Two heartbeats away.
Politics
Lack of progress on immigration reform rankling Latinos
Probably the last thing Pelosi and Obama need right now:
The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.
Hispanic Democrats say they haven’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the Senate’s prohibitions.
They claim that while it may be politically popular in some parts of the country to ban illegal immigrants from using their own money to buy coverage, it is not good policy. Illegal immigrants will, one way or another, need medical attention in the United States, and it would be cheaper and more humane to provide them coverage if they pay for it. Otherwise, they will seek treatments in the nation’s emergency rooms, effectively increasing medical costs.
This wouldn’t be an issue, if Congress and the president had passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill the last year. Still, this is probably just a ploy to extract a firm commitment to tackle the issue after health care reform passes.
President Barack Obama vowed to continue partnering with congressional leaders on comprehensive immigration reform.
Obama, after a meeting with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who are working to craft a comprehensive immigration bill, pledged support for the senators and other leaders to craft an immigration reform bill.
“Today I met with Senators Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system,” Obama said in a statement following the meeting. “I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find commonsense answers to one of our most vexing problems.”
Schumer and Graham have been working to put together a bill to win bipartisan support, upon which some congressional leaders have hoped to move this year.
You legalize the nation’s 11-13 million undocumented immigrants, then it doesn’t matter whether undocumented immigrants are barred from coverage under the health care reform bill. It’s pretty much that simple.
Aside from the policy consideration, however, is the political:
Candidate Obama promised to make immigration reform a priority during his first year in office, and the Latino vote surged to 10 million, from 7.8 million in 2004, and swung eight percentage points toward the Democrats.
Latinos gave 59 percent of their vote to John Kerry in 2004 but gave Obama 67 percent in 2008. The immigrant Latino vote expanded from 52 percent for Kerry to 75 percent for Obama, enough to deliver Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida — and arguably North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania [...]
In its first year, the Obama administration was on track to deport some 400,000 immigrants — far more than during George W. Bush’s last year in office. On the anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, Hoy, the Spanish-language newspaper in Chicago, ran a full-page picture of the president on its cover under the headline “Promesa Por Cumplir” (“Unkept Promise”). The sense of betrayal among Latinos — especially immigrants — is palpable, just as it was after Obama’s 2006 vote on the border fence.
As president, Obama has followed the cerebral strategy that increased enforcement will win support for immigration reform. But if there is no serious progress on the issue, many disillusioned Latinos will stay home in November.
And it’s not even just Latinos, but a significant and growing Asian population as well.
Early whip counts are that we can depend on 40 Democrats and one Republican — Lindsey Graham. 3-5 Democrats are definite no’s (Ben Nelson, Robert Byrd, and Kent Conrad, I think), the rest are gettable. On the Republican side, there are about 30-32 definite no’s, leaving another 9-11 possible pickups, like the Maine twins, Voinovich, Lugar and even McCain — bitter as he is over getting practically no Latino support in 2008. Then again, Graham claims that if health care reform passes via reconciliation, that immigration reform is dead because Republicans won’t want to work with Democrats.
Here’s the thing, though. Even if supporters can’t get to 60, and this will be subject to the Mother Of All Filibusters, have the vote anyway. Show Latinos you are fighting for them. People don’t mind losses. In fact, losing votes are a great way to identify roadblocks to reform. What people hate are Democrats making promises, then helplessly shrugging their shoulders because they don’t have 60 votes.
People voted for Democrats because they promised to fight for issues they cared deeply about. This is one of the issues they promised to deliver on. Now they should either deliver, or hold a vote to show Latinos and Asians who it is standing in the way of reform. If Lindsey Graham wants Latinos and Asians to see his party once again standing en masse in the way of a key priority, all the power to him.
Nothing energizes voters than a good villain, and heavens knows, Democrats need their base voters energized.
Politics
Update on reconciliation
Republicans have been lying about reconciliation being the “nuclear option” for weeks. So it should come as no surprise that CQ (subscription) now reports:
Republican aides, reporting the decision, interpreted it to mean the House would have to clear the Senate bill and President Obama would have to sign it before the reconciliation bill could be passed. House leaders had been hoping that the two bills could be passed almost simultaneously.
The parliamentarian, however, later reportedly clarified his position to Senate aides, saying that the reconciliation bill could be written in a way that would not require Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the reconciliation bill is voted on.
Thank you, and have a pleasant day.
If you don’t have a CQ subscription, for now you’ll have to settle for Politico’s story:
[A]ccording to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.
For example, if the big bill itself amends some Social Security statute, reconciliation could be written to do the same –with changes sought by the House. Then if reconciliation is passed and signed by President Barack Obama after he signs the larger bill, the changes made in reconciliation would prevail.
This jives with what Pulse sources were saying soon after the first wave of stories hit – in essence, don’t take the reported parliamentarian’s declaration to the bank.
World
Geoffrey Dunn: Obama’s Revenge: A Political Parody
In advance of the upcoming baseball season, the right-wing blogosphere has gone viral with a parody of Ernest Thayer’s immortal “Casey at the Bat,” with…
World
Paul Krugman Debunks Health Care Reform Myths
Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improvi…
World
Janet Yellen Tapped By Obama As Fed Vice Chairman
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen is President Barack Obama’s pick for vice chairman of the central bank in Washington, two people with knowledge of the selection process said.
The nomination is pending completion o…
Politics
Republicans have all the reconciliation luck!
The latest dispatch from Tokyo Rose McConnell comes via subscription only Roll Call:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.
The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
It’s amazing that the parliamentarian, who does not talk to the press, is reported by anonymous Republicans to have verbally told Republicans exactly what those Republicans wanted Democrats to hear.
Could it be true? Sure.
But it’s also the opposite of what former Senate parliamentarian Bob Dove said, and he said it on the record:
Dove says the Dems’ planned use of reconciliation is highly unusual. “I’ve never seen a two-bill strategy” where reconciliation is used to fix another piece of legislation, he says. “It’s permissible, I’ve just never seen it.”
Why would he say that? Because the law appears to say so, too:
§ 641. Reconciliation
(a) Inclusion of reconciliation directives in concurrent resolutions on the budget
A concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution, shall—
(1) specify the total amount by which—
(A) new budget authority for such fiscal year;
(B) budget authority initially provided for prior fiscal years;
(C) new entitlement authority which is to become effective during such fiscal year; and
(D) credit authority for such fiscal year,
contained in laws, bills, and resolutions within the jurisdiction of a committee, is to be changed and direct that committee to determine and recommend changes to accomplish a change of such total amount;
As does the Congressional Research Service (PDF):
Congress and the President could use reconciliation procedures to quickly make any adjustments in existing law or pending legislation that were required to achieve budget policies as they changed between the adoption of the spring and fall budget resolutions.
Could the current Senate parliamentarian just see things the exact opposite of the way the former parliamentarian sees it? And opposite the way the law appears to read? And opposite the way CRS reads it?
Sure.
But Republican Senate aides, who want more than anything to avoid the use of reconciliation, would prefer that you just stop asking. Thanks!
UPDATE: The strongest case, in my view, for what’s purported to be the parliamentarian’s insistence that the reconciliation bill address current law rather than pending legislation is that the instructions authorizing the use of the expedited process contained in the FY10 budget resolution call for “changes in laws,” and not changes in “laws, bills and resolutions” as the Budget Act appears to allow.
I have three more things to say about that:
- The instructions in the budget are part of a concurrent resolution, which does not have the force of law, whereas the Budget Act is in fact statutory law. Still, the budget resolution is arguably a set of instructions specific to this year and this Congress, whereas the Budget Act is a more general framework.
- On the other hand, the instructions also call for “changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.” Would the parliamentarian disallow a reconciliation bill that reduced the deficit by $2 billion simply because the instructions call for a mere $1 billion? Not likely, and yet this is no more restrictive a reading (especially given the more flexible wording of the Budget Act) than the one he supposedly endorsed today.
- With all due respect to Senator Conrad, it’s pretty clear that he’d very much like for the House to pass the Senate bill first, and he’s told the press twice before that that was necessary based on two different reasons that haven’t held up all that well under closer examination. First it was the false paradox that you couldn’t pass amendments to a law that “doesn’t exist,” (though as we’ve reasoned, if you believe a law doesn’t exist without the president’s signature, then you can’t believe the amendments exist, either, until they’re signed, so the paradox undoes itself if the bills are signed in the correct order). Then it was the claim that the reconciliation bill couldn’t be ruled on by the parliamentarian until it was scored, and that the reconciliation bill couldn’t be scored until the Senate bill was passed by the House. That turned out not to be true, either, since the Senate bill hasn’t been passed, but the CBO was reported to already be at work on scoring reconciliation.
So it seems at least reasonable to me that we spend some time probing the latest Conrad assertion. At least if we think that having the option of passing reconciliation first helps net Democrats any votes for passage of the Senate bill in the House. If not, then perhaps there’s little point in the exercise. But if there are votes that can be moved this way, then yeah, it probably pays to know what you do and don’t actually have to do.
UPDATE 2: Adriel Bettelheim, Managing Editor at Congressional Quarterly, Tweets this:
Senate parliamentarian telling hill staff that GOP aides misinterpreted his opinion on health care + reconciliation process. #hcr
So, you know, I’m kinda curious about that.
UPDATE 3: CQ (subscription) now reports:
Republican aides, reporting the decision, interpreted it to mean the House would have to clear the Senate bill and President Obama would have to sign it before the reconciliation bill could be passed. House leaders had been hoping that the two bills could be passed almost simultaneously.
The parliamentarian, however, later reportedly clarified his position to Senate aides, saying that the reconciliation bill could be written in a way that would not require Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the reconciliation bill is voted on.
Politics
A spineless chief justice: John Roberts and the denigration of American democracy
By Michael J.W. StickingsIf Chief Justice John Roberts can’t take it, he should resign.Roberts found it “very troubling” that President Obama would criticize the Supreme Court — or, more specifically, a single ruling of the Supreme Court, and an awful…
World
Jonathan Weiler: John Roberts’ Troubled Psyche
Sometimes high-profile public figures do reveal something meaningful about themselves. John Roberts’ concern over the fact that he had to sit “expressionless” while Obama criticized the Citizens’ United ruling is one of them.
Politics
Reform rising
By Michael J.W. StickingsJon Chait notes that popular support for health-care reform appears to be on the rise, with a new Economist poll “showing a majority (53-47) support for President Obama’s health care plan.” More than that, the trend across poll…
Politics
Where’s That Never-Ending Drumbeat?
From Bloomberg:
One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it’s up more than 41 percent since Obama took office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged. Housing prices have stabilized.
“We’ve had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president.” [...]
[M]onthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to Bloomberg data. Durable goods orders in January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and long-term interest rates remain low. [...]
Zandi said the economic rebound is largely a result of the policies of the White House and Federal Reserve. He cited the bank bailout, the Fed’s low-interest-rate policy and support for credit markets, and the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, bank stress tests and backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“When you take it all together, the response was massive and unprecedented and ultimately successful,” Zandi said.
If Democrats are waiting for the traditional media to shower them with huzzahs, it’s time for a reality check. The media is too busy reporting that “Republicans say” the stimulus has failed, we’re going to hell in a handbasket, and socialism is just around the corner (while conveniently omitting the fact that those same Republicans are touting stimulus money in their home districts).
In other words, Democrats need to start blowing their own horn on what has been accomplished economically over the course of the Obama administration.
(h/t to Americablog)
Politics
Expressionless, Mr. Chief Justice?
A bit more on U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ whining about being taken to task by the President for undermining a century of established law (a.k.a. activist judges) … here’s Roberts’ complaint:
The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.
Expressionless? Really, Mr. Chief Justice?
World
Gibbs Fires Back At Chief Justice Roberts Over Obama Criticism
The White House fired back at Justice John Roberts Tuesday night, after the Supreme Court Chief told a crowd that he found it “very troubling” that President Barack Obama would criticize the court during his State of the Union address.
In a …
Politics
Roberts troubled by Obama criticism of Citizen United ruling
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t happy with the President of the United States:
Chief justice: Obama criticism ‘troubling’
From NBC’s Pete Williams
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts today called President Obama’s remarks about the court during the State of the Union message “very troubling.”Speaking to a law school class today in Alabama, Roberts said while anyone is free to criticize the court, the sight of a president dressing down the justices in front of Congress was “very troubling.”
Roberts said he wonders if justices should attend State of the Union addresses anymore.
I guess Roberts is entitled to is political opinions, but as long as he’s inserting himself into the public discourse, he should keep in mind that the people of the United States of America aren’t that thrilled with his jurisprudence:
In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents
Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.
Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.
Emphasis added, just in case Chief Justice Roberts reads this blog.
Politics
“Miss Me Yet?”…Well…Apparently Not.
In early February, it became one of those intriguing little political stories that gets 30 seconds at the end of the national evening news. You might recall that it was then that some enterprising Republican business owners erected a billboard along I-35 in Minnesota featuring George W. Bush’s grinning visage and three critical words: “Miss Me Yet?”
Well, according to a new poll conducted by John Zogby on behalf of the right-wingers over at Newsmax, the answer to that question is…well…no. (Hat Tip: Taegan Goddard):
In case you were wondering, a new Zogby/Newsmax poll shows President Obama would beat George W. Bush in a hypothetical match up, 48% to 38%.
One has to guess that was not the outcome that Newsmax was hoping for when they contracted Zogby to conduct the survey. The numbers, while not necessarily a landslide, still do an enormous amount of damage to that article of faith among right-wingers that Obama is the least popular president in the history of the republic, and that his presidency will somehow usher in a period of nostalgia for the days of W.
The data, it would appear, indicates otherwise.
World
Obama Health Care Push: Back To His Grassroots
GLENSIDE, Pa. — Stirring memories of his campaign for the White House, President Barack Obama made a spirited, shirt-sleeved appeal for passage of long-stalled health care changes Monday as Democratic congressional leaders worked behind …
World
David McMillan: At This Year’s Oscars, History was Made Twice
Not to steal Ms. Bigelow’s thunder, but we witnessed another historic first at this year’s Oscars: Geoffrey Fletcher, who won Best Adapted Screenplay for Precious, became the first African-American to win an Oscar for screenwriting.
Politics
Obama’s Health Insurance Reform Offensive
This morning, Obama spoke to a Philadelphia crowd at Arcadia University, pushing hard on passing health insurance reform and particularly two themes aimed at getting Congress to act: new evidence that the market concentration for insurance is so monopolized that insurers will continue to raise prices and lose customers in order to maintain profits, and the benefits that will start immediately with passage of reform.
From his remarks as prepared:
Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Every year, they drop more people’s coverage when they’re sick and need it most. Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher. Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40%. In my home state of Illinois rates are going up by as much as 60%. And you just heard from Leslie, who was hit with a 100% rate increase. 100%. One letter from her insurance company and her premiums doubled. Just like that.
You see, these insurance companies have made a calculation. The other day, on a conference call organized by Goldman Sachs, an insurance broker told Wall Street investors that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep raising premiums. But since there’s so little competition in the insurance industry, they’re ok with people being priced out of health insurance because they’ll still make more by raising premiums on the customers they have. And they will keep doing this for as long as they can get away with it.
This will likely be the primary focus of Obama’s efforts this week to push the reform effot, following on a blog post by Dan Pfeiffer hammering the theme that “the insurers’ monopoly is so strong that they can continue to jack up rates as much as they like – even if it means losing customers – and their profits will continue to soar under the status quo.”
Obama’s other theme today seemed focused on reiterating for Congressional Dems that some reforms will kick in this year, and will be something strong to run on in November. Greg Sargent has this excerpt
Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions would suddenly be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives.
This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.
This year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. And they will no longer able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums. Those practices will end.
If this reform becomes law, all the new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to customers starting this year. Free checkups so we can catch preventable diseases.
Starting this year, there will be no more lifetime restricive annual limits on the amount of care you can receive from your insurance companies…
It would change fast: Insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people.
With the 50th Senator, Mark Begich, agreeing to go with reconciliation, this push is needs to be focused primarily House Blue Dogs. The larger problems still unresolved, which might have to take more direct, personal intervention from Obama, is how to resolve Stupak without throwing American women under the bus. It’s not entirely clear that Stupak actually does have the 12 votes he says he has, but Obama should be having some one-on-one discussions with those potential twelve.
The other issue that remains unspoken in these remarks is the one thing that would actually provide real competition to those insurance companies–the public option. The effort in the Senate just picked up its 37th supporter, Chris Dodd.
TomP has more in his diary.
Recent Comments