Steven Pearlstein, the business columnists for the Washington Post, has a blistering expose on Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) in today's paper. Pearlstein wonders how (or perhaps why?) Sen. Baucus was able to work his way to the top of the Democrats' list to lead the Finance Committee when many if not all of his views on committee business are essentially contrary to the Democratic Party platform. A few excerpts: But while Baucus is surely entitled to his opinions, and entitled to do what is necessary to assure his own political survival, he is not entitled to be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which handles such key Democratic issues as health care, trade and tax policy. That position ought to be reserved for a statesman with enough political confidence and backbone that he isn't constantly sacrificing the interests of his party and his country to the narrow interests of his subsidy-addicted constituents. You'd think Baucus would have learned his lesson in 2001, when he won the enmity of Democrats everywhere by striking the deal that led to passage of the Bush tax cuts, including the phase-out of the estate tax. Apparently not. For on the very day the new Democratic House is set to push through a long-overdue minimum-wage increase, over in the Senate, Baucus has called a hearing on how to offset the "economic hardship" caused by the higher minimum wage with yet another round of business tax breaks. [...] Real Democrats know that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do -- economically, politically, morally. The question is why they have chosen a Senate Finance chairman who can't articulate that position without equivocation or apology even before the first vote is cast. That's pretty hard hitting stuff, and Pearlstein makes a convincing argument in the full article. It's definitely worth a read.