By Kimberley A. Strassel
The Connecticut senator free of partisan loyalties has a pivotal role in the health-care debate.
About two months ago my wife and I were out with another couple and they said So hows it going?and I knew what they meant. I said Im doing my own independent thing but for the first time in five years I feel out of the crossfire . . . And my wife said Knowing you before long youll mess up. Joe Lieberman laughs a big hearty laugh then adds: And then came the public option!
The senator from Connecticut doesnt look sorry. Sitting in his office on Wednesday he looks like hes having the time of his life. Ever since his bruising 2006 re-election in which he quit the Democratic Party to run as an independent Mr. Lieberman has been a man unleashed.
Hes caucused with Democrats yet campaigned for John McCain. Hes enthusiastically supporting President Barack Obamas Afghanistan surge and just as spiritedly criticizing his decision to try 9/11 terrorists in U.S. courts. Hes joined Democrats to reform health care even as hes promised to torpedo their government-run insurance option.
And he cant be ignored: Hes crucial to mustering the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican filibusters. Mr. Lieberman says he was surprised to have his influence but he isnt afraid to use it. I always felt I was an independent-minded person . . . but there is no question that having been re-elected as an independent does give me a feeling of liberation . . . I dont feel like I have to view everything through the prism of partisanship. He grins and adds: Through anything.
Back in October Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid snipped that Mr. Lieberman was the least of his health care problems. Thats no longer true if it ever was. He has the power to strip a public option out of the Senate health-care bill and even demand a more moderate rewrite. Mr. Lieberman himself puts the odds of a bill getting through at greater than 50-50 but bluntly warns: It wont be what Senator Reid put in.
They are going to have to drop some things . . . the obvious being the public optiona controversial government-run insurance program that Mr. Lieberman adamantly opposes on philosophical and economic grounds. Unlike some Democrats who have criticized it but remained open to negotiation he says he is not bluffing.
Im being more stubborn and certain about this . . . I think its such a significant step for the country to create another entitlement program and to have the government going into a business I feel like Ive got to say no.
When Mr. Lieberman says no public option he means no public optionnot an opt-in or an opt out or a trigger (a public option only comes into effect if private insurers fail to spread enough coverage). We are at the point now where this has become the classic legislative process of trying to get a fig leaf that everyone can hide behind. And I dont want to do that.
Why is he adamant? Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not a conspiratorial person he believes the public option is intended as a way for the government to take over health care. Ive been working for health-care reform in different ways since I arrived here he says. It was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less costly and how do we expand coverage to people who cant afford it and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies . . . So where did this public option come from? It was barely a blip he says in last years presidential campaign.
I started to ask some of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus privately and two of them said some in our caucus and some outside in interest groups after the president won such a great victory and there were more Democrats in the Senate and the House said this is the moment to go for single payer. So I joke the senator is in fact as big a conspiracy theorist as me. He laughingly rejoins: But I have evidence!
Mr. Lieberman notes that the public option serves no other purpose: It doesnt help one poor person get insurance who doesnt have it now. It doesnt compel one insurance company to provide insurance to somebody who has an illness. And . . . it doesnt do anything to reduce the cost of insurance.
Mr. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that it is necessary to keep insurers honest. Sometimes the private sector does things that are wrong and when they do you regulatesometimes you litigate he says. But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one industry honest by having government go into that business to compete with the industry.
He is also really fixed on the national debt. Several provisions in the Reid bill he says will result in the government accepting unlimited liability for debts incurred by this government-run public option. And those debts will come. If we create this its going to run deficits. Not for evil reasons. Congress just likes to say yes when people ask for additional services to be covered.
Theres also the question of priorities; We have problems in the health-care system that need to be fixed but we have much more urgent problems in our economy. One getting out of the recession. Two doing something about the awful debt.
He doesnt believe the bill is deficit-neutral and has concerns as to whether we or succeeding Congresses will really adopt the proposed cuts to Medicare. While hes not opposed to taxes hes opposed to immediate ones. He wants to push off the $10 billion fee on industry players. Its not overwhelming but $10 billion is $10 billion. My concern is that if you apply the tax right away it is probably going to result in higher premiums for people who have insurance and thats not a good thing to do in a recession.
Mr. Lieberman says the Democrats political problems come from supporting two goals which dont go togetherincreasing coverage and reducing health-care costs. The bill needs more of the latter. Hell push to finance it with a cap on the tax exclusion Americans get through their employers for health plans because this exclusion he says has the most effect on creating incentives not to overuse the insurance system. He will also work with Republicans to enact malpractice reform.
Does he risk overplaying his hand? Maine Republican Olympia Snowe has suggested shed support a trigger for a public option and if Democrats win her over they dont need Mr. Lieberman. He responds that hes not alone. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln when she spoke explaining why she was voting to go to debate was very absolute about her opposition to the public option. I think theres at least Blanche and me and maybe one or two others.
Mr. Reids problem is that liberals are threatening to bolt if the bill doesnt include a public option. Mr. Lieberman is unsympathetic. Some people say to me You would stop health-care reform because of the public option? I mean you support a lot of this stuff! So I say Ill ask it another way: You mean the people who are supporting the public option which is new to this debate would stop all these reforms because they are stubborn?
***
When I last interviewed Mr. Lieberman three years ago he was helping an embattled Republican president hold on to Iraq. Now hes appeared on TV to help a Democratic president keep his party on board with a troop surge in Afghanistan. He offers warm words about Mr. Obamas Tuesday speech announcing an additional 30000 troops and while some feel the president could have been stronger he gives Mr. Obama credit for his political courage.
He made a decision that is at odds with the majority of the members of the Democratic Partynot just here in Congress but as reflected in every opinion poll. So youve got to say that he put what he thought were the national security interest ahead of partisan political interests. There was no easy way out herebut there were easier ways politically.
Is 30000 troops enough? Mr. Lieberman says he was reassured by the comments of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. And words privately with Gen. David Petraeus that this number was sufficient to turn the tide.
Like many he was concerned by the 18-month deadline Mr. Obama mentioned. But after probing Defense Secretary Bob Gates in a Senate hearing this week hes now more confident. Gates compared it to the so-called overwatch which is really what we did in Iraq. As we felt the Iraqis were prepared to take over in certain areas we pulled back but we didnt pull out. Mr. Lieberman believes this pull back is what begins in July 2011 and also felt he got assurances that it would start only in uncontested areasand that there is no deadline for when all 30000 troops must leave.
Mr. Lieberman notes that the presidents speech needs follow up in order to rally the country but adds The ultimate way the public supports a war is when it succeeds. He remembers the years of state residents protesting Iraq outside his office. Honestly it never even comes up now. Never. Because it succeeded.
On the administrations broader war on terror his appraisal is more mixed. The Obama team has come around to the importance of the Patriot Act which must soon be reauthorized and on the intelligence gathering court-authorized surveillance theyve been strong. Closing Guantanamo however makes no sense; he says were going to have to either build or pay for a facility here thats not going to be any betterits probably going to be worse.
Hes totally against the administrations decision to try 9/11 terrorists in federal court. He notes that the U.S. has used military tribunals since the Revolutionary War and moreover the U.S. Congress passed tribunal legislation giving detainees due process that goes way beyond even the Geneva Convention.
So why did the administration do it? Mr. Lieberman drops the ideology word. Part of is to show the world how well we treat the people who did the worst deeds to us he says. But he adds it doesnt really change anybodys attitude toward usin a way that changes their behavior toward us.
He was skeptical of Mr. Obamas decision to engage Iran but figured it was worth a try. It was a test of Iran and of course they have profoundly failed the test. The only positive to come out of it . . . is that the world now has no reason to blame us for the state of relations.
Mr. Lieberman is now working on legislation to allow Mr. Obama to impose tougher economic sanctions. Just as important he says the U.S. must do more to support the Iranian opposition. The only thing this fanatical regime cares about more than building nuclear weapons is its own survival and until thats in doubt they wont cooperate.
As for Mr. Liebermans future he seems unlikely to become less independent any time soon. He ends with an amusing conversation he recently had with his son: One person will say to him Your dad I thought he was a good guy. How could he stop health reform?! Then another person says I cant believe your father is all that stands between America and our economic system as we know it! From the mischievous look on Sen. Liebermans face you can tell he loves that no one can fit him in a box.
Ms. Strassel writes the Journals Potomac Watch column.
