After his 1851 coup d’état, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the real Napoleon, pronounced himself Napoleon III. It was the rise to power of this great-man-wannabe that prompted the famous opening of Karl Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis-Bonaparte: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.
In 2005, Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship was accused of supporting the assainination of Rafik Hariri, who was then the prime minister of Lebanon. Hariri's death sparked an internal anti-Syrian uprising in Lebanon--the Cedar revolution--which was both supported vocally by the Bush administration and tangibly when the State Department yanked its ambassador from Damascus.
Now the Obama administration wants to send the State Department back, claiming that U.S. foreign policy objectives would be better served through a locally assigned embassy and ambassador. Both the White House and congressional allies are talking up the qualifications of Robert Ford, Obama's pick for a potential Syrian posting. Ford is a long time State Department veteran who served as ambassador to Algeria and more recently deputy chief of the U.S. mission in Iraq -- neither easy diplomatic postings.
But the debate isn't about Ford's qualifications. Syria's brutal Ba'athist regime is a habitual human rights offender with multiple priors -- and a fanatical enemy of the United States.
Consider that:
1) Damascus purposefully sustains regional destabilization. Syria's alliance with Iran has heightened tensions with other Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as contributed to a constant cycle of war in southern Lebanon and Israel's northern flank. Syrian ports are critical logistical nodes for Hezbollah and, to an extent, Hamas in Gaza. They provide short range rockets to both terror groups, which are used unmercifully on Israeli towns and villages. It should be noted that this is far more harmful to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than building a couple of housing units in Jerusalem, which earned the Netanyahu government the stiffest of rebukes from the White House and an ultimatum from Foggy Bottom.
2) Syria is an avowed enemy of America's regional democratic allies. An official state sponsor of terrorism since the State Department released the list in 1979, the regime actively works to undermine the freely elected government in Iraq (largely in the form of pushing foreign fighters across the Syrian-Iraqi border) and exports violence by proxy into neighboring Lebanon and Israel.
3) They're brutal. Bashar al-Assad's one party regime uses torture to suppress internal dissent and individual liberties. Assad's security forces have nearly unlimited power, rendering basic freedoms practically non-existent. Freedom House, an international political rights watchdog, has frequently ranked Damascus at the bottom of their human rights and civil liberties index. Last year, they included Syria in their "Worst of the Worst" section, dedicated --as the name implies-- to the world's most heinous totalitarian regimes.
Syria doesn't deserve to be recognized or rewarded with an ambassadorial presence -- at least, not until lawmakers and diplomats see tangible evidence of the positive liberalization trend that was promised by Bashar al-Assad when he assumed power in 2000. The State Department needs to articulate clearly what foreign policy objectives they expect to be served by reopening an embassy in Damascus, but--more importantly--Syria must prove to the world that they are capable of rational action and discourse. That means immediately and unconditionally terminating support of the Iraqi insurgency, as well as publicly renouncing violence against their democratic neighbors. Then and only then should President Obama consider inviting Syria back to the community of responsible nations.
Last year President Barack Obama filled out his NCAA tournament bracket and predicted (as many did) that North Carolina would take the whole thing. He was right. And he was very popular at the time, too, I might add. This year the president's approval numbers have tanked—he's somewhere around 46 percent at the moment. And this year he picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament—the Jayhawks entered the tourney as the overall number one seed. And earlier today in the second round they were eliminated by number nine seed Northern Iowa, 69-67. What else will he get wrong in 2010?
To be honest, the president had a couple of good upset picks—the kinds that you would make if you read a decent amount about college hoops. (Conservatives are justified in ridiculing the commander in chief for the amount of time he must spend reading up on the game as opposed to figuring out how to create jobs. They are also right to think that if this were the previous president, he would be mocked for this instead of perceived as cool. For instance, Bush spent way too much time working out at the gym—shouldn't he have been more focused on Iraq? In contrast, President Obama spends at least an hour each day working out and thank God for that—he's sending a positive message to our youth and grappling the issue of childhood obesity, which his predecessor didn't care about. He was too busy wasting his time in the gym to care about anything! But I digress.)
Nevertheless, Obama picked 13th-seeded Murray State to win a round against number 4 seed Vanderbilt, which they did. He also correctly chose Cornell over Temple in the 12-5 upset (there's one almost every year). But he got greedy in choosing Siena over Purdue.
So now, only two of the president's final four teams remain: Kentucky and Kansas State. Obama's other regional champion, number two Villanova, was thrown out this afternoon by a bunch of Marys—the St. Mary's Gaels to be specific.
After hearing out everyone from President Obama to tea party activists, Dover Democratic Rep. Zack Space announced today that he'll oppose the health care reform bill that's up for a vote on Sunday in the House of Representatives.
Space, who represents a sprawling southeast Ohio congressional district with a high concentration of Republicans, said he doesn't like the bill, and his constituents don't like it, either.
"Probably the most significant concern is the pay-fors in the bill," said Space. "They are opening the door to taxing employee benefits as income, which is going to create, I don’t care how you slice it, a hardship for middle class families that they can’t afford to endure right now."
Space said the version of the bill he supported last year taxed the wealthiest Americans, rather than the middle class, to pay some of the working poor's health care costs.
"This bill has taken those people out of it," said Space.
Space had a one-on-one meeting with Obama Wednesday, and has been getting leaned on by unions heavily.
Obama arrived in the visitors' center under the U.S. Capitol for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus this afternoon that had the definite feel of a pep rally before a big game.
That's as far as I'll go with the sports metaphors, as Harry Reid did enough torturing of sports metaphors for all of us when he spoke. He told the president, who he knows "likes basketball," that we are in the overtime of a basketball game and everyone already knows the conclusion, but it's close, so the opposition just keeps fouling us, but we're gonna keep making our shots, and in "when the buzzer finally sounds, there will be a clear winner. That winner will be the American people."
But wait, were the American people even playing? Nobody ever got me the ball!
The rally, by design had a feeling of inevitability about it, with Obama saying "we are 24 hours away" from health-care reform after a year of debate. But is there reason for the confident air?
"Stupak said those standing with him now number about six -- down from the rough dozen he has claimed for weeks. That is likely enough to put the majority within striking distance of the 216 votes they need for passage."
The whip count is certainly tight enough that Stupak could still endanger the bill, even with a smaller bloc, but Pelosi does seem to be peeling off a few pro-lifers.
Of course, you'd never know the vote was close given the tone Democrats took today. Harry Reid, the only member of the Senate on hand, told the crowd that Nancy Pelosi is the "greatest speaker the House of Representatives ever had." Pelosi called Reid, "a master at work." No, I'm not kidding.
What to say about Obama's speech? It was the same thing you've heard all year—55 times as of today, actually— with all the attendant straw men, distortions, exaggerations, and of course, lecturing of others for using straw men, distortions, exaggerations.
Obama began by quoting—wait for it—Lincoln: "I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true." That was the refrain of his speech, which exhorted Democratic lawmakers to be true to his giant hodge-podge compromise vision of how health care should work.
He implored Democrats, "Don't do it for me," after imploring them all week to take this vote to save his presidency. He promised once again that "if you like your health insurance, you'll be able to keep it," even though mandates for private health insurance will preclude great sectors of the current constellation of insurance plans we can now have.
Obama claimed the "bill runs straight down the center of American political thought." He claimed Republicans want to take the "fox in the henhouse" approach, in which special interests and insurance companies get more power, ignoring his own oft-criticized deal with PhRMA and his mandate that requires all Americans buy insurance from... insurance companies. He kindly conceded it won't "solve every problem " with health care, but also said it's "the biggest step forward since Medicare."
Of course, the vote on Medicare passage was, 307-116 in the House and 70-24 in the Senate.
Obama repeatedly said he knew it was a "tough vote" and then proceeded to publicly name-check every Democrat in a tough district who's voting with him, presumably so their Republican opponents can have clear footage of those members being applauded by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
The speech ended with the same call to higher duty and greatness that each campaign speech did, with the same lofty call to action that every victory speech did, and with the same moving exhortation to change the world and the system as his rousing call to re-elect Jon Corzine did. Luckily, with Obama, everything is uplifting, no matter what it is.
In the end, it was an Obama speech in every sense, which prompted Howard Kurtz to write, "even if you hate this health care bill, that was quite an oration."
Indeed, Howard, when you subtract the strawmen and distortions, it was great! It's like saying every Bush speech was awesome, if you don't count his delivery.
I just got back from a Tea Party protest and an anti-war protest (And, they think the righties are the unreasonable ones???), so I'm catching up on healthcare news.
The latest is that the House will push ahead with two real votes— one on reconciliation and one on the Senate bill. They're likely to vote on the reconciliation bill first, and there is reportedly a letter from more than 50 senators promising to vote for the House reconciliation bill. Steny Hoyer said the Senate bill, once voted on by the House will go directly to the president for his signature.
"The whip is here, but clearly we believe we have the votes," Hoyer said when asked whether they have the votes to make it happen.
I've had the feeling this week, as much as I hate it, that the chances of defeating the House vote this weekend were lower than 50/50, but I'm not sure I see where she gets all the votes she needs if she was scrambling for Stupak folks last night. Now she's Mrs. Tough Guy and will not be dealing with him (after the deal didn't come together and the pro-choice women in the House likely reamed her).
The White House that wants the government in charge of the health-care system, meanwhile, seems to have finally settled on a place to meet with the Democratic Caucus, on its third try. Obama was first supposed to meet with Democrats on the Hill, then in the White House, and now they're in the Capitol Hill Visitors' Center. Sure, have at health care, guys. I'm sure running a layered, impossibly complex system of medical care delivery with private and public components will be easier than setting up a meeting with your own Caucus.
They are certainly sending the signal that this is a done deal, but it's so close that I wouldn't believe the picture of inevitability they're painting. Don't get off the phones, folks.
Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote
Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote
Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’
WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.
The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21, 2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”
There are reports that Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has said that they are discussing a compromise that would use an executive order to allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats. The National Right to Life Committee just put out a release explaining that an executive order cannot fix the abortion related problems in the health care bill:
NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.
It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter -- with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) -- would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise. Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.
During today's House Rules Committee meeting on the health care, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter diverted discussion of the health care bill into an attack on Paul Ryan's roadmap.
Slaughter repeatedly interrupted Ryan and said his plan would end Medicare. Ryan told Slaughter it was obvious why "you want to talk about someone else's bill than your own." After Ryan explained that individuals now under 55, when they become Medicare-eligible, would be able to purchase their own Medicare with a check from the government, Slaughter replied, "I think that verges on cruelty."
Watch it here:
"I can tell you don't understand it accurately," Ryan said of his plan at one point during the tense exchange. Democrats Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, and Sander Levin all piled on Ryan too.
By all accounts Bart Stupak has been pushing for an ironclad guarantee that the bill would only pass on the condition that his amendment is included. Kathryn Lopez hears what I hear:
Prospects for a Stupak deal may be collapsing. (Which, yes, could mean prospects for a vote tomorrow are collapsing. Or it could mean the White House/Pelosi twisted enough arms.)
Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.
The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on a deal with pro-life Democrats to add Bart Stupak's amendment to the health care bill with an "enrollment corrections bill." That means she doesn't have the votes without Stupak and his band of brothers (and sisters).
“There's a proposal out there, and we want to see it in writing and massage it,” Stupak told The Hill. “We have nothing yet.”
We're getting deep, deep into the weeds of parliamentary procedure, but I believe this is how an enrollment corrections bill could work. There would be a separate vote in the House, and it would then go to the Senate (if it passes the House). What is crucial for Stupak is that he needs to get an ironclad procedural guarantee that the health care bill would be passed only on the condition that the Senate passed his correction. Stupak would need the rule to deem the Senate bill passed, but make its passage conditional upon the Senate's passage the Stupak enrollment correction.
Without a conditional agreement, Democrats in the Senate could double-cross pro-life House Democrats.
Although this may be procedurally possible, it may be politically impossible because it would require pro-choice Democrats in the House and Senate to swallow what they consider to be a very bitter pill. Rep. Diana DeGette says that more than 40 pro-choice Democrats will vote against the bill if it includes the Stupak amendment. "We are holding firm this time," DeGette said. "If Mr. Stupak and a few members along with the Republicans decide to use this to take health care down, that loss of health care will be in their hands."
Well, actually both sides are now threatening to take down the health care bill over abortion. It's a question of whether either side will cave. While there may not actually be 40 pro-choice Democrats who would join her, there are probably more than a few. Jan Schakowsky has pledged to vote against the bill if it includes the Stupak language. And don't forget that Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is the former executive director of EMILY's List. See her anti-Stupak floor speech from November:
Small groups, gathered in meeting rooms scattered around the world and focused on a single issue, can affect the way we live, at least now and perhaps for a long time. Consider only this week’s conclaves.
Here in Washington, the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy gurus met and decided to keep interest rates low until unemployment drops, even though they agreed that the economy is already improving. Meanwhile, meeting in committee rooms and in the corridors of power, Congress agreed to give the White House what its economists and the president, meeting in the Oval Office, demanded: more stimulus spending. It is true that there is considerable excess capacity in the economy, as the deflation-worriers continually point out. But anyone who believes that the meetings at the Fed, in congress, and in the White House are not laying the ground for future inflation carries a heavy burden of proof.
Meanwhile, in Vienna the members of OPEC, the oil cartel, met and decided that $80 is just about the right price for their crude oil. That means that the cartel is not prepared to support the fragile worldwide recovery by lowering oil prices. It will, of course, sooner or later have to confront the price-threatening problem of stepped-up production from Iraq, perhaps to Saudi Arabian levels, a development that is increasingly likely as foreign oil companies get on with the work of repairing old fields and discovering new ones. But that is for another meeting.
By deciding at its Vienna meeting to keep oil prices far above competitive levels, OPEC is taxing consumers and in effect running a counter-stimulus policy, to the consternation of the groups meeting in Washington.
The Vienna meeting also affected meetings of airline executives and union leaders in London. The decision to keep oil and, therefore, fuel prices up added to the pressure being brought on the fuel-intensive airline industry by strikes and the threat of strikes. Lufthansa has already been put through the wringer by its union, and British Airways is next in line as its cabin crews prepare to lay down their clipboards and serving trays tomorrow (at this writing talks continue and some flights will go, staffed by non-strikers, even if there is a strike). Passengers will not book in usual numbers on an airline under threat of a strike, never mind actually experiencing one. If the British Airways workers succeed, other airline unions around the world might well emulate their British cousin. Indeed, captain David Bourne, Director of the Airline Division of the U.S. International Brotherhood of Teamsters has already met with British union officials.
If the first day's output is any indication, Kausfiles fans can look forward to much more prolific blogging thanks to Mickey Kaus's decision to challenge Barbara Boxer in California's Democratic primary.
Rep. Keith Ellison: "The fact is, we're honoring a great American novelist, but we have to divert that important conversation…the Republican caucus wants to go toe-to-toe on health care."
Rep. Jackie Speier: "While we are trying to recognize the life and work of a great American novelist, we find ourselves drifting into a discussion of health care."
Another big get for Dems: Rep Brad Ellsworth, a former Yes vote who shared the concerns of the Stupak dozen and was intensely wooed by both sides, will vote Yes on the Senate bill, his spokesman confirms to me.
“He’s a Yes,” Jonathan Kott, communications director for Ellsworth, just said by phone. “He will vote in favor of health care reform.”
A press release detailing his rationale is forthcoming from his office.
This is a blow to the Stupak coalition. Will he bring others along?
Ellsworth just sealed the Democratic Senate nomination as well as his defeat in the general election.
Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?
The health care debate is beginning to resemble trench warfare. You have two camps -- the Yeses and the Nos. They spend most of their time launching artillery attacks on the opposing position. Every so often, though, a soldier traverses No Man's Land as he rushes to join the other side.
So far four Nos have joined the Yeses. But there is a larger, much more undefined, group of Yeses slowly crawling across the barren wasteland toward the No trench.
Fox says Pelosi is one or two votes away from victory. Don't believe it. Jeffrey H. Anderson puts the count at 203-214 and writes: "Don't forget the other wavering representatives, all of whom have yet to cast their votes. Let's make this a triumph of American democracy. Let's make Sunday a day when — at long last — the will of the people, expressed by their representatives, resounds victoriously."
On Sunday the cannons cease. And we find out who's left standing on either side.
For those Democrats for whom the right to life is more than just a political calculation:
They should be urged to ask themselves how they want to think of themselves at the end of their careers (whether that's in a few months or decades from now), and, ultimately how they want to look back upon and be judged for their life and service (whether by themselves or their Maker). For those who believe that abortion is wrong and that the government should not be funding it, they must be asked to think about how that should inform their actions. In other words, do they want that belief to be a matter of principle that informs their votes (irrespective of what the Speaker offers or threatens)? Or do they want to admit that the fate of the unborn is just another chit that they are willing to cash in? Ben Nelson traded a career of saying he cared about the unborn for $100 Million. And that is what his career will likely be remembered for.
For pro-life democrats, history, their conscience and their Maker will be watching and judging them to see how they confront the same issue.
Everything is going according to plan. Well, almost everything.
Buried in Vol. 2 (of 3) of the Air Force’s FY 2011 R&D budget (the entire budget encompasses 33 documents, some of them are more than 1,000 pages long) is an item referring to the “reliable replacement warhead.” This is the controversial Bush administration proposal (once, and perhaps still, supported by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) to design a less complex nuclear warhead that is less prone to decay and dysfunction over time. This is important because every weapon in our current arsenal is at least 20 years old (and some are much older) and many of them are incredibly complex and thus, potentially, don’t work any more—but we don’t know it. Former nuclear weapons designer Thomas Reed analogizes a nuclear weapon to highly complex sports car: You can’t leave a Ferrari in the garage for 20 years, and then decide one day you want to take it for a spin, and count on it starting just like that.
Not that we are quite so neglectful as that. The U.S. has a lot of programs to gauge the potential reliability of our arsenal, but all of them stop short of the decisive step—fissile testing—because that is deed too internationally provocative and domestically unpopular. Our best guess is that the tests we do run are quite good. But at the end of the day, we can’t be sure that which or how many of our weapons will work and which won’t. Which, of course, undermines the basic purpose of the arsenal: to scare (“deter”) potential attackers from doing anything too rash lest they unleash the worst we can throw at them.
The answer was once said to be the “reliable replacement warhead,” a less complex design made from existing fissile material and no small measure of recycled parts that would incorporate everything we have learned from more than half a century of research, design, and testing. It would not be as powerful or as advanced as our most cutting-edge weapons, but that is the whole point. In being simpler, it would be more, well, reliable. Rather than a Ferrari in that garage think of it as maybe not quite a Model T but a ’57 Chevy.
The RRW is controversial because doves and disarmament advocates believe it amounts to building new nuclear warheads and thus moves in the wrong direction from where we should want to go (a world without nuclear weapons), sets a bad international example, and perhaps could spur a new arms race. President Obama has made opposition to the RRW a key component of his nuclear policy agenda. Vice President Biden and Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher have denounced it in vociferous terms. Nonetheless, one reads occasionally of rear-guard actions within the bureaucracy to keep the program alive.
Could this budget item be one such? The Air Force denies it, calling it a holdover from the last budget, essentially a clerical error (a cut-and-paste mistake perhaps?).
No matter how this weekend's vote turns out, we're going to need to take a break from health care reform. Like government spending, health care has crowded out the market for political discussion. Glance at the news, and you would have no way of knowing that other things are happening.
Among the topics subsumed by the health care debate? A fascinating discussion over the 10 books that have influenced one's world view. Tyler Cowen got the ball rolling with his list. Read some follow-ups here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As a card-carrying nerd, I love book lists, and picked up somenewtitles from the various recommendations. (One note: Most of these guys are econ bloggers, so their picks lean heavily in that direction.)
The exercise got me thinking about what my list would look like. You'll find it under the fold, in no particular order, and without commentary:
The votes of House Democrats on Sunday will largely determine the votes of independents in November. Individual members of Congress who vote “no” on the proposed health care overhaul will strike an immediate chord of respect with their constituents, establish an instant reputation for fiscal prudence and independent thinking, and gain the appreciation of voters for listening to them. Those who vote “yes” will invite the disdain of voters across the entire political spectrum, save the far left.
Independents, even more than most Americans, strongly disapprove of the proposed health care overhaul. In June, 66 percent of independents supported President Obama in a Fox News poll. After nine months of the president’s focusing almost entirely on health care, the same poll now shows that only 38 percent of independents support him — an amazing decline. Even fewer of these same independents, just 29 percent, specifically approve of the president’s handling of health care. More than twice as many, 63 percent, disapprove.
A PPP poll now shows Republicans leading on the generic congressional ballot by a tally of 46 to 43 percent. The GOP has built that lead on the strength of a 44 to 26 percent advantage among independents — the same 18-point margin by which Reagan beat Mondale and FDR beat Hoover.
Intensity of feeling is also clearly on the side of those who oppose the health-care overhaul. By two to one, those who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly support it (46 percent to 23 percent). This is not just a flash in the pan. Such two-to-one gaps in intensity have been pretty consistently in evidence since Thanksgiving.
It’s hard to win an election without the support of independents and with the intensity of support/opposition working solidly against you. But individual House Democrats can quickly quiet most opposition and win over most independents. With just one vote, they can show that they are independent too. They can show that they don’t just vote the party line, but are willing to exercise independent judgment and take independent action. They can show that they are willing to listen to their constituents. Those who exercise that healthy spirit of independence, even with their party leaders breathing down their necks, will be rewarded by grateful voters in November for their courage.
The Caucus will meet with the president at 4 p.m., the aide said.
There had been some talk that Obama might come to the Hill to meet with Members before they cast their final vote on health care, but now it appears the president is bringing the Caucus to him.
Meanwhile, Christina Bellantoni feels like she's in a time warp to Oct. 2008, and who can blame her:
"Make some phone calls and knock on some doors! We are going to make history," Obama said at what could be his last presidential rally before Congress votes to send final health care reform legislation to his desk.
I spent nearly two years on the road with Obama (and the rest of the 2008 candidates) and today's rally at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia made me feel as if I'd jumped in the Hot Tub Time Machine. I was practically waiting for Obama to offer his most prized stump line from fall 2008, which went something like this in Jacksonville, or Las Vegas, or Evansville, Indiana: "We are less than two days away from bringing about change in America."...
"We are going to make history. We are going to fix health care in America with your help," Obama said.
Will it finally do the trick? One Dem Congressman tweets that health care will get 221 votes, but with no apparent evidence. The charm offensive is in high gear, but some Democrats just don't want to talk to the president. Heart-ache:
If there was a Do Not Call Registry to block phone solicitations from the White House, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) wants in.
Cuellar, a fiscally and socially moderate Hispanic Democrat from Laredo, tells reporters that he’s strongly leaning toward backing heath care reform – but that he’s been ducking calls from President Obama’s staff because he doesn’t want to enter the wind tunnel of presidential persuasion.
“With all due respect to the president, I have to look at my district. ... I want to make up my own mind,” said Cuellar, one of several Democrats who have told POLITICO that they’ve been avoiding Obama and his surrogates during the final few days of lobbying.
The last call came from Dan Turton, Obama’s top liaison to the House, the day before last – “I haven’t returned it,” said Cuellar, a former Texas secretary of state with a maverick streak. He endorsed George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential race.
Update: Here is the Democrat denial on this memo, and the Politico withdrawal notice. Let's hope someone wasn't freelancing fake memos around the Hill. Or worse, had some direction to do so. It would be ever so unhelpful if, in highlighting Dems' budget tricks, Republicans get caught in a ridiculous trick of their own. No named Democrats or aides aren't denying the memo yet. My guess is folks on both sides are less sure where it came from than the original report suggested, and they're scrambling to figure it out now. Will update when I hear more.
Anyone following health care and its attendant budget gimmickry knows that something called the "doc fix" was removed from the health-care bill last year because its price tag—between $200 and $400 billion— shattered Democrats' claims of deficit reduction and put the total CBO score over $1 trillion, which was not deemed politically palatable.
That doesn't mean it's gone, of course. The "doc fix" will always be with us, and has remained with us throughout the year, simply passed by the House as a separate bill to keep its icky cost out of the health care CBO scores.
One of the American Medical Association's top priorities is the "doc fix," which would prevent cuts being made to Medicare payments, but it is supporting this version of the bill even though the "doc fix" is left out. Curious, no?
Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform...
The group is working behind the scenes with Democratic leadership and the White House to fix the cuts later this year.
The Democratic memo, in full, is here. Update: Democrats are crying "hoax"on the memo, first published at Politico. Quoted aides are all unnamed:
"We have checked with every Democratic office, no one has ever seen it. It did not come out of a Democratic office," the aide said, adding that media outlets printing the memo have not checked with leadership offices if the memo is authentic. A second Democratic leadership aide confirmed the memo was not sent by the Democrats. A third Democratic aide also said the memo is fake, citing the "draft" stamp and saying no one uses such things.
"If this were a Democratic communications person who wrote this, they should be fired, because this looks like Republican talking points," the third Democratic aide told TPMDC.
The language used in it is quite clear:
As most health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians support for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand that we do not want that policy discussed at this time, lest I [sic] complicate the last critical push for health reform.
And, further, representatives should not get into CBO details, lest smart constituents catch them in the "doc fix" trickery afoot:
The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine the reform’s budget neutrality. So, again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.
The Washington Post is calling nonsense on the numbers and assumptions Dems gave the CBO:
But perhaps the biggest risk that could cause the budget impact to diverge from the CBO estimates comes from Congress. The estimates assume that the legislation plays out as written over the coming decade, which would mean reining in the growth of payments to doctors and hospitals and implementing a tax on high-cost health insurance plans.
Those two policies are responsible for bringing in the revenue and cost savings that allow the plan to expand coverage to 32 million more Americans yet, according to the projections, bring down the deficit.
But that falls apart if a future Congress finds the cuts or taxes too painful to handle and overturns them.
There is precedent for that.
Indeed, there seems to be precedent before our very eyes.
6) Ultimately, this rests on the question: are we really going to cut Medicare? If we're not, this gargantuan new entitlement is going to end up costing us about $200 billion a year next decade, which even in government terms is an awful lot of money. There are offsetting taxes, but they're either trivial or likely to be unpopular--look forward to a 4% rent increase when your landlord has to stump over the same amount for the new tax on rents. Then look forward to repeal of same.I think this is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. But no one on the other side cares, so I'm not sure how much point there is in saying that any more.
John Boccieri becomes the fourth Democrat who voted against the health care bill in November to flip his vote to "yes". He joins Betsy Markey, Bart Gordon, and Dennis Kucinich. I expect Scott Murphy of New York to become the fifth soon. Other potential flippers from "no" to "yes" include Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Jim Matheson (Utah), and Jason Altmire (Pa.).
If the number of Democrats who flip from "yes" to "no" is greater than the number who flip from "no" to "yes," the bill will be defeated.
Bart Stupak's coalition of pro-life Democrats is larger than many had assumed. While Stupak has claimed to have a dozen members willing to flip from "yes" to "no," most Democrats assumed he only had five. I think Stupak has at least nine Democrats in his coalition. Yes, I know politicians can go back on their word, but House leadership is still frantically trying to cut a deal with Stupak, which indicates they don't have the votes.
The Stupak coalition includes:
1. Bart Stupak (Mich.) 2. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) 3. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) 4. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.) 5. Jerry Costello (Ill.) 6. Steve Driehaus (Ohio) 7. Marion Berry (Ark.) 8. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) (He's given mixed signals, but it would be hard to break from Donnelly/win the general Senate election while abandoning Stupak.) 9. Nick Rahall (W.V.)
Rahall's announcement just today of an ultimatum on abortion makes it very difficult for fellow West Virginian Alan Mollohan to vote for the bill. Other potential members of the Stupak coalition:
* Henry Cuellar (Tex.) has given mixed signals.
* Marcy Kaptur has given mixed signals, but her latest remarks make it seem that she might stick with Stupak.
* Chris Carney (Pa.) had a strong statement about opposing federal funding of abortion but didn't specify whether he was talking about Stupak.
* I'm pretty sure Jim Oberstar sold out, but this report indicates there's a chance he might care more about stopping taxpayer-funding of abortion than keeping his Transportation Committee chairmanship.
So Stupak could very easily have 10 to 12 (or more!) Democrats in his coalition. And Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Zack Space (Ohio), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), and others may vote against the bill for reasons other than abortion. So the group of "yes" to "no" votes is bigger than the group of "no" to "yes" votes at this point.
If Pelosi doesn't have the votes without Stupak, is there a chance she can cut a deal with him at the last minute? It's unlikely. Stupak said today that there has been talk about running a "corrections" bill to add in his amendment. A corrections bill would take place outside of reconciliation, and would simply amend the Senate bill to include his amendment. It would require 60 votes in the Senate and 216 votes in the House (if I'm not mistaken). So there are no objections to the "Byrd rule." While a corrections bill is procedurally feasible, it may be politically impossible, as KLo points out here.
The only way Stupak could get an ironclad guarantee that the Senate won't pull out the rug from underneath him is for the Senate to act first. But, even if all 39 Republicans opposed to abortion-funding in the Senate voted for a corrections bill to add in the Stupak amendment, 21 Democrats would have to join them. That's probably not going to happen. Only 7 Democratic senators voted for the Senate's version of the Stupak amendment in December. Who are the 14 who will flip to approve the Stupak amendment this time around?
One danger is that Senate Republicans might threaten to vote against a corrections bill. But why not let pro-choice Democrats in the Senate and the House box-in the pro-life Democrats? If the Senate did pass a corrections bill, Pelosi would end up losing the votes of staunch pro-choice House members like Jan Schakowsky, Rosa DeLauro, Diana Degette. Which is why talk of a corrections bill is probably just bluster from Pelosi. She still doesn't have the votes.
Anyone who was waiting to see what the final bill meant for government spending should vote no, because this bill spends even more.
Anyone waiting to see what the final bill meant for Medicare should vote no, because the Medicare cuts in this bill are even deeper than the Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats didn’t want to vote on.
Anyone waiting to see what the final bill meant for taxes should vote no, because the tax increases in this bill are even higher than the Senate bill.
Anyone waiting to see what the final bill did to the cost curve should vote against this bill, because this bill is likely to bend the cost curve up even further than the Senate bill, not down.
If you were waiting for a bill without the CLASS Act in it — a provision that even top Democrats describe as a Ponzi scheme, then you’ll vote against this bill, because it’s still in there.
If you were waiting to see if they’d cut out the sweetheart deals that have outraged the nation and soured the public on the entire legislative process, then you have to vote against this bill, because there are even more of them in there now.
If you were waiting for a bill that costs less, then you’ll vote against this bill, because it costs even more than the last one.
It's an old conservative lesson: Whenever you think things can't worse, they do.
Parting shot from Jim Treacher: "It’s becoming more and more apparent that the strategy for ramming Obamacare through — in spite of widespread public disapproval of both the legislation and the various procedural tricks being used to get around opposition to it; in spite of the fact that a Republican just took over Ted Kennedy’s seat on the promise of voting against it; in spite of pretty much any fact that tries to penetrate Nancy Pelosi’s Botox-hardened head — is to make everybody so sick of the whole thing that they just say, “Whatever! Just shut up about it already."
Update, 2:29 p.m. A reader writes:
Just read your blog and immediately called my congressperson's office. Same office told me two hours ago that congressperson was undecided as she studied the new bill. I then recited (in short form, and without attribution to anyone) McConnell's seven or eight points (that you just blogged) that make the bill WORSE than the Senate bill. I think that succeeded in leaving the staffer largely speechless. You might want to encourage others to call their congresspersons with the same message.
