Repeating History

It’s easy to say that politicians should lay off the grandstanding and just work for their constituents, but sometimes today’s solution isn’t as good as one they might be able to deliver down the line. Other times, it’s the best they’re ever going to be able to do.

Newly revived Congressman Jim Cooper, now representing Nashville’s 5th District, has made one of those calls by signing on to a moderate version of a Medicare prescription drug plan that he describes as the best that’s likely to come along in the short-term, even as he hopes something better emerges later.

Cooper’s been here before. In 1993, then a 4th District congressman (who could get away with claiming to be from someplace in the sticks), he put forward an alternate plan to President Bill Clinton’s national health insurance bill. The Cooper plan was less ambitious and didn’t provide for universal coverage—Cooper termed it “Clinton Lite.”

What happened is well remembered: Despite a lot of original public support for the goal, Clinton was unable to pass a national health bill. The bad feelings the issue engendered, along with resentments over his tax increase legislation, fueled the Republican sweep of 1994, when Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

The biggest reason for the failure of the health insurance bill was that House Republicans, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, realized that they could exploit it successfully as an issue, despite its apparent popularity. Although 50 million people remain without health coverage (not including those on Medicaid or equivalent programs like TennCare), Republicans remain insensitive to their needs, counting instead on the support of the resentful haves against the needs of the hapless have-nots.

Many of Cooper’s lingering problems with the left of his party come from his role in the health care debacle, with many viewing his watered-down alternative as having undermined the Clinton position. Labor refused to endorse him when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994. Although the retrospective view of that race is that he stood no chance against the personal charm of Republican Fred Thompson, Cooper’s own political missteps, which allowed Thompson to get traction in the race, did more than anything to undermine his candidacy.

Cooper then spent eight years out of political office, before capturing the Nashville congressional seat last fall.

The new drug bill is part of an effort led by California Congressman Cal Dooley and 20 other House Democrats to provide “catastrophic” drug coverage that fits the modest level Republicans are willing to support. Cooper calls the effort the best that can be achieved now, though he hopes for expanded coverage later.

Since later is likely to be a long time off, given the stumbling efforts of the Democrats to recapture Congress, Cooper might be making the right call here.

Low rollers and pikers

There was an intense and furious debate this week over a bill, ultimately approved by the state House, that would require members of the General Assembly to disclose any company investment worth more than $10,000 or 5 percent of the value of the company. During the debate, members focused on the appropriate threshold for disclosure, with opponents of the legislation pushing for a $1,000 level in the hope that it would run off the bill’s supporters.

The idea of the legislation is to ask members to reveal their potential conflicts of interest, although some recoiled at the idea of having to disclose so much about their personal finances. At the chosen threshold, members would have to divulge such seemingly trivial holdings as a couple of hundred shares of stock in Dow average component companies like Merck or Caterpillar.

Of course, perhaps some of the legislators’ qualms aren’t driven by concerns of having to disclose holdings like that. They may be more concerned about the embarrassment of having to report that they don’t have anything to disclose.

No credibility

Back when she was a state senator, Marsha Blackburn was leading the charge against a state income tax, saying the budget should be balanced by cutting spending (not that she had any specific ideas about how to do that). Now that she’s gone to Congress and doesn’t have to worry about balancing budgets any more, the Republican representative from Brentwood wants tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Never mind that current tax levels leave the federal government with budget deficit projections far out into the future.

Blackburn still makes the kind of claims that most Republicans are embarrassed to admit they made during the early 1980s—that tax cuts would increase revenues. The “supply-side” doctrine has never had any credibility in serious economic circles, although it’s mighty handy for politicians.