Republicans Caught in "State of Confusion" Address

First, let me say that I think President Barack Obama must have taken my advice from Tuesday's blog post and watched the press conference speech near the end of "The American President".

He had a bit of swagger in his voice, calling out Republicans, Democrats and even the Supreme Court! Now that was pretty unprecedented and while a bold move that he could have made pretty legitimately, it appears he stretched the truth a bit by claiming the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance would also enable foreign corporations to contribute without limits to political campaigns. He didn't say that the bill was dead and that he would come back with a more liberal one, but he did make it pretty clear that he has no intention to abandon the project.

There are many great analyses on the internet about the State of the Union address, but I wanted to address something that visually caught my eye.

Let me start by reminding everyone that "The duty of an Opposition is to Oppose" (Lord Randolph Churchill). In few cases is the physical representation of opposition more distinctive and seen by more people than the annual State of the Union address. So it is not surprising that when a president sprinkles in accomplishments of his administration in the address, that the opposition party remains seated and seemingly bored while the President's party stands, applauds, hoots and howls.

While President Obama's speech was filled with verbal pats on the back as well as barbs at the Republicans, there were also several things mentioned that Republicans do support. Some were olive branch offerings. These tend to be telegraphed and the opposition party knows to stand up and applaud.

However, there were also several items that given the way they were worded, it is difficult to be opposed to them. In many cases, the Republicans continued to remain seated. Near the end, they seemed to realize that President Obama was giving his party several video opps for the Republicans showing that they are not supporting things that most Americans would want.

I can envision a junior Republican senator, seated in the back of the Republican Senate section, trying to take his or her ques from what the rest of their group was doing:

"...To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks..."

OK, we don't want to look like we are in favor of anything the President has done on the bailout, so I should remain seated. Wait, shouldn't I want to get money back from the banks? None of the other Republican senators is standing an applauding, so I guess I will stay seated.

"...We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families..."

Nope we don't believe that even if it winds up being true.

"...We cut taxes for small businesses..."

Oops, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Nobody's standing.

"...We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college..."

OK, yeah, oops, nobody is standing, better sit down again. We aren't in favor of helping Americans pay for college?

"...thought I'd get some applause on that one..."

Yeah, I think we missed standing on that one.

"...So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat..."

Ah, that sounds good to me, but we aren't standing.

"...I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages..."

Hey, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Not sure why none of us are standing, but I'm not going to be the only one. I'll just sit and wait.

(on health care) "...Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber..."

We don't applaud anything having to do with Obama's Health Care plan. Wait, he actually said we won't walk away from Americans in need. Umm, I think we actually agree with him. Wait, there, a few Republicans are starting to haltingly stand up. I think I should too, maybe, yeah, the row behind them stood up, OK, I guess we are standing up and applauding on this one.

Boy is it confusing to be a member of the opposing party during a State of the Union address.

Preview of what the President's State of the Union Address Should Look Like

The election of Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat has given the Republicans 41 members in the Senate and the likely ability to filibuster any bill, most notably A Health Care bill coming out of committee reconciliation.

The Democrats are stunned, demoralized, confused and even though they still claim large majorities in both the House and the Senate, acting more like the minority.

In his first year in office, President Barack Obama has attempted to be bipartisan, collaborative, considerate, compassionate and introspective. All good qualities in most cases, but apparently not good as the driving forces behind a presidency. He is at the same time being labeled as too conservative and too liberal, too aggressive and too accommodating, too cerebral and too clueless, taking on too much and not doing enough.

What Barack Obama needs is...to watch this speech given by Michael Douglas in his portrayal as President Andrew Shepard in "The American President".

Just replace the word "Republicans" every time he refers to Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss) and think of the Crime Bill as the Health Care bill.



Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

Note on other actors in "The American President" and future TV government roles - Martin Sheen would go on to play the well-loved character President Jed Bartlett in "The West Wing", and Michael J. Fox would go on to play Deputy Mayor Mike Flaherty in "Spin City"

Will Massachusetts Special Election for Senator Derail Health Care Reform?

Today there will be an unusual event in more ways than one.

Massachusetts is conducting a special election to fill the remainder of the term held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts is perhaps the Bluest of all states and conventional wisdom would indicate that any Democrat with a pulse could win a statewide election. Well, Martha Coakley is showing that her beating heart is not enough as a "Perfect Storm" of events now has Republican candidate Scott Brown leading in most polls.

Special elections typically have low turnouts, especially if the state has a partisan electorate. The Republican election machine is back in full force and resources from around the nation have been focused on Massachusetts. Martha Coakley has run a spectacularly awful campaign, seemingly trying to outdo Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.

But, the key point that has gotten everyone hyped about this special election for the Senate is that a Republican win would give them 41 votes in the Senate and would enable them to filibuster any legislation, most especially the Health Care Reform bill that still needs to come back from House-Senate reconciliation.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com does a wonderful job again analyzing the polling available and gives Coakley only a 25% chance of winning today. I am inclined to agree with his analysis, but Nate does hedge a bit and I have a sense that may be a well placed hedge. It would not surprise me if Democratic voters who are totally unhappy with Coakley as a candidate are willing to go out and vote against the very real chance of a Republican senator in Massachusetts who winds up stopping the Health Care Reform bill that was the lifelong ambition of their dearly departed Senator Kennedy. So whereas these Democrats were unlikely to respond to any polls or put up any lawn signs for Coakley, they are fine with going into a booth and pulling a lever in the same column as usual.

There are also many thoughts on how the Democrats would pass Health Care Reform even without 60 votes in the Senate. The State of the Union address was just announced as being an earlier than expected January 27th. Don't think this timing is without great significance. If Brown wins, he would not be seated until a challenge is settled and the results of the election are signed by the Governor and State Secretary (both are Democrats). The full time-line of how this would proceed can be found in a good article at Talking Points Memo. It looks like if Brown wins, he would not be seated in the Senate until at least January 29th. Until Brown is seated, current interim Senator, Paul Kirk (D-MA) would still be representing Massachusetts and be able to vote in favor of Health Care Reform.

If Brown wins, expect the Democrats to push through a vote in the House and Senate to give approval to a reconciled Health Care Reform bill before he is seated.

As Betty Davis said in All About Eve, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

Health Care Reform - Form vs. Function

With the Christmas Eve passing of Health Care Reform by the Senate, it is likely that early in 2010, we will get and actual bill signed into law by President Obama. The real sausage-making now happens as a committee made up of members of the House and Senate reconciles the differences between the 2 bills. This final version cannot be amended, only voted up or down by each Chamber.

There will have to be some resolution to the differences on the Public Option (House has one, Senate doesn't at least not in name), funding for abortions (they have different restrictions), and financing (House taxes additional 5.4% on incomes over $1Million for families and $500K for individuals, Senate taxes high cost health insurance plans).

While it is possible that the committee reconciliation may not be acceptable to be approved in one of the Chambers, that rarely happens. Nobody wants to be known as the politician who voted for a bill and then was reason it was defeated once it came back from reconciliation. In the minds of many Americans, this bill has already passed. Some members of the House or Senate may change their vote on the final bill, but NOT if it would change the outcome of the vote. Some politicians may want to be able to tell their constituents they took a stand against something in the final bill, but nobody who has already supported Health Care reform wants to be the reason it fails.

I think the financing difference will wind up being a blend of the 2 methods.

I am a bit concerned about what the committee can put together on abortion restrictions that can be supported by Ben Nelson of the Senate (who was the reason it is in the Senate bill in the first place) that doesn't effectively create State by State decisions on Abortion Rights. The Senate bill allows states to block plans that cover abortions from being allowed in the exchanges.

I do want to spend a little time going over the so-called Public Option that caused such a stink during the Senate proceedings. Due mostly to Joe Lieberman from the state of insurance companies, there is nothing labeled as a 'Public Option' in the Senate bill. This has caused great disdain among many on the Left.

It may be tough to put something in the final bill that uses the tagline 'Public Option'. Although the final bill cannot be amended, it can still be filibustered in the Senate and they are only one person away from having that happen on the final vote.

However, the Senate bill is not without some 'options'. The Senate bill would actually have the Office of Personnel Management oversee at least two nationwide health plans from private firms offered through the exchanges to individuals, families, and small businesses. Additionally, at least one of those plans would have to operate as a nonprofit organization. This isn't trivial. This doesn't have the NAME of Public Option (FORM), but we certainly start with some alternatives (FUNCTION) to existing for-profit run and un-moderated health plans. This is also ripe for adjustments, additions, etc. in the future and may very well morph into something resembling the House version of a Public Option over several years.

After reading a lot of progressive blogs on the topic, it seems to me that the biggest reason for really wanting a Public Option is to stick it to the Insurance companies and eventually put them out of business. That seems to be something that liberals and conservatives can agree on although they feel very differently about the outcome. I'm not sure hatred is ever a good reason to include something in a law and this is no exception. Even the Senate bill includes some options that provide a limited amount of competition to the existing for-profit companies. It is not clear that a pure Public Option would have the effect of lowering costs.

However, in the final attempt to get Ben Nelson's vote, the Senate implemented a measure that may wind up being more effective in reducing health insurance costs. Health Insurance companies must now spend 85% of premiums on patient health care. This will put a significant cap on runaway profiteering and runaway premiums.

The Senate bill and likely the bill that comes out of committee will not have something called a Public Option (FORM), but there will be several measures that will work together to provide health insurance options in the exchanges and keep premiums down (FUNCTION).

That is how good politics are played. You get the results you want in a way that upsets the fewest people and their pet concerns.

Senate Health Care Bill to be an Early Christmas Present

Barring any last minute roadblocks, the senate will convene at 8AM on 12/24/2009 to vote on their version of the Health Care Reform bill. Then they will all head out of town for the holiday break.

It has been a long road (almost 100 years if you go back to the first attempts at Health Care reform legislation) and it isn't over yet. There would still need to be a committee reconciliation resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills, which then would need to be voted on by both parts of Congress.

There are complaints on both the Right (this will destroy health care) and the Left (nothing should be passed without a public option), which instinctively leads me to believe that maybe we got this bill right.

Although this bill is "watered-down" from what Progressives want and is a horror story to conservatives, there are a few basic things that this bill will do that have been needed for a very long time:

1) Up to 30 Million US citizens who are not currently insured will be able to obtain insurance through exchanges, in many cases with public subsidies making it more affordable.

2) Insurance companies will not be able to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions or terminate a policy due to illness/injury.

I covered these and a few other not so trivial benefits in a post almost 3 months ago.

What we may not get at this point is a Public Option. I had previously surmised that as long as a Public Option was part of the House or Senate bills, it had a good chance to make it into the final reconciled bill. Even though the Public Option was included in the House bill, I am no longer very certain it will be in the final bill. As I said in that post, I still believe the Public Option, although a great rallying cry for Progressives, would have minimal impact. I think the White House knows this. I think they also know that they can accomplish many of the same goals (function) with different pieces of this and future bills (form) that will not have a bulls-eye on them.

Some progressives have called for running a strong public option bill through the reconciliation process, calling the bluff of opponents and making them try a filibuster or just abandoning this "watered-down" Health Care reform bill. However, one of the original and loudest proponents of the Public Option, Yale Professor Jacob S. Hacker, writes that this bill should be passed now.

I agree.

Once passed, it is unlikely to ever get overturned unlike a reconciliation bill which just expires after 5 years (like the Bush tax cuts).

It will be much easier to add and modify pieces to an existing bill as nothing will attract anywhere near the public attention, with quite so much misinformation and differences of opinion on impact as the current Health Care Reform bill.

This bill will not be good as some people want it to be.
This bill will not be as bad as some people fear it will be.
It is a start. A good start and long overdue.

Election Day 2009

So we are finally here. Has it really been one year since Barack Obama was elected?

Off-year elections are always interest-challenged and in the wake of a national election, which is why the media will often pump-up the coverage of state and local races that would otherwise go unnoticed to most of the country.

The 3 races that received the most national attention are:

NJ Governor
VA Governor
NY-23 House Special Election

NJ is very close and I think it will tell us more about the polling on a 3 way race than the significance of the race. The incumbent governor, Jon Corzine is not well liked in the state, but is in a dead heat going into election day. Turnout and how those supporting independent candidate Chris Daggett wind up voting once they get in the booth.

The VA Governor race is following a VA trend of the governor race going to the party that lost the last presidential race. On top of that, Democrat Cree Deeds has run an awful race, showing that Dems can still be obstinate and ignore all good advice they are receiving.

NY-23 House Special Election is an oddity and too small to show much of anything other than how people outside that congressional district act. The spot is open because John McHugh left the post to become Secretary of the Army, so in a way, the Obama Administration has brought this about. This race is less a referendum on what is happening in the battle for the Republican party than it is a cross between a sociology experiment and a soap opera. The (one-time) Republican nominee, Dierdre Scozzafava was hand selected by the local Republican party, but her moderate views infuriated some local conservatives. They put forth and supported conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman. NY-23, a very Republican district which has not been represented by a Democrat in over 100 years, should have been a shoe-in for whatever candidate was on the ballot with an 'R' next to their name. However, for the last few months, it was a pretty even 3 way battle. Recently, Hoffman pulled ahead and Scozzafava slid into 3rd, behind Democratic candidate Bill Owens. In the last week, Scozzafava announced her withdrawal from the race and to magnify the 'Sweeps Week' style turn of events, also announced her support for Democrat Bill Owens. Now that is some prime-time drama!

If Bill Owens wins, that would be quite something in a district that is so predominantly Republican. However, whoever wins, will probably be spending most of their year in office campaigning and fund-raising for their defense in the 2010 mid-term elections. So don't expect the outcome to have much difference on the lives of people living in NY-23 during the next year.