The Daily Strike-10/5/09-Delay of Game

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you catch up on the upcoming week in politics by reading our Weekly Strike, available below. Not a lot of news out there today, so tonight's entry will be a brief one.

HEALTH CARE: Here we go again! The Senate Finance committee was supposed to vote on health care legislation as soon as they got a revised estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. That process was supposed to take about 3 days. Apparently, it is taking longer than 3 days. Reports today indicate that the committee will not vote on the bill until Thursday at the earliest. This pushes back the timeline for Senator Reid to merge the Finance and HELP bills on the Senate floor. Chairman Max Baucus agreed to this delay to assuage concerns from Republican Olympia Snowe (R-ME). I highly doubt that any members will change their views on the bill based on the score from the Congressional Budget office. In fact, chairman frequently change bills through "manager's amendments" to reflect changed CBO projections. The true effect of the CBO scoring is another in a long line of delays and missed deadlines. I sure hope that Olympia Snowe remembers this concession when she decides whether to vote for the bill or not.

Meanwhile, today at the White House the President held his first health-care related event in over a week. Doctors from all 50 states listened to the President make his standard case for the need for reform. President Obama urged the doctors to fan out and spread the pro-reform message. Sweet talking doctors is not a bad strategy at all. Let's face it, we all listen to our doctors no matter what they tell us.

After the event, the White House got an unexpected endorsement from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who gives some bipartisan (?) credence to the whole reform effort.

AFGHANISTAN: An addition to a scheduled Wednesday meeting with his national security team, the President has scheduled a meeting with Congressional leaders tomorrow to discuss the War in Afghanistan. Joining the President will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY). The President says that he is looking for additional input as he considers new strategies. It will be interesting to see how Boehner and McConnell react to this meeting. Both are intensely political figures who have, to my knowledge, shown almost no interest in policy. If the President decides to escalate the war by sending more troops, he may need the support of Boehner and McConnell to ensure funding in Congress. I hope that's a scenario we don't get to.

That's it for today. See you tomorrow evening!

The Weekly Strike-10/5-10/11

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview the upcoming week in politics. Make sure you remember to leave some comments!

THE WHITE HOUSE: After a week of focusing on foreign affairs and the Olympic Games, the President returns his focus to his signature domestic policy issue, health reform. Behind the scenes, the President will be keeping a watchful eye on the Senate Finance committee. Chairman Baucus (D-MT) has scheduled a vote on his amended bill for tomorrow. You can count 9 out of the 10 Republicans as definitely opposed to the bill. I would put Olympia Snowe (R-ME) at about 50/50 as to whether she supports Baucus' legislation. As for the Democrats, many of the 13 of them are not enthusiastic that the bill leaves out key provisions, like the public option, but as of yet, no Democrats on the committee have said they'll vote against the bill. Senators Rockefeller (WV) and Wyden (OR) are the too most displeased Democrats on the committee. They have thus far not stated whether they support Baucus' bill or not. If they both voted no, and all Republicans including Snowe voted no, the bill would fail to pass the committee. My view is that the Democrats should just get the bill out of committee to get the ball rolling. The most important changes to the bill will come when Majority Leader Reid combines it with the more progressive Senate HELP committee bill. We can't get to that point until the bill clears the Senate Finance committee.

President Obama starts his health care push this week with an event today with doctors at the White House.

The President will also spend a good amount of time this week on the other most complicated issue of his Presidency, the War in Afghanistan. The President has scheduled two meetings with his national security team to discuss future strategy in the ongoing conflict. From the comments of National Security Advisor James Jones this weekend, it seems like an increase in troops is not inevitable. Even if more troops are sent to the region, it is likely they will be fighting under a new strategy. After more violence this weekend brought casualty levels among American soldiers even higher, I find it unlikely that President Obama won't seek significant changes in policy. My recommendation would be a scaled back presence, with a more targeted focus of rooting out Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and expedited training of Afghan security forces.

THE HOUSE: It is another quiet week in Congress, as members continue to do the bulk of work behind closed doors (namely, negotiating health care legislation). The House will vote on various suspension bills Tuesday and Wednesday. On Wednesday evening and Thursday, the House will vote on the conference report on the Agriculture appropriations bill. This will be the 3rd of 12 appropriations bills that have emerged from conference. It is possible we'll see a conference report on the Homeland Security appropriations bill as well, although it has been held up due to disagreements on Gitmo detainee transfer policies. The House will also vote on a bill that was defeated last week under suspension of the rules that deals with recycling Bay Area water. As a native San Franciscan, I'll be one of the few people in the country rooting hard for this bill to pass! Finally, it is possible that we see a conference report on the Defense Authorization bill, which sets out defense policy guidelines through the next two fiscal years. I would guess that we're more likely to see that bill come to the floor next week.

THE SENATE: The Senate still has 6 more appropriations bills to pass, and if they keep up this snail-like pace, they might not be able to finish by the end of the year. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on remaining amendments and final passage of the Defense appropriations bill. Next up will be appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and related agencies. All appropriations bills, of course, have already passed the House. The Senate also needs to vote on the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, which the House approved last Thursday. If the Senate approves it, it will be the 2nd appropriations bill sent to President Obama for his signature.

I could complain for hours about the United States Senate, but I'll spare our loyal readers. I just don't understand how they don't schedule votes for Mondays and Fridays considering how many House-passed bills are awaiting Senate approval. Majority Leader Reid needs to get with the program, fast.

That's it for this morning, we'll see you tonight!

The Daily Strike-10/2/09-Obama-Fail

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Before we get to today's entry, make sure you read the Big Picture's wonderful, but disturbing entry below. It is a must-read.

NOT HIS BEST DAY: This is probably a day Obama would like to forget. The President jetted off to Copenhagen last night to deliver a last-minute push for the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid. While he was flying back over the Atlantic Ocean, Chicago came in last place in IOC voting. President Obama stuck his neck out to get the Olympics to his hometown, and he failed. But wow, the right-wing got a little too giddy over this. Every right-wing pundit I've read today seems to enjoy seeing Obama fail, even when it is actually America that is losing. Even though Obama took a risk that didn't pay off, I don't see this being too big of a problem for him. I don't think people care that much about the Olympic games. Congratulations, by the way, to Rio de Janiero. The 2016 Olympics will be the first held in South America.

The far worse and more consequential news was the release of the latest unemployment numbers. American firms shed 236,000 jobs in September, far more than the predicted 180,000 economists predicted would be lost. This brings the unemployment rate up to 9.8%, the highest since 1983. The Big Picture addressed this issue so well in his entry, that I won't go too much into detail. But Obama's political fate is tied directly to unemployment. High unemployment feeds massive voter anxiety and anger that could be politically perilous for the party in power. I agree with the Big Picture that it would be worth taking a political risk by instituting more job-creation measures. Perhaps a jobs-only stimulus bill might do the trick. Republicans will attack it, for sure. But if the economy starts to improve, and people feel more secure in their own lives, they will be less reflexively anti-government, and will thus be more receptive to the rest of President Obama's agenda.

MARK UP: While we were sleeping last night, the Senate Finance committee finished its mark up of health care reform legislation at around 2am EDT. Chairman Baucus (D-MT) promised the committee that he would get a revised estimate of the cost of the bill before the committee votes. Therefore, the actual vote on the bill won't be held until Tuesday or so. The committee approved a key affordability amendment late last night that will help ease major concerns about the Baucus bill. The amendment, co-sponsored by Republican Olympia Snowe (ME) and Democrat Chuck Schumer (NY), would postpone and reduce the penalties middle-class people would pay if they did not buy health insurance. It also exempts people from the individual mandate if they can't find an insurance plan that costs less than 8 percent. Previously, that threshold was at 10 percent. This amendment helps to ease the concerns of many members that middle-class families, who will be forced to buy insurance under the new individual mandate, would not get enough subsidies to pay for it. Democrats hope to address this issue when the bill is merged with the Senate HELP committee bill.

One amendment that was not considered, unfortunately, was the "Healthy Choices Act" amendment, sponsored by Senator Wyden (D-OR). In the Baucus bill (and in all of the other health care bills), the new health insurance exchange will only be open to people who work for small businesses, the unemployed, and those who don't get health care through their employer. People who currently get health care through their employer would not be able to join the exchange. The Wyden amendment would allow everyone to join the exchange. This is a good idea policy-wise, because a larger exchange would foster greater competition. It's also a great idea politically, because it would answer the "what's in it for me?" question from people who don't have health insurance. Under the Wyden amendment, if I thought I could get better health care in the exchange than I do with my current employer, I would have the choice to pursue that option. Chairman Baucus said that the amendment was out of order because it didn't have a cost estimate. I hope Senator Wyden proposes the amendment when the bill reaches the Senate floor.

That's it for this evening. See you Monday and leave some comments!

Even though many Democrats have deep concerns about the bill as it now stands, I expect them to vote for it on Tuesday, if for nothing else than to move the process along. Nothing would blunt the progress of health reform more than to have Finance Committee stalemate. The real substantive changes to the bill will probably happen during the merging of the two Senate bills, and in the House-Senate conference.

The Big Picture: Obama should be concerned

Many mainstream political analysts, not to mention gleeful conservatives and jumpy Democratic politicians, have established a general consensus that Barack Obama’s administration is struggling politically and poised for serious losses in the 2010 midterms. The theory goes that Obama and his aides overplayed their hand, misreading public opposition to the Bush-era Republican Party’s incompetent stewardship, especially of the economy, as public support for a swinging of the pendulum away from Reagan-era antigovernment sentiment, when in fact the public remains enormously skeptical of government. The theory postulates that public backlash to Obama’s accumulation of power and so-called exorbitant spending are rapidly depleting any reflexive support the Democrats earned as the non-Bush party, and predicts that the backlash will resurrect the Republican Party and conservatism, ending the Obama era in its infancy. Meanwhle, Obama and his aides, along with a few seasoned Washington hands, say that this theory is wildly overblown, that Obama’s popularity is still strong, and if it’s down, that’s because a) governing is inherently more difficult and less popularity-burnishing than campaigning, and b) the economy is currently struggling but will be better by the time of the midterms, and especially by 2012.

I think both theories have some truth to them, but they miss the underlying dynamics. I do not believe that the public remains as antigovernment, and therefore ideologically conservative, and I don’t think the Reagan Era will become a permanent ideological realignment of American politics, dominating Democratic administrations as well as Republican; I do think we are potentially at the cusp of a new Obama era. But, I think Obama and his aides are far too dismissive of the strong evidence that support for his agenda is dangerously weak, that he is not only fighting against special interests and Congressional inertia but also deep, and broad, public skepticism and fear about Obama’s motivation and ultimate goals in proposing his agenda. In short, I think we have seen the end of the Three Big Truths political dynamic that proved so favorable in the beginning of his administration.

So what’s going wrong, and how can it be fixed? We can start with the historical reality that Presidences rise and fall on changes in the unemployment rate: when people feel the climate for getting and keeping a job is improving, they will tend to vote for the incumbent party, but when job prospects are darkening, stagnating, and they fear for the future, then they vote against the incumbent. This is obviously not the only factor – wars, terrorist attacks, major racial and cultural disturbances can also have a major impact – but it is the most consistently critical one in determining the success or failure of a Presidency, and especially of a President’s domestic agenda. A fascinating poll cited by Ezra Klein is very enlightening: one finding is that that the vast majority of Americans feel personally affected by the recession. Either they personally or someone close to them has lost his job or seen hours and wages cut. Obama can NOT overlook the centrality of the breadth and depth of this recession, and especially its effect on the job market, exacerbating the already fragile sense of security in this era’s radically unstable and unequal economy.

A second finding in the poll is even more important. By overwhelming margins, people feel that government action has done a great deal to help banks, well-connected industries, and the rich, and done little to nothing to help small businesses, homeowners, and ordinary people in general. This is the key fact: people aren’t ideologically opposed to the government’s response to the recession; they are opposed to a government that is rewarding the powerful, bad actors, and ignoring or penalizing ordinary folks who played by the rules. They already lacked faith in government for a number of reasons, but this crisis has not restored support for government action against the private sector, contrary to the predictions of the Strike and I. We thought this recession would create a class-conscious ideological divide that would favor liberals: between big business and their collaborators in the Republican Party on the one hand, and ordinary people and their defenders in the Democratic Party on the other. Instead we’ve seen a moralistic populist divide that is dangerous to Democrats and especially the rational expertise-driven brand of liberalism Barack Obama has enacted. This divide pits the whole group of institutions and groups blamed for the crisis – corrupt free-spending politicians of both parties who looked out for the well-connected special interest groups, not only banks but also government employees, unions and racial minorities – against the hard-working average Joes who pay their taxes and their mortgages and their “common-sense” defenders. We thought the Rick Santelli types who blamed “losers” for their misfortune would discredit conservatism, but instead there has been a decided lack of empathy or solidarity, very little evidence of any sense of “we’re all in this together”. That is a fundamental problem – without those feelings, and the antigovernment, “this is all about personal responsibility” worldview will prevail and a liberal agenda is a lost cause.

But even if crucial swing voters in middle are not fundamentally anti-government, and are now expressing their revulsion at government of, by, and for the elite and undeserving, there is little sense that Obama and the Democrats have any plans at changing this perception of government action. Even if Obama passes health care, most of the provisions won’t go into effect until 2013, and even then, many of the changes will prevent things from getting worse, or make the health care system more tolerable and manageable. They are crucially important, but the average person may me moderately pleased that their bills are a little lower, but most likely will not feel a major impact on their lives. In the absence of some extraordinarily effective salesmanship, health care reform may not mean a significant shift in the crucial poll question of who is government helping. This holds even more true for climate change, which will mean some short-term sacrifices for the sake of averting catastrophe and transitioning our economy, but those positive effects will not be felt for a long while, and possibly not ever, but the short-term sacrifices will be relentlessly exposed by opponents, further solidifying the perception that the government is not looking out for ordinary people and their everyday concerns.

The answer must be a change in policy substance and a change in political style. Substantively, Obama and his advisers need to recognize the primacy of those two poll questions – he has to turn them around, or his agenda will wither. To put it simply, he needs to focus on jobs. He needs to improve economic security and opportunity, and he needs to do it rapidly and, frankly, flashily. A big key to Franklin Roosevelt’s political success was the job-creation programs that made it abundantly clear that the government was helping people get jobs. Of course there will be major ideological opposition to such a proposal and it will be mocked by the purveyors of conventional wisdom, but Obama has to read those polls and recognize that people aren’t opposed to all government action, in fact they are dissatisfied that government has not helped them even though they’re struggling. Stop apologizing for government or saying you’re trying to minimize its role in the economy, and instead forcefully advocate for government programs that help ordinary people get jobs and stay in their jobs, increase their wages and job security.

Obama must draw on another lesson from FDR and rethink some of his messaging. People supported FDR’s agenda less because they rationally agreed with the logic of each policy, and far more because they fundamentally trusted FDR – his worldview, his motivation, his ultimate goals. Politicians who have that trust can bring the public in line with all manner of policies that the public might not understand, and might not support if they did understand; and without that trust politicians can’t get people to support policies that people would support if they thoroughly considered them. I think Obama is overconfident that the majority of people trust his worldview, motivation, and ultimate goals. They like him personally, admire him, think he’s smart, competent, and serious about doing a good job. But Obama does not have that public trust – he is so smooth and careful and lacking in passionate emotion that could turn people off in all his media appearances, and that popularity-creating quality was absolutely necessary for the rise of an unknown man of his race, name, and background to rise to such unimaginable heights. However, that very smoothness and lack of passion makes it difficult for people to connect with him, to feel that they “get” him, where he’s coming from, where he’s trying to go. He really needs to explain, in emotional, passionate, real-world terms, the underlying values driving his agenda. As we’ve said before, he needs to study up on Bill Clinton’s brand of “feel your pain” politics, the kind that intuitively senses people’s core hopes and fears and then really speaks to them and wins their trust. This is the way Obama can fix his biggest problem: the widespread belief that his actions are not benefiting ordinary people. But first he needs to recognize that this is a serious, potentially Presidency-killing problem in the first place.

The Daily Strike-10/1/09-October Arrives

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It's October and Congress still has a lot to do before it adjourns, which is supposed to be at the end of this month. Bottom line, they're gonna be here until Christmas.

MARK UP: It's been another long, slow day in the Senate Finance committee as they slog through the remaining amendments. Chairman Baucus (D-MT) thinks that they can finish the bill this evening. There are some 20 or so amendments left to consider last I heard, so they could be working very late. There was some decent news on the amendment front today. As you know, the committee voted down two public option amendments the other day. Dispirited Democrats weren't exactly happy with the one viable alternative out there, Senator Snowe's "trigger" idea. So today, Senator Cantwell proposed an idea of her own that amounts to a quasi, VERY quasi, public option. The Cantwell amendment would permit states to negotiate with insurers on behalf of people making between 133 and 200% of the poverty line. The amendment, as Ezra Klein notes, is a pretty good policy idea, but does not come close to being a good replacement for the public option. This is just a way to make private insurance cheaper for a small group of people. It would not institute the broad based bargaining power that a robust public option would. Nevertheless, it was certainly an amendment worth adopting. The amendment was indeed adopted by a vote of 12-11. All Republicans voted no, as did Democrat Blanche Lincoln (AR), who has voted mostly like a Republican since this mark up began.

The committee also defeated several Republican amendments that sought to eliminate (or exempt certain populations from) fees for individuals who don't obtain health insurance. I'm somewhat conflicted about this. On the one hand, covering everyone will lower aggregate spending on health care. But if people are forced to buy insurance, and they don't get enough subsidies, they'll be in for some destructive fees. The Republican way of handling this problem would be to do away with the fees. I think it would be a better idea to increase subsidies.

Democrats seem to be holding off on offering amendments that increase subsidies. They are probably waiting to do this until it really matters, that is, when the Finance bill and HELP committee bill are merged.

Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed the best amendment of the day. His amendment would require that insurance companies spend at least 85% of their money on health services. The amendment is designed to limit money spent on executive salaries and overhead (like advertising). This amendment makes abundant sense to me. Why shouldn't we mandate that health insurance companies don't rip us off and charge exorbitant costs to line their own pockets? Rockefeller didn't even call for a vote on his amendment, because he knew it wouldn't pass. Proof number 7000 that the industry owns a majority of the finance committee.

We'll let you know what happens tonight in tomorrow's entry. Even if the mark up ends tonight, a vote in committee probably won't happen until the middle of next week, because the Congressional Budget Office would have to score the original bill.

IRAN: The President is currently jetting off to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. But before he left, he made a major announcement on Iran. Today, the G-5 + 1 nations held diplomatic discussions with Iran in Geneva. Obama called the discussions productive, and issued an ultimatum: Iran must allow international inspectors to its nuclear site in Q'am or face "increased international pressure." That doesn't seem like too big of a threat to me, although it seems to indicate that Obama would be willing to push for harsh sanctions. Interestingly, Obama is indicating that he would be ok with a "verifiably peaceful" use of nuclear power. This is a reversal from the Bush administration, which demanded that Iran do away with the program altogether. It remains to be seen whether this apparent concession will yield any progress.

THE SENATE: The Senate today resumed consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, its 7th of the 12 annual spending bills. Majority Leader Reid had indicated that he wanted this bill to "not take the whole week," but that's looking like exactly what's gonna happen. It's possible that a final vote on the bill will be pushed until next week.

After press time last night, the Senate defeated a McCain (R-AZ) amendment that would have eliminated funding for the C-17 cargo jet program. The Pentagon and the President have said that the program is unnecessary. I'm 100% with John McCain when it comes to cutting out waste in the military budget. It's too bad that these planes are manufactured in so many states. Senators are afraid of lost jobs if the spending is discontinued. The amendment failed by a vote of 34-64, with both parties splitting votes straight down the middle. It's always interesting when a vote is almost entirely non-partisan.

Today, the Senate voted on two additional amendments, both concerning testimony related to the War in Afghanistan. Republicans, under the leadership again of Senator McCain sought to require General McChrystal to testify on the war before November 15th. The chairman of the Armed Services committee, Carl Levin (D-MI), said that this would be an arbitrary date and instead proposed that the general speak to the committee when the President has made a decision on how to proceed.

Both amendments were almost full party line votes. In fact, the McCain amendment failed on a strict 40-59 party line vote (with Senator Bayh of Indiana not voting). The Levin amendment passed 60-39 with only Senator Voinovich (R-OH) defying the party line. It's possible we'll see some more amendment votes tonight and tomorrow.

THE HOUSE: The House today agreed to the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. If the Senate agrees to the conference report (and who knows when that will happen), it will be the 2nd of the 12 appropriations bills that President Obama will sign into law. So far, the House has passed all 12 of its bills. The Senate, as we said, is on its 7th. I expect a couple more of these bills to emerge from conference and come up for votes next week.

The final vote on the conference report was 308-114. 70 Republicans crossed over and voted yes, and 12 Democrats voted no.

The House has adjourned until Tuesday. According to Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD), it appears as if the health care bill will not come to the floor in the next two weeks. The Democratic leadership is still trying to figure out how to come up with a bill that will garner the necessary 218 votes on the House floor.

That's it for today, see you tomorrow! Leave comments!