Exclusive: Halter Takes On Lincoln, Offers Support For Public Plan

By Sam Stein

Arkansas Democratic Senate candidate Bill Halter cast himself as a populist anti-Washington crusader on Tuesday, drawing several distinctions with his opponent, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, and downplaying the White House's endorsement of the incumbent Democrat.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Huffington Post, Halter pledged to run a "positive race with a positive agenda" in his effort to unseat Lincoln -- the conservative Arkansas Democrat, whose stonewalling of the Democratic agenda has rankled many in the party. But he wasn't averse to taking on his primary opponent, pointing out several areas where there are "differences in perspective."

On health care -- the most contentious issue of the day and the most divisive one when it comes to Lincoln's standing in the Democratic Party -- Halter struck a decidedly more progressive pose than Lincoln. He would not say whether he would support the final bill, noting that the legislative language was changing by the day. But he did offer his backing for a public option for insurance coverage -- a popular policy proposal that Lincoln has steadfastly refused to support.

"I do think that we need greater competition," Halter said. "I do believe that we ought to offer an option to the public. They get hung up on the words 'public option' and there's been a real messaging problem there. People don't know what that really means, so let me try to use an alternative formulation to tell you what I think people would respond to, and that is give the public the option, on a voluntary basis, to buy into a program like Medicare."

The lieutenant governor and former Clinton administration official also noted that, unlike Lincoln, he does not support a repeal of the estate tax, which he said adversely benefits the state's wealthiest individuals in "direct juxtaposition with providing help to middle class families for their students to be able to go to college."

Finally, Halter took Lincoln to task for her support of a bank bailout, saying that the bill was poorly constructed and lacked sufficient oversight provisions.

"I would not have voted for a bailout bill that didn't include tighter restrictions and more checks and more oversight on the expenditure of that money," he said, citing the ineffectiveness of TARP managers to get some of the money to small businesses.

The majority of Halter's barbs, however, were addressed to Washington D.C. as a whole rather than Lincoln in particular. Lamenting the grip that special interest groups have on the legislative process, he cited Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) decision to hold up unemployment benefits and the failure to pass a piecemeal jobs bill as two recent examples of egregious inaction.

"I would submit to you that one of the reasons why [my candidacy has been well-received] is that we've got a political dynamic in Washington now where things have become so partisan and so highly charged that even the basic things you can't get done," Halter said.

So far, the reception for Halter has indeed been overwhelming. Nearly $4 million was pledged to his campaign within an hour after he officially launched his candidacy. But the majority of donations, he said, were of the small, individual variety.

"We have now had more than 20,000 people who have contributed to the campaign and... it looks like the average contribution is $23," he said.

In many ways, his campaign against Lincoln has become a proxy battle for a more glaring division erupting within the Democratic Party, where the progressive community has been driven mad over the ability of centrist caucus members to hold up jobs and health care legislation. Lincoln has long been considered a personification of that centrist obstinacy. And, not surprisingly, when Halter announced his primary campaign bid, a host of frustrated groups, from the AFL-CIO to MoveOn.org, quickly moved behind him.

Asked whether he was comfortable playing the symbolic role of centrist-killer, let alone garnering the attention and aid of outside-Arkansas organizations, Halter didn't skip a beat. "I welcome support from people from all parts of the political spectrum," he said.

And what about the Obama White House, which, on Monday, offered its endorsement for Lincoln's reelection?

They don't have a vote, Halter replied.

"I think their statement was that their policy is to be supportive of incumbent senators," he replied. "And I think that's actually what Robert Gibbs said at the podium. And look, the fact is that I'm seeking the votes of Arkansans, okay? It's Arkansans who are going to vote for their next United States Senator... I'm more concerned about getting votes in Arkansas than I am in which special interest is opposing our campaign or who's lining up for whom." Watch Halter's New Campaign Ad:

Public Option Opponent Mike Ross Proposes Opening Medicare To More Americans

By Igor Volsky The Hill is reporting that Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — is floating a proposal to open-up Medicare to Americans under 65, “but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates“:

I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.

The last sentence is key: reimbursing providers who treat the new enrollees at market rates satisfies the provider community and conservative politicians from rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates. This scheme preserves the integrity of a single national program and takes advantage of Medicare’s administrative efficiencies to lower costs and spearhead delivery reforms. Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.

After cutting a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to increase the public option’s reimbursement rates in August, Ross announced last month that “he will vote against health care legislation if it includes a public option.” “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” Ross wrote in a newsletter to constituents. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”

M.C.L comment:

I wished those on the left remember the problem in the public option debate is the conservative fringe in the Democratic majority in the senate, we gotta make it clear the majority of elected Democrats support or at least won't help the Republicans filibuster a health care bill with the public option. I wished these Blue dogs just admit why they're standing against the public option despite huge public support because. their overlords in the health care industry is threatening to cut their allowance if a bill with a strong public option is passed or B. they're scared of having ads from wing nut groups like Club for Growth being run against them so they're thinking about their own skin to save at the expense of us and the people they claimed to represent.