Lieberman told Fox News Sunday that the public insurance option included in both the House and Senate versions of reform legislation is “unnecessary” and that he will  block legislation from coming on the Senate floor via filibuster (presumably by working in concert with Senate Republicans) “as a matter of conscience,” an odd choice of language when discussing health care and a bill that would cover 36 million uninsured Americans.

If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote, because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our — to our children and grandchildren.

Lieberman did hint at a willingness to deal with Senate Democrats (his former colleagues) and the  White House by expressing his support to “do health care reform this year.” What is less than clear is what it would take for Lieberman to get on board with reform given his consistent opposition to President Obama’s proposals and now the two bills that have taken shape in Congress.

Lieberman’s threats are not being taken seriously among top Senate Democrats or the White House. Odds are that Joe will not be able to play the role of health care reform kingmaker.

House reform, passed with only one Republican (Holy Cao!) voting for it and 39 mostly conservative Democrats in the nay column, turned out to be a more moderate compromise than even the toned down bill Speaker Pelosi unveiled two weeks ago. Goodies for pro-life moderates allowed the Speaker to cobble together the Democratic coalition needed to assure passage in her chamber.

But what is seen as a moderate brand of reform in the House is still a questionable deal in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid is feeling intense pressure from all involved in the fight for - and against - reform. Most significant is the unabashed call for swift Senate action on the House legislation from the White House and President Obama, most prominently in his Sunday remarks following Saturday night’s landmark vote.

The president said in his Rose Garden speech that the House vote was “historic” and “courageous” but that now the spotlight to get comprehensive reform done falls on the Senate, who must “take the baton” and bring reform legislation to the “finish line.”

The first was the historic vote the House took last night on health insurance reform. For years we’ve been told that this couldn’t be done. After all, neither chamber of Congress has been able to pass a comprehensive health insurance reform bill for generations. But last night the House proved differently.

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 our government, while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. It is legislation that is fully paid for and it will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Given the heated and often misleading rhetoric surrounding this legislation I know that this was a courageous vote for many members of Congress, and I’m grateful to them and for the rest of their colleagues for taking us this far.

………………………………….

Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people. And I’m absolutely confident that they will. I’m equally convinced that on the day that we gather here at the White House and I sign comprehensive health insurance reform legislation into law, they’ll be able to join their House colleagues and say that this was their finest moment in public service — the moment we delivered change we promised to the American people and did something to leave this country stronger than we found it.

Private pressure from the White House on Reid is also intense. More reaction to the House vote from President Obama and personal lobbying by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the president’s point man on health care legislation, are  turning up the heat on the Senate and on Reid to get a bill based on the House version voted on and passed by the end of the year, or essentially by Christmas. The biggest question is whether Reid and Senate Democrats can count to 60 that fast.

The White House began prodding Mr. Reid to move quickly even before Saturday’s House vote. In a private meeting with Mr. Obama this year, Mr. Reid pledged to work to finish the measure by the end of December. But last Tuesday, Mr. Reid said the Senate was “not going to be bound by any timelines.”

On Wednesday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, visited Mr. Reid. The two met on Capitol Hill to “continue the discussion on ways to get a bill done by the end of the year,” said Mr. Reid’s press secretary, Jim Manley, adding that Mr. Reid intends to bring the bill to the floor “as quickly as possible.”

In case the leader did not get the message, Mr. Obama reinforced it Saturday night. In a statement after the House vote, he said he looked forward to signing comprehensive health legislation “by the end of the year.”

A big question is whether Mr. Reid has the 60 votes that will almost certainly be necessary to permit debate to begin. Mr. Manley said Democrats hoped “the momentum from the House bill will make everyone realize that the Senate should at least have a chance to begin debate.” Still, he conceded that there was “no glide path” toward getting the Senate to actually pass the measure.

The days since the House vote has brought swift condemnation of that particular legislation from Republicans and, most importantly, little overwhelming support from any Democrat other than Reid, who has promised a quick vote and has even broached the idea of weekend session to tackle reform. It’s a timetable that will most likely be influenced far more by the usual key players on reform than by any White House threats.

We won’t be posting updates until next Monday.

In the meantime, you can follow our Twitter feed (which will have occasional updates) or any pf the fine sites listed on the blogroll (Like The Page and Politico)for the latest political news and analysis.

On one hand,both the White House and every important Democratic leader is catering to your daily whims, lobbying you for their side, doing anything you ask (to a point, apparently). You are told by fellow lawmakers wooing your vote and by the press that you control Capitol Hill, you are the deciding factor for both sides in a “historic” moment.

But you also get criticized and thrown under the bus by both sides of the aisle, blamed for everything that goes against the wishes of the political extremes. And, in reality, you do not have access to top-level discussions on either side, blacked out because of trust issues and the trending lines that are pushing the center out of the debate.

Another punch was thrown by Paul Krugman in his latest op-ed piece in the New York Times. Krugman is the most influential person outside of Congress, the Obama administration or any branch of the government in the health care debate, and he is thrashing the centrists now that reform is truly about to face its final test in both the House and Senate.

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It’s not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it’s a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.

………………………………….

The people who really have to make up their minds, then, are those in between, the self-proclaimed centrists.

The odd thing about this group is that while its members are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of passing health care reform, they’re having a hard time explaining exactly what their problem is. Or to be more precise and less polite, they have been attacking proposed legislation for doing things it doesn’t and for not doing things it does.

Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, “I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit.” That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn’t, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.

Or consider the remarkable exchange that took place this week between Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, and Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post’s opinion editor. Mr. Hiatt had criticized Congress for not taking what he considers the necessary steps to control health-care costs — namely, taxing high-cost insurance plans and establishing an independent Medicare commission. Writing on the budget office blog — yes, there is one, and it’s essential reading — Mr. Orszag pointed out, not too gently, that the Senate Finance Committee’s bill actually includes both of the allegedly missing measures.

I won’t try to psychoanalyze the “naysayers,” as Mr. Orszag describes them. I’d just urge them to take a good hard look in the mirror. If they really want to align themselves with the hard-line conservatives, if they just want to kill health reform, so be it. But they shouldn’t hide behind claims that they really, truly would support health care reform if only it were better designed.

For this is the moment of truth. The political environment is as favorable for reform as it’s likely to get. The legislation on the table isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as anyone could reasonably have expected. History is about to be made — and everyone has to decide which side they’re on.

A fast-tracked Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the House version of health care reform finds greater than expected deficit reduction but also a potential trillion dollar dilemma for congressional Democrats and the White House.

The CBO gave the Affordable Health Care for America Act  a boost by saying it would reduce the federal deficit over ten years by $104 billion, a number far higher than initial estimates of only $30 billion. Much of the cost cutting would come from savings in Medicare as well as insurance penalties and higher taxes on wealthy Americans.

The problem for the House bill is that CBO scored it as a gross cost of over one trillion dollars, well above President Obama’s $900 billion cut-off mark for reform legislation  and substantially higher than House estimates of just under that $900 billion figure.

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.

Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.

Why the difference? For unknown reasons CBO decided to not include expected revenues from penalties tied to the insurance mandate in the overall net cost of the bill, despite including the expected penalties in the deficit reduction estimate. So CBO has essentially cut out a substantial portion of the House bill in order to get at the high, trillion-plus cost figure.

Pelosi took to the steps of the U.S. Capitol to introduce a nearly 2,000 page, $894 billion piece of legislation designed to go far enough to please House liberals but include enough goodies for moderates to make a deal with both chambers possible.

It would create a full public option plan for the uninsured and, according to fast-tracked CBO estimates, cut the deficit by $30 billion, savings generated by taxing wealthy Americans and following the president’s directive in finding savings in Medicare waste and fraud. This would be on top of the consistent goals expressed by the president throughout the debate, like ending coverage denials based on preexisting conditions and covering up to 96 percent percent of America’s uninsured.

House Democrats triumphantly introduced their $894 billion healthcare overhaul bill on Thursday, setting up a vote as early as next week.

The bill would increase insurance coverage to 96 percent of the population, and Democrats said it would reduce the deficit by $30 billion over 10 years.

A surtax on the wealthy would pay much of the bill’s cost, but the income thresholds for the tax were raised to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families. The original bill had lower income thresholds, sparking protests from members, especially freshman Democrats.

The rest of the cost of the bill is expected to be paid for with savings from Medicare. 

“We have listened to the American people,” declared Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a celebratory press conference from the steps of the Capitol. “We are putting forth a bill that reflects out best values and addresses our greatest challenges.”

Pelosi called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” a “historic moment” and legislation that is “fiscally sound.”

“So here we are.  For nearly a century — it’s really over a century — leaders of all political parties, starting over a century ago with President Theodore Roosevelt,have called and fought for health care and health insurance reform.  Today we are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable, quality health care available for all Americans [Applause]  — laying the foundation for a brighter future for generations to come.

“The Affordable Health Care for America Act is founded on key principles of American success: opportunity, choice, competition, and innovation.  We have listened to the American people, we are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges.   And we are putting it online for all Americans to see.

……………………………

“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.  Affordability for the middle-class and security for our seniors.  By strengthening Medicare, it secures the financial stability and solvency of Medicare for years to come, provides seniors with better benefits and guaranteed access to their doctors.  And in this legislation, we will immediately begin to close the donut hole.

“Affordability for the middle-class, security for our seniors, and responsibility to our children.  It reduces the deficit, meets President Obama’s call to keep the cost under $900 billion over 10 years, and it insures 36 million more Americans. [Applause.]

“That said, the bill is fiscally sound.  It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system.  The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform. [Applause.]

“It covers 96 percent of all Americans and it puts affordable coverage in reach for millions of uninsured and underinsured families — lowering health care costs for all of us.

What’s most important about the final make-up of the House bill is how many nods to queasy moderates are included. The threshold for wealthy individuals and families facing tax increases was boosted by almost half and cut the amount of payroll for small businesses that would bring about mandated insurance coverage for employees by exactly half. And there is no “robust” government-run insurance option, although the House bill does not include the Senate’s controversial “opt-out” provision.

Blue Dogs have remained mostly quiet on the bill, but there has been a lack of serious criticism that other House reform measures have received almost instantaneously, most likely due to Pelosi and key liberals caving on the public option provision and the other changes noted above.

Republicans were not so kind, with many tweeting or issuing media comments slamming the bill as “dangerous,” a “monstrosity,” etc., before Pelosi’s press conference even wrapped up.

“It’s going to kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates in it and it’s going to cut senior’s healthcare benefits, if all that isn’t bad enough, the mandates on states are going to bankrupt states that already have huge financial problems to deal with,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) said at a press conference. He labeled the bill a “monstrosity.”

The rubber hits the road very soon for the House legislation. A floor vote on H.R. 3962 could happen early next week.

The battered U.S. economy grew in the third quarter of 2009 for the first time in a year and at the fastest pace in two years, a sure sign that the recession is over and that more good economic news is ahead.

The economy expanded by 3.5 percent this summer thanks mainly to the Obama administration’s stimulus earlier in the year that bolstered consumer spending and eased fears of  a deeper recessionary hole for the U.S.

The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in more than a year, propelled by stimulus-driven gains in consumer spending and home building. The world’s largest economy expanded at a 3.5 percent pace from July through September, exceeding the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, after shrinking the previous four quarters, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. Household purchases climbed 3.4 percent, the most in more than two years.

…………………………..

“A lot of this is thanks to government support,” Kathleen Stephansen, chief economist at Aladdin Capital Holdings LLC in Stamford, Connecticut, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “We still have major headwinds for the consumer. That worries me. The consumer, in fact private demand in general, is not ready yet to pick up the growth baton from the government.”

Jobless claims were released in tandem with the economic growth report, and they also had some good news. Claims dropped less than expected but dipped to their lowest levels in nearly 7 months, an indicator that the job market has steadied after months of erratic reading.

Thursday’s collection of data was good news for consumers and job hunters, great news for the reemerging economy, even better news for the White House. They are able to freely tout the benefits of their February stimulus that has been a consistent target of Republicans fr its lack of success and can take credit for turning around, statistically speaking, one of the worst recessionary periods in American economic history since thew 1930’s.

While growth is a clear win for President Obama’s economic bona fides, it’s a similarly important boost for the push for health care reform. As the economy has improved over the summer and early fall, support for the president’s reform plan has grown, and more Americans see health care as a more important issue than the economy. This should only be magnified with Thursday’s economic news.

Meanwhile, Republicans have to face what should be another policy slap in the face. After months of criticizing the Obama stimulus and nearly every other move by the White House on the economy, Republicans will be forced to spin 3.5 percent growth into a negative. The party of no…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will announce a House version of health care reform legislation Thursday morning at 10:30 AM, a response to Harry Reid’s bill in the Senate and another step forward towards President Obama’s goal of signing legislation before the end of the year.

Pelosi will unveil a bill that, not surprisingly, includes a public option and also would expand Medicare as a more cost-effective way of covering uninsured Americans.

Senior Democratic House aides said the bill would likely include a version of the “public option” preferred by moderates and may raise Medicaid eligibility levels to 150 percent of the federal poverty level for all adults, a steeper increase than in earlier drafts.

The House legislation aims to provide health insurance of one form or another to almost all Americans at an expected cost just below $900 billion over 10 years, without increasing the federal budget deficit for at least 20 years, House Democrats said. Pelosi (D-Calif.) was awaiting official data Wednesday night from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, but was aiming to release the legislation at an event Thursday morning.

Lacking the votes to pass it, House leaders abandoned an effort to include a public option backed by liberals that would establish reimbursement rates to providers based on Medicare. Rural Democrats strongly opposed that approach because of the potentially ruinous effect on doctors and hospitals in their districts, where Medicare rates are generally well below the national average.

Instead, Pelosi is expected to offer a more moderate alternative in which rates would be negotiated between providers and federal health officials, similar to the way in which private insurance operates.  Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would include a similar provision in the Senate bill, though with an “opt out” clause for states that don’t want to participate.

Pelosi’s bill is far less liberal than some early House versions and should easily be tailored to please most Senate Democrats. It is moderates and lone Republican Olympia Snowe where the nagging issues will remain. Yet another style of a public option, which Snowe and some Democrats have either blatantly stated or cleverly intimated is a deal-breaker, could very well clog the system with more delays and more tough negotiating that could end up dropping the Senate vote margin below even 59 (with Joe Lieberman apparently already gone).

One step forward, half-step back?

Sarah Palin has 1.25 million reasons to be thankful she resigned as governor of Alaska this summer.

Palin disclosed that she is making $1.25 million as a “retainer” from publisher HarperCollins for her hotly anticipated memoir “Going Rogue,” due for expedited release on November 17.

This figure is nowhere close to the initial double-digit estimates from some in the midst of the crazed atmosphere after her stint as Republican vice-presidential candidate, a sign that the initial frenzy for everything Palin - even outside of conservative circles - was purely a fad.

Former GOP Gov. Sarah Palin netted $1.25 million on the book deal for her memoirs, according to financial disclosure forms made public Tuesday by the state of Alaska.

The figure is significantly less than the $11 million figure floated in news reports, but still represents a significant haul for a governor who earned a salary of $73,000 in her last year leading the state.

Palin’s camp would not confirm the $1.25 million figure.

Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton instead offered POLITICO a statement asserting that “the Governor has complied with Alaska disclosure law by her filing yesterday. Now, as a private citizen, her business dealings, including her publishing agreement, are confidential.”

HarperCollins is set to print 1.5 million copies of the 400-page book. The release date of “Going Rogue: An American Life” was moved up in September from spring 2010 to November 17 and almost immediately shot into the top spot on the Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com best seller lists.

Reid’s legislation, set to be put up for a floor vote within weeks, includes the much-maligned public option, forming a government-run insurance plan but allowing states to opt-out.

This opt-out public option provision has drawn the first definitive verdict on the proposal from the group of 60 mostly Democratic senators needed for reform to be approved in the Senate. Independent/Dem-caucusing Joe Lieberman, a consistent critic of congressional Democrats and President Obama on the issue of reform, said to reporters on Tuesday that he will vote against the Reid plan if it contains any public option provision when it comes to the full Senate later this month.

Lieberman said he has informed Reid of his intentions to oppose the bill, and said that the idea of a “government-operated-and-run” insurance option is “asking for trouble,” even with an opt-out clause.

“I am strongly inclined, and I have had this conversation with Sen. Reid several times, to vote for the motion to proceed to take up the bill. Why? Because I want to vote for health care reform legislation, so I’d like the debate to begin,” said the Connecticut senator. “But I’ve also made clear to Sen. Reid that if the bill remains as it is now, I will vote against cloture, to finish the bill and pass it affirmatively.”

Lieberman said the inclusion of an opt-out provision would not change his position.

“To me, the opt out doesn’t change the basic facts. The last thing we want to do now is create another Washington-run health insurance company,” he said. “There’s enough good things that we’re talking about - health care delivery reforms, insurance market reforms, extending coverage to people who don’t have it now. I think we’re just asking for trouble that the taxpayers don’t need. I think the end result of it - I mean we are having enough time sustaining Medicare.”

……………………………….

“I can’t see a way in which I can vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-and-run insurance company, it’s just asking for trouble,” he said. He also rejected the idea of a “trigger” option that would allow for the launch of a new public option if the insurance industry failed to meet certain coverage benchmarks. “I feel this way about a national government-run health insurance company whether it’s a trigger or not,” he said.