Author: David Dayen

The prospects of movement on unemployment and COBRA benefits are dim. House Democrats scuttled a deal on a paid-for, one-week extension that would have taken the deadline to the first day returning from a two-week recess. At that point, Tom Coburn could easily stand in the way of progress, as is his forte, denying unanimous consent on an extension bill.

Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, yesterday prevented the chamber from passing a $9 billion measure to extend aid for a month as lawmakers prepared to leave for a two- week recess starting this weekend.

Lawmakers are unlikely to work out a deal by the time benefits begin expiring for some of the unemployed on April 5, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Manley said he anticipated lawmakers would approve the extension, along with retroactive benefits, when they return to the Capitol next month. The break ends April 12.

Chris Bowers seems to want to give Senate leaders a pass for this, but I cannot join him. My understanding was that Harry Reid filed cloture yesterday on a short-term extension; and since he knew this was coming even before voting began on the reconciliation bill, that cloture could have been filed Tuesday. That way, the cloture motion would have ripened yesterday, and the motion to proceed taken. This would have started the thirty-hour clock at that point, and if the Senate pressed through and Democrats hung together, they could have either forced a lot of Republicans into a terrible vote or actually gotten this done by this weekend. And once cloture to end debate was invoked, Coburn would have buckled and given back the post-cloture time.

But instead, this will become a political issue to wield during the recess. “Because of the GOP temper tantrum over health care, they blocked unemployment benefits for struggling Americans.” And that may be true. But there was a path to break that impasse, and the leadership chose not to take it. And there is collateral damage for that decision.

So, while Reid and Coburn are trying to hash out an agreement — Bunning eventually settled for a vote on an amendment that would have paid for the bill using unused stimulus funds, which failed — other Senators are looking at leaving and then passing legislation when they reconvene April 12. “Whatever we do will be retroactive if we don’t get it done now,” Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters.

The problem with this solution is that some benefits start to expire April 5. And as the country learned the last time these provisions ran out last month during Bunning’s filibuster, that means thousands of Transportation Department workers getting laid off, gaps in unemployment and health coverage for some of the most desperate Americans and bureaucratic nightmares costing millions of dollars for the necessary paperwork to retroactively apply benefits.

Republicans are wrong to take out their loss on health care on the unemployed. Democrats are wrong not to press through and make Republicans take as many awful votes on denying aid to the needy as possible to get this done. The people who are suffering expect no less.

Tags: COBRA, Democrats, filibuster, Republicans, Senate, Tom Coburn, unemployment insurance

 

Yes, a progressive bill passed yesterday. One that liberals had been attempting for decades, one that confounded past Democratic Presidents, one that forced Congress to take on a massive lobbying coalition of politically powerful industries, one that looked nearly impossible at various points along the way, one that only made it through progressive advocacy and activism as well as a fair amount of political leadership.

No, not the health care law. I’m sure Mitt Romney and AEI resident scholars did not favor the truly progressive bill about which I’m speaking.

(By the way, liberals pouncing on that as if I’m supposed to feel good about it, could you, y’know, stop? Do you understand that continued defenses of the Obama agenda with lines like “But this is what Republicans proposed!” doesn’t do much for, um, people who dont believe Republican ideas work? And that it makes it look pretty much like liberals have no ideas? Could you please cut that out?)

I’m talking about the sweeping changes to the student loan industry, where banks and lenders suffered an unequivocal loss to their profits, and students gained a great victory for making college more affordable.

The previous system allowed banks to make risk-free, government-guaranteed loans, and reap billions in taxpayer subsidies for the privilege. Now, we have a direct-lending system, where the government, instead of backstopping loans, will just lend to students themselves. This saves $87 billion dollars – the news of its imminent arrival already changed the market dynamics and put the subsidies on a trajectory out the door, and the passage of the law fully cancels the last $61 billion. Banks making record profits lose one area where they were receiving what amounts to free money from the government. Yes, this is nationalizing an industy – one that was effectively nationalized already through an explicit guarantee, and will now be made more efficient and cost-effective.

In return, around $36 billion dollars goes into the Pell grant program, allowing it to index to inflation for the first time. Yes, the Pell grant used to cover 75% of the costs of college for low-income students, and only 35% today. But this rise in the grant award over time will alleviate that, and hopefully return it to a number that puts 8 million students in a better situation to finance their higher education. In addition, future borrowers will have lower rates and a not-for-profit lender delivering those rates, so students are helped on the front end and back end.

Along the way, because of the early success of the program prior to the law’s passage, as well as the recession driving demand for college financial aid, the savings were less than expected. And using the reconciliation process, and teaming the student loan program with health care, shrunk the pot of money even further. Key programs like early childhood education and community colleges do not get funding in the bill (though historically black colleges do). $19 billion dollars got stripped out. But half of that is due to using the reconciliation process; the student loan title had to save a certain amount of money. The $9 billion that goes from bankers to the health care bill is a better way to pay for that than taxing the middle class. The student loan bill may be more modest, but it’s an unquestionable progressive victory.

That’s why it’s so amusing to me that the usual suspects just discovered it today, as if it were a special gift, an Easter egg just before the Easter recess, if you will. They are oblivious to the fact that this was a hard-fought victory. The student loan bill sailed through the House but ran aground in the Senate, with a powerful combination of Sallie Mae and big bank lobbyists conspiring to influence key Senators. They hired from Senate staffs and Democratic lobby shops (Tony Podesta was the ringleader) and dumped millions into their campaign. They made up out of thin air a lie about 35,000 jobs being at stake. They seemed to get the upper hand as health care dragged on.

At the risk of sounding immodest, really only one organization bothered to fight back on behalf of students against banks, at a time when everyone else was consumed with getting AEI’s favorite health care bill across the line. That happened to be this website. And within a couple weeks of action, with students and college advocates, the Democratic leadership shifted from leaving the student loan title out of the reconciliation bill to including it. Tom Harkin and George Miller get a lot of credit for that, but really there was one group pushing from the outside at that time. (CAF jumped on later.)

And so the only progressive bill passed by Congress so far this year, the only progressive bill we’re going to see for the rest of the year, stayed alive thanks to the woman popularly described in the liberal blogosphere as the devil’s spawn. Somehow advocating against bank subsidies and for students escaped the rest of the progressive infrastructure. At least someone was there doing the work.

So you’re welcome.

Tags: banking industry, Democrats, Lobbyists, progressive movement, progressives, student loans

 

Let me try and piece this together best I can, keeping in mind that I’ve been on and off the Internets Thursday:

• A series of measures, including unemployment insurance and COBRA extensions, the “doc fix” and some other things, expire on April 5, when the Congress will be in recess. The House and Senate have passed versions of a bill extending all these, but need time to reconcile them. So the need arises for a short-term fix.

• Last month, Jim Bunning became America’s Shame for blocking a short-term extension to the same measures. But undaunted, Senate Republicans planned to again block the extension, led by America’s Curmudgeon-in-Waiting, Tom Coburn. Sure enough, he objected to unanimous consent for getting on the bill.

• Coburn has the stamina of three Bunnings, according to a Senate aide, so when he signaled that he would object to unanimous consent on a short-term extension without it being paid for, it was clear that Reid would have to file cloture and start the clock on an extension if he wanted one, even if the Senate had to stay in session beyond the recess date.

• Coburn came down with his own paid-for legislation, but Reid moved to table it, and the Senate voted in favor.

• Reid and McConnell agreed on a one-week fix to buy time, but House Democrats wouldn’t buy it.

• Reid called a live quorum:

Reid called the live quorum call – during which the Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to compel Members to come to the chamber – following more than an hour of unsuccessful negotiations on the Senate floor with Republicans and Democrats.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the quorum call is “an attempt to bring all the Members of the Senate together to try and figure out how to proceed” on unemployment insurance, adding that “the question is whether we’re going to work through the weekend or if we can work something out” Thursday night.

Once all of the Members are on the floor, Reid will “start a colloquy and see where things go,” Manley said.

• With the live quorum not having worked, Reid filed cloture on the bill and also filed for a “conditional adjournment,” which procedurally would allow Reid to reopen the Senate into session if needed.

• Then Dick Durbin came down and said an agreement was reached, but I’m not sure what that agreement actually was. Debate is ongoing on the floor right now. The Senate may have to come back on Saturday, but I think they just got to consideration of the bill without objection, so we’ll see.

…OK, so the Senate went into recess, and they’ll “continue working” on an agreement with Coburn Friday morning. I don’t know if they’d actually go home without passing an extension or wait until the cloture clock winds down and do an actual vote. Regardless, this is not over yet.

Tags: COBRA, filibuster, Tom Coburn, unemployment insurance

 

This is almost funny, if it weren’t so potentially tragic:

The DeSoto, Texas, mom had hoped the new health overhaul law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday would immediately stop insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions. Several speeches by Obama and explanations of the bill issued by congressional Democrats left the impression the law would do just that.

But health advocates and some insurers say the law does not clearly state that such protection starts this year. If it doesn’t, uninsured children with pre-existing conditions might not get help until 2014, when the law requires insurers to issue policies for all applicants regardless of health condition. There is no doubt that for children who are enrolled in insurance plans, the new law bars insurers from excluding coverage of any pre-existing conditions.

Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, but they will issue clarifying regulations. “The law is clear: Insurance plans that cover children cannot deny coverage to a child because he or she has a pre-existing condition,” Health and Human Services spokesman Nick Papas said. “To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the Secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term “pre-existing exclusion” applies to both a child’s access to a plan and to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan.”

What’s going on here is that some insurance company – or the trade group, AHIP – read the language in the bill and interpreted it favorably to their industry. They’re trying to wiggle off the hook of offering coverage for children with pre-existing conditions TWO DAYS after signage of the law.

There’s another part to this:

One thing is clear: The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.

They mandated guaranteed issue for children immediately without mandating community rating. So as a result, families with a child with bad medical histories will get charged an astronomical amount for coverage.

If you don’t think this will happen for virtually every insurance regulation in the bill, you’re crazy. And on some of these less high-profile than the children’s exclusion, insurers will win.

The challenges facing the Affordable Care Act have really only just begun.

Tags: children’s health, Dept. of Health And Human Services, health care reform, insurance industry, pre-existing condition, Regulations

 

Bill Halter wasted no time today slamming Blanche Lincoln for her vote against the reconciliation bill in the Senate, sending over multiple platforms a condemnation attached to a fundraising ask.

Lincoln voted No today on the bill, which included delays to the excise tax, canceling of certain special deals, extending federal support for Medicaid expansion to all states, a Medicare payroll tax on the wealthy, closing the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” and a sweeping transformation of the student loan program, ending wasteful and useless bank subsidies and plowing the savings into Pell grants.

Halter’s letter highlights this vote and every single bad policy Lincoln voted to keep:

Today Senator Lincoln said “NO” to the last part of President Obama’s Health Care Reform Plan.

She’s not willing to provide immediate relief for seniors, doctors, and students. But she is willing to protect backroom Washington deals like the Cornhusker kickback. She objects to the “process.” Well, I’m interested in results, not Washington “process.”

If you believe that our government should help middle class families, not protect special interests, I ask you to fight back and please donate to my campaign today.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/hcrfight

Senator Lincoln put the insurance companies, big banks, and other special interests ahead of you. This is shameful and we deserve better.

I am running for the Senate to work for you, not the lobbyists and special interests. We may not be able to outraise them, but we can outnumber them and outwork them.

Halter also took to Twitter moments after the vote to attack Lincoln for voting No.

Halter moved supporters to his Act Blue page, and made a final statement that frames the race:

If this election is going to be about who’s most pleasing to Washington insiders and establishment figures, then it’s not going to be me. It has never been me. I believe this election is about delivering results for Arkansans. Washington is broken, and it’s up to us to fix it. Together.

Daily Kos released a new poll in the Halter-Lincoln primary, showing Halter picking up 3 points on Lincoln in two weeks, showing higher favorables, and running even or better than Lincoln against the expected Republican opponents for the Senate seat.

Tags: 2010 Election, AR-Sen, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, budget reconciliation, fundraising, Health care, primaries, student loans

 

The Senate has voted on the last of the many amendments to the reconciliation bill, none of which have passed. Kent Conrad spoke about the two technical changes to the bill cited by the Senate parliamentarian, and the presiding officer (in a surprise appearance, Vice President Joe Biden) confirmed that there would be no further points of order risen.

So, the reconciliation bill will get a final vote in moments, and it is highly likely to pass with 57 votes, including all Senate Democrats except for Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Democrats offered no perfecting amendments to the majority vote legislation, despite having a free shot to do so without the prospect of a filibuster.

After the vote, the House expects to pass the reconciliation bill, with changes, this evening. The President will sign the bill, and changes to the health care law will be made, along with sweeping legislation altering the student loan program and ending bank and lender subsidies.

Max Baucus is now praising the work of Liz Fowler, who wrote lots of the bill. Fowler is a former WellPoint VP.

…Harry Reid is calling for a minute of silence in honor of the late Ted Kennedy, in advance of the vote.

…Joe Biden just sustained the two points of order about the two Byrd rule violations in the reconciliation bill. He was never going to overrule the advice of the parliamentarian, but it’s worth noting.

…Biden is calling for the Yeas and Nays. The Senators will answer from their desks. Evan Bayh just voted Aye. This will end up 57-43, in all likelihood.

…Lieberman officially votes Aye on the changes, and Lincoln officially votes No, against removing bank subsidies and transferring the money to students.

…Democrats have over 50 votes, so this will pass, they’re just wrapping up the final voters. In a surprise, Mark Pryor votes No (covering for Lincoln?).

…The tally right now is 56-40, only four Republicans are left, and they may not bother with the vote. (Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln were the only No votes)

…OK, the final tally will be 56-43, the reconciliation bill has passed, and it will pass the House with the technical changes this evening. You can put a lid on this stage of health care reform, because it’s done.

Tags: budget reconciliation, Health care, Liz Fowler, Max Baucus, parliamentarian, Senate, student loans

 

The never-ending odyssey of health care legislation isn’t over.

Democrats, showing unusual spunk, forced Republicans to go deep into the night to vote on their amendments, all of which failed with the Democratic caucus holding together. This was basically the “make them filibuster” moment that, we are often told, would captivate the nation and force everyone to recognize who is holding back progress for the American people. Weren’t you captivated, last night, at 2:45am?

Remember that Tom Harkin told me that the goal was to finish the reconciliation bill cleanly and send it to the President, without amendments that would push the bill back to the House.

Well, regardless of what happens on future amendments (and we’re not yet done voting), the bill will return to the House, because the Senate parliamentarian found a couple issues.

Senate Republicans succeeded early Thursday morning in finding two flaws in the House-passed health care reconciliation package. Neither is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they’re in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn’t matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it. With no substantial changes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should have little problem assembling the same coalition of 220 Democrats who passed the measure Sunday night. That’s already four more than the minimum 216 required for passage.

A senior leadership aide tells FDL News that the provisions are indeed minor and technical in nature. The Pell grant issue doesn’t kick in until 2013 and will be addressed in future legislation, for example.

The key here is that Byrd rule violations have been found before the end of the voting process. There is now no excuse to hold back perfecting amendments that are on budget that would garner majority support in the House. The bill will return to the House anyway.

Grim reports that the House Majority Whip has the votes, for example, for a public option, which would even in weakened form save $25 billion and thusly have a substantial budgetary impact:

Democratic leadership no longer has to worry that additional amendments would send it back to the House, since it must return to the lower chamber regardless. The Senate is now free to put to the test that much-debated question of whether 50 votes exist for a public option. Democrats could also elect to expand Medicare or Medicaid, now that they only need 50 votes in the Senate and the approval of the House […]

The Huffington Post interviewed House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Wednesday evening and asked if he thought he could have gotten the public option back through a second time, when the House voted on Sunday, even without those members who had left. “Yes, sir,” he said emphatically. Clyburn added that the problem for the public option has never been in the House. The problem has been in the Senate. And now the upper chamber has a chance to vote on it.

Just keep this in mind when the Senate reconvenes, around 9:45am. There is no reason not to add popular, budget-related stuff right now. Anyone saying otherwise is not telling you the truth.

UPDATE: Voting has started again in the Senate, with a final vote expected by about 2pm ET. There’s no indication that the amendments will be anything but Republican poison pills; no Democrat has proposed a perfecting amendment.

Tags: budget reconciliation, Byrd Rule, Health care, James Clyburn, parliamentarian, Pell grant, public option, Senate

 

I’ve always maintained that the Obama Administration deserves praise for their goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the planet. Now we’re getting some tangible action on that front.

The U.S. and Russia reached a breakthrough agreement Wednesday for a historic treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the former Cold War rivals, the most significant pact in a generation and an important milestone in the decades-long quest to lower the risk of global nuclear war.

After long and trying negotiations, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are to sign the treaty in two weeks in Prague, once final technical details are worked out, officials in Washington and Moscow said. The accord is expected to cut the number of long-range nuclear weapons held by each side to about 1,500, and it raises hopes for further disarmament in the years ahead.

The signing will come almost a year to the day from when Obama announced his vision of a nuclear-free world, also in Prague, last April.

The US and Russia hold most of the world’s nuclear weapons, and this reduction in stockpiles would lower the total nukes on the planet by about 25%.

The catch? The deal, a follow-on to the 1991 START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), would need ratification from the US Senate. That means 67 votes. President Obama met today with John Kerry and Richard Lugar, the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to go over the agreement. Lugar may be swayed but the rest of the caucus? Robert Norris offers the understatement of the year:

Robert S. Norris, a longtime analyst of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, said Senate ratification would not be easy.

“Hard negotiations with the Russians will now be followed by hard negotiations with Republican senators to achieve ratification,” Norris said.

The promise of serious arms reduction is made real by this agreement, but we’re in for another round of obstruction to make it a reality.

Tags: arms reduction, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapons, obstructionism, treaties

 

I noted this on Monday, that Senate Democrats would need to tee up another short-term extension of a variety of expiring provisions, including unemployment and COBRA benefits, before leaving for the March 26 recess. Walter Alarkon at The Hill picks it up:

Congress’s last extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance subsidies for the unemployed expires on April 5. With a 9.7 percent jobless rate and lawmakers scheduled to begin a two-week recess this weekend, congressional Democrats said another short-term extension is necessary soon.

Senate Democrats will bring up a temporary extension of jobless benefits after they finish work this week on the healthcare reconciliation bill, said Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Initially, it was suggested to me that Reid would try for this before the reconciliation debate, but that didn’t happen. It appears that the move is to go for the UI/COBRA extension at the last minute, right before the recess, to jam Republicans who would otherwise want to go home for two weeks.

The Senate and the House have passed bills that would extend both unemployment insurance and the 65% COBRA subsidy until the end of the year, but a conference committee will be needed to iron out differences before that becomes law.

Last time, Jim Bunning objected to the extension and pushed it past the expiration date, arguing that the funding be offset. Republicans are already stating that they’ll make the same argument, despite the hammering Bunning and the GOP took during last month’s debate. Minority Whip Jon Kyl said yesterday, “I think it’s going to have to be paid for.” Kyl already objected to unanimous consent for the extension last Friday, saying he hadn’t discussed this with the GOP caucus.

Expect another round of fun with Republican cruelty toward the unemployed. And Reid might want to file cloture now, just to start the clock on that, because Republicans don’t appear to be in a mood to cooperate.

Tags: COBRA, Jim Bunning, unemployment insurance

 

On a conference call sponsored by Families USA and HCAN, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) urged Democrats to pass the reconciliation bill of fixes to the health care law without any amendments or additions, so it can go directly to the President for his signature. When challenged on the likelihood of that happening, given the probability of small points of order from Republicans knocking out pieces of the bill, Harkin dismissed that as speculative.

“If any amendment passes, the bill has to go back to the House,” Harkin said, adding that this would give opponents the opportunity to delay and kill the bill, which includes fixes to elements of the health care policy and a sweeping change to the administering of student loans. “A vote for any amendment is a vote against reform” of the health care and student loan industries, he said.

There doesn’t seem to be any possibility of Democrats “going wobbly in the knees” and voting for Republican amendments, Harkin confirmed, even those as transparently political as denying taxpayer-funded Viagra for sex offenders, an amendment that Tom Coburn has offered. Harkin “made a special plea for discipline and unity” at yesterday’s caucus lunch.

However, Harkin and the Democrats have little control over the expected points of order that will be raised by Republicans to the parliamentarian. If they succeed in getting the parliamentarian to agree that any line of text in the reconciliation bill violates the Byrd rule, the entire bill would have to go back to the House for another vote. Max Baucus called this likely yesterday. If the bill is likely to go back to the House anyway, I asked Harkin, why the stringency on all the amendments, even amendments that could potentially improve the bill and would have no problem disrupting the vote in the House – an amendment on the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption, for example, which got over 400 votes over there?

“I haven’t speculated on what the parliamentarian may find,” Harkin responded. “We don’t know that yet. So I don’t know the answer to that question. The Budget Committee said we have a clean bill. So there you go.” He was hopeful that there would be no points of order, and remained steadfast in arguing for no amendments.

One amendment many progressives would like to see made at this stage, under majority-vote rules, is the public option. Harkin said he supports it and believes it would soon come to pass, but “If the public option is offered I will vote against it, because the greater good is getting this bill passed.” He promised that, once this bill is complete, he would pick up proposals to enact the public option “immediately.” He even floated using a future reconciliation process to enact it, perhaps as soon as this year under the next budget, “because as you know it saves a lot of money.”

It seems that Harkin worries about having to get 216 votes in the House again for anything that isn’t merely a technical change, and he wants to preserve the signature piece of this reconciliation bill, the student loan reform, which came out of the Senate HELP Committee that he chairs.

As to the process: Harkin said that voting should start around 5:00pm today on the series of amendments to the reconciliation bill. He expected four votes every hour in the “vote-a-rama” process. “We could be here all night tonight and into tomorrow, he said. Democrats were conferring with the parliamentarian over the validity of certain amendments from Republicans which appear to violate the Byrd rule (Bob Bennett offered one, for example, on DC’s same-sex marriage law). He hoped the parliamentarian would raise a point of order on those dilatory amendments and get them thrown out before a vote.

At the end of the call, Harkin made a statement that probably reflects Democrats’ views as we come to the end of this process.

“Let’s get this over with.”

UPDATE: In case you’re interested, on the flip I’ll throw a list of all the amendments offered by Republicans so far. Not all of these are pending (which means they’ll get a vote)…

AMENDMENTS:

36 amendments filed as of 11:20AM

#3553 — To repeal the government takeover of health care. (Vitter)

#3554 — Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). (Vitter)

#3556 — To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists for drugs intended to induce abortion. (Coburn)

#3557 — To require that each new bureaucrat added to any department or agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be offset by a reduction of 1 existing bureaucrat at such department or agency. (Coburn)

#3558 — To revoke the powers given the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Coburn)

#3559 — To help the President keep his promise that Americans who like the health care coverage they have now can keep it. (Coburn)

#3560 — To implement policies from the President’s proposal to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid and save taxpayer dollars.

#3561 — To ensure nondiscrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience. (Coburn)

#3562 — To exempt class ! medical devices from taxation under the excise tax on medical device manufacturers. (Coburn)

#3563 — To repeal the new $375 million program directing the very same Federal Government that has amassed a $12 trillion debt to lecture Americans about financial responsibility. (Coburn)

#3564 — To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Grassley)

#3565 — To exclude devices for persons with disabilities from the medical device tax. (Inhofe)

#3566 — To require all Members of Congress to read a bill prior to casting on a vote on the bill. (Coburn)

#3567 — To prevent Medicare from being used for new entitlements and to use Medicare savings to save Medicare. (Gregg)

#3568 — To protect the democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage. (Bennett)

#3569 — To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure Medicare beneficiary access to physicians, eliminate sweetheart deals for frontier States, and ensure equitable reimbursement under the Medicare program for all rural states. (Grassley)

#3570 — To eliminate the sweetheart deals for Tennessee, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, Connecticut, and frontier States. (McCain)

#3571 — To allow individuals 30 and over to enroll in the catastrophic plan if they are not eligible for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions through the Exchange. (Collins)

#3572 — To provide for an assessment of Medicare cost-intensive diseases and conditions. (Collins)

#3573 — To ensure more timely access to home health services for Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare program by allowing nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. (Collins)

#3574 — To preserve student choice in higher education loans. (LeMieux)

#3575 — To preserve student choice in higher education loans. (LeMieux)

#3576 — To address judicial review. (McCain)

#3577 — To protect Medicare beneficiary access to hospital care in rural areas from recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. (Roberts)

#3578 — To protect Medicare beneficiary access to health care from recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. (Roberts)

#3579 — To strike the medical device tax. (Roberts)

#3580 — To repeal the limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans. (Roberts)

#3581 — To repeal the limitation on deductions for over-the-counter medicine. (Roberts)

#3582 — To ensure that Americans can keep the coverage they have by keeping premiums affordable. (Barrasso)

#3583 — Ensuring that the self-employed are eligible for the transitional small business tax credit. (Snowe)

#3584 — Preempt States from subsequently adopting their own employer mandate legislation that would target small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. (Snowe)

#3585 — Open plans providing catastrophic coverage to all and allow premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions to be allowed for that coverage. (Snowe)

#3586 — To enroll Members of Congress in the Medicaid program. (LeMieux)

#3587 — To strike provisions relating to payments for imaging services. (Brownback)

#3588 — To exclude pediatric devices and devices for persons with disabilities from the medical device tax. (Inhofe)

#3589 — To provide expansion States with a transitional reduced State share for coverage of parents under Medicaid. (Snowe)

Tags: antitrust law, budget reconciliation, Byrd Rule, health care reform, insurance industry, parliamentarian, public option, student loans, Tom Harkin

 

A big issue in the Arkansas Senate primary is Blanche Lincoln’s relationship to the African-American community. She has been going around the state touting her “A” rating from the NAACP. But someone has a problem with that – the President of the Arkansas NAACP.

“If I had to grade her even on health care reform she definitely wouldn’t get an A, she’d maybe get a C minus,” said Dale Charles, president of the Arkansas NAACP.

Charles pointed out that throughout the months of legislative wrangling, Lincoln was far from an enthusiastic supporter of the health care reform bill. She was one of the last Democrats to fall in line to vote for the Senate version of the bill. As the campaign season has heated up, Lincoln has proudly spoken about her efforts to block the public insurance option from being a part of the Senate bill, even incorporating that message into her first television ad.

This is about a lot more than health care. African-American leaders in Arkansas are upset that no federal judge appointments for African-Americans have been recommended by Lincoln over the past year. Lincoln responded by recommending an African-American US Attorney candidate for Arkansas, but that candidate, Carlton Jones, has since withdrawn, amid the tensions between Lincoln and the community.

Carlton Jones, chief deputy prosecutor in Arkansas’s Miller and Lafayette counties, removed himself from consideration for Western District of Arkansas U.S. Attorney late last month after meeting with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about the job in Washington on Feb. 18 […]

Lincoln and Pryor have been under increasing pressure from African American leaders in Arkansas to recommend black judicial candidates, which may explain why Jones’s name turned up on their list for a federal judgeship. Congressional Quarterly reported that members of the state’s black legal association met with the senators last month to express their disappointment with the lack of black candidates for federal judicial posts in the state.

Jones said he did not know how he ultimately ended up back in the pool of candidates for the U.S. Attorney nomination. The White House has worked hard to recruit black U.S. Attorney candidates, especially in the South, and may have played a role in putting Jones back in play for the prosecuting position. A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, did not respond to requests for comment.

And these tensions do not come from nowhere. . . . In fact, as has been well-documented in Arkansas and the subject of past campaigns, Lincoln lobbied on behalf of the Republic of Tranksei, a “black homeland created by the white South African government during apartheid,” according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Bantu Holomisa, the leader of Transkei, was accused at the time of dismembering politicial enemies, and was kicked out of the ANC by Nelson Mandela. Lincoln worked as a lobbyist for Tranksei in 1991 and 1992. Here’s an excerpt from a 1998 article from the Democratic primary campaign:

But this Transkei thing is really something. I don’t know what exactly. But something. Last week the Arkansas Times reported that as a lobbyist in Washington in 1991-92, Lincoln worked as a foreign agent for this South African apartheid puppet, the Republic of Transkei. Blanche first said she didn’t remember, which I could believe, and then when confronted with documents said she had spent one day introducing on Capitol Hill a man named Bantu Holomisa. She described him as a good guy and Mandela lieutenant who has wrested control of this homeland set aside by South African segregationists.

Coulter went on black radio with a commercial touting his commitment to civil rights and accusing Lincoln of having worked for apartheid forces from South Africa. Lincoln went on black radio stations with a commercial calling the accusation a “ridiculous lie,” so just as the debate started, one of Coulter’s aides handed me and other reporters a packet containing documents showing that Lincoln had participated in 1991-92 in at least a dozen teleconferences on Transkei issues, one of the major ones being the United States’ trade sanctions against South Africa and its puppet republics.

Lincoln eventually acknowledged her work for Tranksei.

So this anger from the state head of the NAACP doesn’t come from nowhere. It remains to be seen whether it will become a major issue in the campaign.

African-Americans make up 15% of the Arkansas population and a larger portion of the expected Democratic primary electorate.

Tags: 2010 Election, African-Americans, apartheid, AR-Sen, Arkansas, Bantu Holomisa, Blanche Lincoln, NAACP, primaries, South Africa, Transkei

 

Republicans have something of a free shot in the reconciliation bill. Democrats have already signaled that they will whip against any amendments and changes to the bill, in an effort to pass it intact and send it directly to the President, avoiding another vote in the House. So Republicans can write virtually any amendment, forcing Democrats into terrible votes, without much consequence, knowing they will be defeated and providing campaign ad fodder.

Some Senators are better at writing such amendments than others. David Vitter’s amendment concerned no federal funding for ACORN, an organization that just folded on Monday. But Tom Coburn has brought this kind of poison pill penning to something of an art form. His list of particulars this time is kind of a thing of beauty. Start with the first:

No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs. (Note: the creation of exchanges could allow sex offenders to receive taxpayer-funded Viagra and other ED drugs unless Congress expressly prohibits this action – see additional background attached)

The creation of exchanges could allow blind people to receive taxpayer-funded eyeglasses, or Floridians to receive taxpayer-funded Snuggies. That’s all for the implementation phase, making this amendment superfluous and ridiculous. But the campaign ads saying “Senator X voted for Viagra for sex offenders” is priceless. This is how Coburn got firearms allowed in national parks in the middle of a credit card bill.

The other amendments are similarly absurd, but with a means to them. The prospect exists of Republicans offering liberal amendments (such as the public option) to give Democrats problems with the base, but it’s unclear whether they would give that a try.

Democrats expect to get to the voting on amendments phase sometime tomorrow. 7 1/2 of the 20 hours of debate for reconciliation were used up yesterday.

Tags: amendments, budget reconciliation, David Vitter, health care reform, public option, Tom Coburn, Viagra

 

You’re not going to believe this, but Senate Republicans don’t like an Obama appointment and say he’s beyond the mainstream. I know, it’s crazy.

Senate Republicans are preparing to mount an assault against one of President Obama’s federal appeals court choices, offering a preview of a possible Supreme Court fight this summer.

Goodwin Liu, the president’s pick for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, is expected to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday in what promises to be a contentious hearing.

The top Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, calls Liu’s selection “a troubling nomination” — and suggests that Liu, a law professor at UC Berkeley, is the most left-leaning judicial nominee that the Obama White House has sent to the Senate.

“I think most senators would say he’s beyond the mainstream,” Sessions said in an interview.

Sessions has found a nut with this one – Goodwin Liu is a liberal nominee. But certainly no more liberal than, say Janice Rogers Brown is conservative, or Charles Pickering, or any of the other George Bush nominees eventually confirmed by the Senate. And Liu has substantial support from conservatives – and not just any conservatives, but John Yoo and Ken Starr. Yoo said “He’s someone who would be chosen by a Democratic president, not a Republican one, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a good judge on the bench.”

One other thing about this: Liu would be the first Asian-American to serve on an Appeals Court in America. I know that conservatives have searched far and wide for another ethnicity to alienate, and it seems they’ve found one. Republicans may be trying to block this as a test for whether they can block an Obama Supreme Court nominee, or stop a young, qualified candidate from getting a fast track to SCOTUS. But the historic nature of his nomination could easily be used by Democrats.

Liu’s hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee will be held today. There’s a website called Confirm Goodwin dedicated to fighting smears against him and advocating for his confirmation.

Tags: Court of Appeals, Goodwin Liu, Jeff Sessions, John McCain, judicial appointments, judicial confirmations, obstructionism

 

John McCain, who’s really upset he’s not President, has taken it out on the bark beetle.

In the Senate, you need unanimous consent to do pretty much anything. Among the UC requests habitually given is the ability to hold committee hearings after 2:00pm ET.

Mark Udall scheduled a hearing on the bark beetle, a pernicious critter that is harming plant life in the Interior West. John McCain was his partner on legislation that would attempt to deal with the problem. But John McCain has vowed not to work for the rest of the year – and presumably put his fingers in his ears and hold his breath until he turns blue – because of the passage of health care reform. So today, he withheld the unanimous consent request.

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and a Colorado state senator have gotten caught in the crossfire over health care.

A hearing Tuesday on Udall’s bill to protect communities from bark beetles was canceled after Republicans angry over the passage of health insurance reform legislation blocked it by using an obscure Senate rule requiring a unanimous consent to hold hearings scheduled after 2 p.m.

One of the witnesses set to testify at the hearing was Colorado state Sen. Dan Gibbs.
Udall says he hopes to get the hearing rescheduled this week.

Yes, John McCain objected to a hearing on bark beetles. Because of health care.

Senator Udall explained that this is a matter of public safety, killing trees and leading to other unsavory consequences. And Majority Leader Reid added:

“Senator McCain’s promised obstruction comes to reality just a day later. ‘The Party of No’ wouldn’t even agree to let Senate committees meet today. Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they’re shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

“The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt.”

Temper tantrum is a good word for it.

Maybe when we finally fix the Senate rules, we can come up with a way to cancel out the need for unanimous consent to hold committee hearings after two o’clock.

UPDATE: To add a bit of context, Reid referred to a “transparency hearing,” which was separate from the bark beetle hearing. The Sunlight Foundation’s Ellen Miller was testifying at the moment that the hearings got shut down.

Tags: Harry Reid, John McCain, Mark Udall, obstructionism, Republicans, rules, Senate

 

During the signing ceremony for the health care bill, President Obama said that he expected the Senate to pass the final tweaks within a matter of days, prompting applause from the assembled members of Congress. According to Sam Stein, one of the members who stood up and applauded this was Blanche Lincoln. She’s announced her opposition to the reconciliation bill to which Obama was referring.

Bill Halter has seized on Lincoln’s opposition, particularly to the piece of it that would reform the student loan industry:

Last week Lieutenant Governor Halter held a news conference to indicate his support for student loan reform that is also included in the reconciliation bill. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act will take subsidized profits for big banks out of the process and provide over $67 billion of additional financial resources for students over the next ten years. This legislation will have direct benefits for Arkansas students and students across the country and will help hundreds of thousands of students afford college while ending needless subsidies to the big banks. Additionally the bill will protect American jobs by requiring loans be serviced by U.S. workers.

“I hope Senator Lincoln will change her mind again and join me in supporting this important legislation. The delay and bickering in Washington must stop. The time is now to pass health care and student loan reforms without delay,” concluded Halter.

There’s a very good reason Lincoln will oppose student loan reform, and it’s not because of the ludicrous claim that it would “eliminate every bank in the country.” Simply put, protecting billions in lender and bank subsidies at the expense of students is good for business.

Two weeks ago, a group of six Democratic Senators — Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, and Jim Webb — wrote a letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid raising concerns about the legislation […]

As part of the (lobbying) campaign, the industry developed a sophisticated political strategy that targeted potential sympathizers in the Senate, including the six Senators who signed the letter to Reid. The industry showered them with campaign contributions and made a number of key lobbying hires in order to open lines of communication with their offices.

Sallie Mae’s PAC maxed out to Senator Blanche Lincoln’s primary account in 2009, and Nelnet, another lender, gave $4000 to Ben Nelson in 2009 alone, on top of another $15,000 it has given him over the course of his career. Two of Tom Carper’s top three career contributors are JP Morgan and Citigroup, both major lenders, and Sallie Mae’s PAC has given him $13,500 over the past ten years.

The report also identifies six of these Senators’ former staffers who are now lobbyists for the student loan industry. The lobbyists have used their relationships with their old bosses to ensure that the Senate looks out for the student loan industry’s agenda, even if it comes at the expense of millions of students. Carper, Warner, Lincoln, and Ben Nelson all have former staffers lobbying for the student loan industry.

Blanche Lincoln’s former Chief of Staff, Kelly Bingel, was hired as a lobbyist for the student loan industry as part of a group called the “Student Loan Coalition.” Previously, she lobbied on behalf of health insurance and pharmaceutical interests – with that over, the move to student loans was natural.

The full report on the lobbying and fundraising interests around Lincoln can be found here. I’m sure Halter’s campaign will be reading.

UPDATE: James Carville, apparently an ardent lover of bank subsidies, sends out a fundraising email on behalf of Lincoln.

Tags: AR-Sen, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, budget reconciliation, fundraising, Kelly Bingel, Lobbyists, primary race

 

At this hour, the President will sign the health care legislation in the East Room of the White House. You can watch this on C-SPAN.

Multiple members of the Congress and the cabinet are joining the President for this ceremony. Ted Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, is also in attendance.

The President will also speak about the health care law at the Interior Department, to an larger audience, around noon eastern.

Consider this a semi-liveblog.

…It is super-exciting to liveblog things like “Bobby Rush is checking his Blackberry.”

…It does look like the entire Democratic Congressional caucus is in the room. A bunch of them were taking pictures in front of the podium before. It’s like liberal Woodstock, man… Rosa DeLauro’s starting a mud pile with Lois Capps… it’s a free concert from now on.

…They’ve started a “Fire it up, ready to go” chant as Biden and Obama come out to applause. Biden starts by saying “This is a historic day.”

…Biden says “You are literally about to to make history.” He just couldn’t refrain from using the word literally, could he?

…I find it amusing that Bobby Rush is sitting dead center in the front row, presumably mouthing “I beat you” to Obama throughout the ceremony.

…Obama admits all the delays were intentional to line up the bill signing with the turning of spring.

…This is the first stage of “selling the bill,” the first of many large events designed to emphasize immediate benefits and the importance of reform.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bobby Rush, Democrats, Health care, Joe Biden, liveblog, signing ceremony, White House

 

The President will sign the health care legislation at an 11am ceremony. After that, Senate work will begin on the reconciliation sidecar, and last night, the Senate’s parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, delivered a victory that shut down efforts to throw out or delay the bill.

First, Republicans tried to claim that the reconciliation bill, in an extremely roundabout way (think a game of “Telephone”), affects the Social Security Trust Fund, contrary to reconciliation rules. But Frumin ruled against that. This specifically impacts the excise tax on high-end insurance companies, which the GOP said somehow connected to the trust fund.

Seemingly then, the Senate will be able to begin work today on the reconciliation bill. With only 20 hours of debate mandated by law, you’d think this could wrap up quickly, but you would be wrong.

Republicans were already planning to deploy parliamentary maneuvers and offer a cascade of amendments in an effort to drag out debate.

“No more tax hikes. No more Medicare cuts. No more deal-making,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday. “Democrats may have won their vote last night, but they lost the argument.”

It is not clear how much appetite Republicans will have for limitless amendments. Conservatives such as Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have threatened an onslaught, but other Republicans may have second thoughts about high-profile delaying tactics. A senior GOP strategist said most senators probably lacked the stamina to drag the process into the weekend.

Democrats are prepared to whip against every amendment (and labor will help them, according to an AFL-CIO spokesman), to preserve the bill and avoid having to go back to the House afterwards for an additional vote. However, Republicans are expected to raise multiple points of order to throw pieces of the bill out as contrary to the Byrd rule, and it’s virtually certain that at least one of those will succeed. It’s just very difficult to create a bulletproof reconciliation bill. So one more vote in the House is likely.

This nugget is also interesting (talk about burying the lede):

Republicans are also expected to offer amendments designed to force Democrats to take politically awkward votes. For example, they could propose adding a government insurance program — the “public option” that most Democrats support but was dropped to the dismay of their liberal base.

We could finally see an up-or-down vote on the public option because of Republicans. And a labor official told me they won’t score any amendments, presumably including such a public option vote.

Meanwhile, not that I’m doing an official whip count, but Ben Nelson said he would vote against the reconciliation bill. However, Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh said they’d probably vote for it, so I cannot see how Democrats mess it up. They have the votes for passage.

UPDATE: Tom Coburn seems to think that the bill was well-crafted and none of the challenges will work. It won’t stop him from bringing up the challenges, I gather.

Tags: Ben Nelson, budget reconciliation, excise tax, Health care, obstructionism, parliamentarian, public option, Republicans, Social Security

 

I’m actually quite pleased not to be dealing with whip counts, as I did for the past week or so; everything was getting a bit too horse-race-y for my tastes. But just to revisit it one last time, take a look at the Democrats who voted no on health care, not one (really) from the left but 34 from the right. Eric Kleefeld actually has a good rendering of the district-level makeup of these members. Eight of the Nays came from districts Obama carried; four (Barrow, Lipinski, Lynch and Artur Davis) came from districts with a Democratic PVI lean.

A side note: two of those Democrats in blue districts, Steven Lynch and Dan Lipinski, actually voted for the reconciliation bill after voting against the health care bill. One Democrat, after voting for the Senate bill, voted against fixing it – Jim Cooper.

Seeing all those Democrats in heavily Republican districts – 13 over R+10 PVI – who habitually vote against everything Democrats put up, makes me wonder why they should ever be supported financially by the Democratic infrastructure again. And it seemed that some were thinking along these lines, making all kinds of primary threats in the days leading up to the vote. But one high-profile challenge has already fizzled.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin will avoid a primary fight for her South Dakota seat, sidestepping a potentially divisive Democratic battle with a top campaign official to President Obama.

Steve Hildebrand told CNN last week he was seriously considering challenging Herseth Sandlin if she voted against health care reform or if the vote was close.

Herseth Sandlin did vote against the bill, which passed late Sunday evening by a 219 to 212 margin. But Hildebrand said Monday morning that the margin of victory was wide enough, and that Democratic leaders could have called in more Democratic votes but chose to allow some lawmakers to oppose the measure because of “their own politics.”

Hildebrand merely suggests at a deal for some Democrats to walk away from the vote (which, due to the scrutiny of the vote counts, I don’t think was plausible absent a massive, weeks-long conspiracy with the Stupak bloc). But what’s more distressing is that Stephanie Herseth Sandlin will get a bunch of dough from the DCCC because of the supposed “importance” of holding her seat. How, pray tell, is it important to hold a seat where the Democrat cannot vote for Democratic agenda items? Keep in mind there are plenty of seats held by Republicans where Obama won in 2008, too. In fact, one of them, Bill Hedrick in CA-44, immediately released a statement blasting Republican Rep. Ken Calvert for opposing efforts at improving the health care system:

For 18 years, Ken Calvert has put party politics before the people of this district. Today he had a chance to redeem himself by voting for the landmark health insurance reform bill that would directly help hundreds of thousands of people in the 44th. But Ken Calvert, once again putting his personal and party interests first, voted against it.

It’s not really about the health care bill per se. It’s that accountability comes last for Blue Dogs, and help comes last for progressive challengers. That’s been clear for quite a while. Maybe labor is starting to see things differently. But I’ll bring to your attention the fact that they immediately starting protecting those who voted for the health care bill rather than damning those who didn’t. And in the days leading up to the vote, the latter was more of a priority.

Tags: DCCC, health care reform, Labor, progressives, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Steve Hildebrand

 

Before health care was signed into law, House and Senate Republicans released bills calling for its full repeal. It’ll be amusing to watch these have the same legislative chances as liberal bills not favored by the establishment for years, but get outsized attention and influence.

Mitt Romney, who wrote at National Review that the campaign for repeal “starts today,” actually offered a more realistic take of how Republicans will try to stop the legislation from taking effect – by de-funding it.

The key, he said, is having Republicans reclaim the White House and take majorities in the Senate and the House.

Then, “we can clamp down on this bill … by not funding it,” Romney said during a speech Thursday to hundreds of people gathered at the Hilton Anatole Hotel for the National Center for Policy Analysis’ distinguished lecture series.

Never mind that the bill essentially mirrors what Romney signed into law in Massachusetts – he has to do what he has to do to win the Republican nomination in 2012. And his message is basically: elect me and I will gradually strangle the subsidies.

Some Attorneys General in red states are going a bit further, vowing to challenge the Constitutionality of the bill.

The attorneys general say they will sue once President Obama signs the bill into law. They are pledging to take their battle all the way to the US Supreme Court.

“The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution,” said South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster. “A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he said in a statement.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum issued a similar statement late Sunday. “If the president signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and interests of American citizens,” he said.

The comments came after a Sunday night conference call in which attorneys general from 11 states expressed support for legal action to block the law. In addition to Florida and South Carolina, the participating attorneys general were from Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Virginia’s Attorney General will jump the gun on this, saying the state has already passed a law defying the individual mandate (they haven’t; the General Assembly did but it has not been signed into law). But legal experts doubt this will succeed, citing precedent.

The repeal movement does not, in all likelihood, threaten the implementation of the bill, although de-funding it is a possibility if Republicans get a trifecta of the House, Senate and the Presidency sometime soon. Some seem to think that repeal, and state ballot measures dedicated to it, will have a political utility as a conservative wedge issue. So far, Democrats have responded to this by saying “bring it on.” And I can envision smart ways to counteract this, making the debate about the benefits in the bill. But I am not certain they are totally ready for an onslaught by the right.

Tags: conservatives, Health care, Mitt Romney, repeal the bill, Republicans, states’ rights

 

Speaking of members of Congress getting funding while voting against the Democratic agenda, witness Blanche Lincoln, today:

“Now that the Senate bill has passed both houses and the President will be signing it into law, the Senate will consider additional changes this week that were adopted by the House tonight as Budget Reconciliation,” Lincoln said in a statement released Sunday. “The Reconciliation package devised by the House includes matters unrelated to health care and employs a legislative process that wasn’t subject to the same transparency and thorough debate that we used in the Senate. I cannot support this process.”

“Matters unrelated to health care” specifically describes the student loan bill. The instructions for leaving the option of using reconciliation for that was passed in a deliberative process through the Senate, as part of last year’s budget. So this option has been available for some time.

Lincoln simply doesn’t like it. She’d rather reward banks and keep private subsidies flowing than offer that money to students. As a result, she would deprive the students of Arkansas $349 million dollars over ten years, helping as many as 58,000 college-age kids get a higher education. There’s also over $31 million dollars for Arkansas colleges and universities which Lincoln would like to leave on the table.

This won’t threaten passage of the reconciliation bill – Senate Democrats can lose up to nine votes – but it certainly clarifies Lincoln’s position on the big banks relative to students.

MoveOn blasted Lincoln for protecting bank subsidies last week, and the Lincoln campaign’s response was weak. As Adam Ruben says:

This is Senator Lincoln trying to have it both ways: acting as though she is supportive of student loan reform but actually opposing an up-or-down vote on the issue. She’s claiming she supports efforts to help Arkansas students while actually siding with the big banks that oppose reform and have funded her campaign so extensively.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill, including the student loan reform plan, as soon as next week. The proposed plan would eliminate $87 billion in subsidies to federal lenders, and use those savings to increase scholarships for America’s college students. The plan would help 58,000 Arkansas students next year alone. Blanche Lincoln has received $372,000 from commercial banks.

The question is: is Blanche Lincoln going continue to support a big bank bailout at the expense of Arkansas students?

(ed. note: It would actually eliminate $61 billion in subsidies now, per re-scoring by the CBO)

Bill Halter, on the other hand, supports SAFRA.

Today, I’m announcing my support for passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act by a simple up or down majority vote as part of the reconciliation bill being acted upon in Congress this weekend.

For too long, Washington hasn’t delivered the results that Arkansans deserve. Too often needed changes are stopped by procedural maneuvers. I want a simple American ideal to hold: majority rule. And if a simple up or down vote is good enough to elect a junior high school class president or a United States Senator, then it is good enough to pass meaningful reforms that help thousands of Arkansans […]

It is time the will of the people overpowered the special interests grip on Washington. The time to act on the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is now. Just this week we saw the power of providing scholarships to Arkansas students as applications to the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville are up by 26%. It has worked here in Arkansas and it will work for the country.

Look for Lincoln’s expected vote on reconciliation to be a major story in the campaign.

Tags: AR-Sen, banking industry, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, budget reconciliation, primaries, student loans