GOP Offers Debt Ceiling Sanity....for a few months
Coming out of the House GOP retreat, where they are presumably discussing their strategy and vision for the next 2 years and specifically how they are going to hold on to the House in 2014, comes word that the GOP will offer up a more or less "clean" increase of the debt ceiling to ward off default.
It comes with a few strings attached. The extension would only be for 3 months, meaning that we would be having the same discussion again in May or June. It would require both houses of Congress to pass a budget by April 15th or forfeit pay, something that the Senate has not done in several years, a fact that has been a talking point for the GOP.
It is possible that President Obama and the Democrats will have some issue with the proposal. The 3 month extension falls far short of the kind of extension or even elimination of the debt ceiling that the President had sought, hoping to avert having to deal with debt ceiling issue again in his Presidency. And Senate Democrats might balk at needing to pass a budget resolution.
But it seems like a savvy move for the GOP. It would be a tough sell for Democrats to vote against the debt ceiling increase they asked for. And I don't know very many people who would be too concerned about the possibility of Representatives and Senators not getting paid for a little while.
1 Term Down, 1 To Go
President Obama's will celebrate his second inauguration on Monday. It will be a more subdued ceremony than the celebration four years ago, when the country was less divided and we hadn't endured such a long economic malaise. But it will be a unifying moment for supporters of the President and a day of patriotism for all.
While the inauguration is on Monday, the official start of the President's second term is at noon tomorrow, as dictated by the constitution and the President will privately retake the oath of office then, before going through the ceremony on Monday.
Being at the end of the President's first 4 years, I thought it would be a good time to take stock of how the President has done.
(1) Did He Keep His Promises?
Politifact.com (run by the Tampa Bay Times) has did a great job of tracking all of the promises that the President made in the 2008 campaign and how they have turned out.
There were 508 documented promises made and of those, 239 were fully kept, 130 were partially kept and 139 were not kept. Those not kept were not kept for a variety of reasons - either the President changing his position (closing Gitmo, for instance), simply not pursuing something he promised to do (giving a State of the World address, for instance) or his desired policies changing as a result of negotiation with Congress (extending the Bush tax cuts for upper income limits for instance.)
Giving the President 100% for promises fully kept and 50% for those partially kept, the President gets 304 points out of a possible 508 or a score of 60%.
I said at the beginning of his term that it would be an A-worthy performance if the President could do half of the things he promised to do in 2008. A score of 60% certainly qualifies.
Grade: A
(2) Did He Achieve His Major Policy Goals?
The President had articulated six clear policy goals for his first term at the outset:
a. Implement a meaningful stimulus
On this issue, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act achieved almost all of what the President set out to achieve. It provided aid to states, funds for infrastructure improvements and targeted tax cuts. Couple this with the (just expired) temporary Social Security tax rate reductions that the President was able to get in 2010 and you have to say the President basically implemented what he set out to implement. There is much debate on the effectiveness of those policies, but here we are grading whether he did what he set out to do.
Grade: A
b. Implement Health Care Reform That Achieves Universal Coverage
The coverage is not quite universal (2% are excluded), the plan doesn't contain a public option, it does contain a mandate (something he opposed on the campaign trail) and the President gave up very early on including abortion coverage in the plan (another thing he campaigned on.) Still, President Obama was successful where Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton failed (President Reagan and both Presidents Bush were not advocates for such a program.) The carefully negotiated program was passed through congress narrowly and was narrowly upheld as largely constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is the law of the land and will roll out over his second term. We will all get to see how successful it is or isn't.
Grade: B+
c. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts for Those Making Over $250K
The President completely punted on this once, agreeing to a 2-year extension in late 2010, in exchange for some other goodies, such as the Social Security Tax deal. The President did better recently, at the end of his term, cutting a deal that let the rates rise on individuals making over $400K and couples making over $450K, about half of the population the President was targeting to contribute more.
Grade: C
d. Pass Meaningful Legislation to Deal with Carbon Emissions
A Cap and Trade bill passed the House in 2009 but was never even taken up in the Senate and there has been virtually no leadership from the President on making this stated priority happen. There were smaller steps that did happen, such as tax credits for energy efficient homes and appliances and extensions of wind and solar subsidies. But all-in-all, the President hasn't made much progress here.
Grade: D+
e. Provide for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Perhaps it will be a second term issue. But the President never even proposed a package of immigration reform, something which he had stated he would do in his first year in office. He took some action by executive order, such as the regulatory version of the Dream Act, but these actions were taken very late in his term and fall far short of comprehensive reform.
Grade: D
f. End the War in Iraq and Provide Additional Troops, on a Timetable in Afghanistan
The President basically did everything he said he would here. We are out of Iraq. We did surge in Afghanistan, but are now winding down our involvement, in line with the time table the President set.
Grade: A
Overall Grade on Priorities: B-
(3) How Did We Fare Economically?
This is a quite complicated question, given the deep recession that was underway at the start of his term. By some economic measures, the President doesn't make the grade, by others he does.
Average Annual GDP Growth During His Term: 2.1% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 3.8%)
Average Unemployment Rate During His Term: 9.0% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 6.0%)
Stock Market Return During His Term: 12.1% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 9.9%)
By the standards of economic growth and unemployment, the last 4 years have not been among our better ones. Following a deep recession, we have had slow growth with sustained high unemployment over several years. While unemployment is now falling, it is doing so painfully slowly and at least in part due to less people in the workforce. By these measures, President Obama doesn't rate well.
However, putting those numbers in proper context is difficult since anyone could have predicted following the financial crisis that unemployment would be elevated and growth depressed, at least for a period of time. This is where the stock market return comes in. The stock market price reflects both present economic circumstances and expectations around future economic performance. On this measure, the President is doing great, far exceeding normal market returns and, given that those are nominal returns and inflation has been very low, real returns exceed by an even greater margin.
Of course, stock market expectations can be wrong. The stock market was wildly over-priced in 1999 and wildly under priced in 1982. So while some of change in expectations can be due to averting crises or sounder policies, some is also due to mean reversion or, in common language, irrational panic or optimism abating.
So, it is difficult as we stand here today to judge the President's economic performance. We didn't fall off a cliff and into a depression, something that seemed like a real possibility in 2008. But we also haven't had a "V-shaped recovery" where the economy grows quickly after purging the less efficient elements in a recession. It is a mixed bag.
Grade; C
The President has a lot to tackle in his second term. The deficit is still out-of-control, with no path to balance in sight. Immigration and climate change remain unsolved issues. The economy, while not in crisis, is certainly not healthy, particularly for the lower-middle class.
I wish him luck as he begins his second term, for all our sakes.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label universal health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal health care. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Employer-Provided Health Care: The Worst Imaginable Model, Why Santorum Would Lose to Obama by 20 Points
The Real Reason Obamacare Is All Wrong
The flap with the Catholic Church over contraception coverage for women has been quite an interesting ride. First of all, who thought we would be debating condoms and birth control pills in 2012? Second, the clear exposed divide between the Catholic church's (I believe honestly held) moral principles and its membership's beliefs was on full display. Third, Rick Santorum's very socially conservative views being put on full display is a preview of things to come if he continues to be a serious candidate for the GOP nomination.
First, to the relevant controversy. The notion that religious freedom extends to whether or not you have to obey legal regulations is patently absurd. Bear in mind that we are not talking about Catholic churches themselves, simply the hospitals and schools that they own. If you believe that religious freedom should exclude them from having to provide contraceptive coverage as a matter of moral belief, where would you stop?
Should Muslim-owned businesses be allowed not to pay taxes because they don't want to pay money to support wars against Muslims?
Should a mining company owned by Christian Scientists by allowed to ignore regulations requiring Doctors on site to treat workers in dangerous situations because they don't believe in modern medicine?
Should an Orthodox Jewish owned business be allowed to refuse to serve women because it has a belief about the role of women in society?
Religious freedom, as protected by the first amendment, is something that we should revere. But it is not the only value in our society. In fact, the constitutional protection itself was intentionally drawn narrowly. All the First Amendment requires is that the Federal Government does not establish a state religion, not that it allows businesses owned by religious people to do whatever-the-hell they choose.
Birth control is broadly accepted in science, medicine and society. It is safe, effective, legal, economical and prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. There is zero reason not to include it in health care plans because a very small percentage of the population objects.
But the controversy reveals the broader problem with Obamacare in particular and our healthcare system in general. The issue with Obamacare is that it reinforces the system that we have, once that exists primarily as an employer-provided health care model.
Employer-provided coverage is about the worst imaginable model for a number of reasons. It leaves, all too often, the decisions around what health care you get up to your employer or to government regulation, which sparks the kind of controversies that we saw over the past two weeks. Secondly, it makes your access to health care dependent on your job. Get laid off? No health care. Change jobs? Your health care might change. Thirdly, it places a huge burden on employers. Employers that provide good health care coverage can pay upwards of 15% of their payroll towards health insurance, a burden not borne in competing economies where the coverage is either government provided or non-existent. Finally, it provides incentives that drive up cost, namely largely removing the patient from economic decisions related to health care.
Our backwards system is a product of our tax code. Employer-provided health care is both income and payroll tax-exempt. That means that if an employer and employee wanted to have an employee-purchased model, the employee would wind up paying far more in real dollars.
The simple solution, employed in the first-rate health care systems in Australia and France, is to have a basic level of coverage provided by the government and a secondary tier that is available to individuals to purchase out of pocket. In other words, everyone has access to preventative and catastrophic care, care which is both cost-effective and morally essential to a first-world society. Industry competitiveness and innovation is preserved through profit motive because of the second-tier of coverage, which is for more advanced coverage.
Obamacare's benefit is that it provides more access to the health care system to more people. But it largely perpetuates what is broken about the system.
Would Santorum Be the Worst GOP Candidate Ever?
With Rick Santorum's wins so far in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, his shocking lead in the polls in Michigan, his competitive polling in Arizona and his huge lead in Ohio, I guess we have to actually take the possibility of a Santorum nomination seriously (I'm still not betting on it, but to say I'm still as sure as I have been about Mitt Romney's prospects would be a lie.)
So what would a Romney candidacy mean?
Let's review - Santorum has likened homosexuality to sex with farm animals, has said contraception is morally wrong, is opposed to women in combat because of "emotions". I actually have more respect than most for Santorum's economic message, which appears among GOP candidates to be uniquely courageous in discussing the needs of working-class Americans, but he certainly has the least distinction to draw versus Barack Obama because of his past support for government spending projects, unions and entitlement expansion.
With an improving economy and more mainstream views, Barack Obama would utterly trounce Romney. As we sit here today, Barack Obama is up 6 to 8 points head to head against Santorum, but that is before most of the general electorate really learns about Santorum. I could easily see Santorum losing by 20 points nationally. He would lose women massively, possibly by 30 or 35 points. He would lose Reagan Democrats. He would lose Northeastern Republicans. Heck, Santorum lost his Senate re-election bid in Pennsylvania by 16 points.
He'd lose every single state Obama won in 2008. He'd probably also lose Arizona, Missouri and Montana. I could actually see him losing some classically solid Republican states such as Texas, the Dakotas, maybe even South Carolina and Georgia. It would be a wipe-out.
The worst GOP wipe-out in history was Barry Goldwater's 1964 whomping, where he lost by 22 points, lost 44 states and won a mere 52 electoral votes. My bet is that a Santorum candidacy might do even worse.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The flap with the Catholic Church over contraception coverage for women has been quite an interesting ride. First of all, who thought we would be debating condoms and birth control pills in 2012? Second, the clear exposed divide between the Catholic church's (I believe honestly held) moral principles and its membership's beliefs was on full display. Third, Rick Santorum's very socially conservative views being put on full display is a preview of things to come if he continues to be a serious candidate for the GOP nomination.
First, to the relevant controversy. The notion that religious freedom extends to whether or not you have to obey legal regulations is patently absurd. Bear in mind that we are not talking about Catholic churches themselves, simply the hospitals and schools that they own. If you believe that religious freedom should exclude them from having to provide contraceptive coverage as a matter of moral belief, where would you stop?
Should Muslim-owned businesses be allowed not to pay taxes because they don't want to pay money to support wars against Muslims?
Should a mining company owned by Christian Scientists by allowed to ignore regulations requiring Doctors on site to treat workers in dangerous situations because they don't believe in modern medicine?
Should an Orthodox Jewish owned business be allowed to refuse to serve women because it has a belief about the role of women in society?
Religious freedom, as protected by the first amendment, is something that we should revere. But it is not the only value in our society. In fact, the constitutional protection itself was intentionally drawn narrowly. All the First Amendment requires is that the Federal Government does not establish a state religion, not that it allows businesses owned by religious people to do whatever-the-hell they choose.
Birth control is broadly accepted in science, medicine and society. It is safe, effective, legal, economical and prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. There is zero reason not to include it in health care plans because a very small percentage of the population objects.
But the controversy reveals the broader problem with Obamacare in particular and our healthcare system in general. The issue with Obamacare is that it reinforces the system that we have, once that exists primarily as an employer-provided health care model.
Employer-provided coverage is about the worst imaginable model for a number of reasons. It leaves, all too often, the decisions around what health care you get up to your employer or to government regulation, which sparks the kind of controversies that we saw over the past two weeks. Secondly, it makes your access to health care dependent on your job. Get laid off? No health care. Change jobs? Your health care might change. Thirdly, it places a huge burden on employers. Employers that provide good health care coverage can pay upwards of 15% of their payroll towards health insurance, a burden not borne in competing economies where the coverage is either government provided or non-existent. Finally, it provides incentives that drive up cost, namely largely removing the patient from economic decisions related to health care.
Our backwards system is a product of our tax code. Employer-provided health care is both income and payroll tax-exempt. That means that if an employer and employee wanted to have an employee-purchased model, the employee would wind up paying far more in real dollars.
The simple solution, employed in the first-rate health care systems in Australia and France, is to have a basic level of coverage provided by the government and a secondary tier that is available to individuals to purchase out of pocket. In other words, everyone has access to preventative and catastrophic care, care which is both cost-effective and morally essential to a first-world society. Industry competitiveness and innovation is preserved through profit motive because of the second-tier of coverage, which is for more advanced coverage.
Obamacare's benefit is that it provides more access to the health care system to more people. But it largely perpetuates what is broken about the system.
Would Santorum Be the Worst GOP Candidate Ever?
With Rick Santorum's wins so far in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, his shocking lead in the polls in Michigan, his competitive polling in Arizona and his huge lead in Ohio, I guess we have to actually take the possibility of a Santorum nomination seriously (I'm still not betting on it, but to say I'm still as sure as I have been about Mitt Romney's prospects would be a lie.)
So what would a Romney candidacy mean?
Let's review - Santorum has likened homosexuality to sex with farm animals, has said contraception is morally wrong, is opposed to women in combat because of "emotions". I actually have more respect than most for Santorum's economic message, which appears among GOP candidates to be uniquely courageous in discussing the needs of working-class Americans, but he certainly has the least distinction to draw versus Barack Obama because of his past support for government spending projects, unions and entitlement expansion.
With an improving economy and more mainstream views, Barack Obama would utterly trounce Romney. As we sit here today, Barack Obama is up 6 to 8 points head to head against Santorum, but that is before most of the general electorate really learns about Santorum. I could easily see Santorum losing by 20 points nationally. He would lose women massively, possibly by 30 or 35 points. He would lose Reagan Democrats. He would lose Northeastern Republicans. Heck, Santorum lost his Senate re-election bid in Pennsylvania by 16 points.
He'd lose every single state Obama won in 2008. He'd probably also lose Arizona, Missouri and Montana. I could actually see him losing some classically solid Republican states such as Texas, the Dakotas, maybe even South Carolina and Georgia. It would be a wipe-out.
The worst GOP wipe-out in history was Barry Goldwater's 1964 whomping, where he lost by 22 points, lost 44 states and won a mere 52 electoral votes. My bet is that a Santorum candidacy might do even worse.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wisconsin - Latest Front in the Public Worker Battle, A Budget Compromise of Sorts?, What Are Our Spending Values?
Of Public Pensions and Unions
This battle has been brewing for a long time. It started in Washington DC, where former School Superintendent Michelle Rhee battled the teacher's unions over merit pay and tenure. It moved to New Jersey, where rising star Governor Chris Christie demanded that public workers contribute to their benefits. It moved to San Diego, where the township abandoned traditional pensions in favor of 401K matches, And it spilled over into the streets in Wisconsin, where public worker angrily protested a plan by the Republican majority to force public unions to decertify, essentially stripping public workers of the ability to unionize.
The battles is over public unions and the cost of public benefits. First, let's examine a brief history lesson. The strength of the union movement in this country, which began in the manufacturing sector, reached its height in the 1950s and 1960s, as steel workers, auto workers and other manufacturing workers, who numbered in the millions, joined up to demand better pay and benefits, shorter work hours and improved safety. Since that time, unions in the private sector have been on a steady decline. Manufacturing jobs have left for overseas or been lost to automation. And what workers remain in manufacturing have abandoned unionization more and more as federal regulators have largely dealt with the extreme safety and environmental violations of years past and manufacturers have wised up and offered better pay and benefits to non-union employees to discourage organization. In fact, union membership in the US is at an all-time low, with a mere 8% of workers now members of a union local.
The last vestige of union power in this country is among public workers. Teachers, police officer, fire fighters, garbage collectors, you name it, most government employees are unionized. And those unions have been effective. While the private sector is almost completely through a 20 year migration away from defined benefit pensions, free health care and other plush benefits of years past, they are still in full force in the public sector. And state and local governments, while they have been quick to agree to generous pensions, have been very slow to fund them, with up to $15 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities saddled on the backs of state governments by some estimates.
Now, as the recession and the housing collapse have sapped state coffers, the battle over those generous benefits is in full force. And it is on display in Wisconsin, which has taken the most radical step to date, of moving to legally prohibit state workers from joining a union.
A few thoughts. First of all, I'm no great fan of modern unions, especially public employees unions. Opposing merit pay for teachers and opposing the dismissal of corrupt police officers and incompetent DMV employees isn't a great way to earn my love. Neither is failing to recognize the economic reality of the times or the obligations that public employees have to the taxpayers.
Having said that, I think the whole Wisconsin thing is an overreach. I have a radical idea. Rather than forcing the Wisconsin unions to decertify, couldn't the GOP just simply not agree to their demands? No pay or benefits package can or will exist that is not agreed to by the government. Unions or no unions, the government holds all the cards, they simply have to play them.
Full on display have been the worst of both parties. Union members comparing themselves to Egyptian protestors (as if!) and their democratically-elected Republican officials to Hitler (aren't we all a little tired of those intellect-insulting comparisons?). On display by the right? A naked attempt to sap the Democratic union power base and debasement of the protestors first amendment rights.
Can't we all grow up a little?
Boehner: No Shutdown Looming
John Boehner is no fool. Unlike Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House realizes the damage that was done to the GOP when it went toe-to-toe with then President Clinton over the budget in 1995, a battle that led to a government shutdown that helped to lead to a resounding re-election victory for Clinton in 1996. Boehner was explicit today that he would do everything possible to prevent a government shutdown, when the current continuing resolution expires next Friday and showed an openness to agree to a short-term measure to keep the government operating while Republicans negotiate a compromise with Senate Democrats and the President, although he was clear that any such measure would be at a reduced rate of spending.
Boehner is also now on record that the Republican budget proposal will address entitlement reform. This is progress. Entitlement reform (along with defense spending reform, which Boehner was notably silent on) will be the key to solving the deficit, not the nickels currently being argued over around discretionary spending. Let's just hope the GOP plan doesn't include a privatization of Social Security, an idea which makes the funding gap worse and subjects the federal safety net to the risks of the market. Stick to retirement age, tax ceilings and the tax rate, Mr. Boehner, and don't look to gamble with poor seniors primary source of income.
On the budget, I predict the GOP will get most of what it wants. President Obama has shown little backbone on economic issues, as evidenced by the "compromise" on the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts, where the President gave ground on essentially everything. Plus, the fact remains, the President can't get a budget that doesn't pass the GOP-controlled House, so they still hold all the cards.
What Spending Tells Us About Values
This past weekend, I was at my parent's house for lunch and dinner. My father, a retired defense contractor, is a committed economic conservative. He has voted Republican most of his life, hates high taxes and detests government spending on almost everything except the military. We agree on some things economic (farm subsidies drive both of us nuts!) and disagree on others (I would like a lot less military spending, he has long been a defense hawk.) But when we talked health care, he had a pleasantly pragmatic view.
You see, he had several back surgeries about a year ago. He noted that if he had paid for them himself, the total cost would likely have been close to a hundred thousand dollars. That's untenable for any private party to manage, he conceded - people have to have access to insurance. He also isn't a fan of single payer: "in the UK, they would just write me a prescription for some narcotics and send me on my way" he said, also a solution he didn't like. "So what do we do?", I asked. "I think," he said, pausing to consider the options, "that we are all going to have to get used to spending more on health care than we are used to."
And there you have the rub. You can't have world class care for everyone and not pay a premium for it. You can't continually reduce costs and improve care. We have to decide what kind of system we want. And that involves choices. Cost versus quality. Access versus innovation. How we balance these things reflect our values and determine our economy. The problem is, we are still having a sound-bite debate. This isn't about individual mandates or Medicare reimbursement rates. It is about how we design a system we can afford that contains choices that reflect our values. And that is no easy task. Obamacare doesn't solve it. But the GOP has offered no real alternative, other than the status quo, which is even more unsustainable.
Stay tuned. This issue isn't going away.
This battle has been brewing for a long time. It started in Washington DC, where former School Superintendent Michelle Rhee battled the teacher's unions over merit pay and tenure. It moved to New Jersey, where rising star Governor Chris Christie demanded that public workers contribute to their benefits. It moved to San Diego, where the township abandoned traditional pensions in favor of 401K matches, And it spilled over into the streets in Wisconsin, where public worker angrily protested a plan by the Republican majority to force public unions to decertify, essentially stripping public workers of the ability to unionize.
The battles is over public unions and the cost of public benefits. First, let's examine a brief history lesson. The strength of the union movement in this country, which began in the manufacturing sector, reached its height in the 1950s and 1960s, as steel workers, auto workers and other manufacturing workers, who numbered in the millions, joined up to demand better pay and benefits, shorter work hours and improved safety. Since that time, unions in the private sector have been on a steady decline. Manufacturing jobs have left for overseas or been lost to automation. And what workers remain in manufacturing have abandoned unionization more and more as federal regulators have largely dealt with the extreme safety and environmental violations of years past and manufacturers have wised up and offered better pay and benefits to non-union employees to discourage organization. In fact, union membership in the US is at an all-time low, with a mere 8% of workers now members of a union local.
The last vestige of union power in this country is among public workers. Teachers, police officer, fire fighters, garbage collectors, you name it, most government employees are unionized. And those unions have been effective. While the private sector is almost completely through a 20 year migration away from defined benefit pensions, free health care and other plush benefits of years past, they are still in full force in the public sector. And state and local governments, while they have been quick to agree to generous pensions, have been very slow to fund them, with up to $15 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities saddled on the backs of state governments by some estimates.
Now, as the recession and the housing collapse have sapped state coffers, the battle over those generous benefits is in full force. And it is on display in Wisconsin, which has taken the most radical step to date, of moving to legally prohibit state workers from joining a union.
A few thoughts. First of all, I'm no great fan of modern unions, especially public employees unions. Opposing merit pay for teachers and opposing the dismissal of corrupt police officers and incompetent DMV employees isn't a great way to earn my love. Neither is failing to recognize the economic reality of the times or the obligations that public employees have to the taxpayers.
Having said that, I think the whole Wisconsin thing is an overreach. I have a radical idea. Rather than forcing the Wisconsin unions to decertify, couldn't the GOP just simply not agree to their demands? No pay or benefits package can or will exist that is not agreed to by the government. Unions or no unions, the government holds all the cards, they simply have to play them.
Full on display have been the worst of both parties. Union members comparing themselves to Egyptian protestors (as if!) and their democratically-elected Republican officials to Hitler (aren't we all a little tired of those intellect-insulting comparisons?). On display by the right? A naked attempt to sap the Democratic union power base and debasement of the protestors first amendment rights.
Can't we all grow up a little?
Boehner: No Shutdown Looming
John Boehner is no fool. Unlike Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House realizes the damage that was done to the GOP when it went toe-to-toe with then President Clinton over the budget in 1995, a battle that led to a government shutdown that helped to lead to a resounding re-election victory for Clinton in 1996. Boehner was explicit today that he would do everything possible to prevent a government shutdown, when the current continuing resolution expires next Friday and showed an openness to agree to a short-term measure to keep the government operating while Republicans negotiate a compromise with Senate Democrats and the President, although he was clear that any such measure would be at a reduced rate of spending.
Boehner is also now on record that the Republican budget proposal will address entitlement reform. This is progress. Entitlement reform (along with defense spending reform, which Boehner was notably silent on) will be the key to solving the deficit, not the nickels currently being argued over around discretionary spending. Let's just hope the GOP plan doesn't include a privatization of Social Security, an idea which makes the funding gap worse and subjects the federal safety net to the risks of the market. Stick to retirement age, tax ceilings and the tax rate, Mr. Boehner, and don't look to gamble with poor seniors primary source of income.
On the budget, I predict the GOP will get most of what it wants. President Obama has shown little backbone on economic issues, as evidenced by the "compromise" on the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts, where the President gave ground on essentially everything. Plus, the fact remains, the President can't get a budget that doesn't pass the GOP-controlled House, so they still hold all the cards.
What Spending Tells Us About Values
This past weekend, I was at my parent's house for lunch and dinner. My father, a retired defense contractor, is a committed economic conservative. He has voted Republican most of his life, hates high taxes and detests government spending on almost everything except the military. We agree on some things economic (farm subsidies drive both of us nuts!) and disagree on others (I would like a lot less military spending, he has long been a defense hawk.) But when we talked health care, he had a pleasantly pragmatic view.
You see, he had several back surgeries about a year ago. He noted that if he had paid for them himself, the total cost would likely have been close to a hundred thousand dollars. That's untenable for any private party to manage, he conceded - people have to have access to insurance. He also isn't a fan of single payer: "in the UK, they would just write me a prescription for some narcotics and send me on my way" he said, also a solution he didn't like. "So what do we do?", I asked. "I think," he said, pausing to consider the options, "that we are all going to have to get used to spending more on health care than we are used to."
And there you have the rub. You can't have world class care for everyone and not pay a premium for it. You can't continually reduce costs and improve care. We have to decide what kind of system we want. And that involves choices. Cost versus quality. Access versus innovation. How we balance these things reflect our values and determine our economy. The problem is, we are still having a sound-bite debate. This isn't about individual mandates or Medicare reimbursement rates. It is about how we design a system we can afford that contains choices that reflect our values. And that is no easy task. Obamacare doesn't solve it. But the GOP has offered no real alternative, other than the status quo, which is even more unsustainable.
Stay tuned. This issue isn't going away.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reconciliation Bill Passes the Senate, Then the House Again, A Pink Slip for Harry Reid?, Public Support Growing
Reconciliation Bill Will Be Law with the President's John Hancock
The Senate passed the reconciliation bill, which modifies the new health care reform law to remove unseemly deals struck in the Senate favoring Nebraska and Louisiana, but also waters down the high cost insurance tax and ramps up the subsidizes for the insured, passed the Senate by a 56-43 vote in the wee hours of the morning, after what could only be described as a barrage of proposed GOP amendments and challenges (I counted 53 separate roll call votes related to the measure.) The GOP did not entirely fail, they found two technical violations of reconciliation provisions which caused minor modifications to the bill. This is significant only in that the bill is now not identical to the bill passed by the House on Sunday and the measure therefore headed back to the House for re-approval. The Senate vote saw all Republicans opposed, joined by three Democrats -- expected defectors Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Ben Nelson (NE) and unexpected defector Mark Pryor (AR), a guy who I had no prior knowledge of as being an at-risk vote and someone who had voted with the DEMs every previous time on health care. No matter, as only 51 votes were required for passage.
The bill then moved back to the House, where a hurried rule was thrown together in the House and the House passed the Senate-modified version by a vote of 220-207, an identical number of aye votes that the package got on Sunday. It now moves to the President for signature.
A Pink Slip for Reid and A Promotion for Pelosi?
An independent friend of mine who tends to be dispassionate about these sorts of things, wryly observed to me yesterday that after the health care debate of the past year, "Harry Reid deserves to be fired and Nancy Pelosi deserves a promotion". I agree with the sentiment. Pelosi's careful navigation of the waters to get the health care bill done reveals the depth of her politic effectiveness. Contrast this with the fumbling and PR disasters of Harry Reid from the past year and it is clear - the Democrats have but one effective leader in congress.
Harry Reid may well be fired...fired by the voters of Nevada. He is trailing in the polls and could well lose not only his majority leader status but indeed his seat, in November. And I certainly won't shed a tear for him.
Nancy Pelosi probably cannot get a promotion. Being Speaker of the House in undoubtedly the second most powerful position in the United States Government. Though it is second in line for the Presidency, after the Vice President, the Vice President has but one official power (breaking ties in the Senate), whereas the Speaker has broad discretion to manage the business of the House.
Everybody Likes a Winner
A post-signing poll indicates that the American people, while still heavily divided, now narrowly favor the new health care law. Conducted by Gallup, it indicates the public now supports the bill by 49% to 40%. This just illustrates the silliness of the notion that this bill would be the death of the Democrats. The Democrats were dying for NOT getting their business done and had they failed to pass a bill, would have been saddled with the dual problems of having voted for a bill for which people would see no tangible result (and would therefore be likely to stay opposed to) and infuriating their base for not getting anything done.
I'm certainly not saying that the Democrats won't lose seats in November as they surely will. But in my mind, they are clearly better off for having gotten the health care bill done than they would have been without it.
Thanks for tuning in on the historic night of House passage. We had 155 visitors to the site on Sunday, the highest total since I began keeping track in January of 2009 (although I certainly suspect our readership on election night, 2008 was higher), eclipsing the 131 visitors we had on election night 2009. I am humbled and honored to be a source of information as the country grapples with important issues and elections.
If you like this site tell your friends!
The Senate passed the reconciliation bill, which modifies the new health care reform law to remove unseemly deals struck in the Senate favoring Nebraska and Louisiana, but also waters down the high cost insurance tax and ramps up the subsidizes for the insured, passed the Senate by a 56-43 vote in the wee hours of the morning, after what could only be described as a barrage of proposed GOP amendments and challenges (I counted 53 separate roll call votes related to the measure.) The GOP did not entirely fail, they found two technical violations of reconciliation provisions which caused minor modifications to the bill. This is significant only in that the bill is now not identical to the bill passed by the House on Sunday and the measure therefore headed back to the House for re-approval. The Senate vote saw all Republicans opposed, joined by three Democrats -- expected defectors Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Ben Nelson (NE) and unexpected defector Mark Pryor (AR), a guy who I had no prior knowledge of as being an at-risk vote and someone who had voted with the DEMs every previous time on health care. No matter, as only 51 votes were required for passage.
The bill then moved back to the House, where a hurried rule was thrown together in the House and the House passed the Senate-modified version by a vote of 220-207, an identical number of aye votes that the package got on Sunday. It now moves to the President for signature.
A Pink Slip for Reid and A Promotion for Pelosi?
An independent friend of mine who tends to be dispassionate about these sorts of things, wryly observed to me yesterday that after the health care debate of the past year, "Harry Reid deserves to be fired and Nancy Pelosi deserves a promotion". I agree with the sentiment. Pelosi's careful navigation of the waters to get the health care bill done reveals the depth of her politic effectiveness. Contrast this with the fumbling and PR disasters of Harry Reid from the past year and it is clear - the Democrats have but one effective leader in congress.
Harry Reid may well be fired...fired by the voters of Nevada. He is trailing in the polls and could well lose not only his majority leader status but indeed his seat, in November. And I certainly won't shed a tear for him.
Nancy Pelosi probably cannot get a promotion. Being Speaker of the House in undoubtedly the second most powerful position in the United States Government. Though it is second in line for the Presidency, after the Vice President, the Vice President has but one official power (breaking ties in the Senate), whereas the Speaker has broad discretion to manage the business of the House.
Everybody Likes a Winner
A post-signing poll indicates that the American people, while still heavily divided, now narrowly favor the new health care law. Conducted by Gallup, it indicates the public now supports the bill by 49% to 40%. This just illustrates the silliness of the notion that this bill would be the death of the Democrats. The Democrats were dying for NOT getting their business done and had they failed to pass a bill, would have been saddled with the dual problems of having voted for a bill for which people would see no tangible result (and would therefore be likely to stay opposed to) and infuriating their base for not getting anything done.
I'm certainly not saying that the Democrats won't lose seats in November as they surely will. But in my mind, they are clearly better off for having gotten the health care bill done than they would have been without it.
Thanks for tuning in on the historic night of House passage. We had 155 visitors to the site on Sunday, the highest total since I began keeping track in January of 2009 (although I certainly suspect our readership on election night, 2008 was higher), eclipsing the 131 visitors we had on election night 2009. I am humbled and honored to be a source of information as the country grapples with important issues and elections.
If you like this site tell your friends!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama Signs Health Care Bill, I'm with Gibbs on Biden, Time for the GOP to Grow Up
Obama Signs Health Care Legislation
Today was truly an historic day, as the President signed into law H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In what may well be the biggest day of the Obama Presidency, the President finally got his health care bill.
Let's not oversell it - as I've said before, this is not the biggest new social program since Medicare, that honor belongs to George W. Bush's drug benefit for seniors. It certainly isn't the biggest expansion of government in our lifetimes, that honor would surely belong to the start of the Iraq war. It isn't the biggest new bureaucracy in decades, that honor belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.
But, it is, as Vice President Joe Biden so uncomfortable said, "a f***ing big deal". It's a big deal because it will dramatically increase access to health care for 32 million Americans. It is a big deal because it will end the job paralysis caused by pre-existing condition exclusions and the fear that the loss of a job causes to those with medical problems. And it's a big deal because it fulfills the moral obligation of a wealthy nation to care for its people.
It doesn't do enough, or even much, on cost control. It's provisions to require insurance are weak. There is no public option. It doesn't abandon the flawed employer-provided model. It doesn't address the anti-U.S. pricing practices of the drug industry. There is a lot that I would like it to do that it does not. But it is a big deal. A f***ing big deal.
Gibbs Plays it Right
The only comment on our gaffe-prone Vice President's latest on mic gaffe? Robert Gibbs tweets "yes, Mr. Vice President, you are right" and the White House refers all questions to that tweet. Couldn't agree more.
Grow Up, GOP
There are lots of legitimate reasons to disagree with the Democratic approach on health care. If you are a true believer in the power of markets, a small government person, a true libertarian, a fiscal conservative, what have you, then this bill will not appeal to you. The GOP had ever right to vote against a bill that runs against their principles. You made your points, emphatically. You lost because you lost the November 2008 elections and badly. You lost because the people didn't give you the power to stop this bill, whether they presently like the bill or not.
Now is the time to grow up.
The health care bill is law. It is flawed. You've been quick to point out some of the more ugly flaws...the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, etc. Now, out of spite, you are going to stand in the way of repealing those same things of which you were so intently critical? What I'm watching right now on the Senate floor is a bad joke. It is pure sour grapes from the GOP. There is very little credible argument that the reconciliation bill makes the health care law, and it is now a law, worse. Yet the GOP obstructs. To what end? So that we can keep the Senate bill that they panned? John McCain has taken to the press saying the GOP won't cooperate with the Democrats on ANYTHING this year, regardless of if they agree ideologically. How childish.
I said several months ago, concerned about runaway deficits, that if I did not see a credible deficit reduction plan out of the White House prior to November that I would strongly consider voting Republican to check government spending. The GOP is trying their best to take that option off the table for me. The people deserve better.
Speak out against the bill you opposed, absolutely. Campaign against Democrats who voted for it, that's completely a fair debate. Campaign on repealing it? Sure. But blocking the improvements that YOU sought? Openly obstructing things you agree with? And don't start with...back in 200x, Democrats wouldn't play ball with George Bush on xxxx...the two wrongs make a right argument is rotten to the core.
Get over it.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Today was truly an historic day, as the President signed into law H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In what may well be the biggest day of the Obama Presidency, the President finally got his health care bill.
Let's not oversell it - as I've said before, this is not the biggest new social program since Medicare, that honor belongs to George W. Bush's drug benefit for seniors. It certainly isn't the biggest expansion of government in our lifetimes, that honor would surely belong to the start of the Iraq war. It isn't the biggest new bureaucracy in decades, that honor belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.
But, it is, as Vice President Joe Biden so uncomfortable said, "a f***ing big deal". It's a big deal because it will dramatically increase access to health care for 32 million Americans. It is a big deal because it will end the job paralysis caused by pre-existing condition exclusions and the fear that the loss of a job causes to those with medical problems. And it's a big deal because it fulfills the moral obligation of a wealthy nation to care for its people.
It doesn't do enough, or even much, on cost control. It's provisions to require insurance are weak. There is no public option. It doesn't abandon the flawed employer-provided model. It doesn't address the anti-U.S. pricing practices of the drug industry. There is a lot that I would like it to do that it does not. But it is a big deal. A f***ing big deal.
Gibbs Plays it Right
The only comment on our gaffe-prone Vice President's latest on mic gaffe? Robert Gibbs tweets "yes, Mr. Vice President, you are right" and the White House refers all questions to that tweet. Couldn't agree more.
Grow Up, GOP
There are lots of legitimate reasons to disagree with the Democratic approach on health care. If you are a true believer in the power of markets, a small government person, a true libertarian, a fiscal conservative, what have you, then this bill will not appeal to you. The GOP had ever right to vote against a bill that runs against their principles. You made your points, emphatically. You lost because you lost the November 2008 elections and badly. You lost because the people didn't give you the power to stop this bill, whether they presently like the bill or not.
Now is the time to grow up.
The health care bill is law. It is flawed. You've been quick to point out some of the more ugly flaws...the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, etc. Now, out of spite, you are going to stand in the way of repealing those same things of which you were so intently critical? What I'm watching right now on the Senate floor is a bad joke. It is pure sour grapes from the GOP. There is very little credible argument that the reconciliation bill makes the health care law, and it is now a law, worse. Yet the GOP obstructs. To what end? So that we can keep the Senate bill that they panned? John McCain has taken to the press saying the GOP won't cooperate with the Democrats on ANYTHING this year, regardless of if they agree ideologically. How childish.
I said several months ago, concerned about runaway deficits, that if I did not see a credible deficit reduction plan out of the White House prior to November that I would strongly consider voting Republican to check government spending. The GOP is trying their best to take that option off the table for me. The people deserve better.
Speak out against the bill you opposed, absolutely. Campaign against Democrats who voted for it, that's completely a fair debate. Campaign on repealing it? Sure. But blocking the improvements that YOU sought? Openly obstructing things you agree with? And don't start with...back in 200x, Democrats wouldn't play ball with George Bush on xxxx...the two wrongs make a right argument is rotten to the core.
Get over it.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Reconciliation Bill Passed, Health Care in the House is Done
11:42 PM
The House has passed the bill of reconciliation "fixes" 220-211. Interestingly, this is one vote more than for passage of the Senate bill, meaning that there is one Democrat that voted against the Senate bill but then voted for the reconciliation bill.
The Senate bill will now move to the President's desk, be signed early this week, and become law.
The reconciliation fixes now move to the Senate, which Majority Leader Reid has said will take the bill up this week. The Senate fight over reconciliation hasn't received a lot of attention so far, with all eyes on the House, but that is about to change. Reid will have to figure out a way to manage the bill through an onslaught of GOP amendments designed to pick off Democratic votes and make the bill different from the bill the House passed, forcing the House to take the issue back up. But that is a fight for another day.
Almost 11 hours after the House gaveled open this rare Sunday session, it is finally done with the business of health care. The House is voting on two unrelated bills now, which are not particularly interesting, so I'm calling it a night. President Obama is slated to make a statement in a few minutes for the true die-hards.
More on the Senate action this week.
Thanks for following along tonight, as you always do....Google tells me we have already had 138 visitors to the site tonight, showing that once again, when big political news is breaking, you come to this site. Thanks again.
Have a great night...lots more politics to come!
The House has passed the bill of reconciliation "fixes" 220-211. Interestingly, this is one vote more than for passage of the Senate bill, meaning that there is one Democrat that voted against the Senate bill but then voted for the reconciliation bill.
The Senate bill will now move to the President's desk, be signed early this week, and become law.
The reconciliation fixes now move to the Senate, which Majority Leader Reid has said will take the bill up this week. The Senate fight over reconciliation hasn't received a lot of attention so far, with all eyes on the House, but that is about to change. Reid will have to figure out a way to manage the bill through an onslaught of GOP amendments designed to pick off Democratic votes and make the bill different from the bill the House passed, forcing the House to take the issue back up. But that is a fight for another day.
Almost 11 hours after the House gaveled open this rare Sunday session, it is finally done with the business of health care. The House is voting on two unrelated bills now, which are not particularly interesting, so I'm calling it a night. President Obama is slated to make a statement in a few minutes for the true die-hards.
More on the Senate action this week.
Thanks for following along tonight, as you always do....Google tells me we have already had 138 visitors to the site tonight, showing that once again, when big political news is breaking, you come to this site. Thanks again.
Have a great night...lots more politics to come!
Boehner Done, Pelosi on the Stage
10:17 PM
Nancy Pelosi has now taken the floor, in the rare act, reserved for important legislation, of the speaker addressing the House on the floor.
Boehner's speech was a rallying cry for freedom for the GOP. To be honest, it was a little Glenn Beck-ish. He appeared near tears when he asked "have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment? No you haven't!" But, similar to Beck, he got the faithful going.
Pelosi's speech is a bit of a snoozer so far.
Nancy Pelosi has now taken the floor, in the rare act, reserved for important legislation, of the speaker addressing the House on the floor.
Boehner's speech was a rallying cry for freedom for the GOP. To be honest, it was a little Glenn Beck-ish. He appeared near tears when he asked "have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment? No you haven't!" But, similar to Beck, he got the faithful going.
Pelosi's speech is a bit of a snoozer so far.
Will There Be an 11th Hour Stupak Deal? And Does It Matter?
After being on and off for days, it appears the pro-life wing of Democrats, represented publicly by Rep. Bart Stupak, are close to striking a deal with the White House, whereby they would vote for the Senate bill, which contains weaker language prohibiting abortion funding than the original House-passed plan, and in return the White House would issue an executive order clarifying that funds from the bill would not be used to fund abortions. How exactly this executive order would change anything is not clear to me.
The abortion issue and what the Senate language means has been a subject of a lot of debate, both in congress and in religious circles. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against the Senate bill, after supporting the original House bill, on the basis of the abortion language not being strong enough. But, in a rare public contradiction, the largest group of US nuns, as well as several prominent Catholic Priests and Bishops dissented, stating the language was strong enough. The debate was striking in the directness with which the Catholic church has been engaged in the debate. The Catholic Church is both a strong advocate for health care as a universal right and a strong opponent of abortion, so their loyalties are naturally conflicted on this bill.
So does the potential Stupak compromise matter? Probably a little. It appears that the original Stupak "gang of 12" Democrats who demanded the abortion language in the House bill has probably diminished to 6 or so, with original members such as Rep. Marcy Kaptur on record as supporting the bill as written after originally being with Stupak. So, it is entirely possible for the bill to go through, albeit with no margin for error, without the votes of the remaining Stupak Democrats.
But getting Stupak gets Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer two things -- first, a margin of error if there is late movement that they don't anticipate. Second, it lets members in tough districts who are onboard if needed but would prefer not to have to vote "yea" off the hook.
Debate starts in 25 minutes. Stay tuned.
The abortion issue and what the Senate language means has been a subject of a lot of debate, both in congress and in religious circles. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against the Senate bill, after supporting the original House bill, on the basis of the abortion language not being strong enough. But, in a rare public contradiction, the largest group of US nuns, as well as several prominent Catholic Priests and Bishops dissented, stating the language was strong enough. The debate was striking in the directness with which the Catholic church has been engaged in the debate. The Catholic Church is both a strong advocate for health care as a universal right and a strong opponent of abortion, so their loyalties are naturally conflicted on this bill.
So does the potential Stupak compromise matter? Probably a little. It appears that the original Stupak "gang of 12" Democrats who demanded the abortion language in the House bill has probably diminished to 6 or so, with original members such as Rep. Marcy Kaptur on record as supporting the bill as written after originally being with Stupak. So, it is entirely possible for the bill to go through, albeit with no margin for error, without the votes of the remaining Stupak Democrats.
But getting Stupak gets Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer two things -- first, a margin of error if there is late movement that they don't anticipate. Second, it lets members in tough districts who are onboard if needed but would prefer not to have to vote "yea" off the hook.
Debate starts in 25 minutes. Stay tuned.
No Deem and Pass, Still Some Intrigue But the Dems Say They Have It
Rules Committee (Wisely) Abandons Slaughter Rule
The rules committee in the House yesterday wisely abandoned the widely panned "self-executing rule" which would have allowed the House to "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without directly voting for passage. From my view, this was sort of an irrelevant inside Washington debate, since everybody was going to know that those who voted for the self-executing rule were really voting for the underlying bill, but it was turning into a PR disaster for Democrats, and rightly so. If you want to vote for health care bill, vote for the health care bill.
So, here's what you will see today in the House:
The House will convene at 1 PM and begin with a period of debate on the rules for debate. There will then be three votes, with debate before each of them:
(1) A vote on the rules for debate
(2) A vote on the reconciliation fixes, which withdraw the "cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase", scale back the tax on high cost health care plans and provide additional funding for lower income subsidies.
(3) A vote on the Senate health care bill, as passed in the Senate.
If vote #1 fails, votes #2 and #3 don't happen. If vote #2 fails, the House could still proceed to vote #3, although it would likely fail as well. If everything passes, the Senate bill goes to the President for signature and the reconciliation bill goes to the Senate for action. Under Senate rules, the President must sign the underlying bill before the Senate can vote on the reconciliation measure.
It's Very Close, But Dems Say the Have It
Democratic leaders, including people in the know like Hoyer and Clybern say that they will have the votes when the roll is called. But it is going to be very close. Here are the latest numbers:
* All Republicans are opposed to the bill, 177 in total
* There are 202 confirmed Democratic "yes" votes
* There are 31 confirmed Democratic "no" votes
This leaves the "on-the-record" vote at 208 opposed and 202 in favor, with 19 Democrats sitting on the fence. Since the Democrats need 14 of those 19 in order to get passage.
One has to think that if a Democrat has not declared yet that they are "gettable"...if they were truly not available as a "yes" vote, you would think that they would already be on record. What I suspect is happening is that there are a few out of those 19 that are hunting for a deal and a few that are available to Democrats if needed as the decisive vote but who would prefer to vote "no" for political reasons if there is any margin that will allow them to.
Debate gets underway at 1 PM. I'll be watching on CSPAN.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The rules committee in the House yesterday wisely abandoned the widely panned "self-executing rule" which would have allowed the House to "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without directly voting for passage. From my view, this was sort of an irrelevant inside Washington debate, since everybody was going to know that those who voted for the self-executing rule were really voting for the underlying bill, but it was turning into a PR disaster for Democrats, and rightly so. If you want to vote for health care bill, vote for the health care bill.
So, here's what you will see today in the House:
The House will convene at 1 PM and begin with a period of debate on the rules for debate. There will then be three votes, with debate before each of them:
(1) A vote on the rules for debate
(2) A vote on the reconciliation fixes, which withdraw the "cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase", scale back the tax on high cost health care plans and provide additional funding for lower income subsidies.
(3) A vote on the Senate health care bill, as passed in the Senate.
If vote #1 fails, votes #2 and #3 don't happen. If vote #2 fails, the House could still proceed to vote #3, although it would likely fail as well. If everything passes, the Senate bill goes to the President for signature and the reconciliation bill goes to the Senate for action. Under Senate rules, the President must sign the underlying bill before the Senate can vote on the reconciliation measure.
It's Very Close, But Dems Say the Have It
Democratic leaders, including people in the know like Hoyer and Clybern say that they will have the votes when the roll is called. But it is going to be very close. Here are the latest numbers:
* All Republicans are opposed to the bill, 177 in total
* There are 202 confirmed Democratic "yes" votes
* There are 31 confirmed Democratic "no" votes
This leaves the "on-the-record" vote at 208 opposed and 202 in favor, with 19 Democrats sitting on the fence. Since the Democrats need 14 of those 19 in order to get passage.
One has to think that if a Democrat has not declared yet that they are "gettable"...if they were truly not available as a "yes" vote, you would think that they would already be on record. What I suspect is happening is that there are a few out of those 19 that are hunting for a deal and a few that are available to Democrats if needed as the decisive vote but who would prefer to vote "no" for political reasons if there is any margin that will allow them to.
Debate gets underway at 1 PM. I'll be watching on CSPAN.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Sunday is D-Day on Health Care
Sometime Sunday afternoon, it appears the House will vote on both the Senate-passed health care bill and a separate reconciliation measure to amend spending provisions of the bill, including eliminating all of the distasteful special deals for states like Nebrasaka and Florida that were included in the bill as well as deferring some of the taxes on high-benefit plans and attaching additional Medicare taxes to high income individuals. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that with the reconciliation measure, the final bill will cost $940 billion over 10 years and bring in $1.1 trillion in new revenue and savings during the same time, yielding a net deficit reduction of $130 billion. This report seems to have satisfied a number of the previously fence-sitting Democrats, who have largely been breaking for the bill in the past 48 hours.
It is still unclear whether the House will directly vote on the bill or whether they will use the "deem and pass" mechanism, by which they would vote on a rule to debate reconciliation that would simultaneously "deem the Senate bill passed". A lot has been made in the press and by the GOP of the cowardice of not voting directly on the bill and they have somewhat of a point. House DEMs should have the courage of their convictions to vote directly on the bill. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. EVERYBODY is going to know that voting for the rule is the same thing as voting for the bill and trust me, vulnerable Democrats will get hammered for this vote.
So, here's what to expect next:
(1) The House vote -- sometime after 2 PM Sunday, the House will have its two roll call votes. The vote will be very close, but expect the DEMs to prevail by a razor-thin margin. The underlying rule or bill and the reconciliation bill should pass by almost exactly the same margin. The DEMs need 216 out of the 431 occupied House seats for passage. Expect them to get 216 to 220.
(2) The President signs -- the Senate rules prohibit them from voting on the reconciliation measure until the underlying legislation being modified has become law. Therefore, the President must sign the bill, complete with its cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases. That's right, the Senate bill must become the law of the land, at least for a little while.
(3) The Senate passess the House reconciliation package -- this will likely be after the Easter break, in early April. Little attention has been paid to whether the Democrats have 51 votes in the Senate (what is required for a reconciliation measure), but I'd be shocked if there will be an issue, as they control 59 seats and even giving up moderates like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh and Webb leaves a little margin for error.
(4) The President signs the reconciliation measure -- the final measure becomes law. Health care reform, in its present form, becomes the law of the land. On to immigration, cap and trade and the economy.
I expect this to play out this way, but the sign that I am wrong will be if the Democrats hurriedly start pushing back the vote. That will mean they haven't found 216. I can't get to 216 yet among the publicly committed House members, but all the indications coming out of the vote counters in the House are that the leadership has enough privately committed votes to put then over the top. Intrade odds have crossed 4:1 in favor of passage. Watch the debate live on C-SPAN.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
It is still unclear whether the House will directly vote on the bill or whether they will use the "deem and pass" mechanism, by which they would vote on a rule to debate reconciliation that would simultaneously "deem the Senate bill passed". A lot has been made in the press and by the GOP of the cowardice of not voting directly on the bill and they have somewhat of a point. House DEMs should have the courage of their convictions to vote directly on the bill. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. EVERYBODY is going to know that voting for the rule is the same thing as voting for the bill and trust me, vulnerable Democrats will get hammered for this vote.
So, here's what to expect next:
(1) The House vote -- sometime after 2 PM Sunday, the House will have its two roll call votes. The vote will be very close, but expect the DEMs to prevail by a razor-thin margin. The underlying rule or bill and the reconciliation bill should pass by almost exactly the same margin. The DEMs need 216 out of the 431 occupied House seats for passage. Expect them to get 216 to 220.
(2) The President signs -- the Senate rules prohibit them from voting on the reconciliation measure until the underlying legislation being modified has become law. Therefore, the President must sign the bill, complete with its cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases. That's right, the Senate bill must become the law of the land, at least for a little while.
(3) The Senate passess the House reconciliation package -- this will likely be after the Easter break, in early April. Little attention has been paid to whether the Democrats have 51 votes in the Senate (what is required for a reconciliation measure), but I'd be shocked if there will be an issue, as they control 59 seats and even giving up moderates like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh and Webb leaves a little margin for error.
(4) The President signs the reconciliation measure -- the final measure becomes law. Health care reform, in its present form, becomes the law of the land. On to immigration, cap and trade and the economy.
I expect this to play out this way, but the sign that I am wrong will be if the Democrats hurriedly start pushing back the vote. That will mean they haven't found 216. I can't get to 216 yet among the publicly committed House members, but all the indications coming out of the vote counters in the House are that the leadership has enough privately committed votes to put then over the top. Intrade odds have crossed 4:1 in favor of passage. Watch the debate live on C-SPAN.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Monday, March 15, 2010
All The Wrong Reasons To Be Mad About Health Care, Is The Obama Mojo Back?
Be Mad, But Not Because It's Socialism
The current version of health care reform, some variant of the Senate bill plus reconcilation fixes may well pass this weekend. The CBO cost estimate has not yet come back, which puts in serious jeopardy Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise to allow 5 full days to examine the bill before voting, but I can't fathom her not holding a vote prior to the President's departure for Indonesia in a week if she thinks she has the votes. And word is out of capitol hill that Pelosi may well have some Democrats in her back pocket to put this thing over the finish line, Democrats who would prefer to vote no in a tough election year, but would vote yes if absolutely needed to hit 216. Blue Dogs and Stupak Democrats. In fact, the betting odds on Intrade have soared the past few days for passage of the bill, current standing at a price that puts the odds of passage at 75% versus about 30% at the start of the month. This thing isn't quite over yet, but it's probably going to happen.
Republicans are mad, really mad. Me too. Just for the opposite reasons. Let's discuss the GOP claims.
(1)This Is a Government Takeover of Healhcare / This Is Socialism
Socialism, for you students of economics, is an economic system where the government controls the means of production. For instance, we have largely socialized surface transportation in this country, as the government owns almost all of the roads, bridges and train tracks. We have partially socialized air transportation as the government owns the airports but not the equipment.
The United Kingdom has a socialist health care system. Every Doctor works for the British government and every hospital is owned by the government.
Canada does NOT have a socialist health care system. Hospitals are private and Doctors have private practices. Canada DOES have socialized HEALTH INSURANCE system, whereby the government administers health insurance for everyone.
What is proposed in the bill is neither of the above. Not a single soul presently in private insurance would move to a public plan. There would be more government money, but it would be for the purchase of private insurance.
And that is a shame. It is a shame that Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions to push for socialist health care or at least health insurance, at least for such fundamental things as catastrophic care and immunizations. A shame that they wouldn't stand firm for a public OPTION let alone a public trust, like every other first world economy has, at least in part.
Socialism? Pfft. They coudln't mangae liberalism. Contrast this with Great Britian where former CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister Tony Blair called the socialist health care system there "a national treasure." That's the right wing in the UK.
(2) This Bill Cuts Medicare / The Old Will Face Death Panels
Grandma will be before a death panel to treat her cancer. The old will be dying in the streets. You get the picture. Funny how government run health care is the best thing since sliced bread for those over 65 and an abomination for those under 65, but I digress.
The Sarah Palin death panel stuff is nonesense of course. And that is a shame.
Costs for end of life care are the juice in the runaway inflation numbers behind medical spending. We all will die, and most of us will have thousands of dollars expended on us at the end, often tens or hundreds, on treatment which may extend our lives only matters of hours or days or not at all.
The ONLY way to REALLY contain health care costs is to have a serious conversation about what cares makes sense and what doesn't. Is the brand new drug necessary or is the drug invented in 2000 whose patent expired and is one tenth the cost sufficient? Do I really need another surgery when my prognosis is terminal? These are uncomfortable questions, but they are the real questions that have to be answered if we are ever going to seriously confront the cost issue.
(3) This Is a Huge New Spending Program We Can't Afford
This is the most massive new government program of our lifetimes, they say. We just can't afford it.
This is a tiny bill. Less than a trillion over 10 years. Less than we've spent in Iraq to date. Less than the cost of the Bush perscription drug plan. Less than the Bush tax cuts.
A massive bill? Hardly.
And that is a shame. It's hard to reshape 16% of our economy with spending that amounts to less than 2% of our economy. Feels more like a tweak than a sweeping reform when you look at it that way, huh?
So do I support the bill? Yes, but marginally. It expands access to the uninsured which I hold to be a fundamental moral issue in a country as rich as ours (and recession not withstanding we are FILTHY rich as a nation -- we consider cell phones, internet access and cable TV to be essential expenses). It doesn't go nearly far enough. It does precious little to contain costs. Make no mistake -- we'll be back talking health care reform again in a few years. But it is better than what we have. And I applaud the President for not giving up on it, although I wish we were having a much different conversation.
Where's This Guy Been?
I wrote last week about the ever-so-slight signs that President Obama was turning a corner with his approval. Look at him go now. He's talking with a renewed fire about health care in the kind of unambiguous, moral, trancedent terms that I have been begging for the past year. He looks like he is more likely than not to get a win on his signature issue.
But the Obama Administration is firing on a number of other fronts. Senator Chris Dodd revealed the Democrats financial reform measure and there are even some indications of potential bi-partisan support. Arne Duncan is talking aggressively about educational reform, including aggressive performance management of teachers, pleasing former Education Secretary and all around GOP expert Bill Bennett to the point that he described Duncan as having "upset all the right people and that is a good sign." There is even talk of talking immigration reform and cap and trade. Okay, let's not get carried away about the last two. But something is definitely different in Washingon....the big O looks like he's back. Is this just campaign bluster or will it last? Who knows. But the game is a heck of a lot different today than it was the day after Scott Brown stunned the world. And that was less than two months ago. See how quickly things change in politics?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The current version of health care reform, some variant of the Senate bill plus reconcilation fixes may well pass this weekend. The CBO cost estimate has not yet come back, which puts in serious jeopardy Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise to allow 5 full days to examine the bill before voting, but I can't fathom her not holding a vote prior to the President's departure for Indonesia in a week if she thinks she has the votes. And word is out of capitol hill that Pelosi may well have some Democrats in her back pocket to put this thing over the finish line, Democrats who would prefer to vote no in a tough election year, but would vote yes if absolutely needed to hit 216. Blue Dogs and Stupak Democrats. In fact, the betting odds on Intrade have soared the past few days for passage of the bill, current standing at a price that puts the odds of passage at 75% versus about 30% at the start of the month. This thing isn't quite over yet, but it's probably going to happen.
Republicans are mad, really mad. Me too. Just for the opposite reasons. Let's discuss the GOP claims.
(1)This Is a Government Takeover of Healhcare / This Is Socialism
Socialism, for you students of economics, is an economic system where the government controls the means of production. For instance, we have largely socialized surface transportation in this country, as the government owns almost all of the roads, bridges and train tracks. We have partially socialized air transportation as the government owns the airports but not the equipment.
The United Kingdom has a socialist health care system. Every Doctor works for the British government and every hospital is owned by the government.
Canada does NOT have a socialist health care system. Hospitals are private and Doctors have private practices. Canada DOES have socialized HEALTH INSURANCE system, whereby the government administers health insurance for everyone.
What is proposed in the bill is neither of the above. Not a single soul presently in private insurance would move to a public plan. There would be more government money, but it would be for the purchase of private insurance.
And that is a shame. It is a shame that Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions to push for socialist health care or at least health insurance, at least for such fundamental things as catastrophic care and immunizations. A shame that they wouldn't stand firm for a public OPTION let alone a public trust, like every other first world economy has, at least in part.
Socialism? Pfft. They coudln't mangae liberalism. Contrast this with Great Britian where former CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister Tony Blair called the socialist health care system there "a national treasure." That's the right wing in the UK.
(2) This Bill Cuts Medicare / The Old Will Face Death Panels
Grandma will be before a death panel to treat her cancer. The old will be dying in the streets. You get the picture. Funny how government run health care is the best thing since sliced bread for those over 65 and an abomination for those under 65, but I digress.
The Sarah Palin death panel stuff is nonesense of course. And that is a shame.
Costs for end of life care are the juice in the runaway inflation numbers behind medical spending. We all will die, and most of us will have thousands of dollars expended on us at the end, often tens or hundreds, on treatment which may extend our lives only matters of hours or days or not at all.
The ONLY way to REALLY contain health care costs is to have a serious conversation about what cares makes sense and what doesn't. Is the brand new drug necessary or is the drug invented in 2000 whose patent expired and is one tenth the cost sufficient? Do I really need another surgery when my prognosis is terminal? These are uncomfortable questions, but they are the real questions that have to be answered if we are ever going to seriously confront the cost issue.
(3) This Is a Huge New Spending Program We Can't Afford
This is the most massive new government program of our lifetimes, they say. We just can't afford it.
This is a tiny bill. Less than a trillion over 10 years. Less than we've spent in Iraq to date. Less than the cost of the Bush perscription drug plan. Less than the Bush tax cuts.
A massive bill? Hardly.
And that is a shame. It's hard to reshape 16% of our economy with spending that amounts to less than 2% of our economy. Feels more like a tweak than a sweeping reform when you look at it that way, huh?
So do I support the bill? Yes, but marginally. It expands access to the uninsured which I hold to be a fundamental moral issue in a country as rich as ours (and recession not withstanding we are FILTHY rich as a nation -- we consider cell phones, internet access and cable TV to be essential expenses). It doesn't go nearly far enough. It does precious little to contain costs. Make no mistake -- we'll be back talking health care reform again in a few years. But it is better than what we have. And I applaud the President for not giving up on it, although I wish we were having a much different conversation.
Where's This Guy Been?
I wrote last week about the ever-so-slight signs that President Obama was turning a corner with his approval. Look at him go now. He's talking with a renewed fire about health care in the kind of unambiguous, moral, trancedent terms that I have been begging for the past year. He looks like he is more likely than not to get a win on his signature issue.
But the Obama Administration is firing on a number of other fronts. Senator Chris Dodd revealed the Democrats financial reform measure and there are even some indications of potential bi-partisan support. Arne Duncan is talking aggressively about educational reform, including aggressive performance management of teachers, pleasing former Education Secretary and all around GOP expert Bill Bennett to the point that he described Duncan as having "upset all the right people and that is a good sign." There is even talk of talking immigration reform and cap and trade. Okay, let's not get carried away about the last two. But something is definitely different in Washingon....the big O looks like he's back. Is this just campaign bluster or will it last? Who knows. But the game is a heck of a lot different today than it was the day after Scott Brown stunned the world. And that was less than two months ago. See how quickly things change in politics?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Obama Approval: Turning Point, Bottoming Out or Still Declining?, Health Care Vote Next Weekend?
Has the President Turned a Corner, Jumped Off a Cliff or Opened a Parachute?
The President's latest approval numbers are intriguing, to say the least. In the past two weeks, his daily numbers have bounced around but in the last few days are sitting below both his averages for every month this year and for the month-to-date in March. However, his numbers from earlier in March were somewhat higher than any of his averages from the prior two months.
Looking at the monthly data, a little less than half way through the month of March, the President is on track to post his first monthly approval gain of his Presidency, with a monthly approve minus disapprove of +3.8% versus +2.3% in February.
These are small moves, to be sure. The President has essentially been in a range of 0% to +5% since the start of the new year, reflecting an electorate closely divided. So, with such small movements, it is extremely difficult to tell what is trend and what is polling noise.
I see three plausible scenarios here:
(1) The President has turned a corner
The noted tone changes in the President's approach: getting more aggressive on health care, attacking the insurance industry and becoming much more involved in getting legislation passed is resonating with the public. His bi-partisan health care summit revealed to voters that he is willing to work with the GOP, but that they are not playing ball.
Future prognosis under this scenario: His numbers continue to slowly rise, at least to the level of his 2008 election victory.
(2) The President has stabilized
The more conservative half of the country dislikes his left-of-center policies. The more liberal half of the country likes them. People have chosen sides.
Prognosis: A lot more time around the zero line
(3) This is just noise -- he'll be down by the time March ends
He had a few good days thanks to some poll-sampling noise and will be looking at a continued slide.
Prognosis: Another 1 to 2% loss in March, then negative territory in April.
Which one is true? Depends on how you read the poll numbers. I tend to believe the center scenario (#2), although what happens with health care reform and unemployment over the next two months could swing he scenario either way.
Health Care Showdown Next Weekend?
The President has delayed his trip to Indonesia, cancelled plans to take his family and Nancy Pelosi says the House vote could very well take place a week from today.
Let's break down all the dynamics:
First, let's look at the math. It is pretty clear that the bill will get zero votes from the House GOP. With current vacancies, the DEMs need 216 votes in the House for passage. They control 254 seats. So, the easiest way to count votes is to look at Democrats who might oppose the bill and see if it totals 39.
(1) The CBO Report
Leader Pelosi has promised members one week to review the legislation after the CBO report comes out. That would require the report to come out today for the vote to take place a week from today. If the report comes out Monday, will members let her get away with 5 days? I do know that would become GOP talking point #1 if she backtracks on that promise.
(2) The Stupak Democrats
This wing of pro-life Dems is dissatisfied with the Senate language. It is hard to know the exact number of Democrats who would vote against a bill because of the Senate abortion language, but my best estimate is that there are approximately 27 pro-life Democrats who voted for the bill the first time around.
(3) The Blue Dogs
There are many within this fiscally conservative group of Democrats who voted "no" the first time around. There are 37 who voted no the first time who are still Democrats and still in the House.
(4) Assorted Liberals
There are those mad at Senate language around immigration (illegal immigrants can't buy into the system), the lack of a public option, etc. Clearly MANY Democrats in the House would like to see a more liberal bill. How many would torpedo the present effort as worse than the status quo is unclear. Rep. Luis Guiterrez (D-IL) is the only Representative that I am aware of who has publicly declared his opposition based on the bill being too conservative, in his case because of the anti-illegal provisions.
In total, there are 21 Democrats who are on record as being committed "no" votes, although 6 have said their position is negotiable based on the final provisions in the reconciliation "fix". But, there are at least, based on this count, 44 others who may vote "no" and the Democrats need to hold on to at least 27 of them to win....and many of these fall into the Blue Dog bucket, meaning that the DEMs will likely have to persuade at least a few who voted "no" the first time around.
I'll try to keep up with the count and the vote schedule and keep you posted.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The President's latest approval numbers are intriguing, to say the least. In the past two weeks, his daily numbers have bounced around but in the last few days are sitting below both his averages for every month this year and for the month-to-date in March. However, his numbers from earlier in March were somewhat higher than any of his averages from the prior two months.
Looking at the monthly data, a little less than half way through the month of March, the President is on track to post his first monthly approval gain of his Presidency, with a monthly approve minus disapprove of +3.8% versus +2.3% in February.
These are small moves, to be sure. The President has essentially been in a range of 0% to +5% since the start of the new year, reflecting an electorate closely divided. So, with such small movements, it is extremely difficult to tell what is trend and what is polling noise.
I see three plausible scenarios here:
(1) The President has turned a corner
The noted tone changes in the President's approach: getting more aggressive on health care, attacking the insurance industry and becoming much more involved in getting legislation passed is resonating with the public. His bi-partisan health care summit revealed to voters that he is willing to work with the GOP, but that they are not playing ball.
Future prognosis under this scenario: His numbers continue to slowly rise, at least to the level of his 2008 election victory.
(2) The President has stabilized
The more conservative half of the country dislikes his left-of-center policies. The more liberal half of the country likes them. People have chosen sides.
Prognosis: A lot more time around the zero line
(3) This is just noise -- he'll be down by the time March ends
He had a few good days thanks to some poll-sampling noise and will be looking at a continued slide.
Prognosis: Another 1 to 2% loss in March, then negative territory in April.
Which one is true? Depends on how you read the poll numbers. I tend to believe the center scenario (#2), although what happens with health care reform and unemployment over the next two months could swing he scenario either way.
Health Care Showdown Next Weekend?
The President has delayed his trip to Indonesia, cancelled plans to take his family and Nancy Pelosi says the House vote could very well take place a week from today.
Let's break down all the dynamics:
First, let's look at the math. It is pretty clear that the bill will get zero votes from the House GOP. With current vacancies, the DEMs need 216 votes in the House for passage. They control 254 seats. So, the easiest way to count votes is to look at Democrats who might oppose the bill and see if it totals 39.
(1) The CBO Report
Leader Pelosi has promised members one week to review the legislation after the CBO report comes out. That would require the report to come out today for the vote to take place a week from today. If the report comes out Monday, will members let her get away with 5 days? I do know that would become GOP talking point #1 if she backtracks on that promise.
(2) The Stupak Democrats
This wing of pro-life Dems is dissatisfied with the Senate language. It is hard to know the exact number of Democrats who would vote against a bill because of the Senate abortion language, but my best estimate is that there are approximately 27 pro-life Democrats who voted for the bill the first time around.
(3) The Blue Dogs
There are many within this fiscally conservative group of Democrats who voted "no" the first time around. There are 37 who voted no the first time who are still Democrats and still in the House.
(4) Assorted Liberals
There are those mad at Senate language around immigration (illegal immigrants can't buy into the system), the lack of a public option, etc. Clearly MANY Democrats in the House would like to see a more liberal bill. How many would torpedo the present effort as worse than the status quo is unclear. Rep. Luis Guiterrez (D-IL) is the only Representative that I am aware of who has publicly declared his opposition based on the bill being too conservative, in his case because of the anti-illegal provisions.
In total, there are 21 Democrats who are on record as being committed "no" votes, although 6 have said their position is negotiable based on the final provisions in the reconciliation "fix". But, there are at least, based on this count, 44 others who may vote "no" and the Democrats need to hold on to at least 27 of them to win....and many of these fall into the Blue Dog bucket, meaning that the DEMs will likely have to persuade at least a few who voted "no" the first time around.
I'll try to keep up with the count and the vote schedule and keep you posted.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
2010 Federal Round-Up, Assessing the Latest Employment Picture, Health Care Clock Ticking
2010 Round-Up
Let's take a look at the latest.
First, the Senate:
We have 10 races with fresh polls and of these, 3 move in rating category. The net of these changes are marginally favorable to the GOP, with 2 moving to the right and 1 moving left.
First, the moves:
Pennsylvania -- moves from Lean GOP Pick-Up to Toss-up - Arlen Specter leads Pat Toomey by 7 points in a new Quinnipiac Poll. Toomey had been leading by single digits in polls in recent weeks, so this could be a fluke or be overly generous, so I'm not ready to move this back into Specter's column until I see more data.
Colorado -- moves from Toss-Up to Lean GOP Pick-Up - both Buck and Norton lead incumbent Democrat Bennett in three new polls with spreads of 5 to 9%.
North Carolina -- moves from Lean GOP Hold to Likely GOP Hold incumbent Republican Burr is up by 16% in the latest Rasmussen Poll and has led every poll from every firm so far in 2010.
Now the other 7 races with fresh polling data that reconfirm existing race ratings:
Arkansas -- latest Rasmussen poll shows 3 potential GOP opponents leading incumbent Dem Lincoln by 2 to 9 points. The race remains a Lean GOP PIck-up.
Nevada -- the latest polls have the 2 potential GOPers leading Majority Leader Reid by 9 to 13 points. This one is close to moving back a notch right, but for now it remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Indiana -- a bevy of polls have come out since Bayh's announced retirement and the spread has been anywhere from even to +10% GOP. We'll leave this a Lean GOP Pick-Up, although it clearly could move in either direction, depending on the candidates.
Connecticut -- Blumenthal is still up by a very comfortable spread of 26 to 29 points in the latest polls. This race remains a Safe Democratic Hold.
New York (Gillebrand) -- Gillebrand is up by 2 points against Pataki in a new poll. This race stays a Toss-Up.
Illinois -- A new Research 2000 Poll has Dem Giannoulis at +7%, an earlier Feb Rasmussen Poll had GOPer Kirk at +6%. This race stays a Toss-Up for now.
Ohio -- Republican Portman leads by small, but consistent spreads of 3 to 5 points in 3 different polls. This race stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Missouri -- Republican Blunt still +7% in latest Rasmussen poll. Remains a Lean GOP Hold.
So, this leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Holds (4)
Maryland, Connecticut, New York (Schumer), Vermont
Likely Democratic Holds (3)
Washington, Hawaii, Oregon
Lean Democratic Holds (2)
California, Wisconsin
Toss-Up - DEM Controlled (3)
Pennsylvania, New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean GOP Pick-Up (5)
Arkansas, Nevada, Delaware, Indiana, Colorado
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Florida
Safe GOP Pick-Up (1)
North Dakota
Safe GOP Hold (8)
Louisiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +6 to 9 Seats (10 needed to control Senate)
Best Case GOP (all leaners) - GOP +11 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) - DEM +4 Seats
Still in the same place we have been for all of 2010, with the GOP poised to make big inroads in the Senate, but shy of enough to win control.
In the House:
The generic polling has actually tightened somewhat, with the average of averages in our poll of polls showing the GOP at +0.7%.
This implies: GOP +31 Seats
So, again, the GOP stands to make substantial gains, but is shy of the number (39 to 40, depending on how you count it) needed to gain an outright majority.
The Latest Employment Report
For the month of February, the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%, retaining the gains that were made in January. The unemployment rate is off from its high of 10.1% but is still hovering at a level that is among the highest of the past 30 years.
Those "underemployed" -- working part time for economic reasons increased from 8.3 million to 8.8 million. The number of those "marginally attached", that is those that are not officially counted as unemployed because they have either given up and stopped looking or are not looking for other reasons, remained constant at 2.5 million.
So, in total, the "underemployment rate" increased form 16.7% to 17.1%.
Not good news in total, but some bright spots.
First, the official unemployment rate held on to gains for the month, which few (other than myself) predicted. Secondly, the entire increase is due to "underemployment", that is, people are working, just not getting as many hours as they would like...the discouraged number didn't increase nor did those that were outright unemployed.
So, in total, we still have a long slog to get back something that resembles more normal unemployment rates, but things continue to stabilize.
There has been a lot of speculating on the winter weather adversely impacting the report, and the BLS acknowledge that it surely did have a negative impact, but they are not able to precisely quantify the effect. If true, that SHOULD mean a more favorable report in March, all else being equal. We'll stay tuned.
Stimulus funds continue to slowly trickle out. Spending against President Obama's signature economic program so far is as follows:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion spent (32.2%)
Spending -- $194.9 billion out of $499 billion spent (39.1%)
Total Bill -- $287.7 billion out of $787 billion spent (36.6%)
Health Care Clock Ticking
There have been a lot of "deadlines" in the health care debate -- remember Labor Day 2009? How about the end of 2009? The latest theory in the political class is that if Congress doesn't act by Easter, the bill won't happen. While timelines can help to clarify the debate, they are all artificial. The only real deadline for reform this year is the adjournment of Congress. After that, bills that have already been passed expire, Representatives and Senators head to the campaign trail and, eventually a new congress comes in, one likely to be a lot less favorable to doing anything on the scale that President Obama is looking for.
Having said that, President Obama has been turning up the heat over the past week with a fire that many would've liked him to show a year ago. Nancy Pelosi is searching for a way to satisfy enough Blue Dogs and abortion opponents in her caucus to get to passage.
You'll know this is for real when a vote gets scheduled in the House. So far that has not happened. That means that Pelosi doesn't have the votes, not yet.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Let's take a look at the latest.
First, the Senate:
We have 10 races with fresh polls and of these, 3 move in rating category. The net of these changes are marginally favorable to the GOP, with 2 moving to the right and 1 moving left.
First, the moves:
Pennsylvania -- moves from Lean GOP Pick-Up to Toss-up - Arlen Specter leads Pat Toomey by 7 points in a new Quinnipiac Poll. Toomey had been leading by single digits in polls in recent weeks, so this could be a fluke or be overly generous, so I'm not ready to move this back into Specter's column until I see more data.
Colorado -- moves from Toss-Up to Lean GOP Pick-Up - both Buck and Norton lead incumbent Democrat Bennett in three new polls with spreads of 5 to 9%.
North Carolina -- moves from Lean GOP Hold to Likely GOP Hold incumbent Republican Burr is up by 16% in the latest Rasmussen Poll and has led every poll from every firm so far in 2010.
Now the other 7 races with fresh polling data that reconfirm existing race ratings:
Arkansas -- latest Rasmussen poll shows 3 potential GOP opponents leading incumbent Dem Lincoln by 2 to 9 points. The race remains a Lean GOP PIck-up.
Nevada -- the latest polls have the 2 potential GOPers leading Majority Leader Reid by 9 to 13 points. This one is close to moving back a notch right, but for now it remains a Lean GOP Pick-Up.
Indiana -- a bevy of polls have come out since Bayh's announced retirement and the spread has been anywhere from even to +10% GOP. We'll leave this a Lean GOP Pick-Up, although it clearly could move in either direction, depending on the candidates.
Connecticut -- Blumenthal is still up by a very comfortable spread of 26 to 29 points in the latest polls. This race remains a Safe Democratic Hold.
New York (Gillebrand) -- Gillebrand is up by 2 points against Pataki in a new poll. This race stays a Toss-Up.
Illinois -- A new Research 2000 Poll has Dem Giannoulis at +7%, an earlier Feb Rasmussen Poll had GOPer Kirk at +6%. This race stays a Toss-Up for now.
Ohio -- Republican Portman leads by small, but consistent spreads of 3 to 5 points in 3 different polls. This race stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Missouri -- Republican Blunt still +7% in latest Rasmussen poll. Remains a Lean GOP Hold.
So, this leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Holds (4)
Maryland, Connecticut, New York (Schumer), Vermont
Likely Democratic Holds (3)
Washington, Hawaii, Oregon
Lean Democratic Holds (2)
California, Wisconsin
Toss-Up - DEM Controlled (3)
Pennsylvania, New York (Gillebrand), Illinois
Lean GOP Pick-Up (5)
Arkansas, Nevada, Delaware, Indiana, Colorado
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Florida
Safe GOP Pick-Up (1)
North Dakota
Safe GOP Hold (8)
Louisiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +6 to 9 Seats (10 needed to control Senate)
Best Case GOP (all leaners) - GOP +11 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) - DEM +4 Seats
Still in the same place we have been for all of 2010, with the GOP poised to make big inroads in the Senate, but shy of enough to win control.
In the House:
The generic polling has actually tightened somewhat, with the average of averages in our poll of polls showing the GOP at +0.7%.
This implies: GOP +31 Seats
So, again, the GOP stands to make substantial gains, but is shy of the number (39 to 40, depending on how you count it) needed to gain an outright majority.
The Latest Employment Report
For the month of February, the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%, retaining the gains that were made in January. The unemployment rate is off from its high of 10.1% but is still hovering at a level that is among the highest of the past 30 years.
Those "underemployed" -- working part time for economic reasons increased from 8.3 million to 8.8 million. The number of those "marginally attached", that is those that are not officially counted as unemployed because they have either given up and stopped looking or are not looking for other reasons, remained constant at 2.5 million.
So, in total, the "underemployment rate" increased form 16.7% to 17.1%.
Not good news in total, but some bright spots.
First, the official unemployment rate held on to gains for the month, which few (other than myself) predicted. Secondly, the entire increase is due to "underemployment", that is, people are working, just not getting as many hours as they would like...the discouraged number didn't increase nor did those that were outright unemployed.
So, in total, we still have a long slog to get back something that resembles more normal unemployment rates, but things continue to stabilize.
There has been a lot of speculating on the winter weather adversely impacting the report, and the BLS acknowledge that it surely did have a negative impact, but they are not able to precisely quantify the effect. If true, that SHOULD mean a more favorable report in March, all else being equal. We'll stay tuned.
Stimulus funds continue to slowly trickle out. Spending against President Obama's signature economic program so far is as follows:
Tax Cuts -- $92.8 billion out of $288 billion spent (32.2%)
Spending -- $194.9 billion out of $499 billion spent (39.1%)
Total Bill -- $287.7 billion out of $787 billion spent (36.6%)
Health Care Clock Ticking
There have been a lot of "deadlines" in the health care debate -- remember Labor Day 2009? How about the end of 2009? The latest theory in the political class is that if Congress doesn't act by Easter, the bill won't happen. While timelines can help to clarify the debate, they are all artificial. The only real deadline for reform this year is the adjournment of Congress. After that, bills that have already been passed expire, Representatives and Senators head to the campaign trail and, eventually a new congress comes in, one likely to be a lot less favorable to doing anything on the scale that President Obama is looking for.
Having said that, President Obama has been turning up the heat over the past week with a fire that many would've liked him to show a year ago. Nancy Pelosi is searching for a way to satisfy enough Blue Dogs and abortion opponents in her caucus to get to passage.
You'll know this is for real when a vote gets scheduled in the House. So far that has not happened. That means that Pelosi doesn't have the votes, not yet.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Final Showdown on Health Care Prepping?, The Second End of Harold Ford Junior
Reconciliation Push is Coming -- Are The Votes There?
President Obama today unveiled his "final" health care plan, basically a combination of the bill he had previously proposed (which was itself a sort of conference report on the House and Senate bills) and inserted a few GOP ideas (a $50 billion trial program to experiment with medical malpractice reform, deletion of the so-called "cornhusker kickback" which granted special immunity to increased Medicaid costs to the State of Nebraska) and has called for both houses to give the bill "an up or down vote". This is obviously a signal of a support for the reconciliation process.
So, let's review what has to happen. The steps don't necessarily, but probably will have to happen in this order:
(1) The House passes the Senate Health Care bill. The Senate 60-39 vote for passage made just before Christmas is still valid, in spite of the membership change since then. If the House passes the Senate bill unchanged, no conference report is required and the President can simply sign it into law.
But that isn't it. The House WON'T pass the Senate bill unamended, so to get the votes for #1, you also have to set in motion #2 and #3
(2) The House passes a set of budgetary changes to the bill.
(3) The Senate follows suit, using reconciliation, since the changes will pertain to budget line items. This avoids the need for a cloture vote in the Senate, since budget bills are guaranteed an up or down vote. The bill simply needs 50 votes plus Joe Biden as a tie-breaker to win approval.
So why can't they just do #2 and #3? Reconciliation is limited to budgetary items only. If you don't also do number one, you can't get in the provisions regulating insurance companies, requiring individuals to buy insurance, legally creating health care exchanges and so on.
The DEMs might try to do 2 and 3 first, but it is a very risky strategy, because if 1 fails to materialize, they will have enacted into law half a bill. They could pass the reconciliation measure through both houses first, then quickly pass the Senate bill in the House, allowing the President to sign both the same day to ensure that they are passed.
So, now that the strategy is clear, do they have the votes?
In the Senate, the Democrats are actually in good shape. Take the 59 votes that they control and eliminate all the moderates: Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman. Still 54 votes. You could even let an Arlen Specter or an Evan Bayh slide and still be okay. The Senate won't be the problem, which is a strange juxtaposition, because when they were working towards 60 votes, the Senate was a mess.
The House is the challenge. The DEMs got 218 votes for their bill last time. Two of the members who voted for the bill are no longer in the House and Rep. Cao (R-CA), the lone GOP supporter, has said he won't vote for it this time. This leaves 215. Because of House vacancies, they need 217 for passage.
They might pick-up some votes from moderate Democrats who supported reform but opposed the public option. They also may lose some votes from scared Blue Dogs or from Pro-Life Democrats who are uncomfortable with the Senate's less restrictive abortion language. The vote counting is extremely hard and most of the questionable votes are not committing or commenting. The House Democratic leadership has a real job ahead of itself.
So will this all happen?
Believe it or not, I think the prospects for getting a bill to the President's desk in the next two months are greater than they have been at any time in his Presidency. Opening up to reconciliation changes the whole game. Democrats do not want to fail to do anything on an issue this big after almost 2 years of continuous work. And the House Democrats seem to be a lot better at getting their ducks in a row than in the Senate. But it certainly isn't a lock, especially in the Post-Scott Brown world. And rest assured, the GOP is going to be crying foul the whole way.
Politics is always fun.
Harold Ford Junior Flops
He carpet-bagged from Tennessee to New York to challenge a moderate Democratic Senator by running to her right. And now he is withdrawing because he fears a divisive primary? Who exactly thought any of this was going to work? And who is advising Harold Ford Junior?
President Obama today unveiled his "final" health care plan, basically a combination of the bill he had previously proposed (which was itself a sort of conference report on the House and Senate bills) and inserted a few GOP ideas (a $50 billion trial program to experiment with medical malpractice reform, deletion of the so-called "cornhusker kickback" which granted special immunity to increased Medicaid costs to the State of Nebraska) and has called for both houses to give the bill "an up or down vote". This is obviously a signal of a support for the reconciliation process.
So, let's review what has to happen. The steps don't necessarily, but probably will have to happen in this order:
(1) The House passes the Senate Health Care bill. The Senate 60-39 vote for passage made just before Christmas is still valid, in spite of the membership change since then. If the House passes the Senate bill unchanged, no conference report is required and the President can simply sign it into law.
But that isn't it. The House WON'T pass the Senate bill unamended, so to get the votes for #1, you also have to set in motion #2 and #3
(2) The House passes a set of budgetary changes to the bill.
(3) The Senate follows suit, using reconciliation, since the changes will pertain to budget line items. This avoids the need for a cloture vote in the Senate, since budget bills are guaranteed an up or down vote. The bill simply needs 50 votes plus Joe Biden as a tie-breaker to win approval.
So why can't they just do #2 and #3? Reconciliation is limited to budgetary items only. If you don't also do number one, you can't get in the provisions regulating insurance companies, requiring individuals to buy insurance, legally creating health care exchanges and so on.
The DEMs might try to do 2 and 3 first, but it is a very risky strategy, because if 1 fails to materialize, they will have enacted into law half a bill. They could pass the reconciliation measure through both houses first, then quickly pass the Senate bill in the House, allowing the President to sign both the same day to ensure that they are passed.
So, now that the strategy is clear, do they have the votes?
In the Senate, the Democrats are actually in good shape. Take the 59 votes that they control and eliminate all the moderates: Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman. Still 54 votes. You could even let an Arlen Specter or an Evan Bayh slide and still be okay. The Senate won't be the problem, which is a strange juxtaposition, because when they were working towards 60 votes, the Senate was a mess.
The House is the challenge. The DEMs got 218 votes for their bill last time. Two of the members who voted for the bill are no longer in the House and Rep. Cao (R-CA), the lone GOP supporter, has said he won't vote for it this time. This leaves 215. Because of House vacancies, they need 217 for passage.
They might pick-up some votes from moderate Democrats who supported reform but opposed the public option. They also may lose some votes from scared Blue Dogs or from Pro-Life Democrats who are uncomfortable with the Senate's less restrictive abortion language. The vote counting is extremely hard and most of the questionable votes are not committing or commenting. The House Democratic leadership has a real job ahead of itself.
So will this all happen?
Believe it or not, I think the prospects for getting a bill to the President's desk in the next two months are greater than they have been at any time in his Presidency. Opening up to reconciliation changes the whole game. Democrats do not want to fail to do anything on an issue this big after almost 2 years of continuous work. And the House Democrats seem to be a lot better at getting their ducks in a row than in the Senate. But it certainly isn't a lock, especially in the Post-Scott Brown world. And rest assured, the GOP is going to be crying foul the whole way.
Politics is always fun.
Harold Ford Junior Flops
He carpet-bagged from Tennessee to New York to challenge a moderate Democratic Senator by running to her right. And now he is withdrawing because he fears a divisive primary? Who exactly thought any of this was going to work? And who is advising Harold Ford Junior?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Unfinished Business: Why the President Just Can't Get Away from Health Care, Holding Steady Near the Zero Line, How Much Trouble is the President In?
On the Summit and the Health Care Issue
Seems like years ago that we heard about how President Obama was going to aggressively pivot away from health care and on to economic issues and jobs. It was only a few weeks ago and the President made it pretty clear in his State of the Union speech that jobs were priority one. He didn't even mention health care until the second half of his speech. Even liberals in congress were talking about taking a break from the issue that has consumed all of their political capital since the stimulus bill passed early last year.
Yet, here we were last week, with a much anticipated, televised discussion of health care between the President and Congress. It went pretty much to script. Both sides were (relatively) cordial, but the battle lines are clear. Democrats want comprehensive reform this year. Republicans want an incrementalist approach, consisting mostly of things that have to do with cost containment (tort reform, purchase of insurance across state lines) and little to do with expanding access. Simply put, there is a seemingly unfixable ideological divide between the GOP and the President on this issue. But then, we already knew that.
The summit strikes me, while fascinating political theater, as largely cover to start the reconciliation process. No one had any real expectation of a deal, both sides were too dug in. This allows the President to say, "look, see, I tried to work with the GOP, but they wouldn't play ball, so I took action anyway." House and Senate Democratic leaders have already been talking about how to make the reconciliation process work.
In many ways, the Democrats are in far worse shape on this issue than if they had simply decided to go at it alone from the get go. What bill is going to get a majority of votes coming solely from a scared-shitless Democratic caucus is unclear. There are all the issues that had to be navigated when the first bill passed, the Blue Dogs, the anti-abortion Democrats and the liberals who want a bigger bill. Pile on top of that Democrats that are now highly fearful of losing in November and it's hard to hold onto what was only a 4 vote majority for a bill last year.
So, the Democrats still have a tough road to parity unity on this issue, even if they are ditching hopes of a compromise with the GOP. So, the question remains, why does the Democratic party remain so focused on this issue that for the most part has brought them nothing but pain over the course of the past year?
Because they must. It would be the ultimate sign of failure and dysfunction in the Democratic party to fail to do ANYTHING with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency on the signature issue that the President laid out last year. You could certainly argue in retrospect that this was the wrong issue to pick in a time of painful unemployment, a damaged financial system and two active wars still underway, but it's an academic question at this point -- the DEMs are committed. If they get a bill, they may well lose a lot of seats in Congress. But if they fail, then they have given the American public NO reason to vote for them and will likely get run out of town from the right AND the left.
So, they trudge on. Prepare for the partisanship in Washington to get even worse as the Democrats plot to cut out the power of the filibuster and ram a bill through with Dems only. But let's not forget, that's how President Bush's signature tax cuts became law.
Not Much New in the Polls
President Obama's approval remains about where it has been all month, with a narrow plurality of people approving of his job performance. He will once again post a decline in his numbers in February, continuing a long downward slide from the highs when he took office.
What to Do to Fix the Obama Administration
It's time to talk seriously...President Obama is in trouble. Sure, he still has slightly more people that approve of his performance than disapprove. Sure, President Clinton had a rough first year, then pivoted to the center mid-way through his term and won in a relative blow-out in 1996. Sure, President Reagan looked to be in big trouble after year 1, then saw the economy boom and won in one of the biggest landslides of the modern era in 1984.
And yes, the President may benefit from a better economy by 2012. But he would be foolish to assume that this will be his sole path to re-election. The President needs to take corrective action, as President Clinton did. Here's some starting points.
#1 Admit There is a Problem
Everybody already knows that your administration isn't getting things done the way many had hoped. You haven't communicated well to Congress. Several of your cabinet secretaries, including Ray Lahood, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have had high-prfoile slip-ups of either form or substance. The stimulus didn't keep unemployment under 8%, a claim that you never should have made.
So, let's loose the smug coolness and show a little contrition and vulnerability. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we're committed to doing right by the American people, you should say.
#2 Make Some Changes to Show You Are Serious
Obama is a loyal guy and he actually reminds me of former President George W. Bush in that he seems very hesitant to cut a man (or woman) loose, even when it is clear to others that (s)he isn't cutting it. Your team needs a shake-up. I might start with Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs. Get some better communicators in there.
Then, take a close look at the rest of your cabinet and decide who is helping. Arne Duncan is a keeper. So is Hillary. Tim Geithner? I'm not so sure.
I'm not saying throw anybody under the bus, but you need to get the best people if you are going to survive.
#3 Take on Your Own Party on Some Symbolic Issues
Have a photo op with the GOP backing school vouchers and push for a bill. Endorse a GOP plan for a revenue-neutral gas tax increase. Show that you are not the puppet of Pelosi and Reid.
#4 Be Bold on Your Issues
Issue that executive order on Gays in the Military TODAY. Make a moral issue out of eliminating too big to fail.
#5 Advertise Better
Do you know how much better things are going on the ground in Afghanistan? Nobody does. Because the President isn't talking about it.
Scott Brown -- Not a Tea Bagger
Newly minted Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) showed his real commitment to independence and bi-partisanship by crossing the party line to vote for a $15 billion package of tax cuts aimed at small businesses that hire unemployed workers. The entire process for the bill was an exercise in all that is broken with Washington, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) undercutting a bi-partisan effort on a jobs bill by introducing his own package and then the GOP largely voting in lock-step against an idea that they had previously endorsed. Brown walked the line by rightly criticizing the process while refusing to vote against a bill that contained ideas that he supported. Good for him. And more evidence that he is the product of moderate Independent anger, not some Glenn Beck inspired movement.
Seems like years ago that we heard about how President Obama was going to aggressively pivot away from health care and on to economic issues and jobs. It was only a few weeks ago and the President made it pretty clear in his State of the Union speech that jobs were priority one. He didn't even mention health care until the second half of his speech. Even liberals in congress were talking about taking a break from the issue that has consumed all of their political capital since the stimulus bill passed early last year.
Yet, here we were last week, with a much anticipated, televised discussion of health care between the President and Congress. It went pretty much to script. Both sides were (relatively) cordial, but the battle lines are clear. Democrats want comprehensive reform this year. Republicans want an incrementalist approach, consisting mostly of things that have to do with cost containment (tort reform, purchase of insurance across state lines) and little to do with expanding access. Simply put, there is a seemingly unfixable ideological divide between the GOP and the President on this issue. But then, we already knew that.
The summit strikes me, while fascinating political theater, as largely cover to start the reconciliation process. No one had any real expectation of a deal, both sides were too dug in. This allows the President to say, "look, see, I tried to work with the GOP, but they wouldn't play ball, so I took action anyway." House and Senate Democratic leaders have already been talking about how to make the reconciliation process work.
In many ways, the Democrats are in far worse shape on this issue than if they had simply decided to go at it alone from the get go. What bill is going to get a majority of votes coming solely from a scared-shitless Democratic caucus is unclear. There are all the issues that had to be navigated when the first bill passed, the Blue Dogs, the anti-abortion Democrats and the liberals who want a bigger bill. Pile on top of that Democrats that are now highly fearful of losing in November and it's hard to hold onto what was only a 4 vote majority for a bill last year.
So, the Democrats still have a tough road to parity unity on this issue, even if they are ditching hopes of a compromise with the GOP. So, the question remains, why does the Democratic party remain so focused on this issue that for the most part has brought them nothing but pain over the course of the past year?
Because they must. It would be the ultimate sign of failure and dysfunction in the Democratic party to fail to do ANYTHING with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency on the signature issue that the President laid out last year. You could certainly argue in retrospect that this was the wrong issue to pick in a time of painful unemployment, a damaged financial system and two active wars still underway, but it's an academic question at this point -- the DEMs are committed. If they get a bill, they may well lose a lot of seats in Congress. But if they fail, then they have given the American public NO reason to vote for them and will likely get run out of town from the right AND the left.
So, they trudge on. Prepare for the partisanship in Washington to get even worse as the Democrats plot to cut out the power of the filibuster and ram a bill through with Dems only. But let's not forget, that's how President Bush's signature tax cuts became law.
Not Much New in the Polls
President Obama's approval remains about where it has been all month, with a narrow plurality of people approving of his job performance. He will once again post a decline in his numbers in February, continuing a long downward slide from the highs when he took office.
What to Do to Fix the Obama Administration
It's time to talk seriously...President Obama is in trouble. Sure, he still has slightly more people that approve of his performance than disapprove. Sure, President Clinton had a rough first year, then pivoted to the center mid-way through his term and won in a relative blow-out in 1996. Sure, President Reagan looked to be in big trouble after year 1, then saw the economy boom and won in one of the biggest landslides of the modern era in 1984.
And yes, the President may benefit from a better economy by 2012. But he would be foolish to assume that this will be his sole path to re-election. The President needs to take corrective action, as President Clinton did. Here's some starting points.
#1 Admit There is a Problem
Everybody already knows that your administration isn't getting things done the way many had hoped. You haven't communicated well to Congress. Several of your cabinet secretaries, including Ray Lahood, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have had high-prfoile slip-ups of either form or substance. The stimulus didn't keep unemployment under 8%, a claim that you never should have made.
So, let's loose the smug coolness and show a little contrition and vulnerability. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we're committed to doing right by the American people, you should say.
#2 Make Some Changes to Show You Are Serious
Obama is a loyal guy and he actually reminds me of former President George W. Bush in that he seems very hesitant to cut a man (or woman) loose, even when it is clear to others that (s)he isn't cutting it. Your team needs a shake-up. I might start with Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs. Get some better communicators in there.
Then, take a close look at the rest of your cabinet and decide who is helping. Arne Duncan is a keeper. So is Hillary. Tim Geithner? I'm not so sure.
I'm not saying throw anybody under the bus, but you need to get the best people if you are going to survive.
#3 Take on Your Own Party on Some Symbolic Issues
Have a photo op with the GOP backing school vouchers and push for a bill. Endorse a GOP plan for a revenue-neutral gas tax increase. Show that you are not the puppet of Pelosi and Reid.
#4 Be Bold on Your Issues
Issue that executive order on Gays in the Military TODAY. Make a moral issue out of eliminating too big to fail.
#5 Advertise Better
Do you know how much better things are going on the ground in Afghanistan? Nobody does. Because the President isn't talking about it.
Scott Brown -- Not a Tea Bagger
Newly minted Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) showed his real commitment to independence and bi-partisanship by crossing the party line to vote for a $15 billion package of tax cuts aimed at small businesses that hire unemployed workers. The entire process for the bill was an exercise in all that is broken with Washington, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) undercutting a bi-partisan effort on a jobs bill by introducing his own package and then the GOP largely voting in lock-step against an idea that they had previously endorsed. Brown walked the line by rightly criticizing the process while refusing to vote against a bill that contained ideas that he supported. Good for him. And more evidence that he is the product of moderate Independent anger, not some Glenn Beck inspired movement.
Friday, February 5, 2010
GOP Gives Itself a Shot in IL, Democrats in Disarray on the Hill, On Rahm Emanuel and Things Retarded
Illinois Primary Voters Speak - A Win for Moderates
This past week's Senate primary results in Illinois lend a couple of clear messages to me:
#1 The "Tea Party" Movement is a Red Herring
Scott Brown was never a tea bagger. He was always a moderate conservative, a guy opposed to the Democratic health care plan and worried about runaway spending, but a social moderate and a pragmatist in the best sense of the world. His victory was never a victory for the tea party movement, it was a victory for the GOP and the voices of those who feared a Democratic party with unfettered power.
The tea party did co-opt the Republican Party in New York's 23rd Congressional District this past year, shoving aside GOP nominee Dede Scozzofava in favor of conservative hero Doug Hoffman. The result? They managed to lose a district that is more conservative than the nation, in a year where the country was ready to check the Democrats, letting Democrat Bill Owens slip in with a narrow win.
And this past week in Illinois, the sensible middle spoke again, as moderate Mark Kirk smacked down tea-party hero Patrick Hughes by 37 points to take the GOP nomination for the Illinois Senate seat once held by President Obama and now held by scandal-plagued Blago appointee Roland Burris.
The tea party movement is a joke, a concoction of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and some of their most radical, most Obama-hating friends. They have no platform and no message other than opposing government run health care programs because they might take away people's Medicare (huh?)
This is not to say that anger or at the very least, deep concern, over the proposed policies of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party isn't real. It is very real. No serious person could read the election of Scott Brown any differently. But it's the vast middle that is driving the shift, not the nut cases on the right, who wouldn't back Obama if he changed his name to Ronald Reagan and started watching the 700 Club.
#2 The GOP is In It to Win It
Part of the choice of Mark Kirk is ideological, part of it is pragmatic. Hughes would have lost, and badly. Kirk is a live contender. This race is a true toss-up right now. The GOP has dreams of taking back the Senate and they are showing a willingness to put up moderate candidates in places like Illinois and Delaware to get there. It may not be enough to clear the massive hurdle of 10 seats, but they are clearly playing for keeps, not just to make a point.
While I've devoted most of the virtual ink to the GOP primary, it is also worth noting that State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis won the Democratic primary the same night by a surprisingly narrow 5 point margin against former State Inspector General David Hoffman.
Polling in the heads up match between Kirk and Ginnaoulis is very tight and we'll keep an eye on how the race develops now that the candidates are decided.
Franken Irate, Health Care Going Nowhere, What Jobs Bill?, What the Hell Is Going On?
Senator Al Franken (D-MN) reportedly had an irate outburst with White House staff in a closed-door session with Senate Democrats this week over the lack of a strategy, particularly around health care. He has a point.
Nobody has presented any sort of real viable plan to do anything this year. Sit back and wait is not a strategy, unless the strategy is to hope people forget you spent the last year on this and move on.
The touted Jobs Bill appears on a road to nowheresville. I'm sure a package will ultimately pass, but Senate Democrats appear to be unable to even say what is going to be in a bill, with some even indicating that they might pass some small business tax cuts now and work the rest out later. Really? And this is different from the GOP being in power....how?
The Democrats seem to be in utter disarray since Brown's win, which is amazing, because it came on the heels of their strongest display of unity yet, the passage of the health care bill through the Senate. One election really changed all of this? Apparently so.
If Democrats can't find a way to govern with an 80-seat majority in the House and an 18-seat majority in the Senate (that's right, 59 minus 41 equals 18), then they deserve to go down in November. What we are witnessing right now is pretty pathetic.
On Rahm Emanuel
GOP talking heads, including former Alaska Governor, sometimes Fox News analyst and possible Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, have been calling for Rahm Emanuel's ouster following the revelation that he called liberal groups who would campaign against Democrats opposing health care reform "retarded".
It may surprise you to find out that I agree Rahm Emanuel should be fired. Just not for the same reasons.
is the GOP serious? You get fired for saying retarded in a closed-door meeting? Didn't John McCain call Korean's "gooks" in 2000? Didn't they defend Trent Lott apparently advocating segregation at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party? "Retarded" is THAT much further over the line?
Don't get me wrong -- Emanuel was wrong to say it. It is unsightly and mean-spirited. But, Christ, the guy has apologized to just about every developmentally disabled group he can find. Does anybody ACTUALLY think he was talking about developmentally disabled people? If he'd called the liberal groups "developmentally disabled" would it have been just as bad? Are we really that whiny of a nation?
This is NOTHING like Harry Reid's statement, of which I was highly critical. Reid's statement smacked of racism, or at the very least, an utter lack of understanding of the past 40 years. Emanuel's statement doesn't reveal some deep-seated hatred of mentally handicapped people, it was just a poor choice of words from a guy who is famous for poor choices of words.
So why do I think Emanuel should be fired? Because he has been a mess. He is divisive, sets a horrible tone in his dealings with the hill and has managed to simultaneously divide Democrats and unite Republicans. He represents all of the wrong parts of Chicago politics, he is not a true believer in the Obama agenda and as a tactician, he's been ineffective. Obama needs a guy that can get things done on the hill. That clearly hasn't been Rahm.
More Senate updates coming soon....stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
This past week's Senate primary results in Illinois lend a couple of clear messages to me:
#1 The "Tea Party" Movement is a Red Herring
Scott Brown was never a tea bagger. He was always a moderate conservative, a guy opposed to the Democratic health care plan and worried about runaway spending, but a social moderate and a pragmatist in the best sense of the world. His victory was never a victory for the tea party movement, it was a victory for the GOP and the voices of those who feared a Democratic party with unfettered power.
The tea party did co-opt the Republican Party in New York's 23rd Congressional District this past year, shoving aside GOP nominee Dede Scozzofava in favor of conservative hero Doug Hoffman. The result? They managed to lose a district that is more conservative than the nation, in a year where the country was ready to check the Democrats, letting Democrat Bill Owens slip in with a narrow win.
And this past week in Illinois, the sensible middle spoke again, as moderate Mark Kirk smacked down tea-party hero Patrick Hughes by 37 points to take the GOP nomination for the Illinois Senate seat once held by President Obama and now held by scandal-plagued Blago appointee Roland Burris.
The tea party movement is a joke, a concoction of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and some of their most radical, most Obama-hating friends. They have no platform and no message other than opposing government run health care programs because they might take away people's Medicare (huh?)
This is not to say that anger or at the very least, deep concern, over the proposed policies of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party isn't real. It is very real. No serious person could read the election of Scott Brown any differently. But it's the vast middle that is driving the shift, not the nut cases on the right, who wouldn't back Obama if he changed his name to Ronald Reagan and started watching the 700 Club.
#2 The GOP is In It to Win It
Part of the choice of Mark Kirk is ideological, part of it is pragmatic. Hughes would have lost, and badly. Kirk is a live contender. This race is a true toss-up right now. The GOP has dreams of taking back the Senate and they are showing a willingness to put up moderate candidates in places like Illinois and Delaware to get there. It may not be enough to clear the massive hurdle of 10 seats, but they are clearly playing for keeps, not just to make a point.
While I've devoted most of the virtual ink to the GOP primary, it is also worth noting that State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis won the Democratic primary the same night by a surprisingly narrow 5 point margin against former State Inspector General David Hoffman.
Polling in the heads up match between Kirk and Ginnaoulis is very tight and we'll keep an eye on how the race develops now that the candidates are decided.
Franken Irate, Health Care Going Nowhere, What Jobs Bill?, What the Hell Is Going On?
Senator Al Franken (D-MN) reportedly had an irate outburst with White House staff in a closed-door session with Senate Democrats this week over the lack of a strategy, particularly around health care. He has a point.
Nobody has presented any sort of real viable plan to do anything this year. Sit back and wait is not a strategy, unless the strategy is to hope people forget you spent the last year on this and move on.
The touted Jobs Bill appears on a road to nowheresville. I'm sure a package will ultimately pass, but Senate Democrats appear to be unable to even say what is going to be in a bill, with some even indicating that they might pass some small business tax cuts now and work the rest out later. Really? And this is different from the GOP being in power....how?
The Democrats seem to be in utter disarray since Brown's win, which is amazing, because it came on the heels of their strongest display of unity yet, the passage of the health care bill through the Senate. One election really changed all of this? Apparently so.
If Democrats can't find a way to govern with an 80-seat majority in the House and an 18-seat majority in the Senate (that's right, 59 minus 41 equals 18), then they deserve to go down in November. What we are witnessing right now is pretty pathetic.
On Rahm Emanuel
GOP talking heads, including former Alaska Governor, sometimes Fox News analyst and possible Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, have been calling for Rahm Emanuel's ouster following the revelation that he called liberal groups who would campaign against Democrats opposing health care reform "retarded".
It may surprise you to find out that I agree Rahm Emanuel should be fired. Just not for the same reasons.
is the GOP serious? You get fired for saying retarded in a closed-door meeting? Didn't John McCain call Korean's "gooks" in 2000? Didn't they defend Trent Lott apparently advocating segregation at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party? "Retarded" is THAT much further over the line?
Don't get me wrong -- Emanuel was wrong to say it. It is unsightly and mean-spirited. But, Christ, the guy has apologized to just about every developmentally disabled group he can find. Does anybody ACTUALLY think he was talking about developmentally disabled people? If he'd called the liberal groups "developmentally disabled" would it have been just as bad? Are we really that whiny of a nation?
This is NOTHING like Harry Reid's statement, of which I was highly critical. Reid's statement smacked of racism, or at the very least, an utter lack of understanding of the past 40 years. Emanuel's statement doesn't reveal some deep-seated hatred of mentally handicapped people, it was just a poor choice of words from a guy who is famous for poor choices of words.
So why do I think Emanuel should be fired? Because he has been a mess. He is divisive, sets a horrible tone in his dealings with the hill and has managed to simultaneously divide Democrats and unite Republicans. He represents all of the wrong parts of Chicago politics, he is not a true believer in the Obama agenda and as a tactician, he's been ineffective. Obama needs a guy that can get things done on the hill. That clearly hasn't been Rahm.
More Senate updates coming soon....stay tuned.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Biden Out (Beau That Is), Bayh at Risk, Full Steam Ahead on Health Care?, Your Guide to the State of the Union
Beau Isn't Running
Beau Biden has decided not to seek the Senate seat that was vacated by his father assuming the Vice Presidency this past January. This is a major blow to Democrats in the state, who had been counting on the popular Biden brand name to carry the race against very popular At Large Rep. Mike Castle (R). With Biden out of the race and no star candidates in the mix, I'll move this race from a Toss-Up to a Lean GOP Pick-Up, pending polling information.
I guess the move wasn't terribly shocking, as this is shaping up to be a rough year for Democrats in November and Biden would've been fighting a pick 'em race against a popular ex-Governor and rare true moderate. Why should Biden risk his popularity now, when he could wait for an easier shot, in a better year, in heavily Democratic Delaware.
Bayh No Lock
Popular, well, at least, I thought he was popular, moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will not have a walk either in his race either. A just-released Rasmussen poll shows him down 3% against potential opponent Rep. Mark Pence and up only 3% against less well known John Hostettler.
It is not clear yet if Pence will run and this is only one poll. I will move it from a Likely DEM Hold to a Lean DEM Hold pending information on Pence's possibly candidacy and additional polling. This is another one to add to the mix of races that would've seemed like easy defenses a year ago but are now competitive. The same poll found Obama's Approve minus Disapprove in Indiana to be at -13%, in a state that he won by a slim margin in 2008.
Full Speed Ahead with Health Care?
Reports out of Washington are that after President Obama's seeming concession to a smaller-scale health care bill that Pelosi and Reid may push ahead with a two-pronged approach of passing the Senate measure in the House and then using reconciliation to make changes to the bill later on.
The reconciliation process would require only 51 Senate votes but can only be used on the provisions related to taxation and spending. So, for instance, they could be used to alter the provisions pertaining to taxes on high-cost insurance plans, but could not be used to modify the provisions related to pre-existing conditions. It is debatable whether modifying the abortion-funding rules falls within the scope of reconciliation, and that is likely to be a contentious issue with passing the bill in the House. But it is likely if the House passed the bill that Democrats could muster 60 votes for a stand-alone change to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, if it was part of the quid pro quo.
If the reports of this plan are true, this is a dramatically bold plan, in the face of the Massachusetts defeat. But it is also the best possible long-term path for Democrats. To come out of two years with dominant majorities without real reform on their signature issue would be a disaster. And while the GOP likes to point to the unpopularity of the overall bill, almost all of the individual provisions of the bill are popular, indicating to me that the public may like it better as a law than they did as a bill.
Even if Pelosi and Reid push ahead with this plan, it is far from a done deal. They have to convince liberals to accept a more moderate Senate bill and have to convince at least some Blue Dogs that this bill is worth risking their necks in November for. No easy feat given the way the Democratic party has been running scared for the past week. But we'll see.
State of the Union Viewers Guide
President Obama gives his first official State of the Union speech tomorrow night, although his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago was essentially the same forum, and in light of the events of the past couple of weeks, it is highly anticipated for us political watchers. Here are my things to watch:
(1) What does he say about his priorities from last year?
Is it full steam ahead on Health Care, public opinion be damned? Is this a moral or an economic issue? Will we scale back or push for all we can get? Or is this issue headed to the back burner with little mention?
Is Cap and Trade still on the table? Will the President push it or ignore that priority from last year? Will he say anything about Copenhagen?
(2) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
What will he stay about the stimulus? Call it successful but not enough? Say that it did what was intended? What will he propose going forward? What promises will he make about unemployment, if any?
(3) The Deficit
The rumor is that he is going to propose a 3-year freeze on spending for a large portion of domestic discretionary spending. Was this a trial balloon or will he propose it? Will he talk about sun-setting the Bush tax cuts in 2011? What will he say about the balance of the stimulus? How about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will he even mention entitlement reform, the elephant in the room? Will he explicitly push Congress to appoint a bi-partisan commission, with a straight up or down vote on their recommendations?
(4) Foreign Policy
Does it get much mention or is it pushed to the back? What will he say about GITMO and his failure to meet one of his first executive orders? Will he talk about winding down Iraq? Any shift in tone on Afghanistan?
(5) Small Ball / Triangulation
Will we see some Bill Clinton-style small ball, triangulated initiatives? Remember 100,000 more cops on the street and Family Medical Leave -- are things like this in the offing? WIll the tone be more about the big, bold ideas or the small practical ones?
(6) What is the State of the Union?
I remember Bill Clinton saying "the State of the Union has never been stronger", a triumphant declaration of victory in a time of sub 4% unemployment and the beginnings of the internet boom. Clearly the President can't say this. But what will he say that recognizes the struggle ordinary people are feeling yet conveys confidence in the future? How will he solve the "Stockdale Paradox", named for Admiral Stockdale, who, as a POW in Vietnam, figured out a way to remain confident that he would be rescued without setting a specific date.
It is an almost impossible speech given the current circumstances, but the President needs a home run performance to recharge his administration and his priorities. He needs to walk the line between pragmatic and bold. He needs some quick wins and some big wins. Most of all, he needs to reshape the dialogue.
I'll be watching, as I suspect most of you will too. State of the Unions are always impressive and entertaining, with all the trappings of Congress and the Presidency. And they do matter in terms of setting the agenda, perhaps more than any other speeches. And perhaps no speech given by a President known for giving some famous speeches, will be more important to his Presidency.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Beau Biden has decided not to seek the Senate seat that was vacated by his father assuming the Vice Presidency this past January. This is a major blow to Democrats in the state, who had been counting on the popular Biden brand name to carry the race against very popular At Large Rep. Mike Castle (R). With Biden out of the race and no star candidates in the mix, I'll move this race from a Toss-Up to a Lean GOP Pick-Up, pending polling information.
I guess the move wasn't terribly shocking, as this is shaping up to be a rough year for Democrats in November and Biden would've been fighting a pick 'em race against a popular ex-Governor and rare true moderate. Why should Biden risk his popularity now, when he could wait for an easier shot, in a better year, in heavily Democratic Delaware.
Bayh No Lock
Popular, well, at least, I thought he was popular, moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will not have a walk either in his race either. A just-released Rasmussen poll shows him down 3% against potential opponent Rep. Mark Pence and up only 3% against less well known John Hostettler.
It is not clear yet if Pence will run and this is only one poll. I will move it from a Likely DEM Hold to a Lean DEM Hold pending information on Pence's possibly candidacy and additional polling. This is another one to add to the mix of races that would've seemed like easy defenses a year ago but are now competitive. The same poll found Obama's Approve minus Disapprove in Indiana to be at -13%, in a state that he won by a slim margin in 2008.
Full Speed Ahead with Health Care?
Reports out of Washington are that after President Obama's seeming concession to a smaller-scale health care bill that Pelosi and Reid may push ahead with a two-pronged approach of passing the Senate measure in the House and then using reconciliation to make changes to the bill later on.
The reconciliation process would require only 51 Senate votes but can only be used on the provisions related to taxation and spending. So, for instance, they could be used to alter the provisions pertaining to taxes on high-cost insurance plans, but could not be used to modify the provisions related to pre-existing conditions. It is debatable whether modifying the abortion-funding rules falls within the scope of reconciliation, and that is likely to be a contentious issue with passing the bill in the House. But it is likely if the House passed the bill that Democrats could muster 60 votes for a stand-alone change to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, if it was part of the quid pro quo.
If the reports of this plan are true, this is a dramatically bold plan, in the face of the Massachusetts defeat. But it is also the best possible long-term path for Democrats. To come out of two years with dominant majorities without real reform on their signature issue would be a disaster. And while the GOP likes to point to the unpopularity of the overall bill, almost all of the individual provisions of the bill are popular, indicating to me that the public may like it better as a law than they did as a bill.
Even if Pelosi and Reid push ahead with this plan, it is far from a done deal. They have to convince liberals to accept a more moderate Senate bill and have to convince at least some Blue Dogs that this bill is worth risking their necks in November for. No easy feat given the way the Democratic party has been running scared for the past week. But we'll see.
State of the Union Viewers Guide
President Obama gives his first official State of the Union speech tomorrow night, although his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago was essentially the same forum, and in light of the events of the past couple of weeks, it is highly anticipated for us political watchers. Here are my things to watch:
(1) What does he say about his priorities from last year?
Is it full steam ahead on Health Care, public opinion be damned? Is this a moral or an economic issue? Will we scale back or push for all we can get? Or is this issue headed to the back burner with little mention?
Is Cap and Trade still on the table? Will the President push it or ignore that priority from last year? Will he say anything about Copenhagen?
(2) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
What will he stay about the stimulus? Call it successful but not enough? Say that it did what was intended? What will he propose going forward? What promises will he make about unemployment, if any?
(3) The Deficit
The rumor is that he is going to propose a 3-year freeze on spending for a large portion of domestic discretionary spending. Was this a trial balloon or will he propose it? Will he talk about sun-setting the Bush tax cuts in 2011? What will he say about the balance of the stimulus? How about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will he even mention entitlement reform, the elephant in the room? Will he explicitly push Congress to appoint a bi-partisan commission, with a straight up or down vote on their recommendations?
(4) Foreign Policy
Does it get much mention or is it pushed to the back? What will he say about GITMO and his failure to meet one of his first executive orders? Will he talk about winding down Iraq? Any shift in tone on Afghanistan?
(5) Small Ball / Triangulation
Will we see some Bill Clinton-style small ball, triangulated initiatives? Remember 100,000 more cops on the street and Family Medical Leave -- are things like this in the offing? WIll the tone be more about the big, bold ideas or the small practical ones?
(6) What is the State of the Union?
I remember Bill Clinton saying "the State of the Union has never been stronger", a triumphant declaration of victory in a time of sub 4% unemployment and the beginnings of the internet boom. Clearly the President can't say this. But what will he say that recognizes the struggle ordinary people are feeling yet conveys confidence in the future? How will he solve the "Stockdale Paradox", named for Admiral Stockdale, who, as a POW in Vietnam, figured out a way to remain confident that he would be rescued without setting a specific date.
It is an almost impossible speech given the current circumstances, but the President needs a home run performance to recharge his administration and his priorities. He needs to walk the line between pragmatic and bold. He needs some quick wins and some big wins. Most of all, he needs to reshape the dialogue.
I'll be watching, as I suspect most of you will too. State of the Unions are always impressive and entertaining, with all the trappings of Congress and the Presidency. And they do matter in terms of setting the agenda, perhaps more than any other speeches. And perhaps no speech given by a President known for giving some famous speeches, will be more important to his Presidency.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Scorecarding the MA Senate Race -- How'd I Do?, Did the Whole Game Just Change?
Results Versus Projections
So, the votes are counted, other than a few stray overseas absentee ballot and we have a clear picture of how well I projected the Massachusetts Senate result.
First, the obvious, I got the ultimate outcome right. Unlike many political sites, such as the highly reputed Cook Report, which simply rated the race a "toss-up" going into Tuesday, I always make a projection, regardless of the closeness of the margin. And we were right again. Combine that with getting the end result right in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races this past November and going 48 for 50 in calling state results in the Presidential race, as well as nailing dead on the popular vote margin in 2008 and I think this site has a track record that rivals any political expert in terms of projecting elections over the past two years.
Now, on to the specifics of Massachusetts. Below are the actual (unofficial, but verified) vote percentages from Massachusetts versus my final projections:
Scott Brown: Actual 51.9%, Projected 50.8%, Error = 1.1%
Martha Coakley: Actual 47.1%, Projected 47.1%, Error = 0.0%
Joe Kennedy: Actual 1.0%, Projected 2.1%, Error = 1.1%
Note that the projection was exactly correct on Martha Coakley's vote percentage and that the error on the other two candidates was entirely due to Joe Kennedy receiving less than half of the statistical projection and those votes going to Scott Brown. If you re-read my blogs leading up to the election, I noted that minor independent candidates almost always poll better than they actually do...I even reasoned that Kennedy might lose about half of his support on election day. I also noted that it stood to reason that late departures from the Kennedy camp would favor the Republican over the Democrat. You can't statistically project that type of phenomenon, but I've seen enough of these elections to detect the pattern.
So, all told, I think I did extremely well in projecting an extremely difficult race to call, given all the rapid-moving dynamics and the inherent difficulty in projecting a special election.
I feel much better about these results than I do in the New Jersey and Virginia Governor's races, where the results were correctly projected, but the margin in both was off by just over 3%.
Time to Rethink the Whole Agenda?
While the result in Massachusetts was not unanticipated in most political circles, you could feel the ground shift as the results were called.
Democrats were calling for starting over on health care. Republicans possessed a swagger that they haven't had since early last decade. Centrist commentator Mort Zuckerman, who supported President Obama last November, blasted the President for the lack of openness, the ugly deals cut on health care and the general tone of his administration.
I'm reminded of a frequently used phrase in Washington: elections have consequences. And this election appears to be having broad-reacihng consequences.
Democrats have wisely ruled out ramming a bill through congress before Brown takes office. House Democrats have ruled out passing the Senate bill. This means, effectively, back to the drawing board. Are they even going to try for a bill? If so, what will it take to win over Olympia Snowe? Will they go just far enough to get to 60 or go much smaller and hope to win 70 or 75 Senate votes? What of the rest of the President's agenda? Will the Senate even debate Cap and Trade? Is immigration reform anywhere on the horizon? What of the budget for next year?
The direction of debate will largely be shaped by the President's State of the Union address next week. For a man who rose to power in large measure on the prowess of his powers of communication, this is THE most important speech of his career. Bigger than his 2004 DNC speech. Bigger than his speech on race. This speech will set the course for the next year of his Presidency and beyond.
In that vein, here is my unsolicited advice:
(1) Talk about deficit reduction
I've harped on this for months...the administration has not, as of yet, presented a credible deficit reduction program in any way shape or form. It has been accurately noted that Independents, who Obama won big with in November 2008 but who turned to a little-known State Senator named Scott Brown yesterday, tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. They want stem cell research, abortion rights and don't so much mind gays in the military, but they detest runaway spending and deficits. Also, more than anything, they despise harsh partisan rhetoric and backroom deals.
The President can't solve the deficit in a speech. And the solutions are ugly...raise taxes, reform entitlements, cut social programs, cut the military, etc. But the President CAN support Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) sensible proposal for a non-partisan deficit reduction commission that would come back with a proposal to curb the deficit that Congress would be required to give an up or down vote to, as a whole. This process worked when military bases needed to be closed in the 1980s and 90s, and if you recall that era, there was no more contentious issue then. Giving full visible support to such a proposal would be a big win with independents and would garner bi-partisan support in Congress.
(2) Move quickly on the easy, bipartisan parts of health care. A bill to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines and to set up exchanges for the uninsured, that allowed reimportation of perscription drugs and that provided some modest tort reform could pass with big GOP support. The President could finally get the bipartisanship that he has been promising but utterly failed to deliver on.
(3) Refocus on jobs and fast. The elements are in place to drop unemployment. The problem is, Mr. President, people don't think you are working on it. Talk about what you are doing. Talk about the green energy economy. Talk about productivity investments. Make people believe that you #1 care and #2 are competent to do something about it.
(4) Advertise a little. Tell people about the 4 million kids who have health insurance that didn't when you administration took office. Talk about the troops coming home from Iraq. Talk about the credit card protections for consumers that you have put into place.
Have we entered a new era of gridlock or the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship?
I fear the former but hold out hope for the later. The President must take the first step, but the GOP will have to be willing to play ball as well.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
So, the votes are counted, other than a few stray overseas absentee ballot and we have a clear picture of how well I projected the Massachusetts Senate result.
First, the obvious, I got the ultimate outcome right. Unlike many political sites, such as the highly reputed Cook Report, which simply rated the race a "toss-up" going into Tuesday, I always make a projection, regardless of the closeness of the margin. And we were right again. Combine that with getting the end result right in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races this past November and going 48 for 50 in calling state results in the Presidential race, as well as nailing dead on the popular vote margin in 2008 and I think this site has a track record that rivals any political expert in terms of projecting elections over the past two years.
Now, on to the specifics of Massachusetts. Below are the actual (unofficial, but verified) vote percentages from Massachusetts versus my final projections:
Scott Brown: Actual 51.9%, Projected 50.8%, Error = 1.1%
Martha Coakley: Actual 47.1%, Projected 47.1%, Error = 0.0%
Joe Kennedy: Actual 1.0%, Projected 2.1%, Error = 1.1%
Note that the projection was exactly correct on Martha Coakley's vote percentage and that the error on the other two candidates was entirely due to Joe Kennedy receiving less than half of the statistical projection and those votes going to Scott Brown. If you re-read my blogs leading up to the election, I noted that minor independent candidates almost always poll better than they actually do...I even reasoned that Kennedy might lose about half of his support on election day. I also noted that it stood to reason that late departures from the Kennedy camp would favor the Republican over the Democrat. You can't statistically project that type of phenomenon, but I've seen enough of these elections to detect the pattern.
So, all told, I think I did extremely well in projecting an extremely difficult race to call, given all the rapid-moving dynamics and the inherent difficulty in projecting a special election.
I feel much better about these results than I do in the New Jersey and Virginia Governor's races, where the results were correctly projected, but the margin in both was off by just over 3%.
Time to Rethink the Whole Agenda?
While the result in Massachusetts was not unanticipated in most political circles, you could feel the ground shift as the results were called.
Democrats were calling for starting over on health care. Republicans possessed a swagger that they haven't had since early last decade. Centrist commentator Mort Zuckerman, who supported President Obama last November, blasted the President for the lack of openness, the ugly deals cut on health care and the general tone of his administration.
I'm reminded of a frequently used phrase in Washington: elections have consequences. And this election appears to be having broad-reacihng consequences.
Democrats have wisely ruled out ramming a bill through congress before Brown takes office. House Democrats have ruled out passing the Senate bill. This means, effectively, back to the drawing board. Are they even going to try for a bill? If so, what will it take to win over Olympia Snowe? Will they go just far enough to get to 60 or go much smaller and hope to win 70 or 75 Senate votes? What of the rest of the President's agenda? Will the Senate even debate Cap and Trade? Is immigration reform anywhere on the horizon? What of the budget for next year?
The direction of debate will largely be shaped by the President's State of the Union address next week. For a man who rose to power in large measure on the prowess of his powers of communication, this is THE most important speech of his career. Bigger than his 2004 DNC speech. Bigger than his speech on race. This speech will set the course for the next year of his Presidency and beyond.
In that vein, here is my unsolicited advice:
(1) Talk about deficit reduction
I've harped on this for months...the administration has not, as of yet, presented a credible deficit reduction program in any way shape or form. It has been accurately noted that Independents, who Obama won big with in November 2008 but who turned to a little-known State Senator named Scott Brown yesterday, tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. They want stem cell research, abortion rights and don't so much mind gays in the military, but they detest runaway spending and deficits. Also, more than anything, they despise harsh partisan rhetoric and backroom deals.
The President can't solve the deficit in a speech. And the solutions are ugly...raise taxes, reform entitlements, cut social programs, cut the military, etc. But the President CAN support Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) sensible proposal for a non-partisan deficit reduction commission that would come back with a proposal to curb the deficit that Congress would be required to give an up or down vote to, as a whole. This process worked when military bases needed to be closed in the 1980s and 90s, and if you recall that era, there was no more contentious issue then. Giving full visible support to such a proposal would be a big win with independents and would garner bi-partisan support in Congress.
(2) Move quickly on the easy, bipartisan parts of health care. A bill to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines and to set up exchanges for the uninsured, that allowed reimportation of perscription drugs and that provided some modest tort reform could pass with big GOP support. The President could finally get the bipartisanship that he has been promising but utterly failed to deliver on.
(3) Refocus on jobs and fast. The elements are in place to drop unemployment. The problem is, Mr. President, people don't think you are working on it. Talk about what you are doing. Talk about the green energy economy. Talk about productivity investments. Make people believe that you #1 care and #2 are competent to do something about it.
(4) Advertise a little. Tell people about the 4 million kids who have health insurance that didn't when you administration took office. Talk about the troops coming home from Iraq. Talk about the credit card protections for consumers that you have put into place.
Have we entered a new era of gridlock or the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship?
I fear the former but hold out hope for the later. The President must take the first step, but the GOP will have to be willing to play ball as well.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Massachusetts and Beyond, Presidential Approval Continues Slow Slide, Health Care Slogs Along, Haiti Relief - A Donation Worth Making
2010 Updates - A Very Unusual Year
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Is the Senate race in Massachusetts a DEM blow-out, a GOP blow-out or a pick 'em race headed into next Tuesday? It all depends who you believe.
There have been two conflicting polls released in recent days that illustrate the danger of using numbers from partisan oriented polling firms in projecting races. A poll released yesterday by PJM/Cross Target, a Republican-affiliated polling firm, showed Republican Scott Brown with a shockingly large 15 point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. The same day, a Democrat-afilliated Blue Mass Group poll shoed Coakley with an 8 point lead in the same race. A 23 points spread on two polls trying to measure the same race on the same day? And it just happens that the Democratic poll has the Dem leading big and the GOP poll has the Republican leading even bigger? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
Back in the real world of neutral polls, this is a pick 'em race. The two last credible polls that we have are a Suffolk poll showing Brown at +4% and a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley at +2%, both released this week. Both Suffolk and Rasmussen are legitimate, neutral polling firms. The Rasmussen poll has a 1,000 voter sample size, with the Suffolk poll having a 500 voter sample size, which gives more weight to the Rasmussen poll in our aggregation method. I typically like to have at least 3 recent polls to make a good statistical projection, but going with what we have, Brown would have the slimmest of leads.
This is clearly a pick 'em race, not a blow-out in my books.
Massachusetts moves from Lean Democratic Hold to Toss-up.
I don't project toss-ups going into election night, so I WILL be making a projection soon as to the final outcome of the race, based on whatever data I have at that point.
In the November Senate races, there are multiple changes, most of them bad for the DEMs. Let's review the states with new polls.
California -- a new Rasmussen poll shows incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer leading business woman Carly Fiorna by only 3%, in what would've been a walk for the DEMs a year ago. California moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold.
Nevada -- Harry Reid is in big, big trouble bag home. A January 14th Rasmussen poll shows Reid down by 12 to 14% versus likely GOP challengers and a January 8th Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing by 8 to 10% against the same challengers. Nevada moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
North Dakota -- with incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan retiring, it appears the Democrats will lose his seat. Hoeven leads by 21 to 25% against likely Democratic opponents, according to a January 15th Research 2000 poll. Based on those numbers, this is starting to look like a safe bet for the GOP, but we'll hold it one notch short until we see another poll. North Dakota moves from Lean GOP Pick-up to Likely GOP Pick-up.
Connecticut -- the one piece of good news for the Democrats is that with Chris Dodd out of the way, his seat is probably the safest in the Senate for Demcorats to retain. A January 14th Quinnipac poll shows Blumenthal with amazing leads of 35 to 42% against likely GOPers. This race stays a Safe Democratic Hold.
New Hampshire -- more confirmation that Ayotte has a small-to-moderate lead. A January 12 Rasmussen poll shows her at +9%, largely agreeing with a January 7th ARG poll that showed her at +7%. This one stays a Lean GOP Hold.
Ohio -- continued evidence of a narrow GOP lead here. Portman is up 3% in a January 12 Rasmussen poll. This stays Lean GOP Hold.
We don't have new polls yet in Missouri and Pennsylvania, so they stay where they are, but I would say my current ratings, particularly in Missouri are probably suspect, given the national trend since the last polls we have.
All of which leaves us with:
Safe Democratic Hold (6)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Likely Democratic Hold (3)
Indiana, Wisconsin, Hawaii
Lean Democratic Hold (3)
New York (Gillebrand), Illinois, California
Lean Democratic Pick-Up (1)
Missouri
Toss-Up -- Democratic Controlled (3)
Massachusetts*, Delaware, Pennsylvania
* Special Election, January 19th
Likely GOP Pick-Up (2)
Nevada, North Dakota
Lean GOP Pick-Up (2)
Colorado, Arkansas
Lean GOP Hold (5)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona
Likely GOP Hold (5)
Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida
Safe GOP Hold (7)
Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Net Projection: GOP +3 to 6 Seats
Best Case GOP (all leaners): GOP +10 Seats
Best Case DEM (all leaners) DEM +4 Seats
We still have a wide range of possible scenarios that could happen by November. And as it should be with ten months to go before the election. But it definitely continues to trend GOP as the President's numbers slip and Democrats keep falling all over themselves.
The GOP needs a gain of 11 seats, assuming Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the DEMs, in order to regain control, so we still don't have a scenario for GOP control of the Senate, although we are getting closer.
In the House, polls continue to show varying scenarios, but my aggregate number has actually been relatively stable.
The latest read: GOP +4.0% on the generic ballot
Projection: GOP +44 Seats
The GOP needs 40 seats to regain control, so for the third time in a row, I'm projected a GOP takeover of the House, at least at this point.
President Obama -- A New Low in Poll Numbers
President Obama's numbers have slipped a little over a point since the new year as you can see from the poll trend below, bringing him to a new low for his Presidency. There were a slew of new polls released this past week, so the averages are pretty strong, based on a very broad sample.
The trend shows up in the President's monthly numbers, which now stand at +3.6% approve minus disapprove for the month of January, also a new low. The President's numbers have declined every month but one in his Presidency.
So is there any good news for Democratic enthusiasts in these numbers? A little. The President, while at a low for his Presidency, is still modestly above the zero line, which means there are still slightly more people who approve of his performance than disapprove. And when you run for re-election, you don't need to win by much, you just need to win.
Secondly, there is some reason to be optimistic that likely improvement in the economy between now and November will bolster his numbers. Still, these numbers are bad for this stage in the Presidency.
While there has been an ongoing debate between the competing schools of thought that "all politics are national" and "all politics are local", the truth is that all politics are BOTH and that weakening numbers for Obama are no doubt having an impact on Senate races, including the Massachusetts toss-up that was considered a walk by everyone just a few months ago.
Health Care - Everything is Complicated Again
As negotiations continue between the White House and Congressional leaders to come up with a consolidated health care bill that can pass both Houses, a deal has been struck on the tax on high benefit plans that was a part of the Senate bill, but was opposed by some House Democrats, who feared it would impact benefits of union workers. The compromise? Exempt union plans from the tax.
This is a bad compromise, an agreement that is both fundamentally unfair (why should union members get tax treatment that is different from non-union members with the same benefits?) and also takes the teeth out of what was probably the one good piece of cost containment in the bill. These types of bad deals seem like par for course lately in a divided Democratic party.
The Coakley/Brown race further complicates things. If Brown wins, he is Republican #41 in the Senate, which shatters the fragile 60 vote coalition that the Democrats had put together to get the first bill passed. This upset, if it happens, would leave the Democrats with several options:
#1 Just have the House pass the Senate bill -- this appears to be a non-starter according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, since the Senate bill contains the Caddy Tax we discussed above. But if the Brown upset happens, perhaps her stance will soften and she will push the bill through with the agreement that a later bill would deal with provisions that House members don't like.
#2 Hurry up and pass something before Brown is seated -- it will likely take at least 10 days to certify Brown the winner, possibly more if the race is extremely close and a recount is needed (recall the months it took to seat Al Franken in the bitterly contested Minnesota race last year) and the Democrats could try to pass something before Brown takes office. This would open them up to brutal criticism -- after all Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow a temporary appointment in the Senate and using that vote to circumvent the will of the Massachusetts people to ram through a bill that is unpopular in the polls would make for some easy GOP ads in November. It would, however, be a legal move and Democrats might just bite the bullet to pass a bill, but it would be a dangerous move for sure.
#3 Recruit Olympia Snowe -- Senator Snowe voted the bill out of committee and it would be hard to argue that the bill isn't more conservative now than it was then. Senator Snowe voted against the bill on the floor the first time around, complaining the Democrats were moving too fast, but she should have had plenty of time to think and read by now. Still, will Senator Snowe really want to be the deciding vote for such a massive Democratic accomplishment?
#4 Use Reconciliation -- this option is very messy as only portions of the bill could be attached to a process requiring only 51 votes in the Senate and could lead to an incomplete bill taking effect, but if all else fails, Democrats may seek this nuclear option. Of course, they still need 218 votes in the House, which is no slam dunk, but they may consider this to avoid the disaster of nothing passing.
This bill obviously isn't a done deal yet and we will all have to stay tuned.
Haiti -- Worth Our Giving
If you have a heartbeat, you can't help but be touched by the awful destruction in Port au Prince, Haiti, following a massive earthquake that may have killed as many as 100,000 people.
One of the most inspiring features of American culture has always been our willingness to give in times of need. Americans give more money to charity, in absolute dollars, in percent of income, by any measure you like, of any people in the world.
An aid is needed. Economic times back home are tough. But what we face is nothing compared to the grisly mess faced in Haiti. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help.
I urge all readers to give. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have teamed up to organize aid efforts. The unity these two are showing in the face of the crisis should tell you that this relief effort has nothing to do with politics. What is needed is money to help dying, starving, threatened people.
Please, please, go to:
http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/
and give whatever you can to the Clinton/Bush Haiti Fund. If all you can afford is $10, still give it, that $10 could be the difference between a Haitian living and dying.
I have no affiliation with the fund.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for your generosity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
