Obama’s alienation of independents and white voters, along with the gap between the right and the left, means that it is possible that Republicans not only may pick up many seats, but also even regain control of Congress.

Washington strategists are focusing on how the president can make a political comeback in 2012, abandoning the 2010 elections to fate.  The White House has different ideas, with a strategy to win or minimize the damage in 2010. 

Even though Senator Scott Brown has proven himself a Republican independent, breaking ranks with his party to pass important legislation for the good of the country, he is still in the Republican caucus. 

Brown was elected by a landslide in the special election to complete the term of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, an office he held for nearly 47 years.  His campaign announcement said that the state “needs an independent thinker” and the anti-Obama, anti-incumbent sentiment carried him to office. 

It was a wake-up call for Democrats. 

The stakes

In November, there are 36 Senate seats and all 435 House seats up for reelection.  Democrats need to capture 39 additional seats to regain control of the House and one additional seat for the Senate.  The key states focused on for Senate races by Republicans are:

• Connecticut (Senator Christopher Dodd – Dem)
• Delaware (seat formerly held by Vice president Joe Biden – Dem)
• Illinois (Rod Blagojevich’s appointee Roland Burris is retiring – Dem)
• Massachusetts (Scott Brown – Rep)
• Nevada (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid –Dem)
• New York (seat formerly held by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – Dem)
• Pennsylvania (Senator Arlen Specter – Dem – lost primary).

Loss of all those Senate seats would reduce the upper house to a near tie vote on every piece of legislation, and considering the infighting and hostility between parties now, there may very well be nothing accomplished until 2012 ends.  This would play into Republican hands who would like nothing more than to campaign against a president who accomplished nothing in the last two years of his first term.  

The strategy

The Democrats plan a two-part strategy that includes softening sentiments against Washington, the Democratic side of Congress, and the president. 

Part One

First, Democrats can be expected to intensify the accomplishments of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care reform), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (economic stimulus), as well as the Credit CARD Act of 2009 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (financial reform). 

This will be to demonstrate that Democrats can accomplish positive things for the American middle class in spite of bloc voting to defeat all actions.  Voters are upset, however, on the health care provision that requires everyone to have health care by 2014 or face penalties. 

Democrats might be advised to address modifying that portion of the health care bill. 

Obama disappointed his anti-war support base, when he lengthened troop withdrawal from 16 months in campaign promises to 19 months after he took office and backloaded his campaign promise of withdrawing one to two brigades per month. 

The president has now officially committed to ending our military involvement in Iraq by August 31, 2010, removing all U.S. combat troops.  Of course, 50,000 troops will still remain to train and advise Iraqi security and conduct counter terrorism operations.  Those troops will be likely at times to engage in fighting at the request of Iraqi commanders, but all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. 

Democrats are also looking to regather environmentalists with the president’s push to replace our black economy (fossil fuels) with a green economy (renewable energy sources). 

They will highlight to environmentalists the strong (if not somewhat tardy) handling of the Gulf oil spill with the promise of restoring the Gulf environment, backed by the $20 billion escrowed by BP.  The passage of the H.R. 4213 bill, extending unemployment benefits, also increased the tax on oil to 34 cents per barrel to fund against future spills (H.R. 4213 (p286) Title IV: Subtitle D – Sec. 431). 

That bill, however, does not address a federal law that caps corporate liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but Republicans blocked them.

There are certainly items the Republicans can snipe at, like accusing Democrats of tax-and-spend, while they support lower taxes for all – with no responsibility for any of it, unless they are trapped into talking about their history of running up the deficit when they held the power. 

Republicans have established a glaring very public record of voting as a bloc against every major proposal, including equal pay for all and the extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of workers without jobs. 

Recently, Obama was the first sitting president to appear on a daytime talk show.  The president needs more appearances on The View and other daytime shows with large homemaker followings who can influence their family members to see him as a regular family man with a tough job.

Part Two

The second part of the Democratic strategy involves recruiting strong candidates for open Congressional and Senate seats, while playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the traditional Republicans.  This is meant to split the Republican electorate and increase the chances of less electable candidates edging out strong moderates.  Then extensively research the candidates to help moderate voters reject them – just politics as normal.

It also involves using the White House and strong Congressional members to raise more campaign funds than the opposition. And the final step is to coordinate with Democratic allies like environmentalists and labor unions to mount a get-out-and-vote effort for young, first-time, and non-white voters.  These are the people who swept Obama into office. 

The opposition

Republicans believe that concern over the lack of jobs and resentment over the big-spending ways of the Administration will prevail in voting preferences over the merits of the stimulus and economic recovery, as well as health care and financial regulation reform.

They will trash the health care bill and the compulsory coverage, saying they will, if elected, repeal the bill, start over and do it right.  

Republicans will talk about coming tax increases and how they will hold or reduce taxes to put more money in voters’ pockets, allowing small businesses to create jobs.  They will try to kidnap the platform of change. 

Issues afloat

One significant item the Congress must deal with is the tax cuts implemented by President Bush that are due to expire at the end of 2010.  Read What to Expect if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Democrats have already planned to extend some of the tax cuts, but are planning to let them expire for citizens with incomes over $250,000, saying they are the rich and their income that would go to taxes would not stimulate the economy anyway.  It will save $67.5 billion per year from being added to the deficit. 

What Democrats are missing is that voters who make above $250,000 see themselves as the upper middle class who would spend their disposable income in ways to stimulate the economy.  Drawing an arbitrary income line will drive those above it to the other camp.

If Democrats voted an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all, even short term, they could defuse the Republican election rhetoric that Democrats will raise taxes for Americans.  If they were really shrewd, they would also lower other taxes like the corporate income tax from 35 percent to the 23.5 percent par level with Europe. 

The Deficit

An issue separating Congress and American voters is the size of the deficit.  It is a subject that may, along with unemployment, sway elections to challengers. 

Many Members of Congress and voters misunderstand the role federal deficits play in managing the economy.  Major economists have taken the position that federal deficits are an integral part of a global economy based on trade deficits and dollar reserves.   Congress has yet to realize there is no advantage in being too “fiscally responsible.”

Let Republicans talk about balancing the budget and keeping taxes low.  They will have to avoid being trapped into talking about their own history of running up the deficit when they held the power.  Perhaps Dick Cheney was right – deficits don’t matter. 

Primary scorecard

In his address, there were many other accusations.  Personally, I prefer government lawmakers who accurately quote facts rather than half-truths, as opposed to working to sway their audience by half-truths and mud slinging that attempt to create fear. 

I respect that both sides have their own agenda and arguments, but I prefer to make up my own mind based on facts and findings.  Politicians rely on people adopting what they tell them without checking anything out, like that TV commercial where the car salesman says, “I have a note from the previous owner that this car runs great!”  

I am independent when it comes to politics, but I took exception to the content of this video.

It should be kept in mind that Senator Coburn manipulates his audience in this speech written for him by his party speechwriters.

It should be noted that Senator Coburn is also a medical doctor. 

A transcript of the address and a link to the video are included at the end of this post.  Make up your own mind. 

Coburn said, “By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills …”

“Public opinion on health care reform in the United States is mixed. A majority of Americans express a desire for health care reform because they see it as too expensive and because they perceive that insurance companies avoid meeting health costs through coverage exclusions, caps, and co-pays. They also express concern that the system as a whole does not cover everyone and that many people are under-insured or uninsured. A majority support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, known as a public option, and a significant majority support a single-payer health care system.”

2010 polling results: “Rasmussen Reports found Americans opposing the Congressional bills by a 15-point margin, 56% vs. 41%.  According to Rasmussen Reports in January 2010, 10% of the American public have withdrawn their support from leading Congressional proposals since June 2009, with a majority opposing them since November 2009. In June 2009, 50% were in favor vs. 45% opposed, but in January 2010, support had dropped to 40% and opposition had increased to 55%.

Hardly an overwhelming margin, and an unfounded inference that the plans should be scrapped.

Coburn said, “… will lead to a government takeover of Health Care …

This is a scare slogan, a tactic raising specters of communism and socialism and is simply untrue.  However, history has shown us, a lie repeated often enough will eventually be perceived as the truth. 

The legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.  This is what Republican critics attack as a government takeover of health care.  Insuring these “not-so-profitable” peopel will financially hurt their big business sponsors.    

Coburn said, ” … even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.” 

I would be happy to hear what those signals were to make up my own mind.  What I continually hear is the majority asking the Republicans for input and ideas. 

Coburn said, “they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the Senate and House passed last year.” 

Here is an introduction to the infamous “they,” meant to suggest the dark forces, linked to the previous specter of communism and socialism. 

Here also is the well-established three-punch rhetoric trick, meant to reinforce the evil things the dark forces will pull; (1) “procedural tricks and backroom deals”, (2) “ram through a bill”, (3) “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year.” 

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote almost the exact phrase. 

There are no procedural tricks in passing a bill according to Senate rules; just wailing from those who don’t get their way.  A procedural trick is a lone Republican, objecting to and stopping the extension of unemployment benefits to thousands, because he doesn’t like what it adds to the deficit.  A wave of procedural tricks are being prepared by Republicans to stop further progress on healthcare.  

As far as passing a bill that “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year,” would it be too much to tell Coburn’s audience what they are?  No, because they are the worst to the Democrats, and perhaps only them.  

Coburn said, “The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.”

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection again.

 Coburn said, “Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.”

A half trillion sounds like much more than 500 billion, and it is meant to.  New taxes?  It depends on which vrsion of the healthcare plan that will be written into law.

The estimated cost over ten years per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would be $1,050 billion less $138 billion recovered ($912 billion) for the House plan, and $871 billion less $132 billion recovered ($739 billion) for the Senate plan or a middle figure of $825.5 billion.  Coburn plays on $1 trillion ($1,000 billion), but what’s $175 billion when you are trying to sway people’s opinion.

The several versions of healthcare plans moving around various committees in the House and Senate all have different approaches to pay for healthcare.

In the House version, the tax increases are targeted at the wealthy asessing a surtax on earners making from $280,000 to $800,000 (1 percent) or couples making $350,000 to $1 million (1.5 percent).  Earners making more  than those amounts would have a 5.4 pecent surtax.  Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population falls into those cateories.

This top earner tax is estimated to bring in about $540 billion over 10 years.

There is also expected to be a penalty tax on companies and individuals who refuse to buy government-approved healthcare.  This is to get everyone in the game, since the healthcare numbers work only with large pools of enrollees. 

We can assume that this is the “job-killing” penalties for employers.  The thought is that healthcare costs take away money for jobs.  The alternative might be more jobs without benefits, but it has been repeatedly proven that many people will turn down jobs without benefits. 

Ed.Note:  I am personally against forcing people to have health insurance, but one reeason healthcare costs are so high is that many people don’t take care of their health until they are wheeled into the Emergency Room on a gurney, which is enormously expensive, and costs us all.

The “½ trillion ($500 billion) in cuts to Medicare” are subtly presented as if they were to be cuts in benefits.  This purposely scares seniors by rearranging the words.  In truth, there will be reductions in the future growth of overall Medicare spending, which does not mean cuts in benefit levels or services. 

As far as “taxpayer-funded abortion”, in November 2009, the House passed an amendment to the pending health care bill that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance “exchange” the bill would create.  The Senate bill will allow insurance companies to include abortion coverage, but each state will have the option of preventing federal money from funding abortions.  Senator Coburn is incorrect!

Regarding “new boards that will ration care to American citizens”, we can only guess Senator Coburn is talking about the independent advisory panels which will work to make recommendations on Medicare reforms, including reimbursement to contain the future growth of Medicare.  The Senate bill includes a Medicare Commission which could modify Medicare payments in order to keep down cost growth.

Perhaps he is talking also about “new boards” concerned with halting Medicare fraud.  $60 billion per year are paid out for fraudulent claims by phony companies billing for services never performed on valid Medicare members.  This is another scare tactic, presenting oversight boards as threatening to deny YOUR claim. 

As a side note, containing Medicare fraud for ten years would fund $600 billion of the cost.

According to PolitiFact regarding the rationing of care, “private health insurance companies already ration health care by income, by denying health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and by caps on health insurance payments. Rationing exists now, and will continue to exist with or without health care reform.” 

David Leonhardt also wrote in the New York Times in June 2009 that rationing is a part of economic reality: “The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly.

This is another scare tactic, similar to Sarah Palin’s claim that end-of-life choices would be dictated by “death panels” rather than the discussions and planning with your personal physician, as it was written.

Coburn said, “The majority (meaning Democrats) now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.” 

Now here are “We,” the white knights again trying to do the right thing, while the evil “they” “try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.”

What Senator Coburn does not discuss is that without reform, America is well on its way to bankruptcy now.  But the lack of reform will keep his campaign funders in huge profits, draining the resources of the American people.  Coburn is telling an untruth.

Current spending (2007) on health care in the U.S. is about 16% of its GDP which converts to an estimated $2.26 trillion or $7,439 per person.  With its current upward trend it is expected to reach 19.5% of GDP by 2017 which converts to an estimated $2.75 trillion or $9,066 per person. 

Medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. 

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has argued that the Medicare program as currently structured is unsustainable without significant reform, as tax revenues dedicated to the program are not sufficient to cover its rapidly increasing expenditures. Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050.” “According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spending on Medicare will grow from approximately $500 billion during 2009 to $930 billion by 2018.” “And in 2009 the Congressional Budget Office found that the inclusion of a strong public option would lower the cost of health care reform in the U.S. by tens of billions of dollars.” 

Coburn said, “Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals.” 

This is an allegation that requires dates and agendas to avoid people thinking it is simply mud slinging (which it is).  I’m sure Republicans don’t hold their meetings on street corners either, but like to portray Democrats as some sinister secret society.

The question arises, what were the unsavory deals?  Without particulars, this again is unsubstantiated mud slinging.  Coburn is working his audience.

Coburn said, “Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.” 

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection by the American people again, but he lends it credibility with his “I believe.”

A bipartisan health bill is an impossible goal.  Republicans want to defeat any healthcare bill and discredit the majority party.  The Republicans are in favor of and are funded by big businesses, which want the existing system to continue.  Continuing the debate will delay the action nearer the mid-term elections, when lawmakers who want to be re-elected will move away from a controversial bill.

Coburn said, “If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.” 

It is odd that I hear from Washington, nothing except offers from the majority wanting to work together with the Republicans to pursue the common goal.  The difference is that one side wants reform and the other side wants things to stay the same.

The problem big business has with the healthcare plan is that the legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. 

The 46 million without health insurance might be less healthy than the people who work and can afford health insurance, and the people with pre-existing conditions certainly are.  This means that they will probably eat away at the bottom lines of the big business insurance carriers, and they will spend any amount of money buying lawmakers through campaign contributions to defeat it.

While there are two major proposals under consideration in Congress, Democrats have authored and passed both.  Republican Party members in Congress have not come together around a single policy of their own for health care reform other than that of opposing both Democratic bills currently in progress. 

Lawmakers were almost finished merging House and Senate versions of sweeping overhaul legislation when a special election in late 2009 in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate supermajority of 60 seats.

Republicans immediately united in opposition to both proposals, casting doubts on the outcome.

Lobbying: America’s health care industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in 2009 alone to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms proposed by President Obama and by others. There are six registered Health Care  lobbyists for every member of Congress. The campaign against health care system reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. The single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance that drafted Senate health care legislation is Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).

The clock is ticking toward the mid-term elections in November.  Make no mistake that that election day is the focus of our lawmakers – to continue in their prestigious jobs and build their party’s power base, and they respond without question to the big business campaign fund contributions that can get or keep them there – not the 46 million people without healthcare, and not the 100,000 people who die every year for lack of health insurance. 

It is shameful that our elected officials, and I include all, have forgotten whom they represent. 

Senator Coburn was contacted Friday (Feb 26) by the White House and asked to submit details of suggestions he made to tackle waste and fraud in the medical system, Coburn’s spokesman John Hart said Coburn views Obama’s legislation as a government takeover and would not be able to support it even if it includes some of his proposals.

~~~~~

Listen to the broadcast and make up your own mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/18361866

The transcript follows for your convenience. 

“This week I had the opportunity to join President Obama and my Democrat and Republican colleagues for a summit on Health Care.  We had a respectful and constructive discussion.  While we listened to one another, I’m concerned that the majority in Congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of Health Care reform.  By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of Health Care and we should start over.

Unfortunately, even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.  Instead they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the senate and house passed last year.

The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.  Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.

The majority now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.

I wholeheartedly share President Obama’s desire for more civility and bipartisanship in Washington and I’m proud of the work we did together when he was a member of the Senate.

True civility however is measured by actions not words. I was disappointed the president rejected my suggestion that he host another summit; the president himself proposed that such meetings be televised more than a year ago.

Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals. 

Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. 

If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.”

References:

Health care in the United States
Health care reform in the United States
Health care reform debate in the United States
Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
History of health care reform in the United States

They saw our two-house legislature as reflecting the will of the people, but with checks and balances to prevent “the tyranny of the majority” (James Madison). 

While the House with its 435 members representing the popular opinion of the nation’s voters, the Senate, with its two members per state, was visualized as a thoughtful and reflective body, like a modern think tank, where heated issues could cool somewhat and consequences could be considered before new laws were enacted. 

The Constitution provides for both houses to pass legislation with a simple majority vote of those present.  To prevent the “tyranny of the majority,” it also provides a method for the minority to delay a majority vote and gather support for its point of view.  That method is called the ‘filibuster.’ 

The Constitution allows each house to set its own rules.  Each piece of legislation allows a debate on the subject.  Senate rules allow a Senator, or series of Senators (each yielding the floor to the next), to speak for as long as they wish on any subject they choose.  The filibuster can be ended by a 3/5 or 60-Senator vote for cloture (end debate). 

The 60-Senator vote is known as a supermajority. 

It is also possible to end debate through a legal maneuver known as the Nuclear Option, where a Senator brings up a point of order, reminding the Senate that its rules are not being followed with the filibuster.  If the presiding officer makes a ruling to uphold the point of order, and if a simple majority of the Senators vote to uphold the ruling, the debate is ended and a vote on the issue is held immediately.   

Without the threat of filibuster, the Senate needs only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation and uphold rulings.  But when filibuster is threatened on major bills and issues, 60 votes are needed to move past debate to the vote. 

The party-line divisiveness of the modern Senate has made almost all legislative issues require a supermajority to pass.  Although the supermajority vote to end debate is not a bad thing, its use as a weapon in the trench warfare between parties has left the voters as victims. 

An additional use of the 60-Senator vote is used to modify budgeting, authorization, as well as appropriation guidelines and restrictions. 

Each year by October 1, Congress must construct a budget it can stick to, considering government income as well as expenses.  It must authorize new and ongoing programs and agencies that come into being as the result of bill passage or already exist, with non-binding recommended spending levels to carry out the program’s policies.  And it must pass appropriation funding bills, providing the legal authority to use funds from the U.S. Treasury.  

The annual Congressional budget is simply an outline of anticipated federal spending for the coming year, setting limits on discretionary spending if everything works out according to plan.  It also allows procedural points of order for bills that exceed their spending caps.   

When a bill, chugging its way through the enactment process, generates a program or agency budget that will violate its Congressional appropriation, a Senator may raise a point of order.  That appropriation point can be waived by a 60-Senator vote. 

On the saving side of the government ledger, the Congressional budget resolution may include a “reconciliation” figure.  This is assigned to a congressional committee with directions to produce legislation that lowers spending by that amount. 

Passage of a reconciliation bill is an express train with a limit of 20 hours of debate and only a majority of Senate votes for enactment. 

We may learn more about reconciliation in the near future, with pressure building in Congress to pass a health reform bill and the recent upset in Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown was elected to serve out the remainder of Senator Ted Kennedy’s term, ending in 2012.  Although a proponent of health care reform, Brown has come out against President Obama’s health care plan in its present form as fiscally unsound. 

With the health care reform bill now in the merging process between House and Senate, we can be sure the 60-Senator rule will be in place, and the Democrats are now one Senator short of the necessary 60 votes for their plan.   

Options for passage of the health care reform bill in some form include

• convincing at least one Republican to vote their way
• scaling down or revising the plan to make it more agreeable to opponents
• requesting the House to pass the Senate bill intact
• using the reconciliation process to pass budget item portions of the bill (that will expire in either five or ten years)

As aggravating and as slow as the Senate process is using the 60-Senator hurdle, perhaps James Madison was right.  Perhaps it does protect us.