Saturday, February 27, 2010
Repub have a rep for everything--watch the video
Great video. Funny and all too true. The Repubs have a rep for everything except for doing something that might help the American people.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Just for fun: Who’s so vain?
It was not MICK JAGGER, JAMES TAYLOR, DAVID BOWIE, DAVID CASSIDY, CAT STEVENS, KRIS KRISTOFFERSON or WARREN BEATTY. It was David Geffen.
What the Brits thought about the health summit--a sleeping pill.
Our Britsh friends found the summit—sleeping inducing. But then they have health insurance and we don’t.
Here are a few quotes:
Warning: watching American politicians argue about healthcare can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms may include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges. In the event of exposure to competing statistics — regarding "donut holes", "HMO deductibles", "reconciliation devices" or suchlike — seek immediate medical help.
And:
The President’s first challenger of the morning was the Republican charmer Lamar Alexander, a whiskey-voiced Senator from Tennessee. “We want you to succeed, because if you succeed, our country succeeds,” he told Obama, before adding, a few moments later, that want he really wanted, more than anything, was for the President to fail.
And:
For the Democrats, it was a long overdue moment of victory. Whether anyone in America was still awake to witness it, however, was another matter.
Key senators may be warming to idea of passing health reform through reconciliation
I talked about the senators who would be key to getting health reform passed through reconciliation in a previous post. Now comes this from Politico. Senators Bayh, Landrieu, and Nelson who opposed reconciliation in the past now are making statements suggesting they might be will to consider it as a way forward.
"Obviously, if the minority is just frustrating the process, that argues for taking steps to get the public’s business done,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who was one of the leading voices against the procedure after the Massachusetts election, calling it “very ill-advised.”
“At the same time ... Republicans would probably shut the place down, but you could argue they are doing that anyway,” Bayh said.
Bayh’s remarks Tuesday came a day after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) cited Republican obstructionism as a reason why she could embrace the parliamentary maneuver to pass health care reform. Last month, she said she was leaning against reconciliation.
“I’m staying open to see how these negotiations go forward,” Landrieu said. “I’ve not generally been a big supporter, but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process.”
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he doesn’t prefer reconciliation, but it may be the only way.
“I’d like to see as many votes as possible,” he said. “But at the end of the day, with the obstructionism going on at the level that it is, I’m more interested in what’s in the package than I am in the process of how many votes it takes to get it through.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33398.html#ixzz0ggJ2nHB7
Also, rumor has it that the Democrats could start working on a reconciliation bill as early as next week.
Can Reid get 51 votes in the senate to pass health reform under reconciliation?
So what is the chance that Reid can put together 51 votes to pass a reconciliation bill and thus save health reform? It will be tough, but possible. Mike Madden at Salon.com looks at 11 Senators who now seem to hold the key to heath reform. Get their votes and reform can be passed. Lose all 11 and health reform is dead. Let’s look at the numbers and who is in play.
The Democrats have 58 seats in the Senate (59 if you count Lieberman). So let’s start with 59.
Reid has about 48 Senators he can count on to vote for reconciliation. That leaves him three votes short.
Three senators among the 11 whose votes are in doubt—Joe Lieberman (CT), Blanche Lincoln (AR), and Mary Landrieu (LA)—are very unlikely to vote for reconciliation.
That leaves 8 senators that might give Reid the votes he needs.
Three of these may possibly vote for reconciliation if the bill can be drafted narrowly and to their individual satisfaction. Call them long shots. They are Ben Nelson (Neb), Mark Begich (AK), and Mark Pryor (AR).
So, let’s assume Reid can’t get the votes of Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelso, Begich, or Pryor.
That leaves just just five senators that might be convinced to go for reconciliation:
Evan Bayh (IN). Bayh has called reconciliation “ill-advised” but since he has decided not to run again he has little to lose for voting for reconcilation.
Robert Byrd (WV). The main rule governing the reconcilation process is named for Byrd and he has been reluctant to have it used. However, Byrd was a good friend of Ted Kennedy and voted for the Senate version of the health bill saying it was for Kennedy. Byrd may possibly vote for recociliation again in memory of Kennedy but then he may not.
Kent Conrad (ND). Like Byrd he has not be in favor of using reconciliaton but he might be convinced to do so.
Tom Carper (DE). Might go along with reconciliation if it doesn’t involve a public option.
Jim Webb (VA). After Brown was elected in Mass. Webb resisted any effort by Democrats to speed up the process of passing health reform before Brown was seated. It is unsure whether Webb would go along with reconciliation but it is possible.
So, there you have it. Bayh, Byrd, Conrad, Carper and Webb hold the key to passing health reform. If Reid can get three to vote for reconciliation, then we have reform, assuming that the House hangs together. Indeed, Reid can probably do it with just votes of two of these five senators. That would require Vice President Biden to cast the tie breaking vote.
You can read Madden’s take on this at: http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/02/17/healthcare_reconciliation
Thursday, February 25, 2010
President sets a deadline on health reform
The health reform summit is over. The Republicans offered nothing new. Obama held his ground and demonstrated that he really understands health reform better than anyone in the room, Democrat or Republican.
What's the bottom line? The President has set the deadline for reform. Republicans have a month, six weeks at the max to either show that they will work seriously with the Democrats and the White House to reach a bipartisan agreement on revisions to the House and Senate health plans or he and the Democrats will go it alone, attempt to pass something like the Senate bill through reconciliation and let the voters decide with their votes in November who was right. The one thing that seems clear is that he is committed to moving ahead to get some kind of comprehensive reform done. He made it clear that starting over, as the Republicans have proposed, is not an option. He made it clear that he would not agree to take the option of going the reconciliation route off the table. He made it clear that he would not agree to allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines without regulation or the requirement to offer a minimum package of benefits. He made it clear that Republican proposals just to dump people with pre-existing conditions into high risk/high cost pools was not acceptable.
Will the Republicans make any serious effort to reach a bipartisan agreement? No. We knew that all along. But, Obama had to try. He did. Now, after giving the Repubs a few weeks in which they will offer no meaningful movement to compromise, he and the Democrats will move ahead with what they have known for some time that they had to do--either give up on health reform, which would be unacceptable both morally and politically, or move on their own to pass reform through reconciliation. They will go the reconciliation route.
Let's hope that one thing will now become part of the reconciliation package--the PUBLIC OPTION. It was taken out in the hope of getting Republican votes for reform. If there will be no Republican votes, there is no reason not to put the public option back in play. I hope the Democrats come to that conclusion. They should.
The Repubs had a good game plan today. They played to their supporters who will claim victory. It will be interesting to see how independents react to what happened today since they will make the difference in November.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What to expect at the health care summit tomorrow
Cspan, CNN and other channels will begin coverage of Obama’s health care summit tomorrow at 10:00AM eastern time.
Obama will start the meeting with open comments followed by comments from Republican and Democratic attendees chosen by their parties. The remainder of the meeting will focus on four topics:
1. Controlling costs, introduced by President Obama.
2. Changes to insurance industry practices, introduced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
3. Reducing the federal deficit, introduced by Vice President Joseph Biden.
4. Expanding coverage, introduced by President Obama.
The Republicans will have a 17-member “Truth Squad” monitoring the session from Blair House with plans to appear frequently on Fox and other willing news outllets to denounce everything that Obama and the Democrats say as lies. The “Truth Squad” will include nine members who are doctors and have a vested interest in defeating health reform.
The summit runs from 10AM to 4PM with a buffet lunch.
Here are the senators and representatives who are schedule to attend the health reform summit.
Democratic Senators
Harry Reid
Richard Durbin
Max Baucus
Tom Harkin
Christopher Dodd
Chuck Schumer
Patty Murray
Jay Rockefeller
Kent Conrad
Ron Wyden
Mitch McConnell
Jon Kyl
Mike Enzi
Chuck Grassley
Lamar Alexander
John McCain
Tom Coburn
John Barrasso
Democratic House members
Nancy Pelosi
Steny Hoyer
James Clyburn
Charles Rangel
Henry Waxman
George Miller
John Dingell
Xavier Becerra
Louise Slaughter
Rob Andrews
Jim Cooper
Republican House members
John Boehner
Eric Cantor
Dave Camp
Joe Barton
John Kline
Charles Boustany
Marsha Blackburn
Peter Roskam
Paul Ryan
Don't expect the summit to produce any bipartisan agreement. That's not in the cards. However, it should be good political theater and we will see if Obama can handle this one as well as he did the last face-to-face with the Repubs. My bet is that he will. The summit will get a lot of coverage and if Obama handles it well he will get the opportunity to explain his and the Democrat's health care proposals, particularly the widely popular provisions such as those I mentioned from the Kaiser survey (see my previous post). The more Americans learn about what is really in the Health bills the more they like them. If the summit results in some real education then health reform may get a big boost. On the other hand, if Obama trips up and lets Republicans take over the meeting (unlikely), health reform may be dead. As I said it is high political drama with big stakes. It's political poker. But then, Obama is very good at all forms of poker. We'll see. You should watch this if you can. I know I'll be glued to CSpan tomorrow.
The Economic Policy Institute provides a vivid picture of the economic crisis and results from Obama’s stimulus package.
In three separate reports the Economic Policy Institute has provided articles with charts that paint a vivid picture of just how serious the economic crisis was, who was impacted most severely by the job losses and the results from the stimulus package.
Here are the links to the articles you should read.
It is clear that this was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/snapshot_20100127/
The loss of jobs has had a disproportionate impact on young workers many of whom have given up and left the workforce.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/leaving_in_droves/
The Recovery Act work by significantly reducing the rate of job loss.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/the_recovery_act_worked/
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
What do Americans really want congress to do about health reform? Pass it, that’s what and pass it now.
A new Kaiser poll is out examining what Americans really think about health reform. No/Nothing Repubs say the county wants congrees to quit and start over and do something simpler or nothing at all this year. WRONG! Here’s is what Americans really want congress to do according to this new Kaiser poll.
72% want congress to provide tax credits to small businesses for health insurance.
71% want congress to create health insurance exchanges/marketplaces.
71% want congress to close the Medicare “doughnut hole.”
70% want congress to expand high risk pools.
68% want congress to provide help for low/middle income people to buy insurance.
56% want congress to expand Medicare eligibility.
52% say congress should get something passed now. Only 19% want congress to scrap the current bills like Repubs propose and stop working on health care.
38% say they will be Disappointed if congress stops working on health care reform.
20% say they will be ANGRY if congress stops working on health care reform.
Note to you 58% who will be Disappointed or Angry if congress stops working on health care reform. If there is no health reform soon, you can blame the No/Nothing Republicans in November. Vote them out of office so they have plenty of time to sip their tea and their tea bag rallies.
To read the Kaiser poll, go here:
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr022310nr.cfm
“Yes-anding” should be a basic requirement for participation in theThursday meeting on health reform
A key part of improvisation is something called “yes-anding.” Here is how the comedian Stephen Colbert explains it:
Monday, February 22, 2010
White House Health Proposal
David Dayen at Fire Dog Lake has provided an excellent summary of both the key provisions of the White House health reform proposals as it differs from the Senate version AND the politics behind the changes. Looks like we may be headed for reconciliation as the path to passage sometime in the next two months. Also, looks like the White House intends to put strong political pressure on the Repubs to either agree to something or vote against provisions that are very popular and/or are Republican proposals to begin with. Thursday should be very, very interesting.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/white-house-health-proposal-the-basics/
And here for the politics behind the proposal.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/white-house-health-proposal-the-politics/
Final note: Obama has offered to post the Repub plan on the White House web site. Problem is Repubs don’t have a plan.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Five myths about the big bad deficit
No/Nothing Republicans have been doing everything they can to scare Americans about the big bad deficit and how it is going to destroy the country. Now we finally have an honest analysis of the real deficit story from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Dean Baker of the Center points out five myths about the deficit in his report.
1)The extraordinary level of current deficits is overwhelmingly the result of the economic crisis. There is little reality to the claim that Congress is out of control in its tax and spending policies. [In other words, the Tea Party people have it all wrong. Rather than blaming the Democrats for spending, they should be blaming the Republicans for running the economy into the ground during the Bush/Cheney years.]
2) The budget deficit does not pose an economic problem at present. If the budget deficit were smaller, we would simply be seeing higher unemployment. There would be no short-term or long-term benefit from reducing the current deficit. [Cutting the deficit now would result in just more unemployment. Again, all those Tea Party folks who are mad because they and members of their family were thrown out of work will just make matters worse for themselves and their families if they get their way. Talk about working against your own self-interest.]
3) The size of the longer-term deficit problem has been both exaggerated and misrepresented. Projections show that debt-to-GDP ratios will be well within manageable levels at least a decade into the future, even if there are no major changes from baseline scenarios. As a long-term issue, the United States must fix its broken health care system. [The report compares what would happen to the deficit under four health care cost scenarios: 1. We continue on the track we are on now or we bring health care spending more in line with health care spending in (2) the UK, (3) Canada, or (4) Germany. If we follow the course we are now on, the budge deficit will reach as much as 40% of GDP by 2080. However, if we adopt health reform and bring costs more in line with those in the UK, Canada, or Germany, we will have a 10% or better SURPLUS by then. Anyone who is seriously worried about the deficit should be demanding that Congress pass comprehensive health reform and do it now.]
4) The wealth of near-retirees has been devastated by the collapse of the housing bubble and the plunge in the stock market. Any substantial reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits will likely leave large segments of middle-income workers with near-poverty level incomes in retirement. [The only way to really bring the deficit down is to make substantial cuts in Social Security and Medicare. If we do that the Americans who will be suffer the most will be the very people who are suffering from the recession now, middle-aged/middle income Americans.
5) Concerns about foreign ownership of the government debt are offensive jingoism. There is an issue about foreign indebtedness because this implies that an increased portion of future output will be paid out as interest and/or dividends to foreigners rather than being available for domestic consumption. However, this is driven by the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. The trade deficit, in turn, is attributable to the over-valuation of the dollar. [The authors note the "the issue about the foreign ownership of the government debt is ENTIRELY a political ploy."]
1)The extraordinary level of current deficits is overwhelmingly the result of the economic crisis. There is little reality to the claim that Congress is out of control in its tax and spending policies. [In other words, the Tea Party people have it all wrong. Rather than blaming the Democrats for spending, they should be blaming the Republicans for running the economy into the ground during the Bush/Cheney years.]
2) The budget deficit does not pose an economic problem at present. If the budget deficit were smaller, we would simply be seeing higher unemployment. There would be no short-term or long-term benefit from reducing the current deficit. [Cutting the deficit now would result in just more unemployment. Again, all those Tea Party folks who are mad because they and members of their family were thrown out of work will just make matters worse for themselves and their families if they get their way. Talk about working against your own self-interest.]
3) The size of the longer-term deficit problem has been both exaggerated and misrepresented. Projections show that debt-to-GDP ratios will be well within manageable levels at least a decade into the future, even if there are no major changes from baseline scenarios. As a long-term issue, the United States must fix its broken health care system. [The report compares what would happen to the deficit under four health care cost scenarios: 1. We continue on the track we are on now or we bring health care spending more in line with health care spending in (2) the UK, (3) Canada, or (4) Germany. If we follow the course we are now on, the budge deficit will reach as much as 40% of GDP by 2080. However, if we adopt health reform and bring costs more in line with those in the UK, Canada, or Germany, we will have a 10% or better SURPLUS by then. Anyone who is seriously worried about the deficit should be demanding that Congress pass comprehensive health reform and do it now.]
4) The wealth of near-retirees has been devastated by the collapse of the housing bubble and the plunge in the stock market. Any substantial reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits will likely leave large segments of middle-income workers with near-poverty level incomes in retirement. [The only way to really bring the deficit down is to make substantial cuts in Social Security and Medicare. If we do that the Americans who will be suffer the most will be the very people who are suffering from the recession now, middle-aged/middle income Americans.
5) Concerns about foreign ownership of the government debt are offensive jingoism. There is an issue about foreign indebtedness because this implies that an increased portion of future output will be paid out as interest and/or dividends to foreigners rather than being available for domestic consumption. However, this is driven by the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. The trade deficit, in turn, is attributable to the over-valuation of the dollar. [The authors note the "the issue about the foreign ownership of the government debt is ENTIRELY a political ploy."]
Do yourself a favor and read this honest analysis of the causes and consequences of the budget deficit. To get the full report, go to:
Friday, February 5, 2010
Good news about jobs
Good news is out today about the jobs picture. The unemployment rate dropped to 9.7% in January, still high but a steady improvement over the 10% in November and December and much better than the 10.1% some analysts expected. Unemployment is down 0.4% from its peak in October. Other good news is that only 20,000 jobs were lost in January versus 150,000 in December.
See analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research here:
and from the Brookings Institution here:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Good news on the economy
Conference Board indicators for January are all going in the right direction. Click on the individual indicators below to learn more.
2.3 pts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)