James Clyburn Selected For Super Committee: South Carolina's 2012 Game Changer

Last Three Democrats Named to Debt Committee>

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, on Thursday announced her three appointees to the special Congressional committee tasked with finding ways to reduce federal budget deficits, as a Republican member of the newly formed panel expressed an openness to consider possible tax increases.

Ms. Pelosi’s choices complete the 12-member panel, which is evenly divided between the two parties and the two houses of Congress.

All three members named by Ms. Pelosi hold leading roles in the party: Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat; Representative Xavier Becerra of California, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Ms. Pelosi said in a statement that the committee “has a golden opportunity to take its discussions to the higher ground of America’s greatness and its values.”

Created as part of the agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling, the panel is supposed to recommend ways to reduce federal budget deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If the panel fails to do so by its Nov. 23 deadline, or if its ideas are not enacted, the agreement calls for the government to automatically cut spending across the board.

If even a single panel member crosses party lines to provide a majority vote, the committee can forward its proposals to the floor of the House and the Senate for up-or-down votes without amendments.

One Republican member of the committee, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, said Thursday that he would not rule out possible tax increases –- a central point of contention in the recent debt talks and something many economists contend will be a necessary element to any successful bipartisan proposal.

“I don’t want to rule anything in or out,” Mr. Camp told Reuters. “I am willing to discuss all issues that might help us reduce our short and long-term debt and grow our economy.”

“Everything is on the table, until we as a group rule it out,” he said.

Ms. Pelosi, in her statement, described Mr. Clyburn as a consensus builder with experience on the Appropriations Committee; Mr. Becerra as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee who “placed the interests of America’s working families first”; and Mr. Van Hollen as a Democratic leader in the deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The three Democratic members will join three House Republicans, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Mr. Camp and Fred Upton, both of Michigan, on the committee. The Senate will be represented by three Republicans, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio, along with the Democrats Patty Murray of Washington, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana.




Pelosi names three House Democrats to complete debt panel selection

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday appointed Reps. James Clyburn, Xavier Becerra and Chris Van Hollen to the special congressional committee on deficit reduction, completing selection of the 12-member bipartisan panel created under last week's debt ceiling agreement.

The three choices bring strong party voices from the House to the new "super committee" charged with crafting a plan to reduce the country's mounting deficits. They join three Senate Democrats -- Patty Murray, Max Baucus and John Kerry -- previously appointed to the committee, as well as six GOP fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate named by Republican leaders.

"We must achieve a 'grand bargain' that reduces the deficit by addressing our entire budget, while strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security," Pelosi said in a statement announcing her choices. "Our entire caucus will work closely with these three appointees toward this goal, which is the goal of the American people."

Clyburn, of South Carolina, is the No. 3 House Democrat, while Becerra, of California, is vice chairman of the House Democratic caucus. Van Hollen, of Maryland, is the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

In separate announcements Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner and chose Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Dave Camp of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan as the House Republican picks, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell picked Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio.

All six Republicans are known for conservative stances on economic issues. Hensarling is the Republican Conference chairman and will be co-chair of the panel with Murray of Washington state, who was appointed Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"The debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation's future, and the American people cannot afford to wait any longer," Hensarling said in a statement after his appointment. "Everyone can agree that we must stop spending money we don't have, and the time to act is now."

He added that the committee "will not be able to solve the crisis in a matter of months, but we can work together to tackle these challenges in order to bring back jobs, hope and opportunity for the American people."

Toomey, despite his credentials of fiscal conservatism, noted Wednesday that he recently voted to eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy and believed there were other subsidies or loopholes that could be ended as part of broad tax reform. Many conservative Republicans oppose any moves that could increase tax revenue.

"The goal should be to broaden the base and lower rates so that we can create an environment that's more conducive to economic growth," he said.

The committee will follow up on negotiations that started last year with the bipartisan debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama, then continued in Congress, including work by the so-called Gang of Six senators -- three Democrats and three Republicans. Both the debt commission and the other group recommended comprehensive packages that included tax reform, changes to politically sensitive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and spending cuts.

Obama will bring "very specific ideas about" how "the committee could come together in a balanced way to significantly reduce the deficit," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who co-chaired Obama's debt commission, told CNN on Wednesday that the new special committee has plenty of information to work with and shouldn't need a lot of time for further collecting or analyzing of issues.

Committee members "don't need to sit around here and gather more information," Simpson said, adding that the actual negotiating is "going to be tough."

Among the GOP choices, Camp is the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, while Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.

In a statement Wednesday, Upton said that "much more needs to be done to bring down health care costs, promote economic growth and begin to tame runaway government."

"No one believes this is going to be easy," he added.

On the Senate side, Kyl, the No. 2 Republican behind McConnell, is a staunch advocate for the military, which is targeted for deep spending cuts if the special committee fails to come up with an agreement that passes Congress by the end of the year.

Portman is a former White House budget director in the Bush administration with a reputation for working with Democrats. His fellow Ohio senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, said Wednesday that Portman "has shown a willingness to find common ground by looking at both tax reform and spending cuts in order to reduce the deficit."

Toomey, elected to his first Senate term last year with the support of tea party conservatives, sits on the Senate Budget and Banking Committee. He told reporters Wednesday that he expected the special committee to begin its work soon, and that it would require Republicans working with Democrats to succeed.

"It has to be an exercise in finding common ground between Republicans and Democrats, but it also has to be constructive with respect to reducing our deficit and it has to be pro-growth as well," he said.

Reid went with veteran legislators including a former Democratic presidential candidate in Kerry, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman and the more moderate Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee and has fought Republican efforts to privatize Social Security.

Reid named Murray, a war critic and champion of benefits for military veterans, the co-chair of the special committee.

In a joint statement after their appointments, the three Democratic senators said that Americans want the committee to operate without "the red-hot partisanship and brinkmanship of the last months."

"This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone's principles. We believe we can get there. This committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it," their statement said.

The committee will try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts in the debt ceiling agreement. It is required to complete its work by November 23. Congress then has until December 23 to vote on the proposal, with no amendments permitted.

A simple majority on the panel -- seven of 12 members -- is needed to approve whatever package it comes up with, meaning that it will take a lone member of either party to push something through by voting with the other side. The committee's proposal would then need a simple majority in each chamber of Congress to make it to Obama's desk.

If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.

Carney said Wednesday that Obama continued to call for a balanced approach that includes increased tax revenue, entitlement reforms and spending cuts.

"And we are not alone," Carney said. "The American people overwhelmingly support the balanced approach that the president supports."

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, 63% of respondents say the so-called super committee should recommend increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36% disagreeing. By a 57-40% margin, respondents say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

However, further cuts in defense spending get a mixed review, with 47% favoring them and 53% opposed.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents oppose major changes to Social Security and Medicare, while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle-class and lower-income Americans.

Months of rancorous negotiations on deficit reduction have failed to resolve a fundamental dispute between Republicans and Democrats involving the size of government and whether to raise revenue while cutting spending. Obama is pushing for a comprehensive plan that includes spending cuts, increased tax revenue and entitlement reforms, while Republicans seek to shrink government by proposing spending cuts and entitlement reforms without increased revenue.

An impasse over the tax revenue issue led to the debt ceiling agreement, which imposed the initial round of spending cuts and set up the special committee to work out further deficit reduction. The agreement also enables the federal debt ceiling to be increased through 2012, allowing the government to borrow what it needs to meet its obligations.

The brinkmanship of the negotiations, with uncertainty over whether the government might default if no deal was reached, was one reason why Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday.

One of the main Republican arguments against tax increases for the wealthy is that they would inhibit job creation. The poll results showed that only a third of respondents agree with that stance, while 62% say taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from Friday through Sunday, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's announcement of the S&P downgrade. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, Democracy Now, Fox News, LA Times, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Deval Patrick's Political Future Deemed 2012 Game Changer

Obama Mission: Saving Gov. Deval Patrick


President Barack Obama raised $2.5 million for the Democratic National Committee Thursday night, but his trip to Boston had another, less publicized purpose — saving Deval Patrick.

Few politicians are as close to Obama as the Massachusetts Democratic governor or have deeper ties to the president and his core team of advisers.

And almost no one faces a tougher reelection battle this year than Patrick, whose disapproval ratings would be considered near-terminal if not for the three-way race that he currently finds himself in.

As a result, the White House is looking to every weapon in its arsenal to help Patrick win a second term.

Patrick has been at the White House at least a half-dozen times in the past year, whether he’s lunching with senior adviser David Axelrod, dropping by the Oval Office for a chat or attending Obama’s first state dinner.

The Massachusetts governor is the only Democrat besides Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) to get the president to headline a personal fundraiser for him more than a year before the November election. Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, has been consulting for Patrick’s 2010 bid since last spring, and Axelrod also has lent his expertise.

“We want to be as helpful as we can to him,” said Axelrod, who worked on the Massachusetts governor’s 2006 campaign.

“The same things that attracted me to Barack Obama attracted me to Deval Patrick,” Axelrod said, “this sense of public service as a calling and not a business and the sense that we have to break out of the old political paradigms of hyper-partisanship and special interest-dominance and bring about real change.”

The intense White House interest in the Massachusetts election is more than just business — it’s personal.

Patrick and Obama, both Harvard Law School graduates with Chicago roots, have a history together that dates back almost two decades. They first met in Chicago, at a time when Obama was a community organizer and Patrick, who grew up in a tough South Side neighborhood, was working in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton.

Years later, Patrick supported Obama in his Senate campaign. Obama returned the favor in 2006, when Patrick was running for governor, his first-ever bid for public office.



In October 2007, Patrick reached out to Obama and, against the advice of some political advisers, informed his friend he’d decided to endorse him over Hillary Clinton. The safe political play for Patrick — who’d been in office less than a year — would have been to let the contest unfold. But he decided to take the risk at a critical time for the then-Illinois senator’s struggling presidential campaign.

Obama and his team flew to Boston the following week.

“Not only did we do the endorsement, but we did a rally on Boston Common and there were 20,000 people there,” recalled John Walsh, Patrick’s 2006 campaign manager who is now chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

So it was hardly a surprise when more than 800 words of Obama’s speech Thursday were dedicated to gushing about the governor. As he did at a Patrick fundraiser last October, Obama reminded the donors just how close the two men are.

“Deval stood up for me,” Obama explained, early in the Illinois Senate campaign when nobody knew his name. Later, Patrick came to his Senate office and told him he wanted to run for Governor.

“And I thought to myself, ‘Well, this guy is crazy. He’s not going to win. He’s never run for anything,’” Obama said. “But then I thought to myself, ‘Well, yes, but he supported me when I was doing this stupid thing running for the United States Senate, so — and I like him — so, what the heck.’”

Politics isn’t the only thing they have in common. They share similar personal backgrounds, with each raised by a single mother and forced to come to terms with a strained relationship with a distant father. Both are married to attorneys and have two daughters.

They are also trailblazing, post-civil-rights era African-American politicians of roughly the same age who rode similar hope and change themes to victory — “Yes we can” for Obama in 2008; “Together we can” for Patrick in 2006. Their messages were close enough that in one much-publicized 2008 speech, Obama even borrowed nearly exact phrasing from a 2006 Patrick speech.



It is precisely those thematic similarities — not to mention some shared political experiences — that have spawned theories that Patrick’s re-elect will be a bellwether for how Obama fares in 2012.

“Deval Patrick is the canary in the coal mine for Barack Obama in 2012,” conservative Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr wrote in January.

Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, believes that if Patrick loses, “many people would say, ‘This is the way to try to beat Barack Obama in 2012.’”

The president himself invited comparisons Tuesday in his remarks at the Boston fundraiser.

“The campaign Deval Patrick built is the same campaign for change that you and I built across this country,” Obama told the Democratic crowd. “I’ve come to tell you tonight that we have kept faith with those beliefs.”

The notion of Patrick’s campaign as a dry run for 2012 is rooted in the idea that both politicians took office with ambitious first-term agendas and huge expectations based on the historic nature of their victories and Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches in Boston and Washington.

Both found that the euphoria surrounding their victories began to fade with the daily grind of governance and difficulties in making the adjustment from campaigning to governing. Both men saw their poll numbers drop, particularly among key independent voters. The economic downturn only added to their challenges.

Patrick, however, has had a much harder go of it than Obama. The president has been able to point to significant accomplishments — among them health care reform and the economic stimulus bill — enabled by the luxury of being able to run a deficit. He is still popular within the party, and his poll ratings remain respectable.

Patrick, meanwhile, stumbled through controversy during a rough first year and has been forced to make unpopular decisions to maintain a balanced budget in tough economic times. One of the issues he’s being hammered on this year is not making good on his campaign promise to lower property taxes.

“As candidates, they were both in tune with what people were worried about, with their concerns, what they were looking for, what they wanted. And that in large part helped them get elected because they not only understood that; they were able to communicate that,, and people really believed in them and trusted them,” said Marsh, the Democratic strategist. “And it seemed when they both got into office, and they went tone deaf, politically.”

Those close to Patrick aren’t buying into the idea that his election offers any insight into 2012.

“What happens in 2010 will say something about what happens in 2012, but the truth is that between 2010 and 2012, there’s probably three or four or more political lifetimes,” said Walsh, the state party chairman. “The overwhelming dynamic I see out there is this anxiety that voters have, and it sort of combines in with an impatience at the pace of change.”

Axelrod laughed when asked if Patrick’s reelection campaign is a referendum on the hope and change platform.

“No, I think every election is unique and has its own qualities,” he said. “If you’re someone who’s committed to bringing needed change, that’s additionally burdensome.” He said he believes Patrick’s campaign, and ultimately Obama’s, will be affected more by timing and the economy.

“I don’t view this as some sort of a canary in the coal mine sort of thing, but I view it as the effort of a very, very good man governing in difficult times,” he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, BarackObamadotcom, Youtube, Google Maps

Democrats' Health Care Fight Victory Was Political Game Changer

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dems Victorious In Final Health Care Bill "Fixes" Vote


Capping an epic struggle, congressional Democrats put the final touches Thursday to historic legislation enshrining health care as the right of every citizen. Republicans vowed to campaign for repeal in the fall election season, drawing a quick retort from President Barack Obama: "I welcome that fight."

The president spoke in Iowa as the Senate voted 56-43 for legislation making changes, including better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle-class families, to the bill he signed into law with a flourish at the White House on Tuesday.

The House added its approval a few hours later, 220-207, clearing the way for Obama's signature on the second of two bills that marked the culmination of what the president called "a year of debate and a century of trying" to ensure coverage for nearly all in a nation where millions lack it. Obama is expected to sign the legislation early next week.

Taken together, the two bills also aim to crack down on insurance industry abuses and to reduce federal deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade. Most Americans would be required to buy insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused.

The second of the two bills also presented Obama with another victory, stripping banks and other private lenders of their ability to originate student loans in favor of a system of direct government lending.

After a monthslong battle in Congress, the political struggle was morphing into a new phase, where public debate was tinged with violence — and politicians accused one another of seeking to exploit it for their own advantage.

Triumph for Obama

Apart from their impact on nearly every American and an estimated one-sixth of the American economy, the week's events marked Obama's biggest political triumphs since he took office more than a year ago. A pending arms control agreement with Russia, announced on Wednesday, added to his resume, and White House officials said they hoped the momentum would translate into further political successes in the run-up to the midterm elections.

More than 10 lawmakers in the House said they had received threats or worse as a consequence of the health care debate, most of them Democrats who voted in favor of the legislation. There were reports of bricks through windows, a cut propane line to a grill and numerous obscene and threatening phone calls and faxes. An undisclosed number of lawmakers were under increased police protection.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, both denounced the threats and incidents of violence. But Democrats said Republicans had been too slow to respond, drawing an outraged response in return.

"By ratcheting up the rhetoric, some will only inflame these situations to dangerous levels," said Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. "Enough is enough. It has to stop."

An aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democratic 2010 campaign effort, responded: "This is straight out of the Republicans' political playbook of deflecting responsibility and distracting attention away from a serious issue."

"Repeal and replace" was the new slogan for Republicans as they pivoted away from earlier attempts to kill the health care legislation. Officials said it was meant to appeal to tea party activists — who staged an occasionally unruly demonstration outside the Capitol over the weekend — as well as to independent voters eager for changes in the health care system but fearful the Democrats went too far.

"Republicans fought on behalf of the American people this week and will continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with commonsense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health care system we have and without burying the American dream under a mountain of debt," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Repeal was far-fetched in the extreme since Republicans are now deep in the minority in both houses and would need a two-thirds majority to overcome a certain veto by Obama.

But Republicans circulated polls showing public backing for the overhaul at no better than 40 percent, despite months of Democratic efforts to rally support. Attacking the bill as a government takeover of health care paid for in higher taxes and Medicare cuts, they taunted House Democrats who voted for it, saying those lawmakers had cleared the way for their own defeat this fall.

Democrats said any unease was the result of months of Republican distractions — as far back as last summer's debunked charges of "death panels" — and predicted the public would warm to the new law once its first benefits take effect.

That was Obama's pitch in Iowa, where he trumpeted a "set of reforms" that will take effect before the elections.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He said small businesses would be eligible for tax credits to help them cover the cost of insurance for employees, including a $250 rebate from the government for seniors with high prescription drug costs.

"This year, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop people's coverage when they get sick, or place lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care they can receive," he said.

"This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about. And now that it's passed, they're already promising to repeal it. ... Well, I say go for it," he said.

Party Line Vote

Senate passage of the follow-up measure was nearly along party lines. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined 39 Republicans in opposing the legislation. Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who is hospitalized, did not vote.

The House vote followed the same pattern, with 32 Democrats joining 175 Republicans in opposition.

Democrats had hoped the Senate's vote would end their yearlong campaign to overhaul the health care system. But Republicans forced the deletion of two minor student loan-related provisions, and that required a revote in the House.

The day's events marked the final stages of a rescue mission that Obama and Democratic leaders mounted more than two months ago, after Republicans unexpectedly won a Massachusetts Senate seat and with it, the ability to slow final action on health care legislation.

Under a revised strategy, the House agreed to approve a Senate-passed bill despite numerous objections, on the condition that both houses would follow quickly with a fix-it measure. The one finally brought to a vote on Thursday added more than $20 billion to subsidies for lower- and middle-income individuals and families who will be required to purchase insurance and about $8 billion over a decade for states that already provide more generous than average Medicaid benefits.

The Senate vote took place with Vice President Joe Biden presiding, a symbolic gesture since his vote was not needed.

Moments before approving the legislation, the Senate paused for a moment of silence in memory of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who died last year after a career of more than 45 years in which he relentlessly pursued legislation to enact national health care.


Sources: MSNBC

Obama's Health Care Bill Win A Political "Game Changer"? At What Cost?

Obama's Game-Changing Win


To win passage in the Senate, Democrats gave away the store—and left the GOP an opening to exploit in 2010. But, Eric Alterman argues, they also transformed the political playing field.

Way back on December 2, 1993, an ambitious right-wing think tank denizen and former aide to Dan Quayle by the name William Kristol circulated a terse, four-page memo to Republican leaders warning of the political dangers of allowing a Democratic president to reform the U.S. health-care system.

The memo’s language is almost comically deferential, reflecting what was then its author’s near-complete non-notoriety. “Nothing in these pages is intended to supplant the many thoughtful analyses of the Clinton health-care plan already produced by Republicans and others….”

The thrust of the memo’s argument was clear and unapologetic: Republicans must resist health-care reform lest its success be allowed to “revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining the growth of government.”

We will never know if Kristol was right about 1993: His role as a political swami rather famously leaves much to be desired, (as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might attest, were they still alive). But we do know his memo succeeded in bludgeoning the mind of what was then, relatively speaking, the Republicans’ moderate leaders—turning them from Clinton conciliators into Republican road warriors.

Of course the Clintonites screwed up considerably themselves, failing to embrace any number of perfectly palatable compromises the Republicans (and their own recalcitrant members) had on the table, demanding more than the system could deliver, and ending up, in the words of Elvis Costello, with “less than zero.”

Exactly why Barack Obama has been able to succeed where so many other presidents, going back to Harry Truman, have failed before him is not easy to pinpoint—at least not yet. The United States has long lagged behind other nations in the quality of the health care it delivered to the majority of its citizens.

Truman’s plan never really had a chance, particularly with the Korean War dominating his presidency. Lyndon Johnson focused his attention largely on the elderly and the indigent, and ended up creating Medicare and Medicaid; not bad at the time, one must admit, but they both left the vast majority of middle-class Americans at the mercy of a mercenary industry dedicated to denying coverage whenever it proved unprofitable.

Ted Kennedy writes in his eloquent and moving memoir, True Compass (p.359), of his bafflement at Jimmy Carter, who, after running on a comprehensive reform plan almost identical to the one Kennedy spent his career fighting for, was almost immediately replaced “by the President Carter who wanted to approach health insurance in incremental steps, over time, if certain cost-containment benchmarks were met—and after the 1978 midterm elections.

Pres. Barack Obama, it must be added, not only passed comprehensive health-care reform, but he passed it in a Senate whose barriers against the filibuster of legislation have been considerably reduced to next to nothing.

Filibustering, rather than voting against legislation, is the ideal way for a politician to kill something without being forced to take responsibility for an actual vote. After all, who can mount a campaign against you on behalf of an issue called “Cloture?”

The obvious answer to the question of how Obama managed it is that he gave away the Democratic store. The bill he passed has no public option, no expansion of Medicare to those under 65, and additional restrictions of abortion funding. It is littered with provisions showering holiday goodies on the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the citizens of Nebraska.

To win, Obama and his advisers appeared to offer up one concession after another, coupled with gratuitous insults to the Democrats’ liberal base—as if they needed some outrage on the left to make the whole thing feel kosher. Over all, the 60 votes secured by Harry Reid demonstrated, as no political-science lesson can, that the passage of major legislation in this country makes sausage-making look awfully pretty.

The question, to return to Kristol’s terms of analysis, is what it will mean politically. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) told ABC News, "I think it's going to be a historic mistake for the country if this is what happens to health care," said Barrasso. "Now, as you know, the changes don't actually go into place until four years from now, so people aren't going to be able to see immediately what the problems are.

But they are going to notice the cuts in Medicare and, specifically, the increased taxes which go into effect the day that this bill is signed into law."

He has a point. And the Democrats’ concession on this point is one, from the standpoint of a political observer, I find most puzzling. Why in the world would they agree to a bill that leaves them vulnerable to the whims of the insurance companies—and Republican rhetoric between now and 2014, when they have to win congressional and presidential elections in 2010 and 2012?

How can you sell the benefits if all that people have experienced are the costs?

You can argue, as American Prospect Editor Mark Schmitt does, that it comes down to good government, an aspiration even the most cynical Democrats on occasion find unavoidable.

“The bill as it has passed provides the basic components needed to construct a workable system of near-universal health coverage, and all that is outstanding—implementation and legislative improvement—can be accomplished without anyone needing to beg at the feet of a gleefully sneering Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson.”

But why then, are (most) Democrats so happy and (all) Republicans so glum this Christmas? My guess is that Democrats are gambling on exactly the same ground that so worried William Kristol 16 years ago.

They’ve redefined the playing field of American politics to ground that is inherently favorable to their team. When Americans complain about their health care in the future, are they going to look to the party that wants to do nothing to fix it? No, they’re going to go with the side of political activism and government involvement.

The other side, after all, isn’t even in the game. Republicans had their chance and all they could say was “Bah Humbug.”



View Larger Map


Sources: The Daily Beast, Politico, American Prospect, Google Maps