“Things were a lot better for the average person in this country when we had usury caps,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), head of the House Rules Committee, said in a statement announcing her bill. “Watching how credit card companies have exploited people by increasing rates up to 30 percent and more is criminal and this bill will allow us to put an end to this practice.”

Massachusetts Democratic Reps. John Tierney  and Michael Capuano will co-sponsor the bill.

They have a tough road ahead, for several reasons. (1) Even though it was the finance industry that was primarily responsible for the recent global economic meltdown, there’s a growing reluctance on Capitol Hill to apply strict new regulations just as the banks are re-stabilizing — a circumstance the banks are already celebrating. (2) Although Congress was successful in passing sweeping credit card reforms in May, an amendment to cap interest rates at 15 percent was killed in the Senate. And (3) the banks aren’t going to allow Congress to squeeze a profit source without coming up with creative ways to make up the difference elsewhere. This, The New York Times reported yesterday, is what’s happening in Australia, where card issuers have responded to new regulations by attaching new fees to airline tickets, among other purchases.

“[I]f regulators limit one fee or rate, banks are likely to find another way to keep revenue flowing,” The Times wrote.

The senator has yet to announce a date, but with the health reform debate likely to occupy the upper chamber for most of December, scheduling the hearing this year would be a tricky proposition.

Last week, 22 senators representing both sides of the aisle had written to Harkin and Sen. Michael Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the HELP panel, urging the committee to examine the new mammogram guidelines, which recommend that women get screenings less frequently and later in life — an overhaul of existing protocols.

In the House, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who heads the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, has already announced his intention to hold a December hearing on the new mammogram recommendations. From a scheduling standpoint, Pallone has the advantage: the House has already passed its version of the health reform bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze the future effects of the Democrats’ tax increase. Specifically, Grassley is wondering why the proposed hike isn’t indexed to inflation, leaving more and more Americans to fall subject to the increase each year.

“The unintended consequences could be significant,” Grassley warned.

If that scenario sounds familiar, it’s because the Alternative Minimum Tax — designed decades ago to target just a tiny sliver of high-income households — was similarly not indexed to inflation. As incomes have risen over the years, more and more upper-middle-class families have fallen into the bracket under which they have to pay the AMT. Some liberals don’t see a problem with that. But Congress, fearing a backlash at the polls, has stepped in each year with the so-called AMT patch, providing billions of (borrowed) dollars to prevent the tax from hitting those families.

The Democrats’ motivations are easy to surmise: Had they indexed the tax to inflation they would have generated much less revenue to pay for their health-care reform bill. And the proposed payroll tax increase is much less than the AMT. Still, it’s not too far a stretch to imagine that the lawmakers of the 2030s, also wanting to appease the voters, would also find it tempting to come up with the Medicare-payroll patch.

With Congress out of town for the Thanksgiving break, there’s been little to distract Washington’s prognosticators from offering their predictions over the public plan’s fate. Truth is, no one is quite sure how this saga is going to play out. Based on comments from several of the four moderates since Saturday’s vote, it’s tempting to argue that Democratic leaders will at the very least have to scale back the public plan to pass the larger bill. Then again, the way Landrieu melted Saturday at the chance to secure millions of federal dollars for Louisiana indicates that there’s much more at play here than mere principle.

With all of that in mind, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) offered his own optimistic take on how the drama over the public option will end, telling CNN yesterday that the historical significance of the reform vote will ultimately be enough to sway the four moderates in favor of the bill.

In the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it. [...]

I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, you know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill in my political career. I don’t think they want to be there on that. So I think in the end, we get them.

Let’s be clear: the task force’s recommendation will have absolutely no impact on the bills we in the Senate write, debate or vote on.  [HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] has also assured me there that nothing in Medicare or Medicaid will change as a result of the recommendation, and that’s the way it should be.

Yet the Senate bill says explicitly that, as a part of newly proposed minimum benefits requirements, every insurer  ”shall provide coverage for … evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.” The House bill contains a nearly identical provision.

The task force guideline recommending that women between ages 50 and 74 receive biennial routine mammograms, instead of annual checkups, received a “B” rating.

That in no way means that women wouldn’t have access to annual mammograms. Again, the essential benefits package represents the minimum coverage insurers would have to offer. The task force is clear that the ultimate decision on the frequency of screenings should be made by women and their doctors.

Still, there’s also the fear that private insurers will lean on the task force recommendations to justify a scaling back of coverage for routine mammograms. Julius Hobson, former lobbyist for the American Medical Association and now a senior policy analyst at the Washington law firm Bryan Cave, said it’s “inevitable” that private insurance companies will look at those guidelines, and may change their coverage policies based on what they see. Certainly, they would like the potential cost savings if women were getting routine mammograms every two years instead of every one.

“It’s almost inevitable that that’s going to happen,” Hobson said last week. “The government doesn’t move that fast, but the health insurers do.”

That has some members of Congress concerned about the threat to women’s health. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a phone interview last week, “Cancers can progress very far in two years.”

Although Congress just enacted an extension of jobless benefits — up to 20 weeks in high-unemployment states — a Dec. 31 filing deadline will effectively prevent many folks from getting all the money they’re eligible to receive.

Underlying the problem is the bewildering framework of the benefits themselves. Under current law, states offer 26 weeks of jobless insurance before a four-tier system of emergency federal benefits kick in. Beneficiaries must exhaust the benefits they’re receiving before they can file for the next level.

NELP estimates that nearly 475,000 people will exhaust their state-funded benefits after Dec. 31 — and therefore miss the filing deadline for the multiple tiers of emergency federal help — while more than 580,000 folks will exhaust one tier of federal help after the deadline, preventing them from jumping to the next tier.

If Congress doesn’t step in, the deadline “will create total chaos for the state agencies and workers facing an uncertain future,” Christine Owens, NELP’s executive director, said in a statement.

The good news for Owens and the unemployed is that congressional leaders are well aware of the problem. Indeed, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled that Democratic leaders will address the deadline glitch before Congress adjourns for the year.

“The industry has tried to make one last grab at their customers’ pocketbooks,” Dodd said, just before asking for the consent of Republicans to pass the bill unanimously.

No dice. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) objected “on behalf of several senators on this side of the aisle.” There’s no word yet which other lawmakers he was referring to.

House Democratic leaders have already passed even stronger legislation that would expedite all the credit card reforms in the previously passed bill — not just the ban on hiking rates for existing balances. Dodd hasn’t signed on to the Senate version of the bill.

It’s worth mentioning that the Democrats — folding to pressure from the banks — were themselves responsible for delaying those reforms, which were initially proposed to go into effect much earlier  this year.

“I don’t think we need to do another stimulus package,” he said. “All we need to do is move in regular order and do what we need to do for the country.”

Clyburn’s comments put him at odds** with other Democratic leaders — including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — who see a new jobs bill as a necessary step toward curbing unemployment rates.

With those rates topping 10 percent last month — and with tough elections looming in 2010 — the smart money here is on Hoyer and Reid.

H/t: The Hill.

**Or not. Clyburn spokeswoman Kristie Greco emails to clarify that the congressman does in fact support job-creating legislation, including an extension of unemployment benefits, more COBRA subsidies and a fully funded, six year transportation bill, “which would create six million jobs,” Greco said. “I don’t see a difference between the Hoyer/Clyburn positions,” she added. It seems that Clyburn doesn’t view these items as “anything new.”

In a letter yesterday to GAO, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) voiced concerns that the companies are “artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms that could otherwise reduce prescription drug prices or price growth by encouraging patients and the government to be more efficient purchasers.”

Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive. We request that the GAO prepare on an expedited basis a report that analyzes recent trends in prescription drug pricing. In addition, we request that you prepare a proposal to ensure ongoing monitoring of pharmaceutical manufacturer pricing practices, and periodically report to the Congress on your findings.

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is taking the Times’ report sitting down. In a statement released Monday, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the price increases represent “the natural result of market forces.”

I think clearly we need to move on unemployment insurance and COBRA. Beyond that, you mentioned a couple: public jobs, job tax credits, infrastructure. There are a lot of options available; we are discussing those. We are discussing with economic advisors as to what is the most effective. And, frankly, there are differences of opinion on that.

Asked about the size of the jobs package, Hoyer offered no hints. “I don’t have a figure,” he said tersely.

Obviously, there may be different figures for different things that you do. But it is clear that we need to act in a way that does get to the creation of job opportunities for people in the short term. That is what we are trying for.

Of course, that’s also what Democrats were trying for when they passed their $787 billion stimulus bill in February, when unemployment was 8.1 percent. How many more business tax breaks does Congress have to pass before recognizing that well-targeted infrastructure spending — including money for public transit – just might offer more bang-for-the-buck?