Process & Policy

The President gave a very good, clear, powerful speech today.
Booman's Quote of the Day

Here's an excerpt from the President's upcoming remarks on the health care bill (via email):

“At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

So much for Scott Brown.

Greg Sargent

Obama’s speech, which is now underway, is pretty tough and confrontational towards Republicans: He says the differences between him and the GOP are fundamental and can’t be bridged, and he sharply challenges them to vote against his proposal, suggesting that if they do, they’ll be revealing that they’re siding with the insurance industry against Americans.

Ezra Klein

And so Obama gave no quarter today. Gone was the pretense that Democrats and Republicans basically agree on health-care reform. "Many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies," Obama said. "And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward."

Gone was vague language and gesturing coyness Democrats have favored on the path forward. "The United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform," Obama said. "We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts."

So that's it, then: The health-care reform bill that Congress will vote on will be a close relative of the health-care reform bills that Congress has already passed. No Plan Bs, no starting over, no accommodation with continued obstructionism. "I have therefore asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks," Obama said. "From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."

What's important about this speech is that it didn't leave any paths open. It attacked the Republican bills, the arguments for piecemeal reform, and the idea that procedural impediments are sufficient to excuse the further delay of a verdict. This is the end of the line. There's not a magic alternative behind the curtain or a hard reset that will lead to a harmonious bipartisan process. It all just is what it is. And now it's time for a vote. It's time for health-care reform to either pass or fail.

QOTD, Tim F.:

Newsroom staff don’t know much about policy and (like most people) almost nothing about Senate procedure but they can do personality and horserace in their sleep, and “access” is practically a currency in their world. No, scratch that last part. In DC ‘access’ is not practically a currency. It determines your status in the cocktail party hierarchy. It gives you job security.

Tim F.: Unbelievably Frustrating

I understand that as a blogger I can afford to take the long view on health care reform, while many members of Congress unquestionably have their career at stake over this one vote. Nonetheless I think that Representatives who have gotten spooked by bad HCR poll numbers are making a terrible mistake. It might help to argue like Josh Marshall does that vulnerable seats got killed the worst in 2002 1994 (inexplicably got the date wrong there). He’s certainly right, but dry logic has only so much impact on crisis days like today. These Reps need a heap of supportive phone calls from constituents.

This is crunch time. Please phone and make sure that your Representative will supports the current road map: pass the Senate bill, then resolve issues such as the excise tax with a reconciliation fix. Tomorrow may be too late.

Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.

Guide for first-timers here.

Benen: WORKING THE REF

The Senate parliamentarian will likely be in a position to rule on what can and cannot be considered under reconciliation rules. So, naturally, the GOP is already going after the parliamentarian, offering an example of working the ref and laying the groundwork for future whining.

Senate Republicans are waging a pre-emptive strike against the Senate's parliamentarian -- a hitherto little-known official who could determine the fate of the Democrats' health care reform efforts.

In interviews with POLITICO, several Republican senators and aides cast Parliamentarian Alan Frumin -- a 33-year veteran of the Senate -- as someone who is predisposed to side with the Democrats if they attempt to use the reconciliation process to pass parts of their bill.

"I think clearly the majority leader has his ear, and I've got concerns," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "I think if he does not look at that very careful -- reconciliation is supposed to be very narrowly defined, large legislative things don't seem to fit in those parameters -- I would think that reconciliation would make or break the perception of his objectivity."

DeMint really doesn't seem to realize that Dems have no intention of trying to pass the entire health care reform package through the reconciliation process.

Nevertheless, this push is pretty sad. Maybe Republicans are trying to bully Frumin before he's even asked to rule on anything; maybe Republicans are trying to cast doubts on his integrity now so they can attack him later. Either way, the GOP's desperation is getting increasingly ugly.

Indeed, for all the talk about the importance of independence in the parliamentarian's office, let's not forget recent history -- when the Republican majority didn't like the previous parliamentarian's rulings on reconciliation, they fired him.

Try to imagine, just for a moment, what the reaction would be if, later this month, Harry Reid fired the Senate parliamentarian for ruling the "wrong" way on a reconciliation question. Think about how intense the media scrutiny would be, and how loud the cries of outrage would be from Republicans.

And then try to remember the fact that Trent Lott firing the former parliamentarian was considered largely a non-story at the time, and that GOP use of reconciliation was deemed routine.

Benen: HARKIN GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO RECONCILIATION

There really wasn't any doubt about how the process would have to proceed -- Dems haven't exactly been trying to keep this secret -- but I suppose official confirmation helps make the way forward even clearer.

Sen. Tom Harkin told POLITICO that Senate Democratic leaders have decided to go the reconciliation route. The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.

Harkin made the comments after a meeting in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office including Harkin and Sens. Baucus, Dodd, Durbin, Schumer and Murray.

By agreeing to pursue reconciliation, the Senate leadership almost certainly believes it will have the 51 votes needed to approve the budget fix. This makes sense -- even center-right Dems have been coming around on this procedural question in recent weeks, frustrated by Republican obstinacy.

I should emphasize, for any lawmakers or reporters who may be reading, that by agreeing to the majority-rule route, Dems aren't talking about passing health care reform through reconciliation. Health care reform was already approved by the Senate in December, and it passed 60 to 39 through the regular ol' legislative process. No tricks, no abuses, nothing unusual at all.

Rather, reconciliation will now be used -- if all goes according to plan -- to approve a modest budget fix that will improve the final reform bill.

In terms of institutional wrangling, Harkin's green light for reconciliation should help encourage House Dems to go first, as some House leaders seem prepared to do. Cohn added, "The key now is giving the House some sort of assurance that the Senate will, in fact, pass the amendments via reconciliation."

The other key, of course, is finding 216 votes in the House. Party leaders voiced some additional optimism this morning, but whether or not this is strategic is unclear (if nervous/vulnerable Democrats are led to believe reform is in trouble, they're more likely to bolt, giving the leadership an incentive to keep sounding optimistic).

President Obama is scheduled to present his vision on the way forward in about a half-hour. I suspect his remarks will be watched closely on the Hill.

Benen: FIRED-UP PRESIDENT DEMANDS 'UP-OR-DOWN VOTE' ON HEALTH CARE

Watching President Obama's speech this afternoon on the way forward on health care reform, I noticed something I haven't seen from the always-cool chief executive in a while: real passion.

It was unmistakable -- this president wasn't just making the case for reform, he was practically demanding it. Forget any rumors you may have heard about half-measures or additional compromises. President Obama is going all in.

From the outset, the president reminded his audience why the notion of reform being "rammed through" is silly. Referencing last week's summit, Obama noted:

"This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. Since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everyone has said it. So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America's families and businesses."

The president noted several areas of agreement with Republicans, and presented his plan as a middle ground between the left (which wants single-payer) and the right (which wants to let insurance companies do as they please).

He also spent some time outlining exactly what his proposal is all about, including the notion that reform would give Americans "more control over their health care," while building on the existing system. Obama presented his package in three parts: (1) ending insurance company abuses; (2) creating a marketplace for uninsured individuals and small business owners; and (3) bringing down costs. All of this would be paid for, and would bring down the deficit.

At that point, the president started knocking down GOP talking points -- forcefully.

Why not go with a step-by-step approach?

"Some also believe that we should instead pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we just tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say that we can't afford to help them -- which is why the Republican proposal only covers three million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.

"But the problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions; you can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets; and you don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers end up subsidizing the uninsured when they're forced to go to the Emergency Room for care. The fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all these problems at once."

Why not start over with a blank piece of paper?

"Both during and after last week's summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I do not see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They are continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can't wait that long."

And while the president didn't use the word "reconciliation" specifically, he did outline a legislative approach that makes sense:

"[N]o matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children's Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts -- all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

"I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well -- every family, every business owner, every patient, every doctor, every nurse."

As for the politics, Obama decided instead to focus on right and wrong.

"In the end, that's what this debate is about -- it's about the kind of country we want to be. It's about the millions of lives that would be touched and in some cases saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right."

This was as combative and aggressive as we've seen the president in a while. His tone was defiant and unflinching. He used the word "Republican" 10 times, usually in a negative and critical context. It's as if the president was actually sincere about his bipartisan outreach, and felt personally insulted by the Republicans' games.

If Congress was waiting for the Obama to signal his commitment to getting this done, it's safe to say the president left no doubts.

John Cole: Reconciliation a Go

So reconciliation is on, and this has the usual suspects all in a huff:

These guys don’t even understand how threats work. Usually, to have some effect, you have to issue the threat PRIOR to engaging in the behavior. What could the Republicans possibly do that they haven’t already?

We’ve already seen record numbers of filibusters and clotures. They’ve already used every parliamentary trick in the books to bog down the legislation. They’ve negotiated in bad faith, stalled, and then voted en masse against. They’ve lied and misrepresented everything the Democrats have tried to do. They even insisted that we wheel the near dead Byrd onto the Senate floor late night, and openly prayed for the death of another Senator. And now we are supposed to fear obstructionism?

Bring it on. Up until now, the Democrats have suffered because people don’t really understand the concept of 60 votes, and have just wondered why Democrats don’t just pass their bills. They’ve looked at Democrats as the parents of an unruly child who just don’t have the nerve to get their kid in line.

But now, after the Bunning stunt, in which he wasted millions and deprived millions of needed aid, slowed down road construction, and made a bureaucratic nightmare of unemployment benefits, the American people got a glimpse of what is going on. One man had a hissy fit and thwarted the will of both parties.

So I say to Erick and the teabagging Republican Senators- bring it on. The neighborhood is starting to realize this is not just bad parenting, and now that the problem child isn’t just a problem for the parents, but is running around slashing everyone’s tires and generally making a mess of every damned thing, they are starting to pay attention. Even the media is running out of excuses and are starting to realize this isn’t 1994, but 1996.

So, go for it. I double dog dare you.

• from the comments:
  

  Comrade Dread
  

  The only thing that mildly worries me is that the next time Republicans gain power, they’ll turn up everything to 11 and really go bats*** crazy.

  That being said, I kind of expect them to do that anyway, so what the h*ll?

Tim F.: Better Living Through Hippie Punching

Where is the mystery about Rahm stories? Mainstream media reporters hate hippie bloggers. Don’t know why. If I had to guess I would say that hippie bloggers make criticisms that cut deeper than the broad-brush personality-based drivel that right wingers typically serve up. A lot of managing editors (the guys who assign and approve stories, and who often lean Republican) want to be “more like FOX.” Bob Somerby has an Indiana Jones vault of evidence that most reporters arbitrarily split the difference between parties and cast around for excuses to punch hippies because it might blunt ‘liberal media’ criticisms (ha ha, I know, right). To some degree every case is a unique snowflake.

Newsroom staff don’t know much about policy and (like most people) almost nothing about Senate procedure but they can do personality and horserace in their sleep, and “access” is practically a currency in their world. No, scratch that last part. In DC ‘access’ is not practically a currency. It determines your status in the cocktail party hierarchy. It gives you job security. Getting a cold call from someone at Rahm’s level is like a researcher publishing in Science or Nature. After that you’re a made man. Compared with the agony of reporting health care minutiae compounded with Senate rules that even most Senators can’t reliably explain, this Rahm crap is a delicious chocolate sundae that makes you skinnier and whitens your teeth. It hardly seems like a disincentive that it also pisses off Media Matters and gives Somerby the fits.

John Cole: Truly Bizarre

Another day, two more Rahm stories.

I don’t think I have ever seen such an infatuation with a President’s Chief of Staff, ever. It really is insane.

Aravosis: 'At 50, Emanuel has the lean, taut look of a lifelong swimmer, with broad shoulders and distractingly prominent quadriceps.'

The new art form of pro-Rahm suck up pieces enter its homoerotic phase. I'm disgusted yet titillated at the same time. This must be how Sarah Palin supporters feel.

The leaked stories have gotten so bad that even Broder is calling foul. Will wonders never cease.
David Broder (WaPost): Emanuel and his 'advisers'

In the space of 10 days, thanks in no small part to my own newspaper, the president of the United States has been portrayed as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right.

This remarkable fiction began unfolding on Feb. 21 in the Sunday column of my friend Dana Milbank, who wrote that "Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter," i.e., a one-term failure.

A week later, presumably the same anonymous sources convinced Milbank to pronounce that Obama "too often plays the 98-pound weakling; he gets sand kicked in his face and responds with moot-court zingers."

And on Tuesday, The Post led the paper with a purported news story by Jason Horowitz saying that a president with Obama's "detached, professorial manner" needed "a political enforcer" like Emanuel to have a chance of succeeding, "because he [Emanuel] possessed a unique understanding of the legislative mind." Unfortunately, the story said, "influential Democrats are -- in unusually frank terms -- blaming Obama and his closest campaign aides for not listening to Emanuel."

It sounded, for all the world, like the kind of orchestrated leaks that often precede a forced resignation in Washington.

Except that the chief of staff doesn't usually force the president out. When George H.W. Bush had had enough of John H. Sununu, of course it was Sununu who walked. Maybe the sources on these stories think Obama is the one who should leave.

Here in a few paragraphs is what others high in the White House think is going on:

The underlying problem, in their eyes, is a badly damaged economy that has sunk Obama's poll numbers and emboldened Republicans to blockade his legislative program.

Emanuel, who left a leadership post in the House to serve his fellow Chicagoan, Obama, has worked loyally for the president, and is not suspected personally by his colleagues of inspiring these Post pieces.

But, as one of them said to me, "Rahm likes to win," and when the losses began to pile up, he probably vented his frustrations to some of his old pals in Congress. It's clear that some of them are talking to the press.

There are good grounds for questioning the legislative strategy and tactics of this White House -- just as there have been with other administrations. A president who sets out to engineer large-scale changes in basic economic, social and legal structures at the same time he is fighting two wars and dealing with the fallout from a fiscal calamity is risking defeat. Obama has courted that risk knowingly because he thinks -- as I do -- the nation really is in peril. His party in Congress and its leadership are too often more narrow-minded and parochial than the president. And the Republicans have chosen the easy path of near-unanimous opposition.

None of this would rise above the level of petty Washington gossip, except that some of Emanuel's friends are so eager to exonerate him that they are threatening to undermine the president. Milbank, presumably reflecting what he hears, calls Obama "airy and idealistic" and says he readily succumbs to "bullying" from Republicans and Democrats alike. I hope the mullahs in Iran don't believe this.

From too many years of covering politics, I have come to believe as Axiom One that the absolute worst advice politicians ever receive comes from journalists who fancy themselves great campaign strategists.

Milbank now is urging Obama to emulate Gordon Brown, who is probably just weeks away from being voted out as Britain's prime minister, and start bullying people himself. That is -- well, it's in the great tradition.