 |
Morning Must Reads -- The best-case scenario for health care
By: Chris Stirewalt
Political Editor
10/08/09 9:00 AM EDT
Bloomberg -- Senate Finance Panel Prepares Health-Plan Vote After CBO Boost
Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio explains in concise fashion the costs and consequences of the most conservative of the health plans in Congress as described by the Congressional Budget Office: it’s less than $900 billion and doesn’t increase the deficit but it also forces people out of their policies and levies large new taxes.
Writers Kristin Jensen and Brian Faler look ahead to see how moderate Democrats (and Olympia Snowe) are feeling now that the high water mark has been set for fiscal restraint.
They welcomed the CBO report, but it was also clear that they didn’t greet it as a major breakthrough – Snowe even wants to wait until next week for a committee vote, a move that would screw up Majority Leader Harry Reid’s schedule. But the score did make it certain that the measure would pass the Finance Committee.
“[The] analysis shows the measure ‘is certainly moving in the right direction,’ said Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat and potential swing vote. He said he’d examine the findings and see what the legislation looks like at the end of the full Senate debate before deciding how to vote.
‘Anytime the numbers improve on something, you feel real good about it,’ Nelson said in an interview. North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat on the finance panel who’s worked closely with Baucus, told reporters the legislative process has a long way to go. ‘It will be months before this is concluded,’ he said.”
Washington Post -- Civilian, Military Officials at Odds Over Resources Needed for Afghan Mission
The president has for a week been reviewing Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request 40,000 more troops for executing the Obama strategy of pacifying and building Afghanistan, and seems to be leaning toward re-deploying the troops already there.
Writer Rajiv Chandrasekaran uses his access (and a lot of blind quotes) to explain how the administration got here. The answer seems to be that at the policy session in March that prompted Obama to make a bold bet on a stable Afghanistan, the new team engaged in magical thinking about how hard and manpower-intensive the effort to civilize the country would be.
“To some civilians who participated in the strategic review, that conclusion was much less clear. Some took it as inevitable that more troops would be needed, but others thought the thrust of the new approach was to send over scores more diplomats and reconstruction experts. They figured a counterinsurgency mission could be accomplished with the forces already in the country, plus the 17,000 new troops Obama had authorized in February.
‘It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes,’ said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.
Washington Post -- Pakistanis Balk at U.S. Aid Package
The current government in Pakistan can’t survive without generous U.S. subsidies. But it may not survive with them.
As the Obama administration held another three-hour presidential strategy session on the region Wednesday, Pakistani politicians and generals were railing against the new U.S. aid package that drops $7.5 billion on the Zardari government but in exchange gives the U.S. oversight on how the money is spent, how the army is organized, and whether corruption controls (Ha!) are put in place.
Pakistani politicians and military leaders seem mostly concerned that America is trying to defang the country in its ongoing cold war with India.
“A senior U.S. military official said that the relationship with Pakistan is ‘still positive’ but that ‘we need to understand the sensitivities better.’ The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The Pakistani media reported mounting anger over the aid bill within the military on Tuesday, when Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the army chief, met in Islamabad with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. The terms set in the bill were described as ‘insulting and unacceptable’ by one publication. On Wednesday, the dispute was the subject of a special debate in the Pakistani Parliament.”
New York Times -- Democrats Defeat G.O.P. Effort Against Rangel
Remember this moment. Like Republicans turning a blind eye to the creepy antics of Mark Foley or the sleaze of Bob Ney for the sake of majority, Wednesday was the moment when the Democratic majority gave up any claim on the moral high ground.
By preserving Rep. Charles Rangel, whose ethical lapses are legion, as the head of the Ways and Means Committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made her job in passing health care much easier. Rangel is pragmatic old scoundrel and will find a way to get a bill through the legislative straight he commands.
But in preserving him, Pelosi has lit the lamp for ethical turpitude in her caucus.
If a guy who hides a half-a-million dollars from the public, doesn’t pay taxes on his Caribbean villa, and has undoubtedly benefited from his position can run the tax writing committee, it will surely invite the troglodytes out of their caves.
“Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said in a statement that the vote ‘is just the latest example of Speaker Pelosi breaking her promise to have the most ‘open and ethical’ Congress in history.’
‘Instead of holding Chairman Rangel accountable for his actions,’ the statement said, ‘House Democrats are once again circling the wagons and demonstrating their loyalty to a leader who faces serious questions about his official conduct.’”
David Ignatius -- Testing Obama's Doctrine
Ignatius goes looking for the Obama Doctrine and, surprisingly, finds it. The president’s foreign policy approach seems to be held together by the idea of a reciprocal exchange of "mutual interest and mutual respect" among nations. It is the view of an idealistic lawyer who sees a world of international legal rights and responsibilities.
“Obama hasn't applied this doctrine directly to Afghanistan, but let me briefly try: The international community has made a commitment, through the United Nations and NATO, to help rebuild Afghanistan. That mission is limited, but it does carry continuing responsibilities. Training the Afghan army and promoting security is one; supporting economic development and better governance is another; encouraging Afghan political reconciliation is a third.
The notion that the United States can break with that mission -- and opt for a more selfish counterterrorism strategy that drops the rebuilding part and seeks to assassinate America's enemies with Predator drones from 10,000 feet -- would not fit well with any reading of the Obama doctrine. That approach, to be blunt, would be lawless.”
Follow The Examiner
