NY Times By BRIAN STELTER
It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.
For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.
It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to help bring it to at least a temporary end.
At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.
Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN).
“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.
The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.
“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”
The parent companies declined to comment directly on the details of the cease-fire, which was orchestrated in part by Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation.
Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment.
Civility was not always the aim of Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly, men who, in an industry of thin skins, are both famous for reacting to verbal pinpricks. Both host 8 p.m. programs on cable news in studios a few blocks apart in Midtown Manhattan.
The conservative-leaning Mr. O’Reilly has turned “The O’Reilly Factor” into a profit center for the News Corporation by blitzing his opponents and espousing his opinions unapologetically. He found his bête noire in the liberal-leaning Mr. Olbermann, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” who saw in Mr. O’Reilly a regenerating target he nicknamed the “Bill-o the Clown.”
The 6-foot-4 Mr. Olbermann started sniping regularly at the also 6-foot-4 Mr. O’Reilly in late 2005, sometimes making him the subject of the “Countdown” segment, the “Worst Person in the World.” Mr. O’Reilly was also a stand-in for the perceived offenses of the top-rated Fox News.
By punching up at his higher-rated prey, Mr. Olbermann helped his own third-place cable news show. “Honestly, I should send him a check each week,” he remarked to a reporter three years ago. Fox noticed. Mr. Murdoch remarked to Esquire last year that “Keith Olbermann is trying to make a business out of destroying Bill O’Reilly.” Mr. O’Reilly refused to mention his critic by name on the “Factor,” deeming him a “vicious smear merchant,” but he regularly blamed Mr. Zucker for “ruining a once-great brand,” NBC.
In late 2007, Mr. O’Reilly had a young producer, Jesse Watters, ambush Mr. Immelt and ask about G.E.’s business in Iran, which is legal, and which includes sales of energy and medical technology. G.E. says it no longer does business in Iran.
Mr. O’Reilly continued to pour pressure on its corporate leaders, even saying on one program last year that “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt.” The resulting e-mail to G.E. from Mr. O’Reilly’s viewers was scathing.
The messages hit nerves on both sides. Mr. Immelt remarked to MSNBC staff members last summer that he would “never forgive Rupert Murdoch” for Fox’s behavior, according to two people who were present. In private phone calls, the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, told NBC officials to end the attacks.
In February, Mr. Zucker told Newsweek what he had told Mr. Olbermann privately: “I wish it weren’t so personal.” The previous year, Mr. Murdoch said that Mr. O’Reilly “shouldn’t be so sensitive” to the attacks lobbed by MSNBC.
Over time, G.E. and the News Corporation concluded that the fighting “wasn’t good for either parent,” said an NBC employee with direct knowledge of the situation. But the session hosted by Mr. Rose provided an opportunity for a reconciliation, sealed with a handshake between Mr. Immelt and Mr. Murdoch.
But like any title fight, the final round could not end without an attempted knockout. On June 1, the day after the abortion provider George Tiller was killed in Kansas, Mr. Olbermann took to the air to cite Mr. O’Reilly’s numerous references to “Tiller, the baby killer” and to announce that he would retire his caricature of Mr. O’Reilly.
“The goal here is to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air,” he said.
The next day, Mr. O’Reilly made the extraordinary claim that “federal authorities have developed information about General Electric doing business with Iran, deadly business” and published Mr. Immelt’s e-mail address and mailing address, repeating it slowly for emphasis.
Then the attacks mostly stopped.
Shortly after, Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, told producers that he wanted the channel’s other programs to follow Mr. Olbermann’s lead and restrain from criticizing Fox directly, according to two employees. At Fox News, some staff members were told to “be fair” to G.E.
The executives at both companies, it appears, were relieved. “For this war to stop, it meant fewer headaches on the corporate side,” one employee said.
Tensions still simmer between the two networks, however, and staff members have been unwilling or unable to stop the strife altogether. This week, for instance, the Fox host Glenn Beck called Mr. Obama a racist, prompting rebukes on a number of MSNBC shows. But for now, the daily back and forth has quieted.
“They’ve won their respective constituencies,” said a former member of MSNBC’s senior staff. “They don’t need to do this anymore, really.”
Monday, August 03, 2009
David Sirota News In the Olbermann-O'Reilly Feud
The Real -- And Most Disturbing -- News In the Olbermann-O'Reilly Feud
The New York Times story about MSNBC's corporate parent, General Electric, forcing the network to soften its criticism of Fox News has generated a lot of buzz over the weekend. But what's so telling about the story and the residual chatter is that, with the exception of Glenn Greenwald's typically terrific coverage, it largely misses the newsiest -- and most taboo -- part of the whole brouhaha.
What the Times story and the aftershock gossip focuses on is the personality feud and new detente between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. That's supposedly the "news." And yet the real story is the heavy-handed intervention by the CEO of General Electric effectively forcing MSNBC's news team off a crucially important set of stories -- namely, Fox News' politicization/Republicanization of media.
For years, Establishment media voices like Charlie Rose (yes, the same Charlie Rose who the Times story says played a direct role in the corporate parents' intervention at MSNBC and Fox) have insisted that it's a black-helicopter-style conspiracy theory to assert that corporate parent companies pressure/impact/limit the newsrooms they control.
But, of course, the evidence has become overwhelming in the last 15 years.
The three most obvious that come to mind are:
1995: CBS' 60 Minutes backs off it's expose of the tobacco industry, due, in part, to pressure from its parent company and the tobacco industry. This sordid affair was made famous by the movie The Insider.
2001: NBC's president engages in direct political lobbying against a government order that would force NBC's parent company, General Electric, to clean up its mess in the Hudson River. At the same time, environmentalists noted that NBC did not give the Hudson River cleanup story nearly enough attention.
2009: The Washington Post's parent company offers corporations and their lobbyists "off-the-record access" to its reporters and editors in exchange for direct financial contributions of up to250,000.
This, of course, says nothing of the even more nefarious and arguably more widespread practice of these same corporate media outlets promoting as "objective" voices reporters and editorialists* who have secret financial interests in the news they cover -- all without any disclosure. Just a few examples:
Richard Wolffe: This former Newsweek reporter is now a paid corporate PR consultant. Yet, he appears on MSNBC as a disinterested "political analyst," even hosting Olbermann's show. Wolffe, in fact, publicly sells his media prominence on MSNBC as a reason for corporations to hire him. The implicit suggestion is that the corporate client will be able to buy a spokesman who gets to go on television without disclosing his financial interests - that is, Wolffe offers the corporate client the veneer of non-partisan objectivity. I flagged this ugly situation a week ago, and think I was the first to even notice it, despite how blatant a conflict of interest it is. The fact that it has gone on for so many months without anyone -- much less MSNBC's management -- questioning it shows just how mundane this kind of thing is.
Doug Bandow: In 2005, Businessweek reported that this senior fellow at the Cato Institute "resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients." Specifically, Bandow "had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s."
Armstrong Williams: In 2005, this syndicated radio host and columnist took a quarter million dollars from the Education Department to promote President Bush's controversial education policy "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same," according to USA Today.
Thomas Friedman: This New York Times columnist has become the single most prominent media voice in support of the multinational corporate agenda and the ultra-wealthy - and his credibility is based on the perception that Friedman is a completely disinterested commentator. However, Friedman -- by marriage -- is a member of the Bucksbaum empire, one of the biggest real estate conglomerates in the world.
Former Generals: David Barstow of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for "reveal[ing] how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended."
A corporate media apologist might try to argue that both the latter and former sets of examples are just the very rare egregious examples and further, that in the case of Wolffe and Friedman, there's no direct corporate control/conflict-of-interest because they don't report on the companies they directly work for. But that's actually the bigger point: A newsroom or an individual reporter doesn't have to be directly shilling for their financial interest in order to be unduly compromised.
Sure, examples like CBS's corporate management backing off 60 Minutes on the tobacco story and General Electric heavy-handedly intervening in MSNBC's news decisions are probably somewhat rare. And sure, Wolffe and Friedman (at least to my knowledge) never shilled directly for a client/business interest they were making money off of. However, the direct connect/interest undoubtedly shapes their content by the silent processes of story selection, omission and tone.
For every blatant example of a newsroom or a journalist brazenly shilling for their corporate master's bottom line, there are infinite examples of those newsrooms or journalists avoiding or omitting stories that might offend those masters' in the first place. Is it, for instance, really just a coincidence that the frightening effects of corporate agriculture have rarely been the topic of all those Sunday "news" shows whose sponsor are Archer Daniels Midland? Is it really just a coincidence that Friedman shills for corporations and the wealthy, when he is member of a billionaire family? Is it really just a coincidence that a newspaper like the Washington Post, which was trying to effectively sell its news coverage to corporate interests, generates stories that tend to be particularly soft on corporations and chock full of unchallenged corporate PR?
The list of examples is endless -- and the obvious answer is that none of it is a coincidence, even if most of these conflicts are kept completely hidden from the news-consuming audience.
But, then, the deception -- and the ubiquity of the deception -- is a big part of the corruption that is destroying journalism. Indeed, the fact that the Olbermann-O'Reilly personality feud was presented as the "big" story -- and not the General Electric intervention -- is a tacit confirmation that corporate-media symbiosis has become such an assumed part of journalism, that many journalists themselves don't see it as any kind of problem, much less news.
Of course, there are certainly some who do. The New York Times' David Barstow did when he reported on the financial interests of former generals appearing on television. Rachel Maddow did when she went out of her way to inform viewers that a supposedly disinterested guest she had on the night before was actually on the board of a corporation the guest was effectively shilling for. And most leading bloggers -- as opposed to most leading journalists who criticize bloggers' ethics -- go out of their way to disclose to readers their personal/financial connections to the news stories they are covering. Those, however, are the exceptions, not the rule.
The victims of this increasingly corrupt media system are both the viewers who are unknowingly fed a steady diet of stealth propaganda, and those trying to build truly independent media. I can personally attest to the latter.
As an independent journalist, I have gone out of my way to avoid financial/personal conflicts of interest, at considerable financial cost to me and my family. That means, for example, turning down various job/client opportunities (even for political groups I agree with), even when money is tight in a recession.
I'm not complaining -- I am proud of my independence and I can sleep at night knowing my credibility isn't compromised. However, now that the media ecosphere no longer demands, incentivizes or rewards that kind of independence, that decision to be independent has become purely a decision of personal virtue -- not industry mandate. It therefore puts me at a financial/competitive disadvantage in the economy at large.
Like other journalists and outlets who work to protect their credibility, I am sacrificing job/income opportunities in order to preserve my journalistic independence in a journalism industry that doesn't even pretend to insist on that independence. Quite the contrary, you can be Richard Wolffe and openly get paid by corporations and not risk your place on MSNBC or your billing as a supposed disinterested "political analyst." The result is a truly corrupt incentive system: the economic incentive now for the average journalist isn't to protect one's independence by avoiding financial conflicts of interest -- but to sell out knowing there probably won't be any ramifications for one's journalism career.
Will this ever change? Well, it's hard to know. But I can say this: You can bet that until we build a vibrant independent media and until the news consumers use their economic/audience power to demand more independence (or at least disclosure) from the corporate media, the rule will continue.
* Note: I know that editorialists/opinionists/commentators aren't "objective" in the sense that yes, of course, they have subjective opinions because that's their stated job. But the expectations of professional editorialists/opinionists/commentators is that their opinions are ideologically motivated -- not motivated out of a desire to protect their own undisclosed financial interests. So, when I use "objective" when referring to editorialists/opinionists/commentators, I am referring specifically to that kind of personal financial objectivity.
The New York Times story about MSNBC's corporate parent, General Electric, forcing the network to soften its criticism of Fox News has generated a lot of buzz over the weekend. But what's so telling about the story and the residual chatter is that, with the exception of Glenn Greenwald's typically terrific coverage, it largely misses the newsiest -- and most taboo -- part of the whole brouhaha.
What the Times story and the aftershock gossip focuses on is the personality feud and new detente between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. That's supposedly the "news." And yet the real story is the heavy-handed intervention by the CEO of General Electric effectively forcing MSNBC's news team off a crucially important set of stories -- namely, Fox News' politicization/Republicanization of media.
For years, Establishment media voices like Charlie Rose (yes, the same Charlie Rose who the Times story says played a direct role in the corporate parents' intervention at MSNBC and Fox) have insisted that it's a black-helicopter-style conspiracy theory to assert that corporate parent companies pressure/impact/limit the newsrooms they control.
But, of course, the evidence has become overwhelming in the last 15 years.
The three most obvious that come to mind are:
1995: CBS' 60 Minutes backs off it's expose of the tobacco industry, due, in part, to pressure from its parent company and the tobacco industry. This sordid affair was made famous by the movie The Insider.
2001: NBC's president engages in direct political lobbying against a government order that would force NBC's parent company, General Electric, to clean up its mess in the Hudson River. At the same time, environmentalists noted that NBC did not give the Hudson River cleanup story nearly enough attention.
2009: The Washington Post's parent company offers corporations and their lobbyists "off-the-record access" to its reporters and editors in exchange for direct financial contributions of up to250,000.
This, of course, says nothing of the even more nefarious and arguably more widespread practice of these same corporate media outlets promoting as "objective" voices reporters and editorialists* who have secret financial interests in the news they cover -- all without any disclosure. Just a few examples:
Richard Wolffe: This former Newsweek reporter is now a paid corporate PR consultant. Yet, he appears on MSNBC as a disinterested "political analyst," even hosting Olbermann's show. Wolffe, in fact, publicly sells his media prominence on MSNBC as a reason for corporations to hire him. The implicit suggestion is that the corporate client will be able to buy a spokesman who gets to go on television without disclosing his financial interests - that is, Wolffe offers the corporate client the veneer of non-partisan objectivity. I flagged this ugly situation a week ago, and think I was the first to even notice it, despite how blatant a conflict of interest it is. The fact that it has gone on for so many months without anyone -- much less MSNBC's management -- questioning it shows just how mundane this kind of thing is.
Doug Bandow: In 2005, Businessweek reported that this senior fellow at the Cato Institute "resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients." Specifically, Bandow "had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s."
Armstrong Williams: In 2005, this syndicated radio host and columnist took a quarter million dollars from the Education Department to promote President Bush's controversial education policy "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same," according to USA Today.
Thomas Friedman: This New York Times columnist has become the single most prominent media voice in support of the multinational corporate agenda and the ultra-wealthy - and his credibility is based on the perception that Friedman is a completely disinterested commentator. However, Friedman -- by marriage -- is a member of the Bucksbaum empire, one of the biggest real estate conglomerates in the world.
Former Generals: David Barstow of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for "reveal[ing] how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended."
A corporate media apologist might try to argue that both the latter and former sets of examples are just the very rare egregious examples and further, that in the case of Wolffe and Friedman, there's no direct corporate control/conflict-of-interest because they don't report on the companies they directly work for. But that's actually the bigger point: A newsroom or an individual reporter doesn't have to be directly shilling for their financial interest in order to be unduly compromised.
Sure, examples like CBS's corporate management backing off 60 Minutes on the tobacco story and General Electric heavy-handedly intervening in MSNBC's news decisions are probably somewhat rare. And sure, Wolffe and Friedman (at least to my knowledge) never shilled directly for a client/business interest they were making money off of. However, the direct connect/interest undoubtedly shapes their content by the silent processes of story selection, omission and tone.
For every blatant example of a newsroom or a journalist brazenly shilling for their corporate master's bottom line, there are infinite examples of those newsrooms or journalists avoiding or omitting stories that might offend those masters' in the first place. Is it, for instance, really just a coincidence that the frightening effects of corporate agriculture have rarely been the topic of all those Sunday "news" shows whose sponsor are Archer Daniels Midland? Is it really just a coincidence that Friedman shills for corporations and the wealthy, when he is member of a billionaire family? Is it really just a coincidence that a newspaper like the Washington Post, which was trying to effectively sell its news coverage to corporate interests, generates stories that tend to be particularly soft on corporations and chock full of unchallenged corporate PR?
The list of examples is endless -- and the obvious answer is that none of it is a coincidence, even if most of these conflicts are kept completely hidden from the news-consuming audience.
But, then, the deception -- and the ubiquity of the deception -- is a big part of the corruption that is destroying journalism. Indeed, the fact that the Olbermann-O'Reilly personality feud was presented as the "big" story -- and not the General Electric intervention -- is a tacit confirmation that corporate-media symbiosis has become such an assumed part of journalism, that many journalists themselves don't see it as any kind of problem, much less news.
Of course, there are certainly some who do. The New York Times' David Barstow did when he reported on the financial interests of former generals appearing on television. Rachel Maddow did when she went out of her way to inform viewers that a supposedly disinterested guest she had on the night before was actually on the board of a corporation the guest was effectively shilling for. And most leading bloggers -- as opposed to most leading journalists who criticize bloggers' ethics -- go out of their way to disclose to readers their personal/financial connections to the news stories they are covering. Those, however, are the exceptions, not the rule.
The victims of this increasingly corrupt media system are both the viewers who are unknowingly fed a steady diet of stealth propaganda, and those trying to build truly independent media. I can personally attest to the latter.
As an independent journalist, I have gone out of my way to avoid financial/personal conflicts of interest, at considerable financial cost to me and my family. That means, for example, turning down various job/client opportunities (even for political groups I agree with), even when money is tight in a recession.
I'm not complaining -- I am proud of my independence and I can sleep at night knowing my credibility isn't compromised. However, now that the media ecosphere no longer demands, incentivizes or rewards that kind of independence, that decision to be independent has become purely a decision of personal virtue -- not industry mandate. It therefore puts me at a financial/competitive disadvantage in the economy at large.
Like other journalists and outlets who work to protect their credibility, I am sacrificing job/income opportunities in order to preserve my journalistic independence in a journalism industry that doesn't even pretend to insist on that independence. Quite the contrary, you can be Richard Wolffe and openly get paid by corporations and not risk your place on MSNBC or your billing as a supposed disinterested "political analyst." The result is a truly corrupt incentive system: the economic incentive now for the average journalist isn't to protect one's independence by avoiding financial conflicts of interest -- but to sell out knowing there probably won't be any ramifications for one's journalism career.
Will this ever change? Well, it's hard to know. But I can say this: You can bet that until we build a vibrant independent media and until the news consumers use their economic/audience power to demand more independence (or at least disclosure) from the corporate media, the rule will continue.
* Note: I know that editorialists/opinionists/commentators aren't "objective" in the sense that yes, of course, they have subjective opinions because that's their stated job. But the expectations of professional editorialists/opinionists/commentators is that their opinions are ideologically motivated -- not motivated out of a desire to protect their own undisclosed financial interests. So, when I use "objective" when referring to editorialists/opinionists/commentators, I am referring specifically to that kind of personal financial objectivity.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
BOB HERBERT Anger Has Its Place
No more than five or six minutes elapsed from the time the police were alerted to the possibility of a break-in at a home in a quiet residential neighborhood and the awful clamping of handcuffs on the wrists of the distinguished Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.
The charge: angry while black.
The president of the United States has suggested that we use this flare-up as a “teachable moment,” but so far exactly the wrong lessons are being drawn from it — especially for black people. The message that has gone out to the public is that powerful African-American leaders like Mr. Gates and President Obama will be very publicly slapped down for speaking up and speaking out about police misbehavior, and that the proper response if you think you are being unfairly targeted by the police because of your race is to chill.
I have nothing but contempt for that message.
Mr. Gates is a friend, and I was selected some months ago to receive an award from an institute that he runs at Harvard. I made no attempt to speak to him while researching this column.
The very first lesson that should be drawn from the encounter between Mr. Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, is that Professor Gates did absolutely nothing wrong. He did not swear at the officer or threaten him. He was never a danger to anyone. At worst, if you believe the police report, he yelled at Sergeant Crowley. He demanded to know if he was being treated the way he was being treated because he was black.
You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.
That’s a lesson that should have emerged clearly from this contretemps.
It was the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, who did something wrong in this instance. He arrested a man who had already demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that he was in his own home and had been minding his own business, bothering no one. Sergeant Crowley arrested Professor Gates and had him paraded off to jail for no good reason, and that brings us to the most important lesson to be drawn from this case. Black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason.
New York City cops make upwards of a half-million stops of private citizens each year, questioning and frequently frisking these men, women and children. The overwhelming majority of those stopped are black or Latino, and the overwhelming majority are innocent of any wrongdoing. A true “teachable moment” would focus a spotlight on such outrages and the urgent need to stop them.
But this country is not interested in that.
I wrote a number of columns about the arrests of more than 30 black and Hispanic youngsters — male and female — who were doing nothing more than walking peacefully down a quiet street in Brooklyn in broad daylight in the spring of 2007. The kids had to hire lawyers and fight the case for nearly two frustrating years before the charges were dropped and a settlement for their outlandish arrests worked out.
Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. As of mid-2008, there were 4,777 black men imprisoned in America for every 100,000 black men in the population. By comparison, there were only 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white men.
While whites use illegal drugs at substantially higher percentages than blacks, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Most whites do not want to hear about racial problems, and President Obama would rather walk through fire than spend his time dealing with them. We’re never going to have a serious national conversation about race. So that leaves it up to ordinary black Americans to rant and to rave, to demonstrate and to lobby, to march and confront and to sue and generally do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage.
If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.
The charge: angry while black.
The president of the United States has suggested that we use this flare-up as a “teachable moment,” but so far exactly the wrong lessons are being drawn from it — especially for black people. The message that has gone out to the public is that powerful African-American leaders like Mr. Gates and President Obama will be very publicly slapped down for speaking up and speaking out about police misbehavior, and that the proper response if you think you are being unfairly targeted by the police because of your race is to chill.
I have nothing but contempt for that message.
Mr. Gates is a friend, and I was selected some months ago to receive an award from an institute that he runs at Harvard. I made no attempt to speak to him while researching this column.
The very first lesson that should be drawn from the encounter between Mr. Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, is that Professor Gates did absolutely nothing wrong. He did not swear at the officer or threaten him. He was never a danger to anyone. At worst, if you believe the police report, he yelled at Sergeant Crowley. He demanded to know if he was being treated the way he was being treated because he was black.
You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.
That’s a lesson that should have emerged clearly from this contretemps.
It was the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, who did something wrong in this instance. He arrested a man who had already demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that he was in his own home and had been minding his own business, bothering no one. Sergeant Crowley arrested Professor Gates and had him paraded off to jail for no good reason, and that brings us to the most important lesson to be drawn from this case. Black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason.
New York City cops make upwards of a half-million stops of private citizens each year, questioning and frequently frisking these men, women and children. The overwhelming majority of those stopped are black or Latino, and the overwhelming majority are innocent of any wrongdoing. A true “teachable moment” would focus a spotlight on such outrages and the urgent need to stop them.
But this country is not interested in that.
I wrote a number of columns about the arrests of more than 30 black and Hispanic youngsters — male and female — who were doing nothing more than walking peacefully down a quiet street in Brooklyn in broad daylight in the spring of 2007. The kids had to hire lawyers and fight the case for nearly two frustrating years before the charges were dropped and a settlement for their outlandish arrests worked out.
Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. As of mid-2008, there were 4,777 black men imprisoned in America for every 100,000 black men in the population. By comparison, there were only 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white men.
While whites use illegal drugs at substantially higher percentages than blacks, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Most whites do not want to hear about racial problems, and President Obama would rather walk through fire than spend his time dealing with them. We’re never going to have a serious national conversation about race. So that leaves it up to ordinary black Americans to rant and to rave, to demonstrate and to lobby, to march and confront and to sue and generally do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage.
FRANK RICH Small Beer, Big Hangover
THE comforting thing about each “national conversation on race” is that the “teachable moment” passes before any serious conversation can get going.
This one ended with a burp. The debate about which brew would best give President Obama Joe Six-Pack cred in his White House beer op with Harvard’s town-and-gown antagonists hit the front page of The Wall Street Journal. Had Obama picked a brand evoking an elitist whiff of John Kerry — Stella Artois, perhaps? — we’d have another week of coverage dissecting his biggest political gaffe since rolling a gutter ball at a Pennsylvania bowling alley.
You can’t blame Obama if he’s perplexed about the recent events. He answers a single, legitimate race-based question at the end of a news conference and is roundly condemned for “stepping on his own message” about health care. It was the noisiest sector of the news media that did much of the stepping. “Health care is bad for ratings,” explained one cable anchor, Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, with refreshing public candor. What a relief, then, to drop dreary debates about the public option and declare a national conversation about black-white fisticuffs. Especially when this particular incident is truly small beer next to the far more traumatic national sea change on race that will keep sowing conflict and anger long after Henry Louis Gates Jr. finishes his proposed documentary on racial profiling.
I’ll return to the larger picture, but before the battle of Cambridge fades entirely, let’s note that the only crime Obama committed at his news conference was honesty (always impolitic in Washington). He conceded he did not know “all the facts” and so wisely resisted passing judgment on “what role race played” in the incident. He said, accurately, that “separate and apart from this incident” there is “a long history” of “African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately.” And, yes, the police did act “stupidly in arresting” — not to mention shackling — “somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” If Obama had really wanted to go for the jugular, he might have added that the police may have overstepped the law as well.
The president’s subsequent apology for his news-conference answer was superfluous. But he might have used it to acknowledge the one exemplary player in Cambridge, Lucia Whalen, the white passer-by whose good deed of a 911 phone call did not go unpunished. In his police report, Sgt. James Crowley portrayed Whalen as a racial profiler by saying she had told him that the two men at Gates’s door were black. She denied it, and the audio tape of her original call backs her up: she had told the dispatcher (only when asked) that one of the men “looked kind of Hispanic” and that she couldn’t see the other. Yet Whalen, who was pilloried as a racist because of Crowley’s report, received no apology from him and no White House invitation from Obama. That’s stupid behavior by both men.
It’s also stupid to look at Harvard as a paradigm of anything, race included. If there was a teachable moment in this incident, it could be found in how some powerful white people well beyond Cambridge responded to it. That reaction is merely the latest example of how the inexorable transformation of America into a white-minority country in some 30 years — by 2042 in the latest Census Bureau estimate — is causing serious jitters, if not panic, in some white establishments.
Ground zero for this hysteria is Fox News, where Brit Hume last Sunday lamented how insulting it is “to be labeled a racist” in “contemporary” America. “That fact has placed into the hands of certain people a weapon,” he said, as he condemned Gates for hurling that weapon at a police officer. Gates may well have been unjust — we don’t know that Crowley is a racist — but the professor was provoked by being confronted like a suspect in the privacy of his own home.
What about those far more famous leaders in Hume’s own camp who insistently cry “racist” — and in public forums — without any credible justification whatsoever? These are the “certain people” Hume conspicuously didn’t mention. They include Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, both of whom labeled Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Their ranks were joined last week by Glenn Beck, who on Fox News inexplicably labeled Obama a racist with “a deep-seated hatred for white people,” presumably including his own mother.
What provokes their angry and nonsensical cries of racism is sheer desperation: an entire country is changing faster than these white guys bargained for. We’ve been reminded repeatedly during Gatesgate that Cambridge’s mayor is a black lesbian. But a more representative window into the country’s transition might be that Dallas County, Tex., elected a Latina lesbian sheriff in 2004 (and re-elected her last year) and that the three serious candidates for mayor of Houston this fall include a black man and a white lesbian.
Even Texas may be tinting blue, and as goes Texas, so will all but the dwindling rural minority of the Electoral College. Last month the Census Bureau released a new analysis of the 2008 presidential election results finding that increases among minority voters accounted for virtually all the five million additional votes cast in comparison to 2004. Black women had a higher turnout rate than any other group, and young blacks turned out at a higher rate than young whites.
It’s against this backdrop that 11 Republican congressmen have now signed on to a bill requiring that presidential candidates produce their birth certificates. This bizarre “birther” movement, out to prove that Obama is not a naturally born citizen, first gained notice in the summer of 2008 when it was being advanced by the author Jerome Corsi, a leader of the Swift boat assault on Kerry. That it revved up again as Gatesgate boiled over and Sotomayor sped toward Senate confirmation is not a coincidence.
Obama’s election, far from alleviating paranoia in the white fringe, has only compounded it. There is no purer expression of this animus than to claim that Obama is literally not an American — or, as Sarah Palin would have it, not a “real American.” The birth-certificate canard is just the latest version of those campaign-year attempts to strip Obama of his American identity with faux controversies over flag pins, the Pledge of Allegiance and his middle name. Last summer, Cokie Roberts of ABC News even faulted him for taking a vacation in his home state of Hawaii, which she described as a “foreign, exotic place,” in contrast to her proposed choice of Myrtle Beach, S.C., in the real America of Dixie.
Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter have condemned the birther brigades and likened them to “the truthers” who accused the Bush administration of engineering the 9/11 attacks. But those conspiracy theorists couldn’t find 11 congressmen willing to sponsor a bill supporting their claims. Even Liz Cheney has publicly refused to dispute the libels on Obama’s citizenship.
One of the loudest birther enablers is not at Fox but CNN: Lou Dobbs, who was heretofore best known for trying to link immigrants, especially Hispanics, to civic havoc. Dobbs is one-stop shopping for the excesses of this seismic period of racial transition. And he is following a traditional, if toxic, American playbook. The escalating white fear of newly empowered ethnic groups and blacks is a naked replay of more than a century ago, when large waves of immigration and the northern migration of emancipated blacks, coupled with a tumultuous modernization of the American work force, unleashed a similar storm of racial and nativist panic.
As Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post and Helene Cooper of The Times have pointed out, a lot of today’s variation on the theme is class-oriented. Some whites habituated to a monopoly on the upper reaches of American power just can’t adjust to the reality that Obama, Sotomayor, Oprah Winfrey and countless others are now at the very pinnacle, and that they might sometimes side with each other just as their white counterparts do. Threatened white elites try to mask their own anxieties by patronizingly adopting working-class whites as their pet political surrogates — Joe the Plumber, New Haven firemen, a Cambridge police officer. Call it Village People populism.
Sometimes the most revealing expressions of this resentment emerge in juvenile asides — Bill Kristol (on The Weekly Standard’s blog) ridiculing Gates for writing a flowery travel magazine article about his privileged vacation home of Martha’s Vineyard, or Heather MacDonald (in National Review) mocking Gates as a “limousine liberal” for his supposedly hypocritical admission that he has a “regular car service” and a “regular driver” to fetch him at the airport. Who does Henry Louis Gates Jr. think he is, William F. Buckley Jr.?
The one lesson that everyone took away from the latest “national conversation about race” is the same one we’ve taken away from every other “national conversation” in the past couple of years. America has not transcended race. America is not postracial. So we can all say that again. But it must also be said that we’re just at the start of what may be a 30-year struggle. Beer won’t cool the fury of those who can’t accept the reality that America’s racial profile will no longer reflect their own.
This one ended with a burp. The debate about which brew would best give President Obama Joe Six-Pack cred in his White House beer op with Harvard’s town-and-gown antagonists hit the front page of The Wall Street Journal. Had Obama picked a brand evoking an elitist whiff of John Kerry — Stella Artois, perhaps? — we’d have another week of coverage dissecting his biggest political gaffe since rolling a gutter ball at a Pennsylvania bowling alley.
You can’t blame Obama if he’s perplexed about the recent events. He answers a single, legitimate race-based question at the end of a news conference and is roundly condemned for “stepping on his own message” about health care. It was the noisiest sector of the news media that did much of the stepping. “Health care is bad for ratings,” explained one cable anchor, Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, with refreshing public candor. What a relief, then, to drop dreary debates about the public option and declare a national conversation about black-white fisticuffs. Especially when this particular incident is truly small beer next to the far more traumatic national sea change on race that will keep sowing conflict and anger long after Henry Louis Gates Jr. finishes his proposed documentary on racial profiling.
I’ll return to the larger picture, but before the battle of Cambridge fades entirely, let’s note that the only crime Obama committed at his news conference was honesty (always impolitic in Washington). He conceded he did not know “all the facts” and so wisely resisted passing judgment on “what role race played” in the incident. He said, accurately, that “separate and apart from this incident” there is “a long history” of “African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately.” And, yes, the police did act “stupidly in arresting” — not to mention shackling — “somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” If Obama had really wanted to go for the jugular, he might have added that the police may have overstepped the law as well.
The president’s subsequent apology for his news-conference answer was superfluous. But he might have used it to acknowledge the one exemplary player in Cambridge, Lucia Whalen, the white passer-by whose good deed of a 911 phone call did not go unpunished. In his police report, Sgt. James Crowley portrayed Whalen as a racial profiler by saying she had told him that the two men at Gates’s door were black. She denied it, and the audio tape of her original call backs her up: she had told the dispatcher (only when asked) that one of the men “looked kind of Hispanic” and that she couldn’t see the other. Yet Whalen, who was pilloried as a racist because of Crowley’s report, received no apology from him and no White House invitation from Obama. That’s stupid behavior by both men.
It’s also stupid to look at Harvard as a paradigm of anything, race included. If there was a teachable moment in this incident, it could be found in how some powerful white people well beyond Cambridge responded to it. That reaction is merely the latest example of how the inexorable transformation of America into a white-minority country in some 30 years — by 2042 in the latest Census Bureau estimate — is causing serious jitters, if not panic, in some white establishments.
Ground zero for this hysteria is Fox News, where Brit Hume last Sunday lamented how insulting it is “to be labeled a racist” in “contemporary” America. “That fact has placed into the hands of certain people a weapon,” he said, as he condemned Gates for hurling that weapon at a police officer. Gates may well have been unjust — we don’t know that Crowley is a racist — but the professor was provoked by being confronted like a suspect in the privacy of his own home.
What about those far more famous leaders in Hume’s own camp who insistently cry “racist” — and in public forums — without any credible justification whatsoever? These are the “certain people” Hume conspicuously didn’t mention. They include Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, both of whom labeled Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Their ranks were joined last week by Glenn Beck, who on Fox News inexplicably labeled Obama a racist with “a deep-seated hatred for white people,” presumably including his own mother.
What provokes their angry and nonsensical cries of racism is sheer desperation: an entire country is changing faster than these white guys bargained for. We’ve been reminded repeatedly during Gatesgate that Cambridge’s mayor is a black lesbian. But a more representative window into the country’s transition might be that Dallas County, Tex., elected a Latina lesbian sheriff in 2004 (and re-elected her last year) and that the three serious candidates for mayor of Houston this fall include a black man and a white lesbian.
Even Texas may be tinting blue, and as goes Texas, so will all but the dwindling rural minority of the Electoral College. Last month the Census Bureau released a new analysis of the 2008 presidential election results finding that increases among minority voters accounted for virtually all the five million additional votes cast in comparison to 2004. Black women had a higher turnout rate than any other group, and young blacks turned out at a higher rate than young whites.
It’s against this backdrop that 11 Republican congressmen have now signed on to a bill requiring that presidential candidates produce their birth certificates. This bizarre “birther” movement, out to prove that Obama is not a naturally born citizen, first gained notice in the summer of 2008 when it was being advanced by the author Jerome Corsi, a leader of the Swift boat assault on Kerry. That it revved up again as Gatesgate boiled over and Sotomayor sped toward Senate confirmation is not a coincidence.
Obama’s election, far from alleviating paranoia in the white fringe, has only compounded it. There is no purer expression of this animus than to claim that Obama is literally not an American — or, as Sarah Palin would have it, not a “real American.” The birth-certificate canard is just the latest version of those campaign-year attempts to strip Obama of his American identity with faux controversies over flag pins, the Pledge of Allegiance and his middle name. Last summer, Cokie Roberts of ABC News even faulted him for taking a vacation in his home state of Hawaii, which she described as a “foreign, exotic place,” in contrast to her proposed choice of Myrtle Beach, S.C., in the real America of Dixie.
Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter have condemned the birther brigades and likened them to “the truthers” who accused the Bush administration of engineering the 9/11 attacks. But those conspiracy theorists couldn’t find 11 congressmen willing to sponsor a bill supporting their claims. Even Liz Cheney has publicly refused to dispute the libels on Obama’s citizenship.
One of the loudest birther enablers is not at Fox but CNN: Lou Dobbs, who was heretofore best known for trying to link immigrants, especially Hispanics, to civic havoc. Dobbs is one-stop shopping for the excesses of this seismic period of racial transition. And he is following a traditional, if toxic, American playbook. The escalating white fear of newly empowered ethnic groups and blacks is a naked replay of more than a century ago, when large waves of immigration and the northern migration of emancipated blacks, coupled with a tumultuous modernization of the American work force, unleashed a similar storm of racial and nativist panic.
As Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post and Helene Cooper of The Times have pointed out, a lot of today’s variation on the theme is class-oriented. Some whites habituated to a monopoly on the upper reaches of American power just can’t adjust to the reality that Obama, Sotomayor, Oprah Winfrey and countless others are now at the very pinnacle, and that they might sometimes side with each other just as their white counterparts do. Threatened white elites try to mask their own anxieties by patronizingly adopting working-class whites as their pet political surrogates — Joe the Plumber, New Haven firemen, a Cambridge police officer. Call it Village People populism.
Sometimes the most revealing expressions of this resentment emerge in juvenile asides — Bill Kristol (on The Weekly Standard’s blog) ridiculing Gates for writing a flowery travel magazine article about his privileged vacation home of Martha’s Vineyard, or Heather MacDonald (in National Review) mocking Gates as a “limousine liberal” for his supposedly hypocritical admission that he has a “regular car service” and a “regular driver” to fetch him at the airport. Who does Henry Louis Gates Jr. think he is, William F. Buckley Jr.?
The one lesson that everyone took away from the latest “national conversation about race” is the same one we’ve taken away from every other “national conversation” in the past couple of years. America has not transcended race. America is not postracial. So we can all say that again. But it must also be said that we’re just at the start of what may be a 30-year struggle. Beer won’t cool the fury of those who can’t accept the reality that America’s racial profile will no longer reflect their own.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
What's Stalling Health-Care Reform?
With health-care reform packages stalled as Congress leaves for August recess, The Post asked lawmakers and experts what the biggest obstacle to reform has been and how it might be overcome. Below are contributions from Raul M. Grijalva, Walt Minnick, Michael O. Leavitt, Rick Scott, Norman J. Ornstein, Douglas E. Schoen, Henry E. Simmons, Ralph G. Neas and Maxine Waters.
RAÚL M. GRIJALVA
Democratic representative from Arizona; co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
The greatest obstacle in this historic debate has been our underestimating the health-care industry's opposition to fundamental reform.
To many of us, the initial cornerstone of reform was a single-payer approach. Lack of political will took that off the table. The fallback was a meaningful public option, defined by stability of coverage, costs and quality. This affordable plan, with guaranteed access, would compete with the insurance companies. When the industry and its allies realized we would be prioritizing our nation's health over their egregious profits, they quickly painted "the government" as the enemy, and, though we recognized this opposition, we didn't take our case to the public. Convinced that Americans already understood the benefits of a robust public option, we decided to play an inside-the-Beltway game, and we started to lose the public relations war.
Nearly every American has a health-care horror story involving their insurance company. The public is fed up with our broken system. We can overcome our public relations slip-up if we help our constituents understand that the industry, not the government, is responsible for the ever-increasing rates and scaled-back coverage they receive.
WALT MINNICK
Democratic representative from Idaho; Blue Dog Coalition member
Most people agree on the most important points of health-care reform: We must reduce costs. We should not increase our deficit. All Americans should have secure, stable coverage. But a lack of public confidence in the congressional process has proven a massive obstacle. While it's true that members from both sides have worked together diligently, occasional public disputes have weakened public confidence in our ability to craft an effective plan.
That's unfortunate, because most members of Congress want bipartisan, collaborative consensus on reform. I am encouraged by the work of the Senate Finance Committee and Chairman Max Baucus, who understands what we in Western politics have learned the hard way: No one wins when everyone fights.
Whether it is natural resources, water, economic development or a major undertaking like health-care reform, the Western way is to bring people together, look for agreement and move toward a solution. That is happening in Congress, but it must be more visible to overcome the toughest obstacle of all in our effort to reform health care: Convincing Americans they can trust us to do this right.
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT
Secretary of health and human services from 2005 to 2009
Simply stated: Partisan overreach. The Democrats produced a bill that is simply over the top on federal government control and that includes more new taxes than our economy can stand. It is just too much Washington.
Many thought it was poor tactics that caused Hillarycare to flat-line in the 1990s. Most thought the organizers of Obamacare could avoid the same mistakes. But we are now learning that partisan overreach is hardwired into political parties when they are handed power after a decade in the wilderness. They simply cannot help themselves.
The Clinton health-care proposal overreached, and it cost Democrats control of Congress. You can argue that we Republicans did the same on welfare reform. We passed partisan bills; they were twice vetoed. Then we got down to bipartisan problem-solving. A decade later, both sides take satisfaction in the success.
This time around, the end won't arrive with a presidential veto. It will be average Americans attending town meetings to voice their outrage.
This nation desperately needs real reform. Once we weather the partisan overreach, one hopes we can get down to the business of designing what people want: a tax-neutral, deficit-neutral change that rewards value, not volume. It can happen, and it needs to happen. It is time.
RICK SCOTT
Chairman, Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Congress misunderstood what Americans want. In poll after poll, Americans have consistently said they want lower costs, not a government-run insurance company denying them treatments or drugs and giving them poor care. What has been proposed, however, is a massive power grab, in the form of the public insurance option.
Putting a national board to do comparative-effectiveness research in the stimulus bill scared everyone as to whether the government was setting itself up to deny care. Americans believe the focus should be on the economy and their jobs, not a government takeover of health care. Blue Dog Democrats sense the outrage and have wisely tried to kill the government-run insurance disaster.
There are many ways to reduce health-care costs that won't cost taxpayers a dime: Give the same tax breaks to everyone who buys insurance; standardize claims forms; require doctors and hospitals to post prices and outcomes; and reward people for eating right, exercising and not smoking. If Congress were to consider some of these, it might have an easier time passing reform.
NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN
Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Look at three factors for the difficult path for health reform. First is the public: The universal public definition of health reform is, "I pay less." But the message when reform rubber hits the road is almost inevitably, "Watch out, you will pay more so others pay less."
Second is the dysfunction in our politics, which make broad bipartisan consensus so difficult unless there is an immediate, gut-churning crisis -- and even then, it is no sure thing. (Look at the unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan even as our economy was teetering at the edge of deflation and depression.) Achieving major social reform without bipartisan support is a very heavy lift. And without bipartisan leadership support, the public grows even more wary that their definition of reform will be violated.
Third is the sheer substantive difficulty of "fixing" deep-seated problems that spread over one-sixth of the economy, in a complex, intertwined system that is half public and half private.
Even so, there is a better-than-even chance that a serious, if not far-reaching, reform plan will get through this Congress. The need is deep enough, the president is savvy enough and the majority Democrats will be desperate enough to make something happen.
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
Democratic pollster and author; adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000
The principal reason for gridlock is that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have misread public opinion on health care. Voters want an overhaul, and they strongly believe that there needs to be an expansion of coverage. But there is far more concern about the size, scope and cost of the initiative than the Democrats have realized. There is also great concern about the level of taxation in America going forward. And there is deep fear that a government bureaucracy will supplant or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. This fear has been exemplified this week by the notion that, somehow, the federal government will make life-and-death decisions but not pay for end-of-life-care.
There is every reason to believe, as evidenced in the recent survey data, that a 1994-type swing against the Democrats could materialize if their budget, health-care and cap-and-trade policies prove as expensive and unwieldy as many Americans fear. But polls also clearly suggest that the people will embrace a bipartisan agreement on health care that incrementally but inexorably expands coverage, controls costs and does not entail a public option.
Given the weakened position of the Republican Party, there is every reason to believe that any such compromise will benefit the Democrats. The Republicans' best hope is that continued gridlock on the health issue will further erode the president and the Democrats' standing and lead to a swing back to the GOP.
HENRY E. SIMMONS and RALPH G. NEAS
President and CEO, respectively, National Coalition on Health Care
Major legislative reform involves complicated policy choices and even more complex politics. Despite multiple obstacles, heroic efforts by congressional leaders and the administration have kept reform moving forward and positioned for enactment this year
However, we view the failure of lawmakers to effectively address slowing the increase in health-care costs to all payers -- not just the government -- as the greatest obstacle to reform. The failure to address systemwide cost containment was avoidable. Lawmakers only had to follow the Congressional Budget's Office's December road map on how to generate health-care savings in the short term, and today we would be closer to enactment of sustainable and systemwide reforms.
As a nation, we now must also make the tough choices necessary to ensure the health and economic well-being of future generations far beyond the proposed 10-year CBO budget horizon -- especially since the CBO's projections fail to attribute any savings to critical investments in prevention, disease management or wellness within that time frame. Several arduous months lie ahead; there is still time.
MAXINE WATERS
Democratic representative from California; member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
It's a familiar story: Special interests who benefit from the status quo are aggressively resisting reform. In this case, insurance companies, drug companies and other health-care industry organizations have blanketed the halls of Congress with well-paid lobbyists to protect their profits and kill a meaningful public option. The industry is also using its vast financial resources to run misleading ads, use scare tactics and fatten the campaign coffers of certain members of Congress.
As The Post reported, Blue Dogs "have set a record pace for fundraising this year . . . surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June, [more] than half the money [coming] from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries."
Republicans by and large never wanted health-care reform. Unfortunately, Blue Dogs -- a group of conservative Democrats who claim to want to reduce costs -- are also now serving as guard dogs for the insurers and drugmakers and increasing costs by insisting on higher pay for doctors in their communities.
Health-care industry resistance to change was predictable and could not have been avoided, but it can be overcome. Instead of spending more time negotiating with Blue Dogs, we must remind them that many of their districts include sizable constituencies that desperately need and truly want reform.
If push comes to shove, Senate Democrats can pass a good reform bill without Republicans, and progressives in the House will show leadership that we, too, are a force to be reckoned with.
Post a Comment
RAÚL M. GRIJALVA
Democratic representative from Arizona; co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
The greatest obstacle in this historic debate has been our underestimating the health-care industry's opposition to fundamental reform.
To many of us, the initial cornerstone of reform was a single-payer approach. Lack of political will took that off the table. The fallback was a meaningful public option, defined by stability of coverage, costs and quality. This affordable plan, with guaranteed access, would compete with the insurance companies. When the industry and its allies realized we would be prioritizing our nation's health over their egregious profits, they quickly painted "the government" as the enemy, and, though we recognized this opposition, we didn't take our case to the public. Convinced that Americans already understood the benefits of a robust public option, we decided to play an inside-the-Beltway game, and we started to lose the public relations war.
Nearly every American has a health-care horror story involving their insurance company. The public is fed up with our broken system. We can overcome our public relations slip-up if we help our constituents understand that the industry, not the government, is responsible for the ever-increasing rates and scaled-back coverage they receive.
WALT MINNICK
Democratic representative from Idaho; Blue Dog Coalition member
Most people agree on the most important points of health-care reform: We must reduce costs. We should not increase our deficit. All Americans should have secure, stable coverage. But a lack of public confidence in the congressional process has proven a massive obstacle. While it's true that members from both sides have worked together diligently, occasional public disputes have weakened public confidence in our ability to craft an effective plan.
That's unfortunate, because most members of Congress want bipartisan, collaborative consensus on reform. I am encouraged by the work of the Senate Finance Committee and Chairman Max Baucus, who understands what we in Western politics have learned the hard way: No one wins when everyone fights.
Whether it is natural resources, water, economic development or a major undertaking like health-care reform, the Western way is to bring people together, look for agreement and move toward a solution. That is happening in Congress, but it must be more visible to overcome the toughest obstacle of all in our effort to reform health care: Convincing Americans they can trust us to do this right.
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT
Secretary of health and human services from 2005 to 2009
Simply stated: Partisan overreach. The Democrats produced a bill that is simply over the top on federal government control and that includes more new taxes than our economy can stand. It is just too much Washington.
Many thought it was poor tactics that caused Hillarycare to flat-line in the 1990s. Most thought the organizers of Obamacare could avoid the same mistakes. But we are now learning that partisan overreach is hardwired into political parties when they are handed power after a decade in the wilderness. They simply cannot help themselves.
The Clinton health-care proposal overreached, and it cost Democrats control of Congress. You can argue that we Republicans did the same on welfare reform. We passed partisan bills; they were twice vetoed. Then we got down to bipartisan problem-solving. A decade later, both sides take satisfaction in the success.
This time around, the end won't arrive with a presidential veto. It will be average Americans attending town meetings to voice their outrage.
This nation desperately needs real reform. Once we weather the partisan overreach, one hopes we can get down to the business of designing what people want: a tax-neutral, deficit-neutral change that rewards value, not volume. It can happen, and it needs to happen. It is time.
RICK SCOTT
Chairman, Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Congress misunderstood what Americans want. In poll after poll, Americans have consistently said they want lower costs, not a government-run insurance company denying them treatments or drugs and giving them poor care. What has been proposed, however, is a massive power grab, in the form of the public insurance option.
Putting a national board to do comparative-effectiveness research in the stimulus bill scared everyone as to whether the government was setting itself up to deny care. Americans believe the focus should be on the economy and their jobs, not a government takeover of health care. Blue Dog Democrats sense the outrage and have wisely tried to kill the government-run insurance disaster.
There are many ways to reduce health-care costs that won't cost taxpayers a dime: Give the same tax breaks to everyone who buys insurance; standardize claims forms; require doctors and hospitals to post prices and outcomes; and reward people for eating right, exercising and not smoking. If Congress were to consider some of these, it might have an easier time passing reform.
NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN
Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Look at three factors for the difficult path for health reform. First is the public: The universal public definition of health reform is, "I pay less." But the message when reform rubber hits the road is almost inevitably, "Watch out, you will pay more so others pay less."
Second is the dysfunction in our politics, which make broad bipartisan consensus so difficult unless there is an immediate, gut-churning crisis -- and even then, it is no sure thing. (Look at the unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan even as our economy was teetering at the edge of deflation and depression.) Achieving major social reform without bipartisan support is a very heavy lift. And without bipartisan leadership support, the public grows even more wary that their definition of reform will be violated.
Third is the sheer substantive difficulty of "fixing" deep-seated problems that spread over one-sixth of the economy, in a complex, intertwined system that is half public and half private.
Even so, there is a better-than-even chance that a serious, if not far-reaching, reform plan will get through this Congress. The need is deep enough, the president is savvy enough and the majority Democrats will be desperate enough to make something happen.
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
Democratic pollster and author; adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000
The principal reason for gridlock is that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have misread public opinion on health care. Voters want an overhaul, and they strongly believe that there needs to be an expansion of coverage. But there is far more concern about the size, scope and cost of the initiative than the Democrats have realized. There is also great concern about the level of taxation in America going forward. And there is deep fear that a government bureaucracy will supplant or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. This fear has been exemplified this week by the notion that, somehow, the federal government will make life-and-death decisions but not pay for end-of-life-care.
There is every reason to believe, as evidenced in the recent survey data, that a 1994-type swing against the Democrats could materialize if their budget, health-care and cap-and-trade policies prove as expensive and unwieldy as many Americans fear. But polls also clearly suggest that the people will embrace a bipartisan agreement on health care that incrementally but inexorably expands coverage, controls costs and does not entail a public option.
Given the weakened position of the Republican Party, there is every reason to believe that any such compromise will benefit the Democrats. The Republicans' best hope is that continued gridlock on the health issue will further erode the president and the Democrats' standing and lead to a swing back to the GOP.
HENRY E. SIMMONS and RALPH G. NEAS
President and CEO, respectively, National Coalition on Health Care
Major legislative reform involves complicated policy choices and even more complex politics. Despite multiple obstacles, heroic efforts by congressional leaders and the administration have kept reform moving forward and positioned for enactment this year
However, we view the failure of lawmakers to effectively address slowing the increase in health-care costs to all payers -- not just the government -- as the greatest obstacle to reform. The failure to address systemwide cost containment was avoidable. Lawmakers only had to follow the Congressional Budget's Office's December road map on how to generate health-care savings in the short term, and today we would be closer to enactment of sustainable and systemwide reforms.
As a nation, we now must also make the tough choices necessary to ensure the health and economic well-being of future generations far beyond the proposed 10-year CBO budget horizon -- especially since the CBO's projections fail to attribute any savings to critical investments in prevention, disease management or wellness within that time frame. Several arduous months lie ahead; there is still time.
MAXINE WATERS
Democratic representative from California; member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
It's a familiar story: Special interests who benefit from the status quo are aggressively resisting reform. In this case, insurance companies, drug companies and other health-care industry organizations have blanketed the halls of Congress with well-paid lobbyists to protect their profits and kill a meaningful public option. The industry is also using its vast financial resources to run misleading ads, use scare tactics and fatten the campaign coffers of certain members of Congress.
As The Post reported, Blue Dogs "have set a record pace for fundraising this year . . . surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June, [more] than half the money [coming] from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries."
Republicans by and large never wanted health-care reform. Unfortunately, Blue Dogs -- a group of conservative Democrats who claim to want to reduce costs -- are also now serving as guard dogs for the insurers and drugmakers and increasing costs by insisting on higher pay for doctors in their communities.
Health-care industry resistance to change was predictable and could not have been avoided, but it can be overcome. Instead of spending more time negotiating with Blue Dogs, we must remind them that many of their districts include sizable constituencies that desperately need and truly want reform.
If push comes to shove, Senate Democrats can pass a good reform bill without Republicans, and progressives in the House will show leadership that we, too, are a force to be reckoned with.
Post a Comment
Health Care Realities PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”
It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.
And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.
The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”
It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.
And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.
The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Dems want to limit insurance increases
By DAVID ESPO AP Correspondent
House Democrats are taking steps to limit annual price increases for insurance policies sold under a sweeping bill to extend health care to nearly all the 50 million uninsured Americans, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The legislation taking shape in the Energy and Commerce Committee also would permit the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on drugs under Medicare, the officials said.
These provisions are part of a series of trade-offs negotiated overnight as Democratic leaders struggled to push the health care bill through the committee, the third of three panels to debate the health care issue. The committee was the final obstacle on the way to the House floor and passage would give momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to discuss private discussions.
On Friday, Democrats on the committee moved methodically through the complex legislation.
"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives negotiated late into the night Thursday to reach a deal that would restore some subsidies to help low-to-middle income people pay their health insurance premiums, would preserve a strong public insurance option, and would cut drug costs more deeply, lawmakers said.
No details of the deal were immediately available, but Waxman said he intends to formally present it to the committee later in the day, and the panel should pass the bill Friday afternoon. Two other House committees, dominated by liberals, have already passed their versions of the bill. Energy and Commerce better represents the makeup of the House as a whole.
The full committee resumed its deliberations after the last-minute agreement mollified liberals outraged by another deal Waxman struck earlier in the week with conservatives known as the Blue Dog Democrats. "We felt it was paid for on the backs of some of the people who can't afford health insurance now," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Lawmakers from both camps said Friday they were now in accord. "We need to get this done," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., one of the Blue Dogs.
As recently as two weeks ago passage of the bill by Energy and Commerce might not have looked like much of a victory. But after a series of delays and some rancorous disputes, final House committee action on a health overhaul is sure to be hailed as a big step forward.
It would come on the House's final day in session before lawmakers leave Washington for their annual monthlong summer recess.
"The American people will have a chance to see what's in it for them, and our members will have a chance to discuss this with their constituents," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "And when they come back in September, we'll take up the legislation."
The progress in the House was not matched in the Senate, where bipartisan negotiators announced they needed additional time to produce any agreement for their committee to review.
The House bill, whose total costs are estimated at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, would eventually cover nearly all the uninsured.
Low-income people would be helped through an expansion of Medicaid, while middle-class workers and their families would receive federal subsidies to pick a plan through a new insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. A government-sponsored plan would be available through the exchange, alongside private coverage. The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.
To pay for the bill, Democrats are proposing a combination of cuts in government health care programs and a tax increase on the wealthy of more than $500 billion over 10 years. The higher taxes would take effect right away.
The bill would also add more than $200 billion to the federal deficit. That's because it doesn't offset the cost of a provision that raises projected Medicare payments to doctors.
There was late-night drama in Waxman's committee Thursday as an anti-abortion amendment passed when conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it — then failed less than two hours later when Waxman used a procedural maneuver to bring it up for a second vote.
In the intervening time one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no." It was enough to take the amendment down on a vote of 29 to 30.
The measure would have specified that health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases.
The committee approved a Democratic-written measure specifying that abortions would not be required as part of government-approved insurance benefit packages. The measure, which passed 30-28, says health plans in a new purchasing exchange aren't required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does so.
The amendment also limits the use of federal funding for abortions. Democrats cast the measure as a compromise but Republicans mostly opposed it.
House Democrats are taking steps to limit annual price increases for insurance policies sold under a sweeping bill to extend health care to nearly all the 50 million uninsured Americans, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The legislation taking shape in the Energy and Commerce Committee also would permit the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on drugs under Medicare, the officials said.
These provisions are part of a series of trade-offs negotiated overnight as Democratic leaders struggled to push the health care bill through the committee, the third of three panels to debate the health care issue. The committee was the final obstacle on the way to the House floor and passage would give momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to discuss private discussions.
On Friday, Democrats on the committee moved methodically through the complex legislation.
"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives negotiated late into the night Thursday to reach a deal that would restore some subsidies to help low-to-middle income people pay their health insurance premiums, would preserve a strong public insurance option, and would cut drug costs more deeply, lawmakers said.
No details of the deal were immediately available, but Waxman said he intends to formally present it to the committee later in the day, and the panel should pass the bill Friday afternoon. Two other House committees, dominated by liberals, have already passed their versions of the bill. Energy and Commerce better represents the makeup of the House as a whole.
The full committee resumed its deliberations after the last-minute agreement mollified liberals outraged by another deal Waxman struck earlier in the week with conservatives known as the Blue Dog Democrats. "We felt it was paid for on the backs of some of the people who can't afford health insurance now," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Lawmakers from both camps said Friday they were now in accord. "We need to get this done," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., one of the Blue Dogs.
As recently as two weeks ago passage of the bill by Energy and Commerce might not have looked like much of a victory. But after a series of delays and some rancorous disputes, final House committee action on a health overhaul is sure to be hailed as a big step forward.
It would come on the House's final day in session before lawmakers leave Washington for their annual monthlong summer recess.
"The American people will have a chance to see what's in it for them, and our members will have a chance to discuss this with their constituents," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "And when they come back in September, we'll take up the legislation."
The progress in the House was not matched in the Senate, where bipartisan negotiators announced they needed additional time to produce any agreement for their committee to review.
The House bill, whose total costs are estimated at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, would eventually cover nearly all the uninsured.
Low-income people would be helped through an expansion of Medicaid, while middle-class workers and their families would receive federal subsidies to pick a plan through a new insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. A government-sponsored plan would be available through the exchange, alongside private coverage. The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.
To pay for the bill, Democrats are proposing a combination of cuts in government health care programs and a tax increase on the wealthy of more than $500 billion over 10 years. The higher taxes would take effect right away.
The bill would also add more than $200 billion to the federal deficit. That's because it doesn't offset the cost of a provision that raises projected Medicare payments to doctors.
There was late-night drama in Waxman's committee Thursday as an anti-abortion amendment passed when conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it — then failed less than two hours later when Waxman used a procedural maneuver to bring it up for a second vote.
In the intervening time one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no." It was enough to take the amendment down on a vote of 29 to 30.
The measure would have specified that health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases.
The committee approved a Democratic-written measure specifying that abortions would not be required as part of government-approved insurance benefit packages. The measure, which passed 30-28, says health plans in a new purchasing exchange aren't required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does so.
The amendment also limits the use of federal funding for abortions. Democrats cast the measure as a compromise but Republicans mostly opposed it.
Daily Up Date on Stuff
And they're headed for the exits.
House Democrats will flee town tonight for a month-long break from Washington having seen their conservative Blue Dog wing empowered like never before, their liberal wing enflamed and their leadership adrift and uncertain in how they will mend their party's ideological differences on health care.
House Republicans are all about 2010 – but they should worry whether they're peaking too early as they tee up a barrage of attacks on a wounded majority party.
And the Senate has another week in session, but it'll be mostly about Sonia Sotomayor's nomination since the Finance Committee has bailed on getting its bill done thanks to a last minute GOP revolt.
TGIF and welcome to The Huddle, where chaos reigns on health care, Mike Ross remains an insurance industry darling and optimists are latching on to the GDP numbers that show the recession has eased.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
PUBLIC OPTION RETAINED: For now, that public option remains in the House bill, as Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn write in The New York Times: 'The House Energy and Commerce Committee resumed work Thursday on major health care legislation, voting to establish a government-run health insurance plan, as top Republicans stepped up their criticism of the ambitious legislation. By a vote of 35 to 24, Democrats defeated a Republican effort to eliminate a section of the bill that would create the public health insurance option.'
FINANCE STALLED: It's a no go in Senate Finance before the recess, as Carrie Budoff Brown and Chris Frates write: 'That didn't last long. A day after some unexpectedly positive signs for health care reform in Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday that his committee would be unable to complete work on a bill before the August recess.
'Baucus's announcement came after a day in which Republican negotiators on the committee made clear they were not comfortable with the Democratic timetable - pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. The House bill was expected to clear the third, and final, committee standing in its way before lawmakers escape Washington on Friday, but only after another flare-up by House liberals who said Blue Dog conservative Democrats had hijacked the process.'
LATE NIGHT IN HOUSE: POLITICO's Patrick O'Connor sent The Huddle this dispatch at 1 a.m. from the mind-numbing marathon markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee: 'House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) isn't quite out of the woods yet.
'Liberal members of his committee are trying work out a deal with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the panel to find billions in additional savings that would allow the progressives to restore $50 to $65 billion in subsidies that were earmarked to help middle-income households buy insurance through a new exchange program. This all sets up for more drama Friday, when the committee convenes for what is supposed to be its final day of considering the historic bill.
'Asked whether liberal and conservative Democrats will find enough common ground to push the bill through committee, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the health subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, laughed and said, 'We're all going to vote for the bill.'
BLUE DOG BLUE SHIELD: Mike Ross has become a darling of the insurance industry, as Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: 'On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.
'The committees' draft falls short,' the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special 'health-care industry reception,' one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.'
RECESSION EASING: Here's some good news for Democrats to take home, from the AP: 'The recession likely eased in the spring, with the economy no longer in free-fall.
'Many analysts predict that when the Commerce Department releases its first estimate of second-quarter activity Friday, it will say the economy shrank at a 1.5 percent pace from April though June. If they are correct, it would mark a vast improvement from the 5.9 percent annualized drop recorded over the prior six months -- the weakest showing in 50 years. 'The recession kind of came in like a lion and is going out like a lamb,' said economist Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics.'
CASH FOR CLUNKERS: That was fast. The program is out of money after a week, leading to debate about whether it was a remarkable success or a boondoggle. From The Wall Street Journal: 'White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government's cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program's $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.
'Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.'
VOX POPULI? NOTSOMUCH: Those town halls the lawmakers like so much? Out of control. Alex Isenstadt taps into a disturbing trend: 'Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety - welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.
'On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control. 'I had felt they would be pointless,' Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. 'There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.'
GOP RECESS STRATEGY: From a memo obtained by The Huddle that went out to all GOP House candidates last night: 'Vulnerable Democrats are limping into the August recess in their most-weakened condition since the inception of their majority. This presents a prime opportunity for Republican candidates to spend the next five weeks on the offensive.
'The combination of a failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill and a job-killing National Energy Tax may have amounted to what some in the press have reported as potentially 'career-ending' votes for many Democrat incumbents. Now Democrats are attempting to jam a government takeover of the health care industry through the House.'
DEM RECESS STRATEGY: And the Democrats sent The Huddle their strategy memo as well, outlining a grassroots and advertising offensive against Republicans during August. From one of the ads targeting Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: 'Blocked' – 60 second radio ad
Announcer: 'Health care bills. Every year, the cost goes higher.... Making it harder to make ends meet. But year after year, Congressman Charlie Dent opposed reforms to make health care more affordable. Congressman Dent's gotten nearly 75 thousand dollars from the insurance industry while we've gotten stuck with runaway healthcare costs. And what do the insurance companies get? Record profits. ...'
F-22 CUTS IN HOUSE: From the AP: 'The Democratic-controlled House went along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plans to kill the over-budget F-22 fighter jet, but has rejected his efforts to cut off several other big ticket items. Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill passed by a 400-30 vote Thursday contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that Gates says aren't needed, and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money.
'It also contains $128 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total appropriated by Congress for those wars and other efforts to combat terrorism above $1 trillion.'
SOTOMAYOR VOTE: Roll Call is reporting that the debate will begin on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination on Tuesday. And The Hill's J.T. Rushing finds another reason for Democrats to be upset with Max Baucus: 'Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn't made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
'Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A 'no' vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left's fire at the Finance Committee chairman. Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week's floor vote on Sotomayor.'
The Huddle's over/under remains at 65 on yes votes for Sotomayor.
WJLA WASHINGTON WEATHER: Clouds will be on the increase today, limiting temperatures to just the middle 80's. Storms are expected to develop today as a low pressure system tracks through the area. Storms taper this evening and skies become partly cloudy with lows near 70.
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
House Democrats will flee town tonight for a month-long break from Washington having seen their conservative Blue Dog wing empowered like never before, their liberal wing enflamed and their leadership adrift and uncertain in how they will mend their party's ideological differences on health care.
House Republicans are all about 2010 – but they should worry whether they're peaking too early as they tee up a barrage of attacks on a wounded majority party.
And the Senate has another week in session, but it'll be mostly about Sonia Sotomayor's nomination since the Finance Committee has bailed on getting its bill done thanks to a last minute GOP revolt.
TGIF and welcome to The Huddle, where chaos reigns on health care, Mike Ross remains an insurance industry darling and optimists are latching on to the GDP numbers that show the recession has eased.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
PUBLIC OPTION RETAINED: For now, that public option remains in the House bill, as Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn write in The New York Times: 'The House Energy and Commerce Committee resumed work Thursday on major health care legislation, voting to establish a government-run health insurance plan, as top Republicans stepped up their criticism of the ambitious legislation. By a vote of 35 to 24, Democrats defeated a Republican effort to eliminate a section of the bill that would create the public health insurance option.'
FINANCE STALLED: It's a no go in Senate Finance before the recess, as Carrie Budoff Brown and Chris Frates write: 'That didn't last long. A day after some unexpectedly positive signs for health care reform in Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday that his committee would be unable to complete work on a bill before the August recess.
'Baucus's announcement came after a day in which Republican negotiators on the committee made clear they were not comfortable with the Democratic timetable - pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. The House bill was expected to clear the third, and final, committee standing in its way before lawmakers escape Washington on Friday, but only after another flare-up by House liberals who said Blue Dog conservative Democrats had hijacked the process.'
LATE NIGHT IN HOUSE: POLITICO's Patrick O'Connor sent The Huddle this dispatch at 1 a.m. from the mind-numbing marathon markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee: 'House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) isn't quite out of the woods yet.
'Liberal members of his committee are trying work out a deal with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the panel to find billions in additional savings that would allow the progressives to restore $50 to $65 billion in subsidies that were earmarked to help middle-income households buy insurance through a new exchange program. This all sets up for more drama Friday, when the committee convenes for what is supposed to be its final day of considering the historic bill.
'Asked whether liberal and conservative Democrats will find enough common ground to push the bill through committee, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the health subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, laughed and said, 'We're all going to vote for the bill.'
BLUE DOG BLUE SHIELD: Mike Ross has become a darling of the insurance industry, as Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: 'On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.
'The committees' draft falls short,' the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special 'health-care industry reception,' one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.'
RECESSION EASING: Here's some good news for Democrats to take home, from the AP: 'The recession likely eased in the spring, with the economy no longer in free-fall.
'Many analysts predict that when the Commerce Department releases its first estimate of second-quarter activity Friday, it will say the economy shrank at a 1.5 percent pace from April though June. If they are correct, it would mark a vast improvement from the 5.9 percent annualized drop recorded over the prior six months -- the weakest showing in 50 years. 'The recession kind of came in like a lion and is going out like a lamb,' said economist Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics.'
CASH FOR CLUNKERS: That was fast. The program is out of money after a week, leading to debate about whether it was a remarkable success or a boondoggle. From The Wall Street Journal: 'White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government's cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program's $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.
'Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.'
VOX POPULI? NOTSOMUCH: Those town halls the lawmakers like so much? Out of control. Alex Isenstadt taps into a disturbing trend: 'Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety - welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.
'On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control. 'I had felt they would be pointless,' Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. 'There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.'
GOP RECESS STRATEGY: From a memo obtained by The Huddle that went out to all GOP House candidates last night: 'Vulnerable Democrats are limping into the August recess in their most-weakened condition since the inception of their majority. This presents a prime opportunity for Republican candidates to spend the next five weeks on the offensive.
'The combination of a failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill and a job-killing National Energy Tax may have amounted to what some in the press have reported as potentially 'career-ending' votes for many Democrat incumbents. Now Democrats are attempting to jam a government takeover of the health care industry through the House.'
DEM RECESS STRATEGY: And the Democrats sent The Huddle their strategy memo as well, outlining a grassroots and advertising offensive against Republicans during August. From one of the ads targeting Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: 'Blocked' – 60 second radio ad
Announcer: 'Health care bills. Every year, the cost goes higher.... Making it harder to make ends meet. But year after year, Congressman Charlie Dent opposed reforms to make health care more affordable. Congressman Dent's gotten nearly 75 thousand dollars from the insurance industry while we've gotten stuck with runaway healthcare costs. And what do the insurance companies get? Record profits. ...'
F-22 CUTS IN HOUSE: From the AP: 'The Democratic-controlled House went along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plans to kill the over-budget F-22 fighter jet, but has rejected his efforts to cut off several other big ticket items. Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill passed by a 400-30 vote Thursday contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that Gates says aren't needed, and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money.
'It also contains $128 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total appropriated by Congress for those wars and other efforts to combat terrorism above $1 trillion.'
SOTOMAYOR VOTE: Roll Call is reporting that the debate will begin on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination on Tuesday. And The Hill's J.T. Rushing finds another reason for Democrats to be upset with Max Baucus: 'Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn't made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
'Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A 'no' vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left's fire at the Finance Committee chairman. Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week's floor vote on Sotomayor.'
The Huddle's over/under remains at 65 on yes votes for Sotomayor.
WJLA WASHINGTON WEATHER: Clouds will be on the increase today, limiting temperatures to just the middle 80's. Storms are expected to develop today as a low pressure system tracks through the area. Storms taper this evening and skies become partly cloudy with lows near 70.
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Morning Huddle News ' Notes
Did we ever think a 'deal' on health care would please everyone?
Of course not. But the latest breakthrough in the House has made bedfellows of liberals who think it's a sellout with Republicans who think it's still a government takeover of health care. The Senate bill, with its co-op idea substituting for the public option -- and it's lower price tag – is already getting picked at by Democrats not in the negotiating room.
And then there's the polls – they're awful right now for President Obama and Democrats on health care.
Still, there's no mistaking a new sense of momentum on the big picture, and Democrats will head into recess feeling like they just might finish this behemoth task before the World Series ends this autumn.
Good Thursday morning and welcome to The Huddle, where the Blue Dogs have heeled for Nancy Pelosi, the liberals are barking, and the freshmen are worried about the attacks that await them on the home front.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
DRIVING THE RECESS: Bad poll numbers will be the theme of this recess for Democrats. From The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee Brenan: 'President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans' ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
'Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests, the poll found.'
And from the Wall Street Journal: 'Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care. In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42 percent called it a bad idea while 36 percent said it was a good idea.'
HOUSE DEAL: Uncle Mo may finally be on the side of the Dems, as Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown report: 'After weeks of infighting and negative headlines, Democrats finally found a little momentum on health care as negotiators broke a critical logjam in the House and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a rare piece of good news in the Senate.
'The big breakthrough came in the House, where a quartet of moderate Blue Dog Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee finally agreed to a deal offered by Chairman Henry Waxman that would cut the cost of the bill and relieve more small businesses from a requirement to provide their employees with health care. Under the terms of their agreement, party leaders will postpone a full House vote on the still-contentious health care measure until the fall, giving their rank and file another month - at least - to consider the sweeping legislation. That will also give opponents plenty of time to browbeat them. House liberals remain unhappy with Waxman's negotiations with the Blue Dogs, but the committee seemed back on track as of Thursday night.'
LIBERAL REVOLT: We saw this coming – liberals hate the compromise that Pelosi and Waxman made with moderate Blue Dogs. Glenn Thrush of POLITICO taps into some serious lefty angst: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs - and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.
'Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members - Pelosi's most loyal base of support - are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost. The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.'
FRESHMEN ANGST: Get ready for the attacks. From Jennifer Bendery in Roll Call: 'Freshman Democrats came to Congress this year ready to take tough votes, but some are worried that the breakneck pace and their party leaders' failure to match GOP messaging could translate into losses in the 2010 elections.
'A month after forcing a vote on contentious climate change legislation, House Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they will punt on health care reform until September, a move that drew mixed responses from vulnerable Democrats bracing for Republican attacks over the August recess. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, said House Democratic leaders 'absolutely' need to counterpunch over the August recess because freshman Democrats will be the first to suffer from GOP blows.'
QUESTIONABLE EARMARK: POLITICO's John Bresnahan investigates NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and a curious earmark: 'Rep. Pete Sessions - the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House - says on his website that earmarks have become 'a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'
'Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.'
SPEAKER'S LAND DEAL? Roxana Tiron of The Hill looks deeper at Pelosi's unusual involvement in a land deal between the Navy and the city of San Francisco: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is eyeing treasure in a massive Pentagon bill that could benefit her district greatly.
'Pelosi is among dozens of House lawmakers pressing for a little-known provision in the defense policy bill that would speed up the transfer of military bases to private developers. One of those shuttered bases has been the subject of years of failed negotiations between San Francisco, the city Pelosi represents, and the Navy.
'The two parties have been at a stalemate over Treasure Island, a Navy base that closed in 1993 and sits atop a man-made island in the San Francisco Bay that has city planners seeing dollar signs. They have squabbled over the price. The Navy estimates it is worth $240 million; the city offered a tenth of that value.'
THIS SHOULD BE BIGGER NEWS: Flash back to summer 2006 and imagine how fr we've come in Iraq. From the AP: 'U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees 'some chance of a modest acceleration' in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters aboard his plane that perhaps one combat brigade would leave Iraq ahead of schedule. He didn't give a precise timetable. U.S. officials had been worried that last month's formal handover of control of Iraqi cities to the country's security forces might erode gains that had been made. But Mr. Gates said Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told him the security situation is better than expected.'
SPECTER ABSTAINS: CQ's David Clarke notices what's not in the massive Labor HHS appropriations bill: 'As a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter routinely secured funding for sexual abstinence education in Pennsylvania, making it a standard feature in spending bills for education, labor and health programs.
'Not this year. Specter did not request money for his state's programs in the fiscal 2010 Labor-HHS-Education bill the Senate Appropriations Committee will consider Thursday.'
BLACKBERRY ADDICTS LISTEN UP: This one should get your attention. From The New York Times Matt Richtel: 'States that do not ban texting by drivers could forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Under the measure, states would have two years to outlaw the sending of text and e-mail messages by drivers or lose 25 percent of their highway money each year until the money was depleted.'
SOTOMAYOR UPDATE: The Huddle has moved the over/under on yes votes for Sotomayor back down to 65, as fewer Republicans followed Lindsey Graham than expected. Assuming Kennedy and Byrd don't vote, that's seven Republicans saying yes.
ON TAP TONIGHT: The choices at the 'beer summit' at the White House: Red Stripe (Prof. Gates) Blue Moon (Sgt. Crowley) Bud Light (President Obama).
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Of course not. But the latest breakthrough in the House has made bedfellows of liberals who think it's a sellout with Republicans who think it's still a government takeover of health care. The Senate bill, with its co-op idea substituting for the public option -- and it's lower price tag – is already getting picked at by Democrats not in the negotiating room.
And then there's the polls – they're awful right now for President Obama and Democrats on health care.
Still, there's no mistaking a new sense of momentum on the big picture, and Democrats will head into recess feeling like they just might finish this behemoth task before the World Series ends this autumn.
Good Thursday morning and welcome to The Huddle, where the Blue Dogs have heeled for Nancy Pelosi, the liberals are barking, and the freshmen are worried about the attacks that await them on the home front.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
DRIVING THE RECESS: Bad poll numbers will be the theme of this recess for Democrats. From The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee Brenan: 'President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans' ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
'Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests, the poll found.'
And from the Wall Street Journal: 'Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care. In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42 percent called it a bad idea while 36 percent said it was a good idea.'
HOUSE DEAL: Uncle Mo may finally be on the side of the Dems, as Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown report: 'After weeks of infighting and negative headlines, Democrats finally found a little momentum on health care as negotiators broke a critical logjam in the House and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a rare piece of good news in the Senate.
'The big breakthrough came in the House, where a quartet of moderate Blue Dog Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee finally agreed to a deal offered by Chairman Henry Waxman that would cut the cost of the bill and relieve more small businesses from a requirement to provide their employees with health care. Under the terms of their agreement, party leaders will postpone a full House vote on the still-contentious health care measure until the fall, giving their rank and file another month - at least - to consider the sweeping legislation. That will also give opponents plenty of time to browbeat them. House liberals remain unhappy with Waxman's negotiations with the Blue Dogs, but the committee seemed back on track as of Thursday night.'
LIBERAL REVOLT: We saw this coming – liberals hate the compromise that Pelosi and Waxman made with moderate Blue Dogs. Glenn Thrush of POLITICO taps into some serious lefty angst: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs - and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.
'Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members - Pelosi's most loyal base of support - are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost. The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.'
FRESHMEN ANGST: Get ready for the attacks. From Jennifer Bendery in Roll Call: 'Freshman Democrats came to Congress this year ready to take tough votes, but some are worried that the breakneck pace and their party leaders' failure to match GOP messaging could translate into losses in the 2010 elections.
'A month after forcing a vote on contentious climate change legislation, House Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they will punt on health care reform until September, a move that drew mixed responses from vulnerable Democrats bracing for Republican attacks over the August recess. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, said House Democratic leaders 'absolutely' need to counterpunch over the August recess because freshman Democrats will be the first to suffer from GOP blows.'
QUESTIONABLE EARMARK: POLITICO's John Bresnahan investigates NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and a curious earmark: 'Rep. Pete Sessions - the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House - says on his website that earmarks have become 'a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'
'Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.'
SPEAKER'S LAND DEAL? Roxana Tiron of The Hill looks deeper at Pelosi's unusual involvement in a land deal between the Navy and the city of San Francisco: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is eyeing treasure in a massive Pentagon bill that could benefit her district greatly.
'Pelosi is among dozens of House lawmakers pressing for a little-known provision in the defense policy bill that would speed up the transfer of military bases to private developers. One of those shuttered bases has been the subject of years of failed negotiations between San Francisco, the city Pelosi represents, and the Navy.
'The two parties have been at a stalemate over Treasure Island, a Navy base that closed in 1993 and sits atop a man-made island in the San Francisco Bay that has city planners seeing dollar signs. They have squabbled over the price. The Navy estimates it is worth $240 million; the city offered a tenth of that value.'
THIS SHOULD BE BIGGER NEWS: Flash back to summer 2006 and imagine how fr we've come in Iraq. From the AP: 'U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees 'some chance of a modest acceleration' in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters aboard his plane that perhaps one combat brigade would leave Iraq ahead of schedule. He didn't give a precise timetable. U.S. officials had been worried that last month's formal handover of control of Iraqi cities to the country's security forces might erode gains that had been made. But Mr. Gates said Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told him the security situation is better than expected.'
SPECTER ABSTAINS: CQ's David Clarke notices what's not in the massive Labor HHS appropriations bill: 'As a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter routinely secured funding for sexual abstinence education in Pennsylvania, making it a standard feature in spending bills for education, labor and health programs.
'Not this year. Specter did not request money for his state's programs in the fiscal 2010 Labor-HHS-Education bill the Senate Appropriations Committee will consider Thursday.'
BLACKBERRY ADDICTS LISTEN UP: This one should get your attention. From The New York Times Matt Richtel: 'States that do not ban texting by drivers could forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Under the measure, states would have two years to outlaw the sending of text and e-mail messages by drivers or lose 25 percent of their highway money each year until the money was depleted.'
SOTOMAYOR UPDATE: The Huddle has moved the over/under on yes votes for Sotomayor back down to 65, as fewer Republicans followed Lindsey Graham than expected. Assuming Kennedy and Byrd don't vote, that's seven Republicans saying yes.
ON TAP TONIGHT: The choices at the 'beer summit' at the White House: Red Stripe (Prof. Gates) Blue Moon (Sgt. Crowley) Bud Light (President Obama).
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tanning beds definitely cause skin cancer
Study: Tanning beds definitely cause skin cancer
A new scientific analysis has upgraded tanning beds' cancer risk from a likely cause to a definite cause of the disease.
The report, by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, changes the category for tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation. It concludes skin cancer risk increases 75 percent for those who used tanning beds before the age of 30.
The experts also found mutations in mice when exposed to either UVA or UVB light. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
Their report, published in the August edition of Lancet Oncology, analyzed 20 separate studies.
"Claims are that tanning beds are UVA light, and that doesn't cause a problem, but the report puts that theory to rest," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, who read the findings. "It says it doesn't matter if it's UVA or UVB [light]."
Tanning beds have long been controversial, especially for use by young people. Many teens use tanning beds to get a base tan or before a big event. This study should give them pause, Lichtenfeld said.
Advocates for tanning salons said in a statement Tuesday the information is not new.
"The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy," said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association.
"The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a Group One classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish," he said, adding the ITA had always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.
In Britain, where the Lancet report originates, melanoma is now the leading cause of cancer in women in their 20s.
Shannon McGeever, manager of Perfect Color Tanning Salon in Farmingdale, said overexposure and burning the skin is what causes the damage.
"We teach how to tan properly, and we are familiar with all the different skin cancers and how to recognize and how to prevent them, and we do take the right precautions to make sure we tan people as safely as possible," she said.
Lichtenfeld emphasized that the study says there is no safe use of tanning beds. "This study says UVA causes skin cancer," Lichtenfeld said. "It's a Class One carcinogen. This causes cancer. Period. End of statement," he said.
Dr. Colette Pameijer, a cancer surgeon at Stony Brook University Medical Center, said the report was comprehensive. "They basically summarized all known data on UV radiation and risk for skin cancer in both humans and animals, and their conclusion should be taken very, very seriously," she said.
A new scientific analysis has upgraded tanning beds' cancer risk from a likely cause to a definite cause of the disease.
The report, by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, changes the category for tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation. It concludes skin cancer risk increases 75 percent for those who used tanning beds before the age of 30.
The experts also found mutations in mice when exposed to either UVA or UVB light. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
Their report, published in the August edition of Lancet Oncology, analyzed 20 separate studies.
"Claims are that tanning beds are UVA light, and that doesn't cause a problem, but the report puts that theory to rest," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, who read the findings. "It says it doesn't matter if it's UVA or UVB [light]."
Tanning beds have long been controversial, especially for use by young people. Many teens use tanning beds to get a base tan or before a big event. This study should give them pause, Lichtenfeld said.
Advocates for tanning salons said in a statement Tuesday the information is not new.
"The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy," said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association.
"The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a Group One classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish," he said, adding the ITA had always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.
In Britain, where the Lancet report originates, melanoma is now the leading cause of cancer in women in their 20s.
Shannon McGeever, manager of Perfect Color Tanning Salon in Farmingdale, said overexposure and burning the skin is what causes the damage.
"We teach how to tan properly, and we are familiar with all the different skin cancers and how to recognize and how to prevent them, and we do take the right precautions to make sure we tan people as safely as possible," she said.
Lichtenfeld emphasized that the study says there is no safe use of tanning beds. "This study says UVA causes skin cancer," Lichtenfeld said. "It's a Class One carcinogen. This causes cancer. Period. End of statement," he said.
Dr. Colette Pameijer, a cancer surgeon at Stony Brook University Medical Center, said the report was comprehensive. "They basically summarized all known data on UV radiation and risk for skin cancer in both humans and animals, and their conclusion should be taken very, very seriously," she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)