Kevin Drum

Healthcare Summit Wrapup III

| Fri Feb. 26, 2010 1:02 AM EST

A sampling of bigfoot liberal pundit reaction to the summit. Steven Pearlstein:

The most important thing Republicans think is that if there are Americans who can't afford the insurance policies that private insurers are willing to offer, then that's their problem — there's nothing the government or the rest of us should do about it....That was their clear message Thursday. It was their message during all those years when their party controlled Congress and the White House and they did nothing and said nothing about the plight of the uninsured. And it is clear that they would continue to do nothing if, by some miracle, Democrats were to drop their plan or embark on a more modest approach. For Republicans, the uninsured remain invisible Americans, out of sight and out of mind.

E.J. Dionne:

The Republicans simply don’t want to pass comprehensive health-care reform. That is the main lesson of today’s health-care summit.

Paul Krugman:

So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.

Can't disagree with any of that! Still, my take is that the summit was basically a draw, but with a slight edge to the Republicans. They didn't have to win, after all. They just had to seem non-insane, and for the most part they did. What's more, Obama missed a chance to provide a punchy, 60-second sales pitch for the Democratic plan. A recent Kaiser poll that's been making the rounds shows that Americans don't like the Democratic plan but they do like the features of the plan. They just don't know they're there. So Obama should have outlined those features in quick, soundbite format. He missed a bet by not doing that.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

What Happened to John Yoo's Emails?

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 8:00 PM EST

Hmmm. "Most of" John Yoo's emails from his stint writing torture memos for the Justice Department were deleted before he left. You know, it takes a pretty deliberate effort to delete emails and make them nonrecoverable. CREW wants an investigation.

Healthcare Summit Wrapup II

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 5:35 PM EST

A quick followup on my previous healthcare summit posts.

First, Obama's big closing issues were covering 30 the million uninsured and doing something about preexisting conditions. Those are smart choices because (a) they're popular issues with the public and (b) they're poison for Republicans. Their plans simply don't (and can't) cover a substantial number of the uninsured because you can't do this in a private system without federal subsidies, and that requires tax increases. Likewise, solving the preexisting condition problem within a private system leads you inevitably to a mandate and subsidies, which requires a tax increase. They're stuck.

Second, his basic message was a promise to consider some changes to his current position and a challenge to Republicans to do the same instead of merely insisting on starting over from scratch. "If we saw movement, significant movement, not mere gestures, we wouldn't have to start over," he said. In other words: cut the talking points and get serious about addressing real problems.

Will it work? It depends on what you think "work" means. There's no chance of Republicans making any concessions, of course, but Obama's stated willingness to consider their ideas might help win over public opinion and stiffen some Democratic spines. But that largely depends, I think, on how the press ends up playing this. Stay tuned.

Healthcare Summit Wrapup

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 5:00 PM EST

So what will be the basic Obama/Gibbs media takeaway from the healthcare summit? I figure there are three main possibilities:

  1. "I'm disappointed that Republicans just fell back on the same old talking points instead of having a serious discussion."
  2. "Our differences turned out to be pretty fundamental after all: we want to tackle real problems and Republicans just want to tinker around the edges. But I'm convinced the American people prefer something to nothing."
  3. "I'm grateful that Republicans had some good ideas, but they fell far short of addressing our real problems."

If I were president, I'd choose #1. Luckily, I'm not, and I figure Obama will pretty much choose #3. The initial reaction of the press, however, appears to be "Jesus, what a waste of time."

Which it pretty much was.1 As an aside, this is why I wasn't very excited about the idea of holding regular versions of the "question time" that Obama held with congressional Republicans last month. They got taken by surprise then, but there was never any chance that would happen a second time. And it didn't. They were armed with every talking point in the book this time, and some of those talking points resonate pretty well. What you saw today is about what any future question time would look like.

1Just to be clear, I mean a waste of time substantively. In terms of its impact on the politics and public opinion of healthcare reform, we'll have to wait and see.

Financial Link Dump

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 3:44 PM EST

Looking for something to do instead of watching more healthcare bloviating? Mike Konczal has a bunch of good posts up:

Go read. It's all good stuff.

Obama's Hole Card: Preexisting Conditions

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 1:45 PM EST

Here's my idiosyncratic halftime take on the White House's goal at today's healthcare summit. The one topic that Democrats keep hammering on over and over is the problem of insurance companies refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions. "This is an area where we can come together," Obama says. Republicans, in contrast, have been relentlessly trying to talk about everything but this. They've barely acknowledged the preexisting conditions problem at all.

For Obama, this is the ballgame. My guess is that he wants to maneuver Republicans into either (a) admitting that they're unwilling to regulate this, which would be highly unpopular, or (b) admitting, however grudgingly, that the practice needs to be banned. Because if they admit it has to be banned he can make the following argument:

  • If insurance companies are forced to take on all comers, then people can game the system by buying insurance only when they get sick. This would obviously decimate the private insurance industry.
  • So you have to require everyone to buy insurance at all times. It's the only way to have a broad pool that keeps costs down (another frequent Obama talking point.)
  • But obviously you can't force poor people to buy insurance they flatly can't afford. So if you mandate coverage, then you have to subsidize low-income families that can't afford insurance, and you have to provide incentives for small businesses so that they can cover their employees.
  • And if you do that, you have to have a funding source. Preferably one that also helps rein in premium costs. Like, oh, an excise tax.

This seems to be the direction he's trying to push things. The question is (a) can he force Republicans to address this? and (b) can he then make the rest of the argument in plain enough terms that it makes sense to everyone?

This is, basically, a debating trick, and Republicans obviously want to avoid getting sucked into it. This is why they try to mumble a bit about high-risk pools and then quickly move on. But the preexisting conditions problem is one of the few issues that almost universally resonates as unfair with the public, and Obama's job is to get everyone to understand what it takes to fix it. If he does, he'll come out of today's summit in better shape than he went in.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Has Pakistan Finally Turned Against the Taliban?

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 1:15 PM EST

Following up on yesterday's post about the capture of Taliban leaders in Pakistan, the New York Times fills in some details about increased cooperation between Pakistan's ISI and the CIA:

Interviews in recent days show how they are working together on tactical operations, and how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan’s sprawling cities.

Beyond the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, C.I.A. operatives working with the ISI have carried out dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year, working from bases in the cities of Quetta, Peshawar and elsewhere, according to Pakistani security officials. The raids often come after electronic intercepts by American spy satellites, or tips from Pakistani informants — and the spies from the two countries then sometimes drive in the same car to pick up their quarry.

....And yet for two spy agencies with a long history of mistrust, the accommodation extends only so far....Even as the ISI breaks up a number of Taliban cells, officials in Islamabad, Washington and Kabul hint that the ISI’s goal seems to be to weaken the Taliban just enough to bring them to the negotiating table, but leaving them strong enough to represent Pakistani interests in a future Afghan government.

This contrasts sharply with the American goal of battering the Taliban and strengthening Kabul’s central government and security forces, even if American officials also recognize that political reconciliation with elements of the Taliban is likely to be part of any ultimate settlement.

Italics mine. However, Spencer Ackerman suggests that far from being as sharp as the Times suggests, "the strategic differences here may be ones of degree." This seems like the better guess. Both sides now agree that the Taliban needs to be seriously beaten up, and at most, the argument is over just how much to beat them up in order to get them to sue for peace. Not only is that not a huge difference, but it's one that both sides will legitimately find difficult to calibrate anyway. If that's really the extent of their disagreement — admittedly a big if — there's a real glimmer of progress here.

The Healthcare Summit So Far

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 11:33 AM EST

Quick comment on today's healthcare summit: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are smart enough to know their own limitations and choose others to speak for the Republican side. And they've mostly chosen speakers who are good at this stuff and know how to talk in ways that make sense.

The Democrats, who should be in better shape because they have a single leader, are insisting on letting every leader speak: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and Max Baucus so far. These folks are not great speakers. Why are they so lame that they insist on speaking anyway? For once in their preening lives, why don't they just fade into the background and let President Obama orchestrate their side? Obama may yet come out on top in today's session, but the behavior of the Democratic congressional leadership so far constitutes political malpractice.

A Tale of Two Bernankes

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 11:08 AM EST

Ben Bernanke testified before Congress yesterday. Here are two newspaper accounts of the exact same testimony. First, the Washington Times:

With uncharacteristic bluntness, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Congress on Wednesday that the United States could soon face a debt crisis like the one in Greece, and declared that the central bank will not help legislators by printing money to pay for the ballooning federal debt.

And here is the Los Angeles Times:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke acknowledged Wednesday that the government's bulging deficits are reaching levels that are unsustainable in the long run, but he said substantial action to reduce them was probably at least two years away.

The embryonic recovery from the worst economic crisis in more than half a century, especially the nation's weak job market, is much too fragile to begin cutting back on government support any time soon, he said...."I'm not advocating, I don't think anyone's really advocating trying to balance the budget this year or next year," he said in delivering the Fed's semiannual report to Congress in front of members of the House Financial Services Committee.

Of course, there's another difference between the two accounts as well. Later in its piece, the LA Times does report that Bernanke also has long-term deficit concerns. They tell the whole story. Later in its story, the Washington Times.....reports that Alan Greenspan is concerned about deficits too. You can read their entire 1000-word account and never have any idea the Bernanke thinks big federal deficits are just fine for the next couple of years. Nice job.

Afghanistan Update

| Thu Feb. 25, 2010 1:52 AM EST

Via Spencer Ackerman, the Christian Science Monitor reports that Pakistan's offensive against Taliban leaders on its territory has been far more extensive than we thought:

Pakistan has arrested nearly half of the Afghanistan Taliban’s leadership in recent days, Pakistani officials told the Monitor Wednesday, dealing what could be a crucial blow to the insurgent movement.

In total, seven of the insurgent group’s 15-member leadership council, thought to be based in Quetta, Pakistan, including the head of military operations, have been apprehended in the past week, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

....Much about the arrests and Pakistan’s motives remain unclear, but they do reflect Pakistan’s evolving approach to the Afghan Taliban leadership inside its borders. “A year ago when this [Obama] administration was completing its first Afghanistan review and we asked the Pakistanis about the Afghan Taliban leadership operating from their country, they flatly denied it,” says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who led President Obama’s initial Afghanistan policy review. “Now not only do they say there are senior Taliban leaders in their country, but they are frankly taking action against them.”

Pakistan's motivations are still murky, but they're obviously pretty serious about this one way or another. And even if they're doing this only because they want to make sure they have a seat at the table when it comes time to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban, that's probably OK too. After all, no settlement is worth much of anything unless Pakistan is OK with it.

So far, Obama's Afghanistan strategy seems to be paying steady dividends. I'm still not especially optimistic about our chances of accomplishing much of lasting significance there, but things have certainly gone better than I expected. Stay tuned.