Obama Stumps For Obamacare In Boston
Obama in Boston today will compare Romneycare and Obamacare rollouts. Yahoo! News: "Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor and an architect of the Massachusetts health care law, told reporters on a conference call organized by the White House on Tuesday that fewer than 150 people enrolled for Massachusetts’ health care exchange in its first month. By the end of the year, 36,000 people had enrolled. 'The success of health care reform needs to be measured in months and years, not days and weeks,' Gruber said. 'We didn’t freak out about daily or weekly movements. And we recognized this would ramp up slowly.'"
WH had already made clear that insurance plans couldn't make changes and keep grandfathered status, reminds Jared Bernstein: "At issue is the President’s claim when selling health care reform that if you like your current health plan, you can keep it. That point in turn was based on the provision that grandfathered existing plans in the individual market (neither employer-based or government provided) by granting exemptions from various standards and consumer protections that came into effect when the law was signed in 2010. However, as clearly stated at the time, if such a plan were to significantly change in ways that are inconsistent with consumer protections under the ACA, it would lose its grandfathered status ... Despite rumors to the contrary, it’s still a free country and private insurers can discontinue plans whenever they want ... such nuances were clear at the time and not buried in the weeds but discussed in the open."
"Rate shock" is the latest GOP lie, says Salon's Brian Beutler: "Critics of the law have done their level best to create the impression that everyone who’s received a cancellation notice has experienced, or will soon experience, rate shock. But it’s not true. Some people who receive these notices will be pleasantly surprised to find that the most similar new plan offered by their current provider is actually cheaper than their old one. Others will be told that a similar plan will cost more. What they won’t be told, because insurers don’t want to downsell or advertise for their competitors, is that they’re likely to find a different plan available through their state exchange that’s closer to the same price or cheaper. If they can’t find a cheaper one, then there’s a decent chance that federal subsidies will reduce their out-of-pocket costs. It’s only the remainder — and it’s likely to be a small remainder — that genuinely will have no choice but to either pay more money (in some cases significantly more) or pay a fine and go without coverage."
HHS Sec Sebelius testifies to Congress today reports AP.
Budget Talks Begin Today
Lines drawn. Politico: "If there is any common ground in the negotiations, it will be defense spending. Neither side wants to see the $20 billion in cuts slated for January. Both the House and Senate budgets break the sequester limit and set the Pentagon’s budget at $552 billion. It’s the nondefense spending where trouble begins ... Republicans want to offset the pending cuts to defense by axing other nondefense spending and changing entitlement programs. Democrats want to get rid of sequester to both defense and nondefense programs by raising revenue through closing tax loopholes. They’re opposed to touching entitlement programs without new taxes."
Dems don't believe they need to budge, reports Mother Jones: "According to a Senate aide involved in the negotiations, Democrats won't agree to any continuing resolution that locks in sequestration’s onerous cuts for the rest of the year. Instead, should the new conference fail, Democrats will insist on more short-term continuing resolutions ... Democrats are assuming that moderate congressional Republicans will have to strike a deal replacing the sequester, or else they face a life of perpetual short-term funding bills before the 2014 election. Each time the budget comes back up for debate it carries a renewed risk that Ted Cruz and his fellow Tea Partiers will force another shutdown, and that's an unpalatable reality for Republicans in competitive districts."
Farm bill/food stamp talks begin today too. McClatchy: "If the conference committee fails to produce something for the House and Senate to vote on by the end of the year, consumers might feel the impact. Dairy supports are set to expire, meaning the cost of milk could jump significantly if a new farm bill isn’t in place ... Several Democratic lawmakers say they aren’t in a compromising mood. They said the House [food stamp] cuts would harm needy Americans."
And Fed meets today, expected to keep stimulus. AP: "...few think the Fed will reduce its stimulus any time soon. Many analysts now predict the Fed will maintain the pace of its bond purchases into next year ... By then, Fed members expect to have seen several months of stronger job growth. They also expect Congress to have resolved its budget impasse."
Nomination Battles Brew
Federal appeals court nominee tests filibuster rule, reports NYT: "Senate Democrats plan to force a vote this week to fill a vacancy on the court widely considered the country’s second highest ... Unless one party backs down, the battle could escalate into a reprisal of the partisan strife that paralyzed the Senate for several weeks over the summer. But this time the long-term implications could be far greater, both for the Senate as an institution and for the ability of any president to shape the ideological bent of the federal bench."
Dems try to get 60 votes for new housing regulator. Politico: "On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the needed procedural step to set up a vote on the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to be director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ... Sources familiar with the talks said Watt is still at least two votes shy of 60 with North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr the only Republican who has publicly voiced support for the nomination."
New Business, GOP Support for Immigration
"Business-Conservative Alliance Presses for Immigration Action" reports NYT: "... an unlikely coalition of business executives, evangelical groups and prominent conservatives [are] coming together to urge House Republicans to put broad immigration legislation on the House floor, ideally before the end of this year. On Tuesday, the group of more than 600 leaders from roughly 40 states descended on the Capitol for meetings with nearly 150 Republican lawmakers."
Though some pro-immigration conservatives trying to push weaker reform without path to citizenship. HuffPost: "Based on what he heard from House members, [Texas Immigration Solution's Brad] Bailey said he doesn't think a path to citizenship 'is going to happen.' But Democrats, he said, may be realizing they're better off taking what they can get now and pushing for expanded reforms later."
Second GOPer backs House Dem bill. The Hill: "Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) on Tuesday became the second House Republican to endorse immigration reform legislation from Democrats ... The bill would provide a path to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, increase border security and set in motion a broad overhaul of the immigration system."
Breakfast Sides
Feds bargaining hard on JPMorgan settlement. Bloomberg: "JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s proposed terms to settle state and federal probes of the bank’s mortgage-bond sales were rejected by the Department of Justice this week ... The government would bar JPMorgan from trying to recover part of the costs from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and opposed the company’s bid to avoid criminal liability in cases that don’t involve residential mortgage-backed securities ... The Justice Department and JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, also differ on whether to include an additional $1.1 billion payment in the FHFA pact as part of the total settlement..."
"U.S. Says It Won’t Back New International Coal-Fired Power Plants" reports NYT: "The decision means that Mr. Obama’s administration will no longer contribute to coal projects financed by the World Bank and other international development banks ... Officials said the new policy would put countries around the world on notice that the United States will almost never help finance new coal plants unless they are the only option for desperately poor countries or they include technology that reduces emissions."
