Month: March 2010

The Finish Line

by digby

I have to go out and live some real life. The vote is imminent and will, according to all we know, pass. So, I’ll just breathe a big sigh of relief and say congratulations to the Democrats and the president and onward to the next big battles in the Senate.

And more importantly, onward to Alan Grayson’s Medicare for all bill HR4789, which I hope will be part of every progressive’s platform going forward until it’s done.

Update: BTW, I hope the Democrats are prepared to rebut this lie that the bill isn’t paid for. David Gregory, who clearly doesn’t understand anything, can’t stop talking about how expensive the bill is and how it depends on future congresses doing something they likely will not do. Evidently, he thinks deficit projections are written in stone, but legislation is ephemeral.

.

Virtually Speaking

by digby

I’ll be on Virtually Speaking and Blogtalk radio at 5:00 with Cliff Schecter. Stop by.

I imagine we might talk a little bit about health care…

.

The Past Is Never Dead. It Is Not Even Past

by tristero

Civil War.

Correction: A second Great War of Yankee Aggression.

Republican Waterloo?

by digby

That’s what David Frum is calling it. And if one is talking about the end of the Republican Party as a serious organization dedicated to governing the people of the United States according to the founding principles, that battle was lost some time back:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

[…]

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Yes, they were defeated. But that was part of the plan. This toxic machine is a creature of the same conservative movement and corporate sponsors that run the GOP. They have no one to blame but themselves. And I don’t know that I believe anyone but David Frum and David Gergen mind much. The party thinks they will win big in November, whether the bill passes not — and that’s all they care about. The point is to keep their people at a fever pitch so they can beat the Democrats’ turn-out. If a few “unfortunate incidents” happen in the meantime, well — that’s what happens when you foolishly put Democrats in charge and make the neanderthals angry.

What that means is what we already know — the wingnut fringe is in charge of the Republican party and if they manage to get a majority (and God forbid, the presidency) this country is in big trouble. And whatever small corner of sanity still exists in the party has shown that they are completely impotent to do anything about it.

What that also means is that these crazy people could very easily do what seems unthinkable: repeal this legislation. They play a very different form of politics than everybody else. I think that should be obvious by now.

.

They’re Just Expressing Themselves

by digby

And here I thought that it was the uncivil, indulgent lefties who believed that the most important thing is to be allowed to express yourself no matter what. But I was wrong. Jamison Foser caught Ann Althouse explaining that it’s fine to call someone a “ni**er” if you’re really really angry about something they are doing. She wrote:

It’s also important to distinguish “angry protesters” from particular individuals who cross the line into the kind real ugliness or violence that should be condemned. There’s nothing wrong with showing anger at the thing that motivates you to protest. That’s what protests are for! The members of Congress have a lot of power, and they ought to have to hear the anger their exercise of that power is causing. It’s outrageous for them to pose as victims without very good cause. So what if some idiot said a bad word? That’s a trivial distraction compared to the power they are about to exercise in the face of such strong opposition to what they are about to do.

She misses the point, of course. Many of these people are strongly opposed to what is being done because it is being done by, and will benefit, black people — who they despise.

And it’s been out there from the beginning:

Viva!

by digby

It’s truly a shame that the health care vote is today because it’s overshadowing the gigantic march for immigration reform today. Reports are that at least 200,000 have shown up so far. Here’s a slide show from March For America:

.

Stupak Is Not A Hero

by digby

The press is starting to float the idea that Bart Stupak is a great and wonderful fella because he’s willing to “bend” to make health care reform a reality and has wanted to vote for it all along.

Total. Unadulterated. Bullshit. Bart Stupak is an ignorant jackass who is now insisting that the president issue an executive order to his personal specifications that will ensure that the money of decent people is never forced to touch the shameful, filthy dollars of the sluts who refuse to submit to religious doctrine they don’t believe in.And he doesn’t give a damn if health care fails, that’s obvious.

Li’l Luke is reporting that Stupak wrote the executive order himself (which might be good news since he’s nearly illiterate.) And other reports say that he is insisting that Obama issue the order before he votes — and even then he won’t commit, which leaves no room for Pelosi. (The man knows how to drive a bargain — too bad he doesn’t bother to do it on issues other than uterus ownership.)

He’s no hero. He’s an enemy of freedom and human rights. And regardless of how he end up voting today, he should lose his seat over this. If you’d like to help make that happen, you can donate to Connie Saltonstall, his primary challenger. I guarantee you this would not be happening if she held that seat.

Update:

Politico reports:

The White House and anti-abortion Democrats have reached an agreement to diffuse the controversy over abortion in the health reform bill – planning a series of steps that will secure the support of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other Democrats to give party leaders the votes they need to pass reform, sources tell POLITICO.

Under the agreement, President Barack Obama would sign an executive order ensuring that no federal funding will go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans. In addition, Stupak will get to state his concerns about abortion funding in the bill during a colloquy on the House floor during the debate.

And then, Stupak and several other Democratic hold-outs over abortion will sign on to the bill, the sources said. The agreement would almost certainly give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the 216 votes she needs to secure an historic health reform vote by day’s end – capping a year-long drive to achieve Obama’s signature legislative goal.

Stupak himself told reporters in the Capitol that he remains opposed to the bill at this time. “I’m a no vote. There is no agreement. Until there is an agreement I’m a no vote,” Stupak said, but he said the negotiations on a final agreement are continuing.

Asked how many votes hang in the balance, Stupak said, “Enough” – meaning enough to save or kill the bill.

But Rep. Alan Mollohan, who is one of the votes in question, told POLITICO that the language in the agreement has already been essentially cleared. Mollohan said it is only a matter of time for “the follow-through steps” to be implemented.

Dana Bash reported that the pro-choice caucus isn’t all that happy with the language. We’ll see.

Update
: Bash now says that the pro-choicers aren’t happy but that they’ve signed off.

Update II: Looks like it’s done.

On the press conference, O’Donnell says that “this plays very, very well for Stupak” and his people who held to their principles all the way down to the wire. (I can’t listen to them harping about “protecting life” when they answer to a church hierarchy that protects pedophiles, so I’ll take his word for it. That’s the village line already.)

The text of the executive order follows. I’ll await word from the wonks a to the ramifications, if any:

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Plouffe And The Sputtering Turdblossom

by digby

Getting lectures on fiscal integrity from Karl Rove is like getting lectures on haristyling from James Carville:

Rove, brandishing a white board with health care cost figures, interrupted: “For God’s sake, will you stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts for once, David!”

Plouffe, rolling his eyes, responded: “Let’s put the fanciful chart away…”

Before he could finish, Rove interrupted: “This is not a fanciful chart, deal with the chart!”

.

Hold Your Applause

by digby

The last thing I want to do is rain on anyone’s parade, but I think it’s worth remembering that this still has to go through reconciliation in the Senate. I would hope they learned their lesson after the last “Mission Accomplished” moment in December when everyone cheered each other like it was VJ day only to have Scott Brown knock them back. From what I’m hearing they haven’t learned a thing. There’s much crying and rending of garments over “history being made” among the liberal Villagers already and the votes haven’t even been cast.

It isn’t over folks. The Senate is a strange creature and until this thing is on the president’s desk, anything can happen. Once he signs it, everybody gets to take their victory lap and congratulate themselves for being so darned awesome. Until then, they should try to keep their encomiums under wraps. It only makes them look stupid when everything falls apart.

Just saying. Everybody should keep their pants on. (Good advice in most situations.)

Update: I’m wrong about this. If the house passes the bill, it will become the law of the land (unless the president vetoed it, which won’t happen.) If reconciliation fails, as remains possible, then the House will just have been screwed and all the careful negotiations of the past few days will have been for naught. Nobody cares about that. (And truthfully, what’s the House going to do about it? Secede?)

So if the bill passes tonight it seems everyone can safely commence the celebrations.

.

False Equivalence Award

by digby

Yesterday evening CNN showed footage of pro-reform steelworkers protesting outside Representative Altmire’s office. They were just standing there with signs that said things like “Standing Together For Health.” There were no reports of anything untoward at this protest.

Then they showed the far more uhm — aggressive tea party rally in DC.

Don Lemon: So, apparently there were some things that went on that were not so savory, at least that the allegations when it comes to some Democratic representatives.

Mark Preston:(CNN political director): Sure and again Dana can probably speak more directly to it. But what we saw was protests here in Washington DC, and as you would have with any group, we heard some slurs directed at some members of congress, which clearly is inappropriate.

I think we have to be careful and note that not all the opponents of health care reform actually believe it or would act this way, or all the proponents of health care reform would act that way.

Except, you know, there’s no evidence that any of the proponents of health care reform acted that way. Only the the tea partying bigots are slinging around racial epithets and gay bashing. But being fair and balanced apparently requires that journalists imply that both sides have people who are doing this.

The Republicans are losing their minds and their shock troops, the tea partiers, are facing the reality that they aren’t likely to win this fight. The don’t like that and they are acting very, very badly. This has nothing to do with “both sides do it.” The facts have shown over many, many years that the left gets depressed when these things happen — and the right has a screaming, spitting, head-banging tantrum. How the two sides handle defeat is a defining characteristic.

.