A Blue View

Reality On The Ground: Gay Troops Widely Accepted

Wash Post:

Days before a deployment to Iraq last year, the 26-year-old soldier's sergeant told his troops that they would get to know one another pretty well over the next few months.

"I'm in trouble," the specialist remembered thinking. He feared comrades would find out he is gay. Worse, he said, they could figure out that he has been dating another soldier in the combat arms battalion for more than five years. Their careers were on the line.

The reaction during the soldier's year-long deployment -- nobody asked about it -- offers new insight into how today's military might adapt to a repeal of the ban on openly gay service members sought by President Obama and top Pentagon officials. The specialist didn't exactly tell, but at the end of the tour, his sexual orientation had become a poorly kept secret -- and his career was undamaged.

"I don't know if I won any hearts and minds among the Iraqis," said the specialist, who returned home from Iraq recently. "But I did among my brothers in arms because I did my job well and went above and beyond. I was respected."

A younger and more liberal corps of commanders and soldiers has given rise to bubbles of tolerance in today's military, an institution that soldiers describe as still largely unwelcoming and wary of gays, according to interviews with more than a dozen enlisted troops and officers, both gay and straight.

Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States and even in war zones. In Iraq, one e-mail group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant-messaging screen names and the base where they're stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform.

In recent years, service members and researchers say, a growing number of gay troops have disclosed their sexual orientation to supervisors and comrades. They say they are buoyed by a sense that wartime commanders are increasingly reluctant to lose skilled troops to a ban many now view as archaic.

But even if the current law and policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed in coming months, gay soldiers are unlikely to come out of the closet in large numbers, service members said.

"An openly gay soldier would have a lot to overcome," said Matthew Gallagher, a former Army captain and popular blogger who left the Army last year. "It is a culture fueled entirely by machismo, and it definitely has a bit of locker-room homophobia."

Gallagher, 26, who is straight, said he nonetheless thinks openly gay service members should be allowed to serve. "If an openly gay soldier went into a unit and proved himself competent and skillful, I believe most units and soldiers would accept him as one of their own -- especially during combat," he said. "At the end of the day, the military thrives off of pragmatism, and nothing matters more to soldiers."

Other officers disagree. They argue that lifting the ban could demoralize an institution strained by two ongoing wars and the toll of nearly a decade of combat. Openly gay soldiers could weaken unit cohesion and present logistical and moral dilemmas for commanders, supporters of the ban said.

Anthem Blue Cross Makes The Case For The Individual Mandate

Karen Tumulty:

So why is Anthem Blue Cross raising the premiums of its California customers by as much as 39%? Here's an argument for an "individual mandate" requiring everyone to have insurance, as well as a case for making sure this coverage is affordable.:

Anthem said its costs have been driven up in part because the weak economy has led many people in good health to forgo coverage, leaving those with greater medical needs in its pool of customers.

Obama Again Attempts To Bridge The Divide With The GOP

Wash Post:

President Obama brought Republicans to the negotiating table on Tuesday, hoping to stem a steady deterioration in relations between the two parties that has brought business in Washington to a standstill, left the Democratic agenda in tatters and angered voters who are eager to have lawmakers address their concerns.

The two-hour session was part of a renewed drive by the White House to create legislation by consensus, regardless of party label. Obama tried the approach after he took office, but it did not take hold. After the meeting, the president paid a surprise visit to the White House press room to brief reporters.

He accused Republicans of indiscriminate obstruction that he said has created legislative gridlock, especially in the Senate, but he also called on Democratic leaders to "put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

Obama outlined issues that could bridge the divide, including job creation, health-care reform, energy and trade. But he extracted few concrete commitments from his GOP visitors.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the public is frustrated by the bickering and recriminations. According to the survey, 57 percent of Americans consider the loss of the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority a "good thing," but few think Republicans should wield their new power to block bills frequently. Nearly six in 10 say that Republicans are not doing enough to forge compromise with Obama on important issues, while nearly half view the president as doing too little to overcome differences with the GOP.

On the issue of health-care reform, public attitudes about the stalled Democratic legislation remain virtually deadlocked. But nearly two-thirds of voters, or 63 percent, want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue.

A major test of whether Obama's new strategy will yield legislative results could come when the Senate takes up a job-creation bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had hoped to introduce last week but which was sidetracked by a snowstorm.

Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) -- senior Republicans who walked away from health-care talks last year -- have been heavily involved in drafting the legislation but are reluctant to sign on to the bill unless it attracts broad GOP support. After the White House meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said there is "a chance" that Republicans would back the jobs measure, although he said his conference is "not entirely comfortable with it yet."

Later, McConnell convened GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee for an impromptu gathering, and the senators emerged expressing some support for the overall framework. But Republicans were reluctant to agree to Reid's timeline for speeding the legislation to completion by the weekend. On Tuesday evening, Reid announced that snowstorms made continued legislative action all but impossible, and put off its formal introduction and a final vote until later this month ...

Obama has reached out to Republicans on health-care reform by inviting them to participate in a bipartisan summit on Feb. 25. GOP leaders have expressed wariness that the event will amount to little more than political theater and so far have not committed to attending.

BiPartisanship Washington Style

Poll: GOP Gaining Ground On Obama & Dems

Wash Post:

Republicans have significantly narrowed the gap with Democrats on who is trusted to deal with the country's problems and have sharply reduced several of President Obama's main political advantages, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey paints a portrait of a restless and dissatisfied electorate at the beginning of a critical election year. More than seven in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and as many say they're inclined to look for new congressional representation as said so in 1994 and 2006, the last times that control of Congress shifted.

Asked how they would vote in the November House elections, Americans split evenly -- 46 percent siding with the Democrats, 46 percent with the Republicans. As recently as four months ago, Democrats held a 51 to 39 percent advantage on this question.

Obama's overall approval rating is holding steady, with 51 percent of respondents giving him positive marks and 46 percent rating him negatively. On the big domestic issues -- the economy, health care, jobs and the federal budget deficit -- bare majorities of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing.

Only on fighting terrorism does Obama receive majority support for his performance, with 56 percent saying they approve. But the poll shows majority opposition to the administration's plan to try terrorism suspects in federal courts.

Changes in public attitudes were most apparent when Americans were asked whether they trust Obama or congressional Republicans to handle these issues. Last summer, the president enjoyed advantages of more than 20 points over the GOP on the handling of health care, the economy, the deficit and the threat of terrorism. Those leads have all slipped, reflecting both the partisan polarization that has colored the political landscape for many months and the sharp erosion in support for Obama among independents.

But there is about as much time between now and November as has elapsed since Obama held his June advantages. The president and his allies have started a new political offensive, seeking to rebound from the Democrats' loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Edward M. Kennedy and salvage their effort to enact comprehensive health-care reform.

Obama has begun to try to appeal to voters who see Washington as broken by stressing his commitment to bipartisanship, while aggressively trying to rebut GOP criticisms of his policies. At the same time, he has sought to refocus his energy on the economy and job creation, which remains the public's top priority.

When compared with the early months of Obama's presidency, the GOP's overall gains are striking. A year ago, Democrats held a 26-point advantage on dealing with the big issues; that lead is now six points. At the one-month mark, Obama's lead over the Republicans on dealing with the economy was 35 points; it's now five points.

These findings illustrate why the political landscape looks increasingly favorable for Republicans to pick up House and Senate seats in November, with some handicappers predicting major gains of 25 to 30 seats and Republican House leaders expressing confidence that they can win the 40 seats they need to take back the majority. The president's political advisers say privately that some losses are likely but that they are looking to keep them to a minimum.

The poll offers some cautionary notes for both parties. The GOP's image has improved since last year, but a majority of poll respondents still see the party in an unfavorable light (52 percent unfavorable, 44 percent favorable). Fifty percent view the Democratic Party favorably, and 46 percent unfavorably. That marks a new low point for the party in Post-ABC polling.

Slim majorities of independents rate each party negatively, and sizable percentages of that group express skeptical views of both parties. Nearly three in 10 volunteer that they trust "neither" party to handle major issues, and a similar proportion hold unfavorable views of both parties.

Almost half of all poll respondents characterize their mood as generally "anti-incumbent," with just over a third saying they are "pro-incumbent." Two-thirds of independents say they would like to look around, the most to say so in polls since October 1994.

The question asking Americans how they plan to vote in House races, known as the generic congressional vote, is an imperfect predictor of elections, but the GOP gains here amplify the extent of the Democrats' slide since they won the House in 2006. Four years ago, Democrats led Republicans on this question by a wide margin.

Among independents who are registered to vote, it's now a 51 to 35 percent GOP lead on this question, a mirror image of the Democrats' advantage among this group of voters on the eve of the 2006 midterms.

Palin's Hand Cartoons

Gibbs Parodies Palin

The Caucus:

After President Obama left the White House briefing room today, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, held up a surprise of his own, literally: a scribbled list of items on his hand, in an obvious mocking of Sarah Palin’s weekend crib sheet at the Tea Party Convention.

While Ms. Palin’s list included items like taxes, Mr. Gibbs’s was more domestic: “I wrote eggs, milk, bread,” he told reporters in the briefing room, adding that he’d crossed out bread. And at the end, “I wrote down hope and change just in case I forgot that.”

Republicans Also Aren't Unified On Health Reform

Prescriptions:

For anyone who spent months watching the Democrats’ family feud over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, or the more recent intraparty battle between House and Senate Democrats over a proposed tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance policies, it might have seemed as if Republicans were much more unified on the issue of health care.

But for Republicans, one luxury of being the minority party in Congress and having a Democrat in the White House has been the ability to avoid having internal disagreements in the spotlight. Republicans generally do not speak with a single voice on health care policy, any more than Democrats do. Consider, for instance, the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health benefits.

<Continue reading.>

The DSM, The Psychiatrist's Bible, To Be Revised

NY Times: 

Far fewer children would get a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. “Binge eating disorder” and “hypersexuality” might become part of the everyday language. And the way many mental disorders are diagnosed and treated would be sharply revised.

These are a few of the changes proposed on Tuesday by doctors charged with revising psychiatry’s encyclopedia of mental disorders, the guidebook that largely determines where society draws the line between normal and not normal, between eccentricity and illness, between self-indulgence and self-destruction — and, by extension, when and how patients should be treated.

The eagerly awaited revisions — to be published, if adopted, in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due in 2013 — would be the first in a decade.

For months they have been the subject of intense speculation and lobbying by advocacy groups, and some proposed changes have already been widely discussed — including folding the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome into a broader category, autism spectrum disorder.

But others, including a proposed alternative for bipolar disorder in many children, were unveiled on Tuesday. Experts said the recommendations, posted online at DSM5.org for public comment, could bring rapid change in several areas.

“Anything you put in that book, any little change you make, has huge implications not only for psychiatry but for pharmaceutical marketing, research, for the legal system, for who’s considered to be normal or not, for who’s considered disabled,” said Dr. Michael First, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University who edited the fourth edition of the manual but is not involved in the fifth.

“And it has huge implications for stigma,” Dr. First continued, “because the more disorders you put in, the more people get labels, and the higher the risk that some get inappropriate treatment.”

Republican Health Care Ideas

Though it's not comprehensive enough to be a "plan," the GOP does have some legitimate-enough-to-debate ideas (mixed in with their more numerous sound-bite-ideas-designed-to-win-elections) according to the NY Times:

When Republicans take President Obama up on his invitation to hash out their differences over health care this month, they will carry with them a fairly well-developed set of ideas intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable, by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations, with no new federal mandates and only a modest expansion of the federal safety net.

Representative Paul D. Ryan also would encourage but not require states to set up health insurance exchanges where consumers could compare and by coverage.

It is not clear that Republicans and the White House are willing to negotiate seriously with each other, and Mr. Obama has rejected Republican demands that he start from scratch in developing health care legislation.

But Congressional Republicans have laid out principles and alternatives that provide a road map to what a Republican health care bill would look like if they had the power to decide the outcome.

The different approaches will be on display Feb. 25, when lawmakers from both parties are scheduled to go to Blair House, across the street from the White House, for a televised clash of health policy ideas.

The Republicans rely more on the market and less on government. They would not require employers to provide insurance. They oppose the Democrats’ call for a big expansion of Medicaid, which Republicans say would burden states with huge long-term liabilities.

While the Congressional Budget Office has not analyzed all the Republican proposals, it is clear that they would not provide coverage to anything like the number of people — more than 30 million — who would gain insurance under the Democrats’ proposals.

But Republicans say they can make incremental progress without the economic costs they contend the Democratic plans pose to the nation. As one way to encourage competition and drive down costs, Republican members of Congress want to make it easier for insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines, an idea included in a limited form in the Democratic bills.

Republicans would offer federal money as a reward to states that achieve specified reductions in premiums or in the number of people without insurance.

Republicans would provide federal money to states to establish and expand high-risk pools, for people with chronic illnesses who cannot find private insurance at an affordable price.

Republicans also contend that changes in state medical malpractice laws could lower costs and slow the growth of premiums. However, some of these proposals — like federal limits on damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages — are potentially in conflict with the Republicans’ emphasis on federalism and state autonomy.

In contrast to the bills passed by the House and the Senate, which would remake the health care system, Republican leaders favor a more modest approach.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said he and his colleagues were skeptical of “grand legislative policy schemes” and favored “a step-by-step approach” focused on lowering health costs for families and businesses.

“It is arrogant to imagine that 100 senators are wise enough to reform comprehensively a health care system that constitutes 17 percent of the world’s largest economy and affects 300 million Americans of disparate backgrounds and circumstances,” Mr. Alexander said.

The Republican health care agenda can be inferred from bills they have offered in the last few years and from their criticism of Mr. Obama’s proposals and of Democratic bills passed by both houses of Congress last year.

Republicans want to expand the use of health savings accounts, to cover routine expenses for people who enroll in high-deductible health plans. Democrats denounce such accounts as a tax shelter for higher-income people.

Many Republicans want to expand the role of private insurance companies in Medicare. Insurers already manage Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, and Republicans see that as a model.

Republicans agree on the need to slow the explosive growth of Medicare, but say the savings should be used to shore up Medicare, not to help finance a new entitlement program.

Democrats said the Republican proposals would do little to solve the crisis in health care. The proposals are “as skimpy as a hospital gown,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas.

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, said, “If the Republicans’ health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind.”

Like Democrats, Republicans are divided on some questions, including the taxation of employer-provided health benefits. <Continue reading.>

Obama's Rationale For The Summit

Ezra Klein:

Talking to some of the liberals I know, the hope seems to be that the White House health-care summit goes something like this, but for health care rather than religion:

But it won't. The political point of the summit is to make the president look good, not to make the Republicans look bad. The White House's fondest hope is that it can keep saying yes -- yes to a summit, yes to an exchange of ideas, yes to some small concessions -- while the Republicans keep saying no to the idea of a summit, to the possibility of virtue in any of the underlying bills, to the potential for any real compromise.

Remember here that the White House simply needs to give congressional leadership a way to pivot toward a vote, and that means giving legislators who want to pass health-care reform but are afraid to do so a reason to take a deep breath and push the bill past the goal line.

The Downside If Health Reform Is Defeated Needs To Be More Widely Know

The NY Times on a potential defeats impact on hospitals:

For the nation’s hospitals, at least, the cost of doing nothing in Washington translates into tens of billions of dollars each year in medical bills that go unpaid by patients with little or no insurance.

Nationwide, the cost of unpaid care for hospitals, which includes charity care as well as money that could not be collected from patients, was around $36 billion in 2008. It is expected to spiral higher. The number of people without insurance in this country could increase to as high as 58 million by 2014, from about 49 million now, according to an estimate by the Urban Institute.

No wonder hospital systems like Park Nicollet Health Services near Minneapolis worry about their futures if the health care legislation remains stalled.

“Our business model will continue to falter,” said Dr. David Abelson, chief executive of Park Nicollet, a not-for-profit system that runs a 426-bed hospital and a chain of clinics.

Park Nicollet has had to cut back services and lay off hundreds of employees as its level of uncompensated care rose — to $43 million last year, up from $29 million in 2007.

And the Times on how the landscape would change for drug makers:

With the possible demise of health care legislation, getting back to business as usual may not be the best thing for the nation’s drug makers.

After all, in return for the prospect of tens of millions of newly insured customers and a large degree of regulatory certainty, the pharmaceutical industry had agreed to pay a relatively small price: $8 billion a year in discounts and fees. It was a modest compromise for an industry with $246 billion in prescription drug sales last year.

But now, with the health care overhaul on a back burner in Washington and possibly dead for this year, drug makers are getting a sinking sense of how a piecemeal public policy future might look for them.

President Obama’s proposed budget this week, for example, includes a plan he alluded to in last week’s State of the Union address: a new tax on profits from some patents and other intangible assets parked in overseas tax havens by American companies.

For drug makers, which are among those most likely to be affected by such a tax, the president’s proposal “pretty much came out of the blue,” said Martin A. Sullivan, an economist formerly with the Treasury Department and Joint Committee on Taxation.

Another expert agreed. “Pharma’s one that would really get hit,” said Erik Gordon, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. “That’s a biggie.”

The industry giant Pfizer, for example, which has said that 88 percent of its $56 billion in income from 2004 through 2008 originated overseas, could be subject to the corporate 35 percent tax rate on at least some of its foreign profit in the future if the president’s proposal goes through.

Although the tax idea faced a cool reception from Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, it highlighted the risks to the drug industry of unpredictable election-year politics. It is a time when bolt-from-the-blue challenges may await drug makers, compared with the carefully mapped future they had worked out with the White House and the Senate under the health care legislation.

"For Human Spaceflight, Can Measured Beat Bold?"

NY Times:

President George W. Bush ... After the shuttle Columbia’s disaster in 2003, he introduced a “new vision” to revive the floundering space program. It included post-shuttle propulsion systems and crew-carrying vehicles. The goal was a return of astronauts to the Moon by 2020. Sometime after, to Mars.

But the costs of fighting wars while cutting taxes left little money to support the undertaking. Although several billion dollars have already been invested in advanced hardware, the goals seem illusory, and public support seems thin.

Once again, experience brought reminders, so often overlooked, that Apollo was not a realistic model for future endeavors in space exploration. Going to the Moon had been, above all, a campaign in the cold war. The Soviet Union was the feared adversary, even more so after the Sputnik surprise and after Yuri Gagarin’s flight made him the first man in space, in spring 1961.

Early on, the political scientist John M. Logsdon at George Washington University made a study of the decision-making process leading to Apollo. Dr. Logsdon concluded that Apollo was “a product of a specific time in history” and a singular crash program responding to a perceived threat to the country. It did not represent a firm commitment by society to open-ended space exploration.

Norman R. Augustine, an aerospace industry executive, acknowledged as much when he led a task force that contributed to the first President Bush’s proposals. “The heavy driver for the space program used to be competition with the Soviets,” Mr. Augustine said at the time. “Today, there is not that clear competition but the fundamental values of exploration that drive us. They are less tangible, but no less important.”

If one thing is clear and encouraging in President Obama’s proposals, it is the recognition of Apollo’s exceptionality. Mr. Augustine also served on the committee that advised Mr. Obama, and his point about the changing political matrix has apparently sunk in.

“We’ve been trying to relive Apollo for 40 years, unsuccessfully,” NASA’s deputy administrator, Lori B. Garver, said in an interview with editors and reporters of The New York Times. “For too long NASA overpromised and underdelivered, and now we will be doing things differently.”

That remains to be seen. Congressional committees have not begun to examine the proposals and the modest budget increases for NASA. The administration’s plan may be “bold and game-changing,” in Ms. Garver’s words, but several aspects are likely to stir controversy or at least call for closer study.

In contrast to the past, the new plan sets no definite timetables, cost estimates or destinations. Nor is there extravagant rhetoric about knowledge and adventure. The Kennedy eloquence about sailing “this new ocean” was effective primarily because the nation felt the need to demonstrate its technological superiority in war and peace.

The Average Amercian Spends As Much On "Home Connectedness" As Gasoline Or Eating Out

NY Times:

John Anderson and Sharon Rapoport estimate they spend $400 a month, or close to $5,000 a year, keeping their family of four entertained at home. There are the $30-a-month data plans on their BlackBerry Tour cellphones. The Roanoke, Va., couple’s teenage sons, Seth and Isaac, each have $50 subscriptions for Xbox Live and send thousands of texts each month on their cellphones, requiring their own data plans. DirecTV satellite service, high-speed Internet access and Netflix for movie nights add more.

“We try to be aware of it so it doesn’t get out of control,” said Mr. Anderson, who with his wife founded an advertising agency. “But, yeah, I would say we’re pretty wired.”

It used to be that a basic $25-a-month phone bill was your main telecommunications expense. But by 2004, the average American spent $770.95 annually on services like cable television, Internet connectivity and video games, according to data from the Census Bureau. By 2008, that number rose to $903, outstripping inflation. By the end of this year, it is expected to have grown to $997.07. Add another $1,000 or more for cellphone service and the average family is spending as much on entertainment over devices as they are on dining out or buying gasoline.

And those government figures do not take into account movies, music and television shows bought through iTunes, or the data plans that are increasingly mandatory for more sophisticated smartphones.

For many people, the subscriptions and services for entertainment and communications, which are more often now one and the same, have become indispensable necessities of life, on par with electricity, water and groceries. And for every new device, there seems to be yet another fee. Buyers of the more advanced Apple iPad, to cite the latest example, can buy unlimited data access for $30 a month from AT&T even if they already have a data plan from the carrier.

“You don’t really lump these expenses into a discretionary category,” said Robert H. Frank, an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. “As the expectation of connectedness increases, it’s what is expected for people to be functional in society.”

Americans are transforming their homes into entertainment hubs, which is driving up the amount of money they spend, said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

“More people are creating experiences in their homes that are very similar to the kinds of public experiences they enjoy in movie theaters and concert halls,” he said. “Our homes are bristling with technology.”

Most people think home entertainment is cheaper. “Every time I want to go to Fenway Park or see the Killers in concert, I’m paying $50 to $100 each time. But once you build and install that home system, its basically pennies per minute of enjoyment,” said James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research.

But they do not take into consideration the long-term economic effect — both in the maintenance and operational costs — of the devices they purchase. “A subscription model is the perfect drug,” Mr. McQuivey said. “People see $15 per month as a very low amount of money but it quickly adds up.” ...

Ms. Goodall says she dreads the day when her sons, 1 and 4, get bitten by the texting craze, as her 12-year-old nephew has.

“We’ll probably have to sign our sons up for cellphones even sooner than we’d like because we don’t have a home phone,” she said. “I’m not looking forward to dealing with that set of issues.”

Obama Calls The GOP's Bluff

NY Times (watch the interview):

President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.

Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do.

The move by Mr. Obama comes after weeks in which the administration has appeared uncertain about how to proceed on his top domestic priority since Republicans captured the Senate seat previously held by Senator Edward M. Kennedy. House and Senate Democrats had been increasingly at odds over what the bill should say, how to move ahead tactically and, in some cases, whether to continue at all.

The idea for the bipartisan meeting, set for Feb. 25, was reached in recent weeks, aides said, as part of the White House strategy to intensify its push to engage Congressional Republicans in policy negotiations, share the burden of governing and put more scrutiny on Republican initiatives.

Mr. Obama’s announcement came after he surprised his rivals in late January by requesting that a session with House Republicans be open to cameras. That meeting produced a spirited 90-minute question-and-answer session with the president that many in the White House viewed as a critical success for Mr. Obama.

In making the gesture on Sunday, Mr. Obama is in effect calling the hand of Republicans who had chastised him for not honoring a campaign pledge to hold health care deliberations in the open, broadcast by C-Span, and for not allowing Republicans at the bargaining table ...

The president offered a number of questions that his party would have for the Republicans.

“How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so that people with pre-existing conditions, for example, can get health care?” he said. “How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don’t have health insurance can get it? What are your ideas specifically?”

The question for Mr. Obama is how much — if at all — he is willing to give on some of the concepts Democrats have already agreed on, or if he is using the meeting to lay the groundwork for another effort by Democrats to push the legislation through without Republican votes.

Couric Interview: Obama Calls For Health Care Summit

Also see Obama Calls The GOP's Bluff.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

With Stimulus Money Gone, Many Schools Face A Budget Cliff

NY Times:

Federal stimulus money has helped avoid drastic cuts at public schools in most parts of the nation, at least so far. But with the federal money running out, many of the nation’s schools are approaching what officials are calling a “funding cliff.”

Congress included about $100 billion for education in the stimulus law last year to cushion the recession’s impact on schools and to help fuel an economic recovery. New studies show that many states will spend all or nearly all that is left between now and the end of this school term.

With state and local tax revenues still in decline, the end of the federal money will leave big holes in education budgets from Massachusetts and Florida to California and Washington, experts said.

“States are going to face a huge problem because they’ll have to find some way to replace these billions, either with cuts to their K-12 systems or by finding alternative revenues,” said Bruce Baker, an education professor at Rutgers University.

The stimulus program was the largest one-time infusion of federal education dollars to states and districts in the nation’s history. As the program took shape last year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and other officials repeatedly warned states and districts to avoid spending the money in ways that could lead to dislocations when the gush of federal money came to an end.

But from the start, those warnings seemed at odds with the stimulus law’s goal of jump-starting the economy, and the administration trumpeted last fall that school districts had used stimulus money to save, or create, some 250,000 education jobs.

Now the new studies point to the problems likely to beset thousands of school districts when the federal money runs out.

GOP Politicians "are going out there, they are unknowing of the facts, and they are making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality”

NY Times:

The White House pushed back Sunday against Republican criticism of its approach to terrorism, calling it “not anchored in reality” as a national security debate that was largely muted in recent years roared back to center stage with an angry intensity.

After a week of sustained attacks led by former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and a host of Congressional Republicans, President Obama and his aides argued that they were handling terror suspects much as the previous administration did, dismissing Republican complaints as politically motivated.

“The most important thing for the public to understand is we’re not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11,” Mr. Obama told CBS News on Sunday. “They prosecuted 190 folks in these Article Three courts,” he added, referring to civilian courts. “Got convictions. And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes.”

Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, was more scathing about the Republican criticism. “Quite frankly, I am tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football,” Mr. Brennan, a longtime Central Intelligence Agency officer, who also worked under President George W. Bush, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They are going out there, they are unknowing of the facts, and they are making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.”

The White House rebuttal came a day after Ms. Palin drew rousing applause at a convention of Tea Party activists by declaring that “we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law.” Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Ms. Palin followed up her critique of Mr. Obama by attacking what she called “this perceived lackadaisical approach that he has to dealing with the terrorists.”

The exchanges reflected a stark escalation in rhetoric in recent weeks as the uneasy truce on terrorism that existed at the beginning of the Obama presidency evaporated. The Republican critique of Mr. Obama as a Miranda-reading, soft-on-terror president attempts to tap into an historic vulnerability for Democrats, with midterm elections on the horizon and the president already on the defensive on a health care bill and the economy.

Strategists in both parties said the argument had gained new traction with the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner, the missed deadline for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the collapse of the plan for a trial in New York of the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Some Democrats worried that Mr. Obama was losing control of the issue politically.

“Terrorism has really become an issue again,” said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “It’s jumped to a much higher level because of the Christmas bomber that scared the willies out of people.” And, he added, “for the most part, the narrative has been taken out of the White House’s hands.”

Republicans said they were seeing growing alarm after a year of Mr. Obama’s policies. “People suspended judgment and wanted to let him play his hand,” Karl Rove, the former adviser to Mr. Bush, said of the president. But the Christmas Day bombing attempt “has caused doubts about how he is handling this to bubble to the surface.” ...

Don't Hold Your Breathe Waiting For The Filibuster To Go Away

Wash Post:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) chuckled as he recently reflected on his effort, five years ago, to change nearly century-old filibuster rules.

"God, that was a dumb idea," McConnell said.

Back in 2005, McConnell had "majority" in his leadership title, and Republicans -- confident about their majority status -- pushed unsuccessfully to obliterate filibusters of judicial nominees. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

A growing number of Democrats, from senatorial veterans such as Vice President Biden to freshman Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), are calling for a rules change that would transform the culture of long and sometimes tedious debate in the world's greatest deliberative body.

But these nascent efforts to curb the use of filibuster face resistance from Senate elders with long memories, who know that political winds can take today's large majority and create tomorrow's minority. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has not scheduled any debate on the issue.

First in 1917 and then in 1975, the Senate formally set up rules for "cloture motions," the name given to the parliamentary device to shut down debate. It requires the affirmative votes of 60 sitting senators.

The Constitution cites only five requirements for Senate supermajorities, including impeachment convictions of presidents, but allows the House and Senate to set their own rules. Under long-standing resolutions, the Senate considers itself to be a "continuing body" whose parliamentary rules remain in effect unless a two-thirds supermajority votes to change them.

The more authoritarian House, whose entire membership stands for election every two years, sets its rules at the start of each Congress by a majority vote.

Last Thursday's swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) ended the filibuster-proof majority that Democrats had held since July. This means all 59 members of the Democratic caucus would need the support of at least eight GOP senators to change filibuster rules, a tall order not likely to occur anytime soon. It also means that Republicans have the minimum number of votes, 41, needed to block President Obama's agenda.

Moments after administering the oath to Brown, Biden held court with reporters outside the Senate chamber, in which he had served for 36 years. He said he has tasked his staff to study the constitutional history of filibusters, to determine what steps could be taken.

"I've never seen a time when it's become, sort of, standard operating procedure," Biden said. "You want to get anything done, you have to have a supermajority. And I really mean this, unrelated to whether or not Barack and I are sitting down in the West Wing now. Any president in the future having to move through anything he or she wants, requiring a supermajority, it's not a good way to do business."

GOP In, Dems Out, Of Wall Street's $ Favor

If the Dems were politically astute, they'd make sure everyone disgusted with Wall Street's behavior or who believes the GOP's interest in the little guy is more than skin deep knew of this NY Times story. I'm not going to hold my breathe.

This year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry’s campaign to thwart Mr. Obama’s proposals for tighter financial regulations.

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

“If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,” said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.

“I understand the public outcry,” he continued. “We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up.”

[Kelly then went on to suggest that riled up people should eat cake.]

A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on its political action committee’s contributions or relations with the Democrats. But many Wall Street lobbyists and executives said they, too, were rethinking their giving.

“The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

After All These Years, Massachuestts' Renewable Energy, Wind Project is Still Becalmed

Wash Post:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar journeyed out into Nantucket Sound on a Coast Guard vessel last week to signal the Obama administration's readiness to put some muscle behind wind energy. To do that, Salazar has to resolve a battle over building a wind farm on 25 square miles of open water that has driven a rift between environmentalists, infuriated local Native Americans and threatened one of the administration's cherished priorities.

The nearly decade-long fight over whether to construct a 130-turbine offshore wind farm near Martha's Vineyard has spurred numerous state and federal regulatory reviews. It has cost millions in lobbying fees and has prompted an intense political debate on Cape Cod and in Washington, setting those who back renewable energy against those who want to preserve the natural beauty of Nantucket Sound.

"The worst thing we can do for the country is to be in a state of indecision, and this application has been in a state of indecision for a very long time," said Salazar, who came to see the proposed site of the Cape Wind project and to meet with tribes that oppose it.

With many other obstacles resolved, including the wind farm's potential hindrance to navigation and fishing and harm to birds, the tribes represent the project's latest challenge: They practice a sunrise ritual every morning on the sound and say they may have artifacts buried beneath the seabed. They have managed to qualify the sound for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, which could restrict its commercial use.

Salazar got up before dawn Tuesday to observe a site where the Mashpee Wampanoag's sunrise ceremony takes place before meeting with representatives of the Aquinnah and the Mashpee tribes.

He said that although his department is trying to broker a deal between the tribes and Energy Management, the company seeking to build the farm, "I'm not holding my breath for a consensus." And if the two sides cannot resolve their differences, he said, he will do it himself by April.

The venture stands as a critical test of whether the Obama administration, which views investing in renewable energy as key to reviving the economy and combating climate change, can launch the clean-energy revolution it has promised voters.

Ian Bowles, the Massachusetts energy and environmental affairs secretary, called the Cape Wind project "symbolic of America's struggle with clean energy. Its symbolism has risen above the number of megawatts."

Both sides agree that this offshore wind project, which would be the first in the United States and would furnish about 75 percent of Cape Cod's energy, shows just how hard it will be to construct wind farms off America's coasts.

Sunday Afternoon Relaxation: When The Opposite Is True

The Paradox Of American Financial Exceptionalism

NY Times:

The Debtor the World Still Bets On

For decades — through political upheaval and wars and wild bouts of deficits or inflation — the debt of the United States has always been rated AAA, the gold standard of creditworthiness by which all nations are compared.

That was true before President Obama published his budget on Monday, with its projections of huge American deficits over the next decade and beyond. Astoundingly or not, it was as true after those estimates were published. Of course, had it been the United States Widget Company projecting red ink as far as the eye could see, no one would lend it a dime.

The closest thing Washington got to a brush-back pitch was a warning from Moody’s, an investor service that rates the sovereign debt of nations: Without action to cut the deficit or a faster-than-expected recovery, the projections for the decade “will at some point put pressure on the triple-A government bond rating.” Nobody blinked — not Congress, not the White House, not the investors around the world who keep buying Treasury bonds to finance this year’s $1.6 trillion shortfall, at low interest rates.

What explains this oddity? Why is the world betting that the United States will overcome its political deadlock and solve its problems — believing, it seems, in the truth of Churchill’s biting quip that America will always do the right thing, after exhausting every other alternative? And how long can this aura of invincibility last?

Maybe a long, long time. One of the many things that makes the United States different is that it prints the world’s most important currency and can always print more — one reason investors in government debt remain confident they will be repaid, even if in dollars devalued by inflation or by changing exchange rates.

There is also value in being the one nation on which the world still depends for security. That helps explain why foreign investors, including China, can denounce American politicians, Wall Street bankers and sleepwalking regulators for creating the current mess — and still buy at the next Treasury auction.

This paradox of American financial exceptionalism was unusually clear last week. When the stock market shuddered on Thursday because of worries about national defaults, it wasn’t Washington’s mountain of debt that got everyone rattled. It was the plight of a handful of profligate spenders in Europe — notably Greece, Spain and Portugal — whose comparative foothills of debt suddenly made them dubious credit risks.

Each of those countries knows the meaning of “imperial overstretch.” But it’s been a few centuries since Madrid and Lisbon were centers of vast empires, and a lot longer for the Greeks. What brought them down this time was not global ambition but local gridlock, in which politicians could not, or would not, cut spending at a time of high unemployment and social need. Making things worse, they now are on the euro — meaning they can no longer print their own way out of the problem, either. And it is unclear whether their partners in the euro bloc can afford either to bail them out or to let them default.

“They have no easy option,” said Prof. Simon Johnson of M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. “They can cut spending or raise taxes.”

Their problems may be minor compared to those of Japan, a battered economic superpower that prints its own currency and whose newspapers, two decades ago, regularly published charts projecting when Japan might overtake America as the world’s biggest economy. The papers still run such charts, but now the question is when China will overtake Japan for the No. 2 spot (likely later this year).

Today, like Toyota, Japan’s government is having a braking problem — it can’t figure out how to slow spending on a rapidly aging population, and like everyone else has reacted to recession by hitting the spending accelerator.

But unlike America, Japan is no longer considered so indispensible.

Obama's Dilemma (cartoons)

He's got to execute a very tough maneuver

While relying on a very inept team

Has Hell Frozen Over? Fox News Calls McCain A Flip-Flopper Over DADT While Their Military Analyst Strongly Backs Repeal.

The clearest evidence yet that this policy is going to go ...

"I am not a hypocrite" Says The Politician As He Decries The Deficit While Resisting Cuts In His District

NY Times:

While Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, said he was all for slowing federal spending, he has no appetite for the substantial cuts in farm programs proposed in President Obama’s new budget.

Representative Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri, issued a press release simultaneously lamenting the deficit spending outlined in the new budget and protesting cuts in Pentagon projects important to his state.

And Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a fiscal conservative and a senior Republican on the Budget Committee, vowed to resist reductions in space program spending that would flow back home.

The positions of these Republicans — and similar stances by dozens of other lawmakers of both parties — are a telling illustration of why it is so hard to control federal spending. Every federal program has a constituency, and even lawmakers who profess to be alarmed by rising deficits will go to the mat to preserve money that provides jobs and benefits to their constituents.

“I am not a hypocrite,” Mr. Sessions said in reconciling his fiscally conservative credentials with his outrage over the administration’s proposal to essentially end the human space flight program and allow private enterprise to take on some of the load — an approach that Republicans typically favor.

Mr. Sessions said money taken from NASA would not be saved but would instead be directed to other Obama administration priorities that he did not support. He said his preference would be to set an overall spending limit and allow Congress to determine what programs should get the money. “Then we can debate it,” Mr. Sessions said.

Others said that the annual tableau in which members of Congress criticize the spread of red ink even as they reassure voters back home of protection for popular subsidies and Pentagon projects exposed the high degree of cynicism and lack of conviction that colors the fight over Congressional spending.

“It shows that in Washington, you can be firm on your opinions; it is your principles you can be flexible on,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

The Republican juggling act on spending comes after a legislative proposal for an independent commission to study ways to cut the deficit stalled in the Senate, partly because some Republicans who had originally backed the idea balked.

Sarah Palin Tea Bag Speech In Full

The Woman Who Doesn't Know What Her Priorities Would Be Is Running For President

Andrew Sullivan I:

Of Course She's Running For President

It's her divine mission, as she sees it. And it would be a function of "divine intervention" as she explicitly said last night.

Ambers, previously a skeptic, comes around. Given the complete lack of talent among GOP ranks and their universal fear of taking on Palin supporters, it seems obvious to me she will likely be the next GOP nominee. My hope, of course, is that this a) forces what was once a serious governing party to nominate a responsible fiscal conservative in the primaries and fight back against the madness; or b) drives every last sane conservative to realize they have no choice but to back Obama; or c) that Palin so alienates the GOP elites by primary challenges that they somehow manage to quash her and she runs as a "rogue" third party George Wallace style candidate, and helps re-elect Obama by an electoral college landslide.

This is so far into the future, of course, that it's pure speculation.

She may also implode as more scrutiny exposes who she  and her dangerous, radical and clearly controlling husband really are. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything in her past, any lie or scandal, that could at this point deter her supporters. If she were found guilty of a Watergate-level iniquity, they'd see it as a frame-up by the liberal elites (as many, remember, did Nixon). And those elites, out of cowardice and fear, never nipped this in the bud when they could have; and that bitter old cynic, McCain, gave her the platform she needed. 

So we have here a truly Coughlinite movement, headed by an Eva Peron figure, eager to use the Dolchstoss card to bring out the kind of voters Rove always believed could eventually crush even the most mobilized democratic GOTV operation.

Know fear.

Andrew Sullivan II:

Palin's Cheat Sheet

Having mocked president Obama for using a TelePrompter - not long after he made mincemeat of Republicans with no such TelePrompter at their retreat - she had to scribble down her priorities as president on her palm for the truly tough-as-nails Q and A she had to endure for ten minutes or so last night.

Written on her hand:

"Energy"

"Budget [crossed out] (Cuts)"

"Tax"

"Lift American spirits"

My favorite detail is "[Budget] Cuts". Which just about sums up the real Tea Party agenda on spending. But it also suggests that she was told in advance of the questions she would be asked, one of which was what would be you priorities if you were elected president? Now think about this: she had to write on her hand her priorities as president.

 

Tea Partiers Try To Control Themselves

NY Times:

At the inaugural National Tea Party Convention here this weekend, gone were the placards that protesters carried last year with Mr. Obama’s face wearing a Hitler mustache or superimposed on the Joker. Gone, really, were any placards, unless you count the poster of Sarah Palin in her signature red jacket that hung from one of the wrought-iron balconies of the Opryland Hotel and Convention Center.

Organizers said that anyone “looking too crazy” would have been tossed out. They had a goal that turned out to be shared by pretty much everyone here: to turn the Tea Party into a serious political force, rather than the angry fringe group they say it had been branded as.

“The movement is maturing,” said Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, the social networking site that sponsored the convention. “The rallies were good for last year, because that’s what we could do last year. This year we have to change things. We have got to win.”

The goal is a electing a conservative Congress in 2010 and a conservative president in 2012. To that end, organizers announced the formation of a political action committee that they say could steer $10 million to conservative challengers this year.

And the convention tried to channel anger into what Mr. Phillips called “Electioneering 101.” “What we want people to do is to leave here connected with other activists so they can recruit good candidates, get candidates exposed to the voters and get voters to the polls,” he said. “If we just go out and hold signs and protest, that’s not going to win the election.”

Despite the convention and its neat PowerPoint presentations, the movement that began a year ago to protest government bailouts and health care legislation showed signs this weekend that it is still inchoate, diverse and almost defiantly leaderless.

“This movement doesn’t need a leader,” said Anthony Shreeve of the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, which did not take part this weekend but staged a counter news conference outside. “It’s a ‘We the People’ movement.”

More DADT Cartoons