Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.
---
Congress is under pressure to raise the cap on what the federal government can borrow by mid-December. If the debt ceiling is not raised above its current $12.1 trillion mark by then, the government will exceed its borrowing limits and will be forced to default on the debt. Economists have warned that the inevitable result would be a lowering of the U.S. credit rating, triggering substantial increases in the interest rates the government is already paying.
---
But before Tuesday's hearing was over, Sens. Conrad, Gregg, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) publicly vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling if a budget reform commission bill doesn't come along with it.
I say attacked since what this group of senators wants to create is a body similar to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) used to close military bases, as was recently done to the Brunswick Naval Air Station.
Such a commission, in their eyes, would provide recommendations to Congress for an up or down vote without the opportunity for any amendments, which has never been done in the 70 plus year history of the program. So outside the box is this proposal that a group involved with the Greenspan Commission from the early 1980's submitted a statement to the Budget Committee expressing their concerns, a statement that you can find in full below.
For a reason that was not explained to me, the Senate Budget Committee does NOT have the statement up on their website.
Nancy J. Altman, J.D. (Executive Assistant to Chairman Alan Greenspan, 1982-83)
Merton C. Bernstein, LL.B., Coles Professor of Law Emeritus, Washington University (Principal Consultant to the Commission, 1982-83)
Suzanne M. Blouin (Executive Assistant to Executive Director Robert J. Myers, 1982-83)
Patricia E. Dilley, J.D., LL.M, Professor of Law, University of Florida (Professional Staff to the House Subcommittee on Social Security, 1981-87)
Elizabeth T. Duskin (Senior Staff Adviser to the Commission, 1982-83)
Lori L. Hansen (Technical Adviser to Commission Member Robert M. Ball, 1982-83)
Eric Kingson, Ph.D., Professor of Social Work, Syracuse University (Policy Advisor to the Commission, 1982-83)
Bruce D. Schobel, FSA (Staff Actuary to the Commission)
::
STATEMENT OF
STAFF TO THE 1981-83 NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
HEARING ON BIPARTISAN PROCESS PROPOSALS
FOR LONG-TERM FISCAL STABILITY
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
U.S. SENATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
Chairman Conrad, Ranking Member Gregg, and Members of the Committee:
This statement represents the views of eight individuals who helped craft and secure the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Those amendments, which followed the recommendations of the National Commission on Social Security Reform (the so-called Greenspan commission), eliminated Social Security's then-projected short-range and long-range shortfalls. Our involvement with the Commission's work may provide useful insights into the advisability of using a commission or task force to eliminate, as part of an effort to control the overall federal deficit, the long-range shortfall now being projected for Social Security. Social Security's current projected shortfall, it should be noted, is much less immediate and severe than the shortfall Congress eliminated twenty-six years ago.
Fast-Tracking Social Security Legislation Is Unprecedented
An expedited procedure, which limits debate and prohibits all amendments, would be unprecedented: Since its enactment in 1935, Social Security legislation has always had the benefit of (1) full hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee; (2) executive sessions which provided all members the opportunity to offer amendments; (3) unlimited debate and opportunity for amendments in the Senate; and (4) debate and amendment in the House of Representatives, consistent with its rules. This was the procedure that was followed in the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which eliminated the then-projected Social Security deficit.
In June I wrote about this report from Health Care for America Now!, which detailed that one company, Wellpoint (Anthem) had 78% of the health insurance market in Maine.
Today, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLakedrops this bomb on MSNBC, at the 3:12 mark:
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's wife is on the board of Wellpoint, and so I think he's going to have a problem ... the strongly favors something that he has a financial interest in:
In we're not talking about some small financial interest. This post from Hoosier Pundit is just the tip of the iceberg, I'll reckon:
On February 2, 2006, Congress passed the Senator Bayh-sponsored long-term care legislation that would make long-term medical care insurance available to more patients.
On February 3, 2006, Susan Bayh exercised options on 20,001 shares of Wellpoint.
On May 17, 2007, two weeks before it was announced that Wellpoint's mega-CFO was stepping down for unspecified non work-related issues, Mrs. Bayh exercised options on 3,334 shares of Wellpoint.
According to SEC records, the pre-tax profit on the sale of Wellpoint stock from February 2006 to the present was approximately $1.045 million.
Mrs. Bayh also served on the boards of directors of Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company from 2000 to 2004. She left just before Cubist senior management, family members and a neighbor were all implicated in an SEC insider trading lawsuit in January, 2005.
As the debate over health-care reform intensifies, Bayh's wife is receiving lucrative payouts from some of the companies that could be most affected by that legislation.
Bayh contends the $2.1 million that his wife, Susan, earned from public health-care companies from 2006 to 2008 represents no conflict of interest. Questions persist, however, for at least two reasons. First, Evan Bayh has been unclear about his positions on many issues related to health-care reform. Second, there's the timing of Susan Bayh's rapid rise into corporate governance.
Susan Bayh, who was a midlevel lawyer for the politically active Eli Lilly and Co. while her husband was governor of Indiana, did not serve on the board of a single public health-care company until it was clear her husband was about to ascend to the U.S. Senate. Only one month before Evan Bayh was elected to the Senate in a landslide vote, his wife was appointed to serve on the board of what would become the nation's largest health insurance company -- and arguably the company with the most at stake in the health-care reform debate.
Within a few years, numerous companies recruited her, and she eventually served on the boards of eight companies. At least one of them asked her to reduce the number of boards she served on, apparently because she was spread too thin to be effective.
You have to really read it to fully appreciate the circumstances surrounding the Bayh's, and then question why he hasn't recused himself from any and all discussions involving health insurance reform.
Amazing. Sen. Bayh is on the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, that is eviscerating the health insurance reform plan.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an