Harold Ford isn't a Democrat. This isn't news. Yes, he usually has a [D] next to his name, but like Parker Griffith or Richard Shelby before him, his association with the party is purely an association of convenience. To his credit, Ford isn't even trying to hide this fact from New York Democrats. Aside from some disingenuous pandering on social issues, his approach to economic and foreign policy makes it clear that he intends to serve the GOP from across the aisle as the next Joe Lieberman. Backed by a bevy of Wall Street financiers, Ford seems to be operating as a proxy test messaging device for his right-wing "base," and his recent op-ed for the New York Times reveals this "message" as little more than a random mishmash of vague slogans and Republican ideas designed to undermine progressive efforts.
In terms of "job creation," Ford's platform is pure Wall Street. Ignoring the very real disconnect between the lives of bankers and the lives of workers, Ford wants to preserve the current capital gains tax rates (which, as we can see, already aren't helping) while cutting corporate tax rates to historically minimal levels. This is little more than a plan to boost the profits of multinational companies under the heading of "job creation." It may very well create more jobs in India and China, but as Bush's dismal job creation record indicates, it'll do little to help here at home. As former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi informed us earlier this year, Ford's proposals provide the lowest "bang for your buck" of any proposed stimulus measure other than income tax cuts for the super-wealthy.
Like any good Republican, Ford is smart enough to use a couple of paragraphs to separate his tax cut proposals from his disingenuous posturing on deficits, but if we're going to take his stated concern about the deficit seriously, these tax cut proposals can only mean that Ford also supports far-reaching cuts to social services and tax hikes on the middle class. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't balance the budget by cutting taxes alone, so Ford is either implicitly supporting massive Medicare/Social Security cuts or just posturing. Either way, he's clearly not being honest with voters through his appropriation of GOP rhetoric.
The core of the op-ed, however, is Harold Ford's proposals for health care reform. Unsurprisingly, he advocates dropping current efforts to achieve universal health care. Despite CBO's finding that either HCR bill would significantly cut the deficit over two decades, Ford claims that we "can't afford" a full health care reform effort. This is a hopelessly vague assertion. If Ford is echoing Lieberman's frequent suggestion that we wait until after the recession to address health care, then he should be informed that both bills already include lengthy waiting periods. Much to the frustration of progressives, the Senate bill delays implementation of the most significant provisions until 2014.
Even if Ford is talking about the impact of the proposed funding mechanisms after 2014, this doesn't make much sense. Most of the bill is financed by ending Medicare Advantage over-payments. It's possible that Ford's "we" refers to "the health care industry," but this only further demonstrates how Ford is campaigning as a representative for moneyed interests. Now, it could be that Ford thinks we can't afford the excise tax since it would likely cause benefits for some middle class workers to be scaled back, but this can easily be fixed via reconciliation by modifying the excise tax and shifting costs to those making over 250k. Of course, it should be obvious by now that Ford's "we" almost certainly includes those making over 250k.
So what does Ford propose in place of a comprehensive reform bill?
First, Ford proposes that we "restructure current health care costs before spending more." This is obviously a great idea, but Ford doesn't actually propose any means of doing this. This is a goal, not a policy. If he's gong to be this vague, he might as well say, "I want everyone to have more money and live better lives." Significantly restructuring current health care costs would require either helping insurers negotiate better prices from providers or directly capping service costs altogether. Ford does suggest limited tort reform later in the article, but CBO estimates that even John Boehner's robust tort reform proposals would only save a paltry fifty-four billion dollars while doing nothing to address the numerous other factors underlying the unsustainable growth of health care costs. As most people here know, even the current health care reform bills don't really do much to curb service costs in the short term, so if Ford actually has an idea, I would love to hear it. Of course, he's probably just saying this because it sounds good.
Second, Ford suggests that we "prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions." This directly conflicts with Ford's first suggestion. After all, if we're not going to pursue comprehensive reform, restricting discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions would cause health insurance premiums to sky rocket for everyone. As morally atrocious as this practice is, it does serve an obvious purpose. Health insurance is, after all, insurance, and just as insurers don't want people waiting to buy fire insurance until after their house burns down, they don't want people waiting to buy health insurance until after they get sick. Permitting people to wait until they need insurance to buy insurance would lead to skyrocketing costs and effectively undermine the entire concept of insurance altogether.
That being the case, dealing with the pre-existing condition problem requires either a Medicare-like program for everyone or an individual mandate coupled with significant subsidies for the middle class. Either of these proposals, however, would obviously constitute the sort of comprehensive reform effort that Ford explicitly opposes. Clearly, Ford is just saying he wants to "prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions" because it sounds good. He has no serious plan for actually addressing the problem.
Finally, Ford says "we must allow states to have input into the expansion of health coverage, as they will have to pay for much of the reform themselves." Actually, the Senate bill has the federal government covering 95% of the costs of the Medicaid expansion to which Ford is obliquely referring. Moreover, Democrats were already moving towards providing 100% federal funding in the wake of Ben Nelson's noxious "Nebraska deal." Again, as with the excise tax, this is a problem that could easily be addressed through subsequent legislation. There is no reason this should torpedo comprehensive reform efforts altogether... unless your underlying goal is simply to torpedo comprehensive reform efforts.
And that, in all likelihood, is what Ford really does want to achieve. Ford has repeatedly indicated that he opposes any meaningful efforts to achieve the fundamental goals of the Democratic Party. The platform outlined in his New York Times op-ed is designed primarily to deliver more money to the wealthy while hoping their ever-expanding income magically delivers some residual benefits to those in need. Whatever short-term political gains such a message may offer, it is a platform for long-term failure. Mired in a recession brought about by thirty years of Reaganomics, Americans have obviously had enough of this sleight of hand, but it's up to progressives to expose this sugar-coated trick for what it truly is.
Update: More on Ford's blather from diarist devtob and Krugman.