A Blue View

GOP Fiscal Hypocrisy On Taxes

In today's NY Times, Bruce Bartlett, an economist who has held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, defended  Republicans opposed to extending the payroll tax cut that helps working people.

Here's Bartlett's second argument against extending the payroll tax cut:

The payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.

How many people who agree with this line of reasoning will still agree when it is applied to extending the Bush tax cuts do you think?

The Bush tax cuts help many wealthy people who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.

Close to zero I bet.

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Dueling DC Rallies Oct. 30

Lisa Moraes:

Comedy Central is going to stage the mother of all marketing stunts here in Washington -- oh wait, Fox News Channel already did that.

Well, anyway, the Viacom-owned network will launch the second mother of all marketing stunts in Washington on Oct. 30 when both its late-night hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, host opposing rallies on the Mall.

"The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart announced on his show Thursday night his Rally to Restore Sanity -- "a rally for the people who've been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) -- not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority." The rally will be held, Stewart's camp said, "to beg America to stop shouting, throwing and drawing Hitler mustaches on people other than Hitler (or Charlie Chaplin)."

Immediately thereafter, "The Colbert Report's," um, Colbert, announced his Keep Fear Alive rally, with instructions to "pack an overnight bag with five extra sets of underwear -- you're going to need them. Because to Restore Truthiness we must always ... Shh!!! What's that sound?! I think there's someone behind you! Run!"

Comedy Central promises the Rally Rivalry will be "bigger than Nixon/Kennedy, Ali/Foreman, Aniston/Jolie, 50 Cent/Nas, Joe/The Volcano, Alien/Predator, Bunny/Fudd and Ecks/Sever combined."

But both men are operating in the shadow of FNC's prime-time talking head Glenn Beck, who, back in July, announced that he would, on Aug. 28, stage a "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Imagine Beck's surprise when he discovered that was the same day Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial 47 years earlier.

We've discovered a permit application was indeed submitted for the Rally Rivalry, on Sept. 8 to the National Park Service by Minassian Media, Comedy Central, and Chris Wane and Associates.

While the permit has not yet been issued, "we do not see any hugely outstanding issues that would prevent or bar the signing of a permit," Bill Line, spokesman for the National Park Service, told WaPo TeamTV's Mall Rally Correspondent, David Montgomery.

The permit application modestly estimates a crowd of just 25,000 people. Comedy Central apparently does not think there are very many people with a sense of humor living within a reasonable commute of the Mall. According to press reports, about 87,000 people showed up for Beck's rally -- though Beck on his show dismissed that number as pure horseradish and told his viewers they should believe no one but him and he says the number was hooey, and to believe only his estimate. He said "a minimum of 500,000" people came to his rally which, he added, was "the sixth-largest gathering" on the Mall, ever and approximately the same sized crowd as had come to the Mall for that other defining moment:

"Ronald Reagan's inauguration."

The Stewart/Colbert permit application is for the north side of the Washington Monument grounds, which does not include the Lincoln Memorial, Reflecting Pool or what is known as the National Mall, Line says, what with the Monument grounds being bounded by Constitution, Independence, 15th and 17th, and the north side is the side toward Constitution.

On the other hand, he also said the Park Service and applicants are negotiating details as we write. Line declined to discuss specifics of those negotiations.

Watch the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert announcements here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
March to Keep Fear Alive
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Jon Stewart, The Best Journalist On TV, Follows The Ground-Zero Mosque Money ... Right Back To Fox News

If only the Democrats were as smart, and could communicate as brilliantly as Jon and team.

First, they satirize Fox's, and the Right's, guilt by association reasoning:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Then, they cleverly devastate Fox's duplicitious fear mongering with an "either they're evil or stupid" bit:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Why let facts get in the way of the CW on Obama?

Ezra Klein:

See if this structure seems familiar to you: Over the past two years, Barack Obama has done X. Now, his poll numbers have slipped to 44 percent. His party is slated to lose a lot of seats in the 2010 midterms. Obama's decision to do X is to blame.

"X" can be a lot of things. Maybe it's the decision to attempt health-care reform. Or his socialist tendencies. Or his cool, professorial demeanor. In Matt Bai's latest article, John Podesta says it's Obama's pursuit of an ambitious legislative agenda. If he'd spent less time passing legislation, he could've spent more time developing and selling popular themes. In John Judis's latest article, it's the absence of populism in Obama's speeches and policies.

The problem with the essays is that they don't consider the counterfactual. What if Obama had done not-X? Would things really be better for him? How do we know they wouldn't be worse?

Sadly, we can't hit rewind on the cosmic VCR and persuade Obama to do the other thing in the name of science. But we have had a number of presidents who did very different things, and that gives us some basis on which to make judgments. Let's start with approval ratings. Gallup's system will let me compare only four presidents at once, so I chose the last three presidents who entered office amid a recession and didn't have a country-unifying terrorist attack in their first year. That gives us Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The dashed line is an average of all recent presidents. Click on the graph for a larger version.

Obama's current approval rating of 44 percent beats Clinton, Carter and Reagan. All of them were between 39 percent and 41 percent at this point in their presidencies. And all of them were former governors who accomplished less legislatively than Obama has at this point in his presidency. That seems like a problem for Bai's thesis. At least two of them are remembered as great communicators with a deft populist touch. That seems like a problem for Judis's thesis.

Now let's look at midterm results. The following graph shows the change in House seats for the president's party in every first-term midterm election since 1900.

The pattern here is obvious: Losses, and big ones. Except for FDR's first midterm and George W. Bush's post-9/11 victory, there've been no gains at all.

Now, this is a bit of an imperfect comparison. When the president's party controls more seats, it can lose more seats. In 1982, Republicans had 192 seats in the House, and they lost 26 of them. Democrats currently have 253 seats in the House, and Larry Sabato predicts they'll lose 32 of them. That's actually a smaller percentage than what the Republicans lost under Reagan.

There's plenty to criticize in Obama's policies and plenty to lament in his politics. But when it comes to grand theories explaining how his strategic decisions led him to this horrible -- but historically, slightly-better-than-average -- political position, I'm skeptical. There are enormously powerful structural forces in American politics that seem to drag down first-term presidents. There is the simple mathematical reality that large majorities are always likely to lose a lot of seats. There is a terrible and ongoing economic slump -- weekly jobless claims hit 500,000 today -- that is causing Americans immense pain and suffering. Any explanations for the current political mood that don't put those front and center is, at the least, not doing enough to challenge the counterfactual.

Watch Ted Olson Calmly Demolish The Right's Fig Leave Arguments Opposing Marriage Equality

After watching this, it is clear there is no rational basis for opposing marriage equality. In fact, conseravative attorney Olson makes a great argument at the end as to why this should be a conservative, not just liberal, crusade. (Read the transcript.)

The Fanaticism Gap

It tuns out that Tom Toles, the Wash Post's excellent cartoonist, is as good with his words as his pen:

The great part about not remembering everything is that you can see the significance of the things you do remember. The Bush-Gore recount in Florida is one of those things. I remember thinking as the argument was raging that there was a certain asymmetry in the emotional approach the two sides brought to the controversy.

You might have expected that the Bush side, having demonstrably and unequivocally received fewer votes nationally than their opponents, might have approached their claims to a disputed, technical electoral college victory with just a tiny bit of trepidation and humility. But it was just the other way around. The Gore side gingerly focused on the undercounts, whereas, if memory serves, the overcount ballots would have given them Florida and the White House. But, regardless, they seemed almost apologetic in asking for anything at all.

The GOP, on the other hand, roared into action, demanding to be given the election forthwith, which the Supreme Court obligingly handed them, once again demonstrating that the court's lip service to constitutional rigor is really in the shape of a kiss to Republicans. In hindsight, the lesson is that conservatives act as though they feel on a gut level that any Democratic president is simply illegitimate, PER SE, and will do anything to stop or undermine one. This is currently known as the "enthusiasm gap," but I think it might be better called the "fanaticism gap." And what do you do about that? 

Poll: Opposition To Health Reform Continues To Decline

Wash Post:

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections.

Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said they had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the law this month, up from 50 percent in June.

Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier. The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.

The legislation was passed by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic president, and over the past month Democratic support for the legislation grew. Seventy-three percent of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion, up from 69 percent in June. Fifteen percent of Democrats expressed an unfavorable opinion, down from 19 percent in June.

A third of Democrats held a very favorable opinion of the health care overhaul.

The public remains split into rough thirds as to whether the law will leave their own family better off, worse off or unchanged, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported.

The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, including the "death panel" falsehood propagated by opponents of the legislation.

"A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of seniors said that the law 'allowed a government panel to make decisions about end of life care for people on Medicare', and another 17% said they didn't know," Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman wrote.

Democrats Maintain Advantage on Generic Ballot, 48% to 44%

Gallup:

Democrats have a 48% to 44% advantage for the week of July 19-25 in Gallup tracking of registered voters' preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. This marks the second straight week in which Democrats have held an edge of at least four percentage points.

Although Republicans have moved to a four-point or higher advantage on three separate occasions, this is the first time either party has held an advantage of that size for two consecutive weeks. Republicans and Democrats have been tied on average across the 21 weeks of Gallup's tracking.

Republicans' Enthusiasm Lead Persists

Republicans continue to be substantially more enthusiastic about voting, as they have been since March. Their current 18-point lead in voting enthusiasm is down slightly from last week's 23-point lead, but it remains slightly higher than the average 16-point lead they have enjoyed since tracking began in March.

Overall enthusiasm for voting was little changed last week. Thirty-four percent of registered voters say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 36% a week prior and an average of 33% so far this year.

Bottom Line

This past week marks the second time since March that either party has held any type of edge on the generic ballot for three consecutive weeks. Exactly what is behind the uptick in support for Democrats is not clear, although last week's gains coincided with the passage of the financial reform bill. Independents continue to be more likely to say they will vote for the Republican rather than the Democratic candidate, while both Republicans and Democrats maintain more than 90% allegiance for their party's candidates.

Democrats' improved position on the generic ballot is counterbalanced by the continuing wide advantage Republicans have in voting enthusiasm. This GOP enthusiasm gap foreshadows a typical Republican turnout advantage in midterm election voting, meaning that Democrats need a substantial lead on the registered voter generic ballot to offset their turnout disadvantage. Still, the results show that expectations of an assured Republican landslide in the congressional elections this fall are not a foregone conclusion.

Gallup's final generic ballot measure, based on likely voters, has since 1950 closely matched the total percentage of votes cast nationally for Democratic and Republican candidates in all 435 U.S. House races -- a statistic that bears a predictable relationship to the number of House seats won by each party. Gallup does not screen for likely voters until closer to Election Day, but historically, Republicans' turnout advantage in midterm elections widens the Republican-Democrat gap in the GOP's favor. Thus, if these numbers held through Election Day, the two parties would likely be closely matched at the ballot box.

Is Health Insurance Reform Becoming More Popular?

Wash Post:

The health-care overhaul gained popularity from May to June, according to a new tracking poll.

The results suggest that the Obama administration's promotion of the legislation may be paying off or that the public may be warming to the law as early provisions take effect.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable.

The latest survey results were not much different from those in March, shortly before the law was enacted. Then, at the end of a bitter year-long battle, 46 percent said they supported the proposed legislation while 42 percent opposed it.

Since President Obama signed the law, Democrats and Republicans vying for advantage in the fall elections have been fighting to shape how the public perceives the historic legislation. The administration has been spotlighting potentially crowd-pleasing elements as they are phased in, including a provision that will allow many parents to keep young adult children on their insurance policies until age 26, and another provision that is helping some Medicare beneficiaries narrow a gap in their prescription drug coverage.

"Overall, roughly a third of voters say that a candidate who voted for the health reform law will be more likely to get their vote, a third say less likely, and a third say it doesn't really matter," said the foundation, which studies and distributes information about health-care policy.

When voters were pressed to choose the issue most important to them, "economic concerns came out on top, with 29 percent naming either the economy or unemployment," the foundation said. Thirteen percent mentioned dissatisfaction with government, 12 percent mentioned health care, and 9 percent each pointed to the Gulf Coast oil spill and the budget deficit, the survey found.

The full impact of the health-care legislation will not be felt until 2014, when some of the most far-reaching and controversial elements take effect. Those include an end to discrimination by insurers based on preexisting conditions and a requirement that everyone carry health insurance.

The Kaiser tracking poll was conducted June 17 through 22 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, the foundation said.

Also see Chris Cillizza's more overtly political analysis of the Kaiser poll.

Post Poll: "Growing disapproval" of Tea Party; Obama's Approval "fairly steady"

Wash Post:

As voters head to the polls Tuesday for a crucial set of primary elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high.

The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority.

The poll also finds growing disapproval of the "tea party" movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.

And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing the GOP. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, and about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems ...

Elected officials nationwide are feeling their constituents' dissatisfaction. In the new Post-ABC poll, 69 percent of all Americans say they are either dissatisfied or angry with the government, and 60 percent say they are inclined to look for other candidates in November, the most ever in a Post-ABC poll.

Democrats are likely to suffer disproportionately from the tough climate: They are in the majority in both houses of Congress and are defending many more districts than Republicans. The public sees little improvement in the nation's direction or the state of the economy. Six in 10 say the country is on the wrong track and 88 percent rate the economy as not good or poor, with just 30 percent saying it is improving.

Yet Democrats maintain at least one advantage: They hold a double-digit edge over the GOP as the party that people trust to handle the country's main problems.

Another big element that may mute the threat to Democrats is that the GOP has not gained significant traction. Most Americans -- including nearly a third of self-identified Republicans -- say they are dissatisfied with or angry at the policies of congressional Republicans. These numbers have changed little since last November, despite the GOP's focus on offering a more concrete agenda rather than simply Democratic proposals.

Obama's overall approval ratings have remained fairly steady.

"Same-sex partners of federal workers can apply for benefits"

Wash Post:

The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday.

President Obama signed a memo last June extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, including access to the government's Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and federal retirees.

OPM will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they can obtain the insurance through marriage, "an option not currently available to same-sex domestic partners," the agency wrote in Tuesday's Federal Register.

OPM said same-sex couples can visit www.ltcfeds.com to complete a form that states they are each other's domestic partner and intend to stay together indefinitely. The federal worker must submit the form to their employer. Couples will not be required to provide further proof of the relationship, OPM said, because that "would impose a greater burden on domestic partners than other qualified relatives." The agency said it does not ask opposite-sex couples for bank statements or other proof of marriage.

Tuesday's ruling applies only to FLTCIP, no other federal health-care or insurance programs. Same-sex partners must answer the same questions about their health as other qualified relatives, and are not guaranteed to be approved for coverage. Eligible federal workers do not need to be enrolled in FLTCIP in order for a same-sex partner to apply or be eligible, OPM said.

Once DADT Is Repealed, The Military Faces A Broad Range Of Decisions: Married Housing Anyone?

As this NY Times story makes clear, the military is no different than civilian society: no longer being forced into a closet is far from nondiscrimination and equality. "Gays in the military" is going to be a political issue for a long time I beleive.

For opponents of the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, the steps by Congress this week to repeal the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” were a major victory. But now they are girding for what may be an equally difficult task: the transition to a force where straight and openly gay servicemen and women live, work and fight alongside one other.

Some homosexuals in the military say they are worried about how that process will work and whether they will be treated differently if they publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Some raised concerns about being harassed, assigned to separate barracks or shunned by colleagues who had been friendly before.

“In an idyllic world, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and saying ‘Everyone here is welcome’ is great,” said a 29-year-old lesbian in the Army National Guard, who asked that her name be withheld because she could still be discharged under the rule.

“But the policy actually allowed for a lot of protections,” the soldier said. “Getting rid of it completely without modifying it is kind of worrisome. The number of incidents against gays in the military is going to increase.”

Indeed, both opponents and supporters of the ban say a host of thorny practical questions will face the Pentagon if Congress gives final approval to legislation allowing the repeal of the ban, which could happen this summer.

Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?

“The reality is, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t ensure that all lesbian and gay service members will be equal on that day,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “There will continue to be challenges to make full equality for gays and lesbians in the armed forces a reality.”

Similar questions were asked when blacks were allowed to integrate previously all-white units. But that transition was not without its difficulties too, including instances of racial violence.

A Pentagon panel has begun studying the issues around gays serving openly as part of a broad review of homosexuality in the military, which will include surveys of thousands of service members and their families. The panel, led by Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe, and Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s top legal counsel, is supposed to deliver its report by Dec. 1.

Under an amendment moving through Congress, once that report is finished, the White House and senior Pentagon leadership must certify that repealing the ban will not be disruptive to the military. Once that certification is made, final repeal will occur within 60 days.

The House approved the amendment on Friday as part of the bill authorizing more than $567 billion in Pentagon programs and spending. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the amendment on Thursday, and the full Senate is expected to take up the authorization bill later this summer.

“It could be late 2011 before this is implemented,” said Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, a nonprofit organization.

Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” who still hope they can stop it from being repealed, fear the effect on the military if it is.

The One Document That Crystallizes The Difference Between Obama & Bush

This NY Times report on Obama's "New Foundations" strategy makes the diff clear: he is an intelligent, sophisticated thinker not blinded by hegemonic fervor as was his predecessor:

President Obama’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the nation’s overarching objective.

In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the United States can spend to shape the globe.

An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while fulfilling other commitments at home and abroad.

“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy being released on Thursday. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”

That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President George W. Bush. Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern threats. While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global power is increasingly diffuse. “To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” he says.

The principal author of the report, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, noted in an interview that Mr. Obama’s move to replace the G-8 nations with a broader group, called the G-20, that includes China, India and Brazil, recognizes this reality. “We are deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors,” Mr. Rhodes said.

Although the administration has put renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan and escalated C.I.A. drone strikes against militants, the strategy rejects Mr. Bush’s single-minded focus on counterterrorism as the organizing principle of national security policy. Those efforts “to counter violent extremism” — Mr. Obama avoids the use of the word “Islamic” — “are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”

He goes on to argue that “the gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.” And he dwelled on cyber threats, climate change, and America’s dependence on fossil fuels as fundamental national security issues, issues that received relatively little or no attention in Mr. Bush’s 2002 document, although his administration focused on them more in its second term.

“It is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national security strategy,” Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview.

Mr. Bush’s 2002 document articulated a vision of American power that foreshadowed the American involvement in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s version could fuel the ongoing debate about whether his philosophy expands or constricts American influence.

Critics already argue that Mr. Obama does not place enough importance on fighting terrorism or fully embrace America’s singular role in the world as he seeks the favor and cooperation of other nations.

A section on the use of force makes no mention of pre-emptive attacks against countries or non-state actors who may pose a threat, as Mr. Bush did in 2002, just six months before the invasion of Iraq. But Mr. Obama does not explicitly rule out striking first.

“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction,” he says. When it is necessary, he adds, “we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.”

Mr. Bush’s aides said they would not seek a “permission slip”’ for such actions. Mr. Obama phrases that idea differently, writing, “the United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”

Mr. Obama also defines national security more broadly than his predecessor did, making the case, for example, that reducing the deficit is critical to sustaining American power. He emphasizes issues like the economy, education, climate change, energy and science. In that way, he tries to draw a broader theme linking his presidency to the notion of a “new foundation,” the phrase he previously has coined as a slogan for his domestic program.

“Our national security begins at home,” the strategy says.

Obama Begins To Seize The Day ... By Promoting Centrist Energy Policies

Tom Friedman will not be happy. A NY Times analysis:

There is very little upside for the Obama administration in the ecological and economic disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The government has come under sharp criticism for underestimating the size of the discharge and for coddling the oil industry for too long.

Until now, perhaps distracted by the critics or because it did not appear that his overall energy agenda was moving forward, President Obama has not made use of the disaster in an overtly political way.

But on Friday — a full month after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon — he made clear that he also was not going to let the moment go to waste, announcing plans to impose stricter fuel-efficiency and emissions standards on cars and, for the first time, on medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

He said the oil gushing from the crippled BP well in the gulf highlighted the need to move away from dirty and dangerous fossil fuels toward a cleaner energy future. And he signaled that he intended to use the accident to continue to push his broader policy priorities, including legislation that would put a price on climate-altering emissions and increased federal aid for American industries in the global race to dominate the clean energy technology sector.

“We know that our dependence on foreign oil endangers our security and our economy,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden announcement. “And the disaster in the gulf only underscores that even as we pursue domestic production to reduce our reliance on imported oil, our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies.”

Put more starkly: the road Mr. Obama is sending us on to his dreamed-of carbon-free future will be slick with oil for many years to come.

Senate Passes Financial Overhaul Giving "Obama his second major legislative victory of the year"

Wash Post:

The Senate approved far-reaching new financial rules on Thursday aimed at preventing the risky behavior and regulatory failures that brought the economy to the brink of collapse two years ago and cost millions of Americans their jobs and savings.

The final vote, just after 8:30 p.m., was 59 to 39. Four Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and two Democrats opposed it.

"When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt," Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote.

The 1,500-page measure, shepherded through the Senate by Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, seeks to reshape both Washington and Wall Street.

In providing for the most profound remaking of financial regulations since the Great Depression, the legislation would create a new consumer-protection watchdog housed at the Federal Reserve to prevent abuse in mortgage, auto and credit card lending. It also would give the government power to wind down large failing financial firms and set up a council of federal overseers to police the financial landscape for risks to the global economy. Moreover, the legislation would establish oversight of the vast market in financial instruments known as derivatives, impose new restrictions on credit rating agencies and give shareholders a say in corporate affairs.

Passage of the measure marks a milestone in President Obama's efforts to tackle the financial abuse and excess that contributed to the crisis and prevent another meltdown.

The vote gives Obama his second major legislative victory of the year, following the March passage of his landmark health-care bill. "Our goal is not to punish the banks," he said in the White House Rose Garden hours before the final vote, "but to protect the larger economy and the American people from the kind of upheavals that we've seen in the past few years."

The bill now appears headed to a House-Senate conference committee, where a handful of lawmakers will work to resolve differences between the two chambers. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he aims to wrap up that task in short order.

"I think the president will sign this bill before the Fourth of July," he said.

Thursday's vote hinged in large part on Democrats' ability to win over key Republicans.

Leaders successfully courted GOP Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, in part by including in the final bill provisions that each wanted. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) also backed the bill. Equally critical was the last-minute push to win over Scott Brown (R), the Senate's newest member.

Brown's vote was secured partly through the help of Frank, his Massachusetts colleague. In an interview, Frank said Brown called him Wednesday evening as Frank was working out on the elliptical machine in the House gym. Brown wanted assurances that Frank would fight in conference to preserve provisions in the House bill that protect large and solvent Massachusetts institutions, such as State Street and Fidelity, from "unnecessary intrusion" by government regulators. Over the next 24 hours, Frank sent Senate leaders two letters stating his position, and Brown indicated that "on that basis, he could vote for cloture," Frank said.

Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) voted against the legislation because they said parts of it did not go far enough.

Consumer advocates who pressed for tough regulations said that the bill falls short in places but that they are delighted it passed.

"No bill that deals with big issues is ever perfect, but the Senate's Wall Street reform package will go a long way toward preventing the kinds of abusive practices that brought our economy to its knees," Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel and an advocate of the new consumer watchdog, said in a statement.

But financial and business groups called the bill flawed. <Continue reading.>

What Tuesday's Elections Really Foretell: The Death Of Bipartisanship

Republican pollster Glen Bolger's analysis rings very true to me:

Analysts are pointing toward last night’s primary results (the defeat of Arlen Specter, Trey Grayson, and the run-off for Blanche Lincoln) as – when combined with Bob Bennett and Alan Mollohan’s defeats – proof of anti-incumbency and anti-Washington establishment. The top story in the New York Times today is titled “Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents.”

And an anti-incumbent mood definitely exists. Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress, and say all incumbents should be turned out.

However, with the exception of Mollohan, the nomination defeats (or major troubles at this point for Lincoln), are politicians who were punished for their votes and efforts that strayed from the party line. My polling for Republican incumbents who face challengers show that most are in strong shape to win renomination because they are generally perceived as fighting the Obama-Pelosi efforts to increase the size and scope of government, and to spend money in a way that makes previous administrations seem Scrooge-like.

Senator Specter’s loss was actually a double defeat. Because he voted for the stimulus package, he baited Pat Toomey into switching from the Governor’s race to the Senate race. Specter’s poll numbers in a GOP primary were far too weak to win a primary – he choose to switch parties rather than retire. However, his previous support for George W. Bush and other Republicans (and GOP policies) meant Democratic voters couldn’t trust him. Specter’s once legendary ability to both annoy and please conservatives, moderates, and liberals caught up to him in this time of hyper polarization.

Lincoln is facing the same traumas from the left – she is perceived by many unions and liberals as not supportive enough of their agenda, and thus not worthy of renomination.

An incumbent all but in name, Charlie Crist should be in that same body count of politicians who “lost” their party’s nomination for not being orthodox enough. His support for the stimulus package made him persona non grata among a GOP primary electorate looking for someone to fight against the framework of bigger government spending more money.

Not every incumbent is endangered for renomination. However, those who face anger from the grassroots, coupled with a challenger candidate with the resources to get their message out, have challenges.

This post is not to bemoan the choice of BOTH parties’ primary electorate to choose confrontation over compromise. It’s simply analyzing the results from a different angle. It’s not just anti-incumbency coursing through the veins of the primary electorates, but it is supercharged by a distrust of the other side. Like unicorns and rainbows, bipartisanship is going to be rarely spotted over the next few years.

Sex Lives of Supreme Court Justices

Michael Kinsley nails it:

Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say "normal," as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.

Let me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he is an extremist advocate of the so-called "Nine Children Agenda." Can he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many himself? Can he persuade his children to recuse themselves when appropriate (or, in the vernacular, "Just shut up, will you? I’m trying to write an opinion here.  Sweetheart, could you please come and take him…stop climbing up my leg…watch it with that glass of water, buddy…no, that’s some condemned prisoner’s brief that daddy has to reject, so don’t …would somebody please take this kid…LOOK OUT for the… Jesus H. Christ, how am I supposed to get any work done"?).

Speculation is already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac? That suspicion naturally arises. But perhaps once he started, he just never got around to stopping. Or maybe he just likes children. In recent days, Scalia’s friends have rushed to his defense, going out of their way to portray him as a model of sexual restraint.  "Every Friday a bunch of us used to go down to this bar to pick up women," one of his college roommates recalls. "We’d always ask Nino if he wanted to join us, but he always said he was too busy studying. Frankly, we thought he was gay."

Don't Believe The CW On Last Night's Elections

Nate Silver (make sure you read Nate's comments about the most important race of the night at the end, the one with truly November impacting implications):

There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of the evening -- and I've already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions from each of them.

Pennsylvania -- Democratic Senate primary

The results: Joe Sestak defeats Arlen Specter, 54-46.

The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Democratic establishment.

The reality: Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and elsewhere. As Sestak began to emerge as the superior general election candidate, their support grew even more tepid. This was an important win, and the netroots progressives who championed Sestak's campaign deserve all the credit in the world. But something can be dramatic without being especially surprising. Joe Sestak is a mainline, lunchpail Democrat who defeated a very unpopular Republican-turned-Democrat who ran an awful campaign and who Pennsylvania Democrats weren't used to punching their ticket for. No huge shock there.

Kentucky -- Republican Senate primary

The results: Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson, 59-35.

The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment.

The reality: Because of Paul's impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways -- Paul's last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.

Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that's more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform ...

Arkansas -- Democratic Senate primary

Reduced Income, Not Increased Spending, Is Driving Up Government Debt

Ezra Klein:

The financial crisis and the resulting recession have coincided with a rapid run-up in American -- and global -- government debt. A lot of people, understandably enough, assume that this is the product of government spending. The stimulus was expensive, and the bank rescues seemed expensive, and we just passed a health-care reform plan, and that must be why the deficit blew up.

The IMF, in a new report (pdf), explains that that's not the case. "Of the almost 39 percentage points of GDP increase in the debt ratio, about two-thirds is explained by revenue weakness and the fall in GDP during 2008-09," they write. Check out the graph atop this post: New spending isn't nearly as large a contributor to the increase in debt as reduced revenue is.

The mechanism here is simple enough. As Paul Krugman explains it, "the financial crisis has made us permanently poorer, which among other things reduces revenue." Recessions reduce income, reducing income reduces taxable income, and that in turn reduces the revenue that normally keeps governments out of debt.

This isn't just an interesting explanatory point, though. It's a reminder that the most important thing we can do to reduce the deficit in the long run is to do whatever it takes to get economic growth back up to speed. The more willing we are to accept permanently higher unemployment and permanently lower growth, the harder it's going to be to get our debt under control.

Kagan Nomination Cartoons

Oil Spill Blame Game (cartoons)

Health Reform Battle Shifts From Congress To Rule Writing, Regulatory Agencies

NY Times:

Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.

The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.

Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.

For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.

The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.

More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”

One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.

Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.

Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”

The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.

“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.

The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.

Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.

Obama Previews His & His Party's MidTerm Election Message: I Made Hard, Successful Decisions While The GOP Sulked

Jonathan Chait:

President Obama has been very careful to avoid anything that might smack of a "Mission Accomplished" moment on the economy. In Buffalo yesterday he really let loose:

“We can say beyond a shadow of the doubt today we are headed in the right direction,’’ Mr. Obama told a crowd of about 250 people during a swing through this economically depressed city. “All those tough steps we took –- they’re working, despite all the naysayers who were predicting failure a year ago’’

And here he is at a fundraiser that night, putting a finer point on things:

[W]e got our mops and our brooms out, we’re cleaning stuff out, and [Republicans are] sitting there saying, ‘Hold the broom better.’ (Laughter.)  ‘That's not how you mop.’ (Laughter.) Don’t tell me how to mop. Pick up a mop! … But that wasn’t their strategy; it was not their strategy from day one. And I’m not making this up. This is public record. They’ve said in interviews: We made a political decision. We stood nothing to gain from cooperating. We knew things were going to be bad. And we figured, if we didn't do anything and if it didn’t work out so well, maybe the other side would take the blame. They’ve done their best to gum up the works; to make things look broken; to say no to every single thing. … So after they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back.  (Laughter.) No! (Laughter and applause.)  You can’t drive!

I think we can see his main political theme for 2010 and 2012 taking shape here: Republicans screwed the country up, Obama got to work fixing it, Republicans took an ultra-partisan stance on every issue, and if you give them power they'll screw things up again. It's quite simple, and has the added virtue of being true.

If the economy recovers to the point where Americans start to enjoy higher living standards, he's going to have a powerful argument against Republicans, who predicted doom and disaster. Of course, if the economy double-dips, he's screwed no matter what. Might as well position himself to get as much of the potential upside as possible. At some point there's little to gain in hedging your bets.

Obama's Job Approval

From Gallup:

 

Business Lobbyists Join GOP Suit Against Health Care Law

NY Times:

With the aim of depoliticizing a largely Republican assault, the leading lobbying group for small businesses has joined officials from 20 states in their legal challenge to the new health care law.

An amended complaint filed Friday in Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., lists the lobbying group, the National Federation of Independent Business, as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that was originally filed in March by attorneys general from 13 states.

Attorneys general or governors from seven other states formally joined the lawsuit on Friday. Among the state plaintiffs, only Attorney General James D. Caldwell of Louisiana is not a Republican.

Two individuals also joined the litigation. One is the uninsured owner of an automobile repair shop in Panama City, Fla. The other is a man from Washington State who prefers to pay his medical bills out of pocket rather than being compelled to obtain insurance, as will be the case starting in 2014.

The additions of the business association and individual plaintiffs, according to lawyers involved, were intended to shift any public perception that the lawsuit was primarily a political device. But the new plaintiffs also may help the states fight an anticipated challenge by the federal government to their standing, or legal authority, to bring the lawsuit.

The Florida lawsuit is among at least a dozen filed against the Democratic health care law since President Obama signed it on March 23. Virginia’s attorney general has filed a separate case in Richmond, and other lawsuits have been mounted by physicians’ groups and conservative legal centers.

The cases typically focus on the provision that will require most individuals to obtain commercial or government health insurance, a mandate with few precedents in American policy or jurisprudence.

The lawsuits argue that the insurance requirement, by penalizing people for not purchasing a product, represents an unconstitutional extension of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The federal government has responded in court filings that an individual decision to not purchase insurance is, in effect, a decision about how to pay for future medical care. Taken in the aggregate, those decisions substantially affect interstate commerce by shifting the cost of covering the uninsured to policy-holders, health care providers and taxpayers, government lawyers maintain.

In papers submitted this week in a Michigan case, the Justice Department vigorously attacked the plaintiffs’ legal standing to challenge an insurance mandate that does not take effect until 2014, and thus has yet to cause any harm. In the Florida case, the federal government’s response — in the form of a motion to dismiss the lawsuit — is not due until June 16. Oral arguments are scheduled for September.

Although the health care law provides substantial tax credits to small businesses that provide insurance to employees, the National Federation of Independent Business wound up opposing the legislation because of what it viewed as unacceptable mandates and costs for its members.

Weekly Radio Address: Health Reform Starts to Kick In

WhiteHouse.gov:

The President goes through the benefits in health insurance reform that are already kicking in for young adults, retirees, and families, and says more benefits are coming down the pike.

Saving The Economy & Wall St. Is Turning Out To Be FAR Less Expensive Than Feared

Wall St Journal:

The U.S. government's rescue of wobbly companies and financial markets is starting to look far less expensive or long-lasting than once feared.

As momentum grows at companies that looked like zombies just a few months ago to repay taxpayers for lifelines they got during the financial crisis, the projected cost of the bailout is shrinking to just a fraction of previous estimates. Treasury Department officials say the tab is likely to reach $89 billion, which includes the Troubled Asset Relief Program, capital injections into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, loan guarantees by the Federal Housing Administration and Federal Reserve moves such as buying mortgage-backed securities and propping up the commercial-paper market.

Treasury officials are increasingly optimistic that even American International Group Inc. could be on its own within a year, with officials discussing ways to extricate the government from its 80% stake in the insurer, according to people familiar with the situation. AIG is on track to repay its loan to the Fed through asset sales that will raise $51 billion.

The discussions come as the Treasury is planning to sell its $32 billion stake in Citigroup Inc. and General Motors Corp. moves toward repaying its $6.7 billion government investment and embarking on an initial public offering this summer. Both companies could be free of government strings sometime this year.

Just a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimated that the overall bailout would cost more than $250 billion. Last month, though, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the rescues will amount to "less than 1%" of gross domestic product. The $89 billion projection is less than the cost of the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s, which totaled as much as 3.2% of GDP.

The Treasury's estimate is dependent on many factors, including the health of the economy and the housing market. Still, the smaller-than-expected price tag reflects the quick stabilization of financial markets, which helped companies to return their taxpayer-funded money—often at a profit—and allowed the government to spend less on some aid programs than originally projected. The government also is earning dividends, interest payments and other rescue-related income, ranging from about 5% annually on $1.5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt to $4 billion from the sale of warrants it got to buy shares in TARP recipients.

But the direct costs of the bailout are dwarfed by the broader political and economic impact, many experts say. It likely will take many years for the U.S. to recover from the economic misery, ballooning U.S. debt, lost tax revenue and political tumult fueled by the financial crisis.

"If you look at the cost of a financial crisis ... the bailout costs are often a small part of it," said Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University and co-author of a 2009 book about financial crises.

Health Reform Q&A

Prescriptions has an informative Question & Answer where they answer the following:

Q. Won’t all these changes increase my health care premiums?

Q. Will young, healthy adults who don’t have insurance be helped by the reforms?

Q. How does this bill affect health savings accounts?

Q. How will the law affect children with pre-existing conditions?

Q. How much mental health coverage will this provide? Will i be able to get coverage for a therapist or psychiatrist?

Q. How is the new federal pool different from what is already offered by state high-risk pools or Medicaid?

Q. What exactly is a health insurance exchange? I have read much on this new law, but have not seen this concept explained beyond the abstract. Is it a company? A non-profit group? A state or federal government agency? Who sets it up, runs it and oversees it? Does if require membership? Does anybody really know?

Q. I am about to retire in August. Presently, many Social Security recipients purchase supplemental insurance plans. Will that now change or remain the same?

Q. Will Medicare recipients receive any immediate benefits?

Q. I understand that the bill includes major provisions that limit the transition of drugs such as Lipitor to generic status. Is this true? Are the drugs listed by company, name or type?

Both Extremes Pursing Primary Challenges Of Their Parties' Annoited

The NY Times on a Progressives' challenge in Nebraska:

For all the talk of an angry conservative electorate this year, those on the left side of the spectrum are plenty angry, too, frustrated that President Obama and the majorities his party enjoys in Congress have not accomplished more to enact a liberal agenda. And the primary in Arkansas, one of the most conservative of Democratic bastions, has become a place for liberals to vent frustrations and invest millions for television ads to unseat an incumbent.

And the Times on Kentucky's Tea Party challenge to the GOP:

In Kentucky, the Tea Party movement, with the voter discontent it has captured, has found its purest standard bearer in Rand Paul, who is challenging Mr. Grayson for the Republican nomination. An ophthalmologist, Dr. Paul is the son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate whose libertarian backers often take credit for being the germ of the Tea Party.

While there are candidates backed by the Tea Party in other states, none is so much a product of it, with the name recognition and the fund-raising prowess (through his father’s network). And the proportions of Kentucky’s voter registration make it impossible for any Republican to win a general election without Democratic support, so if Dr. Paul wins the primary on May 18, as polls suggest he will, the Tea Party will have to prove its appeal beyond the Republican right.

It's going to make for a very interesting Primary season.

Weekly Radio Address: Relief for the Middle Class at Tax Time

WhiteHouse.gov:

As April 15th approaches, the President discusses several of the tax breaks for middle class families he has signed into law.  Find out more about the Making Work Pay tax credit, breaks for first-time homebuyers, rewards for making your home more energy efficient and more through our Tax Savings Tool.

The Most Important Quality For Obama's SCOTUS Nominee: Pulling In Kennedy

It's not where they fall on the ideological spectrum, it's their ability to get five votes. Chuck Schumer in the NY Times:

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic leader who shepherded Justice Sotomayor through confirmation, said the focus should be finding a nominee who could influence Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing vote on the closely divided nine-member court, rather than selecting a firebrand who writes powerful dissents.

“One of the most important qualities for the new justice is the ability to win over Justice Kennedy,” Mr. Schumer said. In other words, he added, “somebody who’s going to be one of the five and not one of the four.”

"Can The U.S. Government Assassinate U.S. Citizens Based On Secret Evidence?"

Michael Schearer asks an important question:

The National Security Council says yes, based on a classified review of the evidence against U.S. born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is suspected to be residing somewhere in Yemen and working with Al-Qaeda. But as Spencer Ackerman points out, this decision seems to set up a rather daunting legal precedent.

The administration may very well be making the correct evaluation of the threat al-Awlaki poses. But if citizenship means anything, it means that a citizen can't be killed because the government uses secret evidence to say he or she is an intolerable threat.

Or does it?

Abortion Fight Moves To The States

Wall St Journal:

Less than three weeks after the passage of the landmark national health-care bill, the abortion debate is being reignited: Lawmakers in least six states are pushing for legislation to block abortion coverage in some health plans.

After rancorous clashes over abortion coverage in the national bill, opponents were assured that federal funds wouldn't subsidize coverage of the procedure.

The final legislation requires insurers that sell plans in new government-run exchanges to segregate payments for abortion coverage from other premiums to ensure government subsidies won't go toward the procedure.

Still, many abortion opponents say that didn't go far enough.

So lawmakers are turning to another provision in the legislation that says states can choose to prevent plans offered through their exchanges from covering abortion altogether. That would likely affect most individual and small-group plans in a state, starting when the exchanges launch in 2014.

The new state-level proposals are likely to rekindle abortion as a political issue in November elections. Many state candidates, particularly those running for governor and state legislature, may be forced to take a position on abortion coverage, said John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "Once an issue like this starts being debated in a state, everyone could become involved," said Mr. Green, who studies how religion affects elections.

The debate could spill over to congressional races as well. But these are expected to largely turn on bigger-picture issues like the economy and the role of government, said Charlie Cook, who edits the Cook Political Report.

Since the beginning of this year, lawmakers in five states including Tennessee and Oklahoma have introduced bills that would generally block abortion coverage in exchange plans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

In Mississippi, state Sen. Alan Nunnelee, who is a Republican candidate for Congress, plans to introduce a similar bill this month. The federal language in the health bill, Mr. Nunnelee said, is "absolutely not" enough to ensure that government funds don't support abortion. Mr. Nunnelee is in a competitive congressional race this fall, according to the Cook Political Report.

Missouri state Sen. Scott Rupp, a Republican, is also backing such a bill. The state law already says that private plans generally won't cover abortion, except through special riders, but "we had to move over the ban to the exchanges," he says.

At least one state, Kansas, has seen a bill introduced this year that would prohibit insurance plans generally—not just in an exchange—from covering abortion, with certain exceptions. Five states, including Missouri, have similar laws, which don't affect large self-funded employer plans that aren't overseen by state regulators.

Lawmakers in at least three other states have introduced bills to ban abortion coverage in plans for state employees. Twelve states currently have such laws, according to Guttmacher.

Nonviolence: Have The Palestinians Finally Found An Effective Way Forward?

This NY Times story made me very hopeful. I've long thought that a truly nonviolent movement would be the best way forward for the Palestinians: while the Israelis have a very powerful military force, the Palestinians have an overwhelming moral force that if harnessed to a truly nonviolent movement, would be unstoppable (and would be especially hard for Israel in particular to stop).

Senior Palestinian leaders — men who once commanded militias — are joining unarmed protest marches against Israeli policies and are being arrested. Goods produced in Israeli settlements have been burned in public demonstrations. The Palestinian prime minister has entered West Bank areas officially off limits to his authority, to plant trees and declare the land part of a future state.

The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, said he planted trees in the West Bank last month “to establish our presence on our land and keep our people on it.”

Something is stirring in the West Bank. With both diplomacy and armed struggle out of favor for having failed to end the Israeli occupation, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, joined by the business community, is trying to forge a third way: to rouse popular passions while avoiding violence. The idea, as Fatah struggles to revitalize its leadership, is to build a virtual state and body politic through acts of popular resistance.

“It is all about self-empowerment,” said Hasan Abu-Libdeh, the Palestinian economy minister, referring to a campaign to end the purchase of settlers’ goods and the employment of Palestinians by settlers and their industries. “We want ordinary people to feel like stockholders in the process of building a state.”

The new approach still remains small scale while American-led efforts to revive peace talks are stalled. But street interviews showed that people were aware and supportive of its potential to bring pressure on Israel but dubious about its ultimate effectiveness.

Billboards have sprung up as part of a campaign against buying settlers’ goods, featuring a pointed finger and the slogan “Your conscience, your choice.” The Palestinian Ministry of Communications has just banned the sale of Israeli cellphone cards because Israeli signals are relayed from towers inside settlements. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is spending more time out of his business suits and in neglected villages opening projects related to sewage, electricity and education and calling for “sumud,” or steadfastness.

“Steadfastness must be translated from a slogan to acts and facts on the ground,” he told a crowd late last month in a village called Izbet al-Tabib near the city of Qalqilya, an area where Israel’s separation barrier makes access to land extremely difficult for farmers. Before planting trees, Mr. Fayyad told about 1,000 people gathered to hear him, “This is our real project, to establish our presence on our land and keep our people on it.”

Nonviolence has never caught on here, and Israel’s military says the new approach is hardly nonviolent. But the current set of campaigns is trying to incorporate peaceful pressure in limited ways. Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of the Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, just visited Bilin, a Palestinian village with a weekly protest march. Next week, Martin Luther King III is scheduled to speak here at a conference on nonviolence.

On Palm Sunday, the Israeli police arrested 15 Palestinians in Bethlehem who were protesting the difficulty of getting to Jerusalem because of a security closing. Abbas Zaki, a senior official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, was arrested, prompting demonstrations the next day. Some Palestinians are also rejecting V.I.P. cards handed out by Israelis allowing them to pass quickly through checkpoints.

Palestinian political analysts say it is too early to assess the prospects of the nonviolent approach. Generally, they say, given the division between Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority here, nothing is likely to change without a political shakeup and unified leadership. Still, they say, popular resistance, combined with institution-building and international appeals, is gaining notice among Palestinians.

“Fatah is living through a crisis of vision,” said Mahdi Abdul Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs in Jerusalem. “How can they combine being a liberation movement with being a governing party? This is one way. The idea is to awaken national pride and fulfill the people’s anxiety and passion. Of course, Hamas and armed resistance still remain a real option for many.”

Khalil Shikaki, who runs the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, said: “The society is split. The public believes that Israel responds to suffering, not to nonviolent resistance. But there is also not much interest in violence now. Our surveys show support for armed resistance at 47 percent in March. In essence, the public feels trapped between failed diplomacy and failed armed struggle.”

Israeli military authorities have not decided how to react.

Imagine If Germany Announced That April Was Going To Be Nazi Month ... That's What Va Just Did

This is mind boggling to me and shows the Right's true motivations. From the Wash Post:

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, reviving a controversy that had been dormant for eight years, has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in Virginia, a move that angered civil rights leaders Tuesday but that political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base.

The two previous Democratic governors had refused to issue the mostly symbolic proclamation honoring the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. McDonnell (R) revived a practice started by Republican governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had included in his proclamation.

McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation. Though a Democrat, Wilder has been supportive of McDonnell and boosted his election efforts when he declined to endorse the Republican's opponent, R. Creigh Deeds.

"Confederate history is full of many things that unfortunately are not put forth in a proclamation of this kind nor are they things that anyone wants to celebrate," he said. "It's one thing to sound a cause of rallying a base. But it's quite another to distort history."

The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War."

McDonnell had quietly made the proclamation Friday by placing it on his Web site, but it did not attract attention in the state capital until Tuesday. April also honors child abuse prevention, organ donations, financial literacy and crime victims.

After a fall campaign spent focusing almost exclusively on jobs and the economy, McDonnell had been seen in recent weeks as largely ceding conservative ground to the state's activist attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II. The proclamation could change that view among Republicans who believe appropriate respect for the state's Confederate past has been erased by an over-allegiance to political correctness, observers said.

"It helps him with his base," said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University. "These are people who support state's rights and oppose federal intrusion."

Said Patrick M. McSweeney, a former state GOP chairman: "I applaud McDonnell for doing it. I think it takes a certain amount of courage."

The Virginia NAACP and the state's Legislative Black Caucus called the proclamation an insult to a large segment of the state's population, particularly because it never acknowledges slavery.

"Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed," said Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D-Norfolk), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. "Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."...

Prevention Gets BIG Boost In New Health Law

NY Times:

Amid all the rancor leading up to passage of the new health care law, Congress with little fanfare approved a set of wide-ranging public initiatives to prevent disease and encourage healthy behavior.

The initiatives provide a big dose of prevention in an effort to counter the powerful forces that encourage people to engage in sedentary lifestyles, to smoke and to eat fatty, high-calorie foods.

The emphasis on disease prevention comes nine months after President Obama signed a law that gave sweeping authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. It reflects a sea change in federal health programs and policy, said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee.

Republicans supported many of the health promotion initiatives and objected to a few, but had much bigger concerns about the overall law. The proposals largely escaped public notice as lawmakers fought over abortion, taxes and a government-run “public option.”

Under the law, chain restaurants will have to provide nutrition information on their menus. Employers must provide “reasonable break time” for nursing mothers.

Health insurance companies will soon have to cover all recommended screenings, preventive care and vaccines, without charging co-payments or deductibles.

Medicare beneficiaries will get free annual physicals. Medicaid will cover drugs and counseling to help pregnant women stop smoking. And a new federal trust fund will pay for more bicycle paths, playgrounds, sidewalks and hiking trails.

Those are some of the provisions Congress tucked into the legislation in an effort to reduce the huge toll of preventable diseases — regardless of whether the initiatives also save money for the government, as some lawmakers expect.

John R. Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society, said the new law would unquestionably save lives by increasing the number of people screened for colon cancer and breast cancer.

“When people have insurance,” Dr. Seffrin said, “they are much more likely to receive screenings and treatment. And they are more likely to seek screenings when they do not have to pay co-payments or deductibles.” As a result of such screenings, he added, cancers are more likely to be detected at an early stage, when they are treatable.

Under the law, insurers must provide coverage for all services recommended by an independent panel of experts, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and cannot impose “any cost-sharing requirements.”

In addition, each Medicare beneficiary will be entitled to an “annual wellness visit,” in which a doctor can assess the patient’s condition, check for signs of Alzheimer’s disease and draw up a “personalized prevention plan” with a screening schedule for the next five or 10 years.

"Now it's the Republicans who risk being seen as dwelling obsessively on health care"

Charlie Cook:

We are entering a new phase in the 2010 campaign: The center of attention over the spring and summer will be independent voters and party primaries, especially those on the Republican side.

President Obama and congressional Democrats have been so focused on issues other than job creation that many voters have come to think that they are not doing enough to turn the economy around. Independents, who tended to vote like Democrats in 2006 and 2008, have begun behaving more and more like Republicans, surveys show. But some Democratic pollsters say they were starting to see independents' movement toward the GOP beginning to slow even before the health care overhaul was enacted. A new Democracy Corps memo by Stan Greenberg and James Carville observed that in a national survey of likely voters, "independent voters who did not approve of Democratic governance over the past year seemed to be reassessing their feelings" toward the GOP. The memo stressed that "this pullback is very specific to the Republicans and does not represent any gain for Democrats."

It's not hard to see how Republicans could stall their progress toward winning back independents. Among GOP challengers in competitive primaries, pledges to repeal the new health care law are ubiquitous. After all, in this climate, could a Republican who refuses to take that stand hope to attract a GOP base that feels under siege? But as Republican primary fields tack far to the right, how will independent voters, who have grown impatient with Democrats' handling of the economy, react? The fact that the health care bill lost popularity as time ticked away last fall suggested that voters were not only skeptical about an overhaul but also upset that Democrats were spending so much time on it. And now, all of a sudden, it's the "repeal and replace" Republicans who risk being seen as the ones dwelling obsessively on health care.

To win races this fall, Republican hopefuls don't need to convince independents that Democrats are drunk on power or brazenly thwarting the will of the people. They only need to convince them that shared power and "checks and balances" are good things -- that Democrats have gotten some of what they wanted but that fresh GOP voices could hold the president's party accountable. In 2006, Democrats reversed their fortunes in part by learning to keep their message simple. That's something the GOP could profit from doing this time around.

Even if independents do pull back somewhat from Republicans, Democrats' problems won't disappear. Independents are just part of the equation. The GOP base is incredibly fired up. The Democratic base isn't as demoralized as it would have been if health care reform hadn't been enacted, but a stroke of Obama's bill-signing pen can't eliminate the yawning gap in partisan enthusiasm that is creating so many GOP pickup opportunities. For the time being, the health care bill's enactment is much more likely to slow Republicans' momentum than to reverse it. Will that change of pace be enough to enable House Democrats to hold on to their majority? Spring and summer will yield important clues.

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln Faces Primary Challenge

Wash Post:

Sharp words and millions of dollars in television advertising are turning a Democratic primary challenge to two-term Sen. Blanche Lincoln into an outsize duel over the party's direction in the heartland.

Backed by national labor unions and Democratic activists, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is attacking Lincoln from the left as an uncertain senator who too often tilts right on major issues, including Wall Street, health care and the environment.

Halter contends that the seat is as good as lost to resurgent Republicans if the centrist Lincoln wins the May 18 primary. He said after leaping into the race last month, "My sense is that people want somebody to fight for them."

Lincoln counters that Halter, who returned to Arkansas to run for office after 20 years in government and business, misunderstands the Arkansas electorate. Touting moderation as a virtue, she calls herself "the rope in the tug of war." ...

Halter's challenge, which came as little surprise to the Arkansas political establishment, quickly became a national story. Liberal Democrats, frustrated with President Obama and Congress, cheered the chance to make Lincoln pay for her opposition to a government-run health insurance option and the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to organize.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow drew appreciative laughter during a recent talk at the Clinton School of Public Service when she said of Lincoln, "It's one thing to be a conservative Democrat. It's another thing to act like you don't want to be a Democrat at all."

Emily's List abandoned Lincoln, as did labor unions. She was pummeled with millions of dollars in television advertisements last year during the health-care debate. A radio advertisement from Halter declares, "She didn't stand up to the special interests. She worked for them."

"Our members have been watching Blanche's votes. They've decided enough is enough. We're not throwing our money down the well and getting nothing back from it," said Alan Hughes, president of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, referring to earlier support for Lincoln. "The final straw," he said, was her decision to join Republicans in opposing the nomination of labor lawyer Craig Becker to a seat on the National Labor Relations Board.

The duel is playing out on ideological grounds, yet the contest would not have happened if Halter were not hungering for a bigger political stage.

The Chart That May Make All The Difference In The World Come November

This chart from Steve Benen shows the monthly job losses since the start of the Great Recession with an interesting twist: red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns reflect job totals under the Obama administration.

"What’s clear is that Obama largely remains a fixed point even while the rest of us keep wildly revising our judgments"

Frank Rich:

What a difference winning makes — especially in America. Whatever did (or didn’t) get into Obama’s Wheaties, this much is certain: No one is talking about the clout of Scott Brown or Rahm Emanuel any more.

But has the man really changed — or is it just us? Fifteen months after arriving at the White House, Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country, even with a sub-50 percent approval rating. And yet he’s also the most enigmatic. While he is in our face more than any other figure in the world, we still aren’t entirely sure what to make of him.

Depending on where you stand — or the given day — he is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity who’s clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)

No wonder that eight major new Obama books are arriving in the coming months, as Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post last week. And that’s just counting those by real authors, like Bob Woodward and Jonathan Alter, not the countless anti-Obama diatribes. There’s a bottomless market for these volumes not just because their protagonist remains popular but also because we keep hoping that the Obama puzzle might be cracked once and for all, like the Da Vinci Code.

The first of these books, out this week, is full of intriguing clues. Titled “The Bridge” and written by David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, it portrays Obama as fairly steady in his blend of liberal and centrist views, however much they (like everyone else’s) may have evolved over decades ...

If Obama’s belief system was fairly consistent, his public persona was not. Remnick returns repeatedly to the notion that Obama is a “shape-shifter,” with a remarkable ability to come across differently to disparate constituencies. Some of that reflects his agility at shifting rhetorical gears when, say, speaking to a living-room gathering on Chicago’s Near North Side or at a black church — a talent not unknown to some white politicians, starting with Bill Clinton. But much of this has less to do with Obama’s performance style than with how various audiences respond to his complex, hard-to-pigeonhole poly-racial-cultural-geographical identity. As far back as 2004 — when Obama was still in the Illinois Senate — a writer at The Chicago Tribune, Don Terry, framed what remains the prevailing Obama takeaway to this day. “He’s a Rorschach test,” Terry wrote. “What you see is what you want to see.”

Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

Ignore The Pundits & Believe The Money: Dems Outpace GOP In Fundraising

Wash Post:

The Republican Party's strategy since early last year of lock-step opposition to the Obama administration's major legislative initiatives has proved to be less bankable than some party leaders may have anticipated.

With eight months to go before congressional elections, House and Senate Democratic candidates exceed in virtually every important campaign fundraising category. Democratic House lawmakers appear likely to reverse their seven-cycle record of being outspent by House Republicans, according to recent finance reports.

Democrats in both chambers are enjoying the traditional advantages of majority-party status -- and then some. They lead in donations by political action committees, by committees affiliated with the national political parties or with House and Senate leaders, and in individual contributions to incumbent lawmakers. In some instances, their lead exceeds what the Republicans had when that party controlled both chambers in the 2005-06 midterm election cycle.

To no surprise, analysts differ by party on the causes and significance of the disparity. Some Republicans say a donations surge may still come in the campaign's final months, particularly as the party courts new, small donors outside Washington. They also complain that donations to party stalwarts have been affected by internal squabbles with rebellious tea partiers, which they hope will end soon.

Republicans also say the party must remain unified in opposition to President Obama if it wants to energize the most reliable donors, volunteers and voters. "If we look like winners, money will follow," said Steven H. Gordon, an adviser to Senate Republican leaders who in the past has raised $70 million for GOP congressional candidates.

But recent controversy over lavish and questionable expenditures by the Republican National Committee -- including chartered airplanes and a young Republicans' night out at a bondage-themed nightclub in Hollywood -- appears likely to complicate efforts by the Republicans to overcome their deficit. Some traditional party supporters, such as Family Council President Tony Perkins, have recently urged followers to respond by withholding donations from the national party.

Democrats say their higher tallies so far are just the beginning, because campaign cash usually follows political momentum and Obama's health-care triumph may have ended a political slide.

"There's been a real kickup of wind in Democratic party sails," said Jonathan Mantz, a former finance director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "Success will breed success, and the energy will bring new resources" to congressional candidates.

The Republicans' unified opposition to Obama's agenda kicked off with a failed attempt early last year to defeat his economic stimulus legislation, and reemerged during a failed effort last June to block a House Democratic climate change bill. It played out again during the failed attempt to stop Obama's health-care legislation.

But the party's defiance shows no sign yet of enabling its lawmakers to overcome the traditional financial disadvantage of a minority party, a status that routinely leads to smaller campaign contributions.

For example, the 165 incumbent House Republicans seeking reelection last year on average raised $587,570 over 12 months, while the 245 incumbent Democrats seeking reelection raised an average of $662,793, according to data from the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonprofit group affiliated with George Washington University.

At the end of 2005, when Republicans controlled the House, the tallies were almost precisely opposite. Of course, the Democrats went on to gain 31 seats in the 2006 election and regain control of the chamber for the first time in 12 years, so fundraising tallies midway through a cycle do not necessarily predict outcomes.

The IPAB Could Be "the most important" Cost Control Mechanism In Health Reform

And Obama insisted, over lobbyist & Congressional opposition, it be there. Wall St Journal:

Last year, Congress rejected a bill that would have required an up-or-down vote on recommendations to reduce the budget deficit from a commission composed primarily of members of Congress. This year, Congress acquiesced to President Barack Obama's insistence that it create a presidentially appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to craft ways to slow Medicare spending that will take effect automatically unless Congress votes to reject them.

Did something big just happen that will nudge Washington toward fiscal sanity? Or is this a smoke screen, one that allows backers of the health bill to argue today that it was fully paid-for and gut the provision tomorrow?

We won't know for a decade. "We'll get earlier feedback on the Apple iPad's performance than the IPAB," quips Peter Orszag, the White House budget director.

There is a chance—a chance—this will grow into a mechanism that overcomes congressional inability to say "no" to Americans who collectively demand more in benefits than they're willing to pay in taxes. It is hardly democratic. It substitutes technocrats' judgment for decisions by elected representatives. But, as Maya McGuiness, head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, puts it: "Outsourcing some of the harder policy decisions is the best chance we have."

The law instructs the 14-member board to devise money-saving changes to Medicare when per-capita spending is projected to climb faster than one percentage point above the overall economy's growth rate. Congress can block the changes, but that requires a majority vote or, if the president vetoes, two-thirds. There are lots of strings: The law says the board can't ration care, increase revenue or restrict eligibility for benefits (though it can change the amount and way Medicare pays for care.) Hospitals get a pass for the first several years.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the board will save around $15.5 billion over 10 years, on top other changes to Medicare specified in the law—more if run by the right people and if Congress lets it take the heat, less if run by the wrong people or if Congress resists.

But it is a big change: A Medicare panel Congress created in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act can only make suggestions; this one has more teeth. "If I had gone to the Aspen Institute or the Brookings [Institution] board, and said you're going to get an entitlement commission with authority to control health-care costs, they'd be breaking out the champagne and high-fiving themselves," says Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff. "That's what's been done at the president's insistence over the opposition of providers and defenders of congressional prerogatives."

When House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) told Mr. Obama that House Democrats were uneasy about surrendering their power over the purse, White House aides say the president responded: "There'll be no health bill if I don't have the ability to control costs."

Mr. Orszag injudiciously told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein that the provision represents "the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve." (Don't tell the Supreme Court.) If the board realizes its potential to push Medicare toward paying for better quality care, as opposed to paying for more care, "it could well turn out to be perhaps the most important component of the new legislation," he says. (Mr. Orszag sometimes sounds like a man growing weary of the high-pressure budget director's job who would love to chair the new board.)

Yelps from doctors and drug companies suggest the IPAB may bite.

MA & RI Compete For Nation's First Wind Farm

NY Times:

As New Englanders await a decision in Massachusetts on a bitterly contested proposal to build the nation’s first offshore wind farm, the State of Rhode Island is forging ahead with its own project in the hope of outpacing — and upstaging — its neighbor.

Crucial to its strategy is dispelling worries that economics will trump the environment, or the broader public good.

Instead of having a private developer dominate the research on potential sites, as Massachusetts has, Rhode Island embarked on a three-year scientific study, to be completed in August, of all waters within 30 miles of its coast. It has spent more than $8 million on research into bird migration patterns, wildlife habitats, fish distribution, fishermen’s needs and areas that might be of cultural importance to Indian tribes.

Its goal has been to head off the hurdles that have been in the way of the Massachusetts project, which has pitted coastal Indian tribes, business interest and homeowners against the developer, Cape Wind, and proponents of alternative energy. Frustrated by the failure of the two sides to broker an agreement, the Obama administration’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, has promised to determine the fate of the project on his own this month. (On Friday a federal historic panel sent Mr. Salazar its recommendation that the government reject the Cape Wind Project.)

“We took the opposite approach of what Cape Wind did,” said Grover Fugate, the chief administrator of the Rhode Island project and the director of the state’s Coastal Resources Management Council.

Still, independent of the scientific study, Rhode Island has proposed two potential offshore sites — a $200 million eight-turbine project off Block Island, and a far bigger $1.5 billion farm in the eastern Rhode Island Sound — and has selected a preferred developer, Deepwater Wind.

In February, Gov. Donald L. Carcieri went so far as to suggest that the Block Island site was “on target to become the nation’s first offshore wind farm.”

Massachusetts counters that it is much further ahead. “We’ve been through all the state permits and we’re awaiting the final permits,” Ian Bowles, the state’s secretary of energy and environment, said in a recent interview.

Rhode Island has not secured permits, but it has trumpeted what Cape Wind so far lacks: a “power purchase” agreement with a utility company to buy what a farm generates. Yet on Wednesday, the state’s utility commission rejected that pact, which involved the proposed farm off Block Island, as too costly.

So for now, Cape Wind is poised to be first, said Matt Kaplan, a wind analyst at Emerging Energy Research, a firm that tracks emerging energy markets.

“If Cape Wind makes it through the permitting process, that is a major feat that no other offshore wind project has achieved in the U.S.,” he said. “However, power purchase agreements have been hard to secure.”

Officials consider a viable project as a source of energy and jobs, but the wind wars are also driven by state pride. “There is a rivalry to be the first state to have an offshore wind project in the nation,” Mr. Kaplan said. “And there is some embarrassment on the part of Massachusetts, having taken so long with Cape Wind.”

Weekly Radio Address: Holiday Greetings

WhiteHouse.gov:

In this week of Easter, Passover, and faithful celebration, the President offers a holiday greeting and calls on people of all faiths and nonbelievers to remember our shared spirit of humanity. 

The Right's Specious Claim That ‘ObamaCare’ Is Destroying Wealth

Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton economics professor:

A coalition of 300 large American corporations is lobbying Congress to rescind a tax provision in the recently passed health reform bill. This provision forces companies to book sizable write-offs in the current quarter.

In its lead editorial of March 27-28, The Wall Street Journal decried the provision as “The ObamaCare Writedowns,” writing that

ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of corporate losses. This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning.

What might have prompted the Obama administration and its allies in Congress to embark on this alleged “wholesale destruction of wealth?” Is it, in fact, a wholesale destruction of wealth?

To understand this issue, it may be well to illustrate it with a familiar analogy: a household expenditure that is deductible from taxable income under current law. For example, consider interest payments on mortgage loans made by homeowners who itemize their tax deductions.

Suppose that last year a homeowner made all his monthly payments on the second year of a 20-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan, which had an A.P.R. (“Annual Percentage Rate”) of 5 percent per year.

Using a standard amortization table for such a mortgage, we find that a homeowner with this mortgage could deduct $14,338 in mortgage-interest payments for 2009 from his taxes.

Now suppose that for some reason, the government had decided to grant homeowners a 30 percent subsidy on that interest expenditure. Consequently, this homeowner gets a check for $4,301 from the government.

What amount should that homeowner then be allowed to deduct from taxable income for 2009 – the gross interest payment of $14,338, or the net interest payment $10,037?

If the former, the homeowner in effect could tax-deduct an expenditure that was actually made for him by the government. Would that be reasonable? Many people would say no.

The answer to this question bears directly on the current brouhaha over the “ObamaCare Writedowns.”

In previous decades, many American companies offered their workers retiree-health plans that promised to cover sundry medical expenses not covered by Medicare, prescription drugs prominently among them. Economists are convinced that, at the time they were made, these promises were substitutes for the cash take-home pay of workers.

Under a  Financial Accounting Standards Board statement (FASB ASC 715), business firms since 1993 have had to estimate, at the end of any fiscal year, the total projected cost of all future retiree health benefits promised to employees already on board or already retired at that time. Companies must then add that total to the liabilities on their balance sheets.

To maintain the famous accounting identity

NET WORTH = ASSETS – LIABILITIES

firms also recorded a corresponding reduction in the firm’s reported net worth. That reduction in the firm’s book net worth, however, is not a destruction of wealth. It merely makes visible the net worth that management has already given away to workers in the form of promised future retiree health care ...

Enter now the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which since 2006 has provided Medicare beneficiaries with substantial federal subsidies for prescription drugs.

Poll: Slightly More Americans Blame The Dems Than The Right's Rhetoric For Post Health Vote Violence

An appalling finding by Gallup:

Americans hold all sides of the healthcare reform battle responsible for the rash of threatening e-mails, phone calls, and vandalism that erupted last week after the healthcare bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Roughly half (49%) say controversial political maneuvers by Democratic leaders to secure the votes they needed were a major reason. Nearly as many blame harsh criticism of the bill by both conservative media commentators and Republican leaders.

Overall, a majority of Americans surveyed in the March 26-28 USA Today/Gallup poll believe each factor was at least a minor explanation for these extreme public reactions to the bill's passage.

Republicans mainly blame the actions of Democratic leaders while, in equal measure, Democrats mainly blame the rhetoric of conservative commentators and Republican leaders. Political independents are somewhat more likely to attribute responsibility to Democratic leaders' actions than to Republican leaders' words.

A striking Gallup finding in the immediate aftermath of the healthcare vote was that by 41% to 29%, Republicans were more likely to say they were "angry" about the outcome than Democrats were to say they were "enthusiastic."

One reason for Republicans' anger may be revealed in a new question asking whether Americans believe the methods Democratic leaders used to secure passage of the bill represented "an abuse of power" or "an appropriate use" of the majority party's power in Congress. Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans see it as abuse of power, whereas a smaller majority of Democrats (70%) call it an appropriate use of power. The majority of independents agree with most Republicans on this question.

Obama Jokes About The GOP's & Media's Reaction To Health Reform Passage

Definitely worth watching both because it's amusing and because it again makes clear that Obama operates on a longer time frame than his opponents and the media:

A Peek At What's To Come Nationally As MA Rejects Health Insurer Rate Hikes

As Obamacare, particularly the exchanges, are modeled on Romneycare, this Boston Globe report on the Commonwealth's push back against medical cost increases has import for everyone:

Making good on Governor Deval Patrick’s promise to reject health insurance rate increases deemed excessive, the state Division of Insurance yesterday denied 235 of 274 increases proposed by insurers for plans covering individuals and small businesses.

The rulings, following a review process set in motion by emergency regulations Patrick filed in February, mark the first time the state has used its authority to turn down health premium increases. The action immediately sent ripples through the state health care industry.

Insurers said it would usher in an era of price controls, and vowed to appeal to the state or through the courts — a process that could drag on for months.

“We share the concern about rising health costs, but we don’t think government price controls will solve the problem,’’ said Jay McQuaide, vice president at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer.

But small businesses applauded the rejection of higher premiums, saying they can’t continue to endure rapidly escalating insurance bills, especially after the long economic downturn.

“Costs will double in four years if it keeps going on the same trend,’’ said Dennis Franson, whose two-person investment firm in Woburn was facing an 18 percent rate increase. “That’s unsustainable.’’

Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy found that most of the base rates proposed by state health plans were “unreasonable relative to the benefits provided,’’ according to a statement issued by the agency.

The rates were to have taken effect yesterday for thousands of businesses and individuals in the so-called small group market. That group, created by the state’s 2006 universal health care law, combines businesses employing up to 50 people with sole proprietors and self-employed people who previously bought insurance on their own or were uninsured.

Insurers proposed base rate increases averaging 8 percent to 32 percent for hundreds of separate products, offering different mixes of benefit designs, copays, and deductibles. On top of overall base rates, insurers often add extra costs for each business, adjusting for such things as geography, industry, and the size and age of a workforce. That can drive rates up significantly.

For now, premium rates established last year remain in effect. Because insurers send out bills four to six weeks in advance of the date policies take effect, companies or individuals that already made the new, higher payments will receive a refund or a credit from insurers ...

The Insurance Division, in letters to carriers, outlined reasons for the rate rejections. Among them were rate proposals that are significantly above the medical consumer price index — a consumer health care spending measure estimated at 4.8 percent — and proposals that failed to explain how insurers set different reimbursement rates.

Several proposals, including those from for-profit, out-of-state insurers such as Aetna, ConnectiCare, and United HealthCare, were approved after the companies worked with Insurance Division staffers on ways to reduce costs. Some of those approved called for increases above 4.8 percent, but insurers offered data justifying the increases, according to the state.

Insurers whose rates were rejected — most of which posted operating losses for 2009 due to job cuts at companies they sell plans to — received yesterday’s decision with anger.

“We’re very disappointed,’’ said McQuaide at Blue Cross-Blue Shield. “The rates we filed reflect expected medical costs of members buying our products. And we were surprised the disapprovals had no actuarial opinions, suggesting this was an arbitrary decision.’’

Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said her group was weighing all administrative and legal options with its members, which include nonprofits such as Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Tufts Health Plan, and Fallon Community Health Plan.

“If we’re not going to be allowed to have our prices cover our costs, that will be a problem for the whole industry,’’ she said.

But Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents 3,100 retailers and restaurants, said the rejections were justified.

“It’s welcome news on Main Street,’’ Hurst said. “They’re not hiring, and they’re seeing double-digit health premium increases every year. The real message is that a line in the sand has been drawn. And big health care in the state has got to get out of its alternative universe.’’

Insurers have up to 15 days to request appeal hearings at the Insurance Division, Murphy said in an interview. Such public hearings would be complex, lasting from a few days to a week. They would examine rate increases proposed for various products, and hearing officers would have 30 days to make their rulings. If the appeals are rebuffed, insurers can go to Superior Court.

Carriers also have the option of filing new rate requests with more modest increases, which would require a 30-day review.

As of now, however, the old rates remain in effect, and insurers must honor the plans they sold.

Several health care industry officials said that as a result of the state’s stance, insurers will probably take a tougher position with hospitals and other health care providers when current contracts expire, in an effort to limit reimbursements.

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."