Ulterior Motives

A good Friday morning laugh to start the day. No there is nothing new on the Crazed Sex Poodle,  formerly known as Al Gore.  Politico had this video posted and it has gotten 20,000 views in a few hours.  This is possibly the most honest political ad you will ever watch.  If only all politicians would freely admit that all their motives were ulterior:

Dog Gone It, Al Franken Is Mad Enough

Now we know who the one Democratic Senator who really expressed his frustration on Wednesday. Politico has it from five separate sources who were "in the room" that Senator Al Franken lit into David Axelrod over the lack of leadership from the White House on health care.   Dog gone it:

A Democratic source said that Franken directed his criticism solely at Axelrod.

“It was all about leadership and health care and what the plan was going to be,” the source said.

Franken — a comedian turned liberal talk show host — vowed to keep a relatively low profile when he arrived in the Senate over the summer after a protracted legal battle with former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman. But he has developed a reputation among his colleagues as one of the more aggressive personalities on the Hill.

Jeepers, who could have seen that coming?  Franken wasn't alone in his anger and frustration but he evidently was the most vocal about his concerns.  It seems a little pep talk from the President triggered the incident though he wasn't the direct recipient of the tongue lashing:

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

 I don't know why they would be waiting for the former Senator from Illinois to direct them on the path forward to health care.  Did he have any legislative accomplishments when he was there or was that just an inconvenient little pit stop on the path to the White House?  Perhaps Chris "tingly legs" Matthews remembers a few of Obama's legislative accomplishments:  Oh that's right, there weren't any.   Pretty fitting outcome that he should have no significant legislative accomplishments as President, in my humble opinion.

The left wing punditry and blogging heads have been busy with post mortems on health care.  While there is blame to go around, much of it is directed at the Senate and this line in particular caught my attention:

There's no getting around it. As SEIU President Andy Stern said recently, Senate Democrats "had a chance, a gift, from the American people--60 votes, so they could, for the first time in their life, debate any single issue they chose to debate. And they squandered it."

Here is what they all seem to miss, the American people didn't give them 60 votes.  I happen to know lots of conservatives who voted for Arlen Specter when he ran as a Republican.  We'll probably never know the actual vote count in Minnesota but the Democrats outmaneuvered Republicans legally so they seated Senator Franken as a result.  If they squandered their super majority it was because they got it on the cheap and didn't care whether the American people thought it was deserved.   Now they are left to point fingers and cringe when their Senator Franken gets a  little aggressive with them behind closed doors.  Dog gone it, seems like every dog does have it's day after all.
More at Memeorandum
Another Black Conservative  writes:

I hate to be the one to say, I told you so, but when Franken was sworn in, I knew he would be trouble for the Dems. Reap what you sow guys, reap what you sow.

Exactly.

Is the Senate In Play?

Last night's win by Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois coupled with the announcement Dan Coats will come out of retirement to challenge Evan Bayh in Indiana has led to speculation control of the Senate may be in play. Chris Cillizza of The Fix notes the NRSC has wasted not time pointing out the weaknesses of Alexi Giannoulias by releasing the following ad:



Handwringing at The Fix:

With the developments in Illinois and Indiana over the past 24 hours, theCook Political Report now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in their most competitive categories -- meaning, theoretically, that if Republicans ran the table (and lost none of their own toss up seats in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio) they could get to 51 seats and the Senate majority.

Is it a longshot? Absolutely. But, remember that recent history has shown that in a national political landscape tipped in favor of one party a strong majority of toss up contests tend to fall that party's way.

Charlie Cook has been sounding the alarm bells for Democrats much longer than  most and has warned the enthusiasm of the right puts everything in play:

Democrats would have to set up machine-gun nests to keep these people from voting, while the lethargy among Democratic voters is palpable.

 With momentum on our side, we still need strong candidates in key areas as well:

"Now? No. Absolutely not," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report. Republicans "would need top-tier candidates in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, Washington and New York, and after that, they would need everything to fall in place."

"Right now, they don't have serious opportunities in 10 states with Democratic-held Senate seats up this cycle," he said.

Momentum has a way of shaking stronger candidates out of the trees.  The Senate may still be a long shot but it is looking less like a long shot than it did before Massachusetts.   There is a lifetime politically between now and November, but as of now, the ball is clearly in our court:

The long-shot bid by Republicans to retake control of the Senate is suddenly in play, as the prospect of high-profile Republican candidates entering the fray has pushed the GOP even or ahead in polling for 10 races.

The potential candidacies of former Republican Govs. George E. Pataki in New York and Tommy G. Thompson in Wisconsin are improving the polling fortunes of the party as it pursues seats long in the hands of Democrats, while the anti-government “tea party” movement has provided momentum to Republican challengers in states such as Florida, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

“If the election were held today, the Republicans could come close to winning back the Senate, if not actually win it,” said pollster John Zogby.

Illinois Results

Tonight there was a bit of a disappointment for Andrzejewski who finished fifth in a field of seven.  It appears he ended up splitting votes with Dan Proft another candidate with tea party support. In a packed field there is always the danger good candidates will cancel each other out.  RS McCain reported Proft had approximately 45,000 votes and Andrzejewski was behind the leader approximately 40,000 votes.  As you can see the five top candidates finished quite close to one another:

The good news, however, is the current leader with a slim 2000 vote lead is reported to be a "good guy" according to Andrzejewski.  Blake Dvorak of Chicago Now seems to agree:

Brady's showing is also a win for conservatives tonight, although not the one perhaps they were looking for. While Andrzejewski and Proft fought over the activist vote, Brady captured the middle-America vote, which is not as ideological, but no less conservative.

While many conservatives were hoping that Hughes would pull out a win in the Senatorial primary, Rep Mark Kirk won decisively.  He will be going up against Alexi Giannoulias mentioned in yesterdays post, who is an Obama crony and Chicago pol from way back.  Fivethirtyeight notes Nate Silver thought Illinois "blue enough" for a Democrat win, despite Giannoulias being a less a less than terrific candidate.  They did say that in Massachusetts though didn't they?  Will the conservatives and tea party candidates rally to support Kirk on the chance they could pick up Senator Barack Obama's former seat?  Stay tuned.

Via Memeorandum

Those Fiscally Responsible Senate Democrats Vote to Raise Debt Limit

Every last one of them, Michelle Malkin has the roll call showing the vote divided on straight party lines 60-40.  Raising the debt limit to $14.3 trillion dollars will take us most of the way through 2010 in allowing the US Treasury to service the spiraling national debt.  Democrats appear to be avoiding taking another vote on the subject before the November midterm elections:

Senate Democrats hope the 60 to 40 party-line vote will enable them to avoid another politically toxic vote on the issue before the November congressional elections.

As Michelle Malkin points out this vote means every American citizen is on the hook for $45,000 each .  Maybe we should cut their credit card in November.

Blanche Balks at Reconciliation

Unless Blanche Lincoln has more up her sleeve, I guess we can assume this is her big announcement:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) will oppose Dem efforts to move health care legislation through Congress using budget reconciliation, hurting Dems' chances for using the controversial parliamentary maneuver to pass a reform bill.

"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," Lincoln said in a statement on Tuesday. "I have successfully fought for transparency throughout Senate deliberations on health care, and I will continue to do so."

"I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans. We have worked too long and too hard on this reform effort - we need to get it right," she said.

I have to have a little chuckle at her claim she successfully fought for transparency, did she do that on CSPAN?   I might have missed that.   Lincoln's vote for the Senate health care bill has her in trouble with her fellow Arkansans, a point not lost on the powers that be in the DSCC who have been rumored to be pressuring her to retire.  Earlier today she announced  she had over $5 million on hand in her campaign coffers.  Lincoln appears to be posturing here hoping to convince her constituents she gets the message while sending a message to Democrats they won't be getting rid of her that easily.

Lincoln's announcement confirms rumors Democrats continue to pursue alternate paths to health care legislation despite a clear message from voters in Massachusetts to put the brakes on.  If Democrats were to attempt reconciliation the bill would either need to be pared down to strictly budgets items such as tax increases or medicaid cuts in order to bypass the need for 60 votes.  This would leave the bill finally passed full of holes that would fail to meet the intended purpose of the legislation.  There is no budgetary effect to a health insurance mandate, for example, which would be challenged endlessly as inappropriate for inclusion in a budgetary procedure.

If Democrats were able to trim down the bill only to its budgetary elements, Lincoln's vote would not be necessary since the procedure requires only 51 votes.  Perhaps she is signaling the abandonment of the reform by other key moderates such as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson.  Still, voters in their home states are already well aware their Senators voted for the unpopular reform.  Much of this appears to be political theater though we should give some kudos for the transparency of their efforts.  Exit stage right...

What's Blanche Lincoln's Big Announcement

Blanche Lincon on twitter:

Stay tuned for an important campaign announcement tomorrow morning.

Is this a retirement announcement?
Arkansas Blog H/T Hot Air

 A well-known Washington insider has been telling Arkies this weekend that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is trying to talk Sen. Blanche Lincoln out of running for re-election.

That would open the door for a Wes Clark candidacy. And U.S. Rep. Mike Ross would be in the race in a heartbeat. Then comes a deluge of candidates in the 4th District. Forget for a moment what a Boozman candidacy does for the House of Dominoes on the Republican side from Senate down.

The Left leaning Swing State Project comments on Boozman:

 Mason-Dixon takes a first look at the Arkansas Senate race (on behalf of the Arkansas News Bureau), and while the results are still pretty ugly, they're not as bad as some other pollsters have seen it -- to the extent that there's actually a path to victory for Lincoln. Not that it's really in her control: she just needs to hope that the GOP manages to nominate one of the seven dwarves populating the GOP field, instead of the somewhat more appealing state Sen. Gilbert Baker (who leads her by 4)... or more ominously, that Rep. John Boozman doesn't decide to get into the race, at which point the game would likely be over. 

NWA online's

 John Boozman will win the U.S. Senate race if he chooses to get in. I believe he’ll get in.

Personally I hope she stays in to face the voters she sold down the pike with her vote on health care but Wesley Clark doesn't have me quaking in my boots regardless.  

Surrender Nancy

Daniel Foster at The Corner of NRO online reports Pelosi may have yet another trick up her sleeves for health care; color me shocked.  While many, including me, declared health care DOA after Speaker Pelosi said she didn't have the votes, it appears we may have underestimated the sheer determination of Democrats to commit hara kiri by health care.  Desperate Democrats are working the votes to drum up support for passage of the Senate bill in total in the House with agreements to undo portions House members find distasteful:

Democratic staffers are telling Newsweek that though Pelosi is still “way short” of the 218 votes it would take to pass the Senate bill—with issues such as the Cadillac Tax and Cornhusker Kickback serving as sticking points—that equation could soon change. Democrats are “working the phones furiously to talk up the idea of the Senate promising to retroactively unravel several distasteful components.”

I am pretty sure the voters in Massachusetts hadn't intended to send a man to Washington who campaigned on his being the 41st vote against dishonest efforts to ram health care through at all costs only to sit back and nod in approval once Madame Speaker finds an alternate strategy to ram it through anyway.   Obviously this makes absolutely no difference as Pelosi is arguing this can be done in the House with passage in the Senate requiring 51 votes via reconciliation:

If House Democrats make the good-faith deal, Pelosi is arguing that the Senate promise would be easy to keep. Reconciliation votes require only a 51-vote majority. Or even 50, in which case Vice President Biden could break the tie.

This aide says that leadership considers reconciliation, with the House conditioning its support on promised fixes in the Senate, as the much more strategic route than breaking the package into parts, which isn’t ideal because all of the parts are interlocking. Asked what the timetable would be for that, this aide says weeks, not months.

This would explain the Easter miracle strategy highlighted in my last post.  Foster suggests this is a viable strategy though it ignores the politics.  It also ignores the promise of  Obama and the Democrats they wouldn't attempt the possibility of ramming a bill through before Scott Brown was seated.  Then again, we should all know the value of an Obama promise at this point.

I have absolutely no doubt that Pelosi et al, will examine each and every possibility by which they can put this disastrous bill through against the will of the people.  They have shown utter contempt and disregard for the people they purport to serve every day they have met since Obama took office and then some.  If Pelosi can whip the votes after the clear message sent by voters last week no seat is safe, anyone who votes for her bill should update their resume immediately.

In my own district, Representative Patrick Murphy (D, PA8) has nine, yes nine, Republicans hoping to get the nomination to oppose him.  On Saturday Mike Fitzpatrick announced  he would seek a rematch against the man who won the seat in 2006 when the tide of populist anger turned against Republicans.  Though I have no doubt Murphy would vote exactly as Pelosi told him to, as he has in nearly every other vote since he took office, he would cast this vote with the certain knowledge one of the nine would take his seat after November.  Who would come to save him, Obama?  This is only one district, a relatively safe one for what that is worth, and there are nine qualified opponents waiting to challenge him for it.  Surely those nine smell something in the air even if Murphy and Pelosi can not.

Pelosi and the desperate Democrats should stop to consider the longer they drag this health care debacle out, the greater uncertainty grows.  Uncertainty is killing any potential for job growth.  This is a message sent repeatedly to an administration that chooses to hear only what it wants.  Democrats pursue this path at their peril, which would be fine, if only politics were at issue.  There are families who are hurting, people who are desperate to get back to work, yet Democrats see only their opportunity to pass their hated health care agenda slipping through their fingers.   These are people not worthy to lead this country, November can't come soon enough.

PPP latest poll Brown leads 51-46

Wow Of course as a left leaning pollster PPP suggests Coakley could still pull this out as Democrats have started to take more interest in the race. I think they might be able to stop by the nearest cemetary and dig up the rest of the votes, but I digress. Here are the key findings of the PPP poll:

-Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote.

-Brown's voters continue to be much more enthusiastic than Coakley's. 80% of his say they're 'very excited' about voting Tuesday while only 60% of hers express that sentiment. But the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, and a much smaller drop from his 26 point victory in the state than was seen in Virginia.

-Those planning to turn out continue to be skeptical of the Democratic health care plan, saying they oppose it by a 48/40 margin.

-Coakley's favorability dropped from 50% to 44% after a week filled with perceived missteps. Brown's negatives went up a lot but his positives only actually went from 57% to 56%, an indication that attacks against him may have been most effective with voters already planning to support Coakley but ambivalent toward Brown.

-56% of voters in the state think Brown has made a strong case for why he should be elected while just 41% say the same of Coakley. Even among Coakley's supporters only 73% think she's made the argument for herself, while 94% of Brown's supporters think he has.

The momentum is clearly with Brown but this will all come down to turnout.  Will update with additional findings after reviewing the crosstabs.  Some initial impressions though, Brown's lead among unafilliated voters has remained consistently high across other polls.  Coakley doesn't seem to have made any inroad with those voters.  Coakley's favorability drop is 6 points yet it doesn't appear she has laid a glove on Brown.   Interesting stuff, but the only poll that matters is the one on Tuesday.

Team Coakley Takes the Debate Down in the Dirt

Fleming and Hayes have a direct mail piece sent by Martha Coakley.  Here is a sample of Martha's latest efforts to take the final days of the campaign down lower than a reporter from a right leaning publication.  This  is just a sample of the creative ingenuity at work over at team Coakley:

Be sure to see the rest of this mailer as well as some insight from the ground in Massachusetts at the link for Fleming and Hayes.
PS: Brown up by 15?
Linked by Reaganite Republican

A Gut Punch to Senate Democrats:

Chuck Todd tweeted his initial reaction to the news Senator Byron Dorgan is retiring instead of running for re-election, calling it a gut punch to SenatAe Democrats. NRO online has a round up of other significant reactions to the news. It is interesting reading but, more importantly, the collection of tweets reveals how damaging this news is to Democrats.

As Allahpundit notes Dorgan was done in by his health care vote:

‘Twas ObamaCare that killed the beast. Health-care reform is radioactive in North Dakota and, thanks to his support for it, so was Dorgan: As of two weeks ago, as a three-term incumbent, he trailed the state’s Republican governor John Hoeven in a hypothetical match-up by fully 22 points.

 Dorgan's statement cites the length of his service and a desire to pursue other interests as reasons for his decision to retire.   Let's just say the thoughts of losing after 30 years must have had a little something to do with it.  This is a sure pickup for the GOP which makes today a little taste of what's to come in November.  So, who's next?

Fear and Loathing in Taxachusetts

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal is dreaming of a GOP upset in Taxachessets.  Though it still is a bit of a climb he could just get his wish.   The latest Rasmussen poll shows GOP candidate Scott Brown within 9 points of Kennedy-anointed candidate Martha Coakley.  This news must surely have sent some fear and loathing to Democrats banking on a Coakley win in the upcoming special election to replace the late Senator Kennedy's seat in the Senate on January 19.

Here is an interview of Brown by CNBC's Larry Kudlow explaining why this vote is so important; hint electing Brown could stop ObamaCare:



Rasmussen's poll shows some real strengths for Brown leading into the last two weeks before the special election:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

In 2006, Massachusetts implemented its own statewide version of health care reform which has been cited as a model for the national plan. But just 32% of the state’s voters consider that reform a success. Thirty-six percent (36%) consider the plan a failure, and another 32% are not sure.

Despite the creation of a statewide health plan in part to address rising costs, most Massachusetts voters (54%) say cost is still the biggest problem with health care. Twenty-four percent (24%) cite a lack of universal coverage, while 11% say it’s the quality of care. Just three percent (3%) complain of the inconvenience of scheduling.

Another strong point for Brown is found in his 44 point lead among Independent voters.   Professor Jacobson, who has been covering this race extensively, has been sensing some problems for Coakley:

This is better than I expected for Brown. Coakley has been a statewide figure for years, and has much better name recognition, SEIU and other union support, and the Massachusetts Democratic machine behind her. Obama won the state by over 20%, and Coakley should have had at least a mid-teens lead at this point.

But as I have noted, Coakley's tactic of acting like the election already is over may be backfiring. While Brown was hitting the pavement the past three weeks, Coakley took a six day vacation. Wrong message. Coakley is ducking a one-on-one debate with Brown. Wrong message.

I sensed Coakley was in trouble when her campaign recently overstated the strength of her fundraising, making it seem as if she had far outraised Brown post-primary. It appears that most of Coakley's fundraising strength was pre-primary, when she used the abortion issue to rally the liberal base to contribute. Coakley then went back on her promise not to vote for the Senate health bill if it contained abortion restrictions.

This is still going to be tough, but electing a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy would send such shockwaves to Democrats in Congress that the battle is well worth the effort.  Consider the Karmic justice after Democrats turned Benedict Arlen, counted their way to seating Al Franken and then changed the rules in Massachusetts just so they could ram ObamaCare through without negotiating with Republicans.

Now is the time to click your Ruby Slippers and make some magic in Massachusetts.  Donate to Scott Brown; any amount will help.   Support him on Facebook, he posts there frequently and offers other ways to get involved.  This is the election to step up and get involved, the stakes are high but the reward would be massive.

Max Baucus Impersonates Drunken Sailor on Spending Binge

I am not sure if this is Best Drunk Dude Ever Tries to Buy More Beer Part II or if Baucus is punch drunk from all the kool aid the Democrats were forced to swallow to pass their health care bill. Could be he is totally sleep deprived after they worked for 24 days straight to pass the rotten lousy health care bill before Christmas. In any case this video is pretty pathetic as Baucus slurs and rambles through a rant against the Republicans who opposed the health care bill:



I am fairly certain the synapses are not firing as they should because Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression those who say no to their drunken out of control spending binges are going to be in trouble with voters next year. Even their own pollsters are having a hard time believing the fauxtrage against Republicans has any hope of sticking:"

“People are angry and what Democrats are trying to do is channel that anger,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “You’ve got to displace the anger onto the Republicans. If they can do that, Democrats have some hope but right now things are looking increasingly bleak every day.”

Schoen was blunt about the challenge Democrats are facing next fall. “The Democrats are trying to stem the bleeding,” the former pollster for President Bill Clinton said. “Obama’s in a free fall and, unless they stem the bleeding, they’re going to face unprecedented losses.”

If I were a betting woman, I would think the odds might just favor anyone who stood up and opposed the health care debacle the drunken Democrats have tried to ram through without a single Republican vote. Baucus' rant is the epitome of delusional displaced anger because they know they are doing themselves in with their own legislation. I personally hope they continue to rant and rave about the party of no, ramp it up and keep it coming. Someone needs to announce the keg is tapped, we're out of beer.

Merry Christmas - White House Pivoting from Health Care

Politico is reporting the White House is secretly planning for the health care debate to slip into February citing tough agreements yet to be reached on abortion and a tight schedule in the Senate. The push to get health care done by the State of the Union speech appears to be out of reach. Break my heart.

Falling poll numbers and the recent defection of Parker Griffiths to the Republicans appears to have the Dems nervous about having their members taking tough votes and plan to pivot to job creation and create a "conversation" about deficit reduction.

Internally, White House aides are plunging into a 2010 plan calling for an early focus on creating jobs, especially in the energy sector, along with starting a conversation about deficit reduction measures, the administration officials said.

Both will be major themes for his first State of the Union speech, which will most likely take place on Jan. 26 or Feb. 2. White House aides are in the early stages of planning for the national address, but Obama will not only trumpet what he has described as his “B-plus” performance in 2009 but also set the stage for the 2010 congressional campaigns.

Obama and Democrats seem in agreement that they want to minimize the number of tough votes moderates in their party must take in the aftermath of the health care debate. They also seem in agreement that a jobs bill is a must — and that they need to show a serious commitment to reducing the deficit, a very difficult task after racking up record spending in Obama’s first year.

 The White House also seems to have discovered House Democrats aren't exactly willing to swallow the Senate Reid bill without a fight for a few key items:

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

On a conference call Tuesday, Pelosi (D-Calif.) walked the party’s leadership team through differences in the two bills.

Other differences the speaker mentioned Tuesday include: replacing the Senate’s state-run exchanges with a national exchange established under the House bill, adding tougher mandates to make sure everyone secures health coverage and closing a gap in prescription-drug coverage next year. Senate negotiators have agreed to close the so-called “donut hole,” but they haven’t agreed on a time to implement those changes.

As Ed Morrissey notes these are not issues that will be easily overcome:

Forget Raul Grijalva’s note of encouragement.  These issues will be too tough to overcome without the House reworking the bill.  That  will either require a conference committee to resolve the two bills or an attempt by Harry Reid to get the Senate to buy a House version (the “ping-pong” strategy), either of which would be subject to cloture votes and unlikely to succeed to a floor vote.

My take, the longer the health care bill goes on the less likely it is to finally pass.  This decision to pivot to jobs and deficit reduction will be hampered by the unfinished health care legislation that looms over the heads of small business owners who are the real job creation engine in the country.   Small business owners need to know how much it will cost them to hire and health care plays a huge role in that decision.  The odds of Democrats shelving the year long health care debate just went up dramatically.

 Certainly whatever comes from the White House in terms of job creation is unlikely to do much to make a dent in the spiraling unemployment rates as we saw with the stimulus.  In the end what we will have from the White House is a lot of conversation and little in the way of solid action.  As the President is fond of saying, "the time for talk is over."

Left Accuses Senator Coburn of Wishing for Death of Senator Byrd

Where else but at the The Huffington Post would you see articles calling for the defeat of the Reid health care bill and a vicious attack against a Republican for doing the very same thing?  As you will see in the video below Coburn's statement was a long way away from a wish for the death of Senator Byrd (D WV).  Coburn's statement is as follows:

What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight,"  "That's what they ought to pray."

Never mind the fact that the Dems drag a 92 year old Byrd, who has been in and out of hospitals, out in the snow in the middle of the night so they can ram through an unpopular takeover of our health care system, it's Coburn who is somehow evil for hoping the American people might be spared the travesty because he is praying for a miracle to stop it.  Senator Durbin took to the floor to make a spectacle of Coburn's statement:




As Dana Milbank points out in the Washington Post  Dems were hardly in a position to take the high road after one of their own Senator Whitehouse, "had just delivered an overwrought jeremiad comparing the Republicans to Nazis on Kristallnacht, lynch mobs of the South, and bloodthirsty crowds of the French Revolution."  Milbank was not exaggerating, the bizarre references are clearly there in Whitehouse's statement:

"Too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear," he said. "History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds. Broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from southern trees." Assuming the role of Old Testament prophet, Whitehouse promised a "day of judgment" and a "day of reckoning" for Republicans.

The day of judgment seems to loom over the head of the Democrats for this debacle yet somehow Whitehouse sees the day of reckoning for Republicans?  It's time they all went home, clearly the fact they have been cooped up in the Senate for 22 days straight has damaged the synapses of the politically suicidal Democrats.   The 22 day stint to ram health care through before Christmas is coming close to breaking the record for the longest straight debate in the Senate.  The current record is 25 days when the Senate met continuously in the early days of World War I.

UPDATE:  Legal Insurrection has video and links to transcripts from Whitehouse's speech.  It's vile.  Milbank  should not have equated the Coburn statement with the insane rantings from Whitehouse, there's no comparison.

A Few Arguments Against Mandates From the President of the United States

No one has been more vocally opposed to mandates in health care than Barack Obama.  During his numerous campaign debates with Hillary Clinton he repeatedly argued against them and challenged Hillary on what her proposed punishments for those who failed to purchase health insurance would be.  Under his leadership the Senate and House have proposed mandatory fines and jail time for those who fail to purchase health insurance.

Under the current Senate health care proposal premiums will go up according to the CBO.  Despite Obama's  protestations about making health care affordable instead of mandating coverage, the bill will make it harder for people to afford health care while they will face increasingly larger fines.  The Baucus Senate Finance Committee bill also included jail time for failing to purchase health care insurance.   I wonder how he would have responded had Hillary Clinton answered any of the following questions the way Obama has as President of the United States.


January 31, 2008

What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.

Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.

OBAMA: I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.

OBAMA: Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.

And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?

You know, those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.

February 26, 2008

The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.

And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable.

SEN. OBAMA: And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.

But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.

Under cover of darkness, in just a bit over two hours, the Senate will vote for cloture on this travesty of health care legislation.  As others have said, only criminals need to operate like this -hiding in the dark in the middle of the night.  While children are nestled all snug in their beds the Senate is coming  to take away their liberty.  Watch the kabuki theater unfold as they pat themselves on the back for covering an additional 30 million people.  They cover them largely by threatening the IRS will be the collection agency for health insurers.  If that doesn't work they'll put them in jail.  

CBO Sees Diminished Quality of Care and Reduced Access

Via Memeorandum

Bill Kristol writes in The Weekly Standard there are ten key words to remember from page 19 of the CBO letter on the Manager's Amendment to the Senate health care bill. These 10 words are highlighted in bold below:

Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades--well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades--about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

While the CBO analysis has been touted as proof of the fiscal soundness of the health care legislation, a claim that is demonstrably false by the way, achieving those goals absent greater efficiencies in the delivery of care will likely result in diminished quality of care and/or reduced access to care.  James Capretta elaborates:

Similarly, the Medicare cuts assume that hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and others can survive with a permanent annual cut in their payment rates for presumed productivity gains. Medicare’s chief actuary has already signaled that this reduction could push one in five hospitals into insolvency, thus forcing them out of the Medicare program.

 I recommend reading Capretta's analysis of the budget gimmicks and tricks included in the amendment which were likely written solely to get a better "score" from the CBO.  Director Elmendorf of the CBO had a seat at the grownup table, you may recall,  where the much anticipated Baucus bill was written.  Clearly, over time, the Senate has learned how to write or propose legislation that scores well at least theoretically.  Practical application of the savings and cuts have always had a caveat in the CBO analysis.  It is quite likely the smoke and mirror savings may never materialize, the reduced access or diminished quality of care almost certainly will materialize as millions are added to an unreformed system.

They Have the Votes - Nelson Had a Price

From the Washington Post:
The last best hope to prevent Democrats from passing this train wreck, Senator Nelson, discovered his vote could be bought after all:

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

The Other McCain notes this may be the first time the term "30 pieces of silver" appears in federal legislation.  How true.  Nelson received a letter earlier in the week from the Governor of Nebraska asking Nelson not to vote for the bill as the state was unable to afford its portion of the Medicaid expansion in coverage.  Nelson's pretense he was holding out for stricter language on abortion appears to have been nothing more than elaborate kabuki waiting for the desperate Democrats to come up what will likely be hundreds of millions for his state.  As Ed Morrissey notes:

After that, Nebraskans get as screwed as the rest of the country.

Here is the Managers Amendment:
Managers Amendment

CSpan 2 is currently covering a full reading of the amendment which is expected to take until 3 PM this afternoon. It's looks as though there is not much left in the arsenal to stop this awful legislation from being passed out of the Senate on Christmas eve of all days. As Sean Trende writes in "Real Clear Politics" this bill is political suicide for the Democrats though they continue to delude themselves they have found their Holy Grail:

I don't think they're close to finding their Grail. I think the better analogy is probably that they're close to their Moby Dick. And we all know what happens to Captain Ahab once he finally harpoons his white whale.

The Public Option is Really Most Sincerely Dead

Via Memeorandum

Without the benefit of the coroner, we can only take the word of some nameless Democratic senators who  say they have a tentative deal to drop the public option from health care legislation.  Senator Harkin (D Iowa) reportedly doesn't like the agreement but will "support it to the hilt to pass health care legislation."  Well, that makes me feel better already.  Good to know Democrats will support any ole piece of garbage legislation just to claim a win on health care.

So what's not to love with this new agreement.:

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage.

Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

Oh joy!  Expanding Medicare to include the 55-65 age group will probably do wonders for the deficit.  The public option will be replaced by a private option with a government panel to oversee the process, what could go wrong?  If anything can go wrong it will surely come in when the "possibility of greater government involvement" contingency kicks in.

So, is the public option dead?

In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or a fallback in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.

Okay then, the public option is gone but Reid says it is included.  Someone will have to run a few of those CSpan clips so we can figure out whether it is in or out.  Oh wait there aren't any.   Michelle Malkin sums up the problem with Democrats and the "public option:"

Hell if I know if the public option is really dead or not. As usual, there’s no concrete language for the public to see. Only public press conferences alluding to vague backroom door agreements. Safe bet: The public option is a Democrat policy toe fungus that may disappear temporarily, but will come back with a vengeance later.

For what its worth, the lefty blogs that aren't having a heart attack on hearing the news the public option is dead are reporting that the plan that is left is a trigger.  Music to Olympia Snowe's ears I am sure, though she reportedly doesn't like the Medicare expansion.  Mary Landrieu (D LA) is opposed to the Medicare expansion as well; odds are that gets tossed out to get 60 votes.   If you weed through all the muck, you're left with a plan with a trigger, which is going to pass.  Erick Erickson comments that it is time for the Republicans to put up a serious fight, their current strategy is not working.  I have to agree.

JoeMentum: Not Hiding Behind a Public Option Fig Leaf

Joe Lieberman is sticking to his guns on the public option reports Kimberly Strassel in "The Wall Street Journal:"

When Mr. Lieberman says no public option, he means no public option—not an "opt-in" or an "opt out" or a "trigger" (a public option only comes into effect if private insurers fail to spread enough coverage). "We are at the point now where this has become the classic legislative process of trying to get a fig leaf that everyone can hide behind. And I don't want to do that."

Why so adamant, Strassel wonders:

 Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not "a conspiratorial person," he believes the public option is intended as a way for the government to take over health care. "I've been working for health-care reform in different ways since I arrived here," he says. "It was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less costly, and how do we expand coverage to people who can't afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies . . . So where did this public option come from?" It was barely a blip, he says, in last year's presidential campaign.

"I started to ask some of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus, privately, and two of them said "some in our caucus, and some outside in interest groups, after the president won such a great victory and there were more Democrats in the Senate and the House, said this is the moment to go for single payer.'" So, I joke, the senator is, in fact, as big a "conspiracy theorist" as me. He laughingly rejoins: "But I have evidence!"

 Leiberman raises an excellent point, where did this famed public option come from?  The lefty blogs claim it was there all along pressing Lieberman to retract his hateful denial of the beloved public option: