Articles Tagged ‘Rahm Emanuel’

« Older Entries

Tommy Thompson: The DNC Misrepresented Me

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Earlier this month, Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin and the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary under President George W. Bush, along with former Democratic House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, urged Congress to overcome their differences and get the job done on health care reform. And while Thompson admitted there still remained many “troublesome and unresolved” issues in the Baucuscare bill, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wasted no time in exploiting this as the latest example in ‘bi-partisan support’ for the president’s health care reform legislation. An advertisement produced by the DNC asserts that Thompson along with fellow prominent Republicans like Senator Bob Dole, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Susan Collins, and former Senator Bill Frist support the same health insurance reform proposal they do.

However, Tommy Thompson, appearing on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox News this afternoon, insists that what the DNC advertisement is perpetuating is simply not true. He argues that what he and fellow Republicans featured in the commercial signed onto was the notion that Republicans should work for reform, not, as Rahm Emanuel would care to suggest otherwise, that they should pass the reform plan created by the White House and the Congressional Democratic leadership. The advertisement, which has since been pulled from the airwaves, used Thompson’s image without his permission in order to attack Republicans. This was never his intention, the former Wisconsin governor said; his purpose was to bring the two sides together on the issue of health care reform for all Americans. He insists there is eighty percent of this current health care bill that both parties can support and that is what Democrats and Republicans in Congress should be focusing their efforts toward.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Oh, How Sweet It Is… to be David Axelrod

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

In the cruel world of American politics, a dutiful staffer will toil long into the night mulling over phone banking lists and reviewing profiles of high-power donors. He exchanges his personal life for 6 a.m. conference calls and his car becomes a billboard in transit. His diet consists of stale coffee and an endless supply of nicotine. An unenviable existence, to say the least, but one that is endured in hopes of seeing his boss declared victorious on election night and of seizing the resulting opportunities that lay ahead.

For David Axelrod, those opportunities were beyond imagine. As Barack Obama’s top campaign adviser, Axelrod carefully formulated the strategy and framing that ultimately earned the far Left U.S. Senator from Illinois the Democratic Party’s nomination and eventually, the White House. Such a feat was to be rewarded even more handsomely than previous campaign managers, who typically cram themselves into strategic, though often unwelcome, roles in the new administration.

President Obama bestowed upon Axelrod the title of “Senior Adviser” for his fledgling administration. After all, the president certainly made no secret of his plans to fill the White House with his Chicago-based allies. Axelrod joined the ranks of Windy City natives, such as then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who later became the White House Chief of Staff, and his brother, Dr. Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel, who was tasked with crafting health care reform legislation for the Administration. As if hanging out with his hometown buddies wasn’t enough of an incentive, Axelrod was encouraged by his national agenda-setting role and a $200,000 annual salary.

Despite all the perks of living a politico’s dream of further expanding his sphere of influence, Axelrod appeared dissatisfied by the substantial pay cut of shifting from the private to public service sector. According to a November 2008 Politico report, the political strategist’s firm collected more than $35 million in profits since 1998 for their extensive lobbying and consulting work, $2.5 million of which came from Obama’s presidential campaign, and Axelrod would be forced to decide whether to take a leadership role in the most liberal White House in American history, or to stick with his firm in Chicago.

Luckily for David Axelrod, he never actually had to make that choice. Axelrod began his work in the White House, but did not entirely abandon his booming consulting company. Certainly, this seems like a bit of a dilemma of ethics, with one man receiving a taxpayer-funded salary, while also maintaining private sector-based income in the same field. But in typical Obama Administration fashion, this sort of moral conundrum would not deter the President’s senior adviser, who sought to capitalize on the country’s current hot button issue: health care reform.

While Axelrod worked behind the scenes to craft policy that would lead to a government overhaul of the medical industry, his firm in Chicago lobbied special interest groups to earn massive media contracts that would help dictate political discourse during the debate. According to an August 19, 2009 Associated Press report, President Obama’s efforts to push his health care reform agenda have created a “financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected” to the President and Axelrod.

These coalition groups are currently running “at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads” with the help of GMMB, a consulting group led by a “top Obama campaign strategist” and AKPD Message and Media, the firm owned by none other than David Axelrod. Michael Axelrod, David’s son, now manages the day-to-day affairs of his father’s AKPD Message and Media, aided in part by his employee, David Plouffe, Obama’s presidential campaign manager.

One of their biggest clients, Americans for Stable Quality Care, is comprised of political and financial heavyweights like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Medical Association (AMA), FamiliesUSA and PhRMA, the last promising to pony up $150 million to promote the President’s health care reform agenda.

While the Associated Press concedes that there is “no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group’s ads,” they also admit that he will draw $2 million from the firm over the next four years. The larger issue, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, contends, is a “network of relationships and overlapping interests” that could become a “problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works.”

Indeed, candidate Obama repeatedly condemned such “inside baseball” dealings, lamenting that this sort of behavior leads to the American people distrusting lawmakers to govern responsibly. Even if Axelrod is not, as he claims, directly profiting from these contracts, is it not political patronage for his firm, and really, his son, to enjoy profitable deals with longtime Obama cohorts, like the SEIU? 

And even despite attempts of both David Axelrod and AKPD to distance themselves from each other, AKDP and GMBB, a partner firm in the health care reform media blitz, both “proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.”

AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.

“We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama’s historic campaign to change America and the world,” GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB’s partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Fox News reports that  leading lobbying law expert Kenneth Gross is not at all shocked by this relationship, finding it to be only natural for such a profitable favor to be given to AKPD and GMMB. 

“To victor go the spoils. The health care message is very much like a campaign message and it’s not surprising they would use the same vendor that knows the substance of the administration’s issues,” Gross said.

It seems that the two consulting groups have even more explaining to do, as it is apparent they have profited tremendously from David Axelrod’s political affiliations on a national level (Associated Press).

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid’s political action committee for communications consulting.

Republicans argue that such patronage is deplorable and should serve as a cause for alarm for the American people (Fox News).

But House Republicans insist PhRMA had a hand in hiring the firms — and continue to question the motives of both the drug lobby and the White House.

“Out of all the firms Pharma could choose to do their media work, they chose David Axelrod’s firm, which still maintains Axelrod’s son on the payroll and owes Axelrod himself $2 million,” House Republican Conference spokesman Mike Lloyd wrote in an e-mail.

“It’s hard to believe the public can be assured that David Axelrod isn’t influenced by any of this in the course of the health care debate. For an administration that promised ‘change’ and to be above even an appearance of impropriety this does not even come close to passing the smell test,” Lloyd wrote.

When President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to bring about “change,” what he really meant was that he wanted more of the same, just with liberals at the helm. He got his wish with David Axelrod.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

D.C. Rabbi’s Twitter Exposes Obama’s Move to Recruit Jewish Constituency

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

According to a story appearing in Washington Jewish Week, President Obama is working closely with American Jewish leaders to push his health care reform agenda.

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: “I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform,” the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama went on to say, according to Moline’s real-time stream.

Rabbi Moline’s Twitter, buzzing with only four updates prior to the conference call, has sometimes been political in nature. On July 3, 2009, Moline posted this: “Will the last Republican out the door please turn off the light?” (This post occurred just days after Moline explained his confusion about a woman with a squirrel in her shirt). It is important to note that the Washington, D.C.-based rabbi is a close friend to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (and perhaps taught him the art of tact).

Apparently, Rabbi Moline used the Obama conference call as an excuse to really sharpen his Twitter skills, posting rapid-fire commentary from the meeting. 

What stood out about the call is that Obama “is a master communicator,” Moline, the rabbi of the Conservative Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, said in an interview after the call ended. 

“This was clearly a message that was tailored to us,” and not merely a generic stump speech, he added.

Moline noted that in the lead up to the president’s address, as the rabbis waited on hold, “there was a lot of chatter” among some participants who felt that the call should be seen as an opportunity “to instruct the President about [Presidential Medal of Freedom selection] Mary Robinson” and about the peace process in the Middle East.

“It was the subject of a good deal of conversation whether anyone was going to challenge him on that,” in particular Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, whose has publicly chided Obama for his administration’s stance on settlements.

When the issues failed to come up during the health care call, Moline pithily tweeted: “Yoffie praises President and does not raise any other issue. Good for him.”

“Rabbi Yoffie stuck to the subject” of health care reform, Moline said in the interview, “I think it was a good thing.”

As if the move to manipulate the leadership of an entire religion isn’t bad enough, the White House apparently didn’t listen to the tracks of their “hold music” before they chose it. Moline tweeted that 1,000 rabbis listened to “Deutschland Uber Alles,” a German nationalist song, while waiting for President Obama to join in.

“First mistake,” Moline tweeted, as he waited for the call to begin. “Music on hold is ‘Deutschland uber Alles,’ ” a classical German anthem, the lyrics to which in part say, “Preserve and protect our Kaiser, our land.”

Still, the rabbi’s affections for the president would not be sidelined by an accidental German musical tribute. Rabbi Moline submitted a question to the President and it was eventually chosen by the White House.

 …the rabbi proudly noted on Twitter, writing, “WOW! My question was asked of the President!!!!!”

The question, he later explained, was about how rabbis can address issue of health care reform “in a non partisan” way when they’re behind the pulpit.

Obama responded by noting that the massive “human toll” of a broken health care system is a non partisan issue, and simply is unacceptable, Moline recalled.

The call, which was closed to the media, precedes another Obama phoner that is to take place at 5 p.m. this evening (Wednesday).

After the media discovered Rabbi Moline’s Twitter feed, they began to report what the adoring religious leader shared online. Suddenly, all of his tweets from that day disappeared, replaced only with this 8:10 p.m. update:

My lack of tech literacy results in a huge mistake — apologies to all for my tweets this afternoon. They have been deleted.

We are unaware of whether the issue is “tech literacy” or an inability to quietly promote the Obama health care reform agenda without radiating such uncontrollable partisan rapture.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

White House Forced to Play Defense, Vow to “Punch Back Twice as Hard”

Friday, August 7th, 2009

Two anonymous Obama Administration (Emanuel Bros. & Co.) insiders reported to FOX News today that Democratic lawmakers on the Hill attended a closed-door meeting with top White House officials this week to ingrain on-point messaging and teach them how to respond to opposition at ever-controversial town hall meetings.

White House officials told those present that if there were any efforts to oppose Democratic leaders for their support of President Obama’s health care reform proposals, which would create a sweeping government overhaul of the health care industry, the Administration would retaliate.

White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm.

They also were urged to use these events to stress insurance reforms such as a limit on out-of-pocket expenses for those covered by insurance, a ban on coverage cancellation for the seriously ill and protections for small businesses.

Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, also said any advertising attack would be met with a bigger response, these officials said.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina told senators, according to two people in the room.

One can only wonder how they plan to “punch back twice as hard.” The Obama Administration has made it clear that they have no problem using taxpayer-funded resources to persuade, rather than inform, the public of his agenda. After all, an advisory was released straight from whitehouse.gov, the official website of the American presidency, that urged supporters to submit any “fishy” “disinformation” disseminated by those who oppose the President’s agenda.

It is apparent that the White House is aware their numbers are sinking. Here are a few Rasmussen Reports that offer a whole lot of bad news for Emanuel Bros. & Co.:

  • 71 percent of Americans believe that President Obama’s policies have added to the deficit, while only 5 percent say the deficit is down due to President Obama’s policies.
  • 54 percent of Americans favor a middle class tax cut over new spending for health care reform (34 percent would prefer health care reforms).
  • 48 percent (up from 29 percent a year ago) rate private American health care systems as “excellent” or “good,” while only 19 percent rate it as “poor.”

With their numbers plummeting and town hall meetings overflowing with opposition to Democratic proposals, it is wise for the Administration to do a bit of framing and messaging:

White House aides distributed briefing materials explaining to senators the points Obama is stressing, as well as how to answer commonly asked questions.

Democrats are also trying to attack their opposition from the outside, with the AFL-CIO (yet another union) to join the ranks of moveon.org, SEIU and Organizing for America to mobilize their supporters to crash meetings and counter anti-Obamacare groups.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

America’s Hall Monitor: White House Demands Intel on Right’s “Disinformation”

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

HCHR’s own Matt Margolis reported yesterday that the White House, or Emanuel Bros. & Co., has been forced to spend a great deal of time reconciling President Obama’s current stance on health care reform, perspectives he’s offered in the past and what he actually intends for the future of health care in America.

In attempts to streamline their efforts, the White House has used new media sites, such as Twitter, to use taxpayer-funded communications resources to promote the Obama Administration’s legislation that would create a government overhaul of health care in America. They’re also using these media to play defense, asking supporters to alert the White House of any “disinformation” disseminated from opposing camps.

In a White House blog, entitled “Facts are Stubborn Things” published today, Emanuel Bros. & Co. explained that those who oppose Obamacare are spreading “scary chain emails and videos,” proving yet again how absolutely patronizing and condescending this administration can be. They portray the American people as simpleton victims who cannot possibly discern what is right and wrong for themselves, but instead, fall prey to those on the Right.

They take this attitude a step further by offering lowly Americans with an “important” task:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This request serves two purposes. First, it makes the American people feel as though they are a part of the fight for expanded health care coverage, but really, they are giving them some tiny task, like a mother allowing a child to help stir batter to make a cake, in hopes of their supporters feeling like they’ve done something. Secondly, it allows for the White House to really take advantage of their new role: America’s hall monitor.

To assert that anyone who opposes them is spouting off bad information is intellectually dishonest. Just as Emanuel Bros. & Co. founder Rahm Emanuel has been accused of undercutting those who stand in his way, they want to take it one step further and keep tabs on those who simply disagree with President Obama’s legislative proposals. Groups they would monitor especially closely? Try Tea Party Patriots, American Liberty Alliance, American Majority, Americans for Prosperity, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Americans for Tax Reform… and so on and so forth.

And why would they do this? Given the fact that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, it would sure take a lot of time to defend against every accusation catapulted in their direction. Furthermore, even if their claims are false (which they are not), any sort of legal action against them would prove futile, since First Amendment protections of speech are very rarely forfeited and even harder to refute for public figures. 

Since any opinion contradictory to that released by Emanuel Bros. & Co. is now considered “disinformation,” those on the Center-Right should keep the White House occupied by continuing to send out more of it during August recess. It’s fun to keep government employees busy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

Attack Dog: Rahm Emanuel Brings Chicago-Style Techniques to National Stage

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

In a letter submitted today, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who serves as ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, boldly demanded that Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for President Obama’s administration, cease his behind-the-scenes manipulation to ram legislation through Congress quickly to promote the President’s agenda.

Congressman Issa references Emanuel’s Chicago-style tactics that attempt to punish anyone who stands in his or President Obama’s way:

As you know, Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) recently raised questions about the failure of the stimulus and suggested on a national television show that stimulus money scheduled to be spent in future years ought to be returned to the American taxpayers. Following Senator Kyl’s remarks, according to Politico, you coordinated an “assault” on Senator Kyl and other critics of your policies by directing four cabinet secretaries to write to Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona, asking pointedly if, in light of Senator Kyle’s remarks, Governor Brewer wished to forfeit taxpayer money directed to Arizona by the stimulus. These tactics have been characterized as a “fist to the nose” and a message to “Back off.” While this type of scare tactic may work in Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress.

Congressman Issa even includes a glossary of definitions he uses in the memo, so as not to allow for misinterpretation. He even issues this harsh accusation:

At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official’s right to speak out in favor of alternative policies?

Indeed, this is the sentiment expressed by many who have endured run-ins with President Obama’s Chief-of-Staff. Emanuel, known especially for sending a dead fish as a threat to a pollster who angered him some 20 years ago, does not seem to shy away from such a “tough guy” characterization, but rather, relishes in it as a means of maintaining influence inside the Beltway. According to Time Magazine, many have described Emanuel as a “profane, hyperactive attack dog.” Chuck Fant, press secretary for Congressman John M. Spratt (D-SC), once said about Emanuel’s reactions to an unpopular proposal by then-President George W. Bush, “Rahm smelled blood. He latched on like a pit bull and never let go.”

And what exactly is this profane, hyperactive pit bull doing about health care reform?

Well, first, he’s elevated those are closest to him, including his own brother, Ezekiel. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel became the chief health care adviser  early in the Obama administration.  One can’t help but assume that like anything else done in Chicago’s inner political circles, the person who was to fill this position wasn’t assigned through a blind interviewing process.

Dr. Emanuel, or “Zeke” as he is called by some, is a bioethicist who wrote the book, ”Health Care Guaranteed” (angle not unclear). He is now tapped to parade around media circuits as their doctor witness on behalf of the cause and most recently, was sent over to the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee health care reform legislation scoring. Zeke must be rather busy these days after the OMB offered less-than-favorable estimates, though probably still low-balled at that, of the cost of Obama’s health care reform proposals. We wonder if the folks at OMB should worry about receiving a dead fish in their cubicles.

Next, Rahm Emanuel has been awfully busy setting, resetting and ultimately, postponing deadlines for passage of health care reform legislation. What was supposed to be finished by mid-July then late July has been pushed off to after Congress’s August recess. In fact, Emanuel promised on July 24, 2009, just one week before the House adjourned for recess, that the bill would receive an up-or-down vote before the Congressional holiday. Unsurprisingly, he was wrong. And one thing we all know about mobster-wannabes, they hate being embarrassed.

A stalled vote poses a problem for Emanuel Bros. and Co., formerly known as the Obama Administration, as they are quite aware that the response in Congressional districts around the U.S. will be strongly in opposition to President Obama’s proposals to create a government overhaul of health care, resulting in the rationing of care, decrease in quality, stagnation of innovation in technology and treatments, hiking of taxes and ultimately, a decrease in an overall quality of life.

Still, Emanuel will not be discouraged. Emanuel called a goal of universal health care “non-negotiable,” in a recent Wall Street Journal piece. Also in the Wall Street Journal, Emanuel admitted just days after President Obama’s election in 2008, that he would not accept minor reforms to the health care systems, but instead, require “big, serious” changes.  Emanuel believes that now is the time to institute these sweeping reforms that result in a complete government takeover of health care. With a crippled economy, it would make sense for the President’s top strategist to shift gears and attempt to convince Americans that the key to alleviating America’s financial headaches is to pass health care reform. After all, as Mr. Emanuel said himself, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 2 Comments »

Healthcare reform as political theater

Friday, July 24th, 2009

Much has been made over the past week regarding comments by Senator Jim DeMint likening a defeat of President Obama’s push for healthcare reform to Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. 

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society.”

DeMint’s comment was clearly meant to be a reference to the “big picture” as conservatives liken Democrat attempts at government intervention in the American healthcare system to President Dwight Eisnehower’s “domino theory” during the Cold War, as explained in the following exchange with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto.

“He’s been on a rampage to take over various aspects of our economy and spend and create debt that we’ve never seen before and raise taxes on just about every American. We’ve got to stop him.If we don’t, he’s going to get right on this cap and trade energy tax  and a lot of the other agenda items that he’s just been steam rolling through Congress for his first few months.” (Senator DeMint on Your World with Neil Cavuto)

Despite this clarification, the now infamous Waterloo reference has pulled back the curtain on the motivations of both Democrats and Republicans in the battle over healthcare reform and revealed the debate to be as much about political theater as it is a philosophical debate over how best to solve a fundamental problem facing everyday Americans.

The political reality is that presidents are generally most effective in the first half of their first term. They enter office with popular support - often claiming a political mandate as a result of their election and defeat of an incumbent - and a Congress willing to compromise while the electoral landscape settles in for the long haul. The midterm elections - which for Obama are next year - trend towards a loss of seats in Congress for the president’s party - for example, the rise to power of Newt Gingrich and Republicans in 1994 - and a more difficult road ahead on major initiatives. It is for these reasons that President Obama and Congressional Democrats feel a sense of urgency and why Republicans hope to drag out the debate.

I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election. (Republican Senator James Inhofe to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday, July 22, 2009)

Democrats believe that passing comprehensive healthcare reform in 2009 - or, frankly in early 2010 before the House checks out for the year to begin running for re-election - could very well buck the trend of Congressional losses and reinforce their perceived political mandate.

When the democrats — and hopefully bipartisanly — pass this health care reform, this is bigger than anything most of us have ever done in our political lives. Republicans know that passing real health care reform, meaningful health care reform for the American people, which is relevant to their lives, solves their problems, is politically powerful, and they must stop it. They will do everything they can to stop it, not only because they disagree philosophically, but because they know politically that this is so very powerful. (Nancy Pelosi to Capitol Hill reporters on Wednesday, July 22, 2009)

It is unclear whether Republicans are more motivated by the risk of losing more seats in Congress or the philosophical damage that a healthcare reform victory could lead to over the course of the next year, but it is clear that the debate has become as much about politics as it has about reform.

If they can beat the president on health care reform, they’ve scored a big political victory. I actually appreciate what Senator DeMint said and Senator Inhofe. I’m different than everybody, I’m not going to criticize them. I compliment them. They’re honest. (White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Obama, Emanuel split on public option

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

Mere hours after the Wall Street Journal quoted White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying passage of comprehensive healthcare reform before the end of 2009 was more important than the inclusion of a public option insurance plan, President Obama countered by assuring the public option is his top priority.

“I am pleased by the progress we’re making on health care reform and still believe, as I’ve said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.  I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.” (White House Press Statement from the President on Health Care Reform)

This statement is a far-cry from that of Emanuel as reported by HealthcareHorserace.com’s Karl Hille.

“It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday in the WSJ.

‘The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,’ he said in an interview. ‘The goal is non-negotiable; the path is’ negotiable.”

Alternatives to a public plan the administration might consider include a network of nonprofit cooperatives to compete with for-profit insurance companies and a public option trigger mechanism.

Is this a sign of dissension within the White House? Or, is it beltway politics as usual? With the recent defection of high profile lawmakers, led by Senator Joe Lieberman, and flagging poll numbers in support of a public option, Emanuel is clearly lowering expectations in anticipation of a watered down version of reform coming out of the Senate Finance Committee over the next several weeks. Meanwhile, the President appears content to continue to give hope to the liberal voters and activists working in support of a public plan.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Open to negotiation or smelling blood in the water?

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

In White House Open to Deal on Public Health Plan Wall Street Journal writers Laura Meckler and Janet Adamy report that Rahm Emanuel is ready to deal – confirming rumors and sparking a storm of condemnation from the left.

The news confirms rumors previously denied by Emanuel that the White House is open to compromise, as well as showing the stripes of liberals who believe having a strong public option in the mix already is a compromise: a step down from government-run single-payer insurance.

“It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday in the WSJ.

‘The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,’ he said in an interview. ‘The goal is non-negotiable; the path is’ negotiable.”

Alternatives to a public plan the administration might consider include a network of nonprofit cooperatives to compete with for-profit insurance companies and a public option trigger mechanism.

Huffington’s hollywood blogger Lee Stranahan responded with some choice words for Emanuel:

While Santa Monica blogger Digby reacted: “I’m surprised he didn’t whisper this one to Ceci” in a sideways dig at disgraced WaPo “journalist” Ceci Connolly.

As for the Trigger, D-day wrote earlier this month:

A trigger mechanism is simply absurd. The insurers have had decades to provide decent coverage and have demurred every time. They have shown themselves to be untrustworthy that entire time, including just last month, when they backpedaled on the cost controls they vowed to offer. Mike Lux, who has seen these battles up close, senses that this is the big proxy fight right now.

So what’s got their dander up?

Could it be Clinton-era pollster Stanley Greenberg’s deja-vu poll results that show health care reform today has about the same support now as it did just before HillaryCare went down the tubes?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

To spend or not to spend?

Monday, July 6th, 2009

As the Senate reconvenes for the remainder of July, the attention of many following the Healthcare Horserace will turn to Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee. A month after Senator Ted Kennedy tested the waters with the Affordable Health Choices Act and only weeks after the House of Representatives floated its own version of healthcare reform, many believe any real chance of a bipartisan bill making it to the desk of President Obama will originate within Finance. Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing Baucus is the decision to spend or not to spend. And within that decision may lie the fate of not only the American healthcare system but that of the Democrat majority in Congress. 

All indications are that Baucus is committed to producing a healthcare reform bill with a projected cost of no more than $1 trillion over the next decade - significantly lower than the $1.6 trillion price tag on his first attempt that saw the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Dog Democrats send him back to the drawing board. To many, this is the worst of both worlds. Much to the ire of conservatives, it will still likely mean a significant tax increase for working Americans. It will also mean a significant step back from the promise of universal healthcare that ushered the Democrats into power last November. Of course, the alternative is to ignore the price tag and deliver on the promise of universal healthcare risking adding what some estimate to be as much as $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade.

Given these two scenarios, Democrats would appear to believe that passing a watered down reform package is preferable to failing to deliver a bill for the President’s signature before Congress breaks for the year in late October. Polling and the daily headlines would seem to indicate otherwise.

While nearly every poll on healthcare reform concludes that the majority of Americans believe the healthcare system is flawed and should be reformed, a recent Washington Post - ABC News poll indicates that a majority of the same are concerned about the direction and tone Democrats have taken on reform.

Most respondents are “very concerned” that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation’s $2.3 trillion health-care system.

That message hasn’t deterred those on the far left who believe nothing short of a government takeover of the healthcare system will remedy the fraud and spiraling costs associated with healthcare insurance. A little more than a week ago, former Democratic National Committee chairman (and former presidential hopeful) Howard Dean drew a clear line in the sand on the reform issue:

“We are here; we’re not going away. We voted for change a few months ago. We expect change. And if we don’t get it, there’s going to be more change.”

Specifically, Dean is pushing hard for the controversial public option insurance plan which has become the litmus test on healthcare reform for the far left who don’t believe they can get passage of a single-payer system akin to that of Canada. These are the very same people who ushered Democrats into power less than a year ago and who Dean promises will send Democrats packing if they don’t deliver. Nearly 40,000 supporters have signed Dean’s online petition to support the public option. 

Polls by CNN and Quinnipiac heading into the holiday weekend indicate that the price tag associated with direct government intervention and the very real concern that the quality of care many Americans receive would actually decrease under a public option are causing the majority of Americans to lose their appetite for the kind of reform Democrats are offering. It would seem that a battle is brewing within the Democrat party.

There is, however, another option should Baucus prove brave enough. 

Last week, HealthcareHorserace.com’s Ellen Carmichael reported on an alternative plan offered by Republican Senator Jim DeMint.

“This is a bill that we can proud to stand behind,” Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explained in an interview with Healthcare Horserace (last week). “It is not a massive expansion of government. It won’t raise taxes. It won’t increase regulation. It won’t mean more spending.” 

Indeed, it seems that conservative leaders understand the apprehension of the American people to spend more money, causing a never-ending deficit spiral for the federal government. DeMint’s bill would include tax credits for the uninsured, in the form of $2,000 per individual or $5,000 per family, that would be funded entirely by the return of TARP money. The GOP is, in essence, “killing two birds with one stone”: capitalizing on the Americans’ frustration with the bailouts and returning more dollars to the taxpayers.

Historical precedent dictates that at least sitting down with DeMint and his colleagues to consider using their bill as a starting point for a compromise plan would be a smart political play. It was President Obama’s own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who pointed out the potential dangers of leaving Republicans out in the cold during a recent D.C. media luncheon.

Once he was through defending the current plan, Emanuel turned to a role he is quite familiar with - that of the attack dog. Emanuel was quick to point out the savvy of the Obama Administration and how it would succeed where the Clintons failed. Specifically, he pointed to the missed opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill with the support of former Republican Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee. 

The difference between Chafee and Clinton was employer vs. employee mandate. And those who weren’t there, Clinton was for employer, Chafee was for employee. After that, you could pretty much write it all off, as just kind of like, nothing.

I for one begged, just bring him into the oval, look him in the eyes, and say we’re going to call it the Chafee Bill, He had 33 Republicans at that time on his bill, it could be 32, but it was in the 30s. And just say, I have one change I would like, but we’re gonna call it your bill.

So, and I think if you look back, there was a big mistake.

Baucus may have an opportunity to pursue compromise while saving face with the extreme left compliments of Joe Lieberman. Baucus is expected to meet with Lieberman and an ad hoc group of moderate senators over the next two weeks as the Independent from Connecticut looks to play peacemaker in the healthcare wars in Washington, D.C. after breaking ranks with the Democrat caucus last week over the public option insurance plan.

With the ball squarely in Baucus’ court for the next several weeks, the senator from Montana has quickly outdistanced President Obama as the most powerful man in Washington, D.C. The question now is to spend or not to spend?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

« Older Entries