Sen. Jim Webb Could Land The Death Blow To Obamacare
*period*
December 18, 2009
In Congress�s upper chamber, a Virginia fox may be the one to deliver
the knock-out uppercut to Obamacare. Quiet, cunning, and independent,
Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) has been on the sidelines for much of the
Senate�s health-care debate. Instead of ranting, like Bernie Sanders,
Webb has been mulling legislative language in his office for weeks.
Neighboring Senate staffers whisper that Team Webb is having a real
tough time shuffling the senator out of the office to make appearances
on the glad-handing circuit. It seems the man just wants to sit,
study, read, and think � strange priorities in the U.S. Senate. Yet
now, with Harry Reid�s health-care bill on the ropes, Democrats are
getting nervous about the brooding one. They�re right to be worried.
Webb � not Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, or Evan Bayh � is the real
wildcard in the Democratic caucus. Where he�ll vote, no one knows.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of
Virginia, is a longtime Webb watcher. He tells National Review Online
that when it comes to Webb, �anything is possible.�
�He�s one of the most unusual high-level politicians I�ve ever
observed,� says Sabato. �He�s unpredictable and chafes at party
strictures. If things were left up to him, he�d cross party lines more
often than he does. If you listen closely to what he says, you can
tell he�s not nearly as political as most senators.�
Thing is, it�s hard to listen to what Webb says these days, since he
doesn�t say much. Better to start with a glance at his voting record,
especially on big-time votes like the 2007 immigration bill, the
recent Guantanamo Bay debate, and the cap-and-trade kerfuffle.
During the immigration debate, Webb played a key role in the floor
discussion. He wanted to amend the bill, in the midst of what he
called a �highly emotional debate,� in order to create a �workable
middle ground� that �protected the rule of law� and the �legitimate
interests of all working Americans.� In the end, his amendment failed,
he abandoned the bill, and it died, thanks in part to Webb�s break
from the Democratic ranks.
Amendments clearly mean a lot to Webb. The message: Include his
tinkering, or else he may drop out. It wouldn�t be surprising, then,
to see a repeat of Webb�s immigration-debate tactics with Obamacare.
Webb has voted with the GOP on its Medicare amendments, all of which
have failed. Jessica Smith, Webb�s communications director, tells NRO
that the health-care bill�s Medicare cuts continue to worry the
senator. �Virginia has many Medicare recipients, and he was concerned
about cuts to benefits and services,� she says. �The Medicare votes
were important to him. He took them on substance, not on politics.�
Webb has also shown that he has no qualms about standing up to the
Obama White House. During the close-Gitmo debate, Webb, a Vietnam
veteran, took his time coming to his conclusions. After �having sat
down with my staff and gone through the numbers in detail,� Webb
announced that he couldn�t support the administration�s deadline to
close the facility. That decision left the young Obama White House
staggering. They needed moderate Democrats like Webb to stay with them
on such a tricky national-security issue.
And on cap-and-trade legislation, Webb landed another blow on a
beloved liberal cause. Speaking about the Kerry-Boxer �clean energy�
bill, Webb said last month that �in its present form I would not vote
for it� and that he had �some real questions about the real
complexities on cap and trade.� He then reached across the aisle to
co-sponsor a competing energy bill with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.,
Tenn.), the chairman of the GOP caucus.
Though Webb may not like politics, he has a keen political eye. As
syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out this week, Webb
�saw what happened in the elections in November� and knows that there
is a �massive shift of independents against Democrats.� Indeed. The
political consequences of Republican Bob McDonnell�s victory in the
Virginia gubernatorial race are just starting to emerge. As NRO�s Jim
Geraghty reported earlier this week, Webb, though not up for
reelection until 2012, recently sent out a fundraising letter to
Virginians. The letter, Geraghty notes, was 1,643 words long but did
not include one word about health care. Then again, says Sabato, Webb
is �one of the only senators who may choose to voluntarily retire
after one term in 2012. He�s not eaten up with ambition.�
Whether he runs or not, Webb remains determined to make his points
known, on his own terms. On Tuesday, the senator published a
little-seen op-ed in the Winchester Star, a local Virginia daily,
reiterating how he has �yet to decide whether I will support final
passage of the bill:
I have stated on several occasions my concerns that the Obama
administration should have begun the health- care process with a
clear, detailed proposal, from which legislation could then be put
into place. Instead, the legislation now before the Congress is the
product of five separate congressional committees, three in the House
and two in the Senate. I and my staff have carefully worked through
thousands of pages of sometimes contradictory information, and have
done our best to bring focus to the debate and clarity to any final
product.
Webb then detailed his health-care debate saga:
Over the past few weeks, I have taken a number of difficult votes. As
with every other issue since I came to the Senate, I have voted my
conscience throughout this process. I have broken with my party six
times, including four votes to send the current legislation back to
committee for a more thorough review . . . I have been doing what I
can to shape the bill, for the good of our country and without bowing
to party politics.
Medicare funding and cost estimates will be closely analyzed by Webb
when the Congressional Budget Office releases its score on the current
health-care bill, says Smith. �The CBO score will be important to
him.�
While Nelson and Lieberman are attracting the most ire from the Left,
it�s Webb who could end up breaking their hearts. �The netroots love
him dearly,� says Sabato. �He beat George Allen in 2006 and became the
Democrats� answer to being soft on defense. They will cut him more
slack than they do others. If he votes no, they�ll give him plenty of
criticism, but I�m not sure that they will cut the umbilical cord. At
the same time, there is a possibility that he gets excommunicated.�
If he votes no, Webb may lose the Left, but they never were his
priority. Since taking office in January 2007, Webb has shunned the
national spotlight and focused on Virginia. Even though he was the
darling of the Daily Kos crowd, Webb knew that such love was fickle.
He�s keeping mum now, but some of his Senate colleagues have a feeling
that he could be the one to step up and stop this runaway train.
�I�ve wondered about how long Senator Webb could stand what the
Democrats are doing to our country,� says Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah)
to NRO. �He�s been voting with us on key amendment votes. As we move
forward, I believe Senator Webb could be the one to stand up on this
issue. My impression is that he�s very concerned about the spending
and costs in this bill.�
Will Webb be the one to deep-six Obamacare? Never underestimate his
capacity to surprise.
� Robert Costa is the William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review
Institute.
Palin'sAnusRimmer
But Doubtless Most U.S. Folks Would
Prefer Suing BIG PHARMA!
===
Probably about time. But the case will take years to resolve, no
matter which side blinks.
Actually, Barack might be better off suing the prescription drug
empire and the Repugs for blocking purchase of imported meds -- to put
"r-e-f-o-r-m" genuinely into his health care efforts.
-----------------------
"U.S. files antitrust suit against Intel, alleges unfair tactics used
against rivals"
By Cecilia Kang and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 17, 2009; A01
The Obama administration sued chip giant Intel on Wednesday over a
decade-long run of actions allegedly designed to stifle competition,
opening a new front in the battle that big technology firms have been
waging for years against antitrust challenges in Asia and Europe.
The Federal Trade Commission lawsuit resembles past cases brought
against Intel by Japanese, Korean and European Union regulators over
rival Advanced Micro Devices, and it adds new allegations that Intel
rigged its microprocessors in a way that made it difficult for a
competitor, Nvidia, to provide consumers with superior graphics
abilities for computer games and video.
Intel denied the allegations, saying that it "competed fairly and
lawfully" and that "its actions have benefited consumers."
The lawsuit marks a major step for President Obama toward fulfilling
his 2008 presidential campaign promise to "reinvigorate antitrust
enforcement." At the time, he criticized the Bush administration for
"what may be the weakest record of antitrust enforcement of any
administration in the last half century."
Other key antitrust tests lie ahead. The power of Google, Comcast's
proposed takeover of NBC, and the market share of the makers of mobile
phone handsets are all under examination by the Justice Department,
the Federal Communications Commission or the FTC.
The technology industry, which has also been wooed by Obama, has been
striving to resolve a string of antitrust actions in the United States
and abroad. On Wednesday, the European Union ended its decade-long
antitrust investigation of Microsoft after Microsoft agreed to market
rival browsers as well as its own Internet Explorer. On Nov. 12, Intel
paid $1.25 billion to rival AMD to drop antitrust and patent lawsuits
as well as complaints filed with agencies, including the FTC. Many
technology analysts were also cheered by the administration's decision
to let software giant Oracle acquire Sun Microsystems, despite
Oracle's dominant position in business software.
But the FTC on Wednesday alleged that Intel had used bullying tactics
and payments to get computer makers such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard
to use Intel chips instead of those made by AMD. The FTC complaint,
the culmination of a one-year investigation, said "that Intel fell
behind in the race for technological superiority in a number of
markets and resorted to a wide range of anticompetitive conduct,
including deception and coercion, to stall competitors until it could
catch up."
The agency added that "Intel's anticompetitive tactics were designed
to put the brakes on superior competitive products that threatened its
monopoly."
The FTC isn't seeking monetary damages from Intel. "We are frankly
more focused on conduct," Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's
bureau of competition, said in a news conference. Such remedies could
include forcing Intel to share intellectual property with competitors.
The case could become a key test of antitrust law. Forged during the
Progressive Era a century ago, antitrust legislation was designed to
tame steel and oil monopolies, and was later applied to shoe and beer
makers.
But under the influence of University of Chicago economists and
others, courts began to worry about the harm antitrust enforcement
actions could do to innovation and ultimately to the consumers they
were supposed to protect. Over the past 15 years, federal courts have
made it harder to show abuse of monopoly power and to win suits for
treble damages. Judges taking a more skeptical view of antitrust
actions have ranged from federal appeals court judges Richard A.
Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook to Supreme Court Justice Stephen G.
Breyer.
Applying antitrust to the tech sector has been particularly thorny
because of falling prices, constant innovation and technology that
often changes faster than it takes to litigate an antitrust case. Yet
rarely have so few companies stayed so dominant in their fields as
Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and now Google.
"Concern over class actions, treble damages awards, and costly jury
trials have caused many courts in recent decades to limit the reach of
antitrust," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz and commissioner J. Thomas
Rosch said in a statement. "The result has been that some conduct
harmful to consumers may be given a 'free pass.' "
The Intel lawsuit relies on the rarely used Section 5 of the law that
established the FTC in 1914. Antitrust lawyers saw this as an effort
to speed up the litigation and sidestep obstacles federal courts have
erected in recent years.
Unlike lawsuits filed by the Justice Department's antitrust division,
which are tried by juries, the FTC suit goes to an administrative
judge and cannot be used by private plaintiffs seeking treble damages.
The FTC said it expects the Intel trial to start in nine months and
conclude within 20 months.
Three years ago, Leibowitz, then an FTC board member, argued for
resurrecting the use of Section 5. At the time, Joe Sims, an antitrust
lawyer at Jones Day, wrote that reviving the use of Section 5 "would
benefit no one other than antitrust lawyers." He said it "would signal
the potential for a retreat to the antitrust of the past or, perhaps,
the rather less bounded 'competition' policy that is applied by many
non-U.S. regulators less constrained by statutes and case law (and
sometimes common sense)."
But on Wednesday, Leibowitz reasserted that Section 5's "broad reach
is beyond dispute."
The case is also important to Intel, whose stock fell 42 cents, or 2.1
percent, to close at $19.38 a share on Wednesday.
The FTC case "shows that the strategy being followed by Intel applies
not only to AMD but to Nvidia," said Albert A. Foer, president of the
American Antitrust Institute. "A small competitor in a highly
concentrated market comes up with a new technology that looks better
than Intel's, so Intel comes up with strategies using primarily
pricing, including loyalty discounts, but also deception to hurt the
competitor as much as possible and at least delay it from having
success with its new technology until Intel can catch up."
He said the FTC could force Intel to license its processors to anyone
willing to pay for it. "That would be a bombshell remedy that could
open up the global market in computers," Foer said.
Intel said "the highly competitive microprocessor industry . . . has
kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any
other industry." Intel General Counsel Doug Melamed said in a
statement that "this case could have, and should have, been settled."
He said the FTC insisted on "unprecedented remedies" that "would make
it impossible for Intel to conduct business."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601121.html
James Fenimore
---
"Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform"
Op-Ed
By Howard Dean
The Washington Post
Thursday, December 17, 2009; A33
IF I WERE A SENATOR, I would not vote for the current health-care
bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health
care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private
corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert
competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary
administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for
people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the
delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of
coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.
Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based
on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance
companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as
younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed
to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to
enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an
insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium
dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a
year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few
Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are
likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are
insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with
a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.
From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that
a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and
hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives
understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about
what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend
their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American
people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to
insurers, whether or not you want it to.
To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation
does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently
increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests
critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs;
extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young
Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn
27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will
receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases
in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.
Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate
Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If
lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability
credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers'
salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as
prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen.
John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance
Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final
legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included
these provisions would be worth passing.
In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-
Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear
thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat
of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course
for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that
has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.
I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home
state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for
children younger than 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only
bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents
insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of
keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and
there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that,
as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of
America.
[The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee
and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html