The Washington Post, company paper in the town where politics is the monopoly industry, kept its report determinedly ‘bipartisan’:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the most influential congressional figures of his era, announced his intention Tuesday to retire, a move that could produce sweeping changes in the political and legislative landscape over the next two years.
The announcement could mark the beginning of one of the most consequential periods in Baucus’s long public career, because he pledged to devote the rest of his time in Washington to pursuing a comprehensive rewrite of the federal tax code, a long-shot effort that many see as key to breaking the fiscal gridlock that has paralyzed Washington in recent years…
Jon Chait at NYMag has the backstory for the rest of us cynics:
When a member of Congress representing hostile partisan turf retires, his party’s usual response is to worry. Getting reelected as a Democrat in a state like Montana is hard, but getting elected in the first place is even harder. But the usual reasoning does not apply to Max Baucus, who just announced that he won’t seek reelection next year. Baucus is pretty unpopular and would have been an underdog. There’s a pretty popular Democratic ex-governor, Brian Schweitzer, waiting to run in his place, making Baucus’s retirement probably a small net increase in the Democrats’ chances of holding the seat. But the narrow calculations of that one seat are swamped by the larger value of one preeminent fact: Max Baucus is no longer going to be around to screw everything up…
Baucus’s guiding principle as a legislator was to place himself in the center of the action. In 2001, he negotiated the Bush tax cuts behind closed doors, subverting any chance of stopping a ruinous bill before the opposition had any chance. He not only did the same with the prescription drug bill in 2003 — which was written Republican-style, to maximize profits to affected industries rather than taxpayer value — he helped keep his own party off the conference committee that negotiated it. He is currently negotiating bipartisan tax reform and ostentatiously declining to insist that the process yield more revenue. (Baucus attacked the Democrats’ budget for raising too much revenue.)…
… We don’t yet know for a fact that Baucus will hang out a shingle as a lobbyist when he leaves office, any more than we know that Nerlins Noel will try his hand at professional basketball after leaving the University of Kentucky, but it is an outcome so probable it can practically be stated as fact. Baucus has an ex-wife; a new, former-staffer wife; the lowest net worth of any Senator; and a mortgage on a $900,000 home in Washington.
That leaves Baucus with about a year and a half of auditioning for clients while also serving as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, while his lobbyist trainees frantically cash in before their most lucrative window closes…
MisterMix will probably disagree with me on this, but my main worry about Baucus’ retirement is how much Democratic progress he’ll be able to sabotage, for his principles, during the rump of his term.
raven
Wouldn’t he call it “Democrat” progress.
Schlemizel
As much as I try to be understanding of Dems from REpublican states Ol Maxie has pushed well beyond the limits. We won’t miss him and there is some hope his replacement will be an upgrade.
My guess is he will get a well deserved dead end on his grandiose ideas for finishing his term. But i don’t think he believes anything else, this is just a way to feather his retirement nest, prepare a soft landing pad.
For the good of the country lets hope his K street gig keeps him away from us, that Schweitzer really is a winner and does not fall prey to DC-itus.
WereBear
WE are paying his PENSION.
And for what?
People should start getting exercised about this piss-poor service NOW.
Baud
If there is one thing I have to give Republicans credit for, it’s their ability to control their caucus. Hopefully, we’re one step closer to a better Congress.
WereBear
@Baud: I don’t give them any credit… they are Authoritarians. That’s what they DO.
Baud
@WereBear:
Yeah, it’s in their DNA. Still, it’s often effective.
WereBear
@Baud: Oh, you are right about that. Just as our “cat herding” characteristics make us good at coming up with ideas, but bad at presenting a united front.
But (bigger picture philosophy warning) I think we are moving faster and faster into a situation where the Republican characteristics are more and more a weakness instead of a strength. The more technology and enlightened thought pushes change into our civilization, the more the Republicans screech and tantrum. I can see how these characteristics might have once acted as a needed brake for hot-headed action on a tribal level.
But on a societal level, reacting to events that have already been pushed forward by inexorable forces, they are like passing a kidney stone.
max
MisterMix will probably disagree with me on this, but my main worry about Baucus’ retirement is how much Democratic progress he’ll be able to sabotage, for his principles, during the rump of his term.
Yeah, but near as I can tell, nothing much is going to happen the next two years. Which is quite possibly why he’s opting to bail – nothing this session and nothing much likely next session and then who knows what? Why not cash out now?…
…and get all set up to exercise his influence via his lobby shop. More tax cuts for his pals – now with less need to try and get Democrats to vote for him! It’s a win-win… for the really awful people.
At least Holy Joe (I can’t believe I’m saying this) has the, uh, grace to retire to some neo-con fortress of solitude there to echo the chorus line. Heard one neo-con, heard ’em all, and you didn’t need to listen to the first one to know what they were going to say, so Joe might as well have moved to Antarctica.
On the other hand, as with all the Senate retirements of people whom I never liked much anyways, this can’t hurt.
max
[‘If he really wanted to make me happy, he could start going by his nickname, whatever that might be. Maybe Ward? As in heeler?’]
aimai
OT but apparently the top of the FBI wanted list was a guy named Eric Toth, wanted for pornagraphy and pedophilia because he messed with the wrong people at an upper class school–the video I didn’t watch of his arrest yesterday began with an absolutely surreal father/daughter running through an amusement park. The “father” looked exactly like the arrested suspect and the “daughter” was about seven. I was running the computer without sound and at first I thought these were misty water colored memories and stock footage of the guy they arrested. I think United Healthcare might want to take a look at their product placement.
JPL
OT.. This is sad especially so soon after the Reddit fiasco.
Police in Providence pulled a man’s body from the Providence River on Tuesday, and authorities said it is “very possible” that it is Sunil Tripathi, 22, a former Brown University student who has been missing since mid-March.
link
c u n d gulag
I, for one, won’t miss Democratic Senator Minimum Back-us/Maximum Backstab-us.
Especially if Schweitzer replaces him.
Baud
@WereBear:
I’m with you. The one thing that worries me is our side giving up the fight early. We get frustrated so easily.
gene108
@Baud:
That’s because they are able to successfully bully Democrats in red states to act like Republican-lite by demonizing Nancy Pelosi, for example, so House Democrats from red states would want to disassociate with her as much as possible.
The Democrats can’t do the same to pressure Republicans in blue states to become Democratic-lite. These guys move in lock step with Republican leadership, but come election time there’s very little done to hang that around their neck with their constituents, who don’t like the Southern evangelical bent of the Republican party.
It’s not that these Republican voters are pro-abortion, but a tribal thing, the same way Southern voters aren’t going to embrace Benny from the Bronx, even if they agree with him on everything.
mai naem
I detest Max BucksRus. Max is the one who deserves a big pile of the blame for who fucked up the AHCA bill came out. He is the reason why so much of ’09 and ’10 was spent on the AHCA and left no time to spend on climate change and other stuff. And he now has the balls to talk about the rollout of the AHCA bill being a train wreck. Really, asshole? Look in the mirrow asshole. I am glad the POS is retiring.
Also too, former Ryan/Romney intern gets arrested for extortion/cyberstalking by the FBI.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/23/former-romney-intern-arrested-for-using-nude-pics-to-blackmail-15-women/
Xantar
Once again, The Onion is amazingly prescient. This article was written in 2001!
Linda Featheringill
@JPL:
Sunil: Do you suspect vigilante action?
Baud
@gene108:
I don’t know. My Cousin Vinny won them over in the end. It could happen. :-)
gene108
@Xantar:
Spooky how accurate that bit is…just down right spooky…Link
Chyron HR
@mai naem:
BindersFlash drives full of women!Kay
@mai naem:
Baucus is corrupt, so should be dismissed, but I’m worried about the ACA roll out.
The truth is most of the beneficiaries of the law are low income and HS grads (or less). No one was allowed to talk about that during the debate, because it makes everyone uncomfortable that most white people with college degrees have health insurance.
Anyway! There’s going to have to be a very big effort to explain the law and enroll people.
It looks to me like CA is way out in front, but they also have the biggest hurdles, language barriers, etc.
Just a huge, huge job.
Baud
@Kay:
Unpossible. I’m sure I read somewhere that Obama hates poor people.
Cassidy
@Baud: He’s also a secret conservative out to destroy the Medicare and Social Security. Our pure, progressive betters have told us so.
Kay
@Baud:
One of the reasons Democrats ran from the law is that poor people don’t vote. The idea that they’re “buying” votes is silly, because, again, poor people don’t vote. They don’t punch their weight. It would be a much, much better country if they did vote, because the politicians would better reflect the population.
I did canvassing in Ohio for Ted Strickland in 2010. He was in trouble, so it was one of those panicky “get out the base!” things that nearly always fail. The lists were Democrats. Ted Strickland was running for governor, so the health care law shouldn’t have been a huge issue, but people talk about what they want to talk about.
The biggest complaint I heard from Democrats who have health insurance was that they were pissed off that some people might get it “free”. There was just this denial among liberals about that. It’s real. It has to be reckoned with.
WereBear
With the employment rate the way it is, it’s also stupid. It’s tough losing a job, but tying it to health insurance means losing one’s life? They have to get THAT through their head.
Kay
@WereBear:
There’s an element of “fairness” here that’s really potent. You can’t tell someone who makes 30,000 a year and has health insurance that their neighbor will who also makes 30,000 a year will be getting a better deal with a federal subsidy and insurance purchased on an exchange.
I sometimes think there’s nothing other than “fairness” as a concept in politics. It’s just so, so powerful. People get it so early! If you spend any time around kids, their biggest thing is “is it FAIR?”
They’re the “fair” police! They do these elaborate fairness checks!
It’s so ingrained.
WereBear
I agree! It’s amazing how tiny a toddler will still get out the calipers on the cookies being distributed :)
NonyNony
@Kay:
Yes. This.
This is something that has to be dealt with. There’s this idea that is strongly ingrained into people that if you work hard and you do the right things, you will succeed. And so the opposite must be true – if you’re failing, then you must not have worked hard and done the right things. Therefore it’s your fault that you don’t have good health insurance.
This isn’t just a Republican point of view – Democrats have it too. I’ve run into it many, many times here in Ohio. You can get people to understand (sometimes) the fallacy of their logic when you point out people like Paris Hilton (WTF has she done to earn that success? Nothing – she was just born into the right family) but often that sense of “fairness” stretches back generations (“well her grandfather did all the right things, so his family ‘deserves’ to continue to reap benefits from it”).
But a lot of it just comes down to people defending their own positions as things that they deserve on merit. If I’m successful and you’re not, well, it’s because I did the right things and you didn’t. If I’m successful for random reasons of genetics or environment or happenstance, then that takes away from my accomplishment as a human being and HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT MY GOOD SIR?!? Gut-level emotional response.
Kay
@NonyNony:
It’s tricky, though. I’ll give you an example. I spoke to this one woman who is a manager at McDonald’s. She has health insurance for her and her three kids. So she’s telling me all about it and it’s a horrible deal. Absolute rip-off. Either the franchise owner is stealing from employees or the national company is. I’m trying to approach this tactfully, and tell her she will do much, much better under the PPACA, but I realize I’m insulting her.
She takes a lot of pride in the fact that she’s middle class and has a job that includes health insurance. She’s a manager. Managers have health insurance. She’s right, too! It IS a class marker.
These things are so complicated they make your head hurt :)
Cassidy
@Kay: @Kay: @Kay: I don’t canvas like you do, but I’m not sure I could be that nice. Any “democrat” that is worried “others” are getting something for free really needs to step back and re-think their position on some things. That’s one of the foundations of our belief system: I’m going to give you this, because you need it, and it will help you get to a place where you don’t need it anymore and you will be a more productive, economically contributing citizen. It’s not a fucking grant or a loan.
WTF?
RaflW
Max Baucus negotiating a grand tax deal is terrifying. We have to hope that the GOP so hates giving a Democrat(ic) win on any bill that they continue to sabotage things that would be 90% policy wins for themselves.
Because lets face it, Baucus will negotiate a horrible, horrible deal for middle class taxpayers. He must be thwarted, and if it comes via GOP obstruction, in this case I’m for it.
Kay
@Cassidy:
It’s not “the other” though. They’re in the same position as the potential beneficiary except they have health insurance. It isn’t looking over there at some “other”. It’s a straight comparison. It doesn’t really matter what I think about it, either. If they ask the question it should be addressed, and it can be addressed without going into their character or whatever. It’s this: “you pay 220 a month on 30k for employer-provided and the exchange buyer will pay 240”.
Kay
@Cassidy:
Honestly, I think the biggest thing that made it feel “fairer” was the coverage for young adults. People who have insurance (and those are the people who vote, sadly, right?) saw that as a benefit for them. They’re not wealthy people. THEY want a break too.
Cassidy
@Kay: I hear you and I understand why you use the tactic you do; you can’t exactly go around insulting potential voters when you’re canvassing. I get that. I just don’t understand how someone can call themselves a Democrat and not see affordable health care as an extension of the social safety net?
Kay
@Cassidy:
It’s not a tactic. I think it’s a valid complaint. If you don’t want to turn half the people who make 30k against the other half, and I don’t, then it has to be fair.
Cassidy
@Kay: See, I don’t agree with that. Fair has become a short way to say “someone is getting something I’m not” and that’s dumb as dirt. Children whine about shit not being “fair”. For me to take someone seriously when they discuss “fair” as it applies to class and income, in your ex., it would have to be along the lins of “It’s not fair that I have to pay 25% of my monthly income for health insurance. And it’s even more unfair that people like me can’t afford it.” personally, when someone brings fairness into it, I see it as selfish, which is fine, but if you can’t look beyond yourself into the broad economic class you’ve been stuck in, why should I consider your feelings over another?