Peter Orszag, director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, blogged Thursday about the cost of Pres. Barack Obama's health care reform proposal.
... the President has put forward a health plan that would reduce deficits
by roughly $100 billion over the next ten years and by roughly $1
trillion in the decade after that.
Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to a claim that this deficit
reduction is achieved only through a business-as-usual Washington
budget gimmick: paying for just a few years of costs with many more
years of savings.
This charge is simply false ...
If you are confused regarding what's in the different plans, have a look at the excellent side-by-side comparison developed by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Note, however, that this comparison only includes the plan presented by Pres. Barack Obama on Feb. 22. There were additional GOP proposals identified during and following the Feb. 25 health care summit that Obama believes should be a part of the final bill. Those are not included in the side-by-side comparison, but can be found on the White House Web site.
There are some individuals who honestly believe that the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate would usurp years of federal policy and allow for taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Those people -- including Michigan anti-abortion Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak -- are wrong.
Stupak, who is backed by the like-minded U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated this week that he and 11 other members of the U.S. House are willing to completely derail reform efforts if the language he was able to insert in the House bill is not included in the Senate package. As U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin explained to me and other reporters on a conference call this week, however, the language will not be inserted into the bill because it is a policy issue not a budgetary concern. (A requirement of reconciliation.)
Because such rumblings could effectively kill all health care reform, Slate has taken a look at why Stupak and others believe the Senate bill allows government coverage or subsidy of abortion. According to reporter Timothy Noah, despite all the grumbling about taxpayer-funded abortion, the argument isn't really about that at all. Instead, the Bishops and lawmakers of the same ilk as Stupak are upset because of "market economics" and not being able to forever change the policies that have governed abortion in America.
... A common misconception is that the government's ban on abortion funding
through the Hyde Amendment (which covers spending by the Health and
Human Services Department, chiefly through Medicaid; other laws ban
abortion funding through other government agencies) has the force of
permanent law. It does not. It is merely a rider routinely attached to
annual appropriations bills. Should the appropriations committees in
Congress decide one year not to attach it, then HHS will
become free to fund abortions. Pro-lifers live in fear that this will
happen, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the
possibility, lest they discourage the public from thinking the Hyde
Amendment is writ in stone...
In fact, it is this fear that the Bishops forwardly state in a press release: "...this annual rider is far less secure than the House bill's permanent provision."
Stupak is a bit more coy about this. His amendment prohibits
government subsidies to anyone purchasing health insurance through the
exchanges if that insurance covers abortion. To Stupak, it doesn't
matter that the Senate bill already prohibits any federal dollars from
paying for abortions. "Our amendment maintains current law," he has written,
"which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion."
This is wrong on two counts. Current law doesn't care one way or the
other whether private insurers cover abortion. And to the extent it
cares about government funding for abortion, it doesn't ban it forever.
It bans it for this year.
In a better world, Stupak and
the bishops believe, the federal ban on taxpayer-financed abortions
would be permanent. It's true that the Senate-passed bill is at odds
with this Platonic ideal. But the bill is completely consistent with
the earthbound status quo. Why can't they accept that?
Don't be confused by the verbal gymnastics on display by those who want to equate the abortion debate with the health care reform debate. The Senate bill, which will likely be the bulk of the eventual plan, maintains the status quo and does not allow for government funded or subsidized abortion services.
Ellen, who posts on the Choices Campus Blog, has spent the past semester studying in Sweden and brings word of a movement in that country -- The Feminist Initiative (F!). It is a feminist political party, launched in 2005 in a country that has had a history of progressive policies in relation to gender.
Here's the video that Ellen posted:
This trailer, posted on YouTube, was created by Women Makes Movies, and the full video is available for purchase on their site.
Ellen unfortunately reports that even in Sweden this feminist party has had struggles in relation to media coverage and overall perception.
Still, as I sit and daily watch America's two dominant political parties march further away from gender equality, I can't help but wonder if perhaps it is time for something similar here.
Let's pretend for a moment that U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley or Sen. Tom Harkin was able to land in an uncomfortable, yet potentially advantageous position on a piece of legislation. In this hypothetical, both men would be simultaneously courted and despised by both sides, but also in a unique position to make a change within the given bill that was most definitely good for the citizens of Iowa and most likely a good compromise overall.
Now, imagine that Harkin or Grassley used this newly found political clout to enact that change -- a political exchange for allowing the bill to proceed. What do you think people would say? Would they immediately be labeled as whores and prostitutes, or would they be heralded as politically savvy individuals who did what was necessary to provide for constituents?
If either of them had breasts, we wouldn't have to wonder.
Mark Halperin, who is employed by Time magazine, used the above graphic, based on the comedy film "There's Something About Mary," to show who knows what about his view of U.S. Sen. Mary Landreiu of Louisiana announcing that she was still reading the Senate health care reform bill and had not yet made up her mind on Saturday night's cloture vote. (Hat tip to Jason Linkins.)
For those who have not seen the flick, the picture represents a scene where Mary, played by Cameron Diaz, mistakenly uses her date's recently discharged semen as hair gel. ... Yeah, I don't get the whole reason for the Photoshop either.
But, we need not worry. The two primary stalwarts of conservative virtue, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, were more than happy to voice their opposition to Landrieu's policy choices in concise sentences with few syllables.
"So, we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap," Beck said of Landrieu's decision to stop a Republican filibuster of the health care bill.
Limbaugh was even more clear, calling Landrieu "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."
The Louisiana Democratic Party was quick to respond to the outrage, calling on its other federal senator to denounce the comments -- and they were quite right and proper to do so.
But just as we wonder about how Harkin and Grassley would be labeled if they attempted to secure much needed funding for their state in a political maneuver, we also need to stop and wonder if the Louisiana Democrats would be as quick to respond to certain things if Republican Sarah Palin was a resident of their fine state.
If Newsweek wants to try to make a case that Palin is bad for the GOP (and for everybody else, too) surely they are intelligent enough to do so without using some stock photograph of her intended for use in a fitness magazine.
The truth is that both political parties benefit from the contributions of their female membership. They benefit greatly -- as do our communities, counties, states and nation -- from the unique perspectives and approaches to public policy that women provide. Based on those two things alone, all political people, regardless of which voter card they carry, should have a vested interest in ensuring that women politicians are not subject to personal or sexist attacks.
Americans need to make it clear that it is no longer acceptable or appropriate to use personal attacks to show discontent with policy decisions. If pundits, journalists and bloggers aren't adult enough or intelligent enough to form complete sentences based on something other than sexual innuendo, hair style or body type, we need to make clear that they aren't intelligent enough to have gainful employment in the field, much less a voice on today's issues.
Women should not be attacked for doing their jobs, wearing a red skirt, walking in heels (or flats), exposing cleavage, being assertive or any other silly misogynist thing that can be construed. When you see it happen, call it what it is: Juvenile sexism.
One of the most difficult things about writing this blog is the fact that I'm not just providing news, but co-opting news with opinion. As a long-term reporter who has had "just the facts" forever pushed into my brain function, it's difficult to come to the keyboard with the dual purpose of providing factual information and to issue a call to action based on that information.
But, as I told the women gathered in Sioux City this weekend, there are times we have to step outside of our comfort zones in order to stand up for things that we believe in or to right a wrong.
While I drove across Iowa on Saturday, members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on an unprecedented health care reform bill. The good and bad news is all rolled up in one sentence: It passed. This is good news because it is a first step on a path the country should have taken years and years ago. It is bad news because once again special interest groups have had their way and a segment of the population was marginalized.
A group of 64 Democrats joined with every single Republican member of the House to vote in favor of an amendment offered by Bart Stupak, a Democratic representative of Michigan. The amendment, which wasn't completely unexpected, blocks anyone using government subsidies to buy insurance from purchasing a plan that covers abortion, even if the abortion coverage is paid for completely with private premiums.
Back up and read that again. Even if a woman has her own money and is willing to use that money to purchase abortion coverage, she cannot do so.
This is an extreme and unprecedented departure from how the bill previously curtailed the use of government/taxpayer funds for abortion. Prior to the Stupak-Pitts amendment, or language, being added into the House bill, government-provided "affordability credits" were required to be segregated from individually paid premiums so that they it could be ensured that federal funds were not used to provide abortion coverage. In essence, only women or families that were spending enough of their own funds to pay for the increased premiums associated with abortion coverage could purchase that type of insurance.
So, prior to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the status quo regarding abortion was maintained. With this new language, accessibility to reproductive health care has been further negated and regulated beyond the scope of what was previously believed to be a "workable compromise."
Because the language only currently appears in the House version of the bill, it is important to keep similar language out of the U.S. Senate version. To that end, phone your senator and let him/her know that you don't approve of any language that disrupts the status quo in relation to insurance coverage for abortion services.
If the Senate bill maintains its current language, which is based on the existing status quo which is built on the Hyde Amendment, then the conference committee that merges the two bills will have the option to either include the Stupak-Pitts language or remove it.
If it is removed, then let all of your representatives know that you support the bill and want them to vote in favor.
If it is NOT removed, you are going to have a decision to make on whether or not you believe health care reform is worth the further erosion of access to abortion.
After debating this back and forth in my head for more than 48 hours, my decision is that a bill that does not include all necessary access for women and families isn't really reform. To that end, I have contact my U.S. House Representative's office to encourage him to join the growing list of members who have signed on to a letter that is being sent to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It reads, at least in part, as follows:
As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health Care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3932, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than the current law.
If, when all of this is said and done, there is no health care reform bill, don't blame women. Don't credit those who disrupted numerous town hall meetings throughout the month of August. Don't allow Republicans to gloat on how they killed reform. The credit and/or blame lies solely with the 64 Democrats in the U.S. House, and whatever members of the U.S. Senate, that view reform as an opportunity to restrict access.
In order to complete that task, she'll first have to battle in a Democratic Primary against at least three other contenders. Then she'll need to take on Chuck Grassley, who has served Iowans in the U.S. Senate for nearly three decades, but has recently seen his worth decline in the eyes of some voters.
Grassley is probably most known nationally, at least of late, for his political maneuvering in terms of health care reform. And it also safe to say that such incidents, which can only be described as bad-faith negotiations on Grassley's part, raised a few eyebrows among residents of the Hawkeye State who would have previously summed up Grassley as more of a straight shooter. In short, Iowans may not have always agreed with Grassley's positions on an issue, but prior to the health care reform fiasco, most would have told you that at least they always knew where he stood.
While national pundits take a look over Grassley's shoulder and wonder what happened to the moderate they came to know and admire, Iowa Republican pundits take in the same view and are proclaiming him still to be too close to the political middle.
He angered the social conservative base back home when he launched an investigation against several television evangelists. He was threatened with a primary if he didn't tow the party line on issues seen as key to bring about a (social conservative) Republican Rising in the next election cycle. And, now armed with his own mobile device that allows him to present his unfiltered thoughts to Iowans,Grassley's down-home dialogue on national issues isn't necessarily causing the people to stand up and cheer for more.
Despite all of this, however, Iowans aren't completely ready to push Grassley out. If nothing else, Iowans have learned from their caucus experiences how important it is to maintain their voice in national affairs, and they know that in the U.S. Senate longevity goes a long way toward committee assignments, dialogue and setting the national tone on topics viewed as key here in flyover country.
Iowans across the state -- and this is especially true of women in our state -- are also keenly aware that they are in a race for last place. That is, there are only two states in the union that have not elected a woman to Congress or to the governor's office: Iowa and Mississippi. Iowans don't want to come in last. The sentiment, which has previously only been bubbling about in women's circles, is becoming more prominent, and has already prompted some who support Grassley to start defending him in a manner of, "Sure, we want a woman, but we don't want *this* woman."
Conlin will need to overcome 30-years worth of name recognition in order to best Grassley. But she has on her side the ever-present rumors of a young grandson by the same last name being groomed for the position. Iowans may be loyal, mind you, but they aren't necessarily loyal to a point of family political dynasties.
Social conservative Iowans, who denied Grassley a voting voice at the last Republican National Convention, may have been acting out of spite, but they actually ended up doing the senior senator a small favor. When the party came out nationally against ethanol -- calling for an end to mandates for the corn-based fuel in their national platform -- it was advantageous for Grassley's name not to be directly connected. While leaders from other heavy ag states spoke out against the platform, Grassley provided, at best, lukewarm opposition. He stated that maybe the mandates weren't needed.
Consistency tossed aside, Grassley's own actions have some wondering what he might do next, and, more importantly, not liking the possibilities. Once considered a Teflon-coated man on the Iowa political landscape, Grassley is now viewed as more of an unknown and a potential liability. For instance, will his bad-faith negotiations come back to roost in the form of a climate bill that doesn't take the needs and realities of Iowa ag interests into account?
If Grassley continues to try to walk the line between what his political history says he is and what social conservatives in Iowa want him to be, there is little doubt that the small glimmer of hope for those who wish to oppose him will brighten. The closer he moves to Iowa politics in an order to bolster his support at home, the further he moves away from being someone with respect and clout in the U.S. Senate.
Conlin, on the other hand, is presented with an Iowa quite different than one she had in previous campaigns. Marriage equality, while still being hammered by those on the right-most fringes of the social conservative base, has not developed into the statewide boogie-man that was predicted. For the first time in a very long time, Democratic voters outnumber Republican voters in all but one Congressional District. (Readers can guess which one.)
Her introductory attempt, embedded above, goes straight for the kitchen table issues that are forefront in Iowan's minds. It's a good start, but it's only a start. She needs to embark on an unprecedented campaign that will take her to every school district in the state, every Chamber of Commerce and every family farm. She needs to be well-versed on both the immigration fears that plague Iowa factory workers, and the reality of the immigration needs in small-town Iowa. She has to look fourth generation dairy farmers and pork producers in the eye and understand why they are so fearful of losing what their family has built, and why they are so angry that large ag corporations are rolling in wealth. She needs to understand and be able to convey that even a government-issued health insurance card isn't enough for rural Iowans, and that federal policies must change if we are to maintain vibrant small towns here and elsewhere.
While recognizing that the "first woman" aspect of her campaign is appealing to many, she must know that alone isn't enough to earn her victory. Pulling comments from Grassley that can be viewed as sexist won't be difficult, but also will not garner the victory. She needs to stand out as an individual, someone who is worthy of trust and, regardless of gender, the absolute best person for the job.
There is no doubt that Conlin has a hard campaign before her, but it is not an insurmountable task.
Mark Halperin, who is employed by Time magazine, used the above graphic, based on the comedy film "
But just as we wonder about how Harkin and Grassley would be labeled if they attempted to secure much needed funding for their state in a political maneuver, we also need to stop and wonder if the Louisiana Democrats would be as quick to respond to certain things if Republican Sarah Palin was a resident of their fine state.
