Flat out disgusted

Tonight President Obama said this regarding the “deal” made to avert the federal government shutdown. (Try to ignore the grammatically incorrect lead sentence)

Tomorrow, I’m pleased to announce that the Washington Monument, as well as the entire federal government, will be open for business.  And that’s because today Americans of different beliefs came together again.

In the final hours before our government would have been forced to shut down, leaders in both parties reached an agreement that will allow our small businesses to get the loans they need, our families to get the mortgages they applied for, and hundreds of thousands of Americans to show up at work and take home their paychecks on time, including our brave men and women in uniform.

All those government office are open on the weekend? Really?

This agreement between Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of all Americans, is on a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.  Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them.  And I certainly did that.

Oh yes, indeed, Mr. Obama. You and the Dems certainly did give ground. But what, exactly, did the Republicans give up? Not a damned thing as far as I can tell. From Boehner’s office:

Here are some key facts on the bipartisan agreement:

• THE LARGEST SPENDING CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.  The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would mean zero cuts. 
• HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDING CUTS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.  The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.
• OFFICIALLY ENDS THE “STIMULUS” SPENDING BINGE.  The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment. 
• SETS STAGE FOR TRILLIONS MORE IN SPENDING CUTS.  Clears the way for congressional action on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget – The Path to Prosperity – which cuts trillions in spending and offers a long-term blueprint for American job creation.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE ON REPEAL OF OBAMACARE.  The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety.  The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.
• NEW TOOLS IN THE FIGHT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE.  The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions – who can’t meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what’s happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.    
• DENIES ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE IRS.  The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues.  This increased funding is denied in the agreement.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE & DEBATE ON DE-FUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. 
• BANS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  The agreement includes a complete ban on local and federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”). 
• MANDATORY AUDITS OF THE NEW JOB-CRUSHING BUREAUCRACY SET UP UNDER DODD-FRANK.  The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings. 

If the Republicans didn’t get everything today, they’ll get it in the next couple of weeks. Cuts now and votes later to get the rest of their wish list.

More Obama:

Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful.

Painful for who? Not you. Not any Senator. Not a single Representative.

Programs people rely on will be cut back. 

And for this all of you should be ashamed.

Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. 

Eh, what’s another bridge or two falling down? Or a levee failure. No big deal.

And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. 

In better circumstances the American people wouldn’t be needing these programs, now would they? 

I want to think Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid for their leadership and their dedication during this process.  A few months ago, I was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground.  Now the same cooperation will make possible the biggest annual spending cut in history, and it’s my sincere hope that we can continue to come together as we face the many difficult challenges that lie ahead, from creating jobs and growing our economy to educating our children and reducing our deficit.  That’s what the American people expect us to do.  That’s why they sent us here. 

” . . . the same cooperation . . . “

Is that what they’re calling extortion these days?

Jeezus.

No Labels Debuts

“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” ~ Lewis Carroll

You will recall that I wrote about No Labels about a week or so ago. Well, they’ve had their grand debut. Christopher Beam at Slate provides the snark.

Even if they did have something to lose, signing onto “No Labels” is risk-free. The group’s mission statement is filled with the bland pablum of political campaigns. It’s the kind of stuff that’s so obvious, no one would ever disagree. “Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works—driven by shared purpose and common sense.” Unlike all those groups that prefer a political system that doesn’t work. “Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success … provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way.” Me, I’m for spending wads of money on failure. “America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties.” That is going to upset their rival group, Americans Against Strength, Safety, Readiness, and Ability To Protect Ourselves.

To prove that political compromise is possible, politicians at the No Label event touted their own bipartisan achievements. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand cited a bill she co-sponsored with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn that created searchable databases for earmarks. “He wants to ban all earmarks, and I like federal investments to create jobs, but one thing we agree on is about transparency,” she said. Well, sure, but they still disagree on banning earmarks and federal spending. Cooperating on a softball issue like transparency doesn’t change that.

The group takes a pass when it comes to issues that actually divide people, like gay marriage and abortion. Anticipating this critique, the group’s Web site argues that social issues have been used to “keep Americans from working together.” Instead, it says, “We want to help call a cease-fire in the culture wars by focusing on common ground goals rather than absolutist positions on the left or right.” Even on an issue as polarizing as abortion, says co-founder and CNN personality John Avlon, most Americans agree that the procedure should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But his answer seems to undermine the point of the group. If there’s consensus on so many issues, what’s the point of creating a group? To defend that consensus?

Beam concludes:

Perhaps the greatest achievement of No Labels is to show why labels exist in the first place. They’re so busy talking about what they’re not—not Republican, not Independent, not conservative, not liberal—you never get a handle on what they are. Labels are a useful shortcut for voters who want to know what a group is all about. The lack of a positive mission beyond bipartisanship and civility (which both Republicans and Democrats also call for) makes it hard to know what they really want.

Paul Bass gives a blow by blow of the day (complete with an insipid video of a bunch of rhythm challenged politicos). I was left scratching my head and thinking, What a lot of circle jerk, feel-good, nothingness. I suspect Bass felt the same. He concludes his piece:

But it wasn’t a day for fine print. It was a day for a grand vision. It was a day for optimism that people from different ideological and geographic backgrounds can unite to counter “hyperpartisanship.”

Participants like New Haven’s Darnell Goldson acknowledged that crucial details remain to be worked out.

“I’m not sure what the endgame is,” Goldson said. “But I’m going to go along for the ride.”

Huh.

Obama’s Mad Negotiating Skilz

You have got to be kidding me. 

President Obama just announced a tentative deal with Republicans on extending the sweeping tax cuts signed by President George W. Bush nearly a decade ago.The deal extends all the tax cuts for two years, including those on upper-income Americans that Obama wanted to end.

[ . . . ]

Here are details of the emerging deal: 

• Extends unemployment insurance for 13 months. Two million workers in December, and 7 million over the next year, would have lost benefits otherwise.
• Provides a one-year, 2 percentage point reduction in employees’ Social Security payroll taxes, lowering the rate from 6.2% to 4.2%, at a cost of $120 billion.
• Keeps the Earned Income Tax Credit and American Opportunity Tax Credit increases from last year’s economic stimulus law, for another $40 billion in tax cuts for families and students.
• Allows business to write off 100% of their capital purchases next year.
• Sets the estate tax at 35% for two years, with a $5 million exemption on assets that’s higher than last year’s $3.5 million. The rate came down under Bush’s policy from 55% before 2001 to 45% in 2009 before expiring this year. It was set to return at 55% next year.

From the New York Times

Some details remain to be worked out, and Mr. Obama could have trouble bringing his party along with him. The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, all to be financed by adding to the budget deficit.

It includes reducing the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on employees by two percentage points for a year, putting more money in the paychecks of workers. That tax cut would replace the central tax break for middle and low-income Americans included in last year’s economic stimulus measure [BL: Making Work Pay], White House officials said.

It also includes continuation of a college-tuition tax credit for some families, an expansion of the earned income tax credit and a provision to allow businesses to write off the cost of certain equipment purchases.

The deal would include a 13-month extension of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed. Benefits have already started to run out for some people, and as many as 7 million people would potentially lose assistance within the next year, administration officials said.

The White House was also said to have agreed to Republican demands on the estate tax that would result in an exemption of $5 million per person and a maximum rate of 35 percent. Some Democratic aides said that concession alone was reason enough for Democratic lawmakers to oppose the deal when it comes up for votes in the House and Senate.

[ . . . ]

The payroll tax cut would put about $120 billion back in the pockets of workers and the unemployment benefits would cost about $60 billion, officials said. Continuing the lowered tax rates for the highest-earners, by contrast, would cost the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years, according to budget analysts.

Okay, so the whole package is going to cost $900 billion over the next two years, but only about $220 billion of that goes to working class people. Do I have this right?

I need someone to do the big math for me, but I fail to see how taking money out of Social Security is a good idea, unless of course you want to see it go und . . . Oh. Wait.

Losing the Making Work Pay credit is going to hurt a lot of people who don’t make a lot of money. For a person who is making 10.00 an hour, that “relief” comes to a whopping $8 a week (based on a 40 hour work week, IF all their income is taxable). Barely break even with regards to the Making Work Pay credit. The less taxable income (insurance, etc, is taken out before taxes), the less this 2% reduction is going to help. On the other hand, the Making Work Pay credit was a straight amount, regardless of income. If a couple’s taxable income is under $40K, same story. They lose.  Hey, but that’s only for one year. After that, they’ll lose even the 2% SS reduction

On the other hand, rich people are gonna make out like bandits! A two year extension on not having to pay about 4% more on income over $250,000, and, holey keerist, for two years the Estate Tax exemption goes to even higher exemption rate with a 10% lower tax rate on the balance than even Bush gave them!

100% write off on capital purchases!

That is some kind of bargain! Obama. He’s got skilz.

No Labels?

Ironic, isn't it, that the mascot is a bull? Methinks me smells me some . . .

I’m sorry to see some of my FB friends jumping on this bandwagon.

While on the surface I can see how this might be appealing to some, the marketing is awfully slick, and I smell Pete Peterson all over this web site. 

Here’s the tell:

Under The NO LABELS Approach page, this is the first item (emphasis mine)

The US must Remain the World’s Premier Economic Power- Most Americans realize that unprecedented levels of debt threaten America’s economic growth. [i]  What’s worse, half of that debt belongs to foreign countries like China. We need to restore fiscal solvency. Because a huge share of the budget goes to fund mandatory, “entitlement” programs, fiscal solvency is simply not possible without entitlement reform.[ii]  We need our representatives to do the math, without worrying about ideology.

President Obama convened a bipartisan deficit reduction panel to propose solutions, but it has already come under attack.  Some are preparing to oppose the proposals if they include any new revenue sources, dismissing the commission as a tax-hike panel. Others are preparing to oppose the panel’s likely call for entitlement reform; embracing tactics that long have made social security reform the third rail of American politics. Professional partisans seem content to demagogue the deficit without proposing any realistic long-term solutions.   Yet the clear reality is that entitlement reform, reduced spending and some new revenues will be necessary to reduce the deficit and to prevent the debt from rising past the point our economy can bear.

Repeat after me: Social Security does not add ONE DIME to the deficit.

Social Security does not add to the deficit and it never has.  According to law, Social Security funds are completely separate from the federal budget.  Since Social Security pays its own way, it is impossible for the program to add one dime to the federal deficit.  As reported in the progressive political magazine, the American Prospect, politicians and the media are providing a “distorting view” of Social Security and fiscal policy.   

“Social Security is a defined benefit pension plan sponsored by the federal government, financed primarily with dedicated contributions of workers matched by their employers,” the magazine states. “Social Security has no borrowing authority and so does not and cannot contribute to the federal deficit.  And it will be in balance for the next 26 years, even with no policy changes.”

On the other hand, loans can be made from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that’s just what has happened over the course of its lifetime. Frankly, our deficit picture would look worse if not for the loans made from the SSTF. 

It all smells like…

Mr. Fish

‘Nuff said.

See also Griswold and Roe are dead, Joan.

And if you were actually operating under the assumption that that Dems support women’s rights, recall this post from June 2008. The writing was on the wall years ago.

Lessons, Losing, and Learning Curves

Don’t let the water lily fool you.  Tranquility is the last word I would use to describe my mental state these days. Aside from the goings on in my life, which has some disheartening twists of its own, watching what passes for political debate in this country makes me just want to crawl into bed and pull the covers over my head. 

Peter Daou lists lessons Democrats should learn from the health care debacle of this summer. Unfortunately, much of what he says is what we unSerious folks been talking about for some time, and I don’t think the Democrats are ever going to get it.

Maven posits that Barack Obama is on a learning curve that none of us would want to be on. Fair enough.

I wouldn’t take on his ‘learning curve’ for all the tea – or money – in China.

Yet, learn he will. This man is a man for the job and the ages. After eight years of a criminal half-wit, that we should be so lucky to have found not only somebody who would take the damn job, not to mention have the chops to excel at it is simply amazing.

We differ on our opinion of Obama’s ability to excel, but the problem as I see it is that we shouldn’t be electing anyone who needs to be on a learning curve. George W. Bush anyone? The job is too big and too vital to allow time for OJT. I wanted someone who had experience (0n day one) and plans and solid internal convictions.  Coulda, shoulda, woulda won’t get me much of anything I know, but it’s all just so damned discouraging.  

I went into Obama’s presidency with my eyes wide open, but I tried to hold out hope. 

I want be wrong about Obama. In my judgement he is an Opportunist with no central core and no burning passion for any issue. But, maybe I’m wrong. I “hope” I am. I sincerely do. The American people have lived through eight years of George W. Bush and the radical neo-con agenda. We are desperate to have “normal’ lives again where words actually mean something. Where “Clear Skies” really are free of pollution, instead of having pollutants no longer considered such, where a “Healthy Forest” does not mean uncontrolled logging, and where Patriot Acts really do protect the patriots rather than subvert western jurisprudence and give untold secret powers to the government to spy on its own citizens and make them afraid to speak in protest.

[...]

I have not seen anything in Obama’s record that would lead me to believe that he will be the transformational and transcendent leader that so many proclaim him to be. Heck, he doesn’t need to be transcendent for me to be happy. He just needs to be a real Democrat.

Obama may be smart, but he’s no progressive. Nor is he a liberal. Many “progressive” Democrats assumed that because Obama had D after his name, and because he could give a good speech, that he was FDR, JFK , and MLK rolled up into one.  I never operated under that misconception. Why? Because I, like many others, looked past his rhetoric and looked at his record.  We listened to what he actually said, and didn’t WORM* his clear and unambiguous statements to fit some faith-based notion of Obama’s almighty progressiveness. We took his words at face value.  What’s happening right now, with health care reform going down in flames,  is a direct consequence of electing someone with no experience and no core convictions and who, like many of his generation, has internalized the Right Wing Noise Machine’s bullshit as having some essence of truth.

By the way, have I mentioned that I really hate the label “progressive?”  From the very beginning of its modern usage amongst the Democratic faithful I understood what that word meant: capitulation to the right wing meme that all things “liberal” were evil. I’ll never run from the Liberal label. Please, don’t ever call me a Progressive. But I digress.

Regardless of the label, be it ”liberal” or “progressive,” when it comes to Obama, there is no there there. When you’ve got White House spokesmen calling people like Maven and me who are calling for Single Payer Health Care or at the very least, a robust public option, the “left of the left” as though we are some kind radical Che Guevara types, determined to take down western democracy, well, I’d say it’s time for all Obama apologists to answer the clue phone.

Greg Sargent parses the WaPo poll on Obama’s declining poll numbers.

Much talk today has focused on Obama’s difficulties with independents. But the drop among Dems and liberals is also a key driving factor in the President’s skid, according to WaPo polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta, who graciously provided the additional data.

This suggests Obama’s conciliatory approach to the GOP, and his lack of clarity around the public option — both of which are presumably alienating Dems and liberals — could be key factors driving his dip.

The more Obama panders to the right and ignores his own party, the worse the chances of turning back the conservative damage of the last 30+ years.  Worse, it may set up a resurgence of the very ideology the voters so soundly renounced in the last two elections.  Harry Truman had it right when he said:

Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.

Ian Welsh:

…I warned that Republicans could use their skill at being in the opposition and Obama’s manifest failings  could lead to a Republican rebound in 2010 and 2012.  His failings were clearly visible back then and indeed in the primary campaign. He didn’t turn into a compromising milquetoast when he got to the White House, he was always one.  He didn’t turn into a conservative Democrat in the White House, he was always one. Likewise, we knew the Repubicans weren’t going to play ball with Obama’s delusional ideas of bipartisanship and the stimulus package told us he wasn’t interesting in passing effective policy.

[...]

He later made his fundamentally (sic) agreement with basic [B]ush principles of civil rights by voting for warrantless wiretapping after promising to vote against it, then made clear that he’d serve financial interests before ordinary Americans when he forced through TARP.

And yet people believed he was going to be some sort of progressive president?  Granted, even I have been shocked at just how much his administration has violated progressive and liberal principles, but I was only surprised in degree, not kind, because I knew he didn’t believe in them.  This isn’t because I’m brilliant, I’m not.  It’s because I looked at the evidence and didn’t let “hope” and soaring rhetoric distract me from his actions and, to a large extent, what he was actually saying.  Certainly he lied about some things, but he was very honest about his fundamental governing philosophy.  Likewise, who his key advisers were, the fact that he had the right-most policy prescriptions of the late Democratic primary field, the way he fetishized tax cuts and so on, told anyone who was listening without “hope” clogging their ears who he was.

Violet Socks:

Back in May I did a quick rundown of Obama’s major betrayals up to that point, and I really need to do an update. There’s so much, I lose track. Afghanistan, Blackwater contracts, the Justice Department-DOMA clusterfuck, anti-contraception godbags appointed to Health and Human Services, the appalling Cairo speech (which bravely asserted women’s fundamental right to wear the headscarves that they have to wear so men don’t throw acid on them), and on and on. Just this past week, Obama played footsie with the “faith community” and vowed that public health wouldn’t pay for abortions. I’m surprised he doesn’t just buy a pig farm in Crawford and start clearing brush.

The only people who still believe are the believers, that hard-core 20% or so who never give up. Remember how there was always a rump group of Republican voters who continued to believe that Bush was President Jesus, no matter what? We have those on the left, too; they’re the hardcore Obamabots. The two groups actually have a lot in common: pseudo-religious fervor, resistance to what the rest of us call “reality,” . . .

For a trip down memory lane, who recalls this bit of tripe from Mark Morford?

Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

Hmmm. I wonder what Mark is writing these days?

Update: from the comments in Ian’s post, Lambert links to a little something he wrote in December 2007. Take the time to click and read.

*What Obama Really Meant

Shorter Pfaff: “Leave Barack alone! It’s not his fault!”

“He can’t help it that the doody-heads he picked as his advisors are a bunch of losers! And don’t forget those meanie Republicans!”

What a piece of condescending pap. Obama is “too decent?”  Give me a break.  William Pfaff, by inferring that Obama’s advisors are mediocre and mainstream, completely ignores who actually picked these advisors. Hint: It wasn’t the tooth fairy. Pfaff makes one concession … sort of:

. . . I would say that if his economic counselors are mediocre, then it is a judgment on the American economic profession as a whole. There are distinguished dissident economists whose advice Obama seems to have ignored, such as Joseph Stiglitz and James K. Galbraith, but the people he has used in Washington are mainstream leaders of the profession.

However, the economy aside, I would make the same criticism of the president’s foreign policy. He is doing what the mainstream analysts and the Pentagon are telling him to do about his war—the top people. Regrettably they are wrong, as will eventually be discovered.

Um, William, they’re his advisors, not his parents. He can stay out after midnight, if he wishes. He is, after all, the President of the United States.

After putting the blame everywhere but squarely on Obama’s shoulders, Pfaff throws up his hands and ends with this little nugget:

Can anything be done about this? I doubt it. The combination of prejudices concerning socialism and the supremacy of the American system that Americans seem to acquire in the womb, with Republican electoral nihilism, is probably impossible to overcome. Thank you, Barack Obama, for trying.

Wow, I must’ve missed something, because all I’ve seen Barack do is make speeches and cave to the corporate powers-that-be at every turn. I’ve seen him carry on Bush’s wars, and escalate them, defend and expand Bush’s shredding of the Constitution. He has broken campaign promise after campaign promise. That’s what Plaff calls trying?

Puh-leeze.

From the department of New Boss Same as the Old Boss

Tell me why the voters elected a Democratic majority if the Dems are going to keep letting the Republicans run the show? 

Senate legislation to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will likely drop a proposed mandate that all employers offer medical benefits to their workers or pay a penalty, a senior Democratic lawmaker said. The move may make it easier to reach a compromise with Senate Republicans o a bill.

[...]

Conrad and committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, also said a bill being drafted by the panel will tax employer-provided health benefits to help offset the cost of legislation they say will total about $1 trillion. Senators have discussed applying a tax on benefits valued at more than $15,000 to $17,000 for a family of four, but Baucus said the level is still under discussion.

[...]

The issue that has sparked the most partisan division is the call by some Democrats for a new government insurance program that would compete against private insurers. Most Republicans oppose that approach, and Conrad has been floating an alternative that utilizes non-profit cooperatives rather than a government program to spark more competition.

President Barack Obama this week continued to push for a public option, but indicated he will listen to lawmakers’ ideas. When asked today whether the public program is “off the table,” Baucus declined to answer definitively while indicating that the panel will center what it does on “more robust, beefed up” co-operatives.

“The goal here to keep the insurance industry’s feet to the fire,” he said.

Really? ‘Cause they seem to be winning. This is what happens when you have no inner principles, no line in the sand that you will not cross. There is no leadership on the part of Obama, just passing the buck and making nice-sounding speeches.

Members of the panel today spoke by phone with Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf to help whittle down costs that Conrad said still total around $1.2 trillion. One possible way to curb the expense is reducing subsidies to lower-income Americans, he said.

Conrad also said the committee is considering tax ideas that Obama promoted earlier this year. Obama suggested limiting deductions for expenses such as charitable gifts, mortgage interest, and investment-advisory fees.

Baucus earlier indicated he wasn’t giving Obama’s proposal much consideration.

Hey Max, why aren’t you riding the Party Unity Pony?

 By dropping the employer mandate, Senate Democrats would raise their chances of having bipartisan legislation. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the finance committee, says most Republicans oppose that mandate. Draft legislation in the House would impose a tax on employers who don’t provide benefits, equal to 8 percent of their payrolls, a proposal that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is campaigning against.

In case you haven’t figured it out, the American people’s needs are nowhere to be seen in this discussion. The only goal is to pass a piece of shit bill so all the fat cats on the Hill can pat themselves on the back and Obama can preen about how he got ‘both sides’ to work together. And the fat cats? They still have health care.

The alternative under consideration would force employers to pay a pay a share of the cost if their workers receive Medicaid or qualify for a tax credit to buy coverage at group rates through a proposed new online “insurance exchange.”

If their employees get Medicaid, they would pay half of the national average Medicaid costs for their workers enrolled in the government program. They would pay 100 percent of the cost of the tax credit for workers that utilize that tax benefit.

Wow, was this buried deep into the article. If their employees get Medicaid, then the employees aren’t being paid enough!

Baucus said it will take time to get a bipartisan deal.

“Senators want to get to yes, but to get to yes they have to feel more comfortable.”

So, to review: No Single Payer, No Public Option, taxing employer-provided benefits, reducing Medicaid benefits to the poor. How is this better than what we’ve got now?  In short, it’s not. In fact it’s worse. At least now I don’t have to pay taxes on my benefits.

Who kidnapped all the Democrats?

I’m not sure this is the kind of “bipartisanship” Obama has in mind

From my WaPo morning email:

Democrats Among Stimulus Skeptics: Some See Long-Term Goals Going Unmet (By Alec MacGillis)

The Republicans Are Smiling, but They’re Not Buying (By Dana Milbank)

Low-hanging fruit – Update

I reviewed my checklist today. From my November 3rd post, I Want to be Wrong I listed some things Obama could do to begin to gain my confidence.  Let’s check in on his performance so far. My list with notations of current action in italicized brackets: