No Need To Kid Ourselves

I don't think it takes a genius to see where things are leading:

CNN has learned that the White House is quietly working to draft health care legislation after allowing Congress to work on its own for months.

Multiple sources close to the process tell CNN that while the plan is uncertain, they are preparing for the possibility they could deliver their own legislation to Capitol Hill sometime after the President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday, with one source calling the possibility of new legislation a "contingency" approach if efforts by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to craft a deal fall through.

Multiple sources say the current thinking among administration officials is that the president will lay out a path to reform in his speech next week that the White House hopes can bridge the various differences in the competing proposals. Sources expect the president to emphasize the message: If Congress passes something now, it will serve as a foundation to pass further reform in the future. (emphasis mine)

The Baucus caucus met today, and Baucus said he'll simply put out his own bill, and basically they'll either have a bipartisan solution by September 15 or break up the Gang of Six and go to a markup.

It's pretty obvious what's going on. The President will settle for the trigger and try to get President Olympia Snowe to write the bill. The trigger has basically already been triggered, that's why the crisis has moved to a point where we need reform. And we know from experience that the trigger will be set up so it never gets triggered to bring a public option into being.

A trigger for the public health insurance option would create underpowered public plans that would be swallowed whole by the insurance industry. A trigger would also tell the insurance industry the exact minimum level of care and service they need to provide (a level worse than they provide now) before they face competition, giving them incentive to stay at that level and no better. That trigger will never be triggered - instead, it will kill the public health insurance option. But most importantly, a trigger wants us to wait for our crisis to worsen before we fix it.

That's not a compromise. That's not even a rational proposal. Waiting for the crisis to get worse does nothing but help the insurance industry at the expense of our wallets, our health, and our lives.

The trigger kills the public health insurance option. It is not health reform. It should be rejected.

Liberals are angry but have been marginalized in the last few days. ConservaDems, emboldened by hopes of protecting their corporate contributors, are taking a victory lap. Fight on, radical moderates, fight on.

And in between, the mainstream Dems want to take half a loaf.

Clyburn said Democrats should be satisfied if they can only achieve "half a loaf" of reforms, noting that President Lyndon Johnson didn't get all of his landmark civil rights legislation through Congress on his first try.

"We can pass a health-care bill that will do a lot of good," Clyburn said. "It may not be perfect, but we ought not to sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect."

The writing's on the wall here. And we'll see if the Progressive Block in the House means anything.

...In his conference call with Progressive Caucus members, Obama straight up asked House liberals "how far they're willing to compromise on the public option". Greg Sargent has more. He apparently told them that they had the luxury of being in safe seats, although while they may be safe D, they won't be safe from primary challenges if they have to give on what has become this fundamental pillar of health care reform.

Let Them Eat Crawfish Cake

Kicking off his 2012 Presidential campaign, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has decided to screw over poor people.

When President Obama signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act last week, it included three different provisions to benefit unemployed workers. The first provided funding to states that allowed for a $25 per week increase in benefits. The second extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program which gives 20 weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits to individuals “who had already collected all regular state benefits,” while the third provision widened the pool of people eligible to receive unemployment benefits.

Today, however, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced his intention to oppose changing state law to allow his Lousiana citizens to qualify for the second two unemployment provisions. Jindal said the state would only be accepting money to increase the unemployment insurance payments for those who currently qualify for unemployment insurance.

In all, Jindal turned away nearly $100 million in federal aid for his state’s unemployed residents.

I know a big state on the West Coast that can use it.

For the most part, these "principled" Southern governors have been talking the talk about rejecting stimulus funds but not walking the walk. Jindal is sufficiently crazy enough to go all the way. And of course, he didn't reject the new homebuyers' benefit or anything that would hit someone of less modest means, he rejected aid for the desperate. Unemployment benefits are among the fastest forms of stimulus there are, with really big multipliers, because people in that situation spend the money. But it's considered good strategy now in the Republican Party to try and sink the economy, and it's always been good strategy to harm the poor at the expense of the rich. Jim Clyburn is right here, though I think it's a function of class and not quite race.

The highest-ranking African-American member of Congress on Friday accused Southern governors who oppose economic stimulus spending of indifference to the plight of poor blacks who might benefit from the federal money.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, amplified earlier statements that the governors' hesitation in accepting stimulus money had insulted him because "these four states are in the heart of the black belt."

Clyburn singled out Republican Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi for criticism.

This isn't about traditionally poor communities anymore. Due to the length and breadth of this recession, middle class professionals are now showing up at food banks. And Bobby Jindal wants to make sure that they get no help from the state that they could use to get themselves back on their feet and ready to contribute to the economy again.

Good Presidential material.

...if Jindal wants to really make a name for himself, he could reject federal support to rebuild New Orleans. Now THAT would make him look like a tiger!

House Whip Getting Whip Counted

So I guess Jim Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, would rather go slow with an incremental approach to health care reform. None of this is new - Clyburn first said this right after the election on Meet The Press, and I question just how influential he is on this issue. Nevertheless, what's interesting to me is the speed with which progressive groups are confronting Clyburn over his comments.

One of the leading health care reform groups in Washington on Monday issued a strong rebuttal to House Democratic Whip James Clyburn for suggesting a comprehensive health care reform bill would not pass Congress in 2009.

Health Care For America Now's National Campaign Manager Richard Kirsch wrote:

"We hope that Congressman Clyburn will join with President Obama and the 178 Members of the 111th Congress, including a great majority of the House Leadership, who have all stated that they want to see comprehensive health care reform passed in 2009. Now is not the time to take small steps to solve big problems. The Health Care for America Now (HCAN) statement signed by President Obama and Members of Congress explicitly states support for an enactment of quality, affordable health care for all in 2009."

The statement, notable for its direct targeting of Clyburn, comes after the South Carolina Democrat said over the weekend that an incremental approach towards health care reform would be better "than to go out and just bite something you can't chew."

HCAN is asking South Carolinians to call Clyburn and urge him to reconsider his comments. His DC office is at (202) 225-3315.

It's important that there is a group ready to mobilize as soon as any Democrat in the leadership gets cold feet or attempts to create some wiggle room on comprehensive health care reform. This happened within a day, and it's something that almost never happened in 1994. Constituent pressure in the direction of a progressive solution has been sorely needed on this issue, and HCAN is fulfilling its role.

Meanwhile, John Conyers is dropping HR 676 today. Backers of the plan need to take that lesson from HCAN - bottom-up pressure is crucial.

I Found My Voice

I think we have to pay attention to the fact that the voice Hillary Clinton found is one that goes relentlessly negative. She threw everything she had at Obama in New Hampshire and it worked. Even during the "Tears" moment, she questioned Obama's fitness for office. Her surrogates are using a lot of shaded racism to discuss Obama's character and misleading statistics to discuss his record (the abortion mailer, for example). This is leading House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) to reconsider his neutrality. And now we have this little slap in the face.

Clinton implied that Obama's career has mostly been spent running for office rather than governing.

"He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."

What the hell does "part-time Senator" mean? Considering Hillary didn't spend her entire time in the White House on trade missions or official state visits, does that make her a "part-time first lady"? That's a steaming pile of garbage.

I know that as good liberals we're supposed to be on the lookout for media bias, and to be sure there's been a great deal of sexism directed at Hillary Clinton in this campaign. But can we take a quick look at how she's running right now? I mean, if you think that Democrats need sharper elbows to go up against the Republican machine, maybe you're happy with the candidate sailing to victory in the primary on the strength of negative attacks. But there's a fine line here between "contrasting records" and the kind of ethical black hole we see from the Republicans. I don't want to see the media inject themselves into this campaign. I also don't want to see a Democrat go negative against a fellow Democrat and turn the primary into a farce out of a burning desire to be President.

UPDATE: Publius makes the case against Hillary here. Despite the way this primary has slid away from issues and into identity politics, these things are important. I hope that voters in the other states take a look at this stuff. I think another Clinton Administration would feature incremental half-measures on the domestic front and a missed opportunity to advance our national security and foreign policy, plus the team that would make up her senior staff are the worst kind of Democrats imaginable. I don't think she's right for this historical moment. Maybe in the 1950s, like her husband, the best Republican President we've had since Eisenhower.

UPDATE II: Just stop it.

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary," the aide said. "If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

Give me a fucking break. The Clinton campaign is winning by going right into the mud.

Whip Count On S-CHIP

These numbers don't actually add up unless some Republicans have already flipped. Jim Clyburn, the Majority Whip, is claiming that the Democrats needs 15 more votes in the House to override Bush's S-CHIP veto. But the article says this:

Clyburn said he expected four of the eight Democrats who voted against the measure last week to vote for it when it comes back to the floor for an override vote. Another Democrat who voted present will also vote for the override, Clyburn said Tuesday afternoon.

265 House members voted for S-CHIP before. With 2 seats currently vacant, 289 votes are needed for override. Clyburn's numbers on the Democratic side add 5 to the "yes" legder. That leaves them 19 votes short.

Have four Republicans switched their votes, and if so, which ones?

This would be a good thing for a blog with bigger reach, like Josh Marshall's, to tackle. Can we get a true whip count?