Sirota -- Secret negotiations over HCR are bad news

[Armstead]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-its-bad-news-that-the_b_411463.html
David Sirota
Secret Negotiations are bad news

.....I want to point out that a lot of activists have been insisting that there's a Nixon-esque "secret plan" in the works -- only not to end the Vietnam War, but to make the health care bill radically better than the gutted carcass that passed the U.S. Senate in December. In general, I don't believe in the Secret Pony Plan Theory (ie. the theory that says that when any politician we're supposed to love does something awful, it's actually part of a secret 15-dimensional plan to do something awesome) -- never have, never will. Politicians do things because they are forced to do things, not out of the goodness of their own hearts, and if there ever is a secret plan, it's usually to pull one over on the public.

As it relates specifically to health care, I especially don't believe there's a secret plan to make the bill better in conference committee for two reasons.

First and foremost, it's a good rule of thumb that from a progressive perspective, most bills get worse -- not better -- in conference committee. These negotiations are where lobbyists have their most influence, because much of the wheeling and dealing is done through winks and nods, and because everyone knows the final product is an inexorably moving train that both chambers will likely pass. I defy you to name more than a few bills that have gotten markedly better -- rather than markedly worse -- in a conference committee.

Second, if there is any hope of making a bill better in conference committee, that hope relies on the conference committee negotiations actually being open to the public. But that's not guaranteed -- not even close........


...You see, if there was even a tiny chance this bill was going to get better in conference committee, that chance was, in part, reliant on progressive pressure on an open process. Ya know, pressuring individual conferees on specific amendments, etc. But if the conference negotiations take place in secret, that progressive public pressure is far harder to muster and to appropriately target. This is probably why Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is none too pleased about the news....

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Politicians do things because they are forced to

Sirota is right about that. All of the folks that get incensed that Progressives would criticize Obama/Dem leadership about anything completely misunderstand what motivates politicians. The ONE thing every politician fears most is a pissed off constituency making the chance that they will not get re-elected more likely. Sadly, the game is rigged to such an extent that this fear has been removed from our political system it seems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. As long as offices are up for sale and there are corporate backers to be had, what's to fear?

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. Because they are paid to. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

3. I agree with Sirota's conclusion (about the lack of transparency being troubling)...

even though I reject his typical fit of paranoid fantasies about the process and the Democratic leadership.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I actually completely disagree with the notion of open meetings.

I shudder to think what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution would have looked like if every person there had to deal with the idea that every word they speak and every compromise they tried to make were there for all the world to see - that is, if we would've gotten those landmark documents finished at all under the circumstances.

I think that while transparency does fight corruption, it also hamstrings compromise and our leaders actually working in our best interests - which quite frequently are interests that we don't even fully understand.

[damntexdem]

4. This is how the GOP remains relevant in the HCR debate:

their obstructionism allows the Dem leadership to act in such ways.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Sirota et all wouldn't have liked the bill no matter how it would have been tinkered with.....

No use in trying to please those who cannot be pleased no matter what.
If making that attempt would give the GOP more room to try and kill the bill,
than I'm glad the conference negotiations are closed.

So Sirota says that there was a tiny chance this bill was going to get better,
and I say, there is not even a remote chance that those who don't like the bill now
would like it any better, not even a tiny bit....period.
Sirota knows this and so do I.

[tekisui]

6. Do you really think the bill will get better?

Do you honestly think there is a chance that the House version will win out against Reid and Rahm?

[FrenchieCat]

7. My point is that no, I don't think so......

although such a possibility would exists once the bill is passed and signed into law...
but till then? I don't think so.

I will say that there are certain improvements possible,
such as Subsidies that may be increased,
and that portions of the bill might be enacted sooner (for the sake of house elections),
but that can be done without Republican fingers being allowed in the pie.

But like I said, it won't matter what happens,
Folks like Sirota won't like it any better, no matter what.

Those folks who have already decried the President, call him a liar over and over again,
and generally are pissed and don't give a shit about who the bill does help,
only who it doesn't help, won't care about anything beyond getting things into the bill,
that would then make it impossible to actually get through the senate.

So why accomododate the likes of Sirota and endanger the bill in the process?

It's kind of like the Republicans saying no, no matter what.
What's the point in trying to please them, when that is equally as impossible?

[donco6]

8. So, for the record, Frenchie likes secret negotiations.

Good to know, but not really surprising.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Yep...you know me well.

As I was saying elsewhere....when we were all against Bush, it was difficult to distinguish the asshats from the reasonable folks that just wanted better for their country, cause we all basically wanted the same thing; to see Bush ousted.

but now, those who cannot be pleased about anything no matter what unless their entire wish list is checked off and the Country is remade anew have become more evident.

[IndianaGreen]

11. You can't say you were not warned!

Nothing good comes out of secrecy and "smoked filled" rooms, no matter who is President.

[donco6]

12. I don't like secret negotiations.

Just sayin'. For the record and all.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Whatever floats your boat.....

from what I have read that you have written,
there is little that you do like about this administration;
and if it wasn't this, it would be something else.
So at some point, just like with the obstructionist Republicans,
its best to cut our loses, and get this bill through....

But you and the Cable Mega Companies should have a fun time
with this 11th hour call......

[donco6]

23. And back to the point-

I don't think secret negotiations are a good thing. And I can't think of a bill that was improved in committee either. It would be good for us all to see how the sausage is made.

[uponit7771]

44. Exactly, a lot of people have moved on from the ignore the facts anti Obama crowd

[Hatchling]

13. What was that about "transparency in government"? nt

[WeDidIt]

14. Lord Privy Douchenozzle Sirota Speaks

When will Lord High Douchenozzle Greeenwald deliver his Epistle?

[paulk]

15. character assassination

is a cheap argument

[WeDidIt]

17. Don't worry

Sirota has been Lord Privy Douchenozzle almost as long as Greenwald has been Lord High Douchenozzle.

[paulk]

22. do you think secret negotiations are a good thing?

post something meaningful

[WeDidIt]

25. The Lords of Douchnozzlery seem to be a secret organization.

:D

[paulk]

29. I'm putting you on ignore

you clearly add nothing to the conversation

[Puglover]

51. I swear to God he's 13 on Mom's computer.

I'm right behind you with the ignore. I swore to myself today that if the usual suspects jumped in threads and defended this latest bullshit I was going to start with the ignore list hard cause it's like talking to a wall. Obama himself suggested bringing in the Span during his campaign. I guess this along with alot of other stuff he said was just meant to sound nice. Bill Press said on Big Ed's show that Gibb's got quite huffy when asked about it. I am beyond disgusted.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Character assassination is the only thing that has been going on

in terms of this President and folks here wishing for his failure,
right along with Cheney.

....so why should Sirota be exempted from similar character assassinations?
What makes him so special?

[paulk]

26. character assassination is the resort of people with

nothing to say, no argument to make.

Address the article, not the writer

[freddie mertz]

37. There is no good argument for secret negotiations. Thus the attacks.

Anything goes, any criticism is wrong, any critic is an enemy.

Got it?

[donco6]

30. He's arguing against secret government meetings

Your counter to his arguments is . . .?

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Health Care Reform shouldn't be about the fucking President, or his successes/failures.

It should be about the fucking PEOPLE of the United States and what's best for THEM. You come to the fight with such a narrow focus ("Protecting My President from any and all criticism") that you cannot see the forest through the trees.

This is getting SOOOO old. You're one of a group of people who believe with all your being that Presidential Success is what's best for the country. I hate to tell you, but on this thing you are in a very small minority of people.

It's not about getting a bill signed before SOTU. It's about what's best for the long term good of the country.

[freddie mertz]

38. For some, its always about the president and never about the policy.

He's Davy Jones, he's the Jonas Brothers.

Don't you get it?

Dreamy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. I get so frustrated sometimes...

Everything is about Obama. Obama. It's like his name is a mantra. Say it with me... Obama... Obama... Obama...

Doesn't that feel better?

[paulk]

49. he does like good in a bathing suit

go on - admit it!

:evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

39. I agree. But it is about this President, because that is what some have chosen

that it should be about.

Some in fact would rather that no one gets any benefits, since they cannot see the forest through the trees.

What is best for this country is not to Kill the bill.
But folks actually don't give a shit about that....
as most are into the principle of it; namely wanting this administration to fail, period.

The folks who are into the failure bullshit are quite apparent,
and have been nothing but consistent.

[freddie mertz]

48. I think you have it all wrong. You assume that opposition to the legislation...

... among progressives is prompted by hostility to the president, or by some desire to see him "fail."

But that is just not supported by the facts.

What we have here, instead, is the fact that there are many who actually wanted and hoped for the new administration to "succeed" (by doing the right thing, after so many years of misery and despair), but who have looked at their actions and felt frustrated, exasperated, and finally pushed AWAY by the horribly disappointing HCR bill (not to mention the process), the escalation of the wars, the continuance of Bush era policies on civil liberties, the failure to investigate or prosecute torture, the injustice of the bail-outs and the attendant failure to protect everyday citizens facing foreclosures, bankruptcy, etc...

It seems you cannot see that, because you embrace an absolute and uncritical support of the president, no matter what the policy, as your one and only concern.

[Puglover]

50. Would you please provide me with a current list of

people we are supposed to hate because they have criticized this President. I'm listening to Thom Hartmann and I don't remember if we like him or not. :shrug:

[donco6]

19. Don't suppose you actually have something worthwhile to contribute?

Like addressing ONE of his points maybe?

[WeDidIt]

20. Once I saw it was written by Lord Privy Douchenozzle Sirota

I knew I was safe dismissing it entirely as drivel.

[donco6]

28. Because . . .?

Any real reason?

[WeDidIt]

31. He's a douchenozzle.

Has been a long time. Once I figured that out, I didn't need to read any more of his douchenozzlery.

[donco6]

34. So ya got nothin'. Thanks. N/ t

[FrenchieCat]

21. One could say the same about you.....

I'm starting to wonder what is the use of trying to make any point,
when at the end of the day, few minds will be changed, and certainly
yours is totally out of the running.
It's kind of like running up against a brick wall,
which isn't a pleasing or satisfying experience.

[donco6]

27. You just don't like my agreement with Sirota.

I've been pretty clear and unequivocal. I don't like secret government meetings.

[FrenchieCat]

32. You should agree with whom you agree with.....

their ain't nothing wrong with that.

[donco6]

35. Especially when you have good reasons. N/ t

[jenmito]

36. Is he a killthebiller? If so, maybe he's unhappy with this because he knows there's a much

better chance of the bill passing this way. If not, he should realize that if they DIDN'T do it this way, there'd be a chance that the Repubs. would stall this bill to death.

[WeDidIt]

40. Yep, he's with Hamsher on killing the bill

As are many of the leftwing douchenozzles out to destroy the Dems.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Like Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker states......it's all rather pathetic.....

Excerpt:

When Congress reconvenes a few days from now, it will be on the cusp of enacting a sweeping reform of American health insurance and health care that could be, as the President put it on Christmas Eve, just after the Senate passed its version of the bill, “the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the nineteen-thirties and the most important reform of our health-care system since Medicare passed in the nineteen-sixties.” Perhaps he was exaggerating, but not by much. Jonathan Cohn, the New Republic’s health-care correspondent, calls the bill “the most ambitious piece of domestic legislation in a generation—a bill that will extend insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans, strengthen insurance for many more, and start refashioning American medicine so that it is more efficient.” Paul Krugman, the Times’ resident Nobel laureate (and a frequent Obama critic), calls the bill “a great achievement” that “establishes the principle—even if it falls somewhat short in practice—that all Americans are entitled to essential health care.” Princeton’s Paul Starr, the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning history “The Social Transformation of American Medicine,” calls it “the single biggest measure on behalf of low-income Americans in more than forty years.” How big? The University of Chicago’s Harold Pollack has done the sums. By the time the reforms are fully implemented, “the Senate bill would provide about $196 billion per year down the income scale in subsidies to low-income and working Americans.” That’s more, Pollack notes, than the federal government spends on the earned-income tax credit, Head Start, assistance to single mothers and their children, nutrition programs like food stamps, and the National Institutes of Health combined.

None of these people, from Obama on down the wonk scale, deceive themselves that the Senate bill, which now must be merged with its (marginally stronger) House equivalent, comes within hailing distance of perfection. All of them recognize that the final bill, in the now overwhelmingly likely event that it surmounts the remaining hurdles, will be flawed and messy. All of them also understand that, compared with the status quo—and the status quo, not perfection or anything like it, is the alternative—it will constitute a moral and material advance of historic proportions.

Nevertheless, a nontrivial portion (though far from a majority) of the Democratic left, particularly its Internet cohort, feels alienated and disappointed, with the bill and with the President. As the Senate vote neared, Markos Moulitsas, the chief of Daily Kos, sent his followers a tweet: “Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.” MoveOn.org called on “progressives” to “block this bill.” Arianna Huffington dismissed it as “reform in name only.” Keith Olbermann, MSNBC’s Savonarola, lectured the President that he was about to consign his countrymen to a “Chicago stockyards of insurance” that would be “immoral and a betrayal of the people who elected you.” Even Dr. Dean himself—Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, Presidential candidate, and Democratic Party chairman—wrote that the Senate should defeat the bill, claiming that it “would do more harm than good to the future of America.” And in the nether reaches of the left blogosphere the epithets flew. Obama is a “sellout.” He’s a “liar.” He’s a “Judas,” a “fraud,” a “corrupt fool.” He’s a “Liebermanite.” (Ouch!) He’s “an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country.” (This last not from some anonymous blog commenter but from Ralph Nader, without whose efforts Joe Lieberman would be just another former Vice-President.)
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/01/11/100111taco_talk_hertzberg#ixzz0blnq29Qk

[Armstead]

47. I like Hertzberg but this "Attack the Awful Left for disagreeing with the bill" .is tripe

Jeezus....

[jenmito]

43. Thank you. Well, that explains it then. He doesn't want it to pass so he wants the Repubs. to

stall it to death.

[jefferson_dem]

45. Yes, he's chosen to stand with the wingnut repugs in wanting to "kill the bill"

Obviously, that speaks to his motivation here.

[Armstead]

46. No, he wanted a better bill

I think I should set up some software thingy on my computer to automatically type that sentence in response to charges that anyone who is opposed to the form this bill has taken.

[jefferson_dem]

53. Let's see.

Sirota says a bill without the public option "unacceptable".
The final bill will not have a public option.
Sirota considers the bill "unacceptable". Therefore, it should be killed.

Truth. Deal.

EDIT: Perhaps Sirota has reconsidered...and conceded that, while the bill is not perfect, it represents the best reform we can (and will) get. If so, I haven't seen it.

[freddie mertz]

52. There is only black or white with some folks I guess.

"With us or against us."

Many do not like the bill and are disappointed in Obama but actually DO want him to succeed.

These are not mutually exclusive concerns.

But then, complexity does not seem to part of the playbook in some corners.