Mark Warner's Perilous Fork in the Road

One of my favorite poems has always been Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Traveled.” In that poem, the narrator describes coming to a fork in the road. Although both paths appear equally pleasant and leafy, the narrator must choose which path to take. Knowing he may never pass that way again, the direction he takes will have consequences for the rest of his life. And that's the thing about difficult choices. They have consequences.

When it comes to the difficult choices about health care reform, our junior senator, Mark Warner, faces just such a fork in the road. Whichever choice he makes will have consequences, not just for his personal ambition but also for the fortunes of his party, his nation and his state. That’s a lot resting on his shoulders and those of his colleagues in Congress.

Senator Warner has aligned himself with the Senate’s conservative Democrats, who are allied with the House’s Blue Dog caucus, especially on health care reform.

Before going further, let's acknowledge that Mark Warner always was a pro-business centrist. Virginians not only understood this but embraced it. As governor, he led from the center and was largely successful because he applied good business practices to Virginia and put its fiscal house back in order, restoring its AAA bond rating and balancing its budgets. But as governor, he also found ways to balance the best practices of business with meeting the needs of Virginia’s ordinary citizens. He was successful because he did not sacrifice the well-being of the neediest on an altar of fiscal conservatism. Instead, he found a way to balance the two sets of priorities so that all Virginians benefited from the commonwealth’s prosperity.

Now, however, the nation is in an economic crisis that is the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

At the same time, we are facing a crisis of our health care system and it urgently needs reform. To reform it in a way that provides near universal coverage is going to require a lot of spending. That goes against the grain of cautious, centrist, business oriented politicians, such as Warner. But the alternative is a health care delivery system whose costs put such a strain on the economy that it will threaten our recovery. Our health care costs are far higher and our medical outcomes are far worse than those of the rest of the industrialized first world. It would seem to be a no-brainer. We are paying more money for less quality of care than countries like Canada, France, Germany, and even Taiwan.

And the problems have been exacerbated by the climbing unemployment rate because so many people’s health insurance is tied to their employers. With the loss of jobs comes a loss of health care coverage.

To my mind, the best solution would be a single payer system not tied to one’s employer. But I understand that that solution is unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans despite the fact that it actually works very well in other countries, regardless of how much the far right in this country tries to discredit it.

It’s important to note, though, that the single payer option is the solution of choice on the left end of the spectrum, supported by liberals like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in the Senate and John Conyers, Tammy Baldwin, and Elliott Engel in the House.

On the right, especially among Republicans, the solution would not have any public option and would depend solely on market-based solutions with little government interference. It would depend on encouraging consumers to purchase private insurance plans and give them a tax cut to do so (every right wing solution to any problem depends on the so-called free market and a tax cut and little else).

The reason I am pointing that out is because it’s important to note that the plans currently under discussion in the Senate and the House are varieties of centrist compromise that would still be based largely on private insurance companies and employer based options. They are neither single payer options nor socialized medicine. What is under discussion is various ways to fund the plans, including a government subsidy only to those who couldn’t afford to purchase insurance, penalties for large businesses who don't cover employees, insurance pools and tax breaks to small businesses to encourage them to purchase insurance for their workers, and a public option for those who truly can’t afford a private plan even with a subsidy.

Supporters also hope a public option would provide more competition to the private insurers to get them to keep premiums low and provide better coverage. There would also be stricter regulations to ensure that insurers don't deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or cancel coverage for those who get sick. That is the plan of the true centrists. It’s the one progressives don’t necessarily favor, but are willing to support to get to the goal of near universal coverage.

Mark Warner does not support that plan. He has aligned himself with the conservative Democrats in the Senate, led by Max Baucus, and the Blue Dogs in the House, led by Jim Matheson and Mike Ross. They are neither moderate nor centrist – they are conservative. That’s the first thing you need to remember.

Now, let’s examine what those congressional Democratic conservatives stand for.

Both groups oppose the public option. Neither group has an appetite to fund health care reform by taxing the wealthiest one percent of the nation. Yet the Senate conservative Democrats, and their Republican allies, have no similar reluctance to tax the health benefits of those who currently have “generous insurance plans.” In fact, most of those on whom that tax burden will fall are fire fighters, police officers, government workers, and those who are professionals and middle managers. In other words, the middle and working classes will bear the burden with additional taxes, with the upward distribution of wealth once again preserved for the most fortunate – those with friends in high places.

In addition, without the public option, Americans would be mandated to buy health insurance from private providers, unless their employers provide it. Not only would this not actually help ordinary citizens, it would simply be an unfunded mandate on them. And it would create a windfall profit for insurance companies, who would reap even greater benefit under this so-called reform, as even this article in Business Week points out.

Although the Senate supports regional co-ops instead of the public option, we have even less evidence that these would work on a national level than we do that a single payer system would be effective. There are a few such co-ops operating in some states with various degrees of success but it is hard to say whether that model would translate well elsewhere. Certainly, if you object to risky and costly experiments, the regional co-ops would qualify for that description even more than the public option would.

There are many good reasons for supporting the more progressive health care reform plans out there. But for the Blue Dogs in Congress and the conservative Democrats in the Senate one very good reason is that their financial ties to the insurance industry are, by now, also very well documented, as this Washington Post article, for example, demonstrates regarding Mike Ross:

Ross has received nearly $1 million in contributions from the health-care sector and insurance industry during his five terms in Congress, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. The lawmaker founded Ross Pharmacy of Prescott, Ark., which he and his wife sold in 2007. The couple received $100,000 to $1 million in dividends last year from the sale, according to House financial disclosure forms.

Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.

Further, the above mentioned Business Week also points out Mark Warner’s connections to UnitedHealth. Here’s the telling quote:

UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama—and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats.

UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.

When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record.

If voters are angry with Democrats and disillusioned by politics, it’s because after two election cycles of successfully running against lobbyists, special interests, and the culture of corruption, powerful Democrats are beginning to look exactly like those they replaced

The only way for those Democrats to stanch that anger and disillusionment and keep their own seats at the midterms is to take the road less traveled, less profitable, and ultimately more moral. It’s to stand with the ordinary working people and the middle class rather than with the powerful and wealthy special interests who usually managed to turn legislation to their advantage, regardless of which party is in power.

If they don’t, they could face dire consequences at the election polls sooner rather than later. Indeed, Ben Tribbett makes that prediction in a tweet, where he predicts that those who don’t support a public option, including Warner, Webb, Boucher, Connolly, Perriello, and Glenn Nye will all lose their seats in the midterms. But I believe electoral disaster could come even sooner than that in Virginia.

That’s because the very first election where fallout from anger at the Democrats for failing to get health care reform right will be right here in Virginia. The gubernatorial race is the canary in the mining shaft. It's the forerunner to the midterms in two years. And here is where there is a double irony for Mark Warner especially.

Currently, Creigh Deeds and Jody Wagner are running hard as Virginia Democrats in the mold of Mark Warner. How ironic, then, it would be if Warner’s own actions helped to kill the health care reform and take down with it Deeds and Wagner at home and then the Virginia Democrats in Congress a year later. Even if Warner were to survive it based on his personal popularity, that would spell the end of any ambitions he has on the national stage.

But that’s the choice he has to make as he stands at this fork in the road. Choose wisely, Mark. Your future and ours depend on it!

Delegation Introduces Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding

I just received this press release from Congressman Gerry Connolly's office:

Delegation Introduces Final Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding Resolution is Last Step in Establishing Federal and Local Commitment Over Ten Years

WASHINGTON, DC – The Members of the Washington Metro Area’s Senate and House Delegation – Senators Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, and Reps. Steny H. Hoyer, Frank R. Wolf, James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Chris Van Hollen, Donna F. Edwards and Gerald E. Connolly - introduced a resolution today to ratify the amended interstate WMATA Regulation Compact in accordance with legislation enacted last year authorizing $1.5 billion in federal Metro funding over ten years.

The measure, which follows a formal request submitted last week by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, is the final step required in the authorization process and will obligate the three jurisdictions to provide matching funds for federal appropriations.

“The Washington Metro Area Delegation has long recognized the need to provide Metro with a dedicated funding stream to ensure the safety and efficiency of a system that serves millions of residents and visitors. Given the fact that Metro is the primary public transit system serving our federal workforce, as well as the millions of visitors to our Nation’s Capital each year, we believe the federal government must be a partner in providing that investment.

“We succeeded last year in establishing that commitment with legislation authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding over ten years to be matched by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. That legislation required the local jurisdictions to amend the WMATA Regulation Compact to reflect the dedicated funding requirement, establish an Office of Inspector General, and provide for Federal representation on the WMATA Board. The three jurisdictions fulfilled this obligation and last week formally requested Congressional approval of the amended compact - the final step in the authorization process.

“In light of Monday’s tragic accident, we believe that this funding is even more critical to provide for the safety of our citizens. We look forward to quick consideration of our resolution in the House and Senate, and will continue to fight for approval of our request for $150 million in federal funds for Metro for Fiscal Year 2010.”

Together, the region’s delegation has requested $150 million in federal funding this year for capital and preventive maintenance projects for the maintenance and upkeep of Metro. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress and signed by President Obama in February included $200 million to meet Metro needs in operations systems, IT, maintenance and repair equipment, passenger and maintenance facilities, safety and security, and vehicle servicing.

The authorization for dedicated Metro funding was included in the Rail Safety Improvement Act (H.R. 2095), which was passed last fall and signed into law by President Bush.

As somebody who frequently rides the Metro, I recognized several years ago that Metro needed a dedicated funding stream. Metro carries millions of passengers, including federal employees, employees of private industry, and tourists. Usually it does so safely, efficiently, and relatively comfortably. When I first moved to DC 18 years ago, local residents pointed to the Metro system with pride. It was clean, quick, and safe transportation that was affordable.

The system is now aging. Repairs are needed. But it is still a system worth being proud of. But yesterday's terrible tragedy has shown us just how much we need this system to work properly and safely. Kudos to our Senate and House delegations for stepping up to the plate in a bipartisan effort to benefit our entire community and the tourists who visit us.

Warner, Gilmore Debate

Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore squared off in a debate on Friday night in Roanoke and, of course, the hot topic was the Wall Street bailout. It’s on everybody’s mind as the economy flat lines and goes on life support. Gilmore came out swinging and declared his opposition to the just passed bailout bill. As the Washington Post reported:

Gilmore attacked Warner for his support of the emergency economic plan signed by President Bush, and he told a statewide television audience that he would have saved taxpayers' money by not handing it to "Wall Street high rollers."

"The next bailout is on the way," Gilmore said. "Who is going to stand up for the taxpayers?"

The Post also reported this exchange between Gilmore to Warner:

“Don't talk down to me," Gilmore snapped at Warner at one point. "Don't tell me I don't understand. You don't understand."

Warner accused Gilmore of being too partisan to be an effective voice in Washington.

"The last thing Washington needs is one more over-the-top, my-way-or-the-highway, partisan ideologue in the Senate," Warner said.

Actually, Warner is right about Gilmore being too over the top in partisanship and Gilmore is wrong when he claims that he understands the economy. Dead wrong.

Let’s start with the fact that this is the man whose intransigence in the face of a $6 billion budget shortfall during his administration left our commonwealth in shambles and almost tattered our AAA bond rating. It reminded me of all the reasons why the Republicans were turned out of the governor’s mansion in the subsequent election. When it came to Governor Gilmore’s policies, nobody wanted more of the same.

But once again, Jim Gilmore demonstrated two things. The first is that he doesn’t actually understand economics. And second is that he will continue to put ideology over common sense. When confronted with a fiscal crisis of epic proportion, Gilmore would opt for the tired anti-government shibboleths and faux populism of the most conservative wing of the GOP.

Of course, nobody who is a real populist, left or right, is in favor of saving the hides of the greedy Wall Street boys and girls, who indeed created the financial mess we’re in. But refusing to provide the money to buy up the mortgage backed debt that is causing the credit markets to contract is counter productive. An analogy that Miami Herald columnist, Fred Grimm, came up with likened it to passengers on a cruise ship who refuse to launch the lifeboats because it means saving the incompetent crew who caused the ship to sink. Yeah, but refusing to save them means everybody goes down.

Here, briefly, is why we actually need the bailout to keep us all afloat.

Banks are failing in record numbers, creating a panic in the stock market, which means companies with good solid performance and profit statements are losing value, not because their businesses are worthless but because investors have lost faith in the market. Businesses are not able to get basic credit to conduct their day to day operations, like buying the raw products they need to produce their goods. Consumers are losing their purchasing power as their credit shrinks. That means banks won’t give them loans for mortgages, which reduces a shrinking housing market further and puts it in deeper crisis. It also means borrowers can’t get other kinds of loans, including school loans; new credit cards; or capital to start a business. Here, I’m talking about people with good credit ratings who could repay their debts. Everybody is affected. And the domino effect is that all markets – housing, stock, consumer goods – they all contract. That means loss of jobs. The economy already shed 159,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate is already at 6.1 percent. (Some economists estimate it could go as high as 7 percent this year – an unprecedented figure not seen since the 1980s and early 90s, which was also the last time there was a Republican administration in office for a sustained period.)

All of that is what a no vote on the bailout produces, just to make a point about irresponsible bankers, predatory lenders, and Wall Street CEOs. Sorry folks but the barn door is wide open and the horses have already fled. It’s past time to rein them in, but letting the largest banks and corporations fail isn’t the way to do it because even if the businesses fail, the top dogs will still float safely to the ground on their golden parachutes because it’s in their contracts. A company will file for Chapter 11 and the CEOs will make out fine. But the poor schmuck who loses his job won’t. In the reorganization after a declaration of bankruptcy, he will lose his pension. He’ll lose his insurance. And unemployment insurance will be barely adequate to replace his salary.

So Mr. Gilmore can spare us the phony populism. In fact, it’s almost amusing how the GOP version of populism can always tap into the real and justified anger of the common man but somehow end up actually benefitting the upper class. They know how to wage class warfare effectively. It’s a guerilla war where they wear camouflage and disguise themselves as ordinary people who hate the elites while the top one percent always ends up richer and the rest of us lose ground. Yeah, it’s almost amusing. Except not now.

Preposterous Gilmore Attacks

And here's Mark Warner's response to Gilmore's lies.

Virginia AFL-CIO Enthusiastically Supports Mark Warner

It's obvious from this video, taken from the AFL-CIO Blog, that the Virginia AFL-CIO enthusiastically supports former Governor Mark Warner in his bid for the U.S. Senate. This video was taken during the recent July 4th Northern Virginia Central Labor Council picnic, held at the NoVA CLC headquarters.

The man leading the cheering section at the very beginning is NoVA CLC President Dan Duncan. The woman to whom Mark Warner briefly speaks is state AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer and newly elected DNC member Doris Crouse-Mays. He was telling her that he will support the Employee Free Choice Act. (More on the Free Choice Act here.) In doing so, he will be joining Virginia's soon-to-be senior senator, Jim Webb, a co-sponsor of this legislation. Co-sponsors on the House side include Jim Moran, Rick Boucher, and Bobby Scott. In addition, Gerry Connolly announced his support for it at the same picnic. In contrast, Tom Davis voted against it in Congress just as Virginia's other Republican representatives did. Davis used to claim he was a moderate. So, think how Keith Fimian would vote.



Finally, the woman running around with the camera is my friend Joyce Putnam, whose pictures have graced this blog several times. She's a member of OPEIU and works for Washginton Gas.

The Bluing of Virginia Advances

From the live coverage I've been reading about RPV convention, it appears that the social conservatives are firmly in control of the party and are determined to take it over a cliff this November and well into the future.

Meanwhile, the Virginia Democratic Party is enthusiastically united behind Mark Warner and with good reason. Below is his first ad.




This a great ad, reminding Virginians of the condition that Jim Gilmore left this state in when Warner took over as governor. The Republicans are going to try to hit Warner for "raising taxes" but the truth is when Warner took over, he faced a $700 million deficit (actually, that's the public figure that Gilmore would admit to, but privately his critics say it was closer to $3 billion).

Warner not only turned that around but left the state with its Triple A bond rating in tact and Virginia has been declared one of the best states for business by Forbes Magazine every year since, including under Tim Kaine's stewardship.

In other news, the RPV has elected Jeff Fredrickson its new chairman. John Hager stepped aside and asked that Fredrickson be declared the new chairman by acclimation. (h/t) to RK for the report. Actually, Grey Havens says it best: "The RPV death spiral accelerates." And Too Conservative calls it Apocalypse Now.

I suspect our chances of furthering the bluing of Virginia is still on schedule!