Brian Beutler:

Last week, at a meeting between Senate health care principals and Obama administration officials, the White House basically told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid it would be leaving most of the big legislative decisions on reform to him. [. . . ] In a sign that Reid may be willing to acquiesce, if only the White House helps him whip the caucus into shape, a top Capitol Hill aide tells me "Right now, we don't have 60 Democratic Senators in lockstep with one another on the public option...we need the president to send a strong signal to those in the room negotiating the merger, that the public option is, really, what he wants in the final bill."

(Emphasis supplied.) It's amazing that this would need to be said. But what people do not want to accept is this - President Obama is indifferent to whether the public option is in or out of the health care reform bill. He is fine if it is in. And he is fine if it is out. In the debate on the public option, President Obama is content to be the Bystander President. Time to accept this and act accordingly. In that sense, focusing on Reid makes sense. He is up for reelection next year. And there is one thing pols are not indifferent about - getting reelected.

Speaking for me only

In reference to everyone upset at criticism from progressives of President Obama, I ask again my new perpetual question, why does no one ever write a "Leave Harry Reid Alone" post?

Do people REALLY believe Reid has more power on this issue than President Obama? And if so, do they believe that Olympia Snowe has more power than both of them? For the record, I think this a great ad.

Speaking for me only

Via FDL, in an article about AFSCME President Gerald McEntee's stalwart stance on the public option, I was struck by this comment from a union official:

Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters - questioned the language [about opposing a crappy health care reform bill.] “This is very premature to be putting markers down,” Schaitberger said. “There are so many steps left. There are two Senate bills to be merged. We’re going to get a lot further down this road by being prospective.”

Is Schaitberger right? I think he could not be more wrong. The time to stake out a firm position is early, not late. Why? Because if you wait, deals will be made without your concerns being addressed. To me, it is the same issue with when to criticize Obama. A lot of people say wait until he does what he is considering doing what you oppose. I say tell him you will oppose him if he does something you oppose. Then maybe he won't do it. Seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing?

Speaking for me only

Wouldn' it be funny if Specter vowed to vote against any health care bill that did not contain a robust public option? The power of primaries:

Asked if he would oppose a bill without a public option, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said: "I’m not prepared to recede at all. I think the public option is gaining momentum. I am not going to step back a bit. I am going to fight for the best public option."

I'm telling you, Sestak needs to up the ante and join the Progressive Block- no robust public option, no bill. Then Specter will do the same in the Senate.

Speaking for me only

Less interested in the President's words than in the President's actions at this point.

You know what's interesting about this? Not the post, but the ensuing thread.

Klein writes:

Over on the HCAN site, they're arguing that "The House bill covers more people, is more affordable, and is just as deficit neutral as the Finance bill." The first two clauses are true. The third simply isn't. The House bill is funded through income taxes, which don't grow as quickly as health-care costs. In the second decade, the costs of the plan rapidly outpace the revenues, and the deficit explodes. Conversely, the excise tax is inside the health-care sector, and is designed to grow more quickly than health-care costs. It cuts the deficit in the second 10 years, which makes it quite a bit friendlier to the budget.

(Emphasis supplied.) Because the excise tax on health care is "designed" to grow more quickly than health care costs does not mean it will. Indeed, to assume, as the CBO does, that there will be no adjustments made by employer purchasers of health insurance to AVOID the excise tax is sheer nonsense. (Anyone ever hear of folks asking for paycuts to avoid income tax?) Moreover, Ezra has not seen even a CBO scoring of the House bill, which is pending("The [CBO] estimates [. . .] do not indicate what their impact would be on the nation's budget deficit"), (See also Scarecrow for a further debunking of Klein's claim) so he has no idea what even the CBO will say on that score.

This is part of a point I made earlier - "I urge people in the coming weeks of intense negotiations to read whatever [P]rogressive" Village wonks (Ezra, Jon Cohn, Steve Benen, [Yglesias], Kevin Drum etc.)[. . .] through that prism [their tacit support for BaucusCare.] Here is Ezra implausibly attacking the House bills because he prefers BaucusCare to the proposals from the House. It would be preferable if he just would say so imo.

Speaking for me only

This is a loaded question, inspired by this from Matt Yglesias:

Al From has one of these op-eds where you urge liberals to drop hopes for a public option in the interests of being pragmatic and passing health reform. I sort of agree with this—reform is worth doing even without a public option.

(Emphasis supplied.) Matt expresses the view of the "progressive" Village wonks (Ezra, Jon Cohn, Steve Benen, himself, Kevin Drum etc.) and I urge people in the coming weeks of intense negotiations to read whatever they write on the public option through that prism - they do not really care about the public option.) I suppose I could imagine a health care "reform" (reform to me means more than just giving more money to Medicaid and subsidies for purchasing insurance to the less well off) proposal without a public option that would be worth doing. But my imagination is not the playing field - the actual health care proposals in play are. And there is not one of them, none, that is worth doing without a public option. Indeed, without a public option, they are very worthy of strong opposition. Most especially because of the individual mandates that they include.

I really think this is an important point, and one progressives in Congress need to make - that they do not see, say BaucusCare, for one example, as an improvement but rather as a step back and they would feel no compunction at all voting against such a bill. It is a bad bill. On policy and politics. If the choices are BaucusCare and nothing, nothing wins by a country mile imo.

Speaking for me only

House Blue Dog leader Mike Ross:

I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates

How much greater? How about 5% Mike? We got a deal. Of course, in a few hours, Ross will have to walk this all back. But it is stunning how stupid these people are.

Speaking for me only

Brian Beutler:

Speaking at her weekly press conference just off the House floor moments ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her most impassioned argument in weeks, for including a public option in comprehensive health care reform legislation, arguing against the idea, favored by some conservative Democrats, of mandating that people buy health insurance, and then throwing them into what she called the "lion's den" of the private insurance industry.

[. . .] The House, she said, "will not force America's middle income families to negotiate with insurance companies."

You go Madame Speaker!!

Speaking for me only

Via Jon Walker, The Hill reports:

Pelosi [. . .] said in the meeting she believed she has the votes now to pass her more “robust” version of a public option. But she said that she wants to show unity among House Democrats rather than passing a bill with 218 members, the bare majority of the chamber.

Shrewdly, imo, she wants more votes than that and has offered the Blue Dogs a bone:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeking to modify the House healthcare legislation to bring centrists around to the more liberal government-run insurance option, hoping that will give her the strongest negotiating position with the Senate. In a closed-door session with a diverse group of Democrats on Wednesday, Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered a $20 billion tweak in hospital reimbursement rates to rural lawmakers.

Pelosi also argued to the Blue Dogs that she can give them increased rural Medicare reimbursement rates if they send her to conference with more political bargaining power. I think that's true. And it is smart of Pelosi to talk to them this way. It is also smart of her to let them know she has the votes without them. Good political bargaining by the Speaker.

Speaking for me only

Despite everything the federal government has done to prop up Citigroup, it remains very troubled:

The banking giant said that it had a loss to stockholders of 27 cents a share or $3.2 billion, compared with a loss of $2.9 billion, or 61 cents a share, in the third quarter a year ago.

The federal government owns 34% of Citi and pumped $45B into it. At this point, Citi looks like another AIG, propped up to save other Wall Street behemoths, like Goldman, which earned $3.2B in the quarter, in the midst of a severe recession. What's wrong with this picture? And how about this?

In part to allay criticism of its profits and bonuses, Goldman announced a $200 million contribution to its foundation, which promotes education. [. . .] Goldman also disclosed how much it had set aside for its annual bonus pool. It said that it had earmarked $5.35 billion in compensation and benefits, an increase of 84 percent from the year earlier period, putting it on course for a record payout to its executives by the end of 2009.

Sheesh. That does not even reach tithe levels. It is submedieval. The need to raise taxes on the super rich is manifest.

Speaking for me only