by publius
I just heard Chuck Todd say something rather remarkable on Hardball:
This surcharge tax idea coming out of the House, Grassley himself said it's dead, and if Grassley says it's dead, Baucus usually goes along. I mean, the two of them are like blood brothers in this on the way they run the Finance Committee. They both sort of take the long view because as one of them's the ranking member now, the other one's the chairman. They know those roles can get reversed quickly, so they very much listen to each other on that. So that millionaire surtax or whatever you want to call it at this point is probably dead.
First, it's entirely possible Todd is wrong. Maybe Baucus doesn't actually march to Grassley's drum. Maybe Baucus hates the surtax and wants to use Grassley as cover. I'm not sure.
But if Todd is correct, then it's the craziest thing I've ever heard -- for various reasons. First, Chuck Grassley shouldn't be dictating health care policy in a 60-40 Senate. Period. Full stop.
Second, one would hope that policy for 300 million people outranks "buddyness" in the United States Senate. Granted, you could maybe justify Baucus's actions under some sort of game theory "long view." The idea would be that cooperation ultimately helps the Dems because it gives Baucus some leverage when he's in the minority. The thing is, though, I don't really remember Baucus fighting for much of anything in the minority. I do, however, remember his brave support of Bush's tax cuts.
Third, Grassley's home state of Iowa went for Obama by nine points. If anything, Baucus and pals should be leveraging Iowa politics to pressure Grassley. I suppose such things would make lunch at the cafeteria a bit awkward. But seasoned politicians understand that this is all part of the game... yo.
Now again, maybe Todd is just getting played here in some sort of elaborate Kabuki. I certainly hope so.
Chuck Todd was very reliable when discussing delegate distribution in the Democratic primaries.
Since then, it's been downhill
Posted by: marky | July 21, 2009 at 01:10 AM
"Second, one would hope that policy for 300 million people outranks "buddyness" in the United States Senate."
Yeah, one would hope an awful lot of things about our government, which manifestly aren't true.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2009 at 06:40 AM
You sound so surprised. But isn't this the well-known "collegiality" of the Senate?
Posted by: The Raven | July 21, 2009 at 07:11 AM
I know its only been 6 months, but I'm getting increasingly pessimistic that Obama will accomplish any of his major initiatives.
It seems that it doesn't matter if you have 60, 70, or 80 Democratic seats in the Senate, there are still just too many of them that are weak, stupid, corrupt, or a combo of all three, and they simply are afraid of the GOP and its screaming, bloodthirsty mob to give the American people the changes we asked for on Nov. 4.
On top of all the pressures Obama must feel as President, it must be a thousand times worse knowing that, if he fails, he is handing the reigns of power back to a group of weaklings and out-and-out, frothing-at-the-mouth, gay-bashing, war-loving birth certificate conspiracy theorists.
Posted by: rob! | July 21, 2009 at 09:30 AM
I'm going to guess that Baucus is just using Grassley as cover so he doesn't have to reveal that what is really going on is he just doesn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy individuals and interests that shovel him campaign funds.
Posted by: Ron E. | July 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I really think he threw in the towel yesterday. His speech was what they call in poker "hollywoodin'": making a huge show at calling the all-in of an opponent, all the while knowing that the 'fold' is a foregone conclusion. Health-care reform in any way meaningful at all to the real life of the under- or un-insured, is doa.
I think Obama's support, like the Missouri River this time of year, is a mile wide and an inch deep. It'll get narrower and shallower as he is unable to deliver on the things he's expected to accomplish, whether he promised to do so or not.
In part I think he's hobbled by his time in the Senate. It was too short. I suspect he's regarded as a parvenu --kind of a Jay Gatsby, out of the West-- by a LOT of senior 'leaders' who likely bridle at BOTH his youth AND his race. They would be, if not forgiven, at least comprehensible if they regarded him not as standing gratefully on the shoulders of giants, but as having leap-frogged them.
The metaphor to remember here is the tin-horn playing with the house's money.
Posted by: Woody | July 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
This is what the Senate is supposed to be.
This is why we must abolish the Senate, or at least strip it of most of its power.
Posted by: Slaney Black | July 21, 2009 at 01:38 PM
"This is why we must abolish the Senate, or at least strip it of most of its power."
Will this turn out to be a good idea at such time as there is a Republican majority House again?
How well would it have worked out during the Clinton Presidency, if there had been no Senate to vote not to convict Bill Clinton?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 21, 2009 at 06:09 PM