Leading Democrats Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Bill Ritter all duck tough reelection races in 2010, drop plans to run

Top Democrats bowing out are (from top) Connecticut's Chris Dodd,

North Dakota's Byron Dorgan and Colorado's Bill Ritter

Senator Chris Dodd, a Capitol Hill fixture whose popularity in Connecticut nosedived over the past year, is set to announce Wednesday that he won't run for reelection in 2010. Dodd has been running way behind both of his prospective GOP opponents for months and is finally stepping aside. That will come as a relief to Democrats, giving them a chance to hold onto his seat with a more formidable candidate, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Just ahead of Dodd in the exit line was North Dakota's Byron Dorgan who surprised everyone Tuesday when he announced he would not run in 2010. Dorgan's retirement -- no doubt to the lucrative practice of Congressional lobbying -- isn't such good news for his fellow Democrats. More likely than not in the political climate shaping up for 2010, his seat will go to the Republicans, particularly if popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven decides to run for it.

And in a lamentable blow to the fortunes of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter will announce Wednesday that he's not running again, after only one term. Ritter had been widely seen as the sort of Western centrist Democrat who could help build the party's appeal in the mountain states. But facing an uphill race against former GOP Rep. Scott McInnis, Ritter is cashing in his chips early.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, the Democrats' best hope to hold onto the governorship there, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, is dropping out. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is barred by term limits from running again. In any case, her popularity with voters has cratered, opening up an opportunity for Republicans that just got a further boost from Cherry.

And if that were not enough bad news in a couple of days for Democrats, a new poll shows the GOP contender in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts is running only nine points behind the Democrat!

With at least four House Democrats already retiring before the 2010 midterms, Democrats may have good reason to worry that the latest announcements by Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter will spur a flood of incumbent Democrats heading for the exits and persuade competitive Democratic candidates for open seats to stand down, as expectations grow for a big GOP gain next November.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Uh, oh, "virus" infected NY-23 computerized voting machines

A local newspaper in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, scene of the hard-fought and nationally prominent special election (won -- so far anyway -- by the Democrat after his Conservative opponent conceded) reports that a computer virus may have "tainted' the results:

GOUVERNEUR, NY - The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus - tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded to Democrat Bill Owens on election night when reported results had him trailing by about 5,000 votes (owens was then quickly sworn in as a member of the House of Representives). Recently, Hoffman "unconceded" when the gap narrowed, albeit not enough to put him ahead. As the remaining absentee ballots are counted, a real donneybrook could be developing over the virus "taint."

If nothing else, this serves as a warning to candidates everywhere not to concede in a fairly close race until all the votes have actually been counted! Beyond that, the idea that the computer might eat your vote is a little unsettling.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Senate to seniors: Screw you!

Harry Reid claims cutting $400 billion from Medicare makes it "stronger"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally rolled out his health care "floor" bill late Wednesday, and to no one's surprise, roughly half the claimed $838 billion cost over 10 years will be paid for by slashing more than $400 billion from Medicare.

Like the bill already approved by the House of Representatives, Reid's bill would gouge $118 billion from Medicare Advantage programs, which will virtually eliminate this popular managed care option chosen by some 13 million senior citizens. (How's that for keeping Obama's promise, "If you like your current insurance and your current doctor, you won't have to change"?)

Also like the House bill, the proposed cuts are presented as reductions in future cost increases. But commenting on the House version, a report issued a few days ago from the non-partisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, confirmed that the cuts will reduce Medicare benefits and run a real risk of limiting seniors' access to care by reducing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, driving up the numbers of providers who decline to accept Medicare patients. Now, Reid proposes that the Senate follow suit and screw seniors.

Of course, millions of seniors already have trouble finding primary care physicians in the midst of an acute shortage that will only get worse as the rolls of insured are expanded by the millions. And all too many top-notch specialists shun Medicare patients as it is. That's a big attraction of the Medicare Advantage programs that Congress wants to eliminate. They ensure access to a managed care network.

There is a lot of merit to the reform that Democrats are trying to push through. But there is nothing "progressive" about robbing Peter to pay Paul -- i.e., slashing Medicare in order to pay for fully half the cost of expanding coverage to others. Republicans are charging that the Medicare cuts will never be made, that it's all a sham to parade the bill as "deficit neutral," and that the Democratic Congress will keep deferring the cutbacks after the bill passes. Maybe, but for seniors, that would be betting their future care on the odd proposition that Reid, Nancy Pelosi and scores of other Democrats in Congress are all blatant liars. And what if the GOP retakes control of Congress by 2012? Republicans have been talking about curbing "entitlements" like Medicare and Medicaid for decades. Won't today's Democratic majorities have done their work for them?

What's your take on the Medicare cuts? Post a comment.

Fed report: House bill's $500 billion in Medicare cuts will reduce benefits and endanger access to care for seniors

Seniors: One super-voting bloc politicians mess with at their peril

For months now, it's been clear that the road to "deficit neutral" health care reform is a bumpy, maybe even dangerous, one for seniors. Ironically, in their zeal to extend health insurance to the roughly 40 million people who don't have any, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress appear ready to make deep cuts in Medicare, a program that is on the short list of the signal domestic accomplishments of the Democratic Party over the past 80 years, alongside Social Security, labor rights, and civil rights. What the 45 million seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare are going to think about this remains unclear, although it's hard to see why they would embrace it with resignation.

A new report from the non-partisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, has now confirmed the $500 billion in cuts in the House health care bill that passed a week ago will reduce Medicare benefits and run a real risk of limiting seniors' access to care. From the Washington Post:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

[snip]

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic. [Emphasis added.]

Whatever bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid takes to the Senate floor this week will also have to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to pay for it.

Most of the public debate about health care reform has focused on the issue of a public option and the overall cost, with the Medicare cuts usually mentioned only in passing. It wasn't long ago that more liberal Democrats were the fiercest defenders of of Medicare and Medicaid, as in 2007 when President Bush proposed cuts that were a fraction of those now approved by House Democrats. No more. Democrats want to pass a bill, so they are largely mum on this topic and talk only about generating "efficiencies" and tackling "abuses" in Medicare.

And the Republicans? Some Republicans may take it up as a talking point now and then, but the GOP's deep-seated objection to "entitlements" like Medicare and Medicaid eliminate them from serious contention as a defender of seniors in this case.

What about the supposed "seniors' lobby," AARP? It has thrown its support behind the House bill in a deal that will bring more customers to its lucrative insurance business.

So seniors are on their own. But here's the thing about that. Seniors -- and near-seniors -- are handily the most reliable group of voters. They may have to hobble on their canes to get to the polling place, but they do vote.

As early as last July, it was already noteworthy in many polls that opposition to health care reform was higher among seniors. That's still true -- but you ain't seen nothing yet. Assuming a bill that cuts $400-500 billion from Medicare is signed into law, the issue will no longer be hypothetical, or muddled by a constantly changing and confusing array of proposals, or hidden behind high-minded rhetoric and clever spin. When it becomes clear to seniors that their health insurance benefits actually have been reduced and that it's going to even harder to find a doctor who accepts Medicare patients (a growing number of physicians have already opted out of Medicare), anyone who voted for it is going to have a hard time convincing constituents over 60 that it's a good deal.

Anyway, it's not just about politics. What's so "progressive" about slashing health care benefits for tens of millions of older Americans -- a large majority of whom have low to moderate incomes -- to subsidize benefits for younger Americans, many of whom don't want insurance now and will resent being obligated to take on premium payments? Beats me.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Fort Hood Killer, Nidal Hasan, was in contact with many Islamist extremists, not just one

Really, is there anyone left who is surprised by this latest piece of news?

Fort Hood shooting suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been in contact with numerous Muslim extremists -- some of whom are under federal investigation -- before last week's rampage, two U.S. officials told The Washington Times on Wednesday.

Maj. Hasan made some of the contacts while visiting known jihadist chat rooms on the Internet, according to one of The Times' sources, a senior FBI official. He said that several people with whom Maj. Hasan was in contact had been the focus of investigations by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The other source, a military intelligence official, said those in contact with Maj. Hasan are located both in the U.S. and overseas. The official said they are "broadly known and characterized as Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda."

No time to lose ramping up that Congressional investigation into why this guy wasn't nailed.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Congress must probe how the FBI and the Army failed to "connect the dots" to prevent Fort Hood massacre

Fort Hood killer sent emails to this radical jihadist cleric in Yemen

It's time to cut out all the bullshit and launch a thorough, detailed Congressional investigation into how and why the FBI, the Army brass, and anyone else involved failed miserably -- and fatally for 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood -- to connect the many glaring warning signals about the Fort Hood mass killer -- Malik Nidal Hasan -- and take action that would have prevented his deadly jihadist rampage.

We now know that U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted 10-20 emails that Hasan sent to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical jihadist cleric and al Qaeda sympathizer now living in Yemen who served preached at a Virginia mosque where Hasan (and three of the 9/11 hijackers) worshipped.

Reportedly, the FBI decided that these repeated efforts by a serving Army officer to reach out to a well-known radical didn't warrant an investigation -- and dropped it. Meanwhile, the Army knew about Hasan's deeply disturbing and offensive "lecture" and PowerPoint presentation to other military doctors at Walter Reed in which he clearly showed his jihadist sympathies. Some in the audience complained to their superiors but nothing was done. Hasan was promoted to major and sent to Fort Hood where, among other things, he argued about the war with soldiers he was supposed to be counseling.

Forget everything else we have learned or think we have learned about Hasan so far. Forget the sterile and pointless disputes that have emerged in the media and on the blogs about whether we should call his shooting up Fort Hood "terrorism" or "crime" or the actions of a "madman" or someone "stressed" by the nature of his job. If the FBI and the Army had connected these two dots -- Hasan's contact with al-Awlaki and his often bizarre and hostile conduct -- it would have been impossible to allow him to remain as a psychiatrist on a military post.

After 9/11 and after the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were adopted, we were assured that this sort of missing the crucial connections would not happen again. But it did, and 13 people are dead.

We need to know what happened. The FBI is now conducting an "internal review" to see whether its actions were appropriate. There is absolutely no reason to leave it to the FBI to make that judgment. The Army cannot be trusted to investigate itself either. Even without knowledge of Hasan's contacts with al-Awlaki (and we cannot yet be sure the Army was not told about this), the chain of command blundered unbelievably in ignoring the obvious problems with Hasan. If that happened because of any undue timidity in confronting Hasan because he was a Muslim of Arab descent, we need to know about it (or if not, that it was just incompetence). When the Army's Chief of Staff, General George Casey, says a couple of days after a dozen of his troops were murdered at home that he's concerned about a backlash against Muslims serving in the military -- a backlash that has never happened in America despite the 9/11 attacks and all the other acts of terrorism and terrorist plots by jihadists -- we have to wonder whether the Army's leadership has its priorities straight.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is already launching an inquiry to determine what happened. Other Congressional panels with jurisdiction have also indicated an interest in investigating. While there is always a danger of Congressional inquiries politicizing any subject they handle -- including national security -- it is essential in this case that Congress step up. We must know what happened, why, who did or did not do their jobs well, and what steps we need to take to ensure that nothing like the Fort Hood massacre happens again.

What's your take? Post a comment.

UPDATE: ABC News is reporting that Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just al-Awlaki and that the names and countries of these connections would emerge soon. Meanwhile, the finger pointing has started with the Pentagon claiming (via an unnamed "top defense official," of course) that the FBI never told the Army about the intercepted communications with al-Awlaki.

AARP stabs senior citizens in the back, endorses $400 billion of cuts in Medicare, so it can make more money selling insurance!

Video of AARP staffer telling "members" to take a flying leap last August

The so-called American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has endorsed the House health care bill in a move that stabs its millions of senior citizen members in the back. Why? So that AARP can sell more insurance policies -- its biggest source of revenue, that's why. From the Chicago-Tribune:

Why else would the nation's largest lobbying organization, sworn to protect the interests of senior citizens, watch silently as Congress plans to cut Medicare spending by $400 billion to pay for its health reform legislation? Could it be that the interests of seniors and AARP are not exactly aligned?

Let's follow the money. AARP takes in more than half of its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors that market services with the organization's name. Medicare supplementary policies, called "Medigap" plans, make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue.

AARP has an interest in selling more, not fewer, Medigap plans, of course. But there is a competitor on the block.

A growing number of seniors are enrolling in a new form of Medicare coverage Medicare Advantage where they don't need Medigap.

[snip]

Congress' health reform bills would cut spending for Medicare Advantage by at least $150 billion. President Obama has singled out Medicare Advantage, saying it is a give-away to private insurance companies. But virtually all of the extra money goes back to seniors in the form of better benefits, so it's seniors who have the most to lose.

AARP is endorsing a bill that will deliver a huge blow to Medicare -- one that will lead over time to fewer doctors accepting Medicare, longer waits for seniors, and an inevitable decline in accessible quality care -- so that AARP can make more billions of dollars selling Medigap insurance.

Where does all that money AARP rakes in from insurance and other products it sells go? Beats me, although the pretense that AARP is a "lobby" for seniors can no longer be used as the rationale for its enormous budget. As they've proved time and again, older folks are well able to do their own lobbying by contacting their representatives and voting for candidates that fight for their interests. And seniors are very much aware of how much they stand to lose under health care "reform," as virtually every poll has shown for months.

AARP is not a membership organization in any sense. It's a self-appointed service entity -- sort of like AAA -- that peddles products with coupons and discounts for its "members." The "members" did not vote on AARP's endorsement of massive cuts in Medicare (does anyone really doubt the outcome if they had been given that opportunity?). As an AARP member, you don't even get to elect delegates to some representative body or the group's top leaders, like many unions and professional organizations. In fact, you can spend all day navigating AARP's elaborate website and you won't even find a mechanism to send the group an email to protest! (On the other hand, you can easily sign up for "action" to back the group's stand on health care.)

I think AARP has just managed to destroy its reputation as a non-partisan representative of the interests of senior citizens. The group's huge staff need not worry about losing their phony baloney jobs, though. They can always start selling memberships to 45 year olds. Why not 35 year olds, come to think of it? Those coupons and discounts might look just as good to people of any age.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Welcome Legal Insurrection readers

Pelosi and House Democrats stick it to seniors with health care "reform" bill that will slash Medicare by $400 billion

Nancy Pelosi announces a bill to strip millions of seniors of their quality care

The House health care plan unveiled yesterday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a lot that is commendable in its 2000 pages. But it's not at all commendable that the bill, which will cost $894 billion over 10 years, is "deficit neutral" only because it slashes more than $400 billion from Medicare in that period. Senior citizens are to see a significant decrease in the accessibility and quality of their health care, in order to pay for nearly half the cost of extending coverage to others.

The Congressional Budget Office's scoring of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act -- which might as well be named the Medicare Reduction Act -- cites these "savings" to be achieved in the Medicare program:

Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians’ services), yielding budgetary savings of $229 billion over 10 years...

Setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program on the basis of Medicare spending per beneficiary in the fee-for-service sector and changing the way that payments to Medicare Advantage plans reflect differences in the health status of enrolees, yielding savings of an estimated $170 billion...over the 2010–2019 period.

The massive $229-billion reduction would drive hoards of doctors to refuse to participate in Medicare -- and there are already far too many who don't, due to reimbursement rates far below those of private health plans.

Oh, but Democrats are saying in stage whispers that no one should worry about the reduced fee-for-service payments, because they'll "fix" that in a separate bill. Of course, that makes the claim of deficit neutrality for H.R. 3962 duplicitous. But seniors also need to worry that the Democrats may not be able to keep their promise of a sly "fix." If the bill passes, as is, it becomes the law of the land, period. By the time that happens, who knows what the political environment will be like. How many people predicted early last summer that we'd be into November with no health care bill passed by either the House or the Senate? Seniors would be foolhardy in the extreme not to worry that H.R. 3962 will set the terms of their health care for a long time to come.

The Medicare Advantage plans from which $170 billion would be cut currently enroll 11 or 12 million seniors. These plans have been cast by Democrats as too generous to the insurance companies that offer them, because the companies get as much as 14% more from the feds than providers under the regular Medicare program. There are two things wrong with that argument: first, as indicated above, the regular Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than they should be to ensure that providers accept Medicare patients; and second, the whole point of the Advantage programs was to pay insurers more to induce them to offer managed-care (HMO) plans that would provide better overall quality of care for patients with multiple health problems, emphasize wellness and prevention, and eliminate the need for seniors to navigate through mountains of Part A, Part B and Part D insurance paper work. That's why a quarter of all Medicare enrolees prefer Advantage plans.

Anyway, didn't President Obama and other Democrats say over and over about health care reform that if you like your current plan and your current doctors, you won't have to change? Well, if this bill passes, Medicare Advantage plans will disappear and millions of seniors will be thrown into regular Medicare. Not incidentally, these millions will be chasing many of the same doctors and other providers who might opt out of Medicare anyway.

Medicare arguably is one of the signal achievements of the Democratic Party of the last 50 years. Why would Democrats want to eviscerate one of their great successes? Republicans may exploit the huge negative impact on Medicare of the House bill as a talking point -- but Republicans are not going to stand up for Medicare in the long run.

Democrats who support the House bill may think they can bob and weave around the issue of Medicare cuts and hope that seniors remain in the dark or confused about the impact of the bill (or distracted by minor additional benefits for Medicare recipients in the bill, such as an increase in drug coverage). If so, they would be wise to think again. Seniors are already well aware of the fact that they will get the short end of the stick under health care "reform." That's why only 36% of people over 65 support the proposal in a recent poll. Seniors are by far the most reliable voters. It will be tough to conceal the impact of the cuts when they actually happen, and seniors will be really, really pissed when they go to the polls.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Public option still dead after all, as Joe Lieberman says he'll filibuster it

Joe Lieberman to Majority Leader Reid: "Ha, gotcha that time, Harry!"

Wow, that was quick.

Yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the previously dead public option was alive and that he was bringing a health care bill to the floor that included a public option with an opt-out provision for states. Because Harry did not appear to have the 60 votes needed to pass such a bill over the unified opposition of every Republican, some cynics speculated that he was just trying to appease labor and other constituencies that matter in his own 2010 reelection bid.

Today, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman confirmed that Reid does not have the votes:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Joe will get a lot of pressure to change his mind, but the guy is not easily swayed by mere pressure. What's more, Joe has staked out a position that makes it easier for other reluctant moderate Democrats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to say simply, ditto that.

Reid may have screwed himself by alienating the one Republican who actually voted for one of the Senate reform bills. Maine's Olympia Snowe put herself out on a limb by doing so, with the clear stipulation that there was to be no public option except through a "trigger." Now, Snowe is ticked off at what seems to have been a humiliating bait and switch.

Nice work, Harry!

What do you think? Post a comment.

UPDATE: Hard on the heels of Lieberman's announcement, his 2006 opponent, Ned Lamont, said his was getting a lot of e-mails urging him to run again in 2012. Sure, the MoveOn.org-DailyKos crowd would love to knock off Joe, but Lamont wisely sidestepped. He managed to best Joe in the 2006 Democratic primary in a campaign fueled by the peak of liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. But Joe, running as an independent with a Republican also in the race, beat him soundly (by 10 points) in the general election. Besides, 2010 is a long way off.

UPDATE 2: Another Democratic moderate, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas reiterates her opposition to a public option.

Fate of health care bills still in hands of moderate Democrats

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark), one of a dozen moderate Democrats whose votes are needed to pass any health care reform proposal

As I posted many times before (most recently here), the fate of the various health care bills in the House and Senate is in the hands of from eight to a dozen or so moderate Democrats in the Senate (and to a lesser extent, their counterparts in the House).

The almost daily combat covered widely in the media for months pitting reform supporters against Congressional Republicans and the conservative commentariat has obscured the real issue: what approach will secure the votes of all 60 Senate Democrats? Now that Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has voted to report out the Senate Finance Committee bill, the number of Democrats needed may be 59 (although it's still far from clear what final bill Snowe might support). Getting to 59 is still a steep climb, considering the centrist tendencies of this lot.

As Politico reports, a final bill is a long way off:

Senate Democrats took their new found momentum for health reform into closed-door talks with White House aides Wednesday but still faced a months-old problem: centrist Democrats who aren’t sold on Obama-style reform even now.

If Democratic leadership hoped Republican Olympia Snowe’s decision to cross party lines Tuesday would inspire her fellow middle-of-the-roaders, they were mistaken.

[snip]

“There are many competing views on how best to reform health care within my caucus,” Reid acknowledged Wednesday before ducking into the first of what will be many negotiating sessions with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who ushered a bill through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “I know this isn’t going to be easy.”

And it's not going to get any easier if action slips into election year 2010, when many not-so-moderate freshman and sophomore Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 may not want to hand their opponents a high-profile issue:

And on the House side, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the prospect that the bill might slip past Christmas and into 2010 – which could be politically disastrous for President Barack Obama, who is trying to pass health reform this year to put some distance between the vote and the midterm elections.

Nonetheless, many liberal Democrats continue to bang the drum for a more expensive and government-heavy plan -- one with a "public option" -- than the one pieced together by Max Baucus to attract support from moderate Democrats and snare Olympia Snowe in the bargain. And the left wing of party is throwing a hissy fit, demanding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid discipline his caucus and punish any moderates who won't toe the party line. It's interesting to note that a year ago, the same lefty talking heads and bloggers were praising the virtues of the Democratic Party's big tent politics, compared to the narrow ideologically-driven conservatism of the GOP. Well, welcome to the big tent, guys!

Here's my take: the public option is dead, dead, dead, and trying to resurrect it will only result in further delay in forging a consensus bill that can pass both Houses. Push it out to the Christmas break, and there will be no bill at all come January.

What's your take? Post a comment.

Eight Senate moderate Democrats urge go-slow approach to health care bill

Eight moderate Democrats in the Senate -- whose votes are crucial to passing any bill -- have urged Majority Leader harry reid to slow down, allow time for the independent Congressional Budget Office to score the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus) bill and publish it online 72 hours before any vote.

In a letter to Reid, the eight wrote:

"At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people's faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process," the Democratic senators wrote to Reid."

The senators, led by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said they wanted legislative text of the bill posted online, along with complete Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, 72 hours before the Senate takes its first procedural vote on the bill.

[snip]

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of the eight Democrats that wrote the letter to Reid, said she is worried about the impact of the bill on the federal budget.

"Democrats are really good at expanding coverage and programs, not really that great at doing it in a cost-effective manner," she said. "We feel very strongly about doing this in the most cost-effective manner possible."

Gee, you'd think doing it "in the most cost-effective manner possible" would be a no-brainer for all 100 Senators.

Make no mistake: the health care "debate" is not between Dems and the GOP, which can only carp from the sidelines, but among the three factions of the Democratic Party -- the "progressives," the moderates and the rest.

In addition to Lincoln, Bayh and Landrieu, the Senators signing the letter were:

Joseph I. Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark L. Pryor and Jim Webb.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Polls: Public opposes health care reform 50 to 44

Click on image for details

According to Pollster.com, not much has changed since the end of August. Obama and the Congressional Democrats have their work cut out for them.

Got an opinion? Post a comment.

Final act in health care reform drama: the seniors will decide

The health care "deciders" -- America's old folks

In a post four months ago, I wrote this:

Here is my prediction: seniors are not paying much attention to this whole issue now, because they have health insurance. In all likelihood, they also don't think Obama and a Democratic Congress will monkey with their coverage. When they start to pay attention, watch out on Capitol Hill, because these folks vote. I mean, they ALL vote.

Then, in a post one month ago, I added this:

Sure enough, polls show that seniors are the major group that is least supportive of the various health care reform schemes, and the steady erosion of Obama's public approval ratings is being driven in significant part by seniors.

And that was when seniors were just skeptical but -- what with all the smoke and mirrors surrounding multiple health care bills and Obama's serial speeches -- not yet really sure that Medicare benefits were going to be cut. Now the cat is out of the bag:

Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

That's what the CBO chief had to say about just the $100 billion in cuts proposed for the popular Medicare Advantage plans. There is as much as another $400 billion in Medicate and Medicaid cuts being proposed (depending on which of the bills, which keep changing).

Folks, there is no way in hell that this Congress is going to pass a bill that relies on such huge cuts in Medicare. Only the safest Democrats could risk voting for something that will, as surely as the sun rises in the morning, rouse seniors to vote against them. The only thing worse for your reelection prospects is to cut Social Security benefits.

Mark my words: any final bill will have to be radically changed -- somehow -- to eliminate the Medicare cuts or it won't pass.

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand defends ACORN, as her possible opponents and successor in the House vote to cut off its federal funding

Gillibrand sworn in, January 27, 2009. Will she be gone in January 2011?

New York's appointed Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, was one of only seven Senators to back pimp-and-prostitute tolerant ACORN in an 83-7 vote to block some federal funding to the discredited "community" group.

Now, the House has passed an even more sweeping measure that would cut off all Washington dough to ACORN. As in the Senate, the overwhelming majority of Gillibrand's fellow Democrats joined with Republicans to repudiate ACORN by a resounding vote of 345 to 75.

A solid majority of New York's House delegation -- including most Democrats -- voted yes. Conspicuously, Gillibrand's successor in the upstate House seat she vacated, Scott Murphy, voted yes. And three of the House members who have considered challenging Gillibrand in a 2010 Democratic primary -- Carolyn Maloney of Manhhattan, Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island, and Steve Israel of Long Island -- voted yes. (So did Republican Rep. Pete King who just recently said he would not seek the Senate seat next year, perhaps a decision he'll now rethink.)

And as I posted yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and a host of other New York Democrats are making themselves part of the solution.

So what's with Gillibrand? Why is she making herself part of the problem?

Even after the latest undercover video of ACORN shot at a San Diego ACORN office -- the fifth released so far -- depicts an ACORN employee curiously willing to help smuggle underage (13-15) girls from El Salvador into the country to staff a whorehouse? Even though the White House has now said that ACORN must be held accountable? Even though it seems there are more videos to come of more ACORN employees at more offices helpfully "advising" a pimp and prostitute on their business.

As a New Yorker and a moderate Democrat, I was pleased by Gov. David Patterson's choice of Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's seat. In her brief tenure in the House representing a relatively conservative upstate district, Gillibrand had gained a reputation for the brand of centrist politics I support. Not surprisingly, as a Senator, she has shifted some of her previous stands, particularly those concerning gun control and immigration. That's politics.

But backing ACORN puts her in bed with an especially scummy outfit and aligns her with the the most left-wing elements of the Democratic Party -- and may help put her out on her ear in January 2011. Maybe she thinks it will help her head off a Democratic primary next year, but the pols most likely to challenge her voted against funding ACORN! In any case, her vote on this issue (one of only seven!), far from fading from public view, will stand out as a major issue for her GOP opponent to hammer her with (this Marist poll shows her already running behind former Governor George Pataki).

New York Democrats -- and all New Yorkers -- should send Gillibrand this simple message: stop wasting public money on this bunch of mopes. There are dozens of dedicated, well-run, effective and honest community groups in New York State alone who can make far better use of those taxpayer millions.

To contact Gillibrand and email her that message, go to her website here.

And post a comment.

Welcome The Other McCain readers.

More on Gillibrand's support for ACORN at these blogs: Monroerising.com, Jumping in Pools, which asks whether Gillibrand has committed career suicide, VASS Political Blog, and JammieWearingFool, among others.

Attention New Yorkers: Why is our appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand one of a handful still backing ACORN?

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand thanks Gov. David Patterson for her new job

To all my fellow New Yorkers:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed last January by our unelected Governor to fill Hillary Clinton's seat, is one of only seven Senators to vote against a Senate proposal to stop giving federal funds to ACORN, the mob of mopes who have been ensnared in a long list of scandals and investigations, most recently being captured on tape advising a "prostitute" and her "pimp" on ways to defraud banks and cheat the IRS.

The vote in the Senate was 83-7 to de-fund ACORN. Our senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, voted yes with the overwhelming majority, including most of the Senate's 59 Democrats. The U.S. Census Bureau has cut all ties to ACORN. With the deeply offensive "prostitute" video of ACORN employees in Brooklyn fresh in every one's mind, New York officials are cracking down. New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has launched an investigation of "pork-barrel grants given to ACORN by state lawmakers" (uh, oh). The Brooklyn DA has opened a criminal inquiry into the group. The leader of the City Council has frozen city funding earmarked for ACORN, and the state Comptroller plans added scrutiny of state funds destined for the group.

So what's Gillibrand got to say for herself? Only this:

Gillibrand has defended her vote, saying the group does good work that should continue, despite the bad actions of a few employees.

"While Sen. Gillibrand finds the actions of certain ACORN employees to be reprehensible and will ask ACORN leaders for a full investigation and plan to prevent any further abuse, the truth remains that thousands of New York families who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations like ACORN [emphasis added] for assistance," said Bethany Lesser, a spokesman for Gillibrand.

Say what? Charitable organization? Senator, charity is when you give your own money to someone who needs help. ACORN passes out the taxpayers' money, so public officials like you should be paying close attention to whether they do a good job of it or pay mopes in New York, Baltimore, D.C. and California and lord knows where else to "advise" people who walk in off the street how to set up whore houses and get away with importinh teenagers for prostitution.

Gillibrand, a former upstate member of the House of Representatives who got elected in a largely Republican district by pretending to be a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, is now going all out to shed the conservative label and earn some street cred with New York City voters. Her diligent new work at pretending to be a liberal apparently has begun to pay off. She's already been endorsed by ACORN's political action committee! (Don't ask me how a group that takes millions in federal, state and city money can endorse candidates.)

It's time for New York voters -- especially Democrats like me -- to send Gillibrand a clear message: we don't want any more of the taxpayers' money to be wasted on ACORN, an outfit which has few accomplishments other than scandals in its history and which exists mainly to perpetuate itself and give cushy jobs to people who are then drafted into "political action" to keep the money flowing.

You can contact Gillibrand by going to her website here.

And post a comment.

Obama's health care speech: nothing new, strongly partisan and a missed opportunity

As usual, President Obama delivered an impressive speech to Congress and the nation Wednesday night. But the speech contained nothing of consequence different from what he had to say in mid-July, despite the many signs of deep and growing public anxiety about and opposition to Democratic health care reform proposals.

The major questions surrounding these proposals remain unanswered, including these in particular:

How will programs that will cost $1 trillion, give or take, be paid for?

The President offered no support to any specific financing scheme but seemed to say that much of the cost would be covered by cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. No one believes this. The President did say he would reject any plan that "adds one dime to the deficit." Fine words but the deficit will be added to a great deal without a major, new revenue stream -- very likely taxes -- to pay for a comprehensive plan and the President provided no guidance on that all-important matter.

How can Medicare and Medicaid be cut by as much as $500 billion without any reduction in benefits or increased out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries?

The President said again that seniors would lose nothing, but no one believes this either.

Amidst sweeping changes of the roles of private insurers and payment methods, new efforts to extract savings from the current system, and a plethora of new federal rules and requirements, how is it possible that people who like the plan or doctors they have will be able to keep them?

If there is a government-run "public option," or a government-subsidized "co-op" option at the same time as private insurers are required to provide a certain specified benefits package and to insure everyone, while being barred from imposing lifetime benefit caps, isn't it obvious that private insurers won't be able to compete successfully with the government-linked plan over time so that large numbers of people will wind up having no choice

Obama had the opportunity to confront these questions head on and answer them laying out a new reform program that moderate Democrats and some Republicans could get behind. Unfortunately, he chose instead to give a basically partisan speech -- notwithstanding a few compliments to some GOPers and acknowledgement of a couple of GOP ideas. His aim seemed to be to mollify the left of his party, which had started to turn on him, while laying down a number of markers around which he can hope to rally Congressional Democrats and pressure those who are reluctant to back a sweeping, expensive plan.

I think he's missed a huge opportunity to bring about some really important health care reforms. He won't be able to rally or pressure enough moderate Democrats in the Senate to pass a bill that House progressives also support. He needs every single Senate Democrat to get the necessary 60 votes ("reconciliation" with only 51 votes simply won't work). The Senate's centrist Democrats are keenly aware of their states' and constituents' interests and are not easily pushed around, even by a President.

So we are still where we were in July. Nothing has changed -- except the President has put himself and his Presidency on the line without having provided Congress or the nation the clear leadership needed. My guess is that there will not be a bill passed and signed by the President anytime soon.

What are your thoughts about the speech and the issue? Post a comment.

GOP should punish Rep. Joe Wilson for "You lie" outburst against President Obama

Rep. Joe Wilson (R.-SC) making his loud point, "You lie!"

The whole country knows by now that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, "You lie!" at President Obama from the House of Representatives floor as Obama asserted that his plan for health care change would not cover illegal immigrants. The House GOP leadership and Senator John McCain, among others, immediately called Wilson's outburst wrong, and Wilson apologized. Most conservative commentators chimed in to criticize Wilson, too, although some seemed to go out of their way to downplay Wilson's rudeness by pointing to Democrats having treated President George W. Bush with less than courtesy.

So that's the end of it, right?

I don't think so. Wilson's behavior is inexcusable, so he should be made to pay a price, not get away with an apologetic phone call to Rahm Emmanuel. There can be no excuse because:

-- When the President -- any President -- speaks to Congress, he does so as the guest of both Houses. If a member can't stand a President or what he has to say, the member can stay away and put out statements of disagreement. But you don't invite the guy and then heckle him.

-- A member of Congress should be setting an example of decorum, civility in political discourse, and simple decency. We understand that political combat can sometimes be rough, but there are limits we all recognize intuitively. Wilson shattered those limits.

-- The President is not only the head of government and the leader of his political party. He's also our head of state. That does not in any way insulate him from criticism, however harsh. But criticism should be leveled in a way that respects the office. That's why Democratic disrespect toward President Bush does not and should not excuse Wilson. If we allow this coarseness toward one President, we can be sure that the next President will be on the receiving end of worse.

OK, but since Wilson has a safe GOP seat and voters there probably won't rebuke him, what can be done?

One thing -- the most appropriate thing, in my view -- would be for his colleagues in the House Republican Caucus to pass a formal statement of censure. It would be awkward for House Republicans, but they would be applauded for not allowing this to rest with the usual meaningless apology. Plus, GOPers will be able to hold Democrats to the same high standard in the future.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Some House Democrats are pushing Wilson to make an apology to the whole House on the floor and threatening a motion of censure if he doesn't. I think the more significant end to this story would be a censure from his fellow Republicans. A censure by the whole House, with its huge Democratic majority, would be just another round in the seemingly endless bitter partisan quarreling -- and likely a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

Recession empathy: Congress buys itself three luxury jets for $200 million -- the better to keep the little people informed

Exterior and interior of the elite Gulfstream 550 business jet

They cost $65 million apiece, and Congress is buying three of them at a cost of some $200 million of the taxpayers' money in the midst of the worst recession in a generation. The Air Force, which flies government aircraft, put in for one of these luxurious babies, but somewhere in the murky innards of the House Appropriations Committee, that was quietly bumped up to three -- the better to keep many more poobahs of Congress flying off to junkets or just reaching out with a bit of empathy for the little people back home.

Here is some of what the manufacturer, Gulfstream, says about this nifty private airplane:

The Gulfstream G550® large-cabin, ultra-long range business jet turned heads right from the start.

[snip]

This is a brawny aircraft with an international reach...With its long legs, the G550 easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.

[snip]

The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers. Maintaining contact with the home office is easy thanks to a host of standard communication features: a fax machine, a printer, a wireless local area network and satellite communications. As an option, consider Gulfstream's Broad Band Multi Link, which combines fast Internet-connection speeds with low operating costs.

Ah, what sacrifices have to be made to serve the public!

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

June update: "Stimulus package" still not very stimulating

February 17, 2009: President Obama signs $787-billion stimulus bill into law

Way back on February 17, after weeks of often bitter wrangling on Capitol Hill over what would and would not make it into the huge package, President Obama signed the final "stimulus bill" into law.

Like a lot of other observers, I had written (here and here) during those weeks of Congressional bickering, logrolling and gross partisanship that the emerging stimulus package was not very stimulating. I was right -- and after four months, I can say that it's still not very stimulating.

I had no issue with deploying fiscal stimulus -- i.e., deliberately increasing federal deficit spending to put more dollars into circulation -- as a matter of policy to help jump start an economy in recession. And I was not bothered much by the high price tag. What concerned me was that the plan did not meet any of the three standards set by Obama's own top economics advisor, Larry Summers: namely, that it be timely (the money should go out “almost immediately,” in Summers' words); targeted mainly to help low- and middle-income people; and temporary, defined by Summers as not raising deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

The Congressional Budget Office warned bluntly that key portions of the bill passed first by the House would not be spent anytime soon. Some adjustments were made in the Senate, particularly to attract support from a few Republicans and moderate Democrats, but the final bill was still extremely heavy on pet projects -- some worthy on their own merits, to be sure -- that Congress or the Administration wanted to fund, regardless of whether they provided any effective fiscal stimulus to the overall economy.

Four months down the road, it has now become clear that the $478 billion in direct federal spending provided in the bill is trickling out very slowly, too slowly to have a noteworthy impact on a still-crippled economy. In fact, through the middle of June, only a paltry $53 billion, or 11%, of that dough has actually gone out the door and into any body's pockets. The biggest part of that $53 billion is accounted for by Social Security and Health and Human Services. Many agencies have spent only 1-3% of the money allocated to them.

In sharp contrast, the roughly $300 million in tax cuts that made up the rest of the stimulus package has flowed nicely and quickly out the door and into people's pockets. There was a great deal of malarkey tossed around in January and February about why spending was preferable to tax cuts as a way to drive the deficit and, thus, stimulate.

One knock against tax cuts was that a dollar in spending typically triggers a bigger "multiplier effect" as it ricochets through the economy. While that's true, the multiplier is zero if the money just sits in the Department of Transportation's account. Another was that tax cuts would somehow wind up mostly helping the rich and wealthy corporations. Of course, that depended on the nature of the tax cut. The cut that could have been implemented in the most timely and effective way to boost the incomes of those most likely to spend was a payroll tax "holiday." That would have had the added virtue of being easily managed and temporary (i.e., extended by periods of some months at a time, depending on economic conditions).

So the "stimulus" has had a minimal effect, if any, on the economy so far. To be sure, the pace of spending will pick up as we roll into the fall, and the lion's share of the remaining money will flow during 2010 (although not all of it, since a sizable chunk won't be spent until 2011). But meanwhile, the economy has continued to crawl along, and unemployment has risen to to a new high of 9.4% -- considerably above the rate projected by the Obama Administration earlier this year.

A huge opportunity has been missed to deliver a major stimulative jolt to the sagging economy -- and there won't be another. Although some liberals are already talking about a need for a second "stimulus package," that's simply not going to happen. Obama's "honeymoon" period is over. While people generally still like and respect him and are willing to give him a great deal of latitude, opposition to many of his specific policies has coalesced and public anxiety about runaway federal spending will block any attempt to revisit the stimulus idea.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.