Political Commentary: Joan McCarter

Baucus the “Power Broker” Breaking his Base?

By Joan McCarter, 7-31-09

Former New West writer Matthew Frank’s profile of Max Baucus in the Missoula Independent goes a long way to explaining how this unlikeliest of small state Senators finds himself at the center of the most important public policy debate of a generation. The profile shows both how Baucus got to the point of perhaps securing his political legacy, but how he might also be the very person who dooms it to failure. By putting himself in the position of power broker between right and left, Baucus is pleasing no one.

He’s a savvy centrist. His political independence and the relationships he’s fostered with senators on both sides of the aisle make him uniquely suited to broker intensely complicated negotiations among the most powerful people and special interests in Washington, D.C. Colleagues claim no one works harder than Baucus. He’s spent more than a year—beginning well before President Obama took office and made health care reform his top domestic priority—holding hearings and educating committee members on the nuances of the issue.

Baucus might be savvy, though his actions of recent weeks might cause some to question that characterization. He’s definitely a centrist. Frank recounts how he got into politics in the first place, querying a group of editors at the Missoulian on whether he’d have a better shot at winning elected office as a Democrat or Republican. So, since 1972, Baucus has called himself a Democrat, and has been elected as one, but as Frank says “straddled the fence” when it comes to political--and policy--decision making.

Frank recounts some of the key recent Baucus policy actions that lead observers to question where he really is working to represent his fellow Democrats, and his President, when it comes to healthcare reform:

Baucus was so crucial to passing George W. Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 that he flanked the president when he signed the bill in the White House. Then, two years later—and after winning reelection in a state that voted for Bush over Al Gore by 25 percentage points—Baucus voted against Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.

In 2002, Baucus voted for the war in Iraq. Then, in early 2007, he gave a speech on the Senate floor urging President Bush to bring the troops home. (His nephew Philip, a Marine corporal, died in Anbar province in July 2006.)

Baucus again pivoted in 2005, leading Senate Democrats in an effort to block Bush’s push to privatize Social Security.... In 2003, Baucus played a critical role—he was one of only two Democrats invited to the negotiating table—in helping Republicans pass a $400 billion, industry-friendly Medicare prescription-drug bill. The measure provided billions of dollars in subsidies to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations, and was considered the first step toward privatizing Medicare. Montana Democrats denounced Baucus for caving in to the Republican-led Congress. He acknowledged the bill was far from perfect, but argued that his involvement made it better, especially for rural Montanans.

Then, more recently, Baucus was the lead author and advocate of a bill to renew the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It was twice vetoed by then-President Bush. President Obama finally signed it into law in February, providing health insurance for some 30,000 uninsured Montana children. Democrats roundly praised Baucus’ effort.

What is most infuriating for Democrats, and particularly Democrats on Baucus’s Finance Committee, is that after all that heavy lifting to get the CHIP expansion finally passed, Baucus has traded it away in his negotiations with a few Republican Senators, trying for that elusive “bipartisanship.” Democrat Jay Rockefeller has objected that Baucus’s proposed legislation would end the program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program. That’s an unacceptable trade-off for virtually all Democrats, and a real backslide on reform.

That just added fuel to the fire for Democrats who have been shut out of Baucus’s process. The Finance Committee has been replaced by the Baucus Committee, two other conservative Democrats (Kent Conrad, ND and Jeff Bingaman, NM) and three Republicans (Chuck Grassley, IA, Olympia Snowe, ME, and Mike Enzi, WY). These six have holed up for weeks, working out a plan that many Democrats will have a hard time supporting and 99.9 percent of Republicans will oppose because they have no interest in helping the Democrats pass this massive reform. From the outside, it’s a fool’s errand. Baucus is trading away the store, leaving the shell of a bill that could give us some needed insurance reforms, but will fall far short of actually reforming the system, in the vain hope that he can bring Republicans along.

His own Republican negotiators proved just how pointless this exercise in placating Republicans is this week, when Mike Enzi publically rejected the idea that he was negotiation at all on behalf of Republicans.

Enzi, a soft-spoken conservative, was furious about headlines Wednesday morning that suggested he was close to reaching a deal with the Democrats.

“I felt my reputation was in danger,” he said.

He issued a statement batting down the stories and insisted any deal he might ultimately sign onto would have to be preserved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Reid when it is merged with other more liberal legislation in the Senate and House.

“I’m not interested in lending credibility to disaster,” Enzi said.

Then Enzi upped the ante, making demands that can never be met, and leaving his negotiating partner Baucus in the dust:

Enzi said that Reid and Pelosi would have to commit to leaving any bipartisan agreements in place once the bill goes to conference.

“I also need commitments from Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, as well as the Administration, that the bipartisan agreements reached in the Finance Committee will survive in a final bill that goes to the president,” Enzi added.

Five other Congressional committees and the White House, are supposed to leave completely intact the legislation negotiated in secret by six Senators who represent less than 3% of the nation’s population. Legislative process be damned, the Mike Enzi healthcare reform bill has to be passed without question, without amendment by all the other committees. And, if recent key votes are any indicator, all of the Republicans in Congress are going to vote against it anyway. In case Senator Baucus hadn’t noticed it yet, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi just hijacked his bill.

Which, interesting, Frank predicted as the likely outcome of Baucus’s efforts:

His deal-making rap, for better or worse, will remain. And the legacy of health care reform will almost certainly belong to someone else. “That’s frankly unfortunate for Max,” says former Congressman Williams, “but that’s where it is.”

But, as Frank notes, it doesn’t have to be that way. “There is one other option: Baucus can claim his own legacy, not by again stepping toward the middle, but by stepping forward.”

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.