Month: March 2010
Verbatim
If I have to talk to him, I’ll talk to him. At the end of the day, when we take a vote, he’s not going to be out there supporting me and running my elections. It’s going to be up to me to run my election.
– Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tx), proving that morons who are only concerned with staying in office for the sake of staying in office aren’t confined to just one party.
GOP’s Steele Seen as Liability
In the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll a big majority of GOP operatives views RNC Chairman Michael Steele as a liability to his party.
When 104 GOP insiders were asked whether their party chairman was an asset or a liability, 71 percent said Steele was a liability, while only 20 percent said he was an asset. Another 9 percent said he was neither or both.
By comparison, 61 percent of 103 Democrat insiders said that DNC Chair Tim Kaine was an asset and only 16 percent said he was a liability. Another 23 percent said he was neither.
GOP insider quotes: “Congressional minorities need some guerrilla-style unpredictability. Steele just brings extra.”
“Steele is unconnected to the fundraising establishment and uninspiring to the rank and file. He is gaffe-prone and lacks gravitas.”
Fox News, Drudge, Malkin Accused Obama of Making Up 2006 Hawaiian Earthquake
The latest false rumor floated on the right is that, during his interview with Fox News’ right-wing shill Bret Baier this week, Pes. Obama falsely stated that an earthquake hit Hawaii in 2006:
PRES. OBAMA: It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe. [Emphasis added.]
Media Matters traced the genesis of the lie:
Right-wing blogs: “What earthquake in Hawaii?”
Jim Hoft: “Um… What earthquake in Hawaii?” At 6:54 p.m. on March 17, right-wing blogger Jim Hoft wrote a Gateway Pundit post that stated, “Either Obama’s completely making up stuff now or we all missed some horrible devastating earthquake in Hawaii.” He later wrote: “In 1868 there was a major earthquake in Hawaii that killed 77 people. In 1975 an earthquake in Hawaii killed 2 people.”
Breitbart.tv links to Hoft. At 10:18 p.m. on March 17, Andrew Breitbart’s website Breitbart.tv linked to Hoft’s post and displayed the headline, “Puzzling statement: Obama says ‘Louisiana Purchase’ will help with the earthquake in Hawaii.”
Drudge links to Breitbart.tv post. From the Drudge Report: “Puzzling Statement: Obama Says ‘Louisiana Purchase’ Will Help With the Earthquake in Hawaii’…
Hot Air picks up the false story, as does Michelle Malkin, etc.
Finally it winds up on Fox News’ amateur-hour morning show, “Fox and Friends”:
[Steve] Doocy follows talking points from right-wing blogs. During the March 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy played the quote in question from Obama’s interview and responded: “Hold it. What Hawaiian earthquake? There was an earthquake in 1868 that killed 77. There was an earthquake in 1975 that killed two.”
It’s unclear whether these people didn’t bother to check the Google, or whether they did a search and then knowingly lied. Fox News’ coverage of the quake was easy to find. A search on “foxnews.com earthquake Hawaii 2006” brought up this story from the Fox News website in about two seconds.
Here’s the complete text of the story — and we have preserved screenshots of the article in situ on the Fox News website in case, you know, Fox might lose it or make it disappear:
Powerful 6.6-Magnitude Earthquake, Aftershocks Rattle Hawaii
HONOLULU — A strong earthquake shook Hawaii early Sunday, jolting residents out of bed and causing a landslide that blocked a major highway. Ceilings crashed at a hospital, and aftershocks kept the state on edge.
The state Civil Defense had unconfirmed reports of injuries, but communication problems prevented more definite reports. Gov. Linda Lingle issued a disaster declaration for the entire state, saying there had been damage to buildings and roads. There were no reports of fatalities.
The quake hit at 7:07 a.m. local time, 10 miles north-northwest of Kailua Kona, a town on the west coast of Hawaii Island, also known as the Big Island, said Don Blakeman, a geophysicist at the National Earthquake Information Center, part of the U.S. Geological Survey.
• Monitor the situation in FOXNews.com’s Natural Disasters Center.
Blakeman said there was no risk of a Pacific-wide tsunami, but there was a possibility of significant wave activity in Hawaii.
The Pacific Tsunami Center reported a preliminary magnitude of 6.5, while the U.S. Geological Survey gave a preliminary magnitude of 6.6. The earthquake was followed by several strong aftershocks, including one measuring a magnitude of 5.8, the Geological Survey said.
“We were rocking and rolling,” said Anne LaVasseur, who was on the second floor of a two-story, wood-framed house on the east side of the Big Island when the temblor struck. “I was pretty scared. We were swaying back and forth, like King Kong’s pushing your house back and forth.”
Water pipes exploded at Aston Kona By The Sea, an 86-unit condominium resort, creating a dramatic waterfall down the front of the hotel from the fourth floor, said Kenneth Piper, who runs the front desk.
“We are a concrete building, but we really shook. You could almost see the cars bouncing up and down in the parking garage,” he said.
The quake caused widespread power outages, and phone communication was possible, but difficult. By midday Sunday, power was restored to Hilo on the Big Island and was starting to be restored to Maui, said Chuck Anthony, a spokesman for the Hawaii National Guard. Officials did not have a firm estimate of how many people were without power.
Lingle told radio station KSSK that she toured the Kona area by helicopter to view the damage, including earth falling into Kealakekua Bay.
“You could see the water was turning brown,” said Lingle.
A FEMA computer simulation of the quake estimated that as many as 170 bridges on the Big Island could have suffered damage in the temblor, said Bob Fenton, FEMA director of response for the region. More than 50 federal officials were en route to the Big Island to assess damage and begin recovery work, he said.
On Hawaii Island, there was some damage in Kailua-Kona and a landslide along a major highway, said Gerard Fryer, a geophysicist at the Pacific Tsunami Center. Officials also said there were reports of people trapped in elevators in Oahu.
In Waikiki, one of the state’s primary tourism areas, worried visitors began lining up outside convenience stores to purchase food, water and other supplies. Managers were letting tourists into the darkened stores one at a time.
Karie and Bryan Croes waited an hour to buy bottles of water, chips and bread. “It’s quite a honeymoon story,” said Karie as she and her husband sat in lounge chairs surrounded by their grocery bags beside a pool at ResortQuest Waikiki Beach Hotel.
Kona Community Hospital on the western side of Big Island was being evacuated after ceilings collapsed and power was cut off, according to a hospital spokeswoman.
At least 10 acute care patients were being evacuated across the island to a medical center in Hilo, said Terry Lewis, spokeswoman for the hospital. About 30 nursing care patients were being moved temporarily to a nearby conference center, she said.
“We were very lucky that no one got hurt,” said Lewis.
Power was back up in the hospital, and its emergency room was accepting patients, hospital officials said. One operating room that sustained minimal damage was available for use if necessary.
The quake affected travel plans for many visitors, though the state was in its low period of the tourism season. Airports were functioning despite the power outages, though travel was difficult and some flights were being canceled, officials said.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Les Dorr said planes were arriving at Honolulu International Airport, but there were few departures. Dorr said the Transportation Security Administration security checkpoints were without power, so screeners were screening passengers and baggage manually.
Resorts in Kona were being asked to keep people close to hotels, Big Island Mayor Harry Kim told television station KITV. Cruise ships were asked to keep tourists on board, and ships that were due to dock with tourists were asked to move on to their next location, he said.
“We are dealing with a lot of scared people,” he said.
Hotels throughout the islands reported scattered injuries and disruptions. Many hotel managers broadcast warnings over public-address systems that echoed through corridors.
Earthquakes in the 6.0 magnitude range are rare in the region, though they have happened before. The region more commonly sees temblors in the 3- and 4-magnitude range caused by volcanic activity.
“We think this is a buildup from many volcanic earthquakes that they’ve had on the island,” Waverly Person, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Earthquake Information Center.
The last Hawaiian earthquake this strong struck more than 20 years ago. The magnitude 6.7 caused heavy property damage on Hawaii Island and collapsed trails into a volcano in Hawaiian Volcanoes National Park on Nov. 16, 1983. A 6.1-magnitude quake also hit in 1989, according to the Earthquake Information Center.
The largest recorded Hawaiian earthquake struck the Ka’u District on Hawaii Island in 1868, causing 77 deaths. Its magnitude was estimated at 7.9.
A 9.5-magnitude earthquake, the largest in the world, struck Chile on May 22, 1960, and a tsunami traveled to Hawaii where 61 people died.
Glenn Beck, The Last Time He Was Honest About His Vocation
Anyone who has ever doubted Glenn Beck is a paid shill, a hack entertainer, a performer first and a genuine anything a distant second, needs to watch this video from his 1986 radio days. The chimp is the smartest one in the clip.
Stenography As Journalism Classic: Christian News Service Publishes Lies by Rep. Dreier (R-Closet) about ‘Slaughter Rule’ Without Balance or Rebuttal
Yesterday Rep. David Dreier, a Republican from Southern California, and the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, spoke with Matt Cover who writes for the Christian News Service (CNSNews.com) about the procedural issues involved in Democrats’ plans to pass health care reform, especially including the “Slaughter Rule,” named for the current Rules chair, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York. As we noted earlier, Republicans are flogging away at the process, rather than the substance of the bill, because focusing on congressional procedures drives polling on reform down.
The content of what Dreier said to CNSNews ranged from disingenuous to outright lying — and CNSNews printed all of it without question, without bothering to fact check or present any sort of perspective from the pro-reform side.
That’s not journalism, it’s stenography — and, worse, propaganda.
And given the virulent homophobia of the sort of right-wing Christians who get their news from an outlet like CNSNews.com, it is worth noting that Dreier, though closeted, is the last known gay Republican House member. (He was passed over for majority leader in 2005 because he was gay.) Of course, CNSNews.com did not mention this fact because — and this really is ironic — it would have undermined Dreier’s credibility.
Let’s start with this minor gaffe because it serves as a “tell” about the disregard for the truth that underlies the piece. In the second paragraph, Matt Cover positions his interview with Dreier as “an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com.” Three paragraphs later, however, Dreier says, “I just did an interview on Fox, just in the last few minutes.” Perhaps Cover meant the interview was “exclusively” the only one Dreier was giving in the few minutes he spoke with CNSNews.com.
Picky? Sure. But come on.
Now to the substance. First, here’s Norm Ornstein, one of the few straight-shooters at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and an expert on the Congress, criticizing the hypocrisy of both parties over the so-called “Slaughter Rule,” but singling out Dreier’s role when Dreier chaired the Rules Committee:
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?[Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, as was noted here yesterday, when the House was under GOP control, from 1995 until 2007, Republicans used the rule to pass controversial legislation 202 times. Drier was chairman of the Rules Committee from 1999 to 2007, and so was instrumental in deploying the rules, as Ornstein noted.
Now here’s how Cover helped Drier propagandize about the Slaughter Rule in CNSNews.com yesterday:
CNSNews.com … asked Dreier whether the Slaughter Solution was constitutional. Some conservative legal experts, including syndicated radio host and former Justice Department Chief of Staff Mark Levin, have said the plan would violate the plain meaning of Article I, Section VII, which states in part, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
Mark Levin is a soulless Rush Limbaugh clone radio host. Like Limbaugh, he is strictly a propagandist and has zero credibility on this or any issue.
Dreier replied that while he was not a constitutional expert and could not say “with absolute certainty” the plan was unconstitutional, other experts were raising just such a charge.
“I think that the best way for me to put that is it’s being debated, and the question is out there,” said Dreier. “I can’t say with absolute certainty that I know it’s unconstitutional. But I can this: I know that there’s a debate on it and I think that there are serious, serious questions about that.”
What a carefully parsed whopper. As chairman of the Rules Committee, Dreier would have been deeply involved in the court case against the rule brought by Democrats, and so had to know the court ruled against the Democrat and for him and the House GOP leadership.
Dreier explained that the issue was whether the intricacies of House procedure violated the clause which mandates that legislation pass with a vote of “yeas and nays.” He said that while “deeming” measures as having passed had been done before — like with a Slaughter Solution — it was done with “unanimous consent” and never on so large a policy issue, leading to the questions of constitutionality.
“This is procedure,” he explained. “Deeming measures is something that has happened in the past and I know the words ‘yeas and nays’ are in the U.S. Constitution. But if you look at the pattern of what has taken place, things are done by unanimous consent. So I will say that this process has been used in the past, but never on an issue of this magnitude.”
Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic seems to have a better memory of Dreier’s actions than congressman does himself:
GOPers, endorsed by their own rules guru, Rep. David Dreier of California, have used the maneuver to pass legislation large and small — including a $40 billion dollar deficit reduction bill. Dreier in 2005 used the tactic to allow Republicans to avoid having to take a recorded vote on an immigration measure. It’s also a bit rich for Republicans to complain about a parliamentary tactic being employed in a way that’s not in keeping with the spirit of the traditions of Congress.
And from the Gavel, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s blog:
This practice has been in use since at least 1933 – and has been commonly used under both Republicans and Democrats.
In 1948, the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution to consider as adopted Senate amendments to a bill to change tax rates.
In 1993, the House adopted a resolution to consider as adopted the Senate amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act.
In 1996, the Republican-controlled House adopted a resolution to consider as adopted the conference report on Line Item Veto.
Just last month, the House approved a provision on PAYGO that simultaneously increased the debt limit. Separately, beginning in 1980 – and most years thereafter – the House has had in place a standing rule that approves automatically a joint resolution to increase the public debt limit upon adoption of a Budget Resolution that contemplates such an increase. Such a resolution has occurred 20 times in the last 30 years.
But readers of Matt Cover’s article about Rep. Dreier and health care reform yesterday learned none of the background information about this procedure, including the key fact that it has been in place for 77 years.
Cover also did not bother to seek out any other perspective on the rule or reform in general — especially not from a House Democrat, including, say, the Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter.
It’s bad for the country that the conservative movement puts out propaganda like this, knowing it will be swallowed whole, without analysis, by Christian conservatives.
You’d also think it might be bad for Christianity to have an organization calling itself the “Christian News Service” that feels no compunction about indulging in the grievous sin of lying, which is prohibited in the Ten Commandments, especially when the objective of the lying is to prevent sick people who are poor from getting treatment.
Troubled Tour Guide
In Washington, D.C., one night,
Eric Massa said he’d show us the sights.
Of course, we were hoping
For some nonsexual groping
And tickets to the tickle fights.
Fox News Treated Bush, Cheney with Reverential Deference, But Repeatedly Interrupts Obama
Reacting to Fox’s “interrupt-athon” interview with the president on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, Lawrence O’Donnell made the point that he could not recall a reporter — from Fox or any outlet — daring to interrupt George Bush or Dick Cheney.
His guest remembered one instance when Bush was given a tough interview by an Irish reporter.
Which prompts the question, what was Bret Baier up to?
Was it a propaganda trick? Was he purposefully interrupting the president in order to garble his message to prevent Fox viewers to be exposed to reality about health care reform? Remember that Fox cut away from the president’s dialog with House Republicans at their retreat last month when it was clear that Obama was cutting through the GOP b.s.
Could Baier simply be expressing his and Fox’s disdain for centrist politicians like Obama?
Or was Baier unconsciously revealing a lack of respect for a black man in the office of the presidency.
We report. You decide.
You can watch the complete interview at Mediaite:
Transcript from Fox:
BRET BAIER, “SPECIAL REPORT” HOST: Welcome to Washington. I’m Bret Baier, and this is a special edition of “Special Report”, beginning tonight in the Blue Room in the White House, mid-way through what many people are calling the most pivotal week of his presidency so far. We are interviewing President Barack Obama.
Mr. President, thank you for the time.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Thank you for having me, Bret.
BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: “the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care.” So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?
OBAMA: Here’s what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they’ve got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.
We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you’ve got a good package, in terms of substance. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish. If they don’t, if they vote against, then they’re going to be voting against health care reform and they’re going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress. This is always an issue that’s — whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats in charge — when Republicans are in charge, Democrats constantly complain that the majority was not giving them an opportunity, et cetera.
What the American people care about is the fact that their premiums are going up 25, 40, 60 percent, and I’m going to do something about it.
BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: “If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?”
Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: “If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?”
OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day.
BAIER: I know.
OBAMA: I could read the exact same e-mail —
BAIER: These are people. It’s not just Washington punditry.
OBAMA: I’ve got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven’t we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don’t have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can’t get insurance?
So the issue that I’m concerned about is whether not we’re fixing a broken system.
BAIER: OK, back to the original question.
OBAMA: The key is to make sure that we vote — we have a vote on whether or not we’re going to maintain the status quo, or whether we’re going to reform the system.
BAIER: So you support the deem and pass rule?
OBAMA: I am not —
BAIER: You’re saying that’s that vote.
OBAMA: What I’m saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it’s going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. That’s what matters. That’s what ultimately people are going to judge this on.
If people don’t believe in health care reform — and I think there are definitely a lot of people who are worried about whether or not these changes are, in some fashion, going to affect them adversely. And I think those are legitimate concerns on the substance — then somebody who votes for this bill, they’re going to be judged at the polls. And the same is going to be true if they vote against it.
BAIER: Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in the health care debate. At the same time, House Speaker Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the deem and pass rule: “I like it, this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Is that the kind of courage that you’re talking about?
OBAMA: Well, here’s what’s taking place — we both know what’s going on. You’ve got a Senate bill that was passed, that had provisions that needed to be changed. Right? People were concerned about, for example, the fix that only fixed Nebraska, and didn’t fix the rest of the states.
Now, a lot of the members of the House legitimately say, we want to vote on a package, as the president has proposed, that has those fixes embedded in it. Now that may mean they have to sequence the votes. But the ultimate vote they’re taking is on whether or not they believe in the proposal that I put forward, to make sure that insurance reform is fixed, to make sure the deficits are reduced, and premiums go down, and small businesses are helped. That’s what they’re concerned about.
BAIER: Do you know which specific deals are in or out, as of today?
OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.
BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?
OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though.
Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.
Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those. So, at the end of the day, what people are going to be able to say is that this legislation is going to be providing help to small businesses and individuals, across the board, in an even handed way, and providing people relief from a status quo that’s just not working.
BAIER: OK, the Florida deal, in or out?
OBAMA: The Florida deal —
BAIER: Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —
OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.
BAIER: Connecticut, Montana — there are a lot of deals in here, Mr. President, that people have issues about.
OBAMA: Bret, the core of this bill is going to be affecting every American family. If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’re going to be able to buy into a pool, like members of Congress have. We’re going to make sure that we have delivery system reforms that strengthen Medicare, that are going to make sure that doctors and hospitals are providing better service and better care, and this is going to reduce the deficit.
Now, there are going to be in this, as I just mentioned, on things like making sure that states who have gone through natural catastrophes and medical emergencies are getting help, but those are not going to ones that are driven by politics, they’re going to be driven policy.
BAIER: Couple more process things, quickly.
You said a few times as Senator Obama that if a president has to eke out a victory of 50 plus one, that on something as important as health care, “you can’t govern.” But now you’re embracing a 50 plus one reconciliation process in the Senate, so do you feel like you can govern after this?
OBAMA: Well, Bret, the — I think what we’ve seen during the course of this year is that we have come up with a bill that basically tracks the recommendations of Tom Daschle, former Democratic senator and leader, but also Bob Dole, former Republican leader, Howard Baker, former Republican leader. The ideas embodied in this legislation are not left, they’re not right, they are — they are —
BAIER: I understand what you’re — I know you don’t like to talk about process, but there are a lot of questions in these 18,000 that talk about process.
OBAMA: I understand being —
(CROSSTALK)
BAIER: And there are a lot of people around America that have a problem with this process.
OBAMA: Bret, I —
BAIER: You called it an ugly process just last month.
OBAMA: I’ve got to tell — I’ve got to say to you, there are a lot more people who are concerned about the fact that they may be losing their house or going bankrupt because of health care.
BAIER: OK, so we have —
OBAMA: And so — so the — look —
BAIER: Deem and passed, Senate reconciliation and we don’t know exactly what’s in the fix bill. Do you still think —
OBAMA: No, we will — by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what’s in it, you’ll know what’s in it because it’s going to be posted and everybody’s going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits.
But here’s the thing, Bret, I mean, the reason that I think this conversation ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process. And yes, I have said that is an ugly process. It was ugly when Republicans were in charge, it was ugly were in Democrats were in charge.
BAIER: This is one-sixth of the U.S. economy, though, sir. One-sixth.
OBAMA: And, Bret, let me tell you something, the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of people, their health care is not going to change because right now they’re getting a better deal. The only thing that is going to change for them is is that they’re going to have more security under their insurance and they’re going to have a better situation when it comes to if they lose their job, heaven forbid, or somebody gets sick with a preexisting condition, they’ll have more security. But, so — so —
BAIER: So how can you —
OBAMA: — the notion that —
BAIER: — guarantee that they’re not going to —
OBAMA: — so but —
BAIER: — they’re going to be able to keep their doctor —
OBAMA: Bret, you’ve got to let me finish my answers —
BAIER: Sir, I know you don’t like to filibuster, but —
OBAMA: Well, I’m trying to answer your question and you keep on interrupting. So let me be clear.
Now, you keep on repeating the notion that it’s one-sixth of the economy. Yes, it’s one-sixth of the economy, but we’re not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop. What we’re saying is is that for the vast majority of people who have health care, they’re going to be able to keep it. But what we are saying is that we should have some basic protections from insurance company abuses and that in order for us to do that, we are going to have to make some changes in the status quo that we’ve been debating for a year.
This notion that this has been not transparent, that people don’t know what’s in the bill, everybody knows what’s in the bill. I sat for seven hours with —
BAIER: Mr. President, you couldn’t tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today.
OBAMA: I just told you what was in and what was not in.
BAIER: Is Connecticut in?
OBAMA: Connecticut — what are you specifically referring to?
BAIER: The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is — you know, listen, there are people — this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.
OBAMA: And as I said before, this — the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes, but —
BAIER: Let me get to some of the specifics on substance not process.
OBAMA: The only thing —
(CROSSTALK)
BAIER: (INAUDIBLE)
OBAMA: — the only thing I want to say, just to close up, is that when you talk about one-sixth of the economy, this is one-sixth of the economy that right now is a huge drag on the economy. Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system. But what we can’t do is perpetuate a system in which millions of people day in and day out are having an enormously tough time and small businesses are sending me letters constantly saying that they are seeing their premiums increase 40, 50 percent.
BAIER: Mr. President, you said Monday that you praised the Congressional Budget Office numerous times. You also said this, this proposal makes Medicare stronger — and you just said it to me here —
OBAMA: Right.
BAIER: — it makes coverage better, it makes its finances more secure, and anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or is trying to misinform you.
OBAMA: Right.
BAIER: The CBO has said specifically that the $500 billion that you say that you’re going to save from Medicare is not being spent in Medicare. That this bill spends it elsewhere outside of Medicare. So you can’t have both.
OBAMA: Right.
BAIER: You either spend it on expenditures or you make Medicare more solvent. So which is it?
OBAMA: Here’s what it does. On the one hand what you’re doing is you’re eliminating insurance subsidies within Medicare that aren’t making anybody healthier but are fattening the profits of insurance companies. Everybody agrees that that is not a wise way to spend money. Now, most of those savings go right back into helping seniors, for example, closing the donut hole.
When the previous Congress passed the prescription drug bill, what they did was they left a situation which after seniors had spent a certain amount of money, suddenly they got no help and they were stuck with the bill. Now that’s a pretty expensive proposition fixing that. It wasn’t paid for at the time that that bill was passed. So that money goes back into Medicare, both to fix the donut hole, lower premiums.
All those things are important, but what’s also happening is each year we’re spending less on Medicare overall and as consequence, that lengthens the trust fund and it’s availability for seniors.
BAIER: Your chief actuary for Medicare said this, that cuts in Medicare: “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays and extend the trust fund.” That’s your guy.
OBAMA: No — and what is absolutely true is that this will not solve our whole Medicare problem. We’re still going to have to fix Medicare over the long term.
BAIER: But it’s $38 trillion in the hole.
OBAMA: Absolutely, and that’s the reason that we’re going to have to — that’s the reason I put forward a fiscal commission based on Republicans and Democratic proposals, to make sure that we have a long-term fix for the system. The key is that this proposal doesn’t weaken Medicare, it makes it stronger for seniors currently who are receiving it. It doesn’t solve that big structural problem, Bret. Nobody’s claiming that this piece of legislation is going to solve every problem that’s been there for decades. What it does do is make sure that the trust fund is not going to be going bankrupt in seven years, according to their accounting rules —
BAIER: So you don’t buy —
OBAMA: — and in the meantime —
BAIER: — the CBO or the actuary that you can’t have it both ways?
OBAMA: No —
BAIER: That you can’t spend the money twice?
OBAMA: — no, what is absolutely true and what I do agree with is that you can’t say that you are saving on Medicare and then spend the money twice. What you can say is that we are going to take these savings, put them back to make sure that seniors are getting help on the prescription drug bill instead of that money going to, for example, insurance reform, and —
BAIER: And you call this deficit neutral, but you also set aside the doctor fix, more than $200 billion. People look at this and say, how can it be deficit neutral?
OBAMA: But the — as you well know, the doctors problem, as you mentioned, the “doctors fix,” is one that has been there four years now. That wasn’t of our making, and that has nothing to do with my health care bill. If I was not proposing a health care bill, right — let’s assume that I had never proposed health care.
BAIER: But you wanted to change Washington, Mr. President. And now you’re doing it the same way.
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish my — my answers here. Now, if suddenly, you’ve got, over the last decade, a problem that’s been built up. And the suggestion is somehow that, because that’s not fixed within this bill, that that’s a reason to vote against the bill, that doesn’t make any sense. That’s a problem that I inherited. That was a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. It’s a problem that needs to be solved, but it’s not created by my bill. And I don’t think you would dispute that.
BAIER: We’re getting the wrap-up sign here.
OBAMA: Yes.
BAIER: Can you be a transformative president if health care does not pass?
OBAMA: Well, I think that — look, I came in at a time when we probably had the toughest economic challenges since the Great Depression. A year later, we can say that, although we’re still a long way from where we need to be, that we have made the economy stronger. It’s now growing again. We have created a financial situation that is vastly better than it was before.
And so we’re now in a situation in which the economy is growing, moving. We’re reforming areas like education. We’re taking steps on energy. We’re doing a whole bunch of things out there that are going to create the foundation for long-term economic growth.
BAIER: So if it doesn’t pass, does that diminish your presence?
OBAMA: Well, if it doesn’t pass, I’m more concerned about what it does to families out there who right now are getting crushed by rising health care costs and small businesses who were having to make a decision, “Do I hire or do I fix health care?” That’s the reason I make these decisions.
BAIER: Mr. President, I’m getting wrapped up, and I don’t want to interrupt you, but to finish up, do you think this is going to pass?
OBAMA: I do. I’m confident it will pass. And the reason I’m confident that it’s going to pass is because it’s the right thing to do. Look, on a whole host of these measures, whether it’s health care, whether it was fixing the financial system, whether it’s making sure that we passed the Recovery Act, I knew these things might not be popular, but I was absolutely positive that they were the right thing to do and that, over time, we would be vindicated in having made those tough decisions.
I think health care is exactly the same thing. We — I’ve got a whole bunch of portraits of presidents around here, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, who tried to do this and didn’t get it done. The reason that it needs to be done is not its affect on the presidency. It has to do with how it’s going to affect ordinary people who right now are desperately in need of help.
BAIER: I apologize for interrupting you, sir. I tried to get the most for our buck here.
(CROSSTALK)
BAIER: Thank you very much for your time.
OBAMA: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Hawaii Tired of Accommodating Birthers
Yahoo News Hawaii may start ignoring repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama’s birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won’t give up…
LYLAS: Nuns Defy Bishops to Support Health Care Reform
Proving they are women first and subservient doormats to bishops…not at all, a group representing 59,000 nuns has fired off a letter to Congress in support of health care reform.
“Despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions,” said the letter signed by 60 leaders of women’s religious orders. “It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments … in support of pregnant women. This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.”
Bishops, a pretty much one-issue group, object to health care reform because they say that in addition to other medical services, it will also improve access to abortions. Were there any other things to take into account? If you’re a bishop, probably not. But the nuns thought of one or two.
“…this isn’t a question of faith and morals,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a national Catholic social activism lobby. “We are the ones who work every day with people who are suffering because they don’t have health care. We cannot turn our backs on them, so for us, health care reform is a faith-based response to human need.”
If Congress only had the courage of these sisters, we’d have been done with all this dithering months ago.
