Progress Illinois

The president's top domestic policy priority is one step closer to being made  law. As you've read elsewhere, the full House passed its final health care reform bill late Saturday night by a slim 220-215 margin. Although 39 Democrats eventually voted against the bill, none of Democrats hailing from President Obama's home state -- including Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster -- dissented.

While not perfect, the package approved by the House would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 36 million people currently uninsured would gain access to health care. The bill, which includes an employer mandate and a "level-playing field" public option, is also deficit neutral over the next 10 years and would impose a whole host of important consumer protections.

Unfortunately, House leadership had to strike a Faustian bargain to gain the support of conservative pro-life Democrats, including Reps. Dan Lipinski and Jerry Costello. Included in the legislation was an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupack (D-Michigan) limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the health insurance exchanges. Lipinski, who made clear this summer that he "strongly opposed any bill that's going to have public funding for abortion," even spoke in favor of the amendment on the floor minutes before the vote took place, earning praise from the Family Research Council for his efforts.

What Lipinski forgot to mention was that House tri-committee bill does not threaten the Hyde Amendment, which forbids Medicaid from using any federal money to pay for an abortion procedure. And in practical terms, it will have a devastating effect on working women. Ezra Klein explains:

If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive [it] from their employers.

Continue reading »

Right on schedule, President Obama signed into law this morning H.R. 3548, a federal extension of unemployment insurance. The bill extends jobless benefits to unemployed Americans set to exhaust their insurance by December 31 in states (like Illinois) where unemployment rates are high. According to the Illinois Department of Employment Security, 28,000 unemployed individuals have already run out of benefits and 12,000 more will by year's end. The legislation also extends through June an $8,000 tax credit for new homebuyers. In a statement following the signing, the president said the bill "will help grow our economy, help create and save jobs, and help provide necessary relief to small businesses." The Illinois AFL-CIO's Michael Carrigan agrees. From the Sun-Times:

"With Illinois' unemployment rate still over 10 percent, many families need this extension," said  president of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "For most, their unemployment check is what keeps food on the table, and as we head into winter, their homes heated. Our economy is slowly rebuilding, but until the job market rebounds we have to protect those who have lost their jobs."

But Congress might not be done.

Continue reading »

If he's to survive the rough-and-tumble Republican gubernatorial primary, State Sen. Kirk Dillard is going to have to appease his party's conservative base. That includes providing justification for his appearance in the first biographical television ad produced by then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama. "Sen. Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had, and he was successful in a bipartisan way,” the Hinsdale lawmaker said in the ad. “His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.”

At a "tea party forum" in Homer Glen Wednesday night, one attendee wanted to know if Dillard still believed that his former colleague was "serving the country well." Dillard quickly said no before launching into a revisionist attack on the president, claiming that he doesn't like the "socialistic policies" that are being implemented in Washington and that he "warned people back then that [Obama] was a socialist." Watch it:

DILLARD: I disagree with Barack Obama on about 95 percent of what he stands for or is. One of the reasons I'm here tonight is I don't like those socialistic policies and I warned people back then that he was a socialist and took him on on socialized medicine on the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

This clip raises a few questions.

Continue reading »

Here a few reactions from the Illinois congressional delegation to President Obama's health care address last night. (You can read the full speech here.)

From a statement by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D):

I believe with this President we are going to make history by passing legislation that will meet the health care needs of all people. The American people have been subjected to months of lies and misinformation but tonight, President Obama set the record straight and made it very clear that the fundamental purpose of health insurance reform is to provide quality, affordable health care to the millions and millions of Americans who are hungry for this change.

The President knows that the best opportunity we have to bring down costs, increase access, and improve care is to create a robust public health insurance option that will create competition and hold health insurance companies accountable for the practices that price people out of the health care they need.

Rep. Phil Hare (D) said in a statement:

President Obama got it exactly right tonight. The time for games is over. The time for action is now. Health care is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, but a moral one.

Like the President, I support health care reform that eliminates preexisting conditions, includes a strong public option that competes with private insurance companies, preserves a patients right to choose the plan and the doctor that they wish, provides portability for those who lose their job, eliminates the Medicare Part D doughnut hole that fails to provide prescription drug coverage for too many seniors, and reduces the number of uninsured by making quality and affordable health care available to all.

Three House committees, including my own, have passed a bill that does just that. It is time to move that legislation forward. If we do not act, more people will die, more families will go bankrupt, and more businesses will close because of the lack of affordable health care. Our nation and its citizens deserve better.

Rep. Bill Foster (D), as reported by the Northwest Herald:

Continue reading »

At lunchtime today, teachers across the nation have the opportunity to broadcast a videotaped speech by President Obama urging students to work hard in school and discover their passions. "We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems," Obama says, according to the text of the speech. "If you don't do that -- if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country."

When word broke of Obama's plans, Rep. Judy Biggert -- like many of her fellow Republicans -- raised irrational concerns that it might amount to political indoctrination. Last week, the Hinsdale Republican issued a statement blasting the White House for failing to make the text of the speech public in advance (the White House did so yesterday):

With no opportunity to review the text of the President’s remarks, it’s little wonder why parents and educators are concerned that the Administration could be sending kids a thinly-veiled political lesson rather than simply encouraging students to fulfill their potential.  Already, I’ve heard from parents who feel compelled to keep their children at home.  This is exactly why the federal government rightfully steers away from dictating educational agendas to local schools.

The SouthtownStar's Phil Kadner has the correct response to this strange fear: "Have we really reached the point where a president's remarks to schoolchildren need to be screened?" 

Continue reading »

In a front page story today, political reporter Rick Pearson examines a new Tribune/WGN poll of 700 registered Illinois voters and describes President Obama's home-state approval rating as "shaky." Here's an excerpt:

The results of the poll, conducted Aug. 27-31, indicate many of Obama's home-state voters have the same concerns that voters have shown in national polling, where confusion over a complicated health-care reform plan and continued worries about employment have taken an even greater toll on the president's approval rating.

Rich Miller offers a thoughtful critique of Pearson's summary over at Capitol Fax, pointing out that it's not particularly instructive to compare Obama's current approval ratings with those from February, when they were artificially high and the president hadn't yet endured any bruising legislative fights. After all, Obama only won the state with 61 percent of the vote in November.

He also knocks Pearson for his supposition that "Obama’s standing with home-state voters could create problems for Illinois Democrats, if it continues into next year’s general election." A downward trend is obviously never encouraging for a politician or a party. But the president is still broadly popular in the state (only 33 percent disapprove of his performance thus far) and will likely remain so, especially if some version of health care reform is approved.

Then there's Pearson's conclusion regarding independents:

Among the potentially troubling signs for Democrats that surfaced in the survey was the fact that only about half of voters who describe themselves as independents approved of Obama's job performance. Illinois has voted Democratic in recent elections, but independents remain a key swing block.

The Tribune did not release the survey's cross tabs, so we can't see the exact figure Pearson is referring to here.  (Does "about half" mean slightly more than 50 percent? Slightly less?) But it's worth noting that, according to Illinois exit polls, 55 percent of self-described "Independents" supported Obama last November, compared to 43 percent for John McCain. Dropping a few percentage points is hardly definitive, let alone "potentially troubling."

The August recess is in full swing. Here's the latest health care news:

More Hedging On The Public Option

The big news nationally is that the White House hinted again yesterday at a willingness to drop a public insurance option from the health care reform packages if it means ultimately passing a bill. While progressives activists have pushed hard for a robust government-run program to compete with private insurers,  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN that a public option was “not the essential element” for reform. This isn't the first time the Obama administration has hedged on this point, but at this stage in the negotiations, it should send a strong signal to moderate and liberal Democrats where the president currently stands.

In its place, Senate Democrats will likely turn to non-profit cooperatives, an alternative already favored by the Gang of Six senators on the Finance Committee. Ezra Klein's June interview with Sen. Kent Conrad is a good place to get caught up on the specifics. The New York Times' briefly explains the idea here:

The co-op, modeled after rural electric and agricultural cooperatives in Mr. Conrad’s home state, would offer insurance through a nonprofit, nongovernmental consumer entity run by its members. Mr. Axelrod said one downside of a co-op, from Mr. Obama’s point of view, was that it might be unable to “scale up in such a way that would create a robust” competitor to private insurers.

Will that concession go far enough to win the support of moderate Democrats who remain on the fence? None of Illinois' still undecided lawmakers -- including Reps. Debbie Halvorson, Bill Foster, and Melissa Bean -- have explicitly identified the public option as the major problem with the bills working through Congress. However, if they felt the inclusion of a government-run plan left them vulnerable to overblown conservative attacks about expanding government, co-ops could give them some leeway while preserving some choice on the private market. Of course, the full House would still face a vote on a bill that includes the public option; it would likely be gutted in the Senate version, where moderate votes are really needed, and then negotiations would begin over specifics in conference committee. And the entire package could crumble if progressives in the House revolt, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky and her colleagues vowed to do last month. Stay tuned. Continue reading »

We gave radio host Mancow Muller credit last month for submitting himself to waterboarding and then having the honesty to admit it constitutes "torture."  But it's worth remembering how rancid his WLS show often is.

For instance, on yesterday's program, Mancow highlighted Rev. Jeremiah Wright's recent comment that "them Jews" in the White House won't let President Obama talk to him.  Mancow went on to assert that, because of his connection to Wright, Obama is an "anti-Semite" who was "popping champagne" following the June 10 shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. 

Mancow also said of the president: "[W[hen you see the way Obama is kissing Muslim butt and selling out Israel, you realize where it all came from ... The radical, Black Panther wife and Rev. Wright the anti-Semite."  Listen:

Internal mp3

Just a little taste of what's on your local airwaves ... 

Full transcript below:

Continue reading »

Sen. Dick Durbin has spent weeks lambasting the banking industry for defeating his mortgage bankruptcy reform bill. Considering that the banks have poured millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign (through April of this year, the political action committees for six of the largest industry trade associations raised $1.6 million and spent $1.7 million) and have refused to accept even a watered-down version of the cramdown bill, the criticism is well deserved. But the Obama administration, which declined to champion Durbin's bill, shares some of the blame as well. The Hill has the story:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) criticized the Obama administration Tuesday for not doing enough to stem foreclosures.

Durbin, who has pushed for legislation allowing judges to modify mortgages for troubled homeowners, said he remains "skeptical that the voluntary approach to mortgage [modifications] will save us from this crisis."

"The previous administration and so far this administration has failed to come up with an approach that could dramatically turn around this increasing number of foreclosures," Durbin told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing.

What's perplexing about the White House's failure to get behind Durbin's bill is that it is the "stick" in the administration's Making Home Afforable program, as the American Prospect's Tim Fernholz recently pointed out:

Continue reading »

On November 2, 2008, exit polls showed that the nation's rich (those who make in excess of $200,000) broke for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, and by bigger margins than did the "merely well-off," who supported John McCain. Since then, the Democratic administration has moved to enact the policies it campaigned on (which these voters were ostensibly aware of), including allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and making long-term investments in health care, education, and energy. Yet in a piece republished by NBC Chicago yesterday, Politico's Jeanne Cummings ponders whether Obama is not doing enough keep them in his corner:

But these voters are not being repaid for their support — more like the other way around.

Beyond the obviously wealthy voters, people who in many places are no more than upper middle class find themselves targeted to pay for a wide range of Obama policies aimed at leveling the economic playing field.

Cummings should acknowledge that the rich Democratic trend has a regional component. As FiveThirtyEight's Andrew Gelman has demonstrated, income predicts Republican votes more strongly in red than in blue states. In other words, Democrats are gaining ground among wealthy voters in rich areas where culture war issues -- the GOP's hard-line stances on immigration, choice, and gay marriage, for example -- have turned off those open to Republican economic policies. Places like Chicago's collar counties, for example.

But that's not to suggest that the many wealthy voters don't also favor Obama's economic proposals, which he has spent the first few months in office pursuing.

Continue reading »