But a funny thing happened on the way (I actually hate this phrase) to this year’s Academy Awards becoming the People’s Oscars. You know the chatter: Avatar would win Best Pic, the ten-nominee system would invite popular films to the table…. Except that the Academy literally gave out its top prize this year to the lowest grossing movie to ever win Best Picture, the fantastic character study but total flop, The Hurt Locker.

Bullock was the one People’s Choice left to represent.  I really wanted Meryl Streep to win. I also believe that Bullock was by far the least deserving of the five nominees and likely the least deserving Best Actress winner in at least a decade.

But that’s not the point that I really care to make.  As luck would have it, I was able to catch the Blind Side on my flight last week.  And here’s the thing: all that blather about The Blind Side being a people’s movie or what real or Southern or “red-state” Americans want to watch is really kind of a joke.

The film takes jabs at just those people throughout.  For example, at one point, Bullock turns to a rowdy Southern gentlemen in the crowd and shouts, “Hey, Deliverance,” before exhorting him to shut his yapper.  Or Kathy Bates’ character afraid to admit she’s a Democrat and delivering a little sobber about how she was essentially forced out of a job at the nice ol’ Christian school for not believing in God.

And then there was my favorite: Bullock narrowing her eyes and hissing her best Southern “Shame on you” to a bunch of her supposed friends, depicted as stereotypical rich, white bitches with a predilection for racism.  It literally played out as a liberal’s fantasy of what would happen if she could sit down five or so Bush voters and just let ‘em have it.  

Now, as a liberal, I am not immune to such fantasies.  But I do recognize how infantile they are, and I find it at least mildly repugnant when filmmakers set out to feed the good people “what they want” with a slap in the face then call it art that should be honored at award shows.

And I suppose the broader point is that the idea of “red state” movies is really utter crap. There are good movies and bad movies.  Some of each turn out to be successful financially, but the purpose of awards is to focus attention on the highest quality.  And often–not always, of course– such attention draws people, even people that supposedly only want to see things like The Blind Side.  That happened with No Country.  It will likely happen for The Hurt Locker.  And in the world of television, it has certainly taken place for Mad Men, which made huge waves with its season-premier gay encounter scene.

So no more honoring movies because of the people who go see them.  Movies are good or bad. Period.

However, there have been a series of relatively high-profile attempts to kill the filibuster, more than at any other time in recent memory.  Tom Harkin has his bill.  Tom Udall of New Mexico has perhaps the most audacious plan: to take a vote to end the filibuster with just a bare majority at the beginning of the next Congress. He’s calling it the “Constitutional Option,” in what I’m guessing is a pretty weak alternative to the “nuclear option, ” which was the Democrats’ term for it when they were in the minority.  And then, Michael Bennet just announced a package of reforms ranging from filibuster reform to ending anonymous holds to lobbying limits.

A couple of comments.

First, I like Bennet’s approach a lot.  In a hypothetical world in which filibuster reform happens, it will have to happen in the context of broader reforms with a populist punch.  People don’t know or care about the filibuster.  You’re not going to win an election (though apparently, this guy is trying) or get anyone excited about the filibuster (outside of Rachel Maddow viewers in a Democratic administration or Hannity hacks when Democrats are blocking right-wing judicial nominees.)  Campaign finance and lobbying limits– well, people can wrap their heads around that.  Still, I think even something like this is largely a pipe dream.  Even Bennet himself said he’d be willing to strip out provisions that don’t gain traction. Read: filibuster limits.

Second, these attempts at filibuster reform seem to be gaining the most support from new members, which actually bolsters the point my column makes.  I argue that term limits will create incentives for filibuster reform because senators with limited time to make an impact will be more frustrated by obstruction.  While a few old dogs are joining the filibuster fight (my man, Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin most notably) the real energy is coming from people like Bennet and Udall.  While they’re not subjected to term limits, they are clearly not members of the Old Guard, and the toxic political environment for Democrats right now is making freshman Democrats from swing states anxious, especially for Bennet who has to run an election now.

Finally, no one should get too excited about the chances of these proposals.  There are really only a handful of proposals with only a handful of supporters.  And it’s a bad thing that there is no unified consensus for how to go about this task.  If you had, say, ten senators behind a common reform proposal, then I’d take notice. But what you have are a few speeches, a few different solutions, a few op-eds.  And no bipartisan support.  This is, of course, key because without at least one Republican, there is no way this doesn’t play as a partisan power grab.

But what I truly find amazing is how such crazy rhetoric is juxtaposed with standard-issue political jargon about jobs for the district.   Now, in my column tomorrow I call members of the U.S. Senate “crazy.”  Let me clear: there is crazy in the Senate (Let’s obsess about process instead of fighting for policy) and there is Lyndon Larouche–deeply-disturbed-devotee crazy, as in Kendra Rogers’ victory speech. “I am leading a war against the British Empire. I’m not worried about what Democratic Party hacks say or do.”

Here’s the thing: on her website, the policy focus is fighting the administration’s plan to cut NASA spending because “the 22nd Congressional district of Texas is home to NASA’s Johnson Space Center, a national treasure, and the key to the future greatness of America.”  Of course, she goes on to blather about the evil British “Globalized Free Market System,” how Larouche is “the world’s leading economic forecaster,” and how all our problems will disappear if we listen to J.S. Bach.

But that’s exactly my point– this woman is literally unmoved by fundamental market forces and, you know, conventional social interaction, but she’s no match for the parochial pressures of our grand ol’ political system!

Let’s see what happens.

So update your bookmarks, and keep coming for progressive insights from your faithful Georgetown columnist!

Ouch.  And because I basically agree with Klein’s conclusion and argued it in my Hoya column (along with a few political tips for progressives), I’m feeling a bit defensive as well.

Krugman is right to argue that a public plan’s cost-reducing power is not limited only to the power to negotiate at Medicare rates.  It has  potential to save on administrative costs because it would not need to have a lavish marketing budget as private plans do.

But Klein has mentioned this repeatedly on his blog (as did I in my column.)

Krugman merely claims to “suspect” that a public plan would have greater cost savings.  Klein is not an economist, but his insights are always backed by appropriate studies.

The Urban Institute and the Lewin Group both estimated relatively large estimates of the savings potential of the public plan, but these reports assumed a much more robust public option than included in the bills before Congress.

In a report analyzing the actual plans facing Congress, the Urban Institute concurred with the CBO that the public plan would not enroll a major number of people (about 12 million, simply not large enough to yield savings on the order Krugman suggests. )

Furthermore, even in defending the public option, John Holohan and Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute, suggest that savings from lower administrative/marketing costs– those that Krugman banks on for his critique of Klein to make sense– are likely to be lower than some suggest and not the plan’s main source of savings.

Krugman’s other two points are not that significant.  The idea that the public option would be the only competition in many markets is true only if the exchanges are not constructed properly.  Also, Congressional proposals limit the amount of premiums as a percentage of enrollees’ income. So people purchasing insurance through the new exchanges would not be totally defenseless against private insurers.

His third point about politics is  hard to disagree with in the abstract– I’d love for Democrats to mount a successful challenge to Reagan’s permeating stance that government is part of the problem, not the solution to economic problems.  But I disagree that the public option is the place to make that stand.  The stakes are too high, and as perceptive commentators like Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Barack Obama have insisted all summer, the public option is not the totality of health care reform.  Whether or not there is a public option in the final bill, the bill will be the single most significant legislative victory for progressives in decades.

His argument recognizes that the goal of merit pay does not have to be encouraging bad teachers to teach better but rather, encouraging good teachers to remain in the school system.

I agree this would be nice, but a major difficulty with implementing merit pay is that it is tough to measure (and thus, tough to reward) “effective teaching.”  Most proponents of merit pay are talking about rewarding teachers whose students overperform on standardized tests or improve their scores.

But according to Tested, a great look at the unexpected consequences of the testing revolution by Linda Perlstein, a student’s test scores have more to do with a teacher from the previous year than a student’s current teacher.

And that complicates things.  It would be administratively hard to offer bonuses to teachers based on individual students.  For example, how do you trace fifth-grade scores back to multiple schools that students came from?  It wouldn’t be impossible, but when talking about merit pay, we need to be more specific about defining the goal than simply calling it “effective teaching.”

Of course, the idea that a single effective teacher (rather than say, the parents or broader school environment) has the most impact on test scores is debatable.

Or ponder this one: what if high test scores actually reflect medicore, uncreative instruction rather than the inspirational teaching that, in the American dream of public education, deserves a delicious apple?

But if this were the final bill, and I were a member of Congress (“Dream on, babe.” Favorite professor quote…), I would absolutely vote for it.  Tens of millions more people will have health care, and it does some (not a lot) to reduce health care inflation.

Then again, none of the bills do a lot to address spiraling costs, so the real question (for me, at least) is which bill will cover the most uninsured Americans. It certainly is not the Baucus plan.  But it absolutely is better than nothing at all.

And he deserves most of it.

Baucus has squandered a lot of potential.  This conservative Democrat is immensely popular across the vast, open land of his meagerly populated state of Montana.  As chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, he could have directed a legislative drafting process that delivered an effective solution to the health crisis, or at least one that yields near-universal coverage.

But he did not.  Instead, he brought his Senate pals to a backroom for a few months in the name of bipartisanship.  In the process, he excluded valuable voices on health care, including Chuck Schumer of New York, who would have pushed hard for a public option.

The result, of course, has been almost complete failure.  Yesterday, Baucus finally released a bill.  But do not be fooled: this is not the long discussed bipartisan agreement.  This is merely what Baucus hopes to ba bipartisan agreement.  But really, it reflects exactly what has been going on this entire time: what Max wants and little else. (Throw in a few Kent Conrad ideas, and you’ve basically got the bill.)

But before I continue ripping the Baucus plan, let me offer a little praise.

Part of the Baucus plan would be funded by taxing insurance companies for providing super-expensive “Cadillac”  plans.

There are two things to note here.  The first is that this will cause these plans to become even more expensive as insurance companies pass the cost on to employers that offer these extravagant plans to their employees.  In turn, companies will be less likely to provide the plans, which will then prevent the employees from overconsuming health services (one of many causes of rising health costs.)

The second is that this is not the most effective way to do this.  Ideally, people who enroll in these plans should be taxed directly.  That way, they would be more likely to monitor and reduce their consumption of unnecessary care. 

Still, this is how bipartisanship should work.  Many Republicans, including John McCain on the campaign trail last year, are fans of ending the tax exemption for employer-provided health coverage.  This tax exemption is grossly unfair to low-income workers and possibly the single greatest cause of health care inflation in the U.S.  Not to mention it handicaps our economy to have health coverage tied to a current job. (Why? Let me ask it this way, Would you be more or less likely to take the leap as an entrepreneur to, say, start a new business if you had to risk losing health coverage for yourself and your family?)

Democrats typically are not fans of ending this exemption because labor unions, their key political allies, have negotiating generous health deals with employers.  No need to upset the status quo.

So Baucus took a good idea from Republicans and severely limited it (after all, he’s proposing a very modest tax on extremely luxurious plans) so as to be acceptable to some Democrats.

The rest of the bill made no such efforts.

Instead of a public option, we get co-ops.  Co-ops have not figured at all in the health care debate over the past several decades, and there’s a reason– they would have very little chance of getting off the ground to compete with major insurers.  I’ve said several times that a public plan is a good idea but not essential.  Co-ops, though, are not better than no public plan.  They’re just a waste of money.

It gets worse.  Baucus’s plan–you’ll notice– sounds a bit cheap: $800-900 billion over 10 years.  Near universal coverage would cost at least a trillion.  It sounds expensive, but it’s not when you consider (a) the vast amounts squandered on Bush’s tax cuts ($1.35 trillion for the 2001 cuts alone), not to mention the Iraq war; and (b) the bang you get for the buck (providing quality health coverage to 40 million plus Americans for the first time and giving all Americans the security to know that they will have health care even if they leave their job to start a small business.)

Baucus made his bill cheap by limiting subsidies to purchase care to those with incomes up to 300% of the poverty line.  This is horribly insufficient.  Just to put it in perspective, the debate in the Senate HELP committee was over providing subsidies to 400 or 500% of the poverty line.

Liberals keep saying that a mandate to purchase insurance without a public plan is suicide.  They’re wrong– a mandate without giving low-income Americans enough or any subsidies to purchase the newly required insurance is suicide.

My best hope is that the tax on expensive plans makes its way into the final bill and that the rest of this bill perishes.

The worst case, though, would be if Olympia Snowe moves away from a public-option trigger to embrace Baucus’s low-cost, wasteful non-universal health care package.

Photo from Politico.

At a gala for leaders of the gay community hosted  at the White House on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, President Obama said that he was in no place to counsel patience on gay rights just as white progressive leaders in the 1950s and 60s had no business telling black people to wait for their rights.

The comparison of civil rights for African-Americans to gay rights today is significant, especially coming from the first black president.

To some extent, the President is right.  But I’d take it a step further.

The timing on delivering gay rights is even more crucial for gay Americans than for other groups that have and still do wait for full civil rights.

Why? Many gay people, both young and old, continue to live in the closet.  Living this lie brings extreme loneliness, and the blow of government-sanctioned discriminatory policies must be born entirely alone.  For these men and women, there is no support community to fall back on.

Of course, many gay people do live openly and have a strong support structure.  And it’s not as if gay marriage and comprehensive non-discrimination legislation will magically give all those in the closet the strength to come out.

But government action on gay rights is still significant.  It sends a strong message to bigots who interpret government inaction on the issue as a sanction of their prejudice.

Plus, contrary to popular belief, reasons for fearing the coming-out process are not entirely personal, that is, based only upon one’s close friends and family.  It’s a wider societal attitude toward homosexuality.  This attitude has many influences, including popular culture, religion, and yes,  government policy.

The crux of the President’s failure to act swiftly on gay rights is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be gay.  The isolation, for at least a significant period of a gay person’s life, can be unimaginably difficult to bear.  The President needs to stop conducting his approach to gay rights as if the only gay people that exist are the ones who are out and politically active.  He has a silent constituency that could really use a show of support.