I don't think the situation could get much more dire, and yet the Senate millionaires prefer to act as if this brutal recession is no big deal. I just don't get their indifference to human suffering:

WASHINGTON -- In a take-it-or-leave-it gesture, the Senate voted Thursday night to reject more than $20 billion in domestic spending the House had tacked on to its $60 billion bill to fund President Barack Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan.

Instead, the Senate returned to the House a measure limited chiefly to war funding, foreign aid, medical care for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange, and replenishing almost empty disaster aid accounts.

The moves repel a long-shot bid by House Democrats earlier this month to resurrect their faltering jobs agenda with $10 billion in grants to school districts to avoid teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants to low-income college students, $1 billion for a summer jobs program and $700 million to improve security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The House bill fell prey to a 46-51 tally that fell short of a simple majority, much less the 60 votes required to defeat a filibuster. The Senate is instead insisting on its almost $60 billion version of the measure, passed on a bipartisan vote in May.

Eleven Democrats and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted against the House measure. Not a single Republican supported it.

It won't happen anytime soon, but Rep. Lynn Woolsey wants to bring it up in the next session of Congress. Obviously, I'd like to see it happen; I really, really want to watch as Republican and Blue Dogs explain why they oppose something that cuts $68 billion from the federal budget deficit, and tell us it makes much more sense to cut Social Security!

As both political parties worry about the growing federal deficit, an unlikely proposal is returning from last year's divisive healthcare debate: the "public option."

Creating a major government health insurance program was roundly rejected last year, but 128 House Democrats are pushing to reconsider the idea, contending that it would hold down federal spending.

Their bill, which faces long odds, would allow Americans who do not get insurance at work to choose a government health plan starting in 2014.

"There is all this concern about the deficit," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leading champion of the proposal. "Well, guess what: This would reduce the deficit because it saves so much money."

Woolsey and her allies, including Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), are armed with a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Democrats say the CBO projects that the public option could save the government $68 billion between 2014 and 2020.

The government's administrative costs would be lower than private insurers', proponents say, and it could pay hospitals and doctors less. That would mean lower premiums — and lower government subsidies for policyholders who need them.

Insurance companies, hospitals and other businesses say a public option would undermine employer-provided insurance and set the stage for a so-called single-payer system, in which the government would be the only insurer.

Safe food isn't a controversial issue, right? President Obama supports the food safety bill -- even the Republicans support it. So why hasn't it passed? The holdup seems to be that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she'll offer an amendment banning bisphenol-A, the nasty little chemical and known endocrine disruptor found in virtually all food and beverage containers -- which upsets the companies who make the stuff. The container industry is a huge one, and banning the substance so widely used could have major economic effects at a time when we're barely holding on. Hopefully they'll come up with an effective compromise with Feinstein:

A year after House Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly approved legislation to improve food safety, public health advocates are growing frustrated that the Senate has yet to take up the bill.

A coalition of food safety groups tried to turn up the pressure last week on Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), running newspaper ads in the lawmakers' two states featuring constituents who fell seriously ill from food poisoning. The ads urged Reid and McConnell to move the bill to the Senate floor and pass it.

"Time is short -- there are not a lot of legislative days on the calendar and we're seeing [food] recalls every week," said Erik Olson with the food and consumer product safety programs at Pew Health Group. "There is obviously a lot of interest in making sure folks know this bill has broad public support and that there is really no reason not to move this. It would show that Washington can get something done."

[...] The bill, which would be the first major change to food safety laws in 70 years, is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration vast new regulatory authority over food production. It places greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers to produce food free from contamination -- a departure from the country's reactive tradition, which has relied on government inspectors to catch tainted food after the fact.

The legislation follows a wave of food-borne illnesses over the past four years, involving products as varied as spinach and cookie dough, which has shaken consumer confidence and made the issue a priority for many lawmakers and the White House. Food illnesses affect one in four Americans and kill 5,000 each year, according to government statistics. Tainted food has cost the food industry billions of dollars in recalls, lost sales and legal expenses.

The measure also would give the FDA authority to order a recall if it suspects contamination -- authority it does not currently have. It would allow the FDA to quarantine a geographic area, blocking the distribution of suspect food to the rest of the country. And the agency would gain access to records at farms and food production facilities.

Have the Democrats finally realized how to act like winners? (Or, as Bill Maher just put it, use their recently-descended testicles.) Good to know they're not going to curl into the fetal position for a change:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants House Democrats to go on offense during the critical two-week recess that begins this weekend.

Members returning to their districts should tout the new healthcare law’s benefits to their constituents, according to the “recess packet” issued by Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office this week and obtained by The Hill.

“With the passage of health insurance reform, this District Work Period is a critical time to go on offense,” the memo states.

Members should “convey the immediate benefits of health reform to your constituents (such as better prescription drug benefits for seniors, tax credits for small businesses and prohibiting insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick),” the memo said.

[...] Pelosi’s advice to members illustrates that she and other Democratic leaders believe they can capitalize on healthcare to rally before the fall.

The message in the memo wasn’t limited to healthcare.

Lawmakers also should also “demonstrate the work of this Congress to create jobs and strengthen the economy,” and “publicize the benefits of the $800 billion in tax cuts this Congress has enacted” through last year’s $787 billion stimulus package, according to the memo.

Well, it looks like the White House is finally weighing in on the nuts and bolts of healthcare reform. This NYT piece quotes one anonymous Congressional source as saying, “We have not been consulted. This is very much a White House proposal.”

WASHINGTON — President Obama will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week, senior administration officials and Congressional aides said Thursday.

Democratic officials said the president’s proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority.

Congressional Democrats, however, have not yet seen the proposal or signed on.

[...] “It will be a reconciliation bill,” one Democratic aide said. “If Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”

Here's what I don't get: The Senate version of the bill is a Republican bill. Am I right? So how much more Republican does Obama want this bill to be, and to what end? No matter what, Republicans aren't going to be happy.

And if this bill gets any more Republican, voters aren't going to be happy. Remember those polls that said voters were opposed to the healthcare bill? A substantial number were upset because the bill didn't go far enough.

Everybody has a little birdy that is giving them tips about what's happening to HCR. I have mine too, and while I'm not optimistic, I've heard some of the same things that Ryan Grim writes:

House progressives organizing to rescue health care reform are pressuring their Senate counterparts to go back to the provision that has most energized the party and a majority of Americans throughout the debate: The public option.

The effort was discussed during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday night, with a faction arguing that the best way to salvage reform is to persuade the Senate to pass the public health insurance option using the budget reconciliation process that needs only a majority vote.

{}

That leaves progressives as the bloc available to pick up. Their demands -- changes related to the tax on insurance, a Medicaid or Medicare expansion, and a public option -- would likely be allowable using reconciliation. (The Senate parliamentarian would have the final say.)

Two House freshmen, Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), circulated a letter, looking for signatures, that will be delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday on behalf of the plan, Polis told HuffPost.

Reid is not generally receptive to advice from the lower chamber, but health care reform has stumbled into territory where there is no map.

If Reid and President Obama decide that the House Democrats have a workable plan -- perhaps the only viable plan left, after the New York Times declared that the brakes had been slammed -- they may be able to accomplish it.

A big problem is that the House doesn't trust the Senate to actually do everything they say they might, so they want the Senate to handle their part first before the House votes. And after what we've seen from the Senate, would you trust Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson or the rest of them either?

Digby caught this bit by Ben Nelson where he said he always planned on filibustering HCR anyway.

Nancy Pelosi held a presser today and Greg Sargent caught this:

There’ve been some rumblings among House Dems that Obama’s speech last night, despite its urgent appeal for passage of health reform, didn’t chart out a specific enough road map for Congress to break its logjam on the issue.

But at a presser just now, Nancy Pelosi strongly articulated the opposite argument: That the President’s appeal would be “helpful” to Congress in their efforts to get reform done.

Best of all, a striking quote from Pelosi underscoring her determination to get health care done:

“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.”

It’s often been observed that this health care fight is the defining moment of Pelosi’s career, and that victory would seal her place as one of the most powerful House Speakers in modern history. She seems to realize this, too

.

This is encouraging news - at least, until Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe decide they don't like it. But if the House Dems pull this off -- national exchange, repeal of the anti-trust exemption and higher subsidies, they might actually come up with a decent plan:

WASHINGTON -- The White House wants to include a national health-insurance exchange in the health bill, which would give House Democrats one of their top remaining demands, according to an official involved in the discussions.

At issue is who would run the new insurance exchanges that would allow consumers to comparison-shop for health coverage. The House's version of the health overhaul calls for the federal government to run a single, national exchange, while the Senate's version would let states run their own exchanges.

President Barack Obama has told House Democrats that he intends to use the Senate bill as the framework for the final legislation. But the administration is pushing for a handful of House-backed provisions, including the federally run exchange, according to the official.

[...] Proponents of a federal exchange say state exchanges could have too few enrollees to function well, or might have enrollees who on average are too sick. Those who favor state exchanges say they would allow for more flexible regulation than one-size-fits-all standards set in Washington.

The White House also is working to increase the amount of the proposed subsidies that would help offset the cost of buying insurance for lower earners. The administration wants to bring them closer to the House levels, and is exploring with lawmakers how to do that while keeping the price tag around $900 billion over a decade, the target set by Mr. Obama.

House leaders are urging the White House to support repealing a decades-old federal antitrust exemption for the insurance industry that is part of its bill but isn't in the Senate's version. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Committee on Rules, said Mr. Obama showed openness to the idea in conversations with House leaders.

Insurers say they are already heavily regulated by states, where antitrust laws mirror federal rules prohibiting price-fixing and collusion.

Well yes, insurers are nominally regulated by states, but for some odd reason, no one ever seems to enforce them. Hmm...

I'm not getting my hopes up. But it sure would be nice if the House started thinking more about those of us who are hurting instead of their own reelections:

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. House leaders signaled Tuesday they are willing to agree to a final health overhaul bill without a government-run health insurance option if other parts of the bill would fulfill the same goals.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said after meeting with senior House Democrats that the bill must meet the test of "holding insurance companies accountable," whether or not it includes a public option.

"There are other ways to do that, and I look forward to discussing those other ways. ... We will have what we need to hold the insurance companies accountable," Pelosi said.

Pelosi huddled with House committee chairmen as talks between the House and Senate on reconciling competing versions of the health care overhaul bill got underway Tuesday. House leaders are to meet with Senate leaders via teleconference at the White House on Tuesday evening. They are aiming to strike a deal by early February.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), one of Pelosi's top lieutenants, said House leaders will expect concessions from Senate Democrats, including possibly a repeal of the antitrust exemption for insurance companies, if the public option is absent.

"Especially if you were not to have a public option, that would be important," Van Hollen told reporters. "The whole purpose of getting rid of the exemption would be to make sure you police competition so you cannot collude."

And on the more candid side:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say this afternoon at a press conference following a meeting between House leaders and health care principals. She and other members acknowledged that a number of differences must be resolved between House and Senate bills before a final reform package can be signed in to law--and all are aware that too much tinkering could upset a delicate balance in the Senate, where legislation often must meet a supermajority threshold.

But Pelosi did toss a jab President Obama's way.

Referring explicitly to one of Obama's campaign pledges, a reporter asked Pelosi whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed to film the House-Senate negotiations.

"There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail," she said, without addressing the question.

Oh, snap!

Of course they did. After all, you can't make all those big donors unhappy, right? The amount of corruption in our political system has far outstripped our ability to change it. The NDC thinks our nation is ill-served by state laws that are more difficult to game on behalf of the financial services industry.

Is there anything they won't do to screw us?

The compromise reached late Wednesday between pro-reform House Democrats and the banker-friendly wing of the party could significantly weaken consumer protection in states where lawmakers support tougher rules against tactics such as predatory lending and excessive ATM fees than historically submissive federal regulators.

Members of the New Democrat Coalition -- whose deference to big banks is reflected in the massive amounts of money they have taken from the financial services industry since 2008 -- temporarily blocked the landmark financial regulatory reform bill from hitting the House floor on Wednesday.

At issue was whether federal regulations should be a floor or a ceiling for consumer protection in the states, particularly as they affect big national banks like JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

The Obama administration, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, state attorneys general and a coalition of consumer advocates and law professors want states to be able to enforce tougher consumer financial protections.

The big banks, obviously, want federal regulations -- which they have found relatively easy to influence -- to preempt any more onerous state rules for banks operating in more than one state.

Working on behalf of the big banks, the New Dems were able to extract a compromise that will allow federal regulations to preempt state laws on a case-by-case basis.

State regulators have extracted billions of dollars from predatory lenders over the past decade through fines and court settlements, and state legislatures adopted strong anti-predatory lending measures years before Congress. Federal regulators were largely absent from the fight to protect consumers or acted too late, consumer advocates argue.

Congressional Democrats are calling for two inquiries after the New York Times reported earlier this week that drug companies were jacking up their prices, negating savings they promised for healthcare reform:

Responding to news reports of unusually high wholesale price increases in brand-name prescription drugs, four House leaders and one senator asked for government reviews of the pricing practices.

Although drug makers challenge the theory, some experts say the run-up in wholesale prices may be partly related to the industry’s concerns about future cost containment under any health care legislation.

“Recent studies have indicated that the industry may be artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms,” the House Democrats wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress. “Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive,” the letter added, asking the G.A.O. to conduct an expedited review of the price increases.

[...] Separately, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat who has led efforts in the Senate to seek more concessions from drug makers, wrote to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services asking for “an immediate and thorough investigation into drug industry pricing and recent increases, and the extent to which these increases may affect the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”