Progressives Fight Back Hard To Protect Public Option
WH again tries to calm progressives after hinting at dropping public option. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 'misspoke' when she told CNN [Sunday] that a government run health insurance option 'is not an essential part' of reform ... The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package."
WH spokeswoman Linda Douglass releases similar statement: "Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."
TIME's Karen Tumulty notes little new actually being said: "Hardly a new development, considering that the White House and the President have been sounding pretty flexible for months on the subject of a public option ... When I asked Obama about the public option in an interview on July 28, he described something that sounded more like an insurance company than a big new government program ... 'It shouldn't be something that's simply a taxpayer-subsidized system that wasn't accountable, but rather had to be self-sustaining through premiums and that had to compete with private insurers.' ... he said: 'I think in theory you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition. Obviously, sort of the legal structure of it is less important than practically how can it operate.' ... Obama has never presented the public option as anything other than a means to an end — one that he would be perfectly willing to achieve through other avenues if necessary."
ALSO FROM JULY TIME OBAMA INTERVIEW: "There are concerns that in the past, attempts at setting up co-ops have not been successful because they just haven't been able to get off the ground; sort of the start-up energy involved may not exist if you're doing a state-by-state co-op effort as opposed to a broad national plan."
Sen. Rockefeller pushes back hard in support of public option. NYT: "On Sunday, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, affirmed his support for the public option. 'I believe the inclusion of a strong public plan option in health reform legislation is a must,' Mr. Rockefeller said in a statement. 'It is the only proven way to guarantee that all consumers have affordable, meaningful and accountable options available in the health insurance marketplace.' ... [WH aide David] Axelrod said the nuances of how to develop a nonprofit competitor to private industry had never been 'carved in stone.' ... Axelrod said one downside of a co-op, from Mr. Obama’s point of view, was that it might be unable to 'scale up in such a way that would create a robust' competitor to private insurers ... whether a co-operative would actually bring Republicans on board with Mr. Obama is unclear..."
W. Post sums up strong progressive reaction: "Liberal leaders reacted strongly to the idea that Obama would walk away from what they consider a central element of reform. 'I don't think this bill is worth passing without a public option,' said Howard Dean, head of the grass-roots group Democracy for America. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.) said it would be difficult to pass a bill in the House without a robust government alternative." In These Times' Art Levine adds: "it’s not at all clear what will happen to the grass-roots efforts of progressive groups and unions on behalf of a public option plan as part of health reform if the White House is not on board."
FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher reminds progressive House members needed to pass a bill: "There are 57 Democrats who signed the July 30 letter saying that they 'simply cannot vote' for a bill that 'at minimum' does not have a public plan. There are 7 more not listed on the letter who have pledged to vote against any bill that does not have a robust public plan. That makes 64 Democrats who won't vote for the 'co-ops' that both Kathleen Sibelius and Robert Gibbs say the White House is 'open' to."
Change.org's Tim Foley details the frustration with the WH strategy: "...the White House's support for the public option is bipolar. There’s been a wearying two-step going on month after month... Step number one involves a high-ranking official ... This official says something suggesting that the public option isn't the be-all and end-all of health care reform ... Step two happens the next time President Barack Obama gets asked about a public health insurance option in public. Then he always, always, always [says] why he thinks it’s important ... Which of those steps is the real one? Which is the posturing? Is this like the other handful of times when we’ve gone through the exact same media drill?"
NYT's Paul Krugman sees the WH going for the Swiss model: "[A] third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies ... I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort. But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work."
DailyKos' nyceve sounds the grassroots call: "Okay gang, put up or shut up time ... Bring your video cameras and let them know that we'll see them at the polls in 2010." DailyKos' slinkerwink urges calls to the White House.
Matt Taibbi warns he's about to drop the hammer on Obama, Reid and Pelosi: "...my forthcoming article on the health care business [focuses] on the treachery of the Democratic leadership — Pelosi, Reid, the White House — for bargaining away real health care reform before this process even started."
The Plum Line finds Sen. Grassley walking back his charge against voluntary end-of-line consultations: "Over the weekend, and very quietly, Senator Chuck Grassley completely retracted his widely-reported claim last week that people have 'every reason to fear' that the House health care proposal would create a 'government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.'"
The Health Care Blog's Matthew Holt slaps Rick Scott for lying about what the British say of their own system: "Surprise, surprise, the British women who appear in the so-called Conservatives for Patients’ (so-called) Rights propaganda are complaining that their words were twisted completely out of context. 'We were duped': Two British women tricked into become stars of campaign to sabotage Obama's healthcare reforms. Further the British oncologist featured was told that he was appearing in a documentary, not in a right wing advertising campaign."
Obama Pay Czar Asserts Clawback Authority
Reuters reports Obama's pay czar asserts authority to "claw back" excessive exec comp: "Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and 'binding' authority over executive compensation, including the ability to 'claw back' money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power. Feinberg told Reuters that Citigroup Inc. oncluded the contract of energy trader Andrew Hall in submissions due Friday by seven major companies still locked in the federal government's TARP Program. Feinberg said he hasn't looked at Hall's contract, which reports have said could pay him as much as $100 million this year. 'Whether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not, we will take a look and decide over the next few weeks,' Feinberg said."
Bloomberg reports Citigroup trying to compromise on massive bonus: "Citigroup Inc., under pressure from the Obama administration to reduce executive compensation, may try to persuade energy trader Andrew Hall to accept stock instead of cash in 2010 after paying him about $100 million last year, people familiar with the matter said. Hall isn’t likely to accept such an offer because his pay is based on the performance of the Phibro LLC unit he heads, not the bank’s, making the sale of the business more likely as a way of placing him outside the government restrictions, the people said, declining to be identified because talks are still under way."
Naked Capitalism analyzes: "Citi decided to file documentation on Hall Friday. That suggests either that they want to look minimally cooperative or that they are not as certain of their position as their bluster of last week suggests."
Stimulus Skepticism Lingers
USA Today poll finds uncertainty about stimulus effect: "57% of adults say the stimulus package is having no impact on the economy or making it worse. Even more —60% — doubt that the stimulus plan will help the economy in the years ahead, and only 18% say it has done anything to help improve their personal situation." ALTHOUGH: 41% say it has made the economy "better," only 24% say "worse."
State govts finish painful sessions. Stateline: "This year’s state legislative session will go down as one of the most brutal in recent memory as the national recession forced lawmakers to find money to cover a staggering $215 billion in estimated budget gaps for 2009 and 2010 ... Even with the federal stimulus package dumping billions of dollars into the states, California, Kentucky, Nevada, New York and Washington are among states that struggled with the largest deficits in modern history ... While most statehouses have shuttered their doors for the year, newly emerging budget shortfalls caused by less-than-anticipated revenues will force many legislatures to reconvene to balance their budgets as required by law."
Old Coal Plants Get Off Too Easy?
W. Post looks at possible climate bill loophole: "Many public health and environmental advocates say too little attention has been paid to facilities such as Fisk and Crawford -- 'legacy' plants grandfathered in under the 1977 Clean Air Act and largely exempted from its requirement that facilities use the best pollution-control technology ... Advocates hope the climate-control legislation pending in Congress would force these plants to close. But they also warn that, depending how various aspects of the bill play out, it could instead motivate companies to increase their reliance on archaic plants ... legislation passed by the House in late June -- known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- mandates a 50 percent carbon reduction by 2025 for new plants, but puts no site-specific carbon-reduction requirements on existing facilities."
