Needlenose

Swearing, yelling and flipping off reporters, Hillbilly Senator Jim Bunning carries on a one-man battle against extending unemployment benefits.  Seriously Senator?  I tell you what, if you feel so strongly about it, let’s just exclude benefits to Kentucky!  Come on Reid, don’t cut off his mic, cut off his Federal dollars spigot!

Meanwhile fellow Hillbilly Senator Lamar Alexander suffers either from an excess of hypocrisy or senility as he decries using the reconciliation process to pass legislation that the party of the minority plans to filibuster.

Why the hell are my tax dollars going to fund the folks in the states these idiots represent?

*Update*  This just keeps getting worse!  Democrat-in-Exile sent me this tip: Redneck Asshole Senator Inhofe is trying to intimidate climate scientists with McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Barbara O’Brien of Mahablog fame asked to post on Needlenose.  Happy to post anything that bashes Confederates, particulary of the reactionary persuasion, so here goes:

Recently I wrote here that Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation. Now I want to tell the story about how desperate Mississippians, abandoned by their government, turned to Iran for help.

Bt first, I want to tell you about Mississippi’s infant mortality rate. The rate of infant mortality is the number of infants who are born alive but die before their first birthday, per 1,000 live births. In other words, if infant mortality is 5, that means that 5 of every 1,000 babies in that population will not survive the first year of life.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the estimated infant mortality rate in the United States for 2009 is 6.22, which is high for an industrialized democracy. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the infant mortality rate in Mississippi is 11.4. Only Florida is worse, at 14.1. By contrast, the infant mortality rate for Washington and Minnesota is 5.1.

Now, here’s where Iran comes in — according to the Times of London, last October “five top Iranian doctors, including a senior official at the health ministry in Tehran, were quietly brought to Mississippi” to advise Mississippians how to lower their infant mortality rate.

This exchange came about when James Miller, managing director of Oxford International Development Group, was consulting in a rural Mississippi hospital. “He was shocked to find that the state had the third highest medical expenditure per capita, but came last in terms of outcome,” the Times article said.

Miller remembered a conference presentation on how Iran radically lowered its infant mortality rates. Facing a shortage of doctors and hospitals, the government launched a program of “health houses” staffed by local people trained to be health workers. The health workers are authorized to provide basic medical services such as diabetes monitoring as well as prenatal and obstetric care. Infant and maternal mortality rates both fell dramatically as a result.

James Miller contacted Iranian doctors to find out if their program might be applied to Mississippi. So the Iranian doctors came to Mississippi to give advice. Although the idea of following an Iranian model was a hard sell in Mississippi, at least one community has begun work on an Iranian style “health house” to provide better care for pregnant women abandoned by Mississippi’s health care system.

Dr Aaron Shirley, who worked with James Miller on the Iranian project, admitted they were staying under the radar. Mississippi government officials, including Governor Haley Barbour, were not involved or informed.

This takes us back to the issue identified in the earlier post — Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation, but as far as Gov. Barbour is concerned, this is not a problem. The governor is perfectly clear, on his website and in public pronouncements, that Mississippi fixed its health care problems by passing a comprehensive tort reform bill in 2004. The 2004 law affected all kinds of personal injury lawsuits in Mississippi.

In the U.S., state after state has passed “tort reform” laws that make it harder for citizens to file personal injury suits and also limit the amount of damages they can receive. This is a critical issue for people with asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma cancer, who so often need damage awards to care for themselves and their families. “Tort reform” also is being pushed by conservatives nationwide as the way to fix the nation’s health care crisis.

But Mississippi reformed tort in 2004, and it still has the worst health care in the nation. What did Governor Barbour “fix,” exactly?

-Barbara O’Brien

Just assume a kayak and 2,756 miles' worth of stamina, and you're there!

Speaking of Fubar (as Green Boy was just below), about a month ago he passed along an off-site remark about Google Maps providing “driving directions” from San Francisco to Hawaii — including the awkwardly roundabout need to kayak from Washington state across the Pacific.  My reply, based on that week’s progressive disappointment in the White House, was that  President Obama must have used similar software in figuring out his escalate-in-order-to-withdraw strategy in Afghanistan.

Little did I know that despite my terminal procrastination in posting about that topic, the same half-hearted snark would be appropriate with regard to the state of healthcare reform… and even that requires a large quantity of optimism.

As you undoubtedly know by now (um, unless you’ve been depending on this blog to keep you informed of breaking news developments), separate reform proposals have passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate — with the latter bill’s benefits so thoroughly diminished that whether it’s any improvement at all over the present system is a matter of fierce debate in the progressive blogiverse.  In fact, Obama himself is under intense criticism for having exerted so little visible effort to avoid the legislative emasculation that occurred in the Senate.

In Obama’s defense, though, this is a situation that he apparently planned for early on in the year, as Brian Beutler reported for TPM back in August:

Dick Durbin (D-IL), the number two Democrat in the Senate, says President Obama wants to move forward with some form of health care bill quickly, and then fight the fight over particulars in negotiations with the House of Representatives. . . .

“… we are trying to walk this tightrope to get this bill through. The House [of Representatives] is likely to include it [a public option]. The Senate may not. Then we go into conference committee and President Obama has to roll up his sleeves and see if he can bring us all together. And when I’ve spoken to him about this a couple times, all he’s said is: ‘Get me to a conference committee. Let me bring these folks into a room, and let me work and get it done.‘”

Okay, so the Democrats in Congress have gotten healthcare reform to a conference committee, as Obama claims to have wanted.  Indeed, in his own comments on the subject, the president echoed Durbin’s language:

“… we hope to have a whole bunch of folks over here in the West Wing, and I’ll be rolling up my sleeves and spending some time before the full Congress even gets into session…. I intend to work as hard as I have to work, especially after coming this far over the course of the year, to make sure that we finally close the deal.”

The question is, rolling up his sleeves to do what?   Conventional wisdom has already hardened that whatever comes out of the House-Senate negotiations will be essentially identical to what passed the Senate (even if that bill is at least slightly improved over its worst incarnation) — lest it fall prey again to the unpredictable whims of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman as they threaten to join a Republican filibuster.

It seems like daydreaming at this point to imagine that Obama could move the bill in a more robust (and progressive) direction, then finally mount the bully pulpit, using the inherent popularity of a “public option” and similar features to pressure the centrist corporatist Dems into allowing a simple majority vote.  And yet, Obama’s speech to Congress in September showed that he could move the needle of popular opinion on healthcare reform, if only he cared enough to try.

Another possibility is the strategy that Nate Silver outlined a couple of weeks ago:

… the idea is to “surprise” the Senate by unexpectedly introducing additional provisions under reconciliation once you’ve already got the main portion of the bill passed. Does this sound attractive to you? Well then, the best thing to do would be topass the bill as is now, since that is the first step in the strategy. To repeat: the most promising application of the split-bill/reconciliation strategy involves passing what you can now — not killing it.

Silver sees this as also being unlikely, but it was also proposed by wonk-blogger Mark Schmitt back in July…

Use the 60-vote Senate to pass whatever they can pass now — we liberals will grumble but live with it — and then use reconciliation next year to fix it. With the exchange structure and subsidies established, it wouldn’t be hard to add an employer mandate, which would save money. With the rudiments of even a weak public plan in place, it wouldn’t be complicated to expand it and modify its eligibility rules, in ways that might save or cost money but in either event, involve budget changes to an existing program rather than creating something new. Aggregating small changes over the next few years (on the model of the steady expansion of Medicaid engineered by Henry Waxman and others over the 1980s and 1990s) could non-controversially build the kind of robust and equitable system we dream of.

… and Sen. Tom Harkin, a public option supporter, hinted at it two weeks ago (“We have to get this bill passed, and then we’ll come back and revisit the public option at some point.”)

Assuming the House and Senate finish making their legislative sausage by Obama’s “State of the Union” address to Congress, wouldn’t it be something of a political masterstroke for the president to announce a plan to strengthen and complete the watered-down bill by passing an expansion of Medicare using budget reconciliation rules?  That would be a classic example of doing the hard, unpleasant work during the off year, and delivering the most popular aspect of reform right before the 2010 elections.

If Obama lacks the chutzpah to even try that, instead settling for the cautious, least-resistance path of accepting whatever meager reforms the Congress will pass on its own, then he deserves whatever he gets — in terms of public opinion and a demotivated base going into the 2010 elections — for his failure to lead.  Just standing by and watching as others do all the rowing isn’t enough; at some point, the president has to grab an oar, too, or we’ll never get anywhere.

So, the Obama administration got a wake-up call suddenly concerned on Thursday about the health care reform drubbing it was taking in the progressive blogiverse, and held a conference call to try to stop the bleeding:

White House senior advisor David Axelrod and health care adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle held a conference call Thursday night with progressive bloggers — in what Axelrod described as a bid to clear the air after several tense days.

… In response to one blogger who chided the White House for failing to fight for the public option while taking “potshots” at the liberal activists, DeParle said: “The president is fighting for this. … You have no idea how many hours, how many hundreds of hours he has spent, how many phone calls he has made, how many meetings he has had. … We need your help and we don’t mean to be chiding you. But please appreciate how hard this is.”

… According to an account on DailyKos, DeParle said the provisions in the Senate bill need to be improved and moved closer to what the House bill includes, particularly on affordability.

Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy now.  They like us, they really like us after all!  Except someone had to go and step on the (revised) message right away (via the Wall Street Journal):

Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel….

… Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said.

Nice going, Rahm.  Whatever small amount of goodwill the Axelrod-DeParle call created, you just undid it.  The boss must sure be glad he has you as his political mastermind.

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

The Dems have rebranded themselves as the Spineless Whimp Party, or Whimps for short.

*Update 12/14/09* Senator Tom Harkin grows a spine – will he be expelled from the Whimps?

Some encouraging news via the Washington Post today:

President Obama is likely to endorse using a portion of the government’s $700 billion financial bailout for a new jobs creation program during a speech about the economy next week, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday morning.

“The president thinks we should and must do everything in our power to create an environment for job growth and job creation,” Gibbs said. When asked whether Obama will talk about the use of TARP funds on Tuesday, Gibbs said, “I think that’s likely.”

About $139 billion of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, remains unallocated and available to the administration. Banks have paid another $10 billion in interest and dividends to the Treasury and returned about $71 billion in aid, the Treasury reported in November. This week, Bank of America announced it would repay its $45 billion package.

As recently as this week, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he wants to dedicate much of the unspent TARP money to reduce the national debt. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and other top Democrats have been crafting a jobs bill that would tap the bailout program. The size of the repayments from once shaky banks may make it possible to accomplish both goals.

. . . Gibbs said the president is likely to talk about multiple ideas for job creation, some of which would require congressional approval. The Tuesday speech at the Brookings Institution follows a day-long jobs summit Thursday and a trip to Allentown, Pennsylvania on Friday to highlight the plight of workers.

This weeklong focus on creating jobs is a refreshing sign that Obama and his top advisers did not, in fact, forget all of their political skills shortly after taking office.

Matt Yglesias adds that the President may be remembering a thing or two about basic messaging as well:

… once Obama’s Allentown event got into the Q&A section it got really good. What was interesting about it was that everything Obama said was so banal. It was elementary, back-to-basics, “I’m a Democrat” kind of stuff… He wasn’t even really all that feisty. But he got out and talked basic politics—who’s on your side, who’s fighting for change, and who’s responsible for protecting the status quo.

In other words, Obama is rediscovering the importance of the fundamental things that got him elected.

There’s a massive element of political calculation involved here, obviously — not just a president taking action to stop the downward drift of his poll numbers, but the Democrats in general needing to provide a positive political message going into 2010.

Even if the stimulative impact of whatever “jobs bill” gets passed is relatively small, much of the money from last spring’s economic-recovery package is still due to be spent this coming year.  Giving voters a fresh reminder that Democrats took action will be important for them in taking credit for whatever improvement occurs in the job market, regardless of the cause.

But at least this is the good kind of political calculation… the kind that comes from elected officials realizing they’re accountable for producing positive results for the people who put them in power.  Frankly, we could do with a bit more of it.

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

Come on Senator Reid, you milquetoast – you can’t play nice with scoundrels - it’s time for the nuclear option.

*Update 11/25/09* The Nation agrees

It’s becoming obvious now that the protracted drama of the Senate Finance Committee, long feared to be the beginning of the end for meaningful healthcare reform, really was just the end of the beginning.  Now that a version of the bill has been pried loose from Sen. “Max Tax” Baucus and his committee, the real negotiations — and posturing — have started.

That’s why Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh are making noises about not ruling out a filibuster — but hey, they can be bribed persuaded not to join one, too!– and why Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer (and Nancy Pelosi, on the House side) are applying pressure in the media for a robust public option.  Everyone’s jockeying for position.

Jon Walker’s post at FDL Action today sums up the state of play nicely with a quote from Tom Harkin:

There are 52 solid Democrats for a public option and only about five Democrats really kind of opposed to it…. One has to ask if the 52 should give into the five or if the five should come on board with the vast majority.

And you know what?  That’s how everyone knew (or should have known) this was going to wind up back in January — with a handful of faux-centrist Senators threatening to sabotage a Democratic president for at least the third straight time, and everyone else wondering how to get around that obstacle.

But this also means that of all people, Barack Obama should have a plan for how to deal with this situation.  I’ve been more naive optimistic than many progressive bloggers, holding out hope that Obama really does want a public option in the final healthcare bill — not out of his innate progressive nature or the goodness of his heart (always a bad bet when it comes to politicians), but due to his own stated recognition that whatever passes needs to work, or he’s going to pay the political price for the resulting fiasco just as surely as if the bill had been defeated.

That’s why I’m not surprised to read that Harry Reid is reportedly working behind the scenes “for the best possible public option coming out of conference” (though those last four words are worth noting, and perhaps being alarmed over), or to see Nancy Pelosi’s forthright defense of a public option yesterday just before appearing with President Obama at two events in San Francisco (where his praise of her would seem odd if she’d just thrown his alleged secret desire to kill the public option under the bus).

But now’s the time for Obama to stop forcing us to imagine what his real intentions are. We all know how solicitous he’s been of Max Baucus’s endless delays and whatever whim Olympia Snowe chooses to express on any given day, and not openly pressuring Democratic senators who have spoken against a public option.  I’ve tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, figuring that he’s worked directly with these bozos colleagues in the Senate and knows what preening, obnoxious assholes they are how sensitive they are to being pressured.

At the end of the day, though, he’s got to persuade them to do the right thing.  And the end of the day is rapidly approaching.

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

The Obama Honeymoon is over.  The Nobel Committee didn’t do him any favors by giving him a ‘Peace Prize’ for doing nothing other than not being Bush, because it reminded us that Obama hasn’t really done much of anything at all!  Seems to be the theme now on even Administration-friendly shows like The Daily Show and Rachel Maddow.

Seriously Mr. President, our party controls the White House, Congress, and the Repug party is in complete disarray.  The Wing-Nut Media and Repugs are sniping at each other.

What more do you fucking need to get off your ass?  It’s great that you aren’t Bush, don’t get me wrong, but the winning strategy here is a full frontal assault on all issues.  Don’t back off things because you are ‘too busy with Healthcare,’ now is the time to hit the Reactionaries with everything you’ve got, so they stay on the defensive.

And don’t put forth milquetoast proposals, go for Socialism, then let the Yellow Dogs whittle it back to something reasonable, rather than starting with reasonable and ending up with squat.

As things are going, I bet we’ll lose seats in Congress and who knows what might happen in the Senate?  Unless you take some action, you may end up like Carter – a guy who did more after he left his one term in office then he did during his term.  But at least you’ll get your Peace Prize in advance!

Matt Yglesias wrote yesterday:

Representative Alan Grayson’s statement that the Republican plan for health care amounts to “don’t get sick” and if you do “die quickly” probably doesn’t meet a test of literal accuracy. . . . But so what? The idea of a hubbub about this is absurd.

I think the real issue—and the real import—of Grayson’s statement is that it involved breaking one of the unspoken rules of modern American politics. The rule is that conservatives talk about their causes in stark, moralistic terms and progressives don’t. Instead, progressives talk about our causes in bloodless technocratic terms.

This isn’t a terribly new insight (for instance, Drew Westen attracted a lot of attention with a book about it two years ago), but it’s accurate nonetheless –and it’s a big part of why Grayson’s remarks have drawn such disproportionate condemnation from people who routinely give Republicans a pass for similar rhetoric.

Having written some on the subject myself, I disagree with Matt’s rationale for the discrepancy (“substantially more people identify as conservatives than identify as liberals. Consequently, progressive politicians are at pains to describe their proposals as essentially pragmatic and non-ideological, which doesn’t lend itself to moralism“). Plenty of Democratic politicians’ tics can be ascribed to an inordinate fear of offending non-liberal voters, but I don’t think this is one of them.

Instead, my sense is that progressives approach politics from an essentially rational perspective — “What solves the problem?” — whereas conservatives tend to think more in terms of respecting authority, if not outright opposition to the notion of solving problems (which, for many politicians, is encouraged by their fealty to the special interests responsible for causing the problems). As I wrote back in 2007:

Too often, Democrats and other progressives treat politics as a courtroom or a classroom, where the most comprehensively documented and tightly reasoned case will carry the day. While that may appeal to our way of thinking, sadly it just isn’t so for everyone; many voters simply don’t have the time or the inclination to pay that much attention.

And as I wrote even longer ago (in 2006), I think the ultimate goal for progressives should be to reframe the pragmatic value of pursuing real solutions to real problems as being just as morally grounded as (and, in fact, more genuinely so than) the latest sanctimonious Republican posturing.

With a president who often seems unwilling to say “I’m right, and you’re wrong” — indeed, who consciously positions himself as a walking advertisement for calm, dispassionate politics — that can be difficult. But not everyone has to approach the problem the same way; you can have “good cops” like Obama who promote a rational, problem-solving mentality as well as “bad cops” who show that passion and moral clarity are not exclusively conservative characteristics.

So, the specifics of what Grayson said aside, it’s good to see a Democratic politician willing to inject some raw emotion and a sense of morality into our discourse. It’s a start.

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)