Senate Leaders in Tentative Deal to Radically Alter Public Option

The New York Times is reporting this evening that Senate leaders are in talks to radically alter the public option.

From the New York Times:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said on Tuesday night that he had reached “a broad agreement” among a group of 10 Democrats who have been working to resolve the dispute over a proposed government-run insurance plan that has posed perhaps the biggest obstacle to major health care legislation.

Mr. Reid refused to provide details, saying only that the group of 10 senators – five liberals and five centrists – would be sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis. The broader Senate Democratic caucus appeared to be in a state of confusion with even some senior party leaders saying they were unaware of any agreement.

But Democratic aides said that the group had tentatively agreed on a proposal that would replace a government-run health care plan with a menu of new national, privately-run insurance plans modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers more than eight million federal workers, including members of Congress, and their dependents.

This is bad news for America. There is broad support for the public option among the public. Senator Harry Reid and the other leaders are caving to the for-profit health insurance industry.

In Support of Obama’s ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

The New York Times posted an extensive article on the process through which President Obama arrived at his decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Obama was "haunted by the human toll," his advisers say, and wrestled with the economic toll. One estimate claimed that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years. The "fiscally conservative" far right doesn’t bat an eye at these costs. Obama was concerned.

From The New York Times:

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.

We never heard President George W. Bush described as "intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest," although he may have been "deeply frustrating for nearly all involved." Obama was "deeply frustrating" for different reasons.

“I don’t want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,” he told his advisers.

Read the NYTimes article. Any who thought Obama was not listening to his generals should take heed. He was taking them back to boot camp, pushing and challenging them more than they had been pushed or challenged before. As Commander-in-Chief, he alone makes the policy decisions in war. The generals meet the professor.

I’m with the professor and the generals.

No one gets everything they want in a time of war.

Fort Hood Unit to Deploy Despite Losses and Grief

Those who suffered only recently are about to be deployed in service to this nation.

From the Sun-Times:

The day after arriving at Fort Hood, Army reservists dedicated to counseling troubled soldiers in war zones were overcome with their own grief.

Nearly a fourth of the Wisconsin-based 467th Medical Detachment’s soldiers died or were injured in the shooting rampage last month at the sprawling Texas post. The accused gunman, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan, was supposed to deploy with the unit. Yet the soldiers said they never wavered in their determination to serve. They spent the last month training together, and several soldiers from across the country volunteered to fill the void left by the three soldiers slain and six others seriously wounded.

The 43 members of the Army Reserve combat stress unit were set to deploy to Afghanistan on Friday.

Department of Defense officials decided only recently that the unit would deploy as originally scheduled.

The article isn’t quite formatted correctly at the Sun-Times at this point — it’s two paragraphs, the second very, very long — but you should read it anyhow.

And pray for — and support — our troops.

Senate Begins Historic Health Care Reform Debate

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Associated Press has an opinion on the health care reform debate that began today in Congress.

From the AP, via Yahoo! News:

Riven by partisanship, the Senate plunged into a widely anticipated debate Monday over sweeping health care legislation that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to approve and Republicans have sworn to block.

Debate is expected to last for weeks over the legislation, which includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance and a mandate for insurers to cover any paying customer regardless ofmedical history or condition.

"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the first moments of the first speech, a jab at Republicans that was reciprocated minutes later.

"Well, I don’t know what’s more preposterous: saying that this plan ‘saves Medicare’ or thinking that people will actually believe you," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said of Reid’s oft-made statement.

At a cost of nearly $1 trillion, the legislation is designed to extend health care to millions of American who lack it, abolish insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cut back on the rise of health care spending overall.

Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. In all, CBO said 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. As much as 94 percent of the eligible population would wind up covered. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.

Mitch McConnell is being completely disingenuine. The Republicans have been working to dismantle Medicare for years. The best news is from the Congressional Budget Office. The plan is fiscally sound.

And I don’t want to hear any more Republicans screaming about having to read a 2,074-page bill. Grow up. You wanted to go to Washington. Now read.

Is Your Family on Food Stamps Yet?

Food Stamps

The New York Times reports that one in eight Americans—that’s 12.5%—are currently on food stamps. That’s a lot of people. But consider this: one in four children in the United States are on food stamps.

Thats 25% of all the children in the Land of Plenty.

From the New York Times:

[Food stamp use] has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.

Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.

While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.

From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.

Twenty thousand more people a day eating because of food stamps. According to an analysis by the New York Times, there are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps.

We’re not out of the woods yet.

The Bush Legacy continues.

Virginia Couple Crashes Obama’s First State Dinner

White House party crashers

Somebody needs to answer for this. A couple from Virginia crashed a White House state dinner. Yes, that’s the couple above with Vice President Joe Biden.  The Secret Service first learned of the security breach when the couple posted pictures from the event on their Facebook page.

Apparently they just walked into the White House.

From the New York Times:

This much is known: About 7:15 Tuesday night, a glittering blonde, decked out in a red and gold sari, holding the hand of her black-tuxedoed escort, swept past the camera crews and reporters camped out to catch the red-carpet arrivals for the first state dinner given by President Obama.

“Hey, that’s a Desperate Housewife!” one reporter yelled out, alluding to the TV series named for a collection of them.

In fact, the couple — Michaele Salahi and her husband, Tareq — are Virginians who have been auditioning for a possible role in a different housewives TV franchise: “The Real Housewives of Washington.”

They swept past the camera crews and followed the trail of other bigwigs attending the dinner.

But neither Mr. nor Mrs. Salahi, best known in the Washington area for promoting wine and polo in Virginia, were on the guest list for the event, a fact first reported Wednesday morning on the Washington Post Web site.

A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the Salahis had not been invited nor seated for dinner.

The couple “went through magnetometers and other levels of security,” according to a Secret Service spokesman. The fact remains, however, that these two enjoyed unprecedented access to the President of the United States, even if they did not meet him directly.

What an incredible and apparently unprecedented security lapse.

The investigation continues.

Read more here.

Help Senator Durbin Fight for the Public Option

From the Sun-Times:

Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

Here’s how you can help fight for the Public Option…

From Senator Dick Durbin:

Moments ago, the Senate voted to begin its full debate on historic health care reform legislation instead of obstructing it with a filibuster. 

Tonight’s vote marks the biggest victory to date for our grassroots effort to pass health care reform with a public option. We cannot give enough thanks to the over 100,000 signers of our petition at CitizensForAPublicOption.com for helping to fundamentally shift the momentum towards meaningful reform. 

Not long ago, a few loud opponents of reform armed and organized by the insurance industry dominated this debate. Now the American people, the majority of whom support a public option, have spoken out and gained the upper hand. 

Not long ago, the public option seemed like little more than a pipe dream. Now it’s part of health care bills in both the Senate and the House. 

Not long ago, members of our own Democratic caucus weren’t sure they could even support an up-or-down vote on health care reform legislation. Tonight they voted to end the Republican filibuster. 

But despite this good news, the fight for meaningful health care reform is not over. As we debate amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, we will work with our colleagues to ensure it continues to address the "Three C’s" of meaningful reform: competition, choice, and cost reduction. And we will firmly oppose any effort to eliminate the public option. 

Tonight we celebrate a milestone no one thought we could reach just months ago. Tomorrow the fight continues. We will not let up until the President signs a bill we can all be proud of.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer

Click Here to Contribute

Texas May Have Banned All Marriages

I know this is a trial lawyer’s wet dream, but this is just too funny. In government, we are cautioned to watch for the “unintended consequences” of new laws and ordinances.

This is quite the “unintended consequence.” Texas, in an attempt to ban same-sex marriages, may have actually made all marriages illegal.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

From McClatcheyDC.Com:

Texans: Are you really married?

Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.

She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

I’m sorry, but this is too funny.  In their zeal to ban gay marriage, it would appear that Texas has banned all marriages with this phrase: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Talk about your constitutional conundrums. Texas may actually have to amend its constitution again to recognize marriage.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Krugman: Emulate Europe to Spur Job Growth

Nobel Prize-winning economis Paul Krugman advises, if the United States will not employ a "conventional stimulus," then the United States should consider European solutions to the Great Recession.

From the New York Times:

Here in America, the philosophy behind jobs policy can be summarized as “if you grow it, they will come.” That is, we don’t really have a jobs policy: we have a G.D.P. policy. The theory is that by stimulating overall spending we can make G.D.P. grow faster, and this will induce companies to stop firing and resume hiring.

The alternative would be policies that address the job issue more directly. We could, for example, have New-Deal-style employment programs. Perhaps such a thing is politically impossible now — Glenn Beck would describe anything like the Works Progress Administration as a plan to recruit pro-Obama brownshirts — but we should note, for the record, that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget.

Alternatively, or in addition, we could have policies that support private-sector employment. Such policies could range from labor rules that discourage firing to financial incentives for companies that either add workers or reduce hours to avoid layoffs.

And that’s what the Germans have done. Germany came into the Great Recession with strong employment protection legislation. This has been supplemented with a “short-time work scheme,” which provides subsidies to employers who reduce workers’ hours rather than laying them off. These measures didn’t prevent a nasty recession, but Germany got through the recession with remarkably few job losses.

Should America be trying anything along these lines? In a recent interview, Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s highest-ranking economist, was dismissive: “It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that’s not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work.” True. But we are not, in fact, expanding the total amount of work — and Congress doesn’t seem willing to spend enough on stimulus to change that unfortunate fact. So shouldn’t we be considering other measures, if only as a stopgap?

But these aren’t normal times. Right now, workers who lose their jobs aren’t moving to the jobs of the future; they’re entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there. Long-term unemployment is already at its highest levels since the 1930s, and it’s still on the rise.

And long-term unemployment inflicts long-term damage. Workers who have been out of a job for too long often find it hard to get back into the labor market even when conditions improve. And there are hidden costs, too — not least for children, who suffer physically and emotionally when their parents spend months or years unemployed.

So it’s time to try something different.

We need to do more than what we’re doing. President Obama and Congress must listen. The future of this country — and their respective re-elections — depend on it.

Read the entire column here.

President Obama on Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act

President Obama issued the following statement on passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Source: whitehouse.gov

I go back and forth on Obama. Honestly, I’m incredibly proud of the job he’s doing, although I know he’s governing from the center-to-slightly-left. My consertative friends would never admit to that, but it’s true. The man is not a liberal. But he is our President, and I’m proud of that.

And tonight, there is reason for joy.

Now if someone would wake up Harry Reid and point him in the direction of the U.S. Capitol building. It’s time for Harry to grow a pair, motivate the United States Senate (Yes, Harry, it’s okay if you do that.), and pass health care reform for the President to sign.