Progressive Breakfast: Speech Rallies Public Behind Reform

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.

Public Opinion Jumps After Presidential Address

Speech a hit with audience. CNN: "About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. 'Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience — 53 percent — favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent,' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland."

MyDD reports on similar results from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research focus groups: "Support for the President's healthcare plan jumped noticeably, from 46 percent before the speech to 66 percent after the speech."

NYT on what was new: "Mr. Obama took a stand on an issue about which he has equivocated for months. He endorsed the idea of imposing a fee, or tax, on health insurance companies for 'their most expensive policies.' Proponents say the idea, which originated with Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would encourage employers to buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing excessive use of medical services. But many House Democrats, labor unions and insurers have resisted those proposals, saying the tax would often be passed on to employers and to workers in the form of higher premiums ...[He] also endorsed a budget mechanism to automatically reduce the growth of Medicare spending if health care overhaul does not produce the savings that the administration and many health care experts expect. A senior administration official called it 'a deficit trigger.'"

NYT on newly incorporated ideas from Republicans: "In embracing Mr. McCain and the malpractice projects, the White House appeared to be seeking to lay the groundwork for an argument that the final bill would be bipartisan not because it garners Republican votes but because it contains Republican ideas. That is the same argument Mr. Obama used when the economic recovery package passed with just three Republican votes."

W. Post's Dana Milbank chronicles the litany of rude behavior from conservative congresspeople: "Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would 'leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.' They hissed when he protested their 'scare tactics.' They grumbled as they do in Britain's House of Commons when Obama spoke of the 'blizzard of charges and countercharges.'"

The Treatment's Suzy Khimm's reports Dem moderates were pretty pleased, especially with nod to tort reform: "...his discussion of medical tort reform—may have been more than just a throwaway GOP applause line. Congressman Bart Gordon, who had been one of the Blue Dog holdouts in the House, devoted his entire reaction statement to the subject, expressing his pleasure that Obama had 'talked about the problem of defensive medicine.' ... But other Blue Dogs (like Mike Ross) and more moderate Republicans (like George Voinovich) share this concern, which had up until now played only a marginal role in the mainstream reform debate. Yes, some leading policy analysts have cast significant doubt on whether tort reform will actually rein in health care costs. But if its inclusion in the bill takes the limited form that Obama suggested, it could be the kind of concession that would help get Obama’s moderate Democratic allies fired up to support the bill."

W. Post's The Fix unsure Dem moderates were moved: "While the White House and the Democratic National Committee cited insta-polling that showed overwhelming majorities of the American public reacted positively to the speech, the reaction from some key Democrats in the House and Senate was more muted. The Blue Dogs released a statement after the speech saying only that they 'share[d] the President's commitment to passing health care reform this year.' Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a critical swing vote in the Senate, said in a statement that he would 'keep my eyes trained on the nitty gritty details as the debate moves forward.' The Obama White House clearly believes that the way to pass this bill through Congress is by taking a bottom up approach -- energizing everyday Americans to pressure their lawmakers to take action. But, ultimately, a handful of Democratic Senators and Democratic House members may hold the fate of the bill in their hands"

NAACP organizing in Blue Dog districts. The Hill: "NAACP President Ben Jealous told reporters that his group will be 'organizing' in Blue Dog districts where minorities make up 15 percent or more of the electorate. That doesn’t mean primary opposition, but it does mean meetings, letters to Congress and phone calls to the Blue Dogs’ offices. It is to be part of a broader NAACP campaign to support the health overhaul called 880. That refers to the 880,000 African-Americans over the last decade who would still be alive if healthcare reform had been enacted."

Bloomberg quotes both progressive and moderate calling speech game-changing: "Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat who has been one of the most vocal skeptics in his party about a proposal to create a government-run health plan, called Obama’s speech last night a 'game changer.' Obama made clear he “was not going to make it the linchpin to the entire package,” Nelson said ... Steve Hildebrand, Obama’s former deputy campaign manager, who recently was quoted as saying that he was 'losing patience' with the administration on health care, called the speech 'game changing.' 'My concern was that we weren’t waging a big enough effort on our side,' he said in an interview. 'We are back on the offensive exactly where we need to be.'"

Reid on public option prospects. W. Post: "'On the Senate floor, there will be opportunities to offer all kinds of amendments,' Reid told reporters before the speech. If the bill that emerges from the two committees includes a public option, 'there will be an opportunity to take it out. If there isn't one in there, there will be an opportunity to put it in.'"

Baucus will move a bill. Politico: "Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Wednesday that he will push ahead with a comprehensive health care reform bill with — or without — Republican support and start a committee markup the week of Sept. 21." The Hill reports on Dem pushback against Baucus: "Baucus faces skepticism within his own ranks. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who has been critical of the bipartisan negotiations all along, emerged from Wednesday’s meeting with harsh words for Baucus’s proposals."

Robert Borosage lays out what should follow in HuffPost: "The president must turn to the negotiations that matter -- those among the members of his own party, seeking to put together a plan that (1) works and that (2) can gain the votes necessary to pass. Democrats cannot afford to fail. But the plan, which will be done over entrenched Republican obstruction, must work. If there are mandates on individuals, there must be subsidies to make insurance affordable. With people mandated to get reform, there must be competition offered by a non-profit public insurance to help keep a lid on costs, and to keep insurance companies honest. The costs should be born by progressive taxes and elimination of expensive subsidies to insurance companies and drug companies."

Digby finds Obama's tweak of a McCain idea, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions until full reform is implemented, savvy: "This could be huge because it will get a lot of people under some kind of coverage immediately and, combined with the insurance reforms, may show enough people some benefits right away to allow the rest of the plan to kick in before the Republicans can demagogue their way back into office. It's a slim reed, but definitely worth doing."

David Sirota takes a pessimistic view: "The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious ... Obviously he just had to listen to pundits insisting he must abandon the public option, when a huge majority of Americans continue to support it, and he has a huge legislative majority in Congress. He obviosuly just HAS to compromise on it because...well...just because - and he certainly can't use reconciliation like President Bush did because...well, again, just because. And, of course, those of us who don't expect him to compromise away an already compromised yet still wildly popular public option are obviously on the radical fringe regardless of polling data. Obviously!"

Supreme Court On Verge Of Unleashing Corporate Campaign Dollars

The Hill on SCOTUS hearing exploring constitutionality of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: "A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday sharply questioned the government’s rationale for limiting corporate speech with campaign finance laws ... Election law experts and Supreme Court watchers said the questioning, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, indicated the court will rule in Citizens United’s favor. The question that remains, they said, is not whether the conservative group wins the case, but how far the court goes in overturning aspects of campaign finance law."

NYT adds: "Changes at the court, particularly the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006, have substantially altered its attitude to campaign finance laws. A five-justice majority of the Roberts court has been hostile to such laws, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have so far moved in cautious increments. Judging by the request for re-argument and the tenor of the questioning on Wednesday, that may be about to change."

Breakfast Sides

Commerce Dept. finds China breaking trade law with steel pipes, calls for tariff. W. Post: "In one of the largest U.S.-China trade cases ever, the U.S. Commerce Department has issued a preliminary finding that Chinese steel pipe producers have received government subsidies in violation of trade law, helping them overrun the competition ... the Commerce Department has ordered that tariffs ranging from an estimated 11 percent to 31 percent be imposed on the steel pipes from China ... The tariffs go into effect immediately, but since the finding is preliminary, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials will collect cash deposits or bonds. If the preliminary finding is not upheld, the money will be returned."

Senate not inclined to give Fed too much new power. W. Post: "A bill taking shape in the Senate Banking Committee could give the Federal Reserve far less authority than the administration sought in the reform proposal it unveiled in June. Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed a lack of confidence in the Fed in the wake of the financial crisis, challenging everything from the central bank's transparency to its ability to protect consumers. Some lawmakers oppose giving the Fed responsibility for monitoring systemic risk in the economy, as proposed by the administration, favoring instead vesting that authority with a council of regulators."

High number of foreclosures continues. Bloomberg: "Foreclosure filings in the U.S. exceeded 300,000 for the sixth straight month as job losses that boosted the unemployment rate to a 26-year high left many homeowners unable to keep up with their mortgage payments."

CBO expected to favorably score WH direct student loan plan. CQ: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to show that an alternative to the student lending bill pending before the House falls short of the cost savings outlined under the existing legislation by about $17 billion dollars, according to a congressional aide familiar with the numbers."

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future