Not bully enough, I guess

I'm sure glad that Alessandra Stanley, the Times TV critic, is looking out for presidential dignity.

More than any other president, Mr. Obama surfs the media, looking for new ways to reach viewers who don’t watch the news or even television. The president doesn’t seem worried about tarnishing the dignity of his office. As his tenure nears its end, he seems more intent on being the salesman in chief. 

 The president really should think about the children the traditional media outlets.

A big #$%ing deal

Krugman is making sense.

On the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, an exuberant Vice President Biden famously pronounced the reform a “big something deal” — except that he didn’t use the word “something.” And he was right.

In fact, I’d suggest using this phrase to describe the Obama administration as a whole. F.D.R. had his New Deal; well, Mr. Obama has his Big Deal. He hasn’t delivered everything his supporters wanted, and at times the survival of his achievements seemed very much in doubt. But if progressives look at where we are as the second term begins, they’ll find grounds for a lot of (qualified) satisfaction.

Consider, in particular, three areas: health care, inequality and financial reform. 

Read the whole thing, as they say on the internets.

A tale of two conventions

From a commenter over at Charlie Pierce's place:

I'm waiting for the right-wing blog post about how horrible some delegate on the floor is, throwing health insurance at them and saying, "This is how we take care of people."

Breaking news

Another good day for the news professionals at Fox News

For the Supremes

Evidence of the socialist nature of Obamacare

Our new poster child for the Affordable Care Act.

A serious man

We all know that Paul Ryan is serious and brave when it comes to reducing our ruinous deficits.

Right.

Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.

Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”

That from a man who wants to eliminate Medicare altogether in favor of vouchers. Vouchers pegged to the rate of inflation, not pegged to the rising cost of healthcare, of which his "bold, serious" budget will do nothing to slow. Wasteful and unnecessary tests and medical devices are driving up those costs, but when given the opportunity to support a mechanism to identify waste, Paul Ryan, serious man, opposes it because it may put "limitations on providers."

Of course, Ryan is not alone in his beholdenness to medical device makers and big pharma.

“Why have legislators?” asked Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.

In some ways, Mr. Stark said, expanding the power of the board could be as bad as giving vouchers to Medicare beneficiaries to buy private insurance. “In theory at least, you could set the vouchers at an adequate level,” he said. “But, in its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care.”

Unbelievable.

In other words, acting the fool is not "inactivity"

Andrew Cohen looks at the 77 page brief defending the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, what idiots sneeringly call "ObamaCare," and finds it pretty convincing.

Here, it turns out, is where the Obama administration is eloquently defending the legitimacy of the Act and Congress' power to enact it. For example, here's how federal lawyers answer the argument that health insurance is not a federal matter:

"Millions of people without health insurance have consumed health care services for which they do not pay. These uncompensated costs—totaling $43 billion in 2008—are shifted to health care providers regularly engaged in interstate commerce. Providers pass on much of this cost to private insurance companies, which also operate interstate. The result is higher premiums which, in turn, make insurance unaffordable to even more people. At the same time, insurance companies use restrictive underwriting practices to deny coverage or charge unaffordable premiums to millions across the nation because they have pre-existing medical conditions."

Here is what the feds think of Judge Hudson's conclusion that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not authorize a federal law requiring people to buy health insurance. The Justice Department says:

"This analysis misconceives the nature of the regulated market and the governing Commerce Clause principles. People who attempt to pay for health care services out-of-pocket are no less 'in the stream of commerce' than people who pay with insurance. Further, when people consume health care without insurance to pay for it, others in the market bear its costs. The minimum coverage requirement is not an end in itself; it is a means of regulating the health care market."

And here is what the feds think of Judge Hudson's argument, since endorsed by Judge Vinson in Florida, that the Congress has no power to regulate commercial "inactivity" (i.e. the individual choice not to purchase health insurance). Federal attorneys wrote:

"Individuals do not remove themselves from the health care market or 'the stream of commerce' by attempting to pay for services out of pocket rather than with insurance. Congress may regulate the conduct of participants in the health care market even if the participants are 'inactive' in the insurance market. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the minimum coverage provision could be thought to regulate inactivity, Congress is not regulating inactivity 'as such,' but as an aspect of its regulation of active participation in the health care market" (citations omitted).

Judge Hudson erred in "analyzing the minimum coverage provision through the lens of 'inactivity,' rather than by reference to 'broad principles of economic practicality,'" the feds argue in a case poised to reach the United States Supreme Court first, sometime next year. Although the Florida challenge to the Act is larger in scope—more than two dozen states are plaintiffs in it—the Virginia challenge is slightly further ahead procedurally. It is likely, in any event, that the Court will join all of these cases together for one huge ruling that affects them all.

Until then? The feds offer a parting shot to Judge Hudson, Judge Vinson and other conservatives who are concerned that the legal precedent created by a judicial endorsement of the Affordable Care Act would lead one day to all sorts of federal intervention in local matters, ultimately resulting in the You Must Eat Broccoli Act. Federal attorneys wrote:

"At the end of the day, evaluation of whether an action by Congress is necessary and proper calls for a deferential examination of the legislation in question, its factual context, and Congress's reasons for acting. The analysis cannot be driven by hypothetical statutes that no legislature would ever adopt. Congress's commerce power to enact minimum wage legislation is not defeated because, hypothetically, Congress could use that power to set a minimum wage of $5,000 per hour" (citation omitted).

Damn right it was worth it

Jonathan Chait takes up Ross ("Really, the New York Times?") Douthat's (tired and wheezy) argument that the Dems focus on comprehensive health care reform and the stimulus were the reason they were hammered at the polls this week. Setting aside the stimulus (and note, Douthat ignores the bank and auto bailouts that came about before Obama entered office), which with 9+% unemployment and most mainstream economists agreeing it was necessary to stave off a massive depression. And also setting aside the fact that health care reform has been the dream of Democrats for 60 years, was at the center of Obama's (and H. Clinton's) campaign, and was demanded by the base, was health care reform "worth it?" Chait responds,

But let's accept Douthat's premise for a moment that the decision to pursue comprehensive health reform hurt Democrats. Would I accept the trade-off? Yes, I would. Chances like this simply don't come along very often.

I'd also note that the decision to pursue a comprehensive plan was as much a GOP choice as a Democratic choice. Numerous Democrats in the Senate were desperate for bipartisan cover and only mildly committed to comprehensive reform. If any Republican Senators had put a deal on the table, almost any deal at all, however puny, at least one of those Democrats would have jumped at it. But Republicans were following Mitch McConnell's astute analysis that any bill with bipartisan support would become popular, and thus that withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans. Republicans persistently followed an all-or-nothing strategy, and Democrats took all.

Which is to say, if Douthat is correct about his political premises, both parties had to choose between politics and policy. Democrats could have minimized their losses at the cost of sacrificing the health reform they wanted. Or Republicans could have minimized the scope of health care reform, at the cost of minimizing their potential wave. Democrats chose the best policy, and Republicans chose the best politics. I'm happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to [be] around a lot longer than the former.

Well, assuming the latter survives the Roberts Court.

But I agree. I'm sorry stand-up guys like Perriello lost after voting to do the right thing for his (mostly rural, extremely impoverished, and mostly right-leaning) constituents, but doing the wrong thing would probably not have save his job, anyway. Just too much long-term unemployment, distress, anger, fear, and, well, old, to avoid "the wave."

With Republicans set to take control of the House, a number of the reforms' provisions will be slower to take affect due to lack of funding. Ironically, those provisions will likely be the ones best designed to control costs and lower the deficit, but you know the words to that song by now and Irony has been dead for a long time. But they will eventually have an impact on people's lives for the better. It was better to grab that chance -- along with consumer protections, financial reform, and workplace equality legislation passed by one of the hardest working, most progressive Congresses in 50 years -- than to let that historic chance that was briefly theirs in 2009 slip through Democrats' fingers.

Counter-punching is a good strategy

Finally, a Democrat embracing the Affordable Care Act and what it really means for voters...and what repeal would mean for them as well.

It's about time. Perhaps it's desperation on Feingold's part, but I wish other incumbents would have the courage -- and the sense -- to take some pride in their accomplishments.

Town Hall missing

I can certainly understand the instinct to not wanting to be screamed at by older white men, but I wonder if this is such a good idea.

If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

It was no scheduling accident.

With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects.

And to reach thousands of constituents at a time, without the worry of being snared in an angry confrontation with voters, more lawmakers are also taking part in a fast-growing trend: the telephone town meeting, where chances are remote that a testy exchange will wind up on YouTube.

For incumbents of both parties facing challenging re-election bids, few things receive more scrutiny than how, when and where they interact with voters. Many members of Congress err on the side of being visible, but not too visible, and make only a few public appearances while they are back in their districts.

I mean, the so-called "independents" we hear about all the time are supposed to be put off by extreme behavior. If that's the case, isn't seeing some lunatic screaming into the face of a congress critter just the thing to get independents riled up in support of the incumbent? Especially now that voters seem to be, if not embracing health care reform, then at least willing to give it a chance.

Feeling lucky

Elections, consequences.

...Obama had come to view this debate as a proxy for the deepest, most systemic crises facing the country. It was a test, really: Could the country still solve its most vexing problems? If he abandoned comprehensive reform, he would be conceding that the United States was, on some level, ungovernable. Besides, several aides recall him saying, “I feel lucky.”

Must they do everything backwards?

Well it seems that House Dems are going to debate and vote on the "fixes" before they Pass. The. Damn. Bill. So, should the Democrats manage to not shoot themselves with an unloaded gun before then, the historic passage of comprehensive health care reform legislation won't occur until well past midnight. No prime time victory lap message from the White House.

Ahem.

Anyway, it's been the first full day of Spring and J.S. Bach's birthday, so console yourselves.

Profiles in obfuscation

Think someone got to Anh Cao? Here he was back in November:

Mr. Cao (pronounced gow; rhymes with cow), a freshman from New Orleans, was elected last year in an upset victory over Representative William J. Jefferson, a Democrat who was under indictment on federal corruption charges at the time and has since been convicted.

“Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana,” Mr. Cao said in a statement posted on his Web site.

“I read the versions of the House bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding — if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.”

Wonder what changed?

In November, Mr. Stupak had also succeeded in winning approval of tight limits on insurance coverage of abortions in the House bill. The current package now includes language from the bill passed in the Senate and negotiated by two Democrats, Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who have built up solid credentials in their political careers as abortion opponents.

Mr. Stupak and many of the lawmakers insisting on the tighter restrictions are Catholic, as is Ms. Pelosi, and all have cited their faith in justifying their position on the legislation.

In a sign of the emotion around the issue, Representative Dale E. Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, who is Catholic and opposes abortion, announced his support for the legislation in a statement pointing out that he had once studied for the priesthood. He said he had consulted his priest and concluded that the abortion restrictions in the Senate bill were sufficient.

Democratic leaders said they hoped an executive order by Mr. Obama would clarify that the legislation was not intended to change existing federal law and policy that generally bar the use of taxpayer money for abortions.

But Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, the only Republican who voted for the bill in November, said he could not support the current measure because of its “expansion of abortion, an absolute moral evil.”

Really odd political calculations. He's sure to face a Tea Party challenge from the right -- does he think hewing the party line now is going to help him with that? And now he puts a Democratic in an even stronger position in a district that is overwhelmingly African-American and desperately poor. He has a chance to put his vote on a historic bill that will do more for his constituents than likely anything else he is going to vote for in the short time he has left as a Congressman, but what was acceptable to his moral imperatives over a woman's body in November is no longer satisfactory.

Sad, when you think of it.

Slowly I turned...

The spectrum of potential opposition to health care reform got smaller as Kucinich perhaps realized (or was convinced) that history would not be kind to him. Excruciating, and I wonder if I'll be back in the country on Saturday before the House votes..

UPDATE: To fix an early morning exhausted blunder.

Air cover

Greg Sargent notes that the spot, from MoveOn, comes on the heels of a MoveOn survey in which more than 80% of members supported the House approving the Senate bill and moving on to reconciliation, so there is a wide consensus for Passing the Bill Now. Moreover, Sargent writes, the TV buy shows Congress Critters that failure has consequences.

If they take a tough vote and pass reform, they’ll have major air cover from big-spending groups as they head into the bruising fall campaign. If not, well…

Meanwhile, Heather Graham is back in her singlet!

Somethin's happenin' here

I am a longtime Democrat, so I am not unmindful of their capacity to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that ain't even loaded, but...

WASHINGTON — The White House and Congressional leaders put Democrats on notice Friday that they would push ahead next week toward climactic votes on the health care legislation, as President Obama delayed a foreign trip and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hoped to complete House action before he leaves.

As early as Thursday or Friday, Democrats said, they would first pass the health care bill already approved by the Senate in December, clearing the way for Mr. Obama to sign it, and then approve a package of changes in a separate bill that the Senate would also pass by a simple majority vote.

The White House said Mr. Obama had delayed his departure for a trip to Guam, Indonesia and Australia to March 21, from Thursday, so that he could keep the pressure on Congress, shortening the trip and not taking his family along — all clear signals that he wants this seen as a make-or-break moment.

“I’m delighted that the president will be here for the passage of the bill,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s going to be historic. And it would not be possible without his tremendous, tremendous leadership, his persistence, his concern for the American people, always guided by his statement that we will measure our success by the progress being made by America’s working families.”

And this is just all-round smart politics.

Ms. Pelosi said House Democrats were happy that a proposed overhaul of student loan programs would also be attached to the package. The bill is popular in the House and would help sway fence-sitters, said Democrats, who need 216 votes in the House. The student loan package would be hard to pass in the Senate except by sharing the health bill’s fast track.

The president’s international trip had grown into a source of frustration among many House Democrats, who complained privately to the White House that they were being forced to take a quick vote on health care so Mr. Obama and his family could leave on the overseas trip next week.

The president is no longer taking the first lady, Michelle Obama, and their two daughters on the trip, an administration official said. Mr. Obama agreed to delay his departure by three days, an administration official said, shortening the trip for official business only in an effort to show flexibility in the final push on health care legislation and to give Mr. Obama more time to win over skeptical House members.

I've said it before and longtime readers know I'm a rank Obamabot, but he understands the long view on this. That he couldn't just drop a bill in Congress and expect them to pas it. That, therefore, the legislative process was going to be messy, un-transparent, and ugly (read, "Nebraska"). That while news cycles are short, legislation is long and tempers cool. Much as he and his advisers exhibited during the campaign, it's a long slog and a lot of hard work and you got to pick your moments

He stepped in at the right moment and led the final charge when all sides were exhausted, but also when Dems began to realize that failure to pass this bill would only add to an appearance that they can't govern.

Things can still go wrong. House lawmakers haven't seen the budget bill that would be passed through reconciliation. Does Pelosi really have the 216? Who knows where Stupak is these days. But this feels like we really are on the verge of a historic moment. The Tell, as usual, is in the Concern Trolls.

Oh, and kudos to Sasha and Malia.

A Rush for health care reform?

The single most important reason to pass health care reform now.

GPS for health care reform

We're in the home stretch, except that it's less a stretch than a maze. The NYT has a useful road map.

Compromises that will compromise us

Unlike, say, health care reform, in which the prospect of providing 30 million more Americans access to affordable health insurance make it worth it to swallow painful, less-then-perfect compromises (continuing to rely on private insurers, no public option, etc.), compromises on financial reform -- specifically on what will constitute a consumer protection agency -- are not.

There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care. But financial reform is different. An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience, and if Democrats pass the current plan there will be steady pressure to make it better. A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldn’t be tested until the next big crisis. All it would do is create a false sense of security and a fig leaf for politicians opposed to any serious action — then fail in the clinch.

Better, then, to take a stand, and put the enemies of reform on the spot. And by all means let’s highlight the dispute over a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

There’s no question that consumers need much better protection. The late Edward Gramlich — a Federal Reserve official who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to act against predatory lending — summarized the case perfectly back in 2007: “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”

Is it important that this protection be provided by an independent agency? It must be, or lobbyists wouldn’t be campaigning so hard to prevent that agency’s creation.