A Blue View

New Dem Theme For November: "On health-care reform, on student loans and (soon) on financial regulations, Democrats fought off the moneyed interests in defense of the little guy"

Dana Millbank:

... it was a chance for the president, just back from the political dead, to test some themes for this fall's midterm campaigns.

"This day affirms our ability to overcome the challenges of our politics and meet the challenges of our time," Obama, in triumphant mode, told the NoVa audience. "When I took office, one of the questions we needed to answer was whether it was still possible to make government responsive to the needs of everyday people . . . or whether the special interests and their lobbyists would continue to hold sway." Obama, on the basis of "two major victories in one week," felt confident enough to claim success.

The president's celebration may be premature. A USA Today/Gallup poll out Tuesday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the health-care law costs too much and expands the government's role too much. Although other polls have shown a jump in Obama's popularity, Gallup found that Obama's disapproval rating climbed to 50 percent for the first time.

But there is no doubt that the conventional wisdom in the capital has done a 180 in recent days. Had Obama failed on health-care reform, the end of his presidency would have been proclaimed. Instead, he has been restored as ruler of all he surveys, and he's acting as such.

Over the weekend, he dashed off to Afghanistan for an unscheduled visit; on his return, he lectured Hamid Karzai, suggesting on the "Today" show that the Afghan president heed "the fierce urgency of now" -- a Martin Luther King Jr. phrase adopted by Obama's presidential campaign. At home, Obama has taken on an increasingly confident tone, telling those who would repeal the health-care law to "go for it," the way George W. Bush said of Iraqi insurgents: "Bring 'em on."

Obama's approval rating at NoVa on Tuesday was undoubtedly higher than it was in the Gallup poll. In the front row was his new ally Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), a far-left congressman who was posing for pictures with admirers. About two dozen lawmakers, including Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), filled the first two rows. The students, nearly equaled in number by congressional staffers and interest group activists, gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a thunderous ovation when she took the stage. The crowd even applauded the man who came out to make sure the teleprompter was working ...

The president spared few words for the health-care component of the bill, devoting more than 10 times as much to an add-on provision: the student loan change that is supposed to save billions by cutting out banks as the middlemen.

Obama portrayed the change as the culmination of an epic struggle, "for almost two decades" and against an "army" of lobbyists. "I didn't stand with the banks and the financial industries in this fight," he said, auditioning the populist message that he and Democrats hope to take to voters in November. "Neither did any of the members of Congress who are here today. We stood with you."

What emerged on Tuesday was a single, coherent theme: on health-care reform, on student loans and (soon) on financial regulations, Democrats fought off the moneyed interests in defense of the little guy.

"From the moment I was sworn into office, I've spoken about the urgent need for us to lay a new foundation for our economy and for our future," Obama said. Now, "we can rightly say the foundation on which America's future will be built is stronger than it was one year ago."

GOP Leaders Beginning To Lose Their Nerve (aka, come to their senses) About Health Repeal

Pity the poor GOP stuck between a rock and a hard place, both of their own making. From the Wash Post:

Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that's roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama's new health care law.

It's fine to criticize the health law and the way Democrats pushed it through Congress without a single GOP vote, these party leaders say. But focusing on its outright repeal carries two big risks.

Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade. More important, say strategists from both parties, a fiercely repeal-the-bill stance might prove far less popular in a general election than in a conservative-dominated GOP primary, especially in states such as Illinois and California.

Democrats are counting on that scenario. They say more Americans will learn of the new law's benefits over time and anger over its messy legislative pedigree will fade. For months, Democrats have eagerly catalogued Republican congressional candidates who pledge to repeal the health care law, vowing to make them pay in November.

Republican leaders are stepping cautiously, wary of angering staunchly conservative voters bent on repealing the new law. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit ...

On Tuesday, Cornyn issued a 1,280-word campaign memo that mentioned "repeal" only once. It did not advocate repeal but noted that in a recent poll, "46 percent of respondents support a full repeal" of the health law.

Three weeks ago, Cornyn told reporters he thought GOP Senate candidates would and should run on a platform of repealing the legislation.

Cornyn and others increasingly are focused on several corporations' claims that a provision of the new law that cancels a tax benefit will hurt profits and hiring. This approach places a greater premium on pivoting to the economy instead of dwelling on the legalistic process of trying to repeal the complex law.

"The health care debate provides a natural segue into talking about the economy and jobs," said Nicklaus Simpson, spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference, a policy group ...

Obama said last week he would relish a Republican bid to repeal the new law.

"My attitude is, go for it," Obama said in Iowa on Friday. "If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest."

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an interview that his team began months ago pressing Republican candidates to state whether they support repeal of the health care legislation. Most of them have, and Democrats predict such support will prove unpopular this fall.

"We believe the issue of repeal is one that puts the Republicans in a pretty sticky place," Menendez said. "You never want to wage a campaign telling voters you want to take something away from them."

The Fight To Shape U.S. Health Care Enters New "Blunt It" Phase

The Wall St Journal reports the fight is, far from being over, just beginning:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is planning a broad effort to blunt the health overhaul by trying to shape its regulatory language and spending heavily to unseat vulnerable Democrats who voted for it.

The campaign is the latest example of the escalating tensions between proponents of the health overhaul and big businesses, which have become more specific in their criticisms of the new law ...

In a letter to board members Monday, chamber president and chief executive Thomas J. Donohue said the business lobby will seek changes to regulations to "minimize the potentially harmful impacts of this bill on our members and the country." If regulators "exceed legislative mandates or try for end-runs around the lawful rule-making process," he wrote, the chamber "will take legal action."

Mr. Donohue also said the group planned to spend $50 million this summer and fall to ensure that voters in pivotal House and Senate races know where lawmakers stand on health and other big issues. The chamber spent $36.4 million in the 2008 election.

At the heart of the effort will be a team of chamber staff that will "participate in the years-long process of writing the thousands of pages of federal regulations that will implement the many provisions of this legislation," Mr. Donohue wrote.

While the chamber can't actually write those provisions, it can lobby for certain language and technical corrections.

Other major lobbies are readying similar efforts. Although the legislation contains more than 2,000 pages of provisions, many details are left to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to define, and will require more specific regulatory language.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry's main lobbying group, has formed a task force to coordinate its implementation efforts and plans to give its input as officials draw up the regulations.

The American Medical Association, which represents doctors, hopes to shape provisions including a new panel to impose Medicare payment cuts, as well as increased research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments, according to a spokeswoman for the group.

Major groups that supported the bill also plan to spend heavily on the 2010 elections. The AFL-CIO labor organization plans to surpass the $53 million it spent during the 2008 elections in this year's fall races.

Meanwhile, Families USA, a liberal advocacy group, has teamed with insurers to launch an educational campaign that will help people sign up for insurance at places like doctors' offices and pharmacies.

Obama Signs Student Loan Overhaul Law

NY Times:

President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday to expand college access for millions of young Americans by revamping the federal student loan program in what he called “one of the most significant investments in higher education since the G.I. Bill.”

Mr. Obama went to a community college where the wife of his vice president teaches to draw attention to the student loan overhaul attached to the final piece of health care legislation that passed last week. In signing the bill, Mr. Obama put the final touches on his health care program but used the occasion to highlight the education provisions.

“That’s two major victories in one week,” he told students and guests at the Alexandria campus of Northern Virginia Community College, where Jill Biden teaches English. While he praised the health care overhaul, the president said, “what’s gotten overlooked amid all the hoopla, all the drama of last week, is what’s happened with education.”

The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.

The law will increase Pell grants along with inflation in the next few years, which should raise the maximum grant to $5,975 from $5,550 by 2017, according to the White House, and it will also provide 820,000 more grants by 2020.

Students who borrow money starting in July 2014 will be allowed to cap repayments at 10 percent of income above a basic living allowance, instead of 15 percent. Moreover, if they keep up payments, their balances will be forgiven after 20 years instead of 25 years — or after 10 years if they are in public service, like teaching, nursing or serving in the military.

Mr. Obama portrayed the overhaul of the student loan program as a triumph over an “army of lobbyists,” singling out Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, which he said spent $3 million on lobbying to stop the changes. “For almost two decades, we’ve been trying to fix a sweetheart deal in federal law that essentially gave billions of dollars to banks,” he said. The money, he said, “was spent padding student lenders’ pockets.”

Insurers Cave & Agree To Cover Kid's Pre-Existing Conditions

Instructive what a little spine can do, no? From the NY Times:

Under pressure from the White House, health insurance companies said Tuesday that they would comply with rules to be issued soon by the Obama administration requiring them to cover children with pre-existing medical problems.

“Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,” said Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Accordingly, she said, “we await and will fully comply with” the rules.

Ms. Ignagni made the commitment in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who had said she feared that some insurers might exploit a possible ambiguity in the new health care law to deny coverage to some sick children.

The White House immediately claimed victory.

In a Twitter message, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, scored the tug of war as “Kids 1, insurance 0.”

Major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Some, including a ban on “pre-existing condition exclusions” for children under 19, take effect in September. The law does not explicitly say that insurers must sell insurance to families with such children this year, but Democratic Congressional leaders and White House officials said that was their intent.

To eliminate any ambiguity, Ms. Sebelius said, she will issue rules defining the scope of the new law.

Under these rules, Ms. Sebelius said, “children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan,” and “insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child but exclude treatments for that child’s pre-existing condition.”

In response to a question, Nick Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the rules would require insurers to offer coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, including those who have never had health insurance.

Ms. Sebelius said she was pleased that “insurance companies plan to do the right thing.”

It was not immediately clear whether the rules would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to families with children with pre-existing conditions. Administration officials said they would be monitoring any rate increases.

Some Democrats in Congress want Mr. Obama to take a tough line. If insurers could raise premiums without limits, they would, in effect, be denying coverage, Democrats say.

Obama To Open Vast Off-Shore Tracts To Oil Drilling

NY Times:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.

The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.

Maybe You Can't Patent DNA After All

Patenting a diagnostic test I understand. Patenting the gene that is being tested for, seems contrary to patent law (where's the "invention"?).  Now, at least one District Court judge agrees with me. From the NY Times:

On Monday, Mr. Sweet, a United States district judge in Manhattan, ruled that parts of patents held by Myriad Genetics covering two breast cancer genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were invalid.

Myriad analyzes those genes in an expensive test that predicts whether a woman is at a high risk of getting breast or ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs in the case, which included various medical groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the patents on DNA were illegal and impeded access to the testing.

The decision invalidating the gene patents stunned many lawyers who follow such issues.

“It’s really quite a dramatic holding that would have the effect of invalidating many, many patents on which the biotechnology industry has invested considerable money,” said Rebecca S. Eisenberg, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has written widely on gene patents.

The Genomics Law Report, an Internet journal, called the decision “radical and astonishing in its sweep.” It headlined its article, “Pigs Fly.”

Although patents are not granted on things found in nature, the DNA being patented had long been considered a chemical that was isolated from, and different from, what was found in nature. But Judge Sweet ruled that the distinguishing feature of DNA is its information content, its conveyance of the genetic code. And in that regard, he wrote, the isolated DNA “is not markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature.”

The immediate impact will be limited in part because the decision, made in a district court, does not apply to gene patents other than the ones it considered, and its value as precedent for other courts is limited.

Moreover, Myriad said Tuesday that it would appeal, and several lawyers said they expected the ruling to be overturned. Professor Eisenberg said “there isn’t a whole lot of doctrinal support” for considering DNA as information rather than as a chemical.

Even before an appeal is decided, the landscape could change in a way that would render the Myriad case moot. A ruling is expected soon from the Supreme Court in the so-called Bilski case. That case does not directly concern gene patents — it is about a fight over a method of hedging risk in commodities trading — but it gives the Supreme Court a chance to set new standards on what is patentable.

“We are still waiting, holding our breath for the Bilski case,” said Kari Stefansson, head of research at DeCode Genetics, which sells disease risk tests similar to those sold by Myriad.

If Judge Sweet’s decision were upheld on appeal, the impact could be more far-reaching. The biggest impact would be on companies like Myriad and Athena Diagnostics that offer diagnostic tests based on genes.

Some biotechnology investors and executives say that lack of patent protection for DNA could diminish investment and remove incentives to develop tests. That could slow the move toward so-called personalized medicine, in which genetic tests are used to determine which drugs are best for which patients.

James P. Evans, a professor of genetics at the University of North Carolina, said that would not necessarily be the case. There is thriving competition in areas like testing for mutations that cause cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease, even though no company has exclusivity.

“It’s quite demonstrable that in the diagnostic area, one does not need gene patents in order to see robust development of these tests,” he said.

"Obama Steps Up Confrontation"

Wall St Journal:

President Barack Obama, after a year of fitfully searching for compromise, is taking a more aggressive tack with his Republican adversaries, hoping to energize Democratic voters and possibly muscle in some Republican support in Congress.

On Thursday, the president challenged Republicans who planned to campaign on repealing his health-care bill with, "Go for it." Two days later, he made 15 senior appointments without Senate consent, including a union lawyer whose nomination had been blocked by a filibuster.

At a bill-signing event Tuesday, he is set to laud passage of higher-education legislation that was approved despite Republican objections through a parliamentary maneuver that neutralized the party's filibuster threat.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama will be in Maine, home state of two moderate Republican senators who opposed his health-care plan, to promote the health law.

Even his surprise trip to Afghanistan on Sunday mobilized the perks of the presidency to marshal public opinion, as pictures were beamed home of Mr. Obama mobbed by U.S. troops.

A senior Democratic official said the push was a textbook case of taking advantage of political momentum as the campaign season begins. Republicans are "on the defensive," the official said, "and as long as they're not cooperating, we ought to keep them there."

Republicans say Mr. Obama's overtures to them have been for show, whether it was his January meeting with House Republicans in Baltimore or last month's televised, bipartisan health-care summit.

The partisanship "may be more visible, and he may be more resolute about it, but as far as most of us are concerned, this is business as usual," said Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the Republican leadership. But Mr. Alexander said the recent moves are broader ...

Recently, Mr. Obama has been swinging particularly hard. He followed up his "go for it" taunt Thursday with the recess appointment of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, adopting a tactic that presidents of both parties have used in recent decades to skirt the normal confirmation process. Mr. Becker's confirmation had been blocked in the Senate by a filibuster in February.

Mitt Romney Hypocritically Touts His Health Plan While Dissing Obama's Nearly Identical Plan

Boston Globe:

Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts, even as he pointed to crucial distinctions between it and a similar national program enacted last week by Democrats.

"Overall, ours is a model that works,’’ Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. “We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution. Why is it that President Obama is stepping in and saying ‘one size fits all’ ’’?

Obama’s signing of a federal health care law has put Romney — a possible 2012 presidential candidate — again on the defensive over the most significant achievement in his brief career in public office. The former governor, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate again for president in 2012, had labeled Obama’s bill “unhealthy for America’’ and has called for its repeal, even as conservative critics say it was modeled on Romney’s policy.

Yesterday, Romney proudly acknowledged that his bill included a set of new insurance regulations that “President Obama always likes to talk about in his health care plan — the good stuff.’’ Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama’s plan.

The accounting of “some similarities’’ and “some differences’’ between the two systems was a more delicate comparison than Romney has offered recently, when he wholly rejected the idea that the two had anything significant in common.

“People often compare his plan to the Massachusetts plan,’’ Romney said in an interview last month. “They’re as different as night and day. There are some words that sound the same, but our plan is based on states solving our issues; his is based on a one-size-fits-all plan.’’

In the last week, many health care policy specialists, Democrats celebrating the bill’s passage, and Republicans condemning it have come to another conclusion. The difference between the two systems, they say, is slim.

“Basically, it’s the same thing,’’ said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs. A national health overhaul would not have happened if Mitt Romney had not made “the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.’’

After Congress last week passed the national plan, considered the most expansive social legislation to become law in nearly a half-century, Romney wrote it was an “unconscionable abuse of power’’ that “will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt.’’ Romney’s political action committee, a leading supporter of Republican candidates nationwide, has begun a campaign to support those who voted no as part of what it calls a “Prescription to Repeal.’’

"Sebelius to insurers: Make my day"

Ezra Klein:

The health-care story of the day is that insurers think they've found a way to get around getting around Congress's intent to ban preexisting condition discrimination for children. Details here. This afternoon, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter (pdf) to Karen Ignagni, head of the insurers trade association, saying, essentially, are you sure you want to try this?

In the letter, Sebelius says that she will issue regulations clarifying that the law says children cannot be denied access to their parents' plan and that the plan cannot exclude coverage for their preexisting conditions. "I urge you to share this information with your members," Sebelius says, "and to help ensure they cease any attempt to deny coverage to some of the youngest and most vulnerable Americans."

The politics -- and policy -- of this fight will be interesting. For the Republicans, this is a good issue in that it makes the bill look shoddily written. "If they can’t get these two things right," Sen. Mitch McConnell asked in his weekly radio address, "how can we expect them to properly manage the rest of it?"

Oddly, this is also a good issue for the Democrats. Why? Well, it lets them pick a fight with insurers who are trying to deny health-care coverage to sick little kids. Ignagni might as well kick an endangered puppy-panda hybrid in the face. On national television. While rooting for Duke to win the NCAA tournament.

The losers here are actually the insurers. As far as I can tell, their reading of the law is legitimate. And they have a lot to lose from a fight with the administration. It's not obvious that Sebelius actually can change this with a stroke of her pen, but there are plenty of other things she can do with a stroke of her pen that will make the insurance industry's life very, very difficult. And since this policy actually isn't a very big deal -- fairly few kids are uninsured because their preexisting conditions are keeping them off their parents' plan -- I'd guess that the administration and the insurers reach some sort of accord on this.

Ezra was right. The insurers quickly caved.

Special Corporate Interests Bemoan The Loss Of Their Lobbyist Given Tax Breaks

Poor, poor corporate giants. The favored megacorps are decrying the loss of a special tax break that they get on top of a subsidy and is available only to them, according to the NY Times:

An association representing 300 large corporations urged President Obama and Congress on Monday to repeal a provision of the health care overhaul that prompted AT&T, Caterpillar and other companies to announce substantial charges for the current quarter.

The association, the American Benefits Council, said the provision — which reduces the tax deductions for companies with drug coverage for their retired employees — would deal a significant blow to corporate profits and would discourage companies from hiring more workers.

AT&T announced last week that it was taking a $1 billion charge because of the provision. Deere & Company announced a $150 million charge, Caterpillar a $100 million charge, and 3M a $90 million charge.

Many companies said they were taking these charges now, before the current quarter ended, to comply with accounting rules. But some corporate critics asserted that the companies’ rapid response to the health legislation was aimed at pressing the administration to repeal the provision.

James A. Klein, the president of the American Benefits Council, called the provision “a serious mistake that is having negative and unintended consequences.”

White House officials defended the provision, saying it was a deliberate effort to eliminate what they said was an unusually generous tax loophole.

They said the overall health care overhaul would save businesses more than $150 billion over the next decade by reducing health care inflation.

“We’re confident that the benefits are going to accrue and strengthen business’s bottom line,” said Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Health Reform Office.

When Congress and President George W. Bush enacted a prescription drug plan for seniors in 2003, the legislation encouraged companies to continue providing prescription coverage to retirees, instead of shifting retirees to Medicare Part D, by having the government give those companies large subsidies for each retiree — and also allowing them to deduct those subsidies from their income taxes.

Under the health care overhaul, the federal government will continue providing those subsidies — amounting to 28 percent of a drug plan’s costs — but companies will lose the tax break.

In a telephone news conference on Monday, Mr. Klein cited a study by Towers Watson, a consulting firm, saying the loss of the deduction would cost companies $14 billion in future years.

“Particularly in this economic environment, it makes no sense to impose this type of a hit on companies’ financial statements,” Mr. Klein said. The provision takes effect in 2013, but accounting rules require companies to take immediate charges equal to the current value of any known hit to future profits.

Defending the provision, White House officials said it was rare for companies to obtain a tax-free federal subsidy and be able to deduct it as well.

These officials added that the health care legislation contained a $5 billion subsidy for companies that maintain health plans to early retirees.

Voyeurgate

NY Times:

The Republican National Committee on Monday opened an investigation into why party money, which donors contributed to help win seats in the midterm elections, was used to pay a $2,000 tab at a risqué Hollywood club in late January.

The outing at Voyeur in West Hollywood, which features topless dancers and acts involving bondage, appeared on the Republicans’ monthly disclosure report to the Federal Election Commission, along with tens of thousands of dollars for private airplanes, limousines and luxury hotels.

“It was obviously improper — for more than one reason,” said Doug Heye, a party spokesman, who confirmed that officials had opened an inquiry into the club expenditure. “It was not a sanctioned R.N.C. activity. It was improper because of the venue.”

A Republican National Committee staff member, who was not identified, was dismissed for his role in the incident, Mr. Heye said Monday evening. He added that “accounting and reimbursement processes are being revised” to prevent similar episodes from occurring.

As Republicans try to win control of the House and Senate in this midterm election year, several party officials and contributors have privately raised concerns about the financial disparities with Democrats. The Republican Congressional re-election committees have fallen behind their Democratic rivals, a fund-raising gap that party leaders had hoped would be narrowed by the Republican National Committee.

Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., a Republican consultant and donor, submitted a reimbursement request for $1,946.25 from his club visit on Jan. 31. He listed the amount as a meal expense at the club, whose interior was inspired by an orgy scene in the movie “Eyes Wide Shut.” When the expenditure came to light on Monday, after it was reported by The Daily Caller, a conservative online publication, party officials said Mr. Brown would repay the money.

Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, has battled criticism for his spending habits. He has drawn consternation from party officials for delivering paid speeches across the country ...  Mr. Heye said Mr. Steele was aboard a flight from the party’s winter meeting at the time of the nightclub outing and was not involved. An interview request with Mr. Steele on Monday was declined ...

The February filings to the Federal Election Commission show that the Republican committee spent $17,500 on travel by private jet, in addition to about $15,000 on limousines. The report also listed several hotel charges ranging in the thousands of dollars, including the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000), the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000) and the Four Seasons in Philadelphia ($7,000).

Mr. Heye said the expenses were simply the cost of doing business and raising money. He said that Mr. Steele’s travel was “overwhelmingly on commercial airlines — that is the standard mode.” But he added, “There are times when there is a route that doesn’t exist.”

When Mr. Steele took over the committee last year, it had $22 million in cash on hand. This month, records show, that amount is $9.46 million.

In a radio interview earlier this year, Mr. Steele brushed aside criticism of the party’s spending, as well as assertions that some contributors had stopped donating or lowered their contributions.

Mr. Steele told KTRS radio in St. Louis: “I am in this chair. If they want it, take it from me. Until then, shut up, step back and get in the game and help us win.”

A New York Times review of the Democratic National Committee spending in the month of February found that the party spent about $11,000 on car services and limousines, with the largest expense being $9,800 for a private car service in Dallas. Other expenditures included a $32,000 bill at the Capital Skyline Hotel in Washington, for what party officials said was a weeklong staff retreat, and $256,000 on catering and equipment rental at the Washington Hilton for the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee.

The Democratic National Committee seized on the Republican financial report on Monday. A spokesman for the party, Brad Woodhouse, said: “If limos, chartered aircraft and sex clubs are where they think their donors’ money should be spent, who are we to judge?”

Uninsured Americans Are "predominantly independent". Could Dems Enjoy Electoral Benefits For Years To Come?

According to Gallup, "Americans who lack health insurance are predominantly independent in their political orientation. Given this, the health care reform effort could enable the Democrats to tap into this population for greater support in coming elections":

Uninsured Americans -- those who stand to benefit the most from health care reform -- are less Democratic and more independent than one might assume. Nearly half of the uninsured, compared with roughly a third of Americans with private insurance or Medicare, are politically independent.

Given this finding from Gallup Daily tracking in March, passing healthcare legislation did not merely cater to the Democrats' base, but could potentially expand it among the uninsured themselves, who may now have more reason to support Democrats. Gallup polling immediately after the healthcare vote found 58% of uninsured Americans, compared with 45% of insured Americans, favoring the bill.

The net effect among all independents won't necessarily be positive, however, as nearly 80% of that group currently has health insurance, and independents are almost evenly split on whether passage of the healthcare bill was a good thing or a bad thing.

Although the uninsured are clearly younger, on average, than the insured, age alone does not account for the tendency of the uninsured to be politically independent. At every age level, those without health insurance are more likely to be independent and less likely to be Republican than their insured counterparts.

"Tea-Party Candidates Face Hard Reality of Campaigns"

Wall St Journal:

Jason Meade of New Franklin, Ohio, is among hundreds of political hopefuls looking to ride the "tea party" wave to Washington this year. Like most, he's finding it a tough go.

Mr. Meade is running in the Republican primary in Ohio's 13th Congressional District against five candidates while juggling a 50-hour workweek at a plastics plant. His headquarters "is in the second-floor living room in the corner where the computer is," he says. His campaign has $3,000 to its name.

Mr. Meade's experience goes to the heart of a debate roiling the nascent movement: Should it back fervent long shots who hew to its antigovernment views, or should it rally around more traditional candidates, even if they don't perfectly reflect the movement's distaste for incumbents, taxes and spending?

The question is being asked as homegrown candidates confront brute realities of politics: reluctant donors, limited party support, inexperienced staffers and the uphill fight against incumbents

Grassroots support remains vigorous, as evidenced by the thousands of tea-party activists who gathered Saturday in Searchlight, Nev., to protest the health-care law and urge the ouster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Yet despite thronging primary races across the U.S., true tea-party candidates have stumbled at the polls. In the March 2 Texas primary, 18 incumbent Republican House members faced multiple challengers, including a flock of tea-party faithful. The incumbents won handily, with only one garnering below 60% of the vote.

Nor has a surge in Republican candidates translated into higher contributions. On average, Republican primary challengers have raised 37% less than Democratic counterparts, Federal Election Commission records show. Republican candidates for Congress have raised $294 million through 2009, nearly $30 million less than the Democrats, even though twice as many Republicans are running.

"The problem with the tea-party movement is it has inspired too many candidates," says Patrick Hughes, a candidate with tea-party backing who was trounced by Rep. Mark Kirk in the crowded Illinois Republican Senate primary. "The movement will fail if it can't coalesce behind candidates who can win."

Organizers hope public anger over President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul will help tea-party candidates who fiercely opposed the plan. Many are now promising to help repeal the law if they win, and are using the bill to try to drum up support from donors ...

"This is great news for us," says Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The DCCC has launched a Web site to highlight divisions in the GOP primaries.

"The most promising cost control in the ... Act is the one that takes much of the responsibility for controlling costs away from Congress and hands it off to an independent board of experts"

Ezra Klein:

It is a sad commentary on Congress that the most promising cost control in the Affordable Care Act is the one that takes much of the responsibility for controlling costs away from Congress and hands it off to an independent board of experts. That board -- officially known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- has made it through to the final bill, and in substantially stronger form than I, for one, expected. The House had always been more skeptical of the idea, but then the Senate bill became everybody's bill and the energy on changing it shifted to the big-ticket items such as affordability and surviving reconciliation. The result was that a strong version of IPAB slipped through almost unnoticed.

The IPAB is a 15-person, full-time board composed of health-care experts and stakeholders. Members need to be confirmed by the Senate and will serve six-year terms, with one possible reappointment. But the important thing isn't who serves. It's how they vote. Or, as the case may be, don't vote.

If Congress approves the board's recommendations and the president signs them, they go into effect. If Congress does not vote on the board's recommendations, they still go into effect. If Congress votes against the board's recommendations but the president vetoes and Congress can't find the two-thirds necessary to overturn the veto, the recommendations go into effect. It's only if Congress votes them down and the president agrees that the recommendations die. “I believe this commission is the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve,” says Peter Orszag, who's been one of the idea's most enthusiastic supporters.

The board will propose packages of reforms that bring Medicare in line with certain spending targets. Those reforms won't increase cost sharing or taxes and they won't change eligibility or benefits. Instead, they're reforms of what Medicare pays for and how it pays for it. By 2018, the target growth rate is the average five-year increase in GDP plus one percentage point. So if GDP has been growing at 3 percent, the target is 4 percent. If Medicare's growth is faster than that, then the board is charged with saving the lesser of 1) the difference between the target growth rate and the real growth rate, or 2) 1.5 percentage points off the projected growth rate.

There are some weaknesses in the board. If Congress can find 60 votes, it can amend the board's recommendations without finding offsetting savings elsewhere. The board can't seriously change payment rates until 2018. And if Medicare is growing more slowly than the rest of the health-insurance market, then Congress can protect it from the board every other year (so it would have to save more money in, say, 2020, but not in 2021).

Nevertheless, this is the most powerful cost-cutting agency we've seen. For all those folks saying Congress can't stick to cuts, this is the closest thing to a solution that anyone's come up with. It gives Congress a way to let someone else take on the hard decisions that it doesn't have the expertise or political will to make. If Congress so chooses, it could let the IPAB do its work without ever bringing the recommendations up for a vote: They'd still go into effect, and no one would be on the record in either direction.

As a commentary on Congress, is all this a bit sad, and even weird? Yes. But it may also be necessary. And it will be interesting to see how it interacts with the private market: You could see the reforms that get seeded into Medicare being adopted by everyone else (which is common even now). And if Medicare does bring its costs far down while private insurance finds itself unable to make meaningful changes, pressure could increase for some sort of Medicare buy-in program along the lines of what Alan Grayson is proposing.

The bottom line is that IPAB creates a continuous system for controlling costs in Medicare and trying out new reforms and experiments. For all those disappointed by Congress's fecklessness when it came to cost controls in the Affordable Care Act, know that Congress actually agrees with you, and is trying to do something about it. Or at least let someone else do something about it.

Some Insurers Are Trying To Weasel Out Of Covering Children With Pre-Exsiting Conditions

NY Times:

Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

The issue is one of many that federal officials are tackling as they prepare to carry out the law, with a huge stream of new rules, official guidance and brochures to educate the public. Their decisions will have major practical implications.

Insurers say they often limit coverage of pre-existing conditions under policies sold in the individual insurance market. Thus, for example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but exclude treatment of that condition from the policy.

The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then.

Consumer advocates worry that instead of refusing to cover treatment for a specific pre-existing condition, an insurer might simply deny coverage for the child or the family.

“If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place,” said Karen L. Pollitz, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concern.

“I would like to see the kids covered,” said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. “But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19.”

A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.” But lawyers said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it.

Poll: "Health-care overhaul leaves Democrats in stable condition"

Wash Post:

After steering the landmark health-care reform bill through Congress, the Democratic Party's leaders have emerged mostly unscathed, according to a new Washington Post poll (Health Reform Is Major Shift; Divide Remains Deep; Majority Of Dems Now 'Strongly Support' It), but they have not received a notable boost in approval ratings.

Shifts among core constituencies suggest that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) may have reaped some benefit from the legislation's passage, but the public's take on the Democratic Party has not budged, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) appears to be losing popularity. None of the central players in passing health-care reform appears to be winning favor with the bill's opponents.

Views on Pelosi tilt negative but are closely divided, with 42 percent approving of the way she is handling her job as speaker, and 46 percent disapproving, in line with her ratings in a January Post-ABC News poll. Although her overall rating is stable, the survey finds the speaker gained in strong support among Democrats, liberals and those who support the reform package.

In a follow-up interview, poll respondent John Murtha, 52, of Orlando said: "I think she did good. I think she does what her job is, and that's to pull together her people, and get it passed. That would've been a hard job if she wasn't a good, effective speaker."

There has been no such bump for the Democrats' leader in the Senate. Reid's overall approval rating has ticked downward, from 35 percent in January to 29 percent now, and among Democrats, it has dipped from 57 percent to 45 percent. With Reid facing a stiff challenge in his reelection bid, approval in the Western states -- his home region -- has dropped to 23 percent. Not all of this decline corresponds with an increase in disapproval, however, as one-quarter of people express no opinion about the majority leader, up from 18 percent in January.

The poll shows that approval of Obama's handling of health-care reform climbed five percentage points, to 48 percent, after the bill's passage, boosted by a 10-point increase among those who support the changes. Overall, strong approval of Obama on the issue rose nine percentage points, to 33 percent, with strong disapproval remaining higher, at 43 percent.

The share of Americans who say Obama has brought needed change to Washington edged up in the poll, to 54 percent from 50 percent at the beginning of the year. The increase comes largely among Democrats and those who voted for Obama in 2008, perhaps signaling a retrenchment among his core supporters.

Barbara Cornell, 58, a poll respondent from Yukon, Okla., said she thinks Obama has followed through on his campaign promise of change. "He's stepped up, finally, and made a move," she said. "I feel like the Democrats are doing something very proactive, and it reinforces my view of that and unfortunately reinforces my negative view of Republicans and how they are really being stubborn."

The passage of the health-care legislation may be a pivotal point for those backers: Nine in 10 who support the reform package say Obama has brought needed change, up from 78 percent in January. Opponents of the bill see it differently, with nearly eight in 10 saying the president has failed to deliver change to Washington, and six in 10 among that group saying he is unwilling to listen to different points of view.

More broadly, Obama has not made gains outside of his core supporters in overall approval rating or on several central attributes. About two-thirds consider him a strong leader, and 56 percent say he "understands the problems of people like you," both about the same as in January. A broad majority (68 percent) say he is willing to listen to different points of view, though that has dropped more than 20 percentage points since the 100-day mark of his presidency.

Sunday Afternoon Relaxation

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

"Obama: A Giant-Killer, Feeling His Oats"

NY Times (for more on how Obama's new stance on Israel, see The Israeli Left Blames Netanyahu & Wants American Pressure To Force Change. And for more evidence of his new tougher stance with the GOP, see this.):

Is this it, then? He hath slain the health-care Goliath. Does that mean, a year and a half into the job, that President Obama has acquired the political savvy and tactical confidence to take on other juggernauts?

Amidst all the euphoria at the White House last week, that question hovered; and not just in Washington. More than a dozen foreign leaders called to congratulate Mr. Obama on his historic achievement. Editorial pages around the world lauded Mr. Obama — a British magazine swooned that he could perhaps “out achieve” even Franklin Roosevelt. A Financial Times cartoon depicted Mr. Obama as Superman.

But, at the risk of killing the White House buzz, remember President Bush’s Mission Accomplished appearance on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? Political fortunes can turn quickly, especially since, in Mr. Obama’s case, he still has another two and a half years to go in his first term — plenty of time for other things to go wrong that could stain his presidency.

The trick now for Mr. Obama, presidential scholars say, will be to turn the lessons he has learned in the health care fight to the other big, intractable issues that loom, from climate change to unemployment, to Iran, and even to the ultimate behemoth that has bedeviled American presidents since 1967: Middle East peace.

We’ll come back to that in a second.

Mr. Obama could retire into the history books, many presidential scholars say, on the health care achievement alone. But there is a swagger emanating from the White House that suggests he may now have acquired a liking for the benefits of sticking his neck out to lead.

Just days after the health vote, Mr. Obama completed a landmark arms control accord with Russia that had eluded negotiators for months. The Start agreement took far more time to reach than Mr. Obama had expected, exceeding the deadline by four months. But in the end, Russia backed down on the last contentious point. That was after Mr. Obama refused to yield to Russian demands on missile defense, even though he risked missing another looming deadline, the nuclear security summit he will host in April.

“Had Obama lost the health care vote, he would have been politically damaged,” said David Rothkopf, a Clinton administration official now who writes on foreign policy. “And that would have had an effect on everything else. But the major transformational consequence of winning isn’t a political boost, but the fact that he is now learning on the job. The message is that he is starting to come of age as a leader.”

How Mr. Obama applies the lessons of health care to other issues will be a big part of determining his success, many presidential historians say. Tenacity isn’t necessarily enough; there has to be patience and a willingness, at some point, to draw a line in the sand.

The Next Big Democractic Push: Financial Reform

Noam Scheiber on the big next Democratic push Obama has planned and how it could play to their electoral advantage in November:

Pretty much no one who follows the regulatory reform issue can quite believe the sudden change. In the span of a few days, reform has evolved from one of those debates newspaper editorialists have among themselves to Washington’s NEXT BIG PUSH. Clearly much of this derives from the parties’ changing fortunes, as Democrats bask in the glory of their health care victory and Republicans suddenly lack self-esteem. Indeed, try to recall the last time a GOP senator lacerated his party for blowing a chance at bipartisanship, as Tennessee Senator Bob Corker did on reg reform this week, and you begin to understand how far we’ve come.

The key shift is arguably the one that’s taken place at the White House. Prior to late last week, it wasn’t entirely clear whether the White House actually wanted a bill this year, or whether it simply wanted to bloody Republicans over their opposition to reform. But, as health care began to look like a fait accompli, the White House seemed to subtly change its posture. One administration official says it wasn’t so much that the White House was ambivalent, as that it was massively preoccupied with health care--and that it wasn’t sure until recently that a solid bill was achievable. “We didn’t want to do the thing … where you cut a deal here and there with every special interest available,” says the official. Whatever the case, the shift was as palpable as it was significant: Another official was impressed that the president delivered a radio address about reforming Wall Street last Saturday, the day before the most historic health care vote in 45 years.

... on Wednesday, Obama told Dodd and his House counterpart, Barney Frank, that he could more or less live with either version, according to an official knowledgeable about the meeting. (Though he stressed that he’d like to combine the toughest elements of both, as with an exemption from derivatives regulation for non-financial companies, which is stricter in Dodd’s bill.) Mostly, he just encouraged them to press ahead, emphasizing the win-win dynamic at work. If Republicans dig in, the president argued, that’s a fight he’d welcome. (Administration officials have seen polling suggesting the public will assume Republicans are carrying Wall Street’s water, regardless of their arguments.) And if Republicans want to join in the effort to rein in Wall Street—well, no one at the White House would turn down a big, bipartisan victory. 

The Health Legislation "is an incremental bill with a comprehensive vision tucked inside ... the work of realizing that vision starts now. "

Ezra Klein:

As someone who has spent the past year tangled in the minutia of excise taxes and curve bending and subsidy levels, it is good to finally say this: With the passage of the reconciliation fixes, the health-care reform debate is finally over. But if you're thrilled to hear that, then I also have some bad news: Health-care reform itself is just beginning.

This bill marks an evolution, not a revolution, for our health-care system. Whether it proves the cornerstone of a better, fairer, more affordable system or simply another expansion of the federal welfare state has as much to do with what happens when the law is implemented as with what's written in the legislation.

The system will not change in a year. Even by 2014, when it is broadly implemented, life will not change for most people. This is not single-payer (though you wouldn't know it listening to the GOP) or the ambitious Wyden-Bennett reforms. Come 2019, about 10 percent of Americans will have a different insurance arrangement than they would have had without the bill. Most of us won't notice any difference.

But right around then, the system could go one of two ways. The key is the regulated insurance exchanges. They are where the bill's most transformative reforms happen: Risk-adjustment payments so insurers aren't penalized for having sicker customers, regulations so they can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and transparency requirements so individuals can see the full cost of insurance plans and compare them based on quality and satisfaction measures.

The GOP's Failed Strategy (cartoon)

Seeds Of Historic Victory Planted 11 Months Ago In Obscure Budget Rules

It's good to have a smart President & team that thinks ahead. NY Times:

Just a few months into his first term in 1993, President Bill Clinton went to Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the protector of Senate rules, to ask permission to use a fast-track budget process known as reconciliation to enact a bold health care overhaul.

The president did not get the senator’s consent, and he did not get a health care law, either.

Members of the Obama administration who were veterans of the Clinton health care collapse were not about to make that mistake twice.

“The No. 1 lesson from 1993,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a former Clinton aide, “was to make sure you could use reconciliation for health care and education.”

Last April, Mr. Emanuel and Peter R. Orszag, the administration’s budget guru, went to Capitol Hill to press Senate Democrats to make sure the budget then being written would provide the ability to approve a health care bill with the simple Senate majority that reconciliation requires.

Democrats, led by Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, were skeptical, uncertain that the budget reconciliation process could even be employed that way. Hoping the theory would never be tested, Democrats inserted the procedural fail-safe in the budget document, allowing special protection for legislation covering health and education as long as it cut the deficit.

After a series of wild political twists and turns, that procedural emergency exit turned out to be essential to enacting the health care legislation after all.

“It worked out,” a beaming Mr. Conrad said on Thursday, minutes after the Senate disposed of the budget reconciliation bill and concluded its acrimonious health care debate.

But it did not work out as anyone had foreseen.

Early in the game, Democrats were talking about using the budget process to move the entire health care overhaul only if they could not corral the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

It was mainly a last-ditch contingency, one fraught with political difficulties. The mere mention of reconciliation drew howls of protests from Republicans who, though they relied on it to advance tax cuts in the past, said Democrats were preparing to abuse the process.

The Senate fight was of little import to the House, where the power of the majority negated the need for such a procedural shortcut. “It’s really an issue more for the United States Senate,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at the time.

As they studied the emerging health policy, Mr. Conrad and others became increasingly dubious that such a complex change could be considered under the tight reconciliation rules.

Democrats never reached that point. With the arrival of Senator Al Franken from Minnesota in July, they attained 60 votes in the Senate. One month later, conservative opposition to health care changes raged at summer town-hall-style meetings. Democrats concluded that they were unlikely to win any Republican support for their preferred health care approach.

Over four messy months of deal-cutting and hand-holding, Senate Democrats pulled together their 60 votes and passed the legislation on Christmas Eve without resorting to reconciliation. It appeared the special authority would not be needed.

Then, before the House and Senate could work out differences in their individual health bills, the political ground shook: Scott Brown was elected the new Republican senator from Massachusetts, and Democrats lost their 60th vote. Now what?

Poll: Health Reform Is Major Shift; Divide Remains Deep; Majority Of Dems Now 'Strongly Support' It

Wash Post (Poll data):

Americans overwhelmingly see the new health-care law as a major shift in the direction of the country, but they remain as deeply divided today over the changes as they were throughout the long congressional debate, according to a Washington Post poll.

In the days since President Obama signed the farthest-reaching piece of social welfare legislation in four decades, overall public opinion has changed little, with continuing broad public skepticism about the effects of the new law and more than a quarter of Americans seeing neither side as making a good-faith effort to cooperate on the issue.

Overall, 46 percent of those polled said they support the changes in the new law; 50 percent oppose them. That is virtually identical to the pre-vote split on the proposals and similar to the divide that has existed since last summer, when the country became sharply polarized over the president's most ambitious domestic initiative.

The health-care debate galvanized the country to a remarkable extent. About a quarter of all adults say they tried to contact their elected representatives in Congress about health care in recent months, including nearly half of those who say they are "angry" about the changes. In general, opponents of the measure were more than twice as likely as supporters to say they had made the effort.

But there are signs that Democrats have started to rally, with the party's base firming up after intense internal battles over a public insurance option and provisions covering abortion funding. Fifty-six percent of Democrats now "strongly support" the recently enacted health-care changes; last month, 41 percent were solidly behind the proposals. Eight in 10 Democrats now approve of the way Obama is handling health care, the most since last summer.

Obama's overall approval rating is at 53 percent in the poll, about the same as it has been in Post-ABC polls in the past several months; 43 percent disapprove.

Obama has renewed his effort to sell the legislation to the public ahead of the November midterm elections, with more rallies planned this week. His success could be crucial to Democratic fortunes in this fall's midterm elections, with about six in 10 saying the congressional votes on health care will be a factor in their choice at the ballot box.

At this point, Democrats hold a razor-slim edge (47 to 43 percent) on the "generic ballot," the question about which party's candidate people support in their local districts. Independents, who swung solidly for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008, now divide 42 percent for the GOP candidate and 39 percent for the Democrat.

Democratic officials have long argued that once the debate ended and health-care legislation was enacted, the public would begin to see the changes in a far-more-favorable light. The new poll suggests that the president and his party still face significant obstacles in this new phase of the debate.

Passions remain strongest among the plan's detractors, as 26 percent of all adults said they are angry about the changes enacted by Congress, up from 18 percent in August. That includes 54 percent of all Republicans. Fewer Americans, 15 percent, said they are enthusiastic about the new measure, including 40 percent of liberal Democrats.

Among opponents, there is near-universal support (86 percent) for efforts to cancel the changes either through a new vote in Congress or through the courts. Since passage, Republican leaders have called for repeal of the new law and replacement with more modest changes ...

Democratic Governors At Odds With Republican Attorneys General

NY Times:

Reflecting the bitter partisan divide over health care, governors in at least six states are at war with attorneys general from the other political party about whether to join litigation challenging the new federal health insurance mandate.

In four states — Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington — Democratic governors are criticizing Republican attorneys general for joining the lawsuit over their objections. On Friday, those governors wrote to the federal attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to offer their assistance in defending the new law against the litigation filed by their own states.

In Georgia and Mississippi, meanwhile, Republican governors are chafing at the reluctance of Democratic attorneys general to join the lawsuit on their behalf. They are exploring ways to circumvent their states’ top legal officers and join the case anyway.

The disputes carry a heavy overlay of election-year politics. Not only are Democrats and Republicans supporting the positions of their national parties, but three of the attorneys general are running to succeed the governors they are battling, and a fourth is considering a race in 2012. Each faces a primary that requires appealing to the party base.

A New Tradition At The White House: A Seder

 

NY Times:

One evening in April 2008, three low-level staff members from the Obama presidential campaign — a baggage handler, a videographer and an advance man — gathered in the windowless basement of a Pennsylvania hotel for an improvised Passover Seder.

Susan Sher, who is now Michelle Obama's chief of staff, at the White House Seder last year.

The day had been long, the hour was late, and the young men had not been home in months. So they had cadged some matzo and Manischewitz wine, hoping to create some semblance of the holiday.

Suddenly they heard a familiar voice. “Hey, is this the Seder?” Barack Obama asked, entering the room.

So begins the story of the Obama Seder, now one of the newest, most intimate and least likely of White House traditions. When Passover begins at sunset on Monday evening, Mr. Obama and about 20 others will gather for a ritual that neither the rabbinic sages nor the founding fathers would recognize.

In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration “Next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)

Top aides like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend. White House chefs will prepare Jewish participants’ family recipes, even rendering chicken fat — better known as schmaltz — for just the right matzo ball flavor.

If last year is any guide, Malia and Sasha Obama will take on the duties of Jewish children, asking four questions about the night’s purpose — along with a few of their own — and scrambling to find matzo hidden in the gleaming antique furniture.

That event was the first presidential Seder, and also probably “the first time in history that gefilte fish had been placed on White House dishware,” said Eric Lesser, the former baggage handler, who organizes each year’s ritual.

As in many Jewish households, the Obama Seder seems to take on new meaning each year, depending on what is happening in the world and in participants’ lives (for this group, the former is often the same as the latter).

The first one took place at the bleakest point of the campaign, the long prelude to the Pennsylvania primary, which was dominated by a furor over Mr. Obama’s former pastor. “We were in the desert, so to speak,” remembered Arun Chaudhary, then and now Mr. Obama’s videographer, who grew up attending Seders with his half-Jewish, half-Indian family.

The Israeli Left Blames Netanyahu & Wants American Pressure To Force Change

Two excerpts from Israel's Haaertz newspaper. The first is from an Aluf Benn column on 25 Mar on Netanyahu's diasterous U.S. visit:

The prime minister erred in choosing to fly to the United States this week. The visit - touted as a fence-mending effort, a bid to strengthen the tenuous ties between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama - only highlighted the deep rift between the American and Israeli administrations.

The prime minister leaves America disgraced, isolated, and altogether weaker than when he came ...

At the start of his visit, Netanyahu was tempted to bask in the warm welcome he received at the AIPAC conference, at which he gave his emotional address on Jerusalem ...

Netanyahu almost believed the crisis had passed, that he had survived by offering partial, noncommittal answers to the Americans' questions. Shortly before meeting with Obama, Netanyahu even warned the Palestinians that should they continue to demand a freeze on construction, he would postpone peace talks by a year.

His arrogant tone underscored the fact that Netanyahu believed that on the strength of his AIPAC speech, he could call the next few steps of the diplomatic dance.

But then calamity struck. At their White House meeting, Obama made clear to his guest that the letter Netanyahu had sent was insufficient and returned it for further corrections. Instead of a reception as a guest of honor, Netanyahu was treated as a problem child, an army private ordered to do laps around the base for slipping up at roll call.

The revolution in the Americans' behavior is clear to all. On Sunday morning Obama was still anxiously looking ahead to the House of Representatives vote on health care - the last thing he wanted was a last-minute disagreement with congressmen over ties with Israel.

The moment the bill was passed, however, a victorious Obama was free to deal with his unruly guest.
Instead of setting the diplomatic agenda, Netanyahu surrendered control over it. Instead of leaving the Palestinian issue aside and focusing on Iran, as he would like, Netanyahu now finds himself fighting for the legitimacy of Israeli control over East Jerusalem ...

The Americans made every effort to downplay the visit. As during his last visit in November, Netanyahu was invited to the White House at a late hour, without media coverage or a press conference. If that were not enough, the White House spokesman challenged Netanyahu's observation at AIPAC that "Jerusalem is not a settlement."

The Americans didn't even wait for him to leave Washington to make their disagreement known. It was not the behavior Washington shows an ally, but the kind it shows an annoyance ...

Returning to Israel today, Netanyahu will need to work hard to rehabilitate his image, knowing full well that Obama will not relent, but instead demand that he stop zigzagging and decide, once and for all, whether he stands with America or with the settlers.

And the second is from Zvi Bar'el on how Netanyahu is "endangering Israel's security":

If there's a photo the White House should issue after Benjamin Netanyahu's visit, it's a group portrait of the prime minister, his Iraqi counterpart and the president of Afghanistan embracing Barack Obama together.

They are all heads of governments attached to the U.S.'s umbilical cord. They all experience insecurity in the region, and the world is concerned about each of the three's security. Washington manages domestic policy for each of them, since each poses a danger to American foreign policy. In Iraq, Washington is involved in disagreements among Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. In Afghanistan, Washington dictates conditions to the president to help advance its war against Al-Qaida. And when it comes to Israel, the United States showed clearly last week that it will not allow domestic Israeli politics to interfere with American foreign policy.

The group photo is a fitting picture of how Israel's situation has deteriorated during Netanyahu's short term in office. We're not talking about yet another clumsy Israeli foreign minister whom no one wants to meet, or irksome building permits. Netanyahu poses a threat to Israeli security because he tips the balance of U.S.-Israeli relations, which are essential for our survival. And not only these relations. If Washington gives Israel the cold shoulder, it will be showing the way for other important countries, from Britain to Egypt and Brazil to Turkey, to do the same. Israel is no longer an exotic citron, but has been exposed as just another lemon.
    

"Mr. Obama is on track to secure passage of three out of the four pillars ... that ... will stabilize a middle class that has been falling behind for two decades"

Wall St Journal:

President Barack Obama returned Thursday to the city where he launched his health care plan nearly three years ago to sell the final product, part of a broader economic agenda that is gaining legislative steam in Washington.

But the people he says his policies are targeted to—the middle class—are the ones he appears to be losing

Mr. Obama is on track to secure passage of three out of the four pillars of his New Foundation, an economic edifice that the president’s economists say will stabilize a middle class that has been falling behind for two decades.

In a campaign-like rally at the University of Iowa, the president urged his supporters to stay the course. “From creating jobs to reducing the deficit to giving every child a decent education, we still face enormous challenges in this country,” he said. He urged the crowd to respond in the spirit of a campaign theme: “Yes, we can.’’

Among a segment of the middle class, another response has brewed: Please don’t.

“Yes, we need health-care reform, but why couldn’t we have taken it step by step?” asked Kitty Rehberg, a 71-year-old farmer from nearby Rowley, who held a colonial-era American flag as she protested near Mr. Obama’s speech. She said the president’s policies would cost her “a lot from my pocket book” to help people who “just want freebies.”

That was never the intention, White House economists say. Unlike the New Deal and the Great Society, Mr. Obama’s policies are not about building a safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable, they say, but about fortifying the positions of those with jobs and income.

“It’s all about economic security,” said Jared Bernstein, a White House economist.

The health plan is aimed largely at workers who have been losing or could lose their employer-based insurance, either because their long-time workplaces have cut back or because increasing economic churn has left no workplace stable.

His higher-education initiative, which received final congressional approval Thursday night, focuses largely on lowering the cost of borrowing for parents and students who are finding college out of reach.

The financial overhaul, the next big legislative push, is in part about ending the boom-and-bust business cycles that have put middle-class workers on a roller coaster of wealth creation and destruction, White House aides say.

Even Mr. Obama’s energy and climate change program, the one piece of his puzzle that is languishing, has been sold as a creator of well-paying jobs that cannot be exported, a pitch aimed at a middle class rocked by off-shoring and the decline of manufacturing.

Weekly Radio Address: "Two Major Reforms on Health Care & Higher Ed"

WhiteHouse.gov:

The President looks back on a week that saw the passage of two major sets of reforms: one putting Americans in control of their own health care, and one ensuring student loans work for students and families, not as subsidies for bankers and middlemen.

The Evolving Media Meme: Obama Is Like LBJ After All. First Health Care, Now Nuclear Deal W/Russia

NY Times:

President Obama was angry. He was on the phone with President Dmitri A. Medvedev last month to finalize a new arms control treaty with Russia, only to be confronted with new demands for concessions on missile defense. A deal that was supposed to be done was unraveling.

President Obama and Michael McFaul, the president’s top adviser on Russia, listen during a phone call with President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia on Feb. 24.

“Dmitri, we agreed,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev with a tone of exasperation, according to advisers. “We can’t do this. If it means we’re going to walk away from this treaty and not get it done, so be it. But we’re not going to go down this path.”

Mr. Obama hung up and vented frustration. Some of his advisers had never seen him so mad. A picture taken by a White House photographer captured his grim face in that moment of uncertainty. For a year he had been trying to forge a new relationship with Russia, starting with a treaty to slash nuclear arsenals. And for a year Russia had been testing him, suspecting he was weak and certain it could roll over him.

If Mr. Obama overestimated his powers of persuasion in reaching quick agreement with the Russians, they misjudged how far they could get him to bend. In the end, they compromised on nonbinding language. And so, after all the fits and starts, all the miscalculations, the vodka toasts that proved premature and the stare-downs that nearly sank the whole enterprise, Mr. Obama hung up the phone again with Mr. Medvedev on Friday, this time having finally translated aspiration into agreement.

The president then stepped before cameras to tell the world that next month the United States and Russia would sign a “new Start” treaty paring back their still formidable nuclear arsenals, cutting the legal limits on deployed strategic warheads by 30 percent and on launchers by half. Just as important, it will establish an inspection regime to replace one that expired in December.

The announcement culminated a negotiation that sprawled across time and space in ways that Mr. Obama hardly expected when he kicked it off, a process that dragged on four months past its deadline and leapt from London to Moscow to Geneva to Singapore to Copenhagen to Washington. For a new president, the effort became a crucible of diplomacy and a tutorial in the complexities of international security.

This account of how Mr. Obama reached agreement is based on interviews with American officials and Russian insiders, many of whom requested anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations. It is a story with twists and turns that included 10 rounds of talks by full-time negotiators in Geneva but ultimately kept coming around to intense personal negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev, who met or talked by telephone 14 times to hash through disputes.

“When President Obama’s domestic positions were weakened in recent months and he was completely consumed in his crusade for health care reform, making all other issues irrelevant, it is surprising how much attention he kept on Start,” said Sergei M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies in Moscow, referring to the treaty. “Even being 24-hours-a-day busy on health reform, he had a 25th hour for Start.”

And a 26th and maybe a 27th.

“It’s been much harder than we anticipated,” said a senior Obama administration official involved in the process. “We thought it would be relatively easy.”

It was not. <Continue reading.>

Weiner To O'Reilly: "You gotta stop making stuff up about the bill"

Under New Law, States That Provided More Health Care (Ma, Wi) Will Do Much Better Than Those That Didn't (Tx, Az, Al)

It pays to be ahead of the curve and have done the right thing. States that already provide an extensive health care safety net will have to do less to bring all the new uninsured into the system than the generally GOP states that did not. NY Times:

Because of the new health care law, Arizona lawmakers must now find a way to maintain insurance coverage for 350,000 children and adults that they slashed just last week to help close a $2.6 billion budget deficit.

Louisiana officials say a reduction in federal money to hospitals that treat the uninsured under the bill could be a death knell for their state-run charity hospital system.

In California, policymakers estimate they will have to come up with an additional $500 million a year to make necessary increases in payments to Medicaid providers.

Across the country, state officials are wading through the minutiae of the health care overhaul to understand just how their governments will be affected. Even with much still to be digested, it is clear the law may be as much of a burden to some state budgets as it is a boon to uninsured consumers.

States with the largest uninsured populations, like Texas and California, might be considered by its backers the biggest winners to emerge from the law, because so many additional residents will have access to health insurance. But because those states are being required to significantly expand their Medicaid programs, they are precisely the ones that will face the biggest financial strains, in many cases magnified by existing budget shortfalls.

“The federal government has to account for states’ inability to sustain our current programs, much less expand,” said Kim Belshé, secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

In contrast, states like Massachusetts and Wisconsin, which already have extensive health care safety nets, do not expect to spend much more money, while still taking in billions in federal grants.

In Massachusetts, for example, which already has a form of universal coverage, the federal government will wind up taking over from the state a significantly larger share of the costs of Medicaid coverage for adults without children, officials said.

“On balance, it’s definitely a gain,” said JudyAnn Bigby, secretary of the Massachusetts Office of Health and Human Services.

Supporters of the new law have argued that states will benefit from efforts to slow health care inflation and billions of dollars in new federal spending on subsidies for the uninsured and on an array of programs like community health centers.

But even with more federal help, the challenge for states like Alabama, Arkansas and Texas that now offer only limited Medicaid coverage will be substantial. In these states, Medicaid has been mostly restricted to low-income families with children, pregnant women, certain people with disabilities and some elderly. The income cutoffs have also been extremely low.

"Patriot" & GOP Reaction To Health Reform (Cartoons)

Saving The Big Banks Was The Right Thing To Do For The Economy. Turns Out, It Was Also Very Profitable.

It seems like the Wall St bailout is going to be very profitable for the US Government. Wash Post:

Among the banks that rule Wall Street, Citigroup got a bailout that was bigger than the rest. Now the company is about to pay a king's ransom for its federal rescue.

The Obama administration is making final preparations to sell its stake in the New York bank, according to industry and federal sources. At today's prices, the sale would net more than $8 billion, by far the largest profit returned from any firm that accepted bailout funds, and the transaction would be the second-largest stock sale in history.

On paper, the government's 27 percent stake has grown in value to $33 billion. The size of the deal in the works has Wall Street buzzing. Only the stock offering by Japan's Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, which raised $36.8 billion in 1987, was larger, according to Thomson Reuters.

Leading financial firms, including J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, are vying to be chosen as the deal's underwriters to gain the prestige of managing a historic stock sale as well as the fees from investors who buy the shares. To improve their chances, some banks, such as Goldman Sachs, are offering their services to the Treasury Department at almost no cost, industry officials familiar with the matter said.

The windfall expected from the stock sale would amount to a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic, when the banking system neared the brink of collapse. A year ago, Citigroup's stock hovered around a dollar a share, and the bank's future seemed in doubt. On Friday, the stock closed at $4.31.

If the sale proceeds as planned, Citigroup would be able to cut nearly all of its ties to the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program. Meanwhile, the administration could highlight the profit generated from the rescue of big banks.

"It's unprecedented to do [a stock sale] of this size right after the financial industry has been so battered," said an industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. "It's just a very bullish sign."

Google Stands Up To China (cartoon)

 

"Obama to GOP on health-care repeal: 'Go for it'"

Wash Post:

An exuberant President Obama dared his Republican critics Thursday to campaign this fall on a platform to repeal his health-care law, urging them to "go for it."

"If they want to have that fight, we can have it," Obama told an audience of 3,200 people packed into the University of Iowa Field House.

"I don't believe that the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat," he said. "We've already been there. We're not going back. This country is moving forward."

And so is the White House, which had hardly finished celebrating the health-care victory before shifting into high gear on a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, aggressive regulation of the financial industry, changes to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and planning for the possibility of another Supreme Court vacancy.

The White House is eager to return to a focus on jobs and the economy by casting Republicans as the party standing with big banks and financial institutions. On Friday, officials plan to announce a new effort to help the unemployed with their mortgage payments as part of a broader effort to address the continuing foreclosure crisis.

With the health-care victory in hand, the president will also be freer to pursue his foreign policy goals. On Friday, the White House will formally announce that the United States and Russia have reached agreement on a new treaty to reduce the stockpile of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. The agreement is a key step toward Obama's campaign promise of a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama's appearance here was his first outside Washington since he signed health-care legislation into law, perhaps his most important domestic achievement since taking office 14 months ago. His half-hour speech served as the unofficial opening of his election-year campaign on behalf of that signature issue and, by extension, his anxious party.

Obama characterized the measure as both a historic achievement and a "middle-of-the-road" reform, implicitly offering Democrats a formula for explaining the law to skeptical voters in November. He also attempted to lower expectations over how quickly Americans will see the effect of a law that will be phased in over four years.

Interrupted often by applause, Obama evoked some of the same populist themes he used in the weeks leading up to the health-care vote. He sounded frustrated in those appearances, as he railed against Republican recalcitrance, special-interest lobbying and the political culture of Washington that he says treats public policy as a sporting event.

But on Thursday he electrified a college-town crowd with a winner's bravado, signaling to congressional Democrats that their success in passing health care is something to run on, not away from.

"From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers -- they're going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn't," Obama said.

Obama won Iowa in 2008, but the political climate here has turned sharply against Democrats amid rising unemployment and anti-Washington sentiment.

The Right Begins To Eat Its Own

Fearing donor anger, David Frum's criticism of the GOP ("The GOP's Waterloo") was apparently a bit too much to take:

Three days after calling health-care reform a debacle for Republicans, David Frum was forced out of his job at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday.

The ouster also came one day after a harsh Wall Street Journal editorial ripped the former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, saying he "now makes his living as the media's go-to basher of fellow Republicans" and accusing him of "peddling bad revisionist history."

Frum made clear, in a letter to AEI President Arthur C. Brooks, that his departure after seven years as a resident fellow at the conservative think tank was not voluntary. "I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute," he wrote, "and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship."

In a brief interview, Frum said "there was no suggestion by AEI" that his sharp criticism of the GOP's health-care strategy was the reason for his dismissal. He declined to say what Brooks told him.

"They invited me to remain associated with AEI on a non-salaried basis," Frum said, and he declined ...

Brooks said in a statement that while AEI will not discuss personnel matters, "David Frum is a truly original thinker and we are proud to have been associated with him for the last seven years. His decision to leave in no way diminishes our respect for him."

Bruce Bartlett, another conservative scholar who has been at odds with the right, wrote that Frum told him AEI staffers "had been ordered not to speak to the media" about health care "because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do. . . . The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line."

"Sweeping health care overhaul" Is Complete: Both Chambers Approve Reconciliation Bill

NY Times:

Congress on Thursday gave final approval to a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care overhaul, capping a bitter partisan battle over the most far-reaching social legislation in nearly half a century.

The bill, which Democratic leaders hailed as a landmark achievement, now goes to President Obama for his signature.

“The American people have waited for this moment for a century,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said at a news conference. “This, of course, was a health bill. But it is also a jobs bill, an economic recovery bill, was a deficit-reduction bill, was an antidiscrimination bill. It was truly a bill of rights. And now it is the law of the land.”

In a fitting finale to the yearlong health care saga, the budget reconciliation measure that included the final changes was approved first by the Senate and then by the House on a tumultuous day at the Capitol, as lawmakers raced to complete their work ahead of a two-week recess.

The final House vote was 220 to 207, and the Senate vote was 56 to 43, with the Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers.

The reconciliation bill makes numerous revisions to many of the central provisions in the measure adopted by the Senate on Dec. 24, including changes in the levels of subsidies that will help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance, as well as changes to the increase in the Medicare payroll tax that will take effect in 2013 and help pay for the legislation.

The bill also delays the start of a new tax on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance policies to 2018 and raises the thresholds at which policies are hit by the tax, reflecting a deal struck by the White House and organized labor leaders. It also includes changes to close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole, and to clarify a provision requiring insurers to allow adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

Many of the changes were intended to address the concerns of House Democrats, as well as to bridge differences between the original House and Senate bills and to incorporate additional provisions sought by Mr. Obama ...

The Senate voted after running through an obstacle course of Republican amendments and procedural objections, which kept lawmakers working through Wednesday night until 3:30 a.m. Thursday.

Republicans, raising procedural challenges, identified small flaws that struck out two minor provisions. Those changes forced the bill to be sent back to the House one more time.

Historic Overhaul Of Higher Ed Aid Also Becomes Law Of The Land

NY Times:

Ending one of the fiercest lobbying fights in Washington, Congress voted Thursday to force commercial banks out of the federal student loan market, cutting off billions of dollars in profits in a sweeping restructuring of financial-aid programs and redirecting most of the money to new education initiatives.

The revamping of student-loan programs was included in — if overshadowed by — the final health care package. The vote was 56 to 43 in the Senate and 220 to 207 in the House, with Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers.

Since the bank-based loan program began in 1965, commercial banks like Sallie Mae and Nelnet have received guaranteed federal subsidies to lend money to students, with the government assuming nearly all the risk. Democrats have long denounced the program, saying it fattened the bottom line for banks at the expense of students and taxpayers.

“Why are we paying people to lend the government’s money and then the government guarantees the loan and the government takes back the loan?” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

Democrats celebrated the legislation, a centerpiece of President Obama’s education agenda, as a far-reaching overhaul of federal financial aid, providing a huge infusion of money to the Pell grant program and offering new help to lower-income graduates in getting out from under crushing student debt. Still, the final bill is less ambitious than the original proposal.

Congressional allies of the student-loan industry attacked the overhaul as an overreaching government takeover. The legislation substitutes an expanded direct-lending program by the government for the bank-based program, directing $36 billion over 10 years to Pell grants, for students from low-income families ...

Even as the Democrats’ decision to attach the student-loan overhaul to the health care package virtually ensured its passage, banks fought fiercely up to the last minute, prompting some lawmakers, like Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, where Nelnet has its headquarters, to cast their vote against the overall bill.

Although private banks will no longer be allowed to make student loans with federal money, many will continue to earn income by servicing those loans.

The Congressional Budget Office said the direct-lending approach would save taxpayers about $61 billion over 10 years. Roughly $40 billion of the savings will be redirected to higher education. Education programs will get an additional $10 billion from the health care package.

The bill includes some landmark changes, like automatic increases, tied to inflation, in the maximum Pell grant award. But for individual students, the increase in the maximum Pell grant — to $5,900 in 2019-20 from $5,550 for the 2010-11 school year — is minuscule, compared with the steep, inexorable rise in tuition for public and private colleges alike.

And because college costs are rising so quickly, the maximum Pell grant now covers only about a third of the average cost of attending a public university, compared with three-quarters in the 1970s, when the program began. So each year, more students graduate with debt of more than $20,000.

The legislation will make it easier to pay back student loans, by reducing the share of income that a graduate must devote to loan payments and by accelerating loan forgiveness — but not right away. Those who take out new loans after July 1, 2014, will have to devote 10 percent of their income to payments, down from the current 15 percent, and those who keep up their payments will have their loans forgiven after 20 years, reduced from the current 25.

“Income-based repayment is a fantastic addition to the Senate bill that will allow over a million students to avoid being crushed by unmanageable levels of debt,” said Rich Williams, a higher-education advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

With the new legislation, students will have to take out their loans through their college’s financial aid office, instead of using a private bank.

Cap & Trade Is Dead. Long Live Cap & Dividend!

NY Times:

Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change.

Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means,” Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.

Mr. Kerry’s partner in promoting global warming legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pronounced economywide cap and trade dead last month and has since been working with Mr. Kerry to try to patch together a bill that satisfies the diverse economic, regional and ideological interests of the Senate.

That plan, still being written, will include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions only for utilities, at least at first, with other industries phased in perhaps years later. It is also said to include a modest tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel, accompanied by new incentives for oil and gas drilling, nuclear power plant construction, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity ...

Two senators, Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, have proposed an alternative that they call cap and dividend, under which licenses to pollute would be auctioned to producers and wholesalers of fossil fuels, with three-quarters of the revenue returned to consumers in monthly checks to cover their higher energy costs.

Ms. Cantwell said that cap and trade had been discredited by the Wall Street crisis, the Enron scandal and the rocky start to a carbon credits trading system in Europe that has been subject to dizzying price fluctuations and widespread fraud.

She said her bill would require every pollution permit to be auctioned rather than given away and was 39 pages long, compared with Waxman-Markey, which weighs in at some 1,400 pages.

The Cantwell-Collins plan is almost exactly what Mr. Obama proposed in the campaign and after first taking office — a 100 percent auction of permits and a large tax rebate to the public.

“He called our bill ‘very elegant,’ ” Ms. Cantwell said. “Simplicity and having something people can understand is important.”

Poll: "By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage"

Gallup:

Nearly half of Americans give a thumbs-up to Congress' passage of a healthcare reform bill last weekend, with 49% calling it "a good thing." Republicans and Democrats have polar opposite reactions, with independents evenly split.

The findings, from a March 22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted one day after the bill received a majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, represent immediate reactions to the vote.

Americans' emotional responses to the bill's passage are more positive than negative -- with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed -- and are similar to their general reactions.

Although much of the public debate over healthcare reform has been heated, barely a third of rank-and-file citizens express either enthusiasm (15%) or anger (19%) about the bill's passage. However, only Democrats show greater enthusiasm than anger. Independents are twice as likely to be angry as enthusiastic, and Republicans 10 times as likely.

Bottom Line

Passage of healthcare reform was a clear political victory for President Obama and his allies in Congress. While it also pleases most of his Democratic base nationwide, it is met with greater ambivalence among independents and with considerable antipathy among Republicans. Whether these groups' views on the issue harden or soften in the coming months could be crucial to how healthcare reform factors into this year's midterm elections. Given that initial public reaction to Sunday's vote is more positive than recent public opinion about passing a healthcare reform bill, it appears some softening has already occurred.

Poll: Tea Party = GOP; Dems Trail 2-Way Races, But Win If Tea Party Runs

Quinnipiac University poll:

Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group that has more women than men; is mainly white and Republican and voted for John McCain, and strongly supports Sarah Palin, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

While voters say 44 - 39 percent that they will vote for a Republican over a Democratic candidate in this November's Congressional elections, if there is a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat would get 36 percent to the Republican's 25 percent, with 15 percent for the Tea Party candidate, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

By a 28 - 23 percent margin, American voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party, with 49 percent who say they don't know enough about the group to form an opinion.

American voter opinion of the Democratic Party is 48 - 33 unfavorable, with opinion of the Republican Party 42 - 33 percent unfavorable.

While 70 percent of all voters are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the way things are going in America today, 92 percent of Tea Party members are dissatisfied.

Government does too many things better left to businesses and individuals, 54 percent of all voters say, while 42 percent say government is not doing enough. Tea Party members say 83 - 15 percent that government is doing too much.

"The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of people who consider themselves Republicans," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters."

"The Tea Party could be a Republican dream - or a GOP nightmare. Members could be a boon to the GOP if they are energized to support Republican candidates. But if the Tea Party were to run its own candidates for office, any votes its candidate received would to a very great extent be coming from the GOP column," Brown added.

Looking at voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:

74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican; 16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic; 5 percent are solidly independent; 45 percent are men; 55 percent are women; 88 percent are white; 77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008; 15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

A total of 19 percent of American voters trust government to do the right thing "almost all of the time" or "most of the time," compared to only 4 percent of Tea Party members.

While only 33 percent of all voters have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, 72 percent of Tea Party members have a favorable opinion of her.

"Overall, this survey paints a picture of the Tea Party movement that encompasses a broad swath of the American middle class, but clearly at this stage one that is a minority group. In essence their numbers equate to about the size of the African-American electorate overall," said Brown.

Only 4 percent of voters making more than $250,000 per year consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, while percentages among all other age and income groups are close to the 13 percent overall Tea Party affiliation.

Post-Vote, Democrats Subjected To Threats & Violence

Wash Post:

The pitched battle over health care has unleashed a rash of vandalism and attacks directed at politicians, with at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week.

More than 100 House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with representatives of the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police. The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as "serious concern" about their security in Washington and in their home districts when they return this weekend for the spring recess.

Usually only the congressional leadership has regular personal protection from the Capitol Police. But at least 10 lawmakers have been offered increased protection by law enforcement agencies, said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Asked whether members are endangered, Hoyer said: "Yes. [There are] very serious incidents that have occurred."

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer e-mailed senators and staffers Wednesday telling them to "remain vigilant." Gainer, a former Capitol Police chief, said in an interview that the warning was meant to "assuage people's fears."

But House Democrats say they are unnerved.

"Our democracy is about participation," Hoyer said. "Our democracy is about differing and debate and animated debate and passionate debate. But it is not about violence."

The vandalism began last weekend, when the House debated the health bill for final passage. In Wichita, someone broke the window of a county Democratic Party headquarters with a brick that had "No to Obama" and "No ObamyCare" written on it. Lyndsey Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party, said she went to work Saturday morning to clean up the shattered glass around her desk.

"It was surprising and alarming to know that people, when they have so many opportunities for expression in this country, that somebody would resort to a brick," Stauble said.

Over the next 24 hours, thrown bricks shattered the glass doors and windows of party headquarters from Rochester, N.Y., to Cincinnati. A propane gas line at the Charlottesville home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother was severed Tuesday after a self-identified "tea party" activist posted what he believed to be the Virginia Democrat's address on a Web site and urged opponents to "drop by" to convey their opposition to his yes vote on the health bill.

A brick was thrown through the Niagara Falls district office of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who also received a threatening voice-mail message referring to sniper attacks. The front door to the Tucson district office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shattered. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose last-minute negotiations to bar federal funding of abortion helped secure the bill's passage, received a fax with a drawing of a noose and an anonymous voice mail saying: "You're dead. We know where you live. We'll get you."

In Washington on Wednesday, the attacks were roundly condemned, with some congressional leaders wondering whether the long fight over health care had unleashed an ugly dimension to the modern political discourse.

Senator Grassley Touts Provisions In Health Bill He Voted Against

44 blog:

President Obama's senior advisers believe the new health-care law will be good politics for them.

Could they be right?

For all the unified, angry rhetoric from Republicans lately, there is some evidence of cracks in the GOP wall of opposition.

Take, for example, the following e-mail from the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who had mocked the health-care legislation, gave encouragement to the "death panel" accusation, and abandoned bipartisan negotiations.

"The health-care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of charitable hospitals for the first time," he said. "The provisions enacted in the new health-care law are the result of Grassley's leadership on tax-exempt organizations' accountability and transparency, including hospitals."

Yes, that's Grassley taking credit for the health-care bill. The same bill that some of his Republican colleagues say they want to repeal. The same bill that 13 Republican attorneys general say is unconstitutional.

"That Senator Grassley, who infamously declared that health reform would 'kill Grand Ma' and walked away from the negotiating table, would take credit for anything in this legislation is the most extreme form of hypocrisy imaginable," said Brad Woodhouse, the spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

"To now take credit for a provision he says he 'co-authored' shows what a bind Republicans are in now that this law is proving popular with the American people," Woodhouse added.

Two Minor Matters Force Reconciliation Bill Back To House

While the main bill is a done, guaranteed deal, the GOP has been able to force another House vote according to the NY Times:

With the Senate working through an all-night session on a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care legislation, Republicans early Thursday morning identified parliamentary problems with at least two provisions that will require the measure to be sent back to the House for yet another vote, once the Senate adopts it.

Senate Democrats had been hoping to defeat all of the amendments proposed by Republicans and to prevail on parliamentary challenges so that they could approve the measure and send it to President Obama for his signature. But the bill must comply with complex budget reconciliation rules, and Republicans identified some flaws.

Under the reconciliation rules, provisions in the bill must directly affect government spending or revenues.

The successful parliamentary challenge did not appear to endanger the eventual adoption of the changes to the health care legislation. And Mr. Obama on Tuesday already signed the main health care bill into law.

Senate Democrats said that one of the provisions in question involved changes to the Pell grant program, which is part of an education section in the reconciliation bill. The bill would establish an automatic increase in Pell grant awards, tied to inflation, for students from low-income families. The disputed provision would prevent any reductions in the maximum award.

Before the discovery of the parliamentary issues, Democrats defeated more than two dozen Republican amendments or other proposals aimed at derailing the legislation or making changes that would delay it by forcing an additional vote in the House.

Shortly before 2:30 a.m., Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, put forward yet another amendment. Mr. Vitter’s proposal would have exempted mobile mammography units from paying a federal fuel tax.

In urging adoption of his amendment, Mr. Vitter declared, “This reconciliation bill is already going back to the House.” At the same time, Senate leaders from both parties were conferring animatedly on the floor.

At about 2:45 a.m., with the flaws in the bill identified, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, brought the late-night session to a close. The Senate was to resume work on the bill at 9:45 a.m. Thursday.

The House adopted the Senate-passed health care bill on Sunday by a vote of 219 to 212, and Mr. Obama signed it into law on Tuesday, meaning the main components of the Democrats’ overhaul were guaranteed to go forward. Also on Sunday night, the House approved a package of changes as part of a budget reconciliation bill, by a vote of 220 to 211. That bill was sent to the Senate for its consideration.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said that one problem with the bill was the formula for determining the maximum Pell grant awards. The second issue was a technical matter that Mr. Conrad described as mostly insignificant.

Mr. Conrad said a third issue was under review by the Senate parliamentarian.

The risk for Democrats in a parliamentary challenge is that Republicans could knock out key provisions of the legislation, or win a decision that upends the mechanisms Democrats rely on to pay for the measure.

“We see no impact on the score and very insignificant impact on any policy,” Mr. Conrad said, referring to a cost estimate of the legislation. “This is not going to be a problem.”

Military To Revise DADT

NY Times:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will announce measures on Thursday to make it more difficult for the military to expel openly gay service members, an interim plan while the Pentagon examines repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, officials said.

Officials said the new steps would include a requirement that only a general or admiral could initiate action in cases where service members were suspected of violating the prohibition against openly gay service in the armed forces.

The guidelines would also raise the standard required for evidence to be presented in such cases, an effort to prevent “malicious outing” by a third party or jilted partner, officials said.

Congressional action would be required to repeal the ban.

But the new measures, expected to be announced Thursday at a Pentagon news conference, would make good on Mr. Gates’s pledge to Congress last month that the military would move toward enforcing the current policy in a fairer, more humane manner.

“We believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform,” Mr. Gates said last month.

A review is to be completed by the end of the year on how the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might be ended. President Obama has called for Congress to repeal the law.

Coexisting With Neanderthals & Humans 40K Years Ago, Third Type Of Human Ancestor Identified

Wash Post:

A team of European researchers has identified a new lineage of proto-human that left Africa about a million years ago, traveling as far as Siberia and then dying out -- a discovery that raises new questions about early human history.

The existence of the new lineage was discovered by analyzing DNA extracted from a single bone fragment, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. What the beings looked like, how they lived and what happened to them are a mystery. All that's known is that they existed as recently as 40,000 years ago, which is the approximate age of the bone.

"Whoever carried this DNA out of Africa is some new creature that hasn't been on our radar screen so far," said Johannes Krause, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, who helped lead the research team.

The new lineage, which has not yet been declared a separate species, occupied Russia's Altai Mountains during a long period when early modern humans and Neanderthals were also there. Whether its members had contact with those other early people -- or might have interbred with them -- isn't known.

Nevertheless, the possible cohabitation of the three groups gives rise to at least two narratives of the first chapter of Eurasian history.

New Health Law Reverses Trend Of Increasing Inequality In America Begun By Reagan

A fascinating column by David Leonhardt discussing the little noted but powerful impact the new health law will have on reversing the trend Reagan started of increasing inequality in America. He concludes with a nearly independent essay on how Reagan-like Obama is (remember that brouhaha during the campaign when he suggested he was?):

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would “mark a new season in America.” He added, “We have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill’s attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era — whether you love them or hate them — will probably be around for a long time.

“Legislative majorities come and go,” David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, lamented on Sunday. “This health care bill is forever.”

•

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. “Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic,” Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, “contained a good deal of truth.” Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who “changed the trajectory of America.”

I Agree With Joe Biden, "This is a big f..ing deal"

Listen to what he says while shaking Obama's hand at yesterday's signing ceremony:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The GOP's Waterloo

David Frum:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.