A few weeks ago I was talking to Matt Lewis about Sen. Joe Lieberman, and he suggested that Lieberman's antipathy to the liberal causes he traditionally supports comes from his bitterness about progressive efforts to unseat him in 2006. My defense -- if his newfound allies think he's only with them out of pique, that's painting a picture of an awfully small man -- seems to have been invalidated, now that Peter Beinart, who it is fair to say is more inclined to sympathize with Lieberman than I, has seconded the bitterness assessment. Anyway, Lieberman's foolishness on the public option has been well documented here. The latest entry is from Gerry Seib, the Wall Street Journal's bureau chief:His objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit," he says. "With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option wasn't a big feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008. So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand -- which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore, single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public option as a consolation.Beinart had observed that, in the past, Lieberman was awarded full support of an organization dedicated to single-payer. It's also nice to see Lieberman backing off his lie that the public option wasn't mentioned in 2008, but now he's just saying it's not a "big feature." But if it's not a big feature, how can it create an unlimited deficit liability? Given that this insurance company will be funded entirely by premiums, its pretty hard to understand where this unlimited deficit comes from, especially because those killjoys over at the CBO predict that the public option will save money, not contribute to the deficit. I know, repeating all this ad nausem won't change Lieberman's stance, but the Connecticut senator's repetition of false arguments basically makes interpreting his stance as either being in hock to insurance companies or voting his rage. Neither option looks particularly flattering.
-- Tim Fernholz
