 |
Morning Must Reads -- Deficit worries nix key health proposal
By: Chris Stirewalt
Political Editor
10/22/09 9:04 AM EDT
New York Times -- Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation
Ouch.
Harry Reid thought that by taking the $247 billion cost of blocking scheduled cuts to Medicare reimbursements out of the main health bill and doing it as a separate deficit dump he might hold down costs f the larger legislation and get doctors and seniors on board.
Not so much. There were 12 Senate Democrats (plus Joe Lieberman) who voted against the plan. It wasn’t just moderates like Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner, either. Conscientious liberals like Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden voted against the measure as being fiscally reckless.
This limits dramatically the options that the majority leader and the White House have when cooking up a final health bill. And with the House going hell for leather on a insurance-smashing, Medicare-exploding bill, the prim attitudes of Senate Democrats about honest accounting and fiscal restraint will go over like Sarah Palin at a Daily Kos convention.
Writers Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn explain.
“At a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that she would push for a ‘robust’ liberal version of a government-run health insurance plan, to compete with private insurers, if she could get the 218 votes needed to win approval in the full House.An aide to the House Democratic leadership said Ms. Pelosi had told the caucus that she had 200 votes, ‘or a little over 200,’ for this option, which would use Medicare rates as a basis for paying hospitals and doctors. Under another option, the government plan would negotiate rates with providers, as private insurers do.
Ms. Pelosi said the first alternative saved more money and would give the House leverage in negotiations with the Senate.”
Wall Street Journal -- Checks for Seniors Face Opposition
Writers Elizabeth Williamson and Henry Pulizzi look at the appalled reaction to the president’s plan to send 47 million Social Security recipients an emergency $250 check because their cost of living did not go up.
Highly political and fiscally irresponsible, the stealth stimulus idea is being widely jeered. You can read the best of the jeers in this piece by George Will.
And while there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who oppose the $13 billion plan, pandering to senior voters has been reaching new heights during the health debate. With some Republicans like Michael Steele making lavish promises to the elderly, the administration is clearly hoping that it can form a bipartisan coalition of scared and cynical lawmakers.
“Administration officials have said they envision a one-time payment. But budget-watchdog groups worry that the program could be continued at least through 2011, since the cost of living isn't projected to rise significantly next year either. Lawmakers face midterm elections in 2010, and some critics say the administration would likely extend the payments for another year.
‘This is an issue where [budget watchdog] groups on all ends of the political spectrum all happen to agree,’ said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan think tank Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. To budget watchers, the payment proposal represents ‘the horrible realization that policy makers are going to keep making this situation worse,’ she said.
The committee's board members include Paul Volcker, chairman of the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.”
The Hill -- Obama hints Afghan decision may wait
Writer Sam Youngman reads through the lines on Afghanistan in President Obama’s latest NBC interview: no announcement on Afghanistan before the results of the Afghan runoff election in two weeks. The president as much as acknowledged that the timing was a communications issue, saying the strategy was just about ready but that it would be prudent to wait until after Afghan voters had spoken.
The new policy, influenced by John Kerry (call it the Biden/Kerry plan) says that the Afghan government has to earn our support. A dangerous election open to more fraud, voter suppression and danger to U.S. forces will be how that support is earned.
But as voters get the sense that Obama is, as Dick Cheney said Wednesday, “dithering” on Afghanistan, the president is keen to dither purposefully.
“Obama told NBC that he and his top national security advisers will not drag out their decision.
‘Our basic attitude is we are going to take the time to get this right,’ Obama said. ‘We’re not going to drag it out, because there is a sense that the sooner we get a sound approach in place and personnel in place, the better off we’re going to be.’”
New York Times -- U.S. to Order Steep Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid
While Obama-backing outfits like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were able to use billions borrowed by the government and return the money with no harm, schlubby firms like AIG and GM are now suffering the brunt of the administration’s effort to make it’s relationship with Wall Street look a little better for the Michael Moore crowd.
Stephen Labaton explains how TARP paymaster Kenneth Feinberg is ruining the good times for executives of many of the failed companies unable to take the taxpayers for a quick ride. The new normal for the top brass at government-owned companies: $200,000 salaries, no perks more than $25,000, bonuses closely reviewed.
“A report last week by the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program found that the insurance company had recovered only $19 million of the $45 million it had asked the recipients to repay from earlier bonuses.
The pay restrictions illustrate the humbling downfall of the once-proud giants, now wards of the state whose leaders’ compensation is being set by a Washington paymaster.
They also show how Washington in the last year has become increasingly powerful in setting corporate policies as more companies turned to the government for money to survive.”
New York Times -- Fate of White House Counsel Is in Doubt
Greg Craig is the Jim Zorn of the White House: everybody knows he’s toast but his boss doesn’t have the decency to say so.
The president’s lawyer is being scapegoated to the angry Left for administration stumbles on issues like Guantanamo Bay and prosecution of CIA agents. It’s Rahm Emanuel whose scalp they want, but the administration is hoping that dumping Craig in ostentatious fashion will help.
Writer Peter Baker says that Craig will be out by year’s end.
“At moments, it has looked as if Mr. Craig’s authority has been trimmed back. Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, assigned Pete Rouse, a senior adviser with deep ties to Capitol Hill, to oversee Guantánamo issues.
Similarly, after Mr. Craig started the search that produced the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Mr. Emanuel assigned the confirmation fight to Ronald A. Klain and Cynthia Hogan, aides to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with long experience handling judicial appointments.
In both instances, White House officials said that Mr. Craig remained involved but that it made sense to tap people with political backgrounds to manage political issues, particularly since Mr. Craig had so many other duties, like scrutinizing legislation, vetting appointees and selecting judges. But articles in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Politico questioned Mr. Craig’s job security, citing anonymous critics.”
--To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.
Follow The Examiner
