Kennedy going his own way on GOP Medicare bill

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal whom conservatives love to hate, is spreading dismay in both camps as he steers an influential course on Medicare prescription drug legislation.

Fellow Democrats have been seething since the Massachusetts senator expressed early enthusiasm for a bill that gives the private insurance industry an expanded role in the Great Society-era program.

"A major breakthrough," he called it. On the same day, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota attacked the measure for falling "significantly short of what was needed."

Conservative Republicans voice fears that Kennedy has outfoxed them on a bill to create the largest government benefit program in years. "It leads to great suspicion on our side," says Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Kennedy, 71 and the most prominent liberal of his era, detects humor in the situation. "It must be something good," he said with a laugh, settling back into a chair just off the Senate floor where he has served since before Medicare existed.

Proposal a good start

Turning serious, he says, "Opportunities around the Senate don't come often, particularly with a Republican president and a Republican Congress."

In fact, laughter among the Democrats has been in short supply since Kennedy made this calculation.

He did so, he says, because Republicans put $400 billion in their budget for Medicare prescription drugs, and the White House consented under pressure to allow equal drug subsidies to older people whether they choose traditional Medicare or a new managed care option.

His position was that the proposal offered a good start, and he would fight to improve it. That was not what Democrats or their allies wanted to hear.

"Ted made the judgment about what he felt. ... My preference would be a very strong fight to keep Medicare what it needs to be," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia says he believes Kennedy made a mistake. "That's all I'm going to say," he said.

Kennedy's action sparked a stormy closed party caucus where, party sources say, hard feelings boiled over. He defended his decision and said Democrats should claim victory on policy and politics. Other Democrats just as strongly attacked it.

A step forward, or back?

Several aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that while a filibuster was never seriously discussed, it became impossible once Kennedy went his own way.

Some of the longest-serving Democrats in the House worry that it has become harder for them to gain political traction with attacks on a more conservative bill advanced by House Republicans.

They discussed calling Kennedy to urge him to reconsider, one person who attended a recent meeting said, but they decided he would be unlikely to comply.

Kennedy's critics argue that on policy grounds, he has given up too much -- part of what some senators privately call an attempt to leave a legacy.

On politics, the argument is that he has given Bush standing on an issue that Democrats have long owned -- much as he did two years ago on an education bill -- and the administration will skimp on funds in the future.

These charges bring Kennedy to the edge of his chair. "Standards-based education is supported by 80 percent of the American people," he said. On the issue of money, "I think the American people are beginning to understand that the failure to fund this belongs to the Republicans."

Similarly, on Medicare, "It's a major step forward and a major down payment," he said.

While there is not enough money in the bill, he said, he will "come back to the people in the next election (to tell them) that we want to finish the job."

It's not what most Democrats wanted to hear from the man who has fought so many battles over the past 40 years on issues such as health care, civil rights, women's rights and labor issues.

At the same time, he has a record of settling for smaller, bipartisan bills, then building on them.

National health care was a centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency in 1980, and he supported President Clinton's failed proposal for nationwide health insurance in 1994.

Yet when the Republicans took power the following year, he concluded it was time to settle for smaller steps.

He was instrumental in passing legislation to prevent workers from losing their health insurance due to pre-existing conditions when they switched jobs. The following year, he helped create a health program for lower-income children.

All of which seems unsettling to Republicans as they consider the Medicare bill.

"Everybody knows he's been committed for 30 or 35 years to nationalizing the health care system. And I think he thinks this is a huge step in the right direction," said former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

"And I think he's right."