation of the party is turning into a major embarrassment. Potential challengers include Alexei Giannoulias who faces his own connections to corruption. Other potential challengers include Lisa Madigan, who's current office of Attorney General of Illinois has indicted no politicians on corruption charges during her tenure. So, it looks as though we are going to see another strong field of competitors here in Illinois in 2010.

The Burris Tapes Put Illinois Corruption Back in Spotlight

Had Nancy Pelosi not meltded down herself only weeks earlier, the meltdown by Roland Burris yesterday would have gone down as something more extraordinary. That said, there should be no doubt that Burris has not been honest, very little doubt that he at least deserves to be investigated, and certainly a strong suspicion that he only received his Senate seat through a quid pro quo. It's of course the irony of ironies that prior to all of this coming out everyone portrayed Burris as an individual of impeccable character and ethics.

I didn't know that much about Burris however I found it hard to believe that he rose as far as he did within the swamp of Illinois politics being someone of "impeccable character and ethics". The tapes have been characterized as Blagojevich's standard operating procedure. Commentators have taken to the air to proclaim that under Blago this is how business got done. I don't doubt this but Blago didn't learn this on his own.

Blago has been the consummated political insider since he married the former Patti Mell. Patti's father is powerful Chicago City Council Man, Dick Mell. It was Mell's influence that moved Blago through the political ranks in Chicago. It was Mell's influence that secured Blago's fifth Congressional seat from 1996-2002 and Mell's influence that helped land Blago the Governorship. Blago didn't learn pay to play and other forms of corruption all on his own. He learned them because pay to play and corruption is standard operating procedure for Illinois.

It is the same system that wound up spring boarding Burris to the State's Attorney General's office. So, the thought that he was an individual of impeccable ethics always seemed to be naive. Now, the corruption in Illinois is yet again in the front pages of the national media. He's now not merely an embarrassment for Illinois but for the nation. Burris, and all his Illinois corrupt baggage, are now the problem of the U.S. Senate and the Democratic leadership.

Right now, the Illinois House, lead by Michael Madigan, is debating a non binding resolution to send to the U.S. Senate to demand that Burris be removed from his seat. That's right, here in Illinois even a no brainer non binding resolution needs to be debated when it comes to taking any stand against corruption. Pat Quinn, who took over for Blago, is making his first major legislation a 50% increase in the income tax rate. That's because in this corrupt state cutting spending in order to balance the budget is simply not an option. Too many folks have been paid off with that spending.

Meanwhile, Burris is defiant and isn't planning on going anywhere. He's even making plans for a run in 2010. Why shouldn't he be? Given the environment he's from, he really hasn't done anything any different than his colleagues.

The Never Ending Saga of Rod Blagojevich Continues

When Roland Burris was chosen for the U.S. Senate by Rod Blagojevich, most in the media, and elsewhere, assured us that Burris was a man of unquestioned character. Most also agreed that there was nothing untoward in Blagojevich choosing Burris, himself, for the Senate seat. Both were dubious proclamations to me. After all, Burris had spent his entire career in Springfield. There are very few politicians that have spent their entire career in Springfield and wind up pure. In Springfield, there are three types of politicians. The first type are those that are corrupt themselves. Those are politicians like Blagojevich himself. They account for a significant number of the overall political class. The second type of politician are the enablers of the corrupt politicians. This sort of politician isn't corrupt themselves, but they do little to challenge their colleagues despite knowing that most of them are corrupt. This class includes the current President and Burris himself. He may not have been involved in much corruption himself, but he certainly did little to stop it while it occurred. The third are the genuine reformers though those are few and far between.

It also didn't make sense because while he was likely never in serious consideration, Burris was always a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat. In fact, he reached out to Blagojevich himself. I believe that Blagojevich was nothing if not thorough in his corruption. As such, it would only make sense that he would send out feelers to even Burris.

As such, the latest development in the Blagojevich saga shouldn't really be surprising.

On Saturday, Burris' spokesman told FOX News that Blagojevich's brother asked Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign donations before he was appointed to the U.S. Senate by then-Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois.

Sen. Burris didn't make the donation but failed to disclose the request under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel.

The Chicago Sun-Times first reported on its Web site Saturday that Burris made the disclosure in a new affidavit sent to the head of the state committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

According to the newspaper, the affidavit is dated Feb. 5 -- three weeks after Burris was sworn in to fill President Obama's former Senate seat.

Burris says he sent the affidavit to Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie when he realized his testimony before the committee wasn't complete.

So, not coincidentally, but conveniently, Burris initially claimed that there was nothing untoward between himself and the Blagojevich camp, then, after he was sworn in, he admitted there were more contacts. Now, it comes out that Blagojevich's brother, Robert, asked for campaign donations in return for consideration of the Seat.

I can't get into Burris' head and so I don't know what he was thinking throughout the affair. This is however the M.O. for most Illinois politicians. If, in fact, he is impeached and removed, it will likely be because he underestimated the mood of the State toward corruption. This is the standard operating procedure of most corrupt politicians.

Burris has coveted the U.S. Senate for a while. If the current admission had come out right away, he would not have been allowed to get the seat. Admitting that prior testimony was "incomplete" is just the sort of thing that a politician usually skates from in normal times in Illinois. After all, how do you prove what someone did or didn't remember at any given time? It's just the sort of thing that a politician would get away with most of the time. Of course, now, most Illinois politicians have a renewed sense of integrity, and suddenly, the mood here in Illinois is toward honesty and integrity. It's just the sort of position that one can't get away with today.

Roland Burris and the Scourge of Political Gamesmanship

After the 1990 census, the Texas legislature was controlled by Democrats. As such, they also controlled the redistricting. Not surprisingly, the Democrats set up new districts in their favor, also known as Gerrymandering.

After the 2000 census, the roles were largely reversed. Only this time, then Governor George Bush was the Governor while the legislature was controlled by Democrats. Over the next two years, the two parties couldn't agree on new districts. Redistricting wasn't settled in that legislative session. By 2002, the legislature was now also controlled by Republicans. At this point, even House Majority Whip Tom Delay got involved. This was technically outside of Texas guidelines as redistricting was supposed to be resolved in the session following the census. The Democrats demanded the matter be dropped. Rick Perry, the new Governor, instead called a special summer session of the Legislature to take up the issue of redistricting.

The issue continued to drag on into 2003. The Republicans drew up districts that were largely favorable to them. The Democrats, unable to muster enough votes to stop it, fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico to stop a quorum from occurring. As such, the Democrats stopped a legal vote from occurring. Delay went so far as to call the state police to arrest the Democrats. The issue was eventually resolved in the favor of the Republicans, but not before a series of court fights and a spectacle that played out in front of local, state, national, and even international media. What exactly was resolved? A blatant act of Gerrymandering to counter another blatant act of Gerrymandering ten years earlier. Not only this but it was an act that went outside of its own state rules.

The saga of the redistricting plan in Texas is the main reason that I hate political gamesmanship. As each side attempts to one up the other, Eventually, the political moves become more and more extreme and eventually one side flees out of state in order to stop a quorum.

We are now at the beginning of another saga of political gamesmanship and this one involves the Illinois Senate seat that Roland Burris wants to occupy. Yesterday, the Sargent at Arms blocked entry by Burris because the Secretary of State of Illinois refused to certify his appointment. Immediately after being blocked, Burris held a visible press conference. He plans on taking the matter to court. The Senate has several options at their disposal, including stalling or even dismissing him from the Senate after he has been admitted. Burris has several court options at his disposal, including several court actions as well as the media.

You can bet that if neither side backs down that the political gamesmanship will get more and more confrontational. Soon, we will be facing the equivalent of one party trekking to Oklahoma in order to stop a quorum. Some people find this sort of gamesmanship entertaining. After all, politics has a bit of theatrics to it. Nothing is more theatrical than two side staring each other down in a confrontation that constantly escalates. I am not one of these people that finds this in any way amusing. Politics has enough spectacle and it doesn't need to be manufactured.

To have this latest round of political gamesmanship play out again in front of local, state, national, and international media does no one any good. It only cheapens the process. It turns our democracy into something of a kangaroo court. Hopefully, everyone keeps this in mind as they watch the whole thing in amusement.