This is one of the main issues we'll be discussing at the America's Future Now conference in D.C. this week. It still astounds me that some progressives are simply ignoring the very real economic and political arguments in favor of increasing economic stimulus, not slashing it:

With voter anger about the federal deficit intensifying in this election year, Democrats in Congress are edging away from one of their long-held articles of faith — government spending on social programs such as education and relief for the jobless.

The painful tradeoff comes to center stage this week, when the Senate tries again to pass an extension of unemployment benefits — this time a $54-billion measure that marks an abrupt retreat from a $200-billion bill that Democratic leaders had proposed before the Memorial Day recess.

The stripped-down bill is just one sign of how budget anxieties are beginning to impinge on Democrats' legislative ambitions and traditional commitments.

A White House-backed proposal to spend $23 billion to save as many as 300,000 teachers' jobs has been stymied by deficit concerns. Similarly, the House, usually a bastion of liberalism, bowed to fiscal conservatives and dropped health insurance subsidies for the unemployed.

"There is a very changed climate," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) recently told reporters, referring to anti-deficit pressures she faces within her own party.

Though polls for years have shown high levels of public concern about the deficit, rarely has it outstripped most other issues. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in mid-May found a notable increase in recent months in those who believe cutting the deficit and spending should be the government's highest priority.

Gee. You don't suppose having the media keep up a constant drumbeat of anti-deficit propaganda would have anything to do with that, do you?

According to the poll, 20% of those surveyed wanted the deficit and government spending to be the top priority, an issue second to the 35% concerned about job creation and economic growth. (In a January poll, 13% cited the deficit and government spending.)

"There's no question that people are almost as concerned about the deficit and government spending as about jobs," said Mark Mellman, a pollster who works closely with congressional Democrats. "It is not just about the actual dollars — it is a metaphor for wasted money and lack of discipline and long-term economic decline."

That's because Congress - and the administration - did such a piss-poor job explaining the difference between stimulus spending and the bank bailout.

Even Friday's report that private-sector job growth had slowed to a crawl in May is not expected to offset the Democrats' new reluctance to add to the deficit for unemployment benefits.

And you know what the really stupid thing is? The Democrats will try to act like Republicans by cutting the deficit, and it won't win them any additional votes. It never does. The kind of people who like Republican policies vote for Republicans.

Remember this confrontation?

Chris Matthews attacks Alan Grayson and accuses him of pandering to the netroots because he believes the reconciliation process can be used to get a health care bill passed.

Transcript:

MATTHEWS: This is the problem, Congressman. Every night we deal with two worlds, the real world of Congress that has to do things and get things passed, and this outside world represented by the netroots and people like yourself, who play this game.

GRAYSON: What are you talking about? I sit in meetings with the Democratic caucus with meetings every week! I’m telling you, this is what we’re talking about. This is what the leadership is telling us.

MATTHEWS: We’ll make a side bet that it’s not going to happen. Congressman Alan Grayson, a true believer that you can get things done by willing it to get done! [laughs]

The Mike Thomas Blog writes:

I would like to see Chris Matthews publicly concede that Grayson was right during their hotly contested exchange on Hardball in January.

Say it Chris: I was wrong. He was right.

Grayson argued that health care would pass through the reconciliation process. This caused Matthews to launch into a five-minute tirade berating Grayson as an amateur pandering to the netroots. It was classic I-can-yell-louder-than-you, I-can-talk-fast-than-you Matthews moment...read on

The bill hasn't been passed yet by the Senate, but it probably will and then we'll see what CM has to say. If anything.

Alan Grayson rules.

Don't know if you've seen this yet. It's an anonymous letter from a Hill staffer to Josh Marshall and it pretty much confirms our worst suspicions: They're "relieved" that they don't have to deliver on health care reform.

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgment of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.

This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

Although I realize this is far too long to publish, if you do decide to use any of it, please keep my anonymity. Just in case I'm wrong and there is more good to do yet.

This is my first post to the C&L community. Since my book on the future of the American labor movement (A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement) came out a few months ago, an important new case study developed that is worth examining. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to share my perspective on political lessons that we can take away from the health care debate. I arrive at the following conclusion: unless progressives change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.

As Congress prepares to pass health care reform (now that the Senate passed its bill today), most talk among progressives centers on whether we should be satisfied with a piece of legislation that has been diminished and compromised. But regardless of what we make of the final agreement, the real lesson from the health care debate is a political one: Unless we change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.

It is not insignificant that 35 million Americans will be receiving something more than they had before in terms of health care. Yet even with a progressive president and a supermajority in the Senate’s Democratic caucus, we are left to quibble over piecemeal legislative victories, passed only with huge concessions to corporate interests.

Continue reading »

The Senate got past the second filibuster on the compelling video game that is health-care reform, with one level left. While the final vote is theoretically scheduled for Christmas Eve, I saw Sen. Claire McCaskill on my teevee this morning saying that Republicans are trying to drag it out so that members won't be able to spend Christmas with their families.

Now, Claire, while I'm sympathetic to a point (yes, the Republicans are obstructionist scum), if this legislation is really a historic achievement (albeit one that will force many Americans to stretch their finances to the limit to comply), I don't especially care that your holiday schedule is mildly inconvenienced.

But that's just me!

The Senate cleared the second of three key procedural hurdles on President Obama's health-care legislation early Tuesday with another party-line vote, continuing the effort to pass the bill before Christmas.

All 60 members of the Democratic caucus supported the measure to finalize amendments to the health-care package, while 39 Republicans opposed it.

A third procedural vote is expected Wednesday, with final passage of the bill likely to come late Thursday -- Christmas Eve.

Although they lack any obvious way to torpedo the bill at this point, Republicans remain bitterly opposed to the legislation and have shown little indication that they are ready to relent in their increasingly negative standoff with Democrats.

On Monday, hours after a crucial 1 a.m. vote to end a Republican filibuster, the American Medical Association officially endorsed the legislation, while Democratic leaders defended the dealmaking that has brought the $871 billion package to the brink of passage.

Lacking the votes to block the bill, Republicans heaped scorn on the many concessions made to wavering Democrats in the quest to advance the package. GOP critics warned that support for the effort could mean the demise in 2010 of vulnerable incumbents, including Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.).

UPDATE: Dems broke the filibuster at 2 a.m. EST.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if the refusal to operate in good faith isn't a form of official malfeasance. Because voters should impeach these senators for simply refusing to do their jobs - like voting for this bill, which funds their unemployment benefits:

Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

Late into the night, Democrats emerged from a huddle confident that they would muster the 60 votes needed to thwart the GOP effort at blocking the military spending bill. An antiwar liberal said he would set aside his reservations and support choking off the filibuster to keep the chamber on a timeline of holding a final health-care vote before Christmas. The vote on the defense spending bill was to occur after 1 a.m. Friday, too late for this edition.

The maneuvering came as Democrats were still trying to round up a 60th vote on the health-care legislation. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the last holdout in the Democratic caucus and the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by White House officials, rejected an abortion compromise aimed at bringing him on board. Nelson has said he would not support the package unless it explicitly bars the use of federal money for abortion services.

If Nelson's support can be secured over the weekend, Democrats are hopeful that they will be able to begin clearing the parliamentary hurdles that would allow final passage of their version of the legislation by Christmas Eve. That would meet their self-imposed deadline to pass the measure and begin negotiating with House Democrats to craft a final version to send to the president.

Republicans have said their goal is to block the bill and force Senate Democrats to go home and face their constituents, hoping for some supporters of the measure to return after New Year's too fearful to back the legislation.

If the filibuster on the $626 billion defense bill succeeded, Democrats would have to scramble to find a way to fund the military operations, because a stopgap funding measure will expire at midnight Friday. Such an effort might have disrupted the very tight timeline on health care.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, so the plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the thousands of earmarks in the bill in explaining his opposition, and others cited factors not related to health care.

But Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) was blunt in explaining his support of a filibuster. "I don't want health care," said Brownback, a member of the Appropriations Committee, which crafted the Pentagon funding bill.

[...] Democrats were furious. They believed they had a deal with Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, but by Thursday night Cochran was saying he was unsure how he would vote.

UPDATE: Dan Pfeiffer at the White House blog makes the following acute observation:

The depth of the hypocrisy involved is stunning. Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats' commitment to our troops. Here are just a few of the things they said:

"Playing politics with the critical funding that our troops need now is political theater of the worst kind." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Press Release, 4/26/07]

"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates... but it’s just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Transcript, Senate Republican News Briefing, 4/10/07]

"Every day we don’t fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]

"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with [Senators’] expressions of support for the troops." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]

"I don't understand this attitude of, ‘We can play with; we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]

"Our obligation to those troops must transcend politics." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [Press Release, 11/8/07]

Now though, as we debate not foreign policy but health care, the Department of Defense funding can wait? Incredible.

DOWNLOADS: (1861)

PLAYS: (5921)

Embed

I want to propose a new amendment be added during the conference committee when the House and Senate get together to merge the health-care reform bills. I know the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will love it, since they are officially members of Congress now. Here it is.

All pro-life male members of Congress who ejaculate without the express intent of making a baby will be considered to have had an abortion. (This will include airport-bathroom encounters.) Under this new rule, the male pro-life members then must fall in line with the same restrictions to health care as women will have to under the Stupak Amendment. Then starting in 2013, all pro-life men in America will be covered under this provision as well.

Remember, sex is for one thing and one thing only. I believe a man has an even greater responsibility than a women does just by the fact that the Congress is made up of mostly men.

Out of the 56 women in the Democratic caucus, only two voted for Stupak. All 17 Republican women voted for it.

What this adds up to is that 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.

I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals.

If men want to lead this country in the debate about abortion, then they should show real leadership and take responsibility for their behavior. Are you with me, Bishops? A woman can't just stand around and get pregnant. She needs our seed to be planted in her garden, so why should a woman be held to a higher standard than a man? Is that the democracy and freedom our troops are fighting for?

I'm sure the USCCB will gladly jump on board with this because they are in the sex business and are considered the world's No. 1 experts in that field. They understand better than any living person how a baby is made -- after all, they are Bishops. Imagination is a wonderful thing and can inform and educate people who have never experienced sex. Wow, who knew?

From Greg Sargent at the Plum Line, this cheering news:

I’ve got the latest internal whip count numbers from Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressional Caucus, who tells me that nearly three-fourths of House Dems will support a health care reform bill with the most robust version of the public option. That’s the one that would reimburse providers at Medicare rates plus five percent.

“I am confident that we have the support of over 70% of the Democratic Caucus,” Grivalva said in a statement emailed my way. That means according to him, around 180 of the 256 Dems in the House are prepared to back the robust public option right now.

The support in the House for the robust public option is a crucial number, and is being closely watched by reform proponents, because it will have a direct impact on the final bill. If a bill passes with a strong version of the public option, that would give House Dems more leverage when the bill is merged with the final Senate version.

Grijalva’s office disputed a recent report in The Politico citing anonymous aides claiming the robust public option only had the support of 145 Dems.

Grijalva and other progressive leaders have been counting votes at the request of House Dem leaders, who are putting together their final bill and asked liberals to show them the support they can muster for a strong public option.

To be sure, liberals still have a ways to go before securing the 218 votes needed for passage, and it’s unclear how many more votes they can pull together and whether the most robust public option will end up in the House bill. But liberals are not done whipping votes yet, and they think the public option has the momentum.

Bottom line: The stronger the support for the most robust version, the greater the pressure on the House leadership to keep a strong public option in the final bill. More later.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has kissed and made up with the Finance Committee Republicans. So much for that momentary attack of leadership!

I think it's pretty clear that Rahm's original statements were some kind of trial balloon. I know some of you would like to think Rahm was acting as a loose cannon, but that's just not the way political operations are run, especially at the White House level.

It's just as clear that the pushback from every direction has sent a very strong message to the White House. That's why Rahm rushed to meet with members of the Democratic caucus last night: to quell the firestorm. Nice work, everyone! Don't let up on the pressure, because Obama may yet compromise on the public option:

Liberal groups on Tuesday made it clear that they are not happy with news reports that the White House may be considering alternatives to a public plan in health care reform.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the 77-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, fired off a letter to President Barack Obama warning him against dropping a public insurance option from health care reform plans.

Grijalva described the “alarm and dismay” he felt after reading a Wall Street Journal story that cites White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offering support for a “trigger” mechanism, under which a public plan option is only part of health care if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own.

“I want to be crystal clear that any such trigger for a strong public plan option is a non-starter with a majority of the Members of the Progressive Caucus,” Grijalva said.

“Moreover, I consider it unacceptable for any of the cost savings that you are negotiating with hospitals and other sectors of the health care industry to be made contingent upon a robust public plan option not being included in the final legislation,” Grijalva continued.

Obama sought to ease liberals’ concerns by issuing a statement that reaffirms his support for a public option. But many House liberals remain concerned that Emanuel is still pushing a deal for hospitals.

And in a meeting last night with House Democrats, Rahm Emanuel reassured rebellious members the president strongly backs a government-run public plan:

Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) warned Emanuel that he would lose the caucus’ votes if the White House compromised on the issue and included a “trigger” that could delay a public insurance plan indefinitely. The trigger idea is backed by conservative Democrats but is anathema to liberals.

“We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game,” Woolsey said she told Emanuel. “People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives.”

Now, let's parse what Rahm continues to say. Obama "strongly backs" a government-run public plan - but is not willing to draw a line in the sand? What, then, does "strongly back" mean to Obama? He simply shrugs and says, "Whatever"?

Emanuel met with House Dems yesterday to reassure them that the President remains firmly behind the public option. But it’s still not quite clear what Rahm said or how strongly the White House remains committed to it.

Here’s how Rep. Henry Waxman, who says he was reassured by the meeting, characterized what Rahm said:

“He doesn’t stand by that trigger,” Waxman said. “He said the president and his administration and he are for a public plan as one of the options.”

The claim that Rahm “doesn’t stand by” the trigger is a bit opaque. If it means that Rahm took back his claim that the White House sees the “trigger,” which many see as a back-door way to kill a public plan, as a viable option, that will reassure many Dems.

However, if Rahm said that the President backs the public plan as “one of the options,” that doesn’t really go much further than what the President said yesterday, which left the White House plenty of wiggle room on this question.

In other words, it looks now like Rahm told House Dems that the President strongly backs the public option, but isn’t willing to draw a line in the sand over it. Which, of course, is what Obama has been saying all along.

DOWNLOADS: (1702)

PLAYS: (2009)

Embed

With DINOs like DiFi, who needs to worry about Republicans?

President Barack Obama may not have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said.

“I don’t know that he has the votes right now,” Feinstein said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.” Controlling costs of the new system is a “difficult subject.”

So the very wealthy DiFi, who hasn't met an appropriation she wouldn't try to swing to her husband's company and ended up having to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations committee when this conflict came to light, and lucky recipient of free healthcare, courtesy of the U.S. Senate, doesn't think that the 59 (nay, 60, if Franken ever gets his seat) Democrats can actually pull it together to vote for the health care reform that a HUGE percentage of Americans want?

Pardon my French, Di, but WHY THE FRAK NOT???? Her answers don't make a lot of sense, frankly:

FEINSTEIN: Ergo, you have enormous problems in my state. California’s bigger than the populations of 21 states and the District of Columbia put together. We have an enormous health care industry, 350 hospitals. University of California alone has 34,000 health care workers, has health care worth $4 billion a year. So it’s complicated. Additionally, the state is in a state of financial catastrophe. I think that’s clear. So, if you change the Medicaid rate, for example, it has an impact on California between $1 billion and $5 billion a year. Now, how could I support that? Because it would take down the state.

Er...huh? Does the fact that these costs are offset by the savings to employers not come into play? How about the fact that by creating a public option, health care costs would be a lower percentage of the average income to individuals and companies? How about the greater costs we all absorb now to cover the uninsured and underinsured? This is not that complicated: COVERING EVERYONE WILL SAVE LIVES AND MONEY.

Then Feinstein becomes even more puzzling:

You also have enormous profit centers in the health care industry, in pharmaceuticals, in medical insurance. And I wonder about these profit centers. Because, unless you have some method to control these profits, premiums continue to rise in the private sector, as they have over the past eight years, substantially.

Therefore, controlling costs is a very major and difficult subject, as long as you have a large private-sector involvement. So this needs to be worked out.

The profits in health care are obscene. Look at what CEOs took home. Elizabeth Edwards famously said that $1 out every $700 spent in this country for health care went to pay the CEO of UnitedHealth. But here's where I'm flummoxed by this statement by Feinstein. If we have a public option that lowers the costs to consumers, doesn't the "free market" then naturally depress these profit centers in health care by forcing them to be competitive with the public option? Isn't that a good thing, Di?

The stakes are too high for these kind of nonsensical arguments from ridiculously privileged politicos ignoring the will of the people. Please consider donating to our Campaign for Health Care Choice to make your voice heard.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »