Daily Kos

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:30:05 GMT

Now they are attacking 11-year-old children

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:49:24 GMT

McClatchy's Les Blumenthal reports on the latest line of attack against health care reform coming from right-wing media:

State of the health care debate: Talk radio attacks an 11-year old

WASHINGTON — Conservative talk show hosts and columnists have ridiculed an 11-year-old Washington state boy's account of his mother's death as a "sob story" exploited by the White House and congressional Democrats like a "kiddie shield" to defend their health care legislation.

Marcelas Owens, whose mother got sick, lost her job, lost her health insurance and died, said Thursday he's taking the attacks from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin in stride.

"My mother always taught me they can have their own opinion but that doesn't mean they are right," Owens, who lives in Seattle, said in an interview.

Malkin said Owens was a "lobbyist" who was "goaded by a left-wing activist grandmother." Beck characterized the young boy as a tool of George Soros. And Limbaugh claimed Owens had been "forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama," adding:

I would say this to Marcelas Owens: 'Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014.'

That's pretty nasty stuff...and to target it at an eleven-year-old child? These guys -- Limbaugh, Beck, and Malkin -- truly do take the 'c' and the 'l' out of "class." They really are running on empty.

The Health Vote Schedule

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:00:04 GMT

Steny Hoyer lays out the schedule for House action on the health insurance reform package.

Hoyer said Thursday after the Congressional Budget Office released its cost estimate of the legislation that the House is now eying a Sunday vote on the measure.

The House will meet at 9 a.m. on Saturday with votes happening as early as 10 a.m., Hoyer said. The lower chamber will then meet Sunday at 1 p.m. with votes happening as early as 2 p.m.

Hoyer said the House could vote also could be earlier than 6:30 p.m. on Monday, when they are normally held.

The House has also released the reconciliation package text, with this section-by-section summary. No word yet on the Senate schedule.

How might the Senate deal with GOP obstruction on reconciliation?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:16:04 GMT

Just by way of a reminder, once the House passes the reconciliation bill fixing the Senate health insurance reform bill, the fireworks begin anew in the Senate, where Republicans have promised a blizzard of amendments and/or points of order aimed essentially at creating a de facto filibuster where the "normal" filibuster would otherwise not be available to them.

But let's also recall what I thought they might be able to do about it:

There's an October 3, 1977 precedent from when Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was Majority Leader, wherein faced with an exploitation of an old cloture rule loophole that allowed Senators to file the same sort of endless stream of amendments, even after cloture had already been invoked, he addressed the chair with this point of order, which was sustained by the chair:

I make the point that when the Senate is operating under cloture the Chair is required to take the initiative under rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order.

The point having been sustained (and an appeal of the ruling tabled, which requires a simple majority vote), Byrd used his right of preferential recognition as Majority Leader to call up all the rest of the amendments one at a time, whereupon the chair ruled each of them out of order on its own motion. (Source - warning, PDF)

I would argue that if that point of order can be sustained for the post-cloture environment, when debate is limited to 30 hours, surely it should be sustained for the reconciliation environment, when debate is limited to just 20.

I believe the same point of order can and should be made and sustained -- if we even get that far, given what former parliamentarian Bob Dove had to say -- and that Harry Reid might then use his right to preferential recognition to call up all pending amendments, and have them ruled on immediately by the chair.

With that in mind, I offer you this bit of news from (subscription only) CQ:

Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , D-Ill., reaffirmed that Democrats will move to block what they consider an excessive number of Republican amendments by seeking a ruling from the presiding officer — in consultation with Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin — to limit votes once an unspecified number is held.

“There’s some point beyond which everyone knows that it’s all about stopping the bill, and it’s not about amending it. I hope we don’t face that. But if we do, you know, there is an opportunity for the chair to rule at some point,” Durbin said March 15.

Durbin said he hoped Frumin would declare excessive amendments “dilatory” and effectively put an end to floor votes on a reconciliation bill that would make changes to the Senate-passed health care overhaul bill (HR 3590). The House is currently drafting the reconciliation measure.

Do we take care of you at Congress Matters, or what?

Of course, there's also some bad news in the CQ article:

Durbin’s stance has unsettled moderate Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who said he would likely oppose any move to cut off amendments. Nelson compared such an effort to the “nuclear option” — a change in Senate rules threatened by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (1995-2007), to skirt Democratic filibusters of President George W. Bush’s conservative judicial nominees. Frist’s plan unraveled under opposition from Nelson and other members of a so-called Gang of 14.

“I did not support that type of effort back then. And I would not support something like that now,” Nelson said.

Mark Begich, D-Alaska, also expressed qualms about cutting off amendments. “I might be a little uneasy about that. People need to have their voice,” he said.

Of course, the good news about the bad news is: it only takes a simple majority to uphold the ruling of the chair on something like this. But I'm sure they'll be discussing the issue in caucus meetings, and I doubt very much whether the intention is to cut things off early. They'll likely be erring on the side of letting Republicans overdo things before trying anything like this.

Will we ever really see it? Who knows? You'll have to stay tuned and watch. But at least you've read the program going into the show.

FL-Sen: Crist is broken

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:36:57 GMT

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/15-17. Likely voters. MoE 4% (5% for primary samples). (11/16-18/2009 results)

GOP Senate Primary Charlie Crist (R) 30 (47) Marco Rubio (R) 58 (37)

Other polling has shown Rubio blowing past Crist, so that's not so much news. But only we are asking this question:

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, or not? (Republican primary voters only) Yes 33 (35) No 30 (29) Not sure 37 (36) Obama born in US: Rubio: 23 (16) Crist: 66 (73) Obama not born un US: Rubio: 74 (54) Crist: 8 (31) Not Sure where Obama was born: Rubio: 76 (45) Crist: 16 (33)

In other words, Crist dominates the sane GOP wing, but given that 2/3rds is either batshit insane, or is considering insanity, Rubio has the clear and easy path to the GOP nomination.

For the past year, I've been arguing that Crist's collapse in the GOP primary was inevitable, that his only path to the Senate was by switching parties and becoming a Democrat. Well, that window of opportunity has closed.

Senate General Election Charlie Crist (R) 45 (50) Kendrick Meek (D) 36 (33) Marco Rubio (R) 41 (38) Kendrick Meek (D) 40 (30)

I've been nothing but dismissive of Meek. But the numbers certainly suggest this could be competitive. And it's because of this:

Favorable/Unfavorable/No opinion Charlie Crist 44/45/11 (59/23/9) Marco Rubio 29/36/35 (21/22/57) Kendrick Meek 25/18/57 (23/9/68)

Meek is still invisible. But Rubio is now well into net-negative territory. And particularly disturbing for him, that fall has come from independents, going from 18/21/61 last November, to 26/38/36. Independents aren't liking what they see from him. It would be nice if Meek improved on his numbers, but at this point, he's the only candidate left with a net-positive favorability rating.

As for Crist, he used to be popular. Now, he's crashing, and nothing suggests he's hit bottom.

Now some hypothetical matchups:

Crist as an independent: Charlie Crist (I) 29 (32) Marco Rubio (R) 32 (27) Kendrick Meek (D) 27 (31) Crist as a Democrat: Marco Rubio (R) 40 (34) Charlie Crist (D) 38 (45)

So much for switching parties. We actually did a Democratic primary matchup between Meek and Crist, and Meek edged ahead 24-21, with 55 undecided, mostly going, "what the heck?" But at this point, Crist is no better than Meek, and given his cataclysmic downward trend, he'd eventually be a worse choice. Our best option now is a three-way matchup, given that Crist takes 33 percent of Republican support, while attracting just 21 percent of Democratic support. But Crist won't show this strong when all's said and done. He's still got a ways to fall.

In the governor's race, Republican Bill McCollum leads Democrat Alex Sink 41-35 -- which is a widening of his narrow 35-33 lead back in November.

Rahm, vindicated? Progressives, vindicated? Does it matter?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:53:41 GMT

In posts yesterday and today, Ben Smith, Glenn Greenwald, and Chris Bowers explore whether the imminent passage of health care reform with nearly unanimous support from the progressive base -- even though it does not contain a public option -- is a vindication of Rahm Emanuel's strategy of taking progressives for granted and courting centrists.

This question isn't as simple as it first seems.

As Bowers points out, it seems to be based on a faulty assumption. In the wake of Scott Brown's election, Rahm Emanuel wanted to dramatically scale back the health care reform bill. Emanuel didn't get his way. So it's hard to see how he could be vindicated.

But it's also true that many progressives (myself included) at one point conditioned our support for this legislation on the inclusion of the public option. Our bluff was called, and we lost that battle, at least for this bill.

So was Rahm vindicated because we lost on the public option? Were we vindicated because Obama didn't follow Rahm's advice to scale the bill back?

I think the answer is probably that these are the wrong questions to ask. At least for me, the far more interesting question than whether Rahm was vindicated or not, or whether progressives have been vindicated or not, is whether the substantive direction we are heading is one that progressives can be comfortable with.

And on this question -- whether we are moving in the right direction -- the answer seems to be a clear yes. It might not be as fast as we'd like, but things are moving.

Compare the 1990s to today. Back then, conservatives were able to constrain the range of the possible with impunity. Health care reform? Forget about it! Indeed, back then, they weren't just constraining the range of the possible, they were setting the agenda. Remember welfare reform? How about impeachment?

Flash forward to today and they are defense. Not offense. They may still be limiting the range of what's possible, but they are not setting the agenda.

True, we did not get a public option, but we are going to get a health insurance reform bill that covers virtually every American citizen and puts in place a patients bill of rights on steroids. It's not perfect: outside of Medicare, the middle-class will be entirely dependent on a system of for-profit medicine; there will still be major cost issues; there will still be many undocumented residents without insurance, underscoring the important of dealing with immigration reform; we will still have an unwieldy patchwork of government programs to deliver insurance to much of the population.

But even though the bill is not perfect, for the first time in our nation's history we will have enshrined into law the notion that everybody ought to have health insurance -- and that's a major accomplishment. We can argue about whether it accomplished as much as possible, but it is nonetheless a big deal -- and it's not something that could have been done if progressive goals really were taken for granted.

So the reason why health care reform has such strong support from progressives is not that they can be taken for granted, it is that health care reform does deliver on an important progressive goal.

Think about this way. While losing the public option was unquestionably a defeat, if this bill on balance is a defeat for progressives, then at least in defeat we've managed to get near-universal health insurance.

In the closing years of the 1990s, one of the biggest progressive victories was the acquittal of President Clinton in his impeachment trial.

In the opening years of the 2010s, our first progressive victory will be health care reform legislation expanding coverage to most of the uninsured and protecting those who already have insurance. It doesn't fix every problem, and it will need constant improvement, but if this really represents the marginalization of progressives, then we're making progress.

Midday open thread

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:08:36 GMT

Who took the old Kucinich and replaced him with this pragmatic one? I like this new look much better.

Retiring Rep. John Shaddeg, among the most conservative Republicans in the House, now says he would support single-payer health care.
Weird.

What Dems are about to accomplish:

Think about the scope of the task -- Democrats were told they needed a health care reform bill that spends a lot of money on covering the uninsured, lowers the deficit, strengthens Medicare, helps businesses, eases government budgets, protects consumers, and controls costs, all at the same time. It would also need to earn the blessing of Congressional Budget Office, the American Medical Association, the AARP, and the nation's largest labor unions.

Democrats were also told they needed to do all of this in the face of unanimous and apoplectic Republican opposition, far-right manipulation of gullible conservative activists, and media coverage that largely ignores the substance of the bill while pretending every right-wing attack deserves attention.

This is a needle that's almost impossible to thread. And yet, that's exactly what the White House and congressional leaders have done. It's no small feat.

The legislation is far from ideal. Much remains to be done. But just getting our foot in the door has been a momentous accomplishment.

Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO joins SEIU in explicitly threatening primaries to Dems who vote against health care reform:

In the days ahead, the presidents of the AFL-CIO’s unions — heavy hitters such as Richard Trumka, AFSCME’s Gerald McEntee, and CWA’s Larry Cohen — will be making direct personal (ahem) appeals to these House Dems, the source says.

“Everybody who’s undecided now, all the different union presidents are going to get on the phone and bring very heavy pressure,” the source says. “Trumka, McEntee, Larry Cohen — all of our presidents will be laying down the law.”

Republicans are okay with Sen. Ensign's philandering and efforts to cover it up, because he isn't gay. The FBI isn't so easily satiated.

Nevada Senator John Ensign is in the crosshairs of a Department of Justice criminal investigation.

The criminal probe stems from a romantic affair Ensign had with the wife of his key staffer and close friend, Doug Hampton, and what Ensign has done to help Hampton financially.

Subpoenas have been issued to at least six las vegas businesses. The Justice Department came to Las Vegas to interview several prominent business and political figures in what appears to be a wide-ranging and deadly-serious criminal probe.

Apple versus Amazon. I'll say this much -- at $9.99, I've been buying far more books on impulse for my Kindle than I would at $15, which takes the purchase out of the realm of "impulse buy." I currently have about 15-20 unread books on my Kindle, even though I'm currently averaging about a book read per week. If I see something even mildly interesting, I add it to the Kindle. If publishers raise prices much further, I'll be far less likely to add more books until I drain my queue, and afterward, I'll be much pickier in what I buy.
And I say that as an author, who could theoretically make more money on my books with the higher prices.

Crumbling highway running through San Francisco's Hayes Valley has been (temporarily) converted into an urban farm.

Did I flip flop on health care reform and the public option? Here's me on December 21, 2009:

If you laid down arms, you know what? The Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans, they keep extracting concessions. We cannot, at any point, lay down our guns and stop fighting.

Once we have a final bill, and things are set in stone, then we can re-examine that bill. But right now, things can still change. To stop fighting for that change, to me, is patently ridiculous.

Any positive change from here on out is going to be because we keep pushing from the left not because we say, "Good enough. Let’s pass it."

My substantive criticisms of the bill remain, but it's the best we can get at this time. I'll take it, and keep fighting to improve it. Our long-term chances are drastically improved with a framework to tinker with, than to try and get something enacted from scratch.

Two New Reports, More Talk of 'Jobless Recovery'

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:20:03 GMT

Two reports out this morning tend to confirm what has been the trend for eight months. A slow economic recovery is under way, but employers have yet to take the emerging signs of improvement across a broad range of indicators as reasons to begin hiring in large enough numbers to make a dent in the gigantic pool of out-of-work Americans. That pool now contains 8.4 million, plus another 8.8 million underemployed, and millions of difficult-to-count "discouraged workers" who want jobs but have given up looking.

The Conference Board issued its report on the leading economic indicators, which shows a small uptick, continuing the trend of nearly a year.

A slow recovery is expected this summer, and economic conditions will moderately improve in the near term, the Conference Board said Thursday, reporting that the index of leading economic indicators rose 0.1% in February. ...

"Going forward, the big question remains the strength of demand," said Ken Goldstein, economist at the Conference Board, a private research organization that analyzes a broad range of economic data. "Without increased consumer demand, job growth will likely be minimal over the next few months."

“We don’t expect this to be an especially strong recovery,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, who accurately forecast the LEI increase. At the same time, “growth is still positive,” he said, and the index “is still consistent with a gradual economic recovery.”

If that sounds familiar, no you haven't mistakenly logged into a web site from October. The same sort of thing was being said then, too.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor released its report on unemployment benefits. First-time claims and continuing claims were both down slightly, but continuing claims were slightly up, indicating a plateau in this metric, which has been moving in a relatively narrow range for months after dropping from the stratospheric levels of early 2009.

Bloomberg reported:

The economic recovery may be emerging but it looks to be a jobless recovery, at least so far. Markets were little changed in reaction to today's report which was accompanied by benign consumer-price headlines.

This news was consistent with that released earlier in the week by the Federal Reserve, which noted that the "labor market is stabilizing. Household spending is expanding at a moderate rate but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit."

It's also consistent with the news that while the overall economy will be doing far better by the end of 2012, the job market will remain short of full recovery even then. The noted doom-and-gloomers who made this sobering assessment? The White House's economic team of Tim Geithner, Christina Romer and Peter Orszag in testimony before Congress this week.

They praised the administration's efforts last year of preventing the Great Recession from turning into something far worse by, among other things, saving or creating 2 million jobs. It is, as they rightly pointed out, good to remember just how close to the precipice we were 15 months ago and, while they didn't mention it, what things would look like now if John McCain and Sarah Palin had somehow managed to persuade voters that they should run things.

Geithner, et al., predicted that about 100,000 jobs a month will be created on average in 2010, 200,000 a month in 2011 and 250,000 a month in 2012. That's obviously a vast improvement over the 330,000 jobs lost on average each month in 2009. But it's also strong evidence of a "jobless recovery." In a shallow recession, the predicted level of job creation would improve the situation in a hurry. But the losses during this recession have been huge. And the situation is unlikely to be helped significantly by the welcome but weak bill signed today by President Obama in hopes of accelerating job growth.

The Outlook

Here's the problem. The 100,000 per-month jobs gain in 2010 only keeps up with what, in the past, has been the increase of new entries in the labor force from population growth. In other words, it has in the past taken, more or less, 100,000-125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up. So creating 1.2 million jobs this year would be the break-even point. Some analysts say, however, that the 100,000 increase might be met by 100,000 retirements as the first wave of the baby-boom generation starts opting out of the labor force. If this pans out, then there would be an actual net gain of 1.2 million jobs.

Using this same scenario for the succeeding two years, and sticking with the government's own estimates, would give us a gain of 2.4 million jobs in 2011, and a gain of 3 million in 2012. Total three-year gain: 6.6 million jobs. Which, given the loss of 8.4 million, would leave us 1.8 million jobs short of where we were in December 2007. Which means that 60 months after the recession began, and 42 or months or so after most economists now think the recession technically ended in the summer of 2009, we would still be nearly 2 million jobs short of where we were when the downturn got under way.

To reiterate, this is not news from so-called doom-and-gloomers but from the Obama administration's own economic team. Perhaps they are being cautious, wanting to avoid what happened in early 2009 when they – and almost every private predictor – estimated the high point of unemployment would be 8%. Better not to promise too much and hope for better.

When the next monthly jobs report comes out April 2, there will be some understandable exuberance since it could show as many as 300,000 new jobs created in February and March. That will be good news, but it's certain a big piece of it will be temporary since 100,000 of those will be Census jobs that last only five to 10 weeks. Nothing yet hints at anything better than the estimate that Geithner, et al., are predicting.

As noted by many progressive analysts, what's really needed is a direct job creation program that puts to work millions of Americans in the public sector until the private sector comes back more strongly. Because, as The Wall Street Journal and others have argued, "about a quarter of those 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the recession began won't be coming back" at all. They need to be replaced. Until they are, the pain and suffering of long-term unemployment needs to be relieved.

That pain and suffering can last well beyond an economic recovery. As Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, recently wrote, children whose parents are unemployed for an extended period are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to go to college. Young people who begin their work lives in a time of long-term joblessness will earn less during their entire careers. Older workers who lose their jobs are at great risk of never again being hired at the same salaries. The societal damage can span decades.

None of that matters to either the obstructionists in the Party of No Way, No How or the faint-hearted among Democrats in Congress. One side hopes to benefit electorally from the chaos so they can get back to wrecking the middle class and making life even more comfortable for the Top 10%. On the other side are too many folks whose preferred policy approach is crossing their fingers when they don't have them stuffed in their ears.

Chamber of Commerce Skews Polling in Dem Swing Districts

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:46:04 GMT

The Chamber surveyed ten swing House districts to guage opposition to health insurance reform, finding large majorities in these Dem-held districts opposed to the bill. But not so fast, says NYT's You're the Boss Blog:

As regular readers know, polls, especially those by interest groups, must meet stringent standards (pdf) before we can publish their results. These polls don’t. Instead of randomly selecting their respondents, the Chamber of Commerce sampled from voter lists, a practice The New York Times and many other media pollsters do not endorse because the lists are often outdated and are generally not representative — they do not include unlisted telephone numbers, for example. Moreover, the firm that conducted the surveys, Ayres, McHenry & Associates, identifies itself as a partisan (Republican-leaning) firm.*

....

So the question The Agenda will concern itself with is how much local news coverage did the Chamber’s gambit win. After an exhaustive consultation with Google, we conclude: not that much. In Nevada’s 3rd District, represented by November aye-voter Dina Titus, The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a long article about the poll. (Ms. Titus is undecided, according to The Review-Journal and The Hill.)

The poll also was covered by The Fort Collins Coloradoan. Representative (and former small businesswoman) Betsy Markey originally voted no; she is now undecided.

In Arizona’s 8th District, The Arizona Daily Star in Tucson mentioned the poll in an article reporting that the Chamber’s target, Gabrielle Giffords, “appear[s] to be moving closer to the ‘aye’ side of the ledger.” (She supported the bill last November.)

Elsewhere, the polls don’t seem to have made much of a ripple. The other districts targeted by the Chamber were:

•Florida’s 2nd District (Allen Boyd originally voted no).
•New York’s 24th District (Michael Arcuri originally voted yes).
•Ohio’s 1st District (Steven Driehaus originally voted yes).
•Pennsylvania’s 4th District (Jason Altmire originally voted no).
•Texas’s 17th District (Chet Edwards originally voted no).
•Virginia’s 2nd District (Glenn Nye originally voted no).

One of those targets, Arcuri, has said he'll vote no. If it's on the basis of this poll, he might want to rethink his vote.

AR-Sen: Protecting the for-profit student loan racket

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:12:03 GMT

This would be smart:

Reforming the for-profit student loan system, which allows finance giants like Virginia-based Sallie Mae to make virtually risk-free returns thanks to government subsidies, was a top priority of President Obama. His idea, supported by most Democrats, was to take out the middle-man: Instead of subsidizing private lenders, the feds would completely take over origination of student loans.

The result: The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which the Office of Management and Budget estimated would save over $80 billion over 10 years (critics point out the number is inflated, because it didn't include money lost from defaults; but that's neither here nor there, because the government currently absorbs private losses anyway). Savings would be plowed back into Pell Grants -- much easier on students on the long-term -- and other higher education initiatives.

How could anyone oppose this? A system that privatizes the profits of such a system, while putting taxpayers on the hook for defaults, is wrong, no matter how you slice it. It would be objectively smarter to take that $80 billion in profits, and shift it over directly to students to make higher education more affordable.

Yet there are six Democrats who would rather do the bidding of the banking industry in their states than to do the right thing for America's students: Tom Carper (DE), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Warner (VA) and Jim Webb (VA).

Oh, and Blanche Lincoln.

MoveOn's first ad of the Arkansas primary points out how ridiculously misplaced Lincoln's priorities are:

Lincoln tries to justify her corporatism by arguing she's "supporting Arkansans", yet her actions speak louder than words. She's completely compromised, corrupt to her core, a wholly owned subsidiary of her state's biggest corporate interests.

If you're tired of the corporatist Democrat watering down or obstructing the progressive agenda, this is your big chance this cycle to send a message. Democrats need to learn that they either represent the people of their state (or district), or they will suffer the appropriate punishment at the ballot box.

Contribute to Bill Halter
Bill Halter for Senate
Volunteer

Leave Bart Stupak Alone!

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:26:02 GMT

Poor Bart Stupak:

Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents. [...]

The worst part has been the pressure from groups and individuals from outside his district on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

“How’s it been? Like a living hell,” Stupak said.

Apparently it didn't occur to Bart that, a.) health care reform has nothing to do with his cult crusade against abortion, and, b.) that when your actions will affect all Americans, chances are you are going to hear from people outside of your district.

But no one deserves the living hell of hearing from people who object to his efforts to kill health care reform, so why don't you give him a call and offer your condolences:

(202) 225 4735

... and maybe mention The New England Journal of Medicine study that:

... suggests that universal health care coverage has been associated with a decrease in the number of abortions performed, despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress.”

What's behind those CBO number? Process.

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:36:03 GMT

You've already heard the news:

CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.

EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

You've already seen the analysis:

... that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

Now, here's why the reconciliation bill will have more deficit reduction than either of the previous two bills (in case you missed it in Today in Congress):

Under the arcane rules for budget reconciliation, a bill passed through the expedited parliamentary process must produce a greater deficit reduction than the legislation it amends. Since the Senate health care bill (HR 3590) would produce $104 billion in deficit savings in its first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final bill — which will make House Democrats’ desired changes to the Senate bill — must do better than that.

[...]

[T]he deficit-reduction figures Democrats must reach are not trivial: at least $120 billion over 10 years, with most of that — $106 billion — coming in the first five years, according to Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. (Democratic aides did not dispute those figures.)

Source: CQ (subscription only)

Process matters. Those stupid rules drive substantive outcomes.

Fox caught, again

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:50:03 GMT

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Fox breathlessly promoted what it claims to be a new survey from the New England Journal of Medicine showing doctors oppose health care reform, but there’s a problem: the non-scientific survey was conducted months ago, was not published in the NEJM, and, according to a spokesperson for the journal, it has "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine’s original research."

I've put together a video compilation of Fox's false claim -- it's really a remarkable example of journalistic malpractice.

Watch:

A New England Journal of Medicine spokesperson told Media Matters that despite Fox's claims, such a survey "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine."

Contrary to Fox's claims, the survey had nothing to do with NEJM. Instead, the survey, which was conducted several months ago and was non-scientific in nature, was posted on a career-oriented website maintained by the publisher of NEJM.

But of course the simple fact that Fox's reporting wasn't true did not prove to be an obstacle to getting it on the air. After all, Fox knows how to entertain its audience, and it's 'smart' enough to never let reality never get in the way of a good story.

CBO Numbers Are Out

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:58:00 GMT

The first set of the much-anticipated CBO numbers are out:

CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.

EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

This gives wavering Democrats a firm reason to vote yes. Will the final dominos start falling today?

Update: As noted by Ezra Klein:

... that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

For more discussion, see yank2351's diary.

Today in Congress

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:16:03 GMT

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010

House Meets At... 10:00 a.m.: Legislative Business
First Vote Predicted... 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Last Vote Predicted... 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

"One Minutes" (10 per side)

H.Res. 1190 - Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the Rules (Rep. Slaughter – Rules)

Suspensions (7 Bills):

H.R. 3671 - Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act (Rep. Kind - Natural Resources)

H.R. 4252 - Inland Empire Perchlorate Ground Water Plume Assessment Act of 2009 (Rep. Baca - Natural Resources)

H.R. 4003 - Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act (Rep. Hinchey - Natural Resources)

H.Res. 1173 - Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Vermont Long Trail, the oldest long-distance hiking trail in the United States, and congratulating the Green Mountain Club for its century of dedication in developing and maintaining the trail (Rep. Welch - Natural Resources)

H.R. 2788 - Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act (Rep. Calvert - Natural Resources)

H.R. 1769 - Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act (Rep. Reichert - Natural Resources)

H.R. 4395 - To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station (Rep. Platts - Natural Resources)

Dispose of H.Res. __ - Raising a question of privileges of the House (Rep. Flake – Privileged Resolution)

Postponed Suspension Votes (3 Bills):

H.R. 4214 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the "Roy Wilson Post Office" (Rep. Bono Mack - Oversight and Government Reform)

H.R. 3542 - State Admission Day Recognition Act of 2009 (Rep. Lungren - House Administration)

H.R. 3509 - Agricultural Credit Act of 2009 (Rep. Peterson - Agriculture)

Conference Reports may be brought up at any time.

Motions to go to Conference should they become available.

Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 9:30am

Morning business for one hour with the Majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.1586, the vehicle for the FAA Reauthorization bill. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment #3453 and Pryor amendment #3548 will be debated concurrently until 11:30am.

At 2pm, the Senate will proceed to 2 roll call votes in relation to the following:
Sessions #3453, as modified(discretionary spending) [link]
Pryor #3548(discretionary spending) [link]

Additional roll call votes are expected.

Another day of biding time in the House. Suspensions as far as the eye can see. And the Rules Committee is already issuing rules authorizing suspensions to continue into the weekend (normally you can't have debate on them on the schedule after Wednesday). Everyone's waiting on getting a CBO score on the fix bill that'll allow the parliamentarians to rule the bill in order under reconciliation rules, and that has budgeters scrambling to find the necessary savings.

How big of a task is this? CQ (subscription only) gives you an idea:

Under the arcane rules for budget reconciliation, a bill passed through the expedited parliamentary process must produce a greater deficit reduction than the legislation it amends. Since the Senate health care bill (HR 3590) would produce $104 billion in deficit savings in its first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final bill — which will make House Democrats’ desired changes to the Senate bill — must do better than that.

[...]

[T]he deficit-reduction figures Democrats must reach are not trivial: at least $120 billion over 10 years, with most of that — $106 billion — coming in the first five years, according to Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. (Democratic aides did not dispute those figures.)

And in narrowing the scope of the excise tax on insurance plans, Democrats have chosen to weaken what policy experts say is one of the strongest deficit-reducing provisions in the legislation.

Day-um. Well, if you were wondering what had labor leaders back at the White House to discuss -- again -- the stubborn persistence of the so-called "Cadillac tax," now you know.

Word from The Hill is that the delay means the vote will likely be delayed until at least Sunday now. And that may just put the Senate vote right where we don't want it: after another recess. I don't know who'll be bashing their Senators more if they break without a vote, the teabaggers or the rest of us.

This is the part where I'd normally tell you about the fact that the Senate will be spending its time on the FAA authorization bill, but I get the sense that there aren't a whole hell of a lot of you who really care to hear that. You want this health insurance reform vote already.

Well, you may have to call 'em and tell 'em not to bother coming home before they're done with it. Though I'll caution you that you're likely to be disappointed. But if that were enough to stop people from calling their Senators, they wouldn't even bother having phones.

Today's full committee schedule appears below. Another whopper of a day for the appropriations folks. And yet here we are, still hung up on what should have been last year's reconciliation, with April and what's supposed to be the completion of the FY2011 budget looming large. Frankly it's amazing that those Members can keep their minds on next year's budget with all that's going on with health care. Maybe it's a welcome respite. It's starting to get crazy out there.