Thursday, January 21, 2010

Is it time for some political salami slicing?

In 1960, Congress passed a forerunner to the Medicare bill called Kerr-Mills that provided federal funds for states to pay for medical care for the aged poor. The Kerr-Mills approach ultimately failed and was replaced by Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. However, some early proponents of Medicare and comprehensive health insurance in general such as Wilbur Cohen, one of the principal architects of Medicare, saw Kerr-Mills as a necessary step in the right direction.

Cohen recognized that before Medicare legislation could be enacted, the public and Congress had to get used to the idea of public funding of medical care. Once passed Kerr-Mills would establish the precident of finanicing medical care for the elderly with public dollars. Advocates of Medicare could then argue that their more comprehensive program was just a better way of carrying out the principles already established by Kerr-Mills.

Some people called Cohen’s incremental approach to passing legislation “salami slicing” Cohen would get one slice of the political salami then another and another. Eventually he would have enough for an entire policy sandwich. Cohen’s true accomplishment wasn’t just his expertise in getting individual slices of political salami but his ability to keep the final sandwich clearly in mind. He never lost sight of his final policy goal.

Salami slicing is an important tool for all who want to achieve policy revolutions. Policy revolutions are rarely built all at once but rather slowly, bit by bit and step-by-step. The real trick is to not lose sight of the ultimate goal. Each piece of political salami has to add to the ultimate policy sandwich. Cohen knew how to make that happen. After what happened in Massachusetts, maybe it’s time for Obama to start slicing some health reform salami.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The real lesson for Democrats from the Massachusetts Senate race

The real lesson for the Democrats from the disastrous Massachusetts Senate Race has little to do with health reform. The Massachusetts race was a wakeup call to Democrats that voters, Independents in particular, are mad as hell about the jobs picture and voters are blaming the Democrats for the high unemployment rate. Okay, that's not fair but it doesn't matter. Voters always blame hard times on the party in power regardless of who is actually at fault and consequently the party in power almost always loses support on election day when the economic outlook is bad for workers and unemployment is high.

I've said it before:

IT'S ABOUT JOBS STUPID

Someone should put up a big sign in the White House and in the Capital so no Democrat can miss the message. Let's say it again.

IT'S ABOUT JOBS STUPID

Now at this late date, Democrats might not be able to do much to actually bring unemployment down significantly before the November elections. Unemployment will still be high compared to normal times regardless of what Obama and the Democrats do. But, and this is important, they do not have to actually bring unemployment down to near normal levels to avoid disaster in the November elections. Why?

James Sundquest, author of Politics and Policy makes this important point. The expectation of unemployment on election day is more important than the actual unemployment. If the party in power can convince the majority of voters that their future job prospects are bright and that the number of unemployed is declining or shortly will be, then the party in power can escape the wrath of the voters. However if unemployment is high or getting high and the voters are concerned about the future job picture, then the party in power will suffer defeat.

So, Democrats, get health reform off the table--pass the Senate version and be done with it, shelve the whole thing until 2011 or later, break it up into parts and try to get the most popular elements such as the ban on pre-existing conditions passed--do anything but get health reform over and done with. You don't have much time left to get busy on what is really important if you want to save Democratic seats. Start passing as much legislation as possible to create jobs NOW, THIS YEAR, IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS! Why? Let me repeat:

IT'S ALL ABOUT JOBS STUPID

Monday, January 18, 2010

Are the MASS polls right? Will Demo Coakley lose?

Charles Franklin at Pollster.com provides a good analysis of the confusing recent Massachusetts Senate polls. He points out that “no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Republican Scott Brown has moved from well behind Democrat Martha Coakley to a lead of somewhere between 4 and 11 points.” Pollster.com average has Brown up 6 points (51.1% to 44.8% for Coakley). That’s very discouraging news for Democrats.

However, Franklin points out that we have seen quite a bit of variation between polls in this race. Normally, 95% of polls fall within +/- 5 points of linear trend estimates. However, in Massachusetts with this special election ONLY HALF of the current polls are within +/- 5 points of the linear trend. That could mean that the polls could be very, very wrong.

Franklin notes that in the New York 23rd Congressional District special election last November the last three polls had the Republican candidate, Hoffman up by 5, 5 and 17 points over the Democrate Bill Owens. Pollster.com’s final trend estimate based on all the polls had Hoffman up by 5, 41.8 to 36.8. The final election results showed that Owens prevailed by a margin of 48.3% to 46%

Polling in a special election is quite different and more difficult than polling in general elections. We can only hope that tomorrow we will see a repeat of the Hoffman/Owens election.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/what_to_believe_about_massachu.php

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Charting the MASS Senate Race

This chart from Pollster.com summaries results from the latest polls on the Coakley/Brown Senate race in MASS. The average of most recent polls shows the race narrowing but Coakley leading by 6 points. That's good news. See more at: http://www.pollster.com/polls/ma/10-ma-gov-ge-bvco.php


Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Massachusetts Senate Race—Could the Republican Win?

The Massachusetts Senate race is critical when it comes to the Democrats retaining the critical 60 vote margin in the Senate. Lose the Senate seat in Mass and Obama’s agenda goes down the drain for 2010 and maybe permanently, including possibly health reform. So how does the race stack up? Pick your poll as far as the Senate race in Massachusetts is concerned.

A recent Boston Globe polls says Democrat Martha Coakley is leading Republican Scott Brown by 17 points.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

Yesterday Rasmussen said its most recent telephone survey has the race at 49% Coakley, 47% Brown with 3% undecided. With the margin of error (3%) that puts the race at a tie.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special_senate_election

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/poll-massachusetts-race-a-dead-heat-coakley-has-two-point-edge.php

Public Policy Polling says Brown may be 1 point ahead of Coakley.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/toss-up-in-massachusetts.html

Could Republican Brown pull off an upset and destroy the Democrat’s 60 vote margin in the Senate? It’s possible, but not likely. The whole election is coming down to one of turnout. With a low turnout Brown has a slim, but plausable, chance of barely winning. However, if turnout is high or even decent then Brown doesn’t have a chance.

At this point, Brown’s supporters seem more enthusiastic, so the outcome depends upon whether Coakley can rally the Democrats with some help from people like Vicki Kennedy, Ted Kennedy’s widow and Bill Clinton who are now stumping for her.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/looking_closer_at_the_massachusetts_senate_polls

NOTE TO MY DEMO FRIENDS IN MASS—BE SURE TO VOTE EARLY AND MAKE A FEW CALLS ON COAKLEY’S BEHALF. WE CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE THE MASS SENATE SEAT. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO TURNOUT, TURNOUT, TURNOUT…..

Please contribute to stop the No/Nothings from winning in MASS by going to this site now:

https://secure.democratsenators.org/o/4/p/wfc/dscc/website/public/give?donate_page_KEY=5989&default=X



Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Are Democrats running for the hills. Don't believe it.

If you listen to the No/Nothing Fox channel and other No/Nothing outlets, you would think that the entire Democratic party is in such dread of the 2010 elections that no one wants to run as a Democrat. After all, all you hear are stories of the Democratic Senators and Congressman who have decided not to seek reelection. So what is the truth?

Currently there are 58 Democrats + 2 Independents and 40 No/Nothing Repubs in the Senate.

In the House, there are 256 Democratic Congressman and 178 No/Nothing Repubs.

14 House Republicans are not seeking reelection

10 House Democrats are not seeking reelection

6 Senate No/Nothing Repubs are not seeking reelection

4 Senate Democrats are not seeking reelection.

Lets do the math.


Senate

Demos & Independents: 4/60 = 6.7% Not seeking reelection

Repubs: 6/40 = 15% Not seeking reelection

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

House:

Demos: 10/256 = 3.9% not seeking reelection.

Repubs: 14/178 = 7.9% not seeking reelection.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You got it. Looks like the No/Nothing Repubs are the ones who are running for the hills, not the Democrats. Of course, you won't hear that on No/Nothing Fox News or on most of the other news media for that matter. I wonder why? Could it be Fox News lies?

Americans hate health reform because it is too liberal, right? Wrong.

The No/Nothing Republicans are quick to tell you that all the polls show that the American public opposes Obama health reform because they think it is too liberal. NOT TRUE. Not at all true. In fact, 55% either favor the proposed reforms are think they are TOO CONSERVATIVE! Only a little more than one third think the reform proposals in the Senate and House bills are too liberal.

Take a look at this analysis from Ruy Teixeira of The Center for American Progress using numbers from a CNN poll. Link here:



Plus, Americans favor the key provisions of ObamaCare by a wide margin.

75% favor expanding Medicaid to provide health care to more low-income Americans.
73% favor requiring large and medium sized companies to provide health insurance.
67% favor providing subsidies to families that make less than $88,000 a year to help them purchase health insurance.
60% favor preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
60% favor preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill.


Monday, January 11, 2010

Could Health Reform fail after all?

Is it possible that the Democrats, having come this far, will fail in their efforts to enact major health reform? Yes.

Three Senators appear to be key to passage of health reform, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Their support of the Senate version of the health bill, which was required for passage, was hard won and could evaporate over any little deviation from the Senate version in the final bill. That would leave the Democrats without the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation. For example, some House Democrats are insisting that the final bill contain a provision for a national health exchange instead of state-based exchanges as contained in the Senate bill. Nelson is opposed to a national exchange and might bolt if it is included.

The January 19th election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat is a further complication. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is still favored to win but Republican state Senator Scott Brown with the help of teaparty money has closed the gap. If Coakley loses, Senate Democrats would lose the 60th vote even if they keep the votes of Nelson, Lieberman, and Lincoln. A Coakley loss would mean the Democrats would have to get the final health bill voted on before the winner of the Mass election could be certified and sworn in which would be Jan 29th at the earliest.

This is coming down to the wire. I still think the Democrats and Obama administration will put it off. However, if they fail, forget about any major health reform for a generation and expect health insurance premiums to skyrocket. Having won, health insurance companies will raise premiums and deny coverage at will. There will be nothing to stop them.

Let's hope that doesn't happen. And, if you have any spare cash, send it to Coakley to help her fight the swiftboating teapartiers ASAP. There is no time to lose.


Thursday, January 7, 2010

New study shows that No/Nothing Republican fear mongers are totally wrong when in it comes to current and future deficits.

A new study just released by the Economic Policy Institute shows that No/Nothing Republicans are totally wrong about the dangers of the current and future deficits. Economist Josh Bivens who wrote the study says:

“The notion that all deficits are bad is a simplistic political idea that flies in the face of sound economic theory and economic history…In an ailing economy deficit spending is an essential tool for getting the economy off life support and back to health. When the economy is stronger, and private and personal spending have resumed normal levels, it’s appropriate and desirable for the government to scale back. But right now the greatest danger regarding deficits is that they will be too small to provide the public relief and investments the economy needs.”

Key findings from the Bevins study include the following:

CURRENT DEFICITS DO NOT POSE A THREAT TO THE ECONOMY OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, THE REAL DANGER IS THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH DEFICIT SPENDING TO SUSTAIN THE RECOVERY: As long as there are idle resources in labor and capital markets and interest rates controlled by the Federal Reserve are at or near zero, none of the negative outcomes feared from running larger deficits will come to pass. For the next year or two at least, the biggest threat regarding deficits is that they will not be large enough to support the public relief and investments needed to pull the economy into a sustained recovery and provide the 10 million-plus jobs necessary to restore the U.S. labor market to its pre-recession strength.

THE STIMULUS WILL HAVE LITTLE LONG TERM IMPACT ON BUDGET DEFICITS: Supporters of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in February 2009, argue that it was necessary for pulling the economy out of its downward spiral. Critics of the Recovery Act argue that it contributes too much to rising federal deficits, and that these deficits will prove disastrous to the American economy. But the Recovery Act will have only a small impact on the overall budget deficit, even in the short run. In the longer run (over the next decade or more), when the economy will have presumably recovered and concerns about budget defi­cits may be legitimate, the Recovery Act has no effect at all.

HEALTH COSTS ARE THE REAL DRIVER OF LONG TERM DEFICITS WHICH MAKES FUNDAMENTAL HEALTH REFORM VITAL: Deficits in the long run are driven almost entirely by spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Without these programs, the federal budget (excluding interest payments) would be in surplus indefinitely. Since the rise in Medicare and Medicaid spending is driven by the economy-wide rise in health costs, fundamental health reform that reduces the cost of health care is the key to long-run budget balance.

THE U.S. IS NOT RELYING OF FOREIGN INVESTORS TO FUND THE DEFICIT: The United States has not had to rely on foreigners to finance the rise in government deficits in the past year-and-a-half. Private domestic savings in the United States have expanded faster than government borrowing in the past year. In other words, there is no shortage of domestic residents willing to hold government debt right now.

THE BIGGEST DRIVERS OF DEFICITS ARE THE BUSH TAX CUTS; UNNECESSARY AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE BUSH WARS, AND ILL CONCEIVED AND UNFUNDED BUSH MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. TRUTH: WITHOUT BUSH AND REPUBLICAN SPONSORED POLICY DISASTERS DURING THE 2000sTHERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT: The single biggest policy change [contributing to deficits] was the string of tax cuts passed over [the Bush years], which explain almost half of the policy-driven declines in budget balance. Increased defense and security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) explains roughly a third of this increase, with the rest consumed by the new Medicare prescription drug benefit (created without a revenue source) and other miscellaneous policy changes.

Read the full report here: http://epi.3cdn.net/1616707e0c784d8134_4nm6becsb.pdf

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

No/Nothing Republicans created the deficits

The No/Nothing Republicans are quick to blame the Obama administration for the 2009 and future deficits. Turns out the Bush administration and No/Nothing Republicans are the ones responsible. Check out this chart from a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The biggest cause of the current and future deficits are the Bush-era tax cuts and the economic downturn that was caused largely by Bush-era deregulation of the financial sector. Obama's stimulus and TARP, Fannie, and Freddie contribute in 2010/11 then become less important from then on. Bottom line No/Nothing Repubs, if you want to know who to blame for the financial mess and future deficits, look in the mirror and at the village idiot from Texas.


To read the entire report go here:

Conference Board Economic Indicators all positive

Good news about the economy. All five indicators tracked by the Conference Board remain positive. Click on the links below to read more.

U.S. Indicators

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

What will the final health reform bill look like?

What will the final health reform bill look like? Here are some predictions from Linda Bergthold, a health policy consultant.

  • A bill similar to the Senate bill will pass and be signed into law sometime around Valentines Day.
  • Lower and middle income families will get financial assistance to purchase insurance. Subsidies will be more generous than they are in the Senate version, more like the House version.
  • Medicare coverage of prescription drugs will be improved.
  • The roughly $899 billion bill willl be fully paid for and will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the first 10 years.
  • There will be an individual mandate but the penalities for not purchasing insurance will be weak and subsidies for purchasing insurance will be increased over the Senate bill.
  • There will be an employer mandate but again the penalities will be weak.
  • There will be state exchanges, no national exchange.
  • The Senate restriction on aboriton requiring separate checks will prevail.
  • The House and Senate will compromise on how to raise revenues to pay for the bill. The House tax on the rich will be raised from taxing those with individual income over $500,000 to those with income over $1 million. The Senate will decrease the tax on so-called cadillac plans.
  • There will be no public option but access to the national nonprofit option in the Senate bill will be expanded.
We’ll see if Bergthold is right. To read her full predictions go to

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/my-new-years-predictions_b_412091.html

What is clear is that Republicans will campaign against the bill regardless of its final form. The No/Nothings are already gearing up to make the repeal of health reform a major campaign issue in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Democrats will need to sell the benefits of what will clearly be their bill since no Republican will vote for the final version.

Monday, January 4, 2010

How health reform may get done

David Dayen at FireDogLake says Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was on his way back to Washington today to begin discussions with the Senate and White House on how to reconcile the House and Senate health bills even though the House will not return to session until January 12th. Waxman may have provided a clue concerning how the two bills will be reconciled. Waxman said this will not be a normal conference since conferees in the Senate "would need 60 votes all over again" just to select and instruct conferees.

In a previous post, I listed several ways the Democrats could go about reconciling the House and Senate health bills one of which was to reach an informal agreement among themselves for amendments to the Senate bill that could be approved by a majority of Democrats in the House and 60 Democrat/Independent votes in the Senate without ever going to a formal conference. Looks like Waxman is suggesting that is exactly what will happen.

If the Democrats skip a formal conference, No/Nothing Republicans are likely to cry foul but who cares. The No/Nothings would just use a formal conference to delay passage. With an informal agreement and not having to fight multiple 60 votes delaying delaying motions, the Democrats may be able to get a health reform bill on the President's desk for signature by the end of January or early February in time for the State-of-the-Union address.