Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Ben Nelson (Dem- Nebraska) to retire

2011-12-28

from Politico Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska infamous for the Cornhusker Kickback will announce today that he is retiring after two terms, a serious blow to Democratic efforts to hold onto their majority in the chamber next November. The White House and top Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), had quietly mounted a pressure campaign to keep Nelson from retiring. Nelson has more than $3 million in his campaign war chest Nelson can probably keep some of this by cycling his own campaign funds into a PAC or two and then forming a consultancy to work for that PAC or having the PAC hire his kin and his approval rating solidified after falling over the last several years.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection

2011-12-28

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is set to announce he will not seek reelection, according to sources, leaving his seat as a strong pickup opportunity for the GOP in the 2012 election. Nelson, 70, could announce his retirement as early as today, according to sources familiar with his plans. The news was first reported by Politico. The national Democratic Party had spent more than $1 million in advertising this year driving up Nelson’s personal approval rating, perhaps in hopes of convincing him that he could win in a dark red state. But Republican-aligned groups also spent heavily trying to define the moderate Democrats as an enabler of President Obama, particularly because Nelson voted for Obama’s health care bill.

Link

Home Front: Politix

White House Quietly Exempts Friends From Obamacare

2011-01-30

If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare. Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733. Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House. Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government. Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance. For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged. Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums. In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug. The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?...

Link

Home Front: Culture Wars

Congress Set To Vote On DADT

2010-05-27

Congress is headed toward landmark votes on whether to allow gays to serve openly in the military. The House was expected to vote as early as Thursday on a proposal by Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat who served in the Iraq war, that would repeal the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell." The legislation -- a compromise struck with the White House and agreed to by the Defense Department -- would give the military as much time as it wants before lifting the ban. Under the bill, the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must first certify that the new policy won't hurt the military's ability to fight. "We need to get this done, and we need to get it done now," said Murphy. Also as early as Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to take up an identical measure, proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. As in the House, the Senate provision would be tucked into a broader bill, authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars for the troops, that is expected to win broad support. Supporters said this week the Senate panel had enough votes to pass the bill after key holdouts, including Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, announced they would swing behind it. "In a military which values honesty and integrity, this policy encourages deceit," Nelson said. Nelson said a provision in the bill giving the military the power to decide on the details of implementing the policy was key to his support because it "removes politics from the process" and ensures repeal is "consistent with military readiness and effectiveness." Advocates hoped the momentum in the Senate would carry over to the House, where several conservative Democrats -- including Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi -- threatened to oppose the massive defense spending bill if it included the repeal provision. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait to vote until he can talk to the troops and chart a path forward. A study he ordered is due Dec. 1. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The service chiefs this week urged the Senate panel not to vote until the Pentagon could complete its survey of military personnel. "The value of surveying the thoughts of Marines and their families is that it signals to my Marines that their opinions matter," Marine Commandant James Conway wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the panel's top Republican. Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top uniformed officer and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told graduating Air Force Academy cadets on Wednesday that they need to support a changing military. Mullen didn't speak directly about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But the chairman, who has said that the policy unfairly forces troops to lie, said service members should question convention. "Few things are more important to an organization than people who have the moral courage to question the direction in which the organization is headed and then the strength of character to support whatever final decisions are made," Mullen said.

Link

Home Front: Politix

BO: Dems Will Use Reconciliation to Pass Senate Health Care Reform Fix

2010-03-02

White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial "reconciliation" rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the "fix" to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been awaiting the president's remarks direction on how health care reform will proceed. In his remarks, scheduled to be at the White House, the president will paint a picture of what he will say will happen without a health care reform bill -- skyrocketing premiums, everyone at the mercy of the insurance industry as recently seen with the 39% premium increases proposed by Anthem Blue Cross in California. He will note that the "fixed" bill will include the proposal for a new "Health Insurance Rate Authority" to set guidelines for reasonable rate increases. If proposed premium increases are not justifiable per those Health Insurance Rate Authority guidelines, the Health and Human Services Secretary or state regulators could block them. The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various "fixes." The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won't use the word "reconciliation," he'll make it clear that if they're not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past. White House officials will make the argument these rules are perfectly appropriate because the procedure is not being used for the whole bill, just for some fixes; because reconciliation rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform will reduce the deficit; and because the reconciliation process has been used many times by Republicans for larger legislation such as the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush. A White House official says the president will "reiterate why reform is so crucial and what it will mean for American families and businesses: they'll have more control over their own health care, they'll see lower costs , and they'll see an end to insurance company abuses. He'll note that his proposal includes the best ideas from both parties, and he'll restate his preference for a comprehensive bill that will reduce premiums and end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions." The president will also extend a hand to work with Republicans on measures they have pushed, including $50 million for state grants for demonstration projects to explore alternatives to medical malpractice cases, and a crackdown on Medicaid and Medicare fraud as proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. He will also herald the removal of extraneous provisions in the bill such as the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback," a deal to secure the support of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., in which the federal government would pay for Nebraska's Medicaid expansion; and "Gator-aid," the provision to shield Florida seniors from cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, secured by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Mr. Obama will say that he will be working on exact legislative language in the next few days. Republicans can join him and Democratic congressional leaders of the House and Senate to makes these changes and to pass the bill, but either way the bill will be moving forward.

Link

Home Front: Politix

WH reveals details of compromise health care bill

2010-02-24

The Obama administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year. If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The White House said it would extend coverage to 31 million Americans. Among other things, the White House said it would expand Medicare prescription drug coverage, increase federal subsidies to help people buy insurance and give the federal government new authority to block excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies. It increases the threshold -- relative to the Senate bill -- under which a tax on high-end health insurance plans would kick in. As with both the House and Senate plans, it includes significant reductions in Medicare spending in part through changes in payments made under the Medicare Advantage program. President Obama's plan does not include a government-run public health insurance option, an idea strongly backed by liberal Democrats but fiercely opposed by both Republicans and key Democratic moderates. It also eliminates a deeply unpopular provision in the Senate bill worked in by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, that would exempt his Midwestern state from paying increased Medicaid expenses. Administration officials said Obama's measure would cut the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years. They estimate the total cost of the bill to be $950 billion in the next decade. The Senate bill would cost an estimated $871 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, while the more expansive House plan has been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion. The release of Obama's plan sets the stage for a critical televised health care summit Thursday with top congressional Republicans. The White House is trying to pressure GOP leaders to present a detailed alternative proposal in advance of the meeting. "We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting" on Thursday, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told reporters. "We took our best shot at bridging the differences" between the House and Senate bills. "It is our hope the Republicans will come together around [their] plan and post it online" before the meeting. Pfeiffer said Obama will come to Thursday's meeting "with an open mind." The president's willing to back decent Republican ideas if the two sides can have an "honest, open, substantive discussion" in which "both parties can get off their talking points," he said. GOP leaders have indicated they will attend the meeting but have urged Democrats to scrap the Senate and House bills completely. They characterized Obama's proposal Monday as setting the stage for a meeting that will amount to little more than political posturing. "The president has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes and slash Medicare benefits. This week's summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement calling the plan "disappointing that Democrats in Washington either aren't listening or are completely ignoring what Americans across the country have been saying." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the GOP criticisms, arguing that Republican leaders had asked for this week's meeting for months. "If they're not the party of no, Thursday's the perfect venue to be the party of yes," Gibbs said. Under Obama's plan: • The health and human services secretary would work with a seven-member board of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes. This Health Insurance Rate Authority would provide an annual report to recommend to states whether certain rate increases should be approved, although the secretary could overrule state insurance regulators. • New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Compared with the Senate bill, Obama's proposal lowers premiums for families making between $44,000 and $66,000, according to the White House. Compared with the House legislation, it lowers premiums for families making between $55,000 and $88,000. • The Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" would be closed by 2020. Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual's out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550. • A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $27,000 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018 for all plans. In contrast, the Senate bill would apply the tax to plans valued at more than $23,000 for families. The House bill does not include the tax, which labor unions vehemently oppose. • The federal government would assist states by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage through 2017. The federal government would cover 95 percent of costs for 2018 and 2019, and 90 percent in the following years. • Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. • Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history. • Individuals under Obama's plan would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income starting in 2016, whichever is greater. The House bill, in contrast, would have imposed a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. The Senate plan would have required a person to buy coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income. All three plans include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. • Companies with more than 50 employees under Obama's plan would be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if the company does not provide coverage and any of that company's workers receives federal health care subsidies. The first 30 workers would be subtracted from the payment calculation. As with the individual requirement, this represents a compromise between the House and Senate plans. • Some $40 billion in tax credits would be established for small businesses to help them provide health care options for their employees. • States could choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the health insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds. The White House is following the Senate's lead. The stricter House version banned abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies. • Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to buy health insurance in the health insurance exchanges. They would be exempted from the individual insurance mandate. As with abortion, the White House is adopting the Senate's language. An "exemption" for illegals? Why should there be any mention of illegals other than they don't get insurance here? Shouldn't illegals have to go back home minus their belongings?

Link

Home Front: Politix

Obama healthcare plan nixes Ben Nelson's 'Cornhusker Kickback' deal

2010-02-23

President Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposal released Monday eliminates controversial funds given to Nebraska as part of a deal to win the support of centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered the $100 million in Medicaid funding, also known as the "Cornhusker Kickback," to Nelson to help win him over as the 60th vote on the Senate's healthcare reform bill last December. But the deal eventually backfired. During merger negotiations with the Senate, House leaders said the "kickback" was an unfair deal struck for Nebraska that was not available to other states and was given only to attract Nelson's support. Republicans also slammed the Nebraska deal, saying it was an example of Reid's secretive, backroom negotiation style that violated President Obama's call for transparency during the healthcare debate.

Link

Home Front: Politix

What's holding the Democratic Party down

2010-02-19

By E.J. Dionne Jr. If you want to be honest, face these facts: At this moment, President Obama is losing, Democrats are losing and liberals are losing. Who's winning? Republicans, conservatives, the practitioners of obstruction and the Tea Party. The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts and the way the United States Senate operates. What's not responsible is the supposed failure of Obama and the Democrats to govern as "moderates." Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won the Massachusetts Senate race last month. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful. Amazing leap considering the numbers only changed with the election; before, the democrats had the numbers to win, and didn't... But that's not what happened, and Republican Scott Brown's victory revealed real weaknesses on the progressive side: an Obama political apparatus asleep at the switch, huge Republican enthusiasm unmatched by Democratic determination, and a focused conservative campaign to discredit Obama's ideas, notably his economic stimulus plan and the health-care bill. An admission by Dionne that the previous paragraph he knowlingly lied about the wherefores. The only reason Obama's ideas were discredited is that they were discreditable. The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true, I quite agree. However, Mr. Dionne fails to note -- or quite probably, to realize -- that better than horrible is not at all the same as good, and in fact often means bad. Why would the voters choose something that is not horrible but merely a very bad idea? and this is actually an indictment -- it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing. One didn't work and the other won't work. Neither were shining examples of representative republic; they were abominations rammed through in relative secret because the details were so ugly. The dreadful Senate is a major culprit here, and that's why Sen. Evan Bayh's complaints in explaining his retirement rang partly true, but also partly false. What's true is that the Senate isn't working. What's false is that there is no room for moderation. The fact is that the legislative outcomes on both the stimulus and health care were driven by moderates. Riiight. The other legislative element responsible for, you know, legislation, wouldn't pass it, so it, and not the law was the problem. Moderates. So that's what they call them nowadays. It's fascinating watching a language evolve. Once upon a time liberal was a respectable political position. Economists agree that the stimulus worked to create jobs, Really? Which ones admit to ignoring the actual data? but Senate moderates made it less effective by shrinking its size and including irrelevancies -- notably $70 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax -- that did little to create jobs. The moderates got their way because the stimulus needed 60 votes, an absurd standard now that we have an ideologically polarized, parliamentary-style party system. How so parliamentary-style? Other than that it appears to be a term of insult to dear Mr. Dionne. We can waste time mourning that development or we can recognize it and act accordingly. On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process. Reaching out example: "I won. You lost. Go away... Wait! Come back!" The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions -- remember the politically lethal Nebraska payoff for Sen. Ben Nelson? -- made the process look even seamier. Appearance equals reality in this case, Mr. Dionne. The bill's conservative opponents shrewdly focused on such side issues and on made-up issues such as the "death panels." Death panels is a descriptor, Mr. Dionne, regardless of the official title in the various versions of the bill that hopefully will never be reconciled. Nobody wants to admit that on health care the moderates won all the big fights. Single-payer was out at the start. The public option died. A Medicare buy-in died. The number of Americans who would be covered shrank. The insurance companies kept their antitrust exemption. If a bill eventually becomes law -- as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot -- the final proposal will be much closer to the moderate Senate version than to the more progressive bill passed by the House. And conservatives all did that while the bill itself was made available for public viewing so their charges could be refuted. Oh, wait. Did I say made available? I meant wasn't made available. And if the Republicans refuse to cooperate, this will not mean that the bill isn't moderate. It will mean only that Republicans refuse to vote for a moderate bill. How can the Republicans cooperate? They aren't even being invited to the meetings. But if all the media talk about the "failure of moderation" is nonsense, this doesn't get liberals or Obama off the hook. While liberals were arguing about public plans and this or that, and while Obama was deep into inside dealmaking, the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats. Sounds right to me. Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely. But if liberals and Obama are so smart, how did they -- or, if you prefer, "we" -- allow conservatives to make this argument so effectively? Why do the mainstream media give it so much credence? We are simple people, we Americans. Even our journalists. We seem to believe that one demonstration of intelligence is to tease out the simple essence of a complex situation, so that we can act, and that big words and complex sentence structures are intended to hide confusion or to cause it. One very successful multinational corporation, beloved of the Harvard Business School case studies program, requires all but the most technical writing to take place within the format of a one-page memo, the thinking being that if you can't summarize the data and present an action plan within one page, you haven't thought about it enough. The corporation's training process for young managers is exceedingly painful. Of course, I think the conservatives' argument is wrong. But at this point, I have to admire their daring and discipline. Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have eight months before this fall's elections to change the terms of the debate and prove they can govern. Otherwise, they'll be washed out by a tidal wave. Because if they've proved they cannot govern, why keep them in office. Right, Mr. Dionne?

Link

Home Front: Politix

NOW: ‘Kill the Senate health bill entirely'

2010-01-22

WASHINGTON -- As Democrats weigh options for health reform following a major setback in the Massachusetts election, the nation's leading womens' rights group blasted the legislation as "beyond outrageous." The National Organization for Women (NOW) harbors deep concerns with the Senate health legislation, and exclaims that "women will be better off with no bill whatsoever." I love it when they begin to eat their own. "The Senate bill contains such fierce anti-abortion language, and there are other problems from the point of view of women," NOW's President Terry O'Neill told Raw Story in an interview. O'Neill said NOW "will not support candidates in 2010 if they vote for it." House Democratic leaders have said they won't take up the Senate bill, citing party divisions, so NOW's immediate concern has been averted. But the group's staunch opposition shines a spotlight on the divisions Democrats will have to confront as they move forward on health care and other issues. NOW's resolute opposition, she said, became inevitable after the anti-abortion provisions added in the 11th hour at the request of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). O'Neill said as a result of Nelson's amendment, "insurance companies will in a few years stop offering abortion care even in private policies because it's too much of an administrative hassle," forcing women to "pay for abortions out of their own pockets." "That's the conclusion of the George Washington University School of Public Health," she added. "The Nelson amendment achieved the same outcome -- through very different means -- as the Stupak-Pitts amendment over on the House side. It takes a little bit longer, maybe 2 to 4 years longer." "Health care is a basic human right, and both the Senate bill and the House bill presume to take this human right away only from women, and not from men. Only women are targeted. So we say, you know what, kill the health bill entirely." O'Neill said the Republican Scott Brown's victory over Democrat Martha Coakley in Tuesday's Massachusetts election was "a referendum on business as usual in Washington" and "voter disappointment about change that has not happened." "It's a lot about health care," she added. "The Senate bill is a giveaway to the insurance companies, and reminiscent of the bank bailout. People voted against that in 2008, they voted for change." O'Neill ripped the "the closed door negotiations" that many believe took place in the shaping of the bill, saying that "people want transparency." She said the Democratic leadership's actions on health care have been similar to the Bush administration's tendency to write legislation secretively and "jam it down the throats of Congress." While accepting that the bill is flawed, many Democrats argue the process of passing it and extending coverage required regrettable giveaways. Progressives are divided as to whether the final outcome is worth supporting. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a highly respected progressive voice, has urged passage of the legislation despite its issues. "[L]et's all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago," Krugman argued last month. "With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail," he said. O'Neill had high praise for Coakley, calling her a "true friend of women." "We strongly endorsed Coakley. She is a great leader, she is a good candidate. "We need more women like Martha Coakley to run for office. More women run, more women will win." The NOW president said the "male-dominated Democratic Party" is not doing women any favors by bringing in anti-abortion zealots," slamming Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the House health bill passed minutes before the final vote. "Women are clearly harmed" by these lawmakers, O'Neill said. "Shame on the male-dominated Democratic Party for supporting them. They hold themselves out as the party that is women-friendly; well they're not acting like it." "And that has a lot to do with why Martha Coakley lost this election," O'Neill alleged, explaining the Democrats' loss of Ted Kennedy's seat with an argument that few others have made. The White House and DNC slammed Coakley on Tuesday for running a weak campaign and refused to take the blame for her loss.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Nelson: Medicaid exemption was only 'placeholder'

2010-01-16

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) is asking Senate Democrats to remove from their healthcare bill a guarantee that his state would not have to pay for its new Medicaid patients. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added the exemption to the bill to court Nelson's much-needed vote in December, the Nebraska senator stressed on Friday that his party should instead nix his own "special deal." He said the exemption was always envisioned as a "placeholder that would be removed" once the House and Senate combined their bills; a stepping stone for a better provision that would allow any state to opt out of the healthcare legislation's proposed Medicaid expansion. "I believe I have been clear that my intentions during all stages of negotiations were not that the State of Nebraska be given a special deal, but rather that all states be given the same tools to address an unfunded federal mandate," Nelson said in a letter to Reid. Funny, that's not how it came out ... Nelson's position switch on the so-called deal -- which Republicans have derided as the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- follows weeks of intense political pressure from all sides in the healthcare fight. At the beckoning of Nebraska's governor, Nelson initially asked Democrats to create an "opt out" clause for states whose financial situations may have precluded their participation in the expanded entitlement program. The governor didn't ask for the opt out for Nebraska, and said so ... Democrats instead offered solely Nebraska an exemption from that expansion, which ultimately won Nelson's vote. But the deal proved instantly and politically noxious to both Nelson's own constituents and party members. Republicans frequently cite the exemption as evidence that Democrats have filled their healthcare legislation with nefarious projects. Some Democrats, similarly fearful of what the Medicaid expansion might mean for their states, have even asked for its exclusion from the final bill.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Sen. Brown: 'You can bet' Nebraska's special deal on healthcare will be nixed

2010-01-07

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) vowed Tuesday that a provision in the Senate's healthcare bill exempting Nebraska from additional Medicaid payments would be eliminated. "You can bet that won't be law by the time that goes into effect," Brown said during a town hall meeting, as reported by the Toledo Blade. Nebraska secured $100 million in funds to pay for its additional obligations to Medicaid under a deal struck in late December to win Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) crucial vote for the Senate's health reform bill. Republicans had pounced on the provision, naming it the "Cornhusker Kickback," while trying to force politically embarrassing votes to either remove or expand the reimbursements. Brown's pledge marks some of the most pointed words directed by a fellow Democrat toward the deal Nelson secured. Brown said that lawmakers would repeal the controversial measure before the new Medicaid obligations go into effect in 2016, the Blade reported. Right. We can trust them to do that. Vermont and Massachusetts also received assistance under the Senate healthcare bill for their own obligations. The provision for the three states was said by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $1.2 billion over the next 10 years.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Bribes' infect health reform

2010-01-07

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger savaged congressional plans for health reform in his 2010 State of the State address on Wednesday, calling the legislation "health care to nowhere" that's infected with "bribes, deals and loopholes." With the nation's largest state enduring a fiscal crisis, Schwarzenegger said California's lawmakers should vote against the bill or push to get the Medicaid subsidies that were written into the Senate bill in order to secure Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th and passing vote for that chamber's version of reform. The deal has been attacked as the "Cornhusker Kickback." "While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals," Schwarzenegger said before a joint session of the California State Legislature. "Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes. You've heard of the bridge to nowhere. This is health care to nowhere. California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk."

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More