Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who along with Senators Joe Lieberman (I, CT) and Olympia Snowe (R, ME), remain the key holdouts in the Senate healthcare reform showdown, told a home state radio station today that he was not threatened with a base closure in his home state if he didn't get on board with reform.
Nelson told KLIN/Lincoln radio hosts Jack Mitchell and John Bishop that he knows who started the rumors and when it comes to light it will be "embarrassing for the other side of the aisle," presumably meaning a Republican senator or senators is behind it.
The bad news for Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama is that Nelson continues to have problems with the abortion provisions in the bill, and although overtures have been made toward him, he continues to hold firm in his resistance until the abortions provisions he disapproves are stripped away.
As I noted in a previous post today, in response to news of the House's passage of the $174B jobs bill, President Barack Obama used the term "Great Recession." Maybe I have a tin ear, but that was the first time I noticed him using that specific phrase.
Obviously, there was plenty of "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" usage both during the campaign and even after Obama and Vice President Joe Biden took office. That line seemed to be used at some point in almost every campaign speech--and with cause.
But "Great Recession" is a different semantically, is it not?
For one, the usage not merely invokes directly, but ryhmes with and includes the capitalization of, "Great Depression." (The White House release yesterday capitalized it, making it not merely an adjective-noun combination, but a proper noun.) And, of course, as a rhetorical device it analogizes the magnitude of our present situation to that of the 1930s and 1940s.
In any event, if you do a google search of the White House website for "great recession," there are 14 mentions or references to the term during 9 separate public statements from four different persons: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who made first mention back on July 29; White House senior adviser Robert Gibbs; Obama; and, more than any of those three combined, Biden.
Here, as best I can tell (and with thanks to fantastic work by Salon intern Emily Holleman) is the chronology:
July 29, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:
“We all have watched and we've all heard and read stories -- some of which you all have written -- where the discussion wasn't whether or not we were improving of what have you, but how far -- how much further we could fall; could we go off the edge of that cliff into what some are calling the Great Recession, or as some were betting that we could fall into a depression.” (Press gaggle, Air Force One en route to Bristol, Virginia)
September 3, Vice President Joe Biden:
“President Obama and I, when we entered office, we were in the midst of what I refer to as the Great Recession.” (Remarks on the 200 Days of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Brookings Institute, Washington, DC)
September 22, Biden:
“And even in Michigan, which is being battered now as a consequence of this Great Recession, and Michigan, which was the best--where there was only a 37 percent gap between premium and wages is actually the smallest -- but still a 37 percent gap.” And later: “During this Great Recession, when inflation actually fell .7 percent. Inflation fell .7 percent, and premiums increased 5.5 percent.” (Address to National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Gaylord National Hotel and Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland)
September 27, President Barack Obama:
“Our entire financial system was poised on the brink of collapse with many fearing that what has been called the Great Recession would become another Great Depression.” (Address to Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Phoenix Awards Dinner, Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC)
October 2, Biden:
“We will recover. And we're determined that when we do, the middle class is in a better position coming out of this than when it went into this Great Recession.” (Remarks on Unemployment Numbers, White House, Roosevelt Room, The White House)
October 30, Biden:
“[The President] termed the Recovery Act the beginning of the end of the Great Recession that we faced. And we called it a Great Recession not to engage in hyperbole; it's the worst recession America has ever faced short of a depression. So unfortunately, it was the greatest--meaning worst-recession we've had in modern American history, short of a depression.” And later: "The reason we're here today is to meet the commitment I made to you all when the President put me in charge of this, to assure the American people that this unprecedented investment in the midst of this Great Recession would be totallytransparent, and we would be accountable for every penny we sent out there; and also to let you know in the first quarter of the reporting, the first report that we're making--and we're going to make subsequent reports--that we in fact --what the progress has been, what has been the consequence of the investment made so far." And later still: "Even if we did not have this Great Recession, we should be investing in this infrastructure." (Vice President "Reports over 1 Million Jobs Created", Washington, DC)
November 9, Biden:
“We want to come out of this Great Recession, and we will come out of it, we will come out if strong, but we want to come out of it with the middle class positioned better in the new economy then [sic] they went in.” (Discussion on Middle Class Families, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC)
November 11, White House senior adviser David Axelrod:
“Asia represents a great emerging market for American products and as we rebuild our economy from this great recession, one of the things that’s going to power it is expanded markets for American products.” (“Axelrod Previews President's Arrival in Singapore,” aboard Air Force One en route to Singapore)
December 16, Obama:
“All over our country this holiday season, Americans who lost their jobs in the Great Recession are looking for work.” (Statement on House Passage of Jobs Bill)
Perhaps I'm making mountains of rhetorical molehills here. But nobody disputes that the term Great Depression is a proper noun. Whether we are in fact living through the Great Recession or not is, I suppose, an arguable proposition. In fact, we won't know until it's over just how "great"--meaning bad, as the VPOTUS might say--it is.
Speaking of Biden, he seems to be particularly fond of dropping the GR. Five of the nine speeches in which it was used belong to him, as do 10 of the 14 total mentions. I presume these are prepared remarks, but I'm not sure; the VPOTUS could be freelancing a bit here.
The White House messengers are correct when they said "Great Recession" is a term used by others first, and thus not of their own making. Back in March, Catherine Rampell conducted an etymological inquiry. She found that the term was used sparingly throughout 2008 but mentions ramped up in early 2009.
In that regard, you could say the White House has been slow and sparing in adopting the term. But this fall the White House--or Joe Biden, at least--seems to be warming to it.
Howard Dean got some prime real estate on today's Washington Post op-ed page to express his dissatisfaction with the healthcare reform bill. He opens with a pretty concise summary of the main objections of liberals and other critics who oppose it for it insufficiencies:
If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these...
Then, around some suggested changes, he gets to the politics of its passage or rejection:
To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points...
Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference....
In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.
I'm not convinced that Dean's voice carries as much weight as it once did. Opponents will undoubtedly rally behind him; as a doctor and former presidential candidate who excited key elements of the Democratic base, he lends credibility to critics that those who are dismissing them as looney lefties.
Ezra Klein, who is taking a lot of guff from conservatives while at the same time disappointing liberals for supporting the Senate compromise--calls Dean one of the hostage-takers in the debate:
In his op-ed, Dean names John Kerry as the senator who has been working hardest on this question. This morning, I spoke to Kerry's staff, who got me a statement from Kerry himself. "The prudent purchasing provisions in the Senate health bill will lower costs and increase affordable options for consumers," Kerry says. "It’s strong language that will allow the exchange to deliver competitive prices and offer high quality care, and I’m thrilled to see national reform honor the best innovations already succeeding in Massachusetts.”
I'm sure there's some theoretical way in which the language could be stronger. Dean doesn't say what it is, but I don't doubt it exists. But now we're talking about killing the Senate health-care bill -- with its $900 billion in subsidies and its delivery system reforms and its Medicare Commission and its Medicaid expansion and its exchanges and its regulations on insurers -- unless we make the exchanges slightly stronger prudent purchasers, when they're already strong enough to "thrill" the original sponsor of the prudent purchaser amendment?
I guess this is the logical outcome of a system in which the greatest gains accrue to those making the most credible and severe threats. But it's not healthy.
There's a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out. The numbers are grim for Democrats and Barack Obama, but more to the point, the country continues to express a general and very real disgust.
Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg of NBC's First Read summarize the major findings this way:
In the poll, Obama's approval has dropped below 50% (to 47%); his party faces its first net-negative fav/unfav since Sept. 2007; and one-third think he has the right goals and priorities to fix the economy....
In the poll, 55% think the country is on the wrong track; 61% believe the country is in a state of decline; and a whopping 81% believe the past year in Congress has been marked by division and a lack of willingness to compromise. (Compare that with the 52% who thought, immediately after Obama’s presidential victory, that unity would prevail in 2009.) What’s more, Sarah Palin’s fav/unfav is 32%-40%, up a tick since her book tour. And the Republican Party’s fav/unfav is 28%-43%. Indeed, the anti-Washington sentiment is so strong that the conservative, libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement has a net-positive fav/unfav, 41%-23%. Populism is alive and well, folks. And it’s up for grabs. Washington-establishment types watch out: 2010 could be the year of the outsider and turn into the THIRD-STRAIGHT change election cycle, an unprecedented level of political volatility in this country.
Looking ahead to next year’s midterms, Democrats enjoy only a two-point advantage on the generic ballot, 43%-41%, which is their smallest edge on this question since 2004. In addition, unlike was the case during the 2008 election season, Democrats are now the ones facing an enthusiasm gap. According to the poll, 56% of Republicans said they were “very interested” in next year’s midterms, compared with 46% of Democrats who said that.... Moreover, when you look at the generic-ballot score among high-interest voters, Republicans have an eight-point advantage, 47%-39%.
Yesterday, the House narrowly passed, 217-212, a $174B jobs bill, just hours after raising the national debt ceiling (another) $300B. Not a single Republican voted for it, and 38 Democrats (including, obviously, a lot of Blue Dogs) voted "nay" along with the Republicans.
Of its passage, Obama said:
All over our country this holiday season, Americans who lost their jobs in the Great Recession are looking for work. Today the House answered with some productive ideas to respond to this great need, offering new initiatives including repairing our roads and bridges, providing relief to Americans who have lost their jobs and preventing layoffs at the state and local level. They complement the proposals I made last week to buttress small businesses with new tax cuts and increased lending and provide incentives to consumers who retrofit their homes. Some may think standing by and taking no action is the right approach, but for the millions of Americans still out of work, inaction is unacceptable.
The post-healthcare reform stage of this presidency will be defined by three words: jobs, jobs, jobs. To the degree Obama and the Democrats make the stimulus and jobs bill monies work, the stark NBC/WSJ poll numbers will fade; to the degree matters in the "Great Recession" do not, those numbers will probably worsen.
Last night on Fox, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told Neil Cavuto he will vote no on the health care bill.
SANDERS: I'm going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for, but I've indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point.
And here’s the reason: When the public option was withdrawn, because of Lieberman's action, what I worry about is how do you control escalating health care costs? How do you give competition to the private insurance companies, who are raising rates, premium rates, outrageously every single year—whose whole function in life is to make as much money as they can?
What a strong, Medicare-type public option would do is at least provide competition to these private insurance companies and prevent, I believe, these large increases in rates.
CAVUTO: So unless they change that, they are not going to be counting on Bernie Sanders.
SANDERS: Well, I’m doing my best right now to make this bill a bill that works for the American people.
CAVUTO: So they gain Joe Lieberman and lose you? That sounds like a wash to me.
SANDERS: Well, we will see what happens.
MyDD's Charles Lemon and Igor Volsky of Think Progress have more.
Organizing for America, the post-campaign version of the Obama for America campaign's juggernaut website/mailing list/organizing tool that compiled and rallied more than 3 million supporters during Obama's 2008 presidential run, is asking its supporters to help rally their home-state senators on the health care reform package with calls to Washington. Obviously, many of these emails or phone calls are unnecessary or wasteful because some senators will be on board no matter what, others not; so it's really about wavering senators (that means you, Ben.)
A version of the script found here has gone out by direct email, and those who go to the OFA site are immediately greeted by an appeal to take action. That script reads in part:
If we don't pass health reform, millions of Americans will be trapped in a broken status quo, unable to pay their bills or see a doctor when they need one.
More and more employers will drop coverage for employees. And Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget.
There's too much at stake not to get this done. That's why, as of this morning, OFA supporters have made 849,856 calls to Congress in support of health reform since August.
And that's why today, with the Senate locked in last-minute negotiations, our goal is to hit one million calls.
Of course, many of the names on the OFA mailing lists are supporters who were hoping that the health care bill would include some of the provisions now negotiated away--public option, Medicare buy-in and the prescription drug importation I wrote about earlier today.
So I'm just wondering aloud whether and to what degree there will be pushback from OFA members about getting these emails, if at all? OFA says it's approaching a million calls, which is impressive. Might it lose some disgruntled supporters along the way? I doubt Mitch Stewart would say so, and the list is propriety so we will likely never know....
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
Catholic Charities...Nothings For Free?
Religion and Politics: Still Merging after All These Years
God's Name Stops Traffic For 3 Hours In Jerusalem