Why should Obama apologize for implying that a Las Vegas vacation is about gambling?

Las Vegas Mayor calls President Obama a "slow learner"

At a "townhall" meeting about the federal budget in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday. President Obama said this:

"This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. And it's time your government did the same."

Based on the offended outcries from Sen. Harry Reid and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, among other Nevada notables, you'd think he said that you'll catch a horrible disease by going to Las Vegas! The Mayor was especially nasty, saying that Obama "has a real psychological hangup about the entertainment capital of the world," that Obama doesn't understand what Vegas officials are trying to do with their "economy." And he called the President a "slow learner" (see video above). (By the way, isn't "slow learner" the same thing as "retarded"?)

I'm disappointed that the President has already issued an apology of sorts, saying in a letter to Reid that he didn't really mean anything "negative" and that "there is no better place to have fun than Vegas, one of our country's great destinations."

I understand that "the entertainment capital of the world" is having a tougher time than many other cities in the current recession -- but isn't that the price to be paid for building your "economy" on legalized gambling and whoring?

As Obama implied correctly, when times are hard and money is tight, you don't "blow a bunch of cash in Vegas." If you do, you're either a gambling addict or just plain stupid.

Really, what does anyone go to Vegas for? It has no ocean or lakes or beach of any kind. You can't boat or sail or fish or swim (except in casino-hotel pools) in the summer or ski in the winter. It's cultural attractions are, at best, kitsch. Embarrassingly, ccording to the city's own tourism website, you can take in "area" attractions a mere 300 miles away, take the kids to see the Pinball Hall of Fame, or visit such "free attractions" as this botanical splendor at the Bellagio (preferably on your way to the hotel's 116,000-square-foot casino).

Sure, Vegas has a lively night life, with name celebs performing in vast rooms at the big hotels. But take away the gambling, and could anything else in Vegas -- even the legal prostitution -- survive?

Of course not. The place is a gamblers' paradise, and it's no surprise that its gambling business was started by gangsters and built into a big business by more gangsters.

It's all very legal and legitimate, now, of course, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Obama should stick to his guns -- and tell Mayor Goodman to go fish.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Go for it, Harold! (Harold Ford, Jr. should run for Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand)

Former Rep. Harold F. Ford, Jr.

Harold F. Brown, Jr., who served five terms in the House of Representatives and narrowly lost a race for the Senate in his native Tennessee, now lives in New York and is seriously thinking about running for the Senate again -- this time in a New York Democratic Primary against the current appointed cypher, Kirsten Gillibrand.

As a New Yorker with a vote in that primary, I say, go for it, Harold!

Ford is a smart, tough, dynamic, young (39) guy with deep experience in politics and government and mainstream liberal Democratic views on most issues, anchored by his southern background and chairmanship of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Ford says that if he runs, he would campaign as a strong independent in the mold of the late Daniel Patrick Moyhihan who would fight for New York and take no guff from his own party's leaders, including Harry Reid and New York's senior Senator, Chuck Schumer.

This would be in marked contrast to Gillibrand who, after being appointed a year ago by accidental Governor David Patterson at the end of an embarrassing process, seems to have disappeared except to phone in her vote for whatever Harry and Chuck want. Her juvenile deference to the preening Schumer is especially annoying to New Yorkers, since she's got the seat that was held by a series of tough cookies from Robert F. Kennedy to Moynihan to Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't a Senator from the Empire State at least be noticed for something in the course of a whole year? Not Gillibrand.

The knives are already out for Ford. It's said that he's not a New Yorker, which is true except for the last few years. But Bob Kennedy and Hillary Clinton had even less time in New York. For my money, Ford's experience and qualifications trump Gillibrand's, even if the latter's ancestors founded New Amsterdam.

Ford's moderate record in Congress in Tennessee is already being used against him by New York City liberals who have pledged their troth to Gillibrand. It's really laughable, since until last January, Gillibrand, as a member of the House from an upstate district, belonged to the Blue Dog Coalition, supported the NRA and held a host of conservative positions. She's flip-flopped on all that to head off a primary challenge from one of several downstate liberals who hoped to capitalize on her ideological deviationism. So it's hard for her to point the finger at Ford for making the same "adjustments" to some of his positions.

When push comes to shove -- and I think it has already come, with the recession, the terrorist threat and multiple wars, and all the other pressing problems we face as a nation -- I'd rather have a guy like Ford who's willing to step up to a fight as my Senator than an opportunistic tool like Gillibrand.

What's your take on Ford? Post a comment.

Elect Scott Brown to the Senate -- Put a vital check on the one-party monopoly of power in Washington

Scott Brown, running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts

In the special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy next Tuesday (January 19), I hope Massachusetts voters will elect the GOP candidate, Scott Brown, for one compelling reason: to put a critically important check on the total monopoly of power now held by Democrats in Washington. By reducing the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority by just one, the Democrats will have to work with at least a few Republicans -- or even just one -- to pass major legislation. And that's a good thing for the country, Massachusetts and, I would argue, the Democratic Party.

I'm a Democrat. But over the past year, it's become clear that holding total power, with the White House and huge majorities in both Houses of Congress, has caused the Democratic Party to go off the deep end. Democrats in Washington have forgotten that to make real progress, they must attract and hold the vital center in American politics -- the moderate and independent voters who gave Barack Obama the Presidency and provided the margin of victory for scores of Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Wielding big majorities, the leadership of the party has pushed a lot farther to the left on many issues than those voters want to go. In the process, politics being what it is, they have dragged the more moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill along.

No where is this more obvious than in the case of the Senate health care "reform" bill. As it stands, this wretched mishmosh of a "reform" will slash Medicare by a devastating half trillion dollars, impose heavy new taxes on union workers and middle class families fortunate enough to have so-called "Cadillac" plans, force young people to buy expensive insurance they may not want, and stick states already facing huge deficits with massive new unfunded mandates. Meanwhile, it will leave millions of the uninsured still uninsured and won't reduce health care costs but increase them, notwithstanding the phony 10-year accounting designed to make it look otherwise. Plus, the bill is filled with dodgy deals for individual Senators. Driven by the fervent wish of the party's left to achieve "reform," Congress is on the verge of enacting this monstrosity.

If the Senate leadership had been obliged to negotiate in good faith with even a single Republican -- say, Maine's Olympia Snowe, a smart, responsible moderate -- that process would have resulted in the elimination of many of the bill's faults and in some added improvements. Snowe did work with Democrats early on and voted to report a bill out of her committee. Then, she was shunted aside and humiliated so that not surprisingly, she opposes the current bill.

Electing Brown next week may not change the outcome on health care, since the Democratic leadership may find a way to push the bill through before he gets to Washington (or in a pinch, the House could pass the Senate version, eliminating the need for another Senate vote). But it will change the dynamic on Capitol Hill for the rest of the current Congressional session. Isn;t the essential ingredient of responsible bi-partisanship in our politics to make sure that both parties are really needed to some extent to make a decision?

Of course, the Democrats will still wield enormous power. It just won't be quite so unchecked. That's' good for everyone, including the Democratic Party. The way things are going now, Democrats will suffer a huge defeat in the 2010 elections, possibly even losing their majorities.

Brown's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, is the adequate but undistinguished candidate of the all-powerful but stultifyingly dull Massachusetts Democratic Party machine. No "Liberal Lioness," that's for sure, Coakley seemed ready a week ago to accept coronation and head to D.C. to cast votes robotically in tune with Harry Reid.

Brown is a smart, attractive, seasoned state legislator. He's a moderate conservative, a tax-conscious Republican cut pretty much from the same cloth as Mitt Romney, Chris Christie and other northeastern GOPers. He's pro-choice with narrow exceptions. He's not about to launch any Tea Party revolutions.

But the main thing about Scott Brown is this: Harry Reid will not have Brown's vote in his pocket.

What's you take on the race to fill Teddy seat? Post a comment.

Related: A new Rasmussen poll puts Brown and Coakley withing two points.

Much more about the Brown campaign at Legal Insurrection and Sissy Willis.

Welcome Sissy Willis readers.

Howard Dean plunges dagger into the heart of ObamaCare

Howard Dean says he'll support Obama's reelection, but "not vigorously"

As of yesterday, it was not at all clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had managed to corral the votes of moderate Democrats needed to reach the magic number 60. Senator Ben Nelson was still holding out for clear language barring the use of any federal funds for abortions. Joe Lieberman was being counted as a yes vote in some accounts, but all Lieberman said was that if the final bill had no form of public option or Medicare expansion, he was "getting to that position to where I can say...that I'm ready to vote for health care reform." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, especially considering that Reid has yet to unveil his final bill. Blanche Lincoln's view remained elusive and several other moderates, such as Virginia's Jim Webb, have been conspicuously silent all along.

Then, suddenly, the left lashed out against the bill, with a particularly damaging attack by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Dean has many fish to fry in this debate. He's doubtless been licking his wounds since being passed over by President Obama for Secretary of Health and Human Services. His hostility to Obama was unconcealed in an interview with "Morning Joe" Scarborough (see video above) in which he said he would be supporting Obama for reelection, but "not vigorously." Since that's more or less how much of the left wing of the Democratic Party feels about Obama right now, Dean is making a bold move to claim leadership on the left.

Whatever his motives, in a Washington Post op-ed today, Dean made a powerful case against the Senate bill from his perspective:

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

I'd call this is a clear attempt to plunge a dagger into the heart of any compromise Senate bill that might meet the objections of moderates like Nelson, Lieberman and Lincoln. Of course, Dean doesn't have a vote in the Senate, but his fellow Vermonter, independent Bernie Sanders, does, and Sanders says he's not going to support any bill that strips out the public option and Medicare expansion.

This left-wing rebellion goes beyond Vermont. Half the influential left blogosphere has bolted, with DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas writing that it's 'time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate." Liberal MSNBC hosts are piling on as well. Addressing Obama, Ed Schultz said on his program, "Right now, Mr. President, your base thinks you’re nothing but a sellout — a corporate sellout, out that. … The only people who like this current bill right now, Mr. President, is the insurance industry — they get a bunch of new customers.” In a windy commentary, Keith Olberman underscored Dean's arguments, called the compromise Senate bill a "cheesy counterfeit of reform," and declared that he personally would risk jail rather than accede to the individual mandate, if the bill becomes law. Meanwhile, the powerful Service Employees International Union, a major Obama backer and go-to player on health care reform, appeared to be hedging its support and applying pressure on Reid to move the bill back to the left.

If Reid does that, he loses Lieberman and Nelson, probably Lincoln and maybe other moderates. At the least, Obama's Christmas deadline is now kaput. Come January, all bets are off.

What's your take? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Ben Nelson has affirmed that he won't settle for any compromise on abortion language but will filibuster anything less than the House-passed Stupak Amendment. He also says he has other issues with the bill and that a deadline "isn't helpful." It's looking impossible for Reid to satisfy both Nemson and his rebelling left wing.

Democrats ready to commit suicide? Senate health bill will slash $491 billion from Medicare

Seniors back Medicare overwhelmingly, as do non-seniors!

The official analysis of the Senate health care "reform" bill on which Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the first vote tomorrow is out from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The most important number in this "scoring" of the bill is this: it will cut Medicare by a whopping $491 billion.

As was the case with the House bill, most of the public debate and media attention to the Senate version concerns the "public option," the total cost and new taxes proposed, and whether or not federal money will somehow wind up paying for abortions.

The huge Medicare cuts are still largely hidden from view, because Democrats don't want to talk about them and most Republicans talk about the cuts only by way of accusing Democrats of using budgetary flim-flim to make the bills appear "deficit neutral."

But these cuts are a very big deal. They will affect some 46 million current Medicare beneficiaries and millions more who are past 55 and beginning to worry about health care coverage in retirement. As the full impact of these cuts becomes clear to this reliably voting segment of the population, the backlash against any member of Congress foolish enough to vote for the bills will be fierce and merciless.

It's as if Democrats in Congress are prepared to commit political suicide. They have backed themselves into a corner where the failure to pass a bill -- any bill -- is viewed as a blow to President Obama and an affront to labor unions and other powerful constituencies that back the changes. In my view, the backlash will not only strike House "Blue Dogs" and Senate moderates who vote for the bills. It will hit liberal Democrats running in Democrat-friendly states and districts, as long as the GOP is smart and nimble enough to put up strong, appealing candidates. For example, New York's appointed junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, may face Rudy Giuliani next year. If so, Rudy will not be shy about positioning himself as pro-senior and pro-Medicare, as Gillibrand tries to explain away her vote for some $500 billion in Medicare cuts.

That won't be easy, since the cuts will have a real and demonstrable negative impact, as the federal agency that administers Medicare reported a few days ago.

According to the CBO, these are the big blows to Medicare as we know it in the Senate bill:

• Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector to "save" $192 billion over 10 years.

• Cutting $118 billion from Medicare Advantage programs that now enroll more than 13 million seniors over the 2010–2019 period.

• Reducing Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients by $43 billion -- about $22 billion from Medicaid and $21 billion from Medicare.

In addition, the bill would create a new agency -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board -- that would be required to "recommend changes to the Medicare program to [further] limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending. Those recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action." In other words, a panel of bureacrats, not accountable to anyone, would propose further cutbacks in Medicare that Congress would not have to vote on and the President would not have to sign into law, thus insulating the politicians from blame for the cuts.

All in all, if the Democrats pass either the Senate or the House bill with cuts of this kind into law, they have to be crazy if they think they will avoid the wrath of the senior voters.

What do you think? 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.

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.