Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to affect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
What Next For Health Care?
Pushback against passing Senate bill now, with fixes through filibuster-proof budget reconciliation later. The Hill: "...Democratic lawmakers were split Tuesday evening over the prospect of passing the Senate bill and hoping for a later fix. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said the Senate healthcare bill and the accompanying fix under reconciliation would have to be passed in tandem. 'It would have to be so quick that it would have happen at the same time,' Weiner said. Democratic aides, however, estimate that it would take weeks to prepare a bill for passage under reconciliation protection. White House officials are pressing for House lawmakers to pass the Senate bill much sooner."
Some House Dems prefer smaller bill or no bill to Senate bill. CNN: "Liberal New York Democrat Anthony Weiner predicted the Senate bill wouldn't have the votes to pass the House ... Several rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers on the right and the left suggested it may be best now to scrap their big overhaul bill and pass a smaller measure with provisions they can all agree on ... Some Democrats suggested the prospect of no health care bill passing was more likely that rushing to pass the Senate's bill ... Several other Democrats echoed [Rep. Stephen] Lynch's concerns, telling CNN even if there was firm commitment to pass a second bill with changes negotiated between House and Senate leaders and the White House, they wouldn't vote yes."
Rep. Hoyer optimistic. The Hill: "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday gave a boost to the idea of passing the Senate healthcare reform bill un-amended. 'I think the Senate bill clearly is better than nothing,' Hoyer told reporters. Hoyer also gave support to the option of passing a final healthcare bill, one that reflects the compromises struck by Senate and House negotiators, before Brown is seated in the Senate. Hoyer said it would be feasible to pass the enormous bill in the next 15 days, the time estimated to certify Brown’s victory."
Lone House GOPers to vote for health care won't vote for Senate bill over abortion. WSJ "'It’s a complete deal breaker with him if there’s not sufficient language to protect the lives of the unborn,' said [spokeswomen Princella] Smith, citing her boss’s beliefs, his training as a Catholic priest and his role as adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 'The Senate version does not have that sufficient language.'"
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) tries to put brakes on health care, reports WSJ: "Calling the race 'a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process' Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber."
Rep. Weiner suggests dropping health care and moving to a jobs bill in Politico.
Rep. Barney Frank issues statement suggesting Congress wait on health care: "...I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. ... Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process."
Obama campaign manager tells Dems hiding from health care is not an option. ABC quotes: "If you run away from it, you're still going to get attacked."
Jacob Hacker and Daniel Hopkins remind Senate Dems their new colleague sure likes health care reform, in his state: "Brown is no radical Republican. He supported a health-care bill in Massachusetts that looks an awful lot like the current Senate bill. Revealingly, he now says he wants that law to stay in place. Once a bill passes, Brown's stay-the-course approach is likely to be the position on national reform of a good number of wavering Democrats, as well as enough Republicans to make backtracking difficult."
Wonk Room's Igor Volsky urges acceptance of the Senate bill: "The reform process has demonstrated that Americans want their lawmakers to do more reform, not less and wavering Democrats should recognize that a Senate like health care bill would lay an important foundation for strengthening the health care system over the long term. Ironically, the final health care bill now closely resembles the Massachusetts 2006 reform effort, which the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts residents and Scott Brown support."
The Treatment's Jonathan Cohn tells Dems people hate the process, not the product: "You can do a lot with [the bill's provisions] on the campaign trail. Visit a senior citizen home and talk about how their drug bills are coming down. Go to a community college, and chat with kids staying on their parents insurance. Shovel dirt at the construction site for new community clinics. Kiss babies while talking up the waived restrictions for OB/GYN care. Give speeches at job fairs for health care workers."
NYT's Leonhardt tells the centrists the health care bill can't get any more centrist: "... the decision facing Democrats is not whether to start with a blank slate and try to write a bill based on both liberal health care ideas and conservative ones. They’ve already tried that. The decision is whether to expand insurance and try to control costs, despite the political risks, or whether that project will once again be put off until another day."
Whither The Banks
Top Dem pollster warns White House MA results prove it is too close to Wall Street: "Pollster Celinda Lake said Coakley was hampered by the failure of the White House and Congress to confront Wall Street. That failure, she said, means that Democrats are being blamed by angry independent voters worried about the state of the economy."
W. Post's Harold Meyerson urges Dems to pass health care then quickly move against Wall Street: "Unless they no longer believe they have a raison d'etre as a party, congressional Democrats must pass health-care reform ... They then must focus on aligning themselves with their populist principles and the public's anger, passing legislation that genuinely curtails the big banks' ability to wreck the economy ... Obama is sure to call for more regulation in his State of the Union address, and he should ask his fellow Democrats not only to truly regulate derivatives but also to reinstate the Glass-Steagall firewall between depositor and investment banks. Only by drawing a line between themselves and the Republicans on the issues of bank regulation and job creation do the Democrats have a chance of surviving in November. "
At HuffPost, Robert Borosage counters the Lieberman/Blue Dog conventional wisdom that Democrats should essentially stop being Democrats: "Republicans have profited too much from moving to the right and opposing Obama to join in bipartisan cooperation... Unlike Republicans, Obama actually believes in bipartisanship, to a fault. Yet the most bipartisan of his policies - the Wall Street bailout which in policy and personnel is virtually indistinguishable from the Bush administration -— is by far the least popular. Democrats are in trouble, but moving to a mythical "center," focusing on deficit reduction, abandoning health care won't help. Consider the three fundamental factors in the up-coming elections..."
Campaign for America's Future launches campaign to keep Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the Senate financial reform bill.
President Obama takes stand against bank lobby, pushes Dodd to keep CFPA: "Mr. Obama personally weighed in on Tuesday in a one-on-one meeting at the White House with Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee ... While administration officials declined to discuss the Obama-Dodd meeting, one said the president’s proposal for a consumer protection office was 'nonnegotiable.' The administration sees political advantage in that position, believing that a consumer protection agency is the element mostly likely to be popular with the public in a complicated bill."
Chamber of Commerce lobbyists to fight CFPA on Capitol Hill today, using small biz as phony props. Wonk Room's Pat Garofaol: "The Chamber has openly admitted that its tactic in the fight against the CFPA is to 'move the spotlight off the unpopular commercial banks and mortgage lenders that are the target of the legislation and muster a roster of more sympathetic opponents.' This seems to be part and parcel of that approach. However, the notion that the CFPA will cripple small business doesn’t hold much water. First, the Chamber’s often invoked charge that the CFPA will be able to regulate small businesses like butchers and florists is false, as the legislation clearly exempts “merchants, retailers, and sellers of nonfinancial services.” Furthermore, the Chamber leaves out that small business would benefit from the protections enforced by the CFPA..."
Reagan budget director David Stockman backs Obama's bank fee in NYT oped: "The baleful reality is that the big banks, the freakish offspring of the Fed's easy money, are dangerous institutions, deeply embedded in a bull market culture of entitlement and greed. This is why the Obama tax is welcome: its underlying policy message is that big banking must get smaller because it does too little that is useful, productive or efficient."
Progressive push for a windfall bonus tax and financial transaction tax. Politico: "[Obama's proposed bank fee is all] well and good, says a group of progressive Democrats and policy activists, but it wants to see more ... A financial transaction tax would ... do much more to slow down some of the churning on Wall Street ... Proponents of a bonus tax argue that the big banks made extraordinary profits because of the assistance the federal government doled out to the industry, including cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, and, therefore, owe something to taxpayers in return."
Larry Summers defends record to Politico: "On the one hand, he’s eager to take credit for the turnaround. 'A year later,' he said, 'the depression risks appear remote. There has been very substantial normalization of patterns in financial markets, ... [and] volatility is back toward normal levels.' On the other, he’s careful to demonstrate that the administration feels America’s economic pain. 'We have a long, long, long way to go,' he said. 'The dominant priority for the next year and beyond has to be job creation, family income and income security and growth.'"
Bernanke makes audit concession regarding AIG. Bloomberg: "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke sought to defuse allegations that the central bank tried to conceal details about the $182.3 billion bailout of American International Group Inc., calling for a review of Fed actions by congressional auditors. In a letter yesterday to the Government Accountability Office, Bernanke pledged 'all records and personnel necessary' for an audit. Separately, the New York Fed provided 250,000 pages of documents to a U.S. House committee in response to a Jan. 12 subpoena demanding all materials related to the decision to fully reimburse banks that bought protection from AIG. Bernanke’s moves coincide with preparations by Senate Democrats to hold a vote this week on whether to confirm him to a second four-year term ... Mark Williams, a former Fed bank examiner ... said Bernanke is aiming to head off legislation that could interfere with interest-rate policy."
Climate Bill Backburnered?
Will climate legislation be taken off the table this year? The Hill: An early legislative victim may be climate change, though its future was in doubt before the rumblings in Massachusetts. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) ... on Tuesday predicted the Senate would not take up a climate bill this year. Republican and industry activists who oppose climate change legislation say Brown’s win strengthens their hand ... But other analysts disagree ... Christine Tezak, a veteran energy industry analyst with Robert W. Baird & Co., said in a research note Tuesday that if Brown's win derails Democratic healthcare legislation, Democrats will be left seeking other victories. 'While it is very easy to suggest that Congress may want to throw up its hands and do nothing for the balance of the year, incumbent Democrats will need a win – not inaction – to reverse what will be hailed as a significant defeat for their agenda and prove they can govern,' she wrote."
Politico suggests carbon cap is dead, other clean energy provisiosn have a chance of passage: "A cap-and-trade bill has a shot in the Senate – as long as the cap-and- trade part is removed."
HuffPost's Kevin Grandia argues Brown's climate flip-flop does not bode well: "It always blows my mind how quickly "principled"politicians are willing to change their minds when the smell of more power wafts about their heads and Brown's flip-flop means we will most likely not see [the House climate and green jobs bill] passed into law anytime soon, if at all in 2010."
Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard suggests Dem Sen. Jim Webb working with GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski to handcuff EPA on climate this week.
Change.org's Cameron Scott rips Webb: "ere's Webb's stance on reducing emissions: Obama had no right to go above Congress's head in Copenhagen. As for Congressional action? Nah. Webb has proposed a bill that would eliminate caps on emissions and instead simply fund some of the most un-green "alternative" energy sources out there, including nuclear energy, biofuels, and the mythical carbon capture and storage. He also supports offshore drilling. I wonder if liberal PACs are regretting throwing so much money into his 2006 Senate debut."
Possible Debt Commission Deal
W. Post reports White House and pro-austerity Dems reach tentative agreement for debt commission that could change Social Security and Medicare: "Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ... The breakthrough Tuesday was an agreement by House leaders to bring the commission's recommendations to a vote, though Conrad said he is still waiting to see that commitment in writing. House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), a participant in the talks, said the deal calls for both chambers to vote on any recommendations exactly as promulgated, though lawmakers could also vote to amend them ... Fourteen commission members would have to agree on any deficit-reduction plan, a prospect that skeptics called a recipe for gridlock because action would depend on the support of at least two Republicans for a plan that is sure to include tax increases."
CQ adds: "House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said negotiators are looking to see if there is any way to force a vote on the floor, beyond the leadership’s promise to do so."
Mark Thoma worried of risk to Social Security and Medicare: "The deficit hawks on the right have their sights set on Medicare and Social Security, and the administration seems far too willing to allow these programs to be used as bargaining chips in negotiations (and to give into the right's insistence that spending cuts - except for the military - take precedence over tax increases). Unless the administration takes a turn away from the tendencies it has shown in the past, this seems to be headed in that direction."
Dean Baker rips W. Post coverage of debt commission: "This front page article is littered with adjectives more appropriate for an editorial. For example, the first sentence begins: 'faced with growing alarm over the nation's soaring debt.' There is no reason for the word 'soaring,' to appear in this article. It expresses the paper's opinion, it does not provide information to readers ... The Post recently entered into an arrangement to print 'news' articles from a news service started by Peter Peterson, the Wall Street investment banker and longtime foe of Social Security and Medicare. In defending this arrangement its editors argued that the material produced by Peterson's news service would be no different than the material it produces itself on these programs. This front page article seem designed to prove this point."
Funding Problems Hold Up Job-Creating Transportation Bill
The Hill reports the WH hasn't decided on a transportation bill approach after congressional talks: "President Barack Obama has yet to back a $500 billion transportation bill that Democrats plan to move early this year ... Obama, according to [Rep. Jim] Oberstar and other lawmakers, didn’t make any specific commitments on infrastructure and transportation spending, but he listed infrastructure projects among his priorities. 'He’s on track,' Oberstar said of the president’s response ... House Democrats passed a job-creation bill in December and say they intend to move on Oberstar’s six-year transportation reauthorization next ... the transportation measure stalled last year. Lawmakers were unable to find a way to pay for the projects in the new version. Past surface reauthorization bills have been funded through the federal highway trust fund, which relies on revenue from gas taxes. But that revenue is expected to slacken in future years as Americans cut back on driving. Because of the unsettled funding debate, the White House and the Senate had been lukewarm toward the idea of a new, multiyear transportation reauthorization measure, pushing instead for an 18-month extension of the expiring version."
Massachusetts Loss Prompts Calls To Go Bold
Happy Inaugural Anniversary?: The Nation's John Nichols notes that whoever scheduled the Massachusetts' special election for the day before President Obama's inaugural anniversary did the president no favors: "One year into his presidency, he has been hit with the most painful of all measures of the success or failure of his presidency — the loss of the filibuster-proof majority he needed to pass health-care reform and the rest of his agenda. ...The results serves as a reminder that the White House and the Democratic Congress must do more to connect with Americans who are worried about the economy and uncertain about whether this administration has got its act together."
The Guardian's Michael Tomasky notes that Brown's win doesn't add up to the Democrats' own 2006, pointing out that they are still in the majority: "But the more vital question now is what the Democrats do with their importantly but ever-so-slightly diminished majority. Do they cave on everything? Do they act as if they just lost not one seat, but 19 more? They shouldn't emulate Republicans. They're not emotionally capable of that anyway. At the same time, they must not collapse and run for cover like ninnies. That will cloak them in the smell of death and defeat
and weakness, and nothing is worse than that."
Paul Waldman at The American Prospect declared that Massachusetts doesn't matter: "Republicans would like people to think that because their candidate won one race in one state, the Democratic majorities have somehow ceased to exist. Well they haven't. The need for health care reform is no less great than it was yesterday, and we believe no less strongly in the agenda that got us elected. Our opponents won't like it — they'd rather we surrender to them, and make believe that they're running things, like they were during the Bush years. Well tough luck. Come November, the voters can judge us on what we've accomplished and what we haven't, and judged our opponents on what they say they'd like to do. Until then, we're going to keep working."
Open Left's David Sirota suggests that progressives have experienced humiliation and alienation of progressives at the hands of Democrats they helped elect: "There is something deeply embarrassing about Democratic voters/groups having to fight with Democratic leaders to get those leaders to even seriously try (much less pass) even the smallest, most modest shreds of their promises. Having to do that evokes feelings of genuine shame — shame in front of the other voters we told to vote for Democrats because it supposedly 'mattered,' and shame when we look in the mirror at a self that may have allowed itself to be unnecessarily duped."
Also at Open Left, Chris Bowers writes that while progressives can organize and apply pressure, Democrats have to decide what kind of party they want to be: "All Democratic leaders are going to have to ask themselves a question: do they want to make the country better, or are concerns over obscure arguments about the need for a 'deliberative body' more important to them? Would they rather be able to govern for the next three years, or are they afraid of a few news cycles where Republicans accuse them of not being bipartisan enough? That is the
choice that leading Democrats face right now. Even though we can help organize and apply pressure, this is still fundamentally a choice the Democratic Senate caucus faces, not us."
Matt Yglesias says that now centrist and conservative Democrats will use Brown's election as an excuse no to do what they don't want to do anyway: "Scott Brown joining the Senate will make it impossible to make big progress on the big issues facing the country. But a number of "centrist" Democrats have been making it clear for a while now that they don't want to make big progress on the big issues facing the country. That's too bad, and Brown winning will only make things worse. We're much more likely looking at a situation where Brown's victory becomes an excuse for people not to do things they didn't want to do anyway than a situation where Brown's victory is the actual reason those things can't be done."
Don't Listen To the Media: Digby sums up what the Democrats should learn about the media after this debacle: "Ok. Eight or nine months ago the villagers were all saying that the Republicans were eating at each other and that it wasn't very smart. And the Republicans told them to go to hell, Fox News started the tea party movement and the right wing media in general launched what seemed like a lunatic campaign to demonize Barack Obama as a socialist. All that seems to be working pretty well for them at the moment, so Allen's admonishment doesn't make a lot of sense. In fact, the only lesson to be learned is to not listen to anything the village media says. Ever. The Republicans learned that a long time ago. The Democrats need to learn it too."
The Hill reports on aggressive polling from netroots activists shaking up Washington: "Adam Green, co-founder of PCCC, said the polls have proven helpful in pushing Democrats in the right direction. Green pointed to a poll the PCCC put out asking Nevada voters whether Reid was a strong leader. Less than a quarter (24 percent) responded in the affirmative, and PCCC ran ads questioning his strength. Some Democrats bristled at the tactic, but Green said he’s noticed a marked change in Reid’s decisiveness since then."
Sen. Lieberman ironically blames "partisanship and deal-making here in Washington" for the Senate loss.
Sen. Bayh trashes liberals: "Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well."
