In this episode Craig decodes the Obama-Kucinich showdown (produced by CQ-Roll Call's Andrew Satter).

Craig on CNN's "Rick's List"
with host Rick Sanchez
Today 3-5pm ET (various times)

Today he signed the HIRE Act, a $17.6 billion measure that includes a payroll tax break for businesses that hire unemployed people. The White House is hopeful that this could put some 300,000 Americans back to work.

How telling it was that Obama describes the HIRE Act as "the first of what I hope will be a series of jobs packages." He could have given himself more credit by claiming that the Economic Stimulus package enacted early in his tenure was his "first" job creation initiative.

But with unemployment still rising, Obama and his aides are mindful that so many Americans think he has not been adequately focused on jobs. Hence, the effort to portray this law as the beginning of an all new attack on unemployment.

Democrats would be better off heading into the coming elections if for the past year they were seen as having done everything they could to boost employment numbers, without having to stage this public relations reboot.

Just when we thought that President Obama's health overhaul would get an "up or down" vote by the end of this week, it got even more complicated. Now, the buzz is about a vote as late as Sunday, when Obama's postponed trip to Asia is supposed to begin.

Capitol Hill's Democratic leaders say they are waiting for a now overdue report from the Congressional Budget Office. But you've got to wonder if they've lost their nerve and instead are paying attention to the legions of party operatives who say this plan spells disaster in November.

It was once assumed that Democrats believed that doing nothing was the worst thing for surviving congressional elections in November. But just as producers of "Lost" seem to think so far, perhaps no answer is the best policy. Keeping the country guessing about what might happen might be better than making a decision.

But who knows, the promo for next week's "Lost" promises that crucial questions will be answered. Maybe Democrats will do the same.

While there might be some benefit for Obama in not forcing this issue until after a 2012 bid for a second term, he would be setting up a powerful rallying cry for political enemies who will make the mandate's repeal a plank in their "take our country back" mantra.

Register Now for Tuesday's CQ-Roll Call Election Preview

Republicans and tea partiers will surely focus on it during the presidential race - and in the coming congressional elections - as a cause for liberty as they see it. The enticing prospect of undoing the mandate by electing conservatives before it takes effect would fuel that drive.

If the mandate did go away, much of Obama's overhaul would fall apart. For starters, the insurance industry would lobby for repeal of one of the President's most popular proposals: The ban on pre-existing condition exclusions, which also takes effect in 2014. Insurance companies are only accepting that reform in exchange for selling more coverage under the federal mandate.

Also, a five year delay gives the states time to come up with blocking legislation. If the courts strike such laws as a violation of the federal government's supremacy, the ensuing firestorm would further stir up conservatives and libertarians. Already, Virginia has led the way by passing a law saying that its residents would not have to obey the mandate - and 34 other states have similar measures in the works.
 
It's a bitter political pill that might be better swallowed right away, to avoid giving opponents time to spit it out.

If the Senate could have passed health legislation by a simple majority, its bill would have been closer to the more liberal House version and Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have to be considering subterfuge to win passage.

But here we are. To gain the 60-vote super majority overcoming Republican filibuster threats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to dilute his bill -- so much so that House Democratic leaders are having trouble winning support among their own.

Thus emerges the "deeming" plan, which allows a vote on fixes to the Senate bill and a rule deeming the underlying bill as passed in the House without actually conducting a roll call on it. That would give wavering members cover to say they never voted for it.

The fixer bill, called reconciliation, can then be passed by a simple majority in the Senate under its rules.

So, let's remember that all of this chicanery in the House, which will surely make Democrats look bad, might be necessary because the Senate's minority party, the GOP, used the filibuster threat to prevent a simple-majority passage of a bill that most senators would have supported.

At the end of the day, even if this convoluted process is how the health overhaul becomes law, it was still supported by a majority of the nation's elected lawmakers in Congress. And that's democracy.

I'll be on a panel moderated by Political Wire's Taegan Goddard, featuring Tucker Carlson, Stuart Rothenberg, and Walter Shapiro.

I hope to see you there!
-- Craig

Follow Campaign 2010
on CQ Politics 

The Ohio Democrat is unhappy that the plan facing a possible vote this week does not provide any form of government-run health care. That alone ought to discount conservative complaints that the Obama plan involves a "government takeover" of the health care system. Kucinich and other House liberals might vote against the bill because it does not include a government takeover.

Still, the House vote could be close enough that Obama needs Kucinich on board -- hence, the President's attentiveness to him on Monday.

But the murky lesson in showcasing Kucinich's concerns, plus the expected tight vote and the ongoing conservative opposition is that Obama has possibly found the shaky middle ground that yields the only changes in our health care system that are politically feasible.

It is true that some of the big-ticket items are gradually phased in. In general, this legislation could take a generation to be fully up and running.

Supporters of the measure point to several important benefits in the first year if it becomes law. The gist of the plan's first-year impact is mostly about insurance reform, which might be a more fitting label for this debate.

Also on Trail Mix: The '10-6' Debate

Immediate Changes

• Uninsured sick people could find cheaper insurance through increased federal funding of high-risk pools -- until the ban on pre-existing coverage exclusions takes effect in 2014.
• Insurers would no longer be allowed to rescind insurance when claims are filed.
• Group health plans would no longer be allowed to establish eligibility rules that discriminate in favor of higher wage employees.
• Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' insurance plans through age 26. Children with pre-existing conditions could not be denied coverage.
• Insurers would be forced to spend more on medical care and less on administration expenses (which means less profit).
• Lifetime limits for coverage would be eliminated and annual limits would be restricted, a major benefit for those with catastrophic illnesses.
• Early retirees get more access to insurance before Medicare eligibility.
• Uniform insurance documents would be created, making it easier to compare policies. Another aid to consumers would be the creation of an appeals process to resolve disputes with their insurer.
• Insurance companies would be forced to cover preventive care and immunizations, and exempt these benefits from deductibles.
• While elimination of the Medicare "doughnut hole" is put off until 2020, in the first year the ceiling for prescription drug coverage would be raised by $250 in the president's plan.
• Small businesses that provide insurance to workers would get tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums in the first year, rising to 50 percent in later years. 

That's a potentially devastating statistic for Democrats. It plays to suspicions of phony math. But, as always in these budget fights, it's complicated.

The Congressional Budget Office, which "scored" the health plan last week, is limited to scrutinizing the legislation it is given. By delaying the start date for some spending until after four years of increased revenue, the bill's deficit neutrality is enhanced. But the CBO estimators say that the plan will continue to reduce the deficit after the first ten years, undercutting what Will, Brooks and others are implying, that once the full plan is up and running there will be no deficit reduction.

"CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law." (CBO report, 3/11)

Republicans discount that projection because it is partially based on spending cuts that they say Congress will not have the guts to impose. They're probably right. Both sides play with the future to make the present look better in these budget games. And the CBO itself acknowledged as much in a disclaimer.

"These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation." (CBO report, 11/18)

Despite the CBO's long term deficit reduction prediction, the GOP has a powerful talking point at its disposal, that the short term Democratic balance sheet is based upon 10 years of revenue minus only six years of expenditures. Unfortunately for Democrats, on this score their defense, although valid, is more complicated than a sound bite.

Roundup:

CQ Today reports that Democrats are confident about passage but are "trying to resolve at least two important issues: making Medicaid funding equitable to all states and addressing Hispanic lawmakers' concerns about immigration. A third issue, abortion, has been set aside, Democrats say."

• Activists Target Undecided Democrats (Congress.org)
• Gibbs: Health Bill Will Pass (CBS)
• Boehner Determined to Kill Dem Health Care Bill (AP)

It was, after all, the first full House debate on ending the Afghan war since it began in 2001. Patrick Kennedy and colleagues were debating a resolution to bring troops home this year. Reporters already knew that the measure was doomed to failure and paid little attention, provoking the Rhode Island Democrat's now infamous rant.

Join the Trail Mix Debate
How To Add Your Comment

The resolution was offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. It would have required the president to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan within 30 days. It was voted down, 65-356. Sixty Democrats and five Republicans backed the measure.

CQ Today reported that the March 10 vote "likely signals smooth sailing for a looming war supplemental spending bill that Congress could take up this spring."

Kucinich and a small band of like-minded colleagues stressed an important question of constitutional war powers: The 2001 joint resolution authorizing the Afghan conflict should not mean that presidents could continue the war forever.

"It's time for Congress to claim its constitutional responsibility or we'll be in Afghanistan a very, very long time," Kucinich said during Wednesday's House debate.

We are in the ninth year of this war. Two months ago, President Obama sent 30,000 more troops, bringing the total to almost 100,000, plus at least that many private contractors. If Congress passes the increased spending that Obama is now proposing, by next year the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost more than $13 billion per month.

• US Reports Steady Progress in Afghanistan (Voice of America)
• White House Weighs Talks With Taliban After Afghan Successes (New York Times)
• Obama holds Sit Room meeting with Afghanistan, Pakistan (USA Today)
• Gates Hints at Possible Early Pullout (CNN)

CNN Blog: "Afghanistan Crossroads"

Two longtime Democratic pollsters strenuously argue that their party faces "unmitigated disaster" in November if the President's proposal is enacted as is.

The trouble is that voters are seeing this plan as less about health care and more about growing government. And when its call for requiring all Americans to buy insurance really sinks in, the "big government" tag will surely stick.

It is not that doing nothing is popular. It's all about the packaging. When you break out the individual elements of this plan, polls have consistently found public support for several.

• Preventing insurers from excluding people because of pre-existing conditions
• Tax credits to small businesses to help their workers get coverage
• Creating a new health insurance marketplace
• Closing the Medicare "doughnut hole" so that seniors would no longer face a period of having to pay the full cost of their medicines
• Expanding high-risk insurance pools for individuals who cannot get coverage elsewhere

Add the following measures to the package and lots of Republicans would come on board:

• Purchasing insurance across state lines
• Malpractice reform
• Ensuring portability

The political hat trick for Democrats now is that they have to pass something they can legitimately call health reform or risk losing their base voters, but they've simply lost the public relations battle among moderates and independents for the President's overall plan.

Obama Delays Asia Trip to Work on Health Bill

Join the Debate in Comments
How To Add Yours

"The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Obama tries to connect the health and economy issues, arguing that his proposal would ease the cost of health care. He says the economy cannot be fixed without cheaper health insurance, especially for businesses struggling with labor costs. (Perhaps that's why he does not refer to Massachusetts, where health and insurance price tags have skyrocketed despite a universal insurance program somewhat similar to what Obama is proposing.)

Getting health care passed before summer will give Democrats a chance to hyper-focus on "the economy, stupid" even though there is probably not much they can actually do to make things better before the November congressional elections.

Congress is busily debating a flurry of jobs bills and how to pay for them, but that fight is not attracting much public notice with the President out there talking so much about health care.

This lousy economy is destined to hurt Obama's party, no matter what. But it will help Democrats if they are at least not perceived as distracted by something else.