Talking Points Memo

Meet the Deep Six

2009-11-09T18:52:41Z

The six members of the Democratic caucus Harry Reid needs to get a health care reform bill to the president's desk -- and what each one wants.

Astroturf Ethics Cage Match

2009-11-09T18:47:22Z

First, Bonner & Associates got caught sending out forged letters to members of Congress for Big Coal clients. Then after Bonner got called up to the Hill he told Congress he'd hired AU Professor James Thurber as his firm's new ethics counselor. But things started to spin out of control when only a few days later Thurber placed an ad in Roll Call praising Bonner.

Now Thurber seems to be throwing Bonner under the astroturf ethics bus.

The Deep Six?

2009-11-09T18:40:43Z

With a health care bill now through the House, attention now turns to the senate. And with that in mind, we've put together a list of the six senate Dems who stand between you and a health care bill on the president's desk. What does each want, need, care about, and more. We'll have it for you shortly.

Good Times

2009-11-09T17:51:31Z

Earlier we mentioned the staff shake-up at the Washington Times -- and the possible departure of Editor John Solomon. Now there's another weird wrinkle. The day before Jonathan Slevin was promoted to be president and acting publisher of the paper, the Times was forced to admit that he had violated Times policy by choosing the author who would review his own book in the Times pages.

Presented By:

2009-11-09T17:51:31Z

Unspoken

2009-11-09T16:59:51Z

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is in Washington today and he will meet with President Obama early this evening at the White House. It would be fascinating to hear what they have to say to each other. Because even though the health care debate, Afghanistan and other stories have pushed the Israel-Palestine question off the front pages in the US, it's hard to see where Netanyahu hasn't gotten the US to cave on the critical issue of settlements.

A brief review is helpful.

Going back four decades (with the limited exception of the second Bush administration), US governments have opposed Israel's settlement policies on the West Bank. (Indeed, a confrontation centered in part over the settlements issue helped bring down the Shamir government in the early 1990s.) This continues to be the Obama administration's position. But earlier this year they had gone well beyond this. The clear import of their statements in the spring was that they intended to force the matter, insist that the Israelis halt settlements as a way to restart peace negotiations -- a stance then given added credibility by President Obama's soaring popularity.

There was a lengthy back-and-forth over the course of the spring and summer in which Netanyahu agreed to a limited and temporary slow-down of settlement activity. But the upshot was clear: no cessation of settlement building. The Obama administration's general position remains clear -- as Secretary Clinton made clear in her fence-mending trip to Cairo last week. But in effect the Netanyahu government has forced the Obama White House to change its position and acquiesce in continued settlement building.

This is certainly the perception of the Israeli government: that it rolled the White House. And Netanyahu has been emboldened by Obama's weakened position in the US.

As Daniel Levy argues here, proceeding to a confrontation over the settlement issue was not the only or perhaps even the preferable choice. But what the White House has done, which is essentially to allow the Netanyahu government to set the terms of a new discussion of settlements, is probably the worst.

It's a very unwelcome development for anyone who believes in a strong Israel and the prospect of peace in the region.

Wonderful People

2009-11-09T16:43:17Z

A fringe anti-gay group is protesting this morning outside the Obama girls' school.

Shakeup At Washington Times

2009-11-09T14:28:43Z

A purge of top executives at Washington's conservative "other" daily could lead to the departure of Executive Editor John Solomon less than two years after he made the jump from the Washington Post.

TPMDC Morning Roundup

2009-11-09T14:18:57Z

President Obama meets today at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That and the day's other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.

2010 or 2013?

2009-11-09T02:35:40Z

TPM Reader BK disagrees that health care reform's greatest vulnerability will be the 2010 election.

Actually, its greatest point of vulnerability will be the 2012 election, since much of it doesn't take effect until 2013. The mandates that will drive up costs will take effect before then--young people will pay much more since premiums will be equalized for all age groups and private companies will have to cover even sick people. Since there will be no opt-out or no competition, they will be able to charge whatever they want.

By 2012, the exchanges that will get small business owners and employees insured are not supposed to be set up. So basically, all the politically and economically costly things go into effect first, and the beneficial things (insuring people and taking burdens off small business) will not have materialized. It's perfect for demonization.
I'm sorry, but the 2012 campaign is going to be all about repealing health care reform, and it will find a sympathetic audience if the schedule isn't fixed.

This is actually a point I've given a lot of thought to. And it's an important and complicated point. It's true that key parts of the legislation don't go into effect until 2013, or at least that's where things stand right now. It less clear to me that a hypothetical unified Republican government in 2013 would be able to repeal the law just as the most beneficial parts of the legislation are coming into effect.

But it does make me wonder why the schedule can't be tweaked at least a little. Certainly changes as big as these can't happen over night. But you could see where early 2012 as opposed to 2013 could make a pretty big difference.

Late Update: I realize that the original version of this post wasn't entirely clear. It was not my understanding that mandates and the exchanges are staggered in the way that BK suggests. And I've just confirmed that that is not the case. The issue is that few of the structural changes go into effect before the 2012 election. Bans on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping people as soon as they get sick ("recision") will go into effect earlier, basically new regs cracking down insurance companies' behavior. And those should be popular for a lot of people. But the stuff that really tackles cost and other aspects of availability won't go into effect during this presidential term. That's problematic politically for the Democrats. And I think it also raises the real prospect that the insurance companies will start pulling various pricing shenanigans in advance of 2013, hoping they can create the political climate for repeal before those parts of the legislation come into effect.

One Vote on Health Care Reform

2009-11-08T20:41:35Z

There are many events in life that, while more or less predictable in themselves (House passage of the health care bill), turn out to have an impact and significance that is only truly apparent after they occur. The passage of the House health care reform bill last night strikes me as one of them.

The precise contours of the post-conference legislation remains uncertain in a number of key respects, especially in regards to the public option. But having watched the events leading up to the House vote and the politicking in the senate, I have little doubt that a broadly similar bill will pass the senate, be reconciled with the House bill in a conference report and bill that will be signed by the president in relatively short order.

The reason these sorts of events happen so infrequently is that they are like colossal ships or vast armies, very difficult to build or assemble and get on their way but also extremely difficult to stop or turn once they are under way.

As Bill Kristol noted in his famous 1993 GOP strategy memo on the Clinton health care reform initiative, the key danger Republicans face from health care reform is precisely that the public will like it. And I suspect that the more forward thinking and perspicacious of his partisan colleagues today see it the same way.

If a health care reform bill passes, it's greatest point of vulnerability will be in the 2010 election. That's not only because of the on-going fall-out of the 2008 financial crisis, which sets the Democrats up for a tough midterm election. It's also because a lot of the key reforms in the legislation don't kick in for a few years. But even if you assume the worst possible outcome for the Democrats in 2010, loss of both houses of Congress, Republican majorities still wouldn't be able to overturn the law because President Obama would veto their repeal.

Last night's vote makes me think this will happen and it will be a genuinely historic development.

Obama To Senate: Your Turn

2009-11-08T18:22:11Z

President Obama in a short Rose Garden statement just thanked lawmakers for taking a "courageous vote" on health care last night. He said he is "absolutely confident" the Senate will do the same.

He didn't single out Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), the only Republican to break ranks and support the measure.

Read more about Cao here and learn his take on the vote here.

Obama Releases Statement

2009-11-08T04:52:14Z

Read it here.

Done Deal

2009-11-08T04:14:43Z

House passes Dem health care bill by a vote of 220 to 215.

One Republican voted for the Democratic bill: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA). See this post from earlier this evening on the background to his vote. Here's Cao's statement on his vote.

Late Update: Here's the roll call on the final vote. And for those keeping score at home here's the roll call on the Stupak abortion amendment.

Dem Bill Passes

2009-11-08T04:08:08Z

218 for; only one Dem yet to vote.

Late Update: We have one GOP vote for -- presumably that's Rep. Cao (R-LA), though no confirmation on that yet.

The final vote appears to be 220 - 215.

Final Vote Live Blog

2009-11-08T03:58:06Z

10:58 PM: With amendments and procedural mumbojumbo out of the way, the actual vote is about to get underway.

11:01 PM: Not too much to talk about on a final vote live blog. Currently at 196 for, 29 Dems voting against.

11:03 PM: Currently ten more votes needed and 14 Dems still to vote. Presumably they're going to do this on a straight 218, just like in the Clinton years. No 'wasted' votes.