Obama's deal?

I've been meaning to make a plug for this for a week now, but if you haven't seen it, it's worth watching the Frontline documentary about the healthcare legislation.

It's only an hour long, and people like myself who have been following healthcare closely will find much that is missing, however, as an overview (and with a few big caveats) it's mostly excellent.

There was only one big quibble that I feel is worth mentioning: The discussion about individual mandates.

Howard Dean (and others) get away with calling the legislation a big giveaway to the insurance industry (and I think Dean says that the entire 2,000-plus page bill changes very little -- a claim Dean knows is simply not true). And there's an implication that there was some shady, backroom deal for these mandates.

This is unfair.

Yes, insurance companies stand to make a substantial profit from the new legislation. And maybe the administration should have held out for a better deal. But I really don't think there is any practical way to institute healthcare reform without an individual mandate. But, for the moment, let's think about the alternatives:

1) Let's say the administration decided to go to all out war with the health insurance industry.

The industry kept most of their powder dry until the end of the debate (when the administration did, in fact, pull a bait and switch and start attacking them), but the last time health insurance was being debated the industry saturated the market with misinformation and commercials like "Harry and Louise" which helped kill reform. What would have happened if they had been an enemy from the start?

Considering how fraught the debate was from the beginning, I think it's possible they could have sunk the thing. Putting them on Obama's side seems to me like the only way to get a deal through.

2) The insurance industry (in this case) is right.

I'm not one to carry water for an industry that I believe abuses its power unforgivably, but let's face it: Without an individual mandate, they'd go broke.

You can't stop insurance discrimination and not have a mandate. It just doesn't make economic sense. The whole concept of the insurance business is spreading out risk: You buy insurance hoping to never need it. The money that I give to insurance companies goes to pay for the care of some poor guy who comes down with cancer.

But for the moment let's say there's no discrimination against preexisting conditions... Well, what possible incentive would anyone have to buy insurance then? You can just wait until you have cancer and then buy insurance. Insurance companies would only be covering sick people and they'd go out of business.

This is an important argument. I wish it was in the documentary. But otherwise, take a look. (And if you'd like a little bit more of a substantive/wonky debate on the healthcare legislation, check out the New Republic's invaluable Jonathan Cohn versus the Atlantic's Megan McCardle on bloggingheads.)

Victory! With an assist from... Scott Brown?

Well, it took way longer than it should have. It was a messy, arduous, endless process. But, at the end of the day, what will probably be the greatest social legislation of my lifetime will be signed into law by President Obama tomorrow.

Hallelujah!

Had the bill failed, it would have proven that Congress and the Democratic party were so dysfunctional that they couldn't enact their agenda even with overwhelming majorities. All the caricatures about Democratic fecklessness would have felt eerily true. Obama would have probably taken a page from Bill Clinton and spent the next three years putting out small fires and following a very incrementalist approach.

Moreover, the Republicans would be riding the wave of their own political moxie. They would have bluffed their way out of what should by all reasonable accounts have been considered an unplayable hand. It would have been a huge victory for them.

Thankfully, we were spared all of that. And I think that the Democrats actually owe some thanks to the man who almost torpedoed the effort: Scott Brown.

By the time Brown was elected, the plan (and to a certain extent, the Obama presidency) was flailing. Some of the provisions of the healthcare bill (particularly Ben Nelson's Nebraska kickback) had left an extremely unsavory taste in the public's mouth. Some on the left were grumpily insisting that it would be better to vote it down and get a single-payer system. And the right was gaining momentum by saying that Obama was out of touch.

Yes, healthcare probably would have passed. But nobody would have felt good about it.

But now everybody suddenly feels great about it. Why?

Well, for a few reasons, I think.

The Brown victory definitely focused the mind of the administration. Instead of taking a hands off approach, the White House knew they had to be proactive. They had to change the public's mind and it would take a lot of work. Suddenly you have Obama going through policy details with his opponents and shooting down the GOP's more ridiculous suggestions. (And, in the process, taking much of the zing out of their biggest lies.)

Moreover, the left realized that the electoral tide was turning against them. Anyone with any brains realized they'd never get a chance like this again, and that it was better to just fall into line and get this thing passed. It's one thing to hold out for a better deal when one is still possible. It's another to lose a sure thing. (And a Massachusetts senate seat is as close to a sure thing as the Democratic party gets. Suddenly, anything looked possible.)

And, fortunately, by the time Brown was elected the legislative die had pretty much already been cast. There was no real hurdles that the Republicans could throw up that could stop this legislation, unless Democrats decided to become complicit in their own suicide.

It almost worked.

The Republicans scared the ever living shit out of Democrats. Many arms had to be twisted and spines stiffened. And, until yesterday, everybody was holding their breath. (When Stupak signed on and the bill was pretty much assured passage, my father and I opened up a bottle of champagne -- much to my mother's horror. She thought that we were jinxing it. Knowing past Democratic behavior, it was not an unreasonable fear.)

But the most interesting thing that the Brown victory did was give the Republicans an early boost of adrenaline -- which caused them to peak way too early.

By last week, Republicans seemed to have gotten so wrapped up in their talking points -- that it would be political suicide for the Democrats to pass the bill, that Scott Brown was the will of the people, that the bill was dead -- that they themselves really believed it.

After all, they had won the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and a senate seat in Massachusetts, for chrissake!

But, the fact is, that the bill wasn't dead. Far from it.

There was a big question as to whether the Democrats would have the nerve to cave or pass. Nobody quite knew. But they always had to tools to make this bill law. And the drama of this whole thing -- the near defeat, and come from behind victory -- made victory a lot sweeter.

Now, after the vote is safely over, the Republican pronouncements seem a little shrill. And now that they're not pounding their podiums they look somewhat slayable. And Democrats seem a lot more energized than if a silly party hack like Martha Coakley had simply taken her seat. The bill would have passed without nearly the amount of enthusiasm it has now.

For all of that, we have Scott Brown to thank.

But, in any event, this is a great day. President Obama is the real thing. A true ninja master. Open your own bottle of champagne!

Take it away, Kool and the Gang:

What now?

I was a little stunned to hear that Obama was essentially giving up on a healthcare vote without a fight. (Essentially taking David Brooks' advice.)

I think it's a big mistake.


But my faith in the big guy knows no bounds. So I'd like to hear what he has to say at the state of the union next week before passing judgment.


However, there are two things that came out of this Massachusetts election that I think are worth discussing.


1) As much as I hate to admit it, Obama has a real communication/political problem.


A week ago, the little lady I've started seeing asked me if there was anything Obama had done in his first year that I disapproved of. I don't quite remember what I said, but I've been thinking about that question for the last couple days, and I will concede, he earns low marks for getting his message across.

This is surprising given the fact that the big criticism of Obama during the campaign was that he was all flash (fancy, frilly speeches) with no substance (he was a first term senator).

But this is not the way his presidency has unfolded thus far. He has some real policy accomplishments to his name during this first year -- but he hasn't been getting the political credit he deserves. I didn't care so much about this as long as he was getting legislation passed, but now that he lost his 60th vote (and is about to lose the crown jewel of his first year) I suppose he has to pay attention to this.

2) This Massachusetts boondoggle says a lot more about Democrats than it does about Republicans.

The Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate, and suddenly the sky is falling.

What. The. Fuck.

Do you think this kind of setback would have stopped (or even slowed) George W. Bush? Of course not. Bush came in having lost the popular vote, and with a 50/50 divided senate -- and managed to get pretty much everything he wanted in his first term.

Part of the reason is because Democrats have no discipline whatsoever (and Republicans have no morals), but he was effective.

Why the hell are the Progressives in the House not saying that they'll pass the Senate's bill as-is? (By the way: I'm positive that's the reason Obama is backing off -- he and Pelosi have counted up the votes and realize they're screwed.) Are they really so stupid that they think this opportunity will come around again? (It won't.) Are they Leninists, who believe that things have to get worse before they get better? (In which case they're as bad as the Republicans.)

Stubbornness or stupidity -- take your pick. But that's (unfortunately) the Democratic Party right now (both left and right).

David Brooks is trying to trick you!

Dear President Obama --

Don't listen to this man! He is trying to trick you!

I know that David Brooks looks sweet and cuddly. Like the mild Jewish conservative who you could have a latte with and discuss Burkean philosophy. The "high minded" conservative -- a million light years away from know-nothings like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. The kind of conservative who could vote for health care reform, if the proper conditions were met -- and who probably voted for you over John McCain in the general election. But don't be fooled. If you listen to him, your agenda will be fatally poisoned.

I'm speaking today about his NY Times column -- which reads like a third grade teacher's report to a good (but flawed) student's parents.

I'm not so interested in discussing the meat of the column, but there was one throw away line, which (under no circumstances!) should President Obama and his advisers take seriously:

"Some [Democrats] believe they can still pass health care even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, loses the Senate race in Massachusetts on Tuesday. That, of course, would be political suicide."

Wrong. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. It would be political suicide to give up on the health care bill after Coakley loses (which, at this point, I'm sort of resigned towards.)

Brooks is right, there will be some short term political fallout. Republicans will crow about how Democrats are ignoring the will of the voters. But the far greater political failure would be not to pass healthcare after months of Congressional agony.

All right, let's address the substance of the charge that Democrats are ignoring the will of the votes: Democrats are losing one seat. One. They will have a 59 to 41 person majority in the Senate. That's not Democratic by you? Fifty nine seats is no longer a majority. Wait... it's no longer a major majority?

The Republicans have made it impossible for Democrats to get anything done unless they have a super majority. (They have used the filibuster in a truly unprecedented manner.) They are doing this for strictly partisan political purposes. If the Republicans are not going to negotiate in good faith, Democrats shouldn't either. They won't have this majority for long, but they should do their best to accomplish whatever they can with it. And, no, I think passing something by 59 votes does not subvert the will of the majority.

But on a political level, think about it: Every single Democrat voted for health care reform. Does Brooks really think it's a wise political move to say that with a 60 seat majority the Democrats still couldn't get anything passed? Will a vote for a failed healthcare initiative rankle any less (with individual congressmen and senators) than a vote for a successful one?

But the other thing that's sort of laughable is Brooks' use of the word "suicide."

Everything that the Republicans have done in the last year has smacked of the word "suicide." The country is drowning, and not a single member of the House GOP would vote for the stimulus package... everybody said it was a suicide move. Actually, it was a shrewd (if deeply cynical) ploy.

The GOP wasted months and months refusing to seat Al Franken. That didn't really seem to hurt them in the long run. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to Scott Brown?

Obama is not out of options on healthcare. (See Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic.) When Coakley loses, he will have a lot fewer on the table than he did yesterday, but healthcare is still possible. (Provided the House Democrats man up.) The worst thing would be, however, to interpret this as a signal to do nothing.

Heilemann vs. Weisberg

New York magazine's John Heliemann and Slate's Jacob Weisberg have dueling articles this week on Obama's first year --

Heilemann says Obama has gone off the rails. Weisberg says he's been a superstar.

Anybody who reads this blog know where this schlub falls: I'm with Weisberg all the way. A lot of Heilemann's points are fairly flimsy and not particularly serious. His proof that Obama has gone off the rails? His approval rating is down. As I argued last week, it was always going to go down.

But on more substantive charges, I suppose Heilemann deserves an answer. So here goes:

1) He says that Obama's stimulus plan wasn't big enough -- which is a standard complaint from the left. But then he ridicules Rahm Emanuel for saying that there was no other figure that could have gotten through congress.

How does Heilemann know that that isn't exactly true?

The stimulus plan did not get a single Republican vote in the House. Not a single one. The three Republican votes it got in the Senate were after scaling the number back to $787 billion. When the stimulus plan passed back in February, Arlen Specter was a Republican and Al Franken was not yet a Senator. In other words, the GOP could have mounted a filibuster if the administration didn't pick off Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Would that have happened if the bill had been $200 to $400 billion more?

I have no reason to disbelieve Emanuel (who is probably the best vote counter in the country) when he says no.

2) He repeats the standard claims that the White House mismanaged healthcare because (a) they didn't take the lead, (b) they should have waited until a less fraught time, (c) they haven't been standing squarely with the public option and (d) this is a "war of choice" for Obama (which is a new one.)

I think not taking the lead was a deliberate choice. When Bill Clinton presented Congress with a take-it-or-leave-it health care plan, Democrats and Republicans alike began jumping ship. Congress complained of being run roughshod over. The result was a bill that didn't even come up for a vote. Obama was simply avoiding the same mistake. "Want to feel included? Why don't you write the bill." Sounds sensible to me.

As for this being an inopportune time: I disagree strongly. I think the beginning of his presidency, when his approval ratings were at their highest, was always going to be the best time to pass a fraught bill like health care. He was never again going to have the majority that he has now, and that's the only way to get a behemoth like healthcare through Congress. And he gave himself the necessary recovery time to get over the teabaggers, et al. I think the timing was very smart.

I, too, would like to see a public option included in the final bill... but it's not President Obama's fault that Joe Lieberman is an asshole. The reforms that will likely be enacted are worth doing anyway, and if Heilemann thinks otherwise, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Finally, the "war of choice" thing. If you don't think that healthcare is a priority, then I'm not sure why anybody would support Obama (or be a Democrat) in the first place? Democrats have been waiting to pass healthcare reform since FDR. It is a major part of the Democratic platform. Is it the only part? No. But I don't think the 40+ million uninsured Americans should have to wait another year for something that should have been done decades ago.

Last week the Times had a heartbreaking story in which it included the fact that in 2007 62 percent of bankruptcies in America were due to medical bills.

What's even more shocking is that three-quarters of those people had health insurance.

"War of choice?" That's a war for sanity.

Lieberman's political gamble

I think there's something slightly off in the most recent spate of Joe Lieberman coverage.

Nate Silver points out the myriad reasons why Lieberman coming out against the public option make no sense politically.

He's not winning over any voters. He doesn't owe the insurance lobby the kinds of favors one might think. And he's risking his seniority.

Moreover, substantively this is outrageous. Jonathan Chait points out why saying that healthcare reform hurts the economic recovery is an utterly spurious argument.

So a lot of writers are now in Sigmund Freud mode: Lieberman's doing this to get attention. He's doing this to lash out at the Democratic party. He's doing this to fit with his "holier than thou" persona (which made him so unbearable) and that he's convinced himself that the only Democrat who's being "responsible" fiscally speaking.

All of these psychological explanations have some merit -- but I think it's slightly off, in that there is a political method to this madness. Politically Joe Lieberman has nothing to lose. He has to know at this point that his career in politics is more or less over. His best bet is a cabinet position in some sort of future GOP administration. And maybe that's what he's shoring himself up for. Democratic catastrophe = Joe Lieberman's ascent to the hearts of the radical right = Secretary of Defense in the Romney administration.

Do I think this has a realistic chance of happening? Who knows. Lieberman might hurt the final bill quite a bit. He could force Harry Reid to take the public option out of the final bill. But would he go so far as to filibuster if the final bill didn't contain the public option? I find that difficult to believe -- but then nothing Lieberman does could surprise me that much.

But it's not such a stretch to believe that Lieberman is hoping for a Democratic failure for more than just psychological satisfaction. This is his best road to some sort of future in politics.

Jimmy Carter -- how I hate thee!

A couple of days ago I posted a Facebook status update saying: "Max Gross wishes Jimmy Carter would get the memo. You know -- the one that says that he's a liability to the Democratic Party and nobody likes him."

This was something I assumed that my friends recognized as true. I thought most people recognized him as the crazy uncle in the basement -- pay him no mind. But as it turns out, before the day was out I had messages from friends defending Carter as a great "statesman" who worked "tirelessly" to bring peace to the Middle East and alleviate poverty.

People, people, people... Get a grip!

For the moment, let's forget the fact that Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. Let's also forget that his recent jihad against Israel has been grossly one-sided and demagogic. (For a wonderful take on Jimmy Carter's stumbling first two years in office, look at James Fallows' article in The Atlantic "The Passionless Presidency" written thirty years ago. As for takedowns on Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief does an admirable job.)

But for the sake of argument, let's stick to the current issue at hand.

In case you missed it, the 39th president said that congressman Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" incident was based on racism. He then went on to opine that his fellow Southerners were still not comfortable with the Obama presidency because Obama is black.

Do I think there's some truth to this? Well, sure. But it was nevertheless an extraordinarily dumb thing for a former President to say.

Yes, yes, yes... I'm pretty firmly convinced that all the controversy about the President's birth certificate is rooted in racism. What white candidate has ever been challenged on such nonsense? (Heck, John McCain actually was born in a foreign country -- an army base in the Panama Canal Zone -- and nobody seems to give a shit.)

Moreover, plenty of the Glenn Beck dittoheads who showed up at the 9/12 rally in Washington last weekend were pretty comfortable with their racism. (More than one person held up a sign saying, "The zoo has an African lion, and the White House has a lyin' African" -- nary a glimmer of shame about them.)

But to say that every person who showed up at the 9/12 rally is a racist is ludicrous.

There are plenty of reasons one could hate Obama that have nothing to do with his skin color. He is enacting the most ambitious liberal agenda since the Great Society (maybe since the New Deal). If I were a Republican, I'm sure I'd hate him, too.

And Barack Obama is hardly the only Democrat who has received such unhinged treatment. Bill Clinton was accused of far more deranged, criminal -- and just plain loony -- things than Obama has been accused of. In addition to the completely baseless Whitewater investigation (which consumed tens of thousands of man-hours and tens of millions of dollars) Clinton was accused of being a rapist (including of his wife!) and the murderer of Vince Foster.

The thing to take away from that, I think, is that the right wing is equal-opportunity crazy. (And, for the record, the far left is, too. How many Hitler mustaches appeared on George Bush's lip during the 2002/2003 antiwar rallies?)

But here's what Jimmy Carter did:

He changed the debate from healthcare (which Obama was just starting to do better on) to race (which is not the thing that Democrats should be talking about right now).

If I were a Republican nothing would delight me more than a phony charge of racism. "Racism?" I would say. "The President is enacting a program that will change 17% of the U.S. economy and cost a trillion dollars... and I'm not allowed to ask questions? I'm a racist for questioning him? What the hell kind of charge is that?"

And they'd be partially right.

Moreover, given just how fraught the debate has been over healthcare, accusing the enemies of reform of being racist is one way to make them even crazier and angrier -- not less so. That was the great trick in Obama's speech before Congress: When he comes out seeming so sensible and nice, it calms everybody down. When Joe Wilson can't control himself and screams that the president is a liar, it makes the right wing look like the party of kooks.

And Jimmy Carter just made the Obama supporters also look like kooks.

I stand by my FB assessment.

A very dreary day for healthcare reform

So it looks like the public option is dead.

Sigh.

I suppose anything can happen, but when President Obama says that the public option is only one part of the healthcare reform equation and that reform can happen without it, that sounds to me like he doesn't have the votes to get a public option through Congress. (Nate Silver offers up his usual brilliant analysis of the numbers here.)

Christ, those Blue Dog Democrats suck.

I don't think Obama has any other choice, frankly, than to try to do damage control at this point. Somehow, he lost control of the argument (which is very unlike him), and somehow his own party has betrayed him.

If nothing happens on healthcare (one of the President's signature issues, that he's invested a tremendous amount of political capital in) that will be a tremendous defeat for the administration. As devastating a blow as it was to the Clinton White House. As devastating as social security reform was to Bush.

From a political stand point, Obama has to pass something -- even if it's a splotchy, half-measure that's far more stupidly designed than it needs to be.

This is very disappointing. The insurance lobby has essentially won the day. (As has a mob of such bottomless stupidity, it boggles the mind.) America will continue pissing perfectly good money down the toilet on healthcare for no reason and, in all probability, not all Americans will get coverage.

That being said, half-assed reform is certainly worth doing, even without the public option. Insurance companies can be forbidden from denying coverage for preexisting conditions (which would be great). Rates can be regulated (which would also be great). And more people will undoubtedly get on the rolls than were there before. It might not be full coverage for every American, but at this point I'll take what I can get.

But the thing that absolutely kills me about this is the fact that the people who have essentially driven the knife in the public option are Democrats.

Obviously, Democrats have regional concerns. And, it's probably true, in 2011 Congress will undoubtedly have more Republicans than it does in 2009. Democrats should certainly keep these things in mind before they condemn each and every Blue Dog. If Ben Nelson will absolutely lose his seat if he votes yes on healthcare reform, it's probably worth letting him vote no on it. (The Democrats don't need 60 votes on everything -- just on stopping a filibuster.)

But the reason why I find this whole situation depressing is because my instinct is that certain Senators can vote yes and still keep their seats -- they'd just rather not piss off contributors from the insurance lobby. Does Mark Warner really have no way of raising campaign contributions other than to vote no on the public option? Of course he does.

Sometimes I really do wish Democrats were a little more like Republicans. Nobody would be falling out of line if Tom Delay were the majority whip right now.

A slightly contrary position on the teabaggers

One of my more shameful political opinions (which I just have to suck up and live with) is the fact that for a brief period -- from about 2003 to 2005 -- I was in favor of the American invasion of Iraq.

I had my reasons for this position, but one of the things that might have nudged me into accepting some of the dumber pro-invasion arguments was the fact that the other side seemed even dumber.

The people who I spoke to on the antiwar left knew very, very little about Iraq. Their mantra "no blood for oil" struck me as ridiculous. (Although less ridiculous now.) And I was greatly offended about the casualness with which George Bush was compared to Adolf Hitler.

But more than that, they seemed like louts and bullies.

I remember a few months after the invasion going to see Paul Wolfowitz give a lecture at the New School where he wasn't able to get a word out, edgewise. The packed lecture hall contained dozens -- maybe hundreds -- of hecklers who continuously interrupted him with boos and insults and comparisons to Nazis. (At least one Lyndon Larouche supporter was seized and turned out of the hall when he charged the stage giving a Nazi salute.)

There was something endlessly frustrating about the fact that the guy wouldn't even be given the chance to speak. That he was shouted down by someone louder. It seemed downright un-American; what happened to freedom of speech? What happened to reasonable debate and intelligent discussion? "What a bunch of jerks!" I thought.

Which brings us to the latest bunch of jerks drowning out opposition with their loudness --

The teabaggers.

As you undoubtedly know, they've been showing up at townhall meetings about healthcare and making themselves an all-around-pain-in-the-ass to disrupt debate about healthcare.

These people are armed with little or no information (they think old people are going to be euthanized? they don't know medicare is a government program? seriously?) and their only weapon is their power to be extremely annoying.

I think there is a temptation to counter these jokers; to shout back and shout loud. Or to point out that moneyed, conservative organizations have been the organizing factor here.

I'm all in favor of pointing out that the grassroots nature of these mobs are phony and organized by arms of the healthcare industry or the GOP. I'm a little less inclined to shout back. (Although my political instincts might be off on this.) I think there is the strong possibility that this kind of thing will backfire. If these guys continue making themselves look like a crazy, unruly mob, what will the rest of the country think?

Maybe that they're a crazy, unruly mob.