dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Historic Opportunity"

I think you're right on, AD.

Red Planet — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:45:45 +0000

In reply to Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) got

I think you're right on, AD. Halter did no damage to Blanche Lincoln. She damaged herself, voted against and, moreove, fought against progressive causes, was always one of two or three saboteurs working openly inside the Senate Democratic majority. She alienated Ds here in Arkansas, and, of course, was not a real Republican. Here time came and went.

Halter, and the labor unions that supported him were the ones who were most damaged, by the President national Democratic Party leadership.

A report from "the troops on

Red Planet — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:39:50 +0000

In reply to Apparently it didn't come

A report from "the troops on the ground" here in Arkansas. Blanche was always not going to win the general. She'd alienated Democrats, who stayed away in droves, and Republicans wanted one of their own.

Halter had a chance, because he had the ability to energize Democrats. But Obama & company threw massive support behind Lincoln and trashed the unions that supported Halter. Good strategy.

That said, the White House

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:26:45 +0000

In reply to They needed a bill out of his

That said, the White House could have trumped much of the worst Baucusism by drafting a bill in full and presenting it to him.

They certainly could have drafted and had introduced their own bill. That is often done by Presidents. As has been suggested by many they may have "overlearned" from the Clinton HC setback on that. In any case, had they introduced their own bill to try to have more influence over the terms of debate, members of Congress are entirely free, of course, to work their will on it. And surely they would have. With a President of their own party, there might have been some deference on some key White House "asks". Again, perhaps some here happen to know if the White House seriously considered introducing its own bill. Or we may need to have the historians tell us.

Plus, if Baucus was really an unwelcome and uncongenial guest at the table, why Messina as current campaign chair?

There are reasons for hiring campaign chairs that don't have anything to do with their own personal substantive views. There are far more important things a White House running for re-election is looking for in someone for that job. In fact, that person's substantive policy views are probably a very minor factor if they are a factor at all in judging whether or not they are a good person to hire. Messina's personal views on HC policy may be Baucus' or they may not be in all respects. Staffers are not supposed to let it be known if they happen to disagree with their boss on policy.

That said, knowing even what I know about Messina, when I get fundraising solicitations for Obama from him, they get deleted before being read. I definitely have a negative reaction to the guy. But as I've already said I have no plans to contribute any money to Obama's re-election campaign. There are people who, if they asked me to, might make me reconsider. So far I haven't been asked by any of them yet.

They cannot refuse to fund it

jollyroger — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:17:40 +0000

In reply to They cannot refuse to fund it

They cannot refuse to fund it

The hell they can't. There is a difference between money authorized and money appropriated.

They are doing a pretty good imitation of defunding so far.

Recall that Iran-Contra was a desperation move required bycongressional riders refusing funding for the Nicaraguan adventure.

Not to mention that when the originating house sends a comprehensive bill to the senate with no money for ACA required expenses, there is no remedy but refusal to agree to the funding bill as it stands, and close down.

Without a budget resolution, furthermore, I think even normal strictures militating against house recalcitrance are limited.

unless the ACA is thrown out,

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:14:25 +0000

In reply to They cannot refuse to fund it

unless the ACA is thrown out, these provisions stand and they are required to fund them.

ACA tax credit provisions reimbursing individuals and employers for insurance premium payments are now effectively part of the tax code and therefore don't require the Congressional Appropriations committees to fund them each year. They are available to any taxpayers who qualifiy for them, whether individuals or businesses. I had thought that there were some provisions in ACA that don't work through the now amended tax code but do require annual Congressional appropriations, now problematic with the House in GOP hands. Perhaps someone deeper into the weeds on the details of ACA can answer this question.

tmac, how do you respond to the criticism made that there are so many families living paycheck to paycheck now, if they even have jobs, under severe duress, that many will not be able to come up with the upfront cash they need to make the premium payments, in order to qualify for and receive the subsequent tax credits, which they would receive only many months later? And that to further subject these families to fines for not doing so is wrong, no matter how concededly important it is to the whole logic of HC reform to include everyone, or virtually everyone? Not asking if you agree with that criticism to the point of thinking the bill therefore should not have passed--I gather that you don't. But do you understand why that is such a huge issue for many progressives, that it doesn't amount to somehow expecting legislative perfection or whining over a relatively small point?

They needed a bill out of his

jollyroger — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:10:00 +0000

In reply to But why is the house in

They needed a bill out of his Committee

You may be right vis-a-vis the use of reconciliation as a tactic to outflank the filibuster.

That said, the White House could have trumped much of the worst Baucusism by drafting a bill in full and presenting it to him.

Plus, if Baucus was really an unwelcome and uncongenial guest at the table, why Messina as current campaign chair?

But why is the house in

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:57:58 +0000

In reply to if the House Republicans

But why is the house in Repugnant hands? It is because Prez & Co. fatally mismanaged the politics of his first two years in office.

I don't think that is obvious, and rarely if ever is there just one factor accounting for these kinds of things. Where does the Senate's unwillingness to change its rules to keep so many House-passed bills from coming up for a vote factor in? Who is responsible for some wildly inaccurate and damaging perceptions about the HC bill and the stimulus bill gaining traction? Is 100% of that on the White House? But I am inclined to agree that was a major factor. In any case the situation now is what it is.

Max Baucus was a very bad choice to walk point on this.

Obama and the White House don't get to decide this kind of question. Health care's financing aspects inevitably brought in the Senate Finance Committee--unless the Senate would have been willing to make a very rare exception to its customary practices of referring bills to the committee(s) of jurisdiction. Such possibilities for doing so may have been looked into by the White House or others and may even have been a subject of discussion with Reid at some point. I don't know if the answer to that question is already known now (someone here may know that), or whether the historians will have to let us know down the road a bit, perhaps. But barring some extremely unusual procedural departure, Baucus was going to be a key player no matter what the White House wanted. They needed a bill out of his Committee so they had to deal with him. They may have had viable alternative ways of dealing with him--but that's a different question.

They cannot refuse to fund it

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:22:50 +0000

In reply to if the House Republicans

They cannot refuse to fund it jollyroger it is already in US Code and has amended Public Health Service Act 27, this provision is one that congressional Republicans are seeking to have voided, because unless the ACA is thrown out, these provisions stand and they are required to fund them. Thank Nancy Pelosi as she knows how the government works unlike the current speaker who literally has no control over those TBags. I included a link in my response below. The house is in Republican hands because so many people demagogue the issue of health insurance, and other issues of course and demagoguery often wins over fact. Pointing to a blog that supports your opinion that the President fatally mismanaged the politics his first two years in office, is not evidence or fact, it is opinion. I've presented the facts of the many progressive policies passed and implemented during this administration. Ignoring those forward moves is of course your choice, I choose not to ignore them.

Social security was fixed

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:07:20 +0000

In reply to Health Care Reform and

Social security was fixed over the years too, because originally women and minorities were excluded from collecting social security. Yet we look at Social Security as a progressive piece of legislation.

Let's look at the history of social security: From wikipedia:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.^[13] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.^[14] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.^[15] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.^[16] Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population.^[15] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.^[17]^[18] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”^[18]

The legislation evolved over the years into what we see now, which does not exclude citizens.

The thing about an insurance based system means that in order to bring costs down, there must be an "all in" mandate. It is a way to force costs down. Obviously grants are needed so that the working poor will have access to the system. And those provisions are within ACA, 93.519:

Consumer Assistance Program Grants

This amends the public health service act section 27. These are the provisions that the republicans wish to repeal. Although, it will be very difficult for them to do so. But of course there is a gran process for the underprivileged. It isn't as if those democrats in congress didn't realize this would be a necessary provision to provide coverage to those who do not receive any sort of preventive care. In my own mind it is progressive.

There are steps to take, evolutionary steps to take even in legislation. As I've pointed out previously, forever, in 1911 the UK instituted a Universal Insurance coverage mandate it was called the National Insurance Act of 1911. Germany did it first in 1883 I think. Under the 1911 Act, every worker who earned under £160/year had to insure themself by paying 4 pence, the employer paid 3 pence, and general taxation paid 2 pence (Lloyd George called it the ninepence for fourpence). I don't believe we are exempt from these steps. It took the UK until 1948 to create and intitutue the NHS, which people pay for in their taxes, no one is exempt from that if they are working, and depending upon how much you make, will determine how much you contribute to the NHS. Of course you can continue to get private insurance in the UK. All in, everyone contributes.

if the House Republicans

jollyroger — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:46:32 +0000

In reply to Health Care Reform and

if the House Republicans refuse to fund it,

But why is the house in Repugnant hands? It is because Prez & Co. fatally mismanaged the politics of his first two years in office. Indeed, a public option (let alone medicare for all) would very likely have produced widespread satisfaction with the ACA instead of widespread disillusionment.

Max Baucus was a very bad choice to walk point on this, and the choice of his old retainer, Jim Messina, as the present campaign honcho is a serious "tell".