So we've seen the newly released proposals for health care by President Obama. While they improve the Senate bill, it's still lacking for many members of his base. If the White House wants to save the 2010 midterms and possibly his job in 2012, he should allow either an expansion of Medicare or a public option to be introduced via reconciliation -- preferably both. That would send shock waves throughout the country, electrifying the Democratic base and his most ardent progressive supporters. It would be the right kind of shock and would send the Villagers into a frenzy too.

22 Senators have signed a letter pushing for the public option, which is a good thing, and momentum is picking up even if Sen. Rockefeller doesn't approve of using the procedure to get it done.

The president still needs the House, and I doubt there are the votes to pass the bill as is.

Nancy Pelosi issued this statement over the new information:

As a result, Democrats now are considering a plan to use a parliamentary maneuver called budget reconciliation to attach changes to the Senate health care legislation as a budget measure, which cannot be filibustered and requires only a simple majority for passage in the Senate.

Ms. Pelosi, in her statement, said Mr. Obama’s plan “contains positive elements from the House and Senate-passed bills.”

She continued, “I look forward to reviewing it with House members and then joining the president and the Republican leadership at the Blair House meeting on Thursday. This discussion will continue a year-long historic level of transparency and open debate of this crucial reform effort.”

The speaker added, “We must pass comprehensive, affordable health insurance reform, and I am hopeful that Thursday’s meeting will help us achieve this goal.”

Robert Gibbs said that it's up to Harry Reid to decide the fate of the public option.

White House press secretary Robert Gates said today that the White House will leave that up to the Senate Majority Leader.

"I think they've asked for a vote on the floor of the Senate, and that's certainly up to those who manage those amendments and up to Leader Reid," Gibbs said.

President Obama did not include a public option in the new health care plan he unveiled this morning, which builds on the Senate bill.

I do think the president should get some credit for reintroducing health care at a time when it appeared dead in the water and not just giving up the fight for reform. Now is the time to get his base involved. The damage has been done by the horrendous strategy by Axelrod and Emanuel, combined with the howlers at Fox News.

As I think we'll see later this week at the "bipartisan summit", the Republicans will never come to the table when it comes to any of your legislation, especially health care. So take this opportunity to do the right thing. If the White House wants to see incredible renewed support from the left, now is the chance. Support Congress and Harry Reid to get it done.

Americans would also fall in love with an expansion of Medicare by lowering the age to fifty because it would produce immediate results for the country, and for the voting population at large. If the White House is just throwing this plan out there to see what sticks, then they are doomed ,because the House is not going to move off their basic principles on HCR and it's hard to imagine they didn't have a plan in place before moving forward with health care. Starting over is not an option, as we all know.

Well, everyone but Republicans, who seem to want to make dumping everything a precondition to any "bipartisanship." Sure, and why don't we just slit our wrists while we're at it?

Angry Bear: Trade-offs and revealed preferences: Republican leadership edition

The Reaction: CPAC love for Ron Paul

WesternWaterBlog: Democrats vs Democrat in California's water wars

The Reality-Based Community: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds gets a beat down from a sane conservative Republican

Liberal Values: A lot of people oppose health care plans until they learn what's actually in the bill.

Words of Power: I sing the Body (Politic) Electric: 7 Hard Truths to Set Minds Free

Michele Bachmann and Hannidate had a wankfest over the mere thought that reconciliation might be used to pass health-care reform. Isn't it part of America's legislative process? Maybe Bachmann was talking about herself when she said members of Congress were anti-American.

Hannity: So, is the San Francisco Speaker, is she off-script, or is the bipartisan meeting that the president is orchestrating just a sham?
…
Hannity: Can we believe them? Are they just being disingenuous?

Bachmann: Well, that’s the question that we need to have addressed, because the president only let John Boehner, the Republican leadership, know that he wanted a health care summit just an hour he went on national TV with Katie Couric to announce this is what he wanted to do. No heads up, in effect. Then John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama, asking questions, ‘Are we going to start over? Or are we working off of your Democrat plan?’ The president was real clear – he said he plans to pass the Democrat plan, Robert Gibbs went to the microphone, said the same thing. And then as you said, Speaker Pelosi’s Number One health-care negotiator in the House said they’ve got a legislative trick, and they know exactly how they’re going to pass their plan. That’s after the president’s invitation. If they’re already saying they’re going to pass their bill, then what is this for, this summit?
…
Hannity: All right, so are you looking specifically for a promise? In other words, Mr. President, do you promise – and I saw the letter that John Boehner and Eric Cantor sent to the president – do you need a promise or a commitment that he will not use the reconciliation process before it would be wise enough to sit down?

Bachmann: I think the best negotiation would be one where the president says, ‘I will not use the reconciliation’ – the legislative trick, in the Democrats’ own vernacular. And where he says we’ll start from scratch, we’ll start over with a blank sheet of paper, and we’ll start new with our ideas and we’ll truly come together, with cameras, both sides, and come to a discussion. That’s really what the American people expect and that would be the best outcome.

Maybe Congress should just pass Paul Ryan's whacked out budget too.

IOKIYAR. Isn't that always the case? Ronald Reagan used reconciliation along with Clinton. George Bush used it to pas his tax cuts. And another of the wanker elitists is Judd Gregg who attacks it now but used it in 1994 for Newt and wanted to use it against ANWAR.

In 1994, he was a freshman Senator using budget reconciliation to move pieces of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America through the Senate. In 2005, he argued that budget reconciliation should be used to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

And of course, George W. Bush made great use of the procedure with the help of Ben Nelson.

On May 26, 2001, Nelson was one of a dozen Democrats to support president George W. Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: the massive tax cut package that defined the administration's plans for job growth. The bill was passed using reconciliation -- meaning it wasn't subject to a Democratic filibuster -- and received the support of 58 Senators. Two years later, Bush had introduced a second tax-cut package, this one entitled The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. That too was passed through reconciliation with Nelson's vote proving even more critical.

Did you know in 1972, a government-run national health care program was established through Medicare to take care of Americans who had end-stage renal disease, even paying for transplants? And did you know Republicans supported it?

I was astounded, reading Jennifer Nix's "I Love My Socialist Kidney" in Salon. Nix concludes:

As I watch the cable news loops of all the vicious language and wild-eyed imagery aimed at killing healthcare reform, I can't help but be amazed that Medicare ESRD was ever passed. I wonder how so many Americans today can be made to believe that healthcare is "anti-Constitutional" or that a fascist/socialist (and, let's not forget, African) Obama wants to kill their grannies, but I am awestruck by the headstrong self-destruction of the Republican Party. There is no clearer proof of GOP decay than comparing the Republican leadership of the 1970s with those controlling the party today.

Republicans in the 1970s were on the side of healthcare for all Americans. In a message to Congress on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon himself proposed the National Health Insurance Partnership Act. This was a moment in our history when most Americans believed some form of all-inclusive, national health insurance would soon be a reality. Republicans and Democrats alike were working hard to find the best way to make it happen. In 1972, a generation of pragmatic and compassionate Republicans voted in large numbers to help pass the Medicare ESRD Act. It was seen by legislators as a test case, to be followed by government insurance programs -- be they catastrophic or comprehensive -- for other diagnoses.

This never happened, of course, and right up until our summer of angry town halls, Medicare ESRD has remained what former Senate Finance Committee staffer James Mongan called "the last train out of the station for national health insurance."

Today's Republican leadership follows the lead of hate-speech blowhards and injects vitriol and proven lies into our national discourse, instead of engaging in honest negotiations over the best way to bring healthcare to all Americans. They are ginned up for an Obama defeat, by any means necessary -- good policy and the American people be damned.

If we don't get healthcare reform this time around, I have to wonder what will become of the programs caught in the middle, like Medicare ESRD. It's unknown at this point whether I'll need another transplant or long-term dialysis at some point, but it's highly likely. The bottom line is treatments for ESRD are expensive and ongoing. With this diagnosis, it's either dialysis or, if transplanted, expensive immuno-suppressant drugs for the rest of one's life. But because I have this benefit, when my fellow citizens with, say, cancer do not, it's hard not to feel some guilt.

This nation must face difficult questions. Will this society continue to be willing to bear the costs of an entitlement program for ESRD patients, as the market has proved that it will not if left to its own devices? Should we simply let ESRD patients die? Or do we believe that as a society, certain of us will develop catastrophic illnesses and that we all deserve health security? Is this "charity," as a conservative friend of mine suggests, or a society sharing the risk that any one of us could face illness and financial ruin tomorrow? Should the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" be interpreted literally? If so, shouldn't guaranteed healthcare be the right of every U.S. citizen? If the answer to that question is yes, shouldn't all of us -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- be working together to find the most effective and cost-efficient system for its delivery?

It remains to be seen whether Congress will pass healthcare reform this year. Like many before it, this effort may not succeed, and we'll remain, as Obama has said, "the only advanced democracy on earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardships for millions of its people."

For now, I'm just grateful there was a time when Congress felt the moral imperative to provide a public health insurance option that allowed both my father and me to live.

We constantly are seeing polling down from the major news services that follow President Obama's approval ratings and it is an important stat to keep track of, but can you tell me what the media is not covering? How low the Republicans have been polling ever since they became the party of "Waterloo."

The Democratic leaders do have terrible polling numbers, Nancy Pelosi has a 34% approval rating in DKOS's new poll and Harry Reid has a 31% approval rating, but let's take a look at the Republican leadership, shall we?

Mitch McConnell is polling at an 18% approval rating. That's eighteen percent. John Boehner is polling at 12% approval rating. Just think about that one. And it doesn't take much to make him cry. Mitch and Boehner are viewed less favorably than Dick Cheney was during the dark days of the Bush administration. Why don't we hear about that on teevee?

The overall approval ratings of Congressional Republicans is 17% as a party! The Dems are taking their lumps over this chaotic time, but nowhere near the kinds of wounds the GOP are suffering. The media make it appear that all these teabaggers are rallying around the RNC and the country just loves the Beltway elites' favorite party, but that's not true at all.

Let's see if we hear any of this on the Sunday talk Shows. But I won't hold my breath.

August 19, 2009 News Corp

VAN SUSTEREN: Voters want answers on health care. What they don't want is for the Democrats to go it alone. Now, according to one poll, 59 percent of people say Congress should not approve a health care plan if it's not bipartisan. But will the Democrats go it alone anyway, shut Republicans out of the health care debate? The New York Times reports that Democrats do not think the GOP is going to cooperate on health care reform. The Times quotes White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying, "The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."

In a press briefing today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pulled back from the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are focused on a process that continues in the Senate with both parties. The president again met with Senator Baucus on Friday in Montana, and they discussed the progress that was being made among Democrats and Republicans on the Finance Committee. That's our focus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator Chuck Grassley is ranking Republican member of the "Gang of six," a bipartisan group of senators working for a deal in the Senate on the health care bill. and according to The New York Times, the White House sees criticism by Senator Grassley as a sign there is little hope of reaching a bipartisan deal. Is that true?

Senator Grassley joins us live. Good evening, Senator. And is there little hope of a bipartisan deal, sir?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I haven't given up yet, and I haven't said anything new since we adjourned for the summer break that I've been saying for the last three months. So for the White House to draw any conclusions other than what I've told the president right to his face -- and I've said a couple things that are very important, and I've said them before. I've told him for several weeks that, number one, it would really help get bipartisanship if he would make a statement that he would sign a bill that didn't have a public option, or what some of us call a government-run health plan, in it.

And the second one was, in response to a question he asked me about would I be (ph) three or four Republicans going along with the Democrats to make a bipartisan issue, and on that issue, I answered him the same way I've been telling a lot of people for three or four months, that I would not go along because that's not bipartisan.

What you have to have when you're rejiggering one sixth of our U.S. economy, and when you're dealing with health care because that's life-and- death issue for every American, affecting every American citizen, it's got to be done with lots of Democrats and a lot of Republicans, and that's bipartisanship. And it's my responsibility to do something that would get broad support among Republicans, and it's Senator Baucus's Republican to get something that would get broad support among Democrats.

Continue reading »

Kent Conrad's co-op plan reminded me of the WaPo's failed "Mouthpiece Theater": It's about as insipid as humanly possible. The House of Lords really is more concerned with its members' campaign contributions than they are for the American people. Let's check to see how much jack Conrad has received from the insurance industry, shall we?

Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $828,787

Not a bad haul, eh?

If Conrad was trying to woo Republicans with his co-op plan that cannot work, guess again.

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a "Trojan horse" for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it's still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

"On the co-op... as Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to," Kyl told reporters. "That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option." Republicans see Trojans everywhere but they believe in abstinence only. Everyone knows a few of them are big teases but in the end they will just say no.

"It is [a public plan] by another name. It is a Trojan horse. And therefore no, I don't believe Republicans will be inclined to support a bill," he said.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! What Jon Kyl is really saying is: Trojans and Horses and Socialists, Oh, My!

Hullabaloo:

Kent Conrad, the perpetual whiner who has been pushing this silly co-op nonsense for months now, set co-ops up from the get as a prophylactic for his fellow Democratic corporate lackeys. It has nothing to do with Republicans. Never did. It would be best if everyone just abstained from pretending that bipartisanship was ever on the table and faced the real problem: STDs (Supine Two-faced Democrats.)

( . . and not to the happiest place on earth either!)

In 1975, the big concern (post-Watergate) was where our consumer society was heading. Ralph Nader, riding the crest of the Consumer bandwagon was actively pursuing the development of a Consumer Advocacy Agency, geared toward safeguarding the people of the U.S. against unsafe water, unsafe cars, unsafe food and anything else seen as endangering our society.

Then, as now, it was met with a lot of resistance and fear. Fear that all these regulations would indeed hurt and doom our society, our economy and our free enterprise system, not improve on it. Trying to protect the American people from unscrupulous business practices was seen as a dangerous red flag in the eyes of the Republican leadership.

As part of its continuing series of National Town Meetings, broadcast by NPR, a debate and Q&A session took place on April 23, 1975. It featured Ralph Nader - Consumer advocate and Senator Carl Curtis (R-Nebraska).

It is interesting to note the level of desperation Curtis addresses the Meeting, citing dire consequences to even our Foreign Policy should such legislation become law.

Ralph Nader:

"The Consumer Advocacy Agency deals with such things as dangerous drugs, flammable fabrics, unsafe cars, gouging energy prices, contaminated food, and these are the areas that will be the province of the consumer agency. It also doesn’t regulate a thing. All it does is just make the government agencies, hold their feet to reason, and data. And if they can’t support their procedural and substantive courses of action, then this agency can take other agencies to court. That’s all. And that’s enough for big business."

Carl Curtis:

"I hold in my hand a letter from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, vigorously opposing this act. They say is will disrupt emergency food aid to foreign nations through the beneficial PL-480 Assistance Food Program, and thus seriously affect U.S. foreign policy. I’ll illustrate how that can happen: The Consumer Advocacy Agency can challenge a decision to send some food abroad, on the ground that any food that is shipped out of this country, it will effect the price here. They can drag that on for a long time."

As I've pointed out in the past, and as I've shown with posts dealing with the question of Health Care, the wages of fear and distortion are enormous. The resistance towards anything that opposes the status quo is almost immediately met with the threat of dire consequences. Consequences that are not based on anything remotely resembling facts.

But it is all fear. It is sometimes the only card those about to lose power can play.

Bill O'Reilly has a plan for the Republican Party to get its mojo back: Go after Bruce Springsteen!

Seriously.

O'Reilly last night, in his Talking Points Memo segment, cites a remark Springsteen made at the Pete Seeger tribute concert the other night:

At 90, he [Seeger] remains a stealth dagger through the heart of our country's illusions about itself. ... He sings all the verses, all the time. Especially the ones that we'd like to leave out of our history as a people.

This incensed O'Reilly -- who nonetheless spotted an opportunity therein:

Now, Bruce Springsteen is not a PhD in political science, obviously. But his snide reference to America defines how the far left sees this country. And you know what? Most liberal and conservative Americans disagree with him.

So let me spell this out to that even the Republican leadership can understand it. Get solutions to problems. Explain your Culture War positions clearly and without spite. And most important, stick up for America! Because the Democrats are certainly not doing that. Use that strategy, GOP, and you'll get back in the game.

He repeats the point a little later with Karl Rove:

All right, but the Democratic Party has been very successful in demonizing the Republicans as a bunch of people who, uh, say no to everything, ah, are bigoted, you know, because of their social issues of gay marriage and illegal immigration. And they've been very, very successful in doing that. And I would say now that conservatives are on the defensive. And the Republican Party certainly is.

Continue reading »

Saturday Night Live took the GOP leadership to task in this parody for everything from hoping that the stimulus bill and the economy would fail for political gain, to their great leaders in Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to planning on impeachment hearings already, to an attack on the Obama daughters.

When SNL is using phrases like "politically tone deaf" in their skits and mocking you, all I can say is ruuhh-roohh. Maybe your grand plans aren't working out so well with being the party of "NO" Republicans.

I'm still trying to figure out who was playing who in this skit. For a bit of fun I took my best guess and if anyone thinks I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

Continue reading »

February 12, 2009 C-SPAN