The Note, 6/10/2009: Deeds & Words — Can Obama reconcile with himself on health care reform?

By RICK KLEIN On a day for outsiders (at least in Virginia), the outsider-turned-insider in the White House needs to win an inside game — one he’s playing from the outside, too.  Members of the Obama army may or may not be the force the president wants them to be, but they’ve got quite a bit to reconcile in their marching orders already. The path to health care reform has already led President Obama away from the campaign’s clarity — the clarity that his supporters once signed up for, and that the opposition can’t wait to hold them to. As the health care bill that’s the centerpiece of the Obama agenda takes shape, it looks increasingly likely to include items the president fought as a candidate — with the possibility of one each from the primary (universal mandate) and the general (taxing health benefits)  That doesn’t even include other controversial items — ones some Republicans are setting up as deal-killers: the public option, and penalties on employers that don’t provide coverage. (Don’t forget you have to pay for the whole thing, too.  Like much in the world of sound policy, the big items have uncertain constituencies inside Congress. And even though one of the concepts is borrowed from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., it’s not an idea with wide acceptance inside a Republican Party that’s rediscovering its commitment to fiscal discipline  “The great unknown of the health-care debate as it unfolds in the months ahead is whether the current political landscape will prove more hospitable to mandates, cost controls and tax increases — all measures now on the table that helped doom the Clinton plan,” Shailagh Murray writes for The Washington Post. “Passage of a health-care bill of the scope Congress is contemplating would be an extraordinary feat, but it is fraught with political peril, win or lose. . . . Republicans are betting that the specter of ‘big government’ can still unsettle voters.”  With each new detail, a new ad campaign is born. (And just wait until the funding mechanisms — read: taxes — fall into place.  “Democratic leaders in both houses said they would require individuals to carry insurance and employers to help pay for it. But they have yet to decide how to raise the necessary tax revenue,” Robert Pear writes in The New York Times. “Leaders in both chambers said they wanted to establish a new public health insurance program, which would compete with private insurers. But they have not settled on the details.”  (Don’t miss the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is on the Senate floor daily to rail against the health plan. It worked for Gitmo…  Back in your court, Mr. President: “A Senate plan to overhaul the nation’s health system is likely to include a new tax on some employer-provided health benefits that exceed the value of the basic plan offered to federal employees, currently about $13,000 a year for a family of four, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said yesterday,” Lori Montgomery writes in The Washington Post. “Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he is drafting the health reform measure, which he expects to unveil next week. He told reporters that taxing employer-provided benefits is ‘perhaps the best way to raise money for an overhaul of the health-care system’ and offered details about the form that tax is likely to take.”   “For some Americans, especially the affluent and those with traditional job-based medical insurance, there could be new or higher taxes,” the Los Angeles Times’ Noam Levey writes. “Shadowing the debate, which is expected to dominate Washington’s summer and extend into the fall, are the same vexing controversies that have derailed almost all previous efforts to reshape the U.S. healthcare system.”  Contours of compromise? “If those early drafts are any indication, the [Senate] HELP version [of the public plan] would look a lot like Medicare,” Time’s Karen Tumulty reports. “The House version, on the other hand, would have a government plan that looks a lot like a private insurance company. . . . That’s a very big difference. Where the insurance industry says that it would go broke if it had to compete with a Medicare-like option, some of the big companies say privately they could live with a government plan, if it had to sustain itself (as they do) on the premiums they collect, and if it is subject to the same regulatory rules that they are.”  How many defections can Democrats afford? “I’m not open to a public option,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., per The Hill’s Mike Soraghan.  The inside push: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are double-teaming powerful chairmen and rank-and-file members to save health care reform from a repeat of the Democratic Party infighting that helped kill it in 1994,” Patrick O’Connor and Chris Frates write for Politico. “In a closed-door session Tuesday, Pelosi assured rank-and-file Democrats that she won’t move forward on a bill without their consent. ‘We have to hear from you,’ one participant quoted Pelosi as saying.”   Still shooting for bipartisanship: “The game plan is to keep the Republicans in the room,” Rep. Richard Neal, R-Mass., told The Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness after a meeting at the White House. “[The president] was very clear about that.”  But: “The battle over health care is already turning into a partisan brawl,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl and Kristina Wong report.  Said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Americans don’t want government-run insurance companies any more than they want government-run car companies.”   Sensing a messaging theme? “Those are two words we hear a lot today: Washington takeover,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., per ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf.   Is there a plan yet, really, if it’s not paid for? “Democrats are postponing a decision on the contentious issue of how to pay for the health plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s Naftali Bendavid and Janet Adamy report. “The delay will give lawmakers time to get a better handle on cost estimates. It could also give them a chance to sell the public on the benefits of expanded health care before talking about how to pay for them.”  You really can’t have it all — can you? “Just as Mr. Reagan glossed over the contradictions of his spending, tax cuts and deficit-reduction plan 30 years ago, the health-care reform folks today are ignoring the virtual impossibility of insuring everyone while cutting costs and giving consumers freedom to choose health providers and treatments,” Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown writes in the Capital Journal column.   Taking on some political weaknesses — though not particularly strongly: “The ‘pay-as-you-go’ budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month,” per the AP’s Andrew Taylor. “It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama’s priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.”    “The PAYGO rules will apply to new tax cuts and mandatory spending, with four major exemptions — any renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the continued efforts to ‘patch’ the Alternative Minimum Tax, any effort to address physician’s payments in Medicare, and modifying the estate tax,” ABC’s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report. “In addition, discretionary spending — roughly 40% of the federal budget — is not covered by PAYGO.”  “[Obama's] congressional allies — and his own actions — threatened to undermine his message of fiscal discipline,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman writes. “House appropriators on Tuesday unveiled spending numbers for the coming fiscal year that push up domestic outlays by 10.4%, after lawmakers used gimmicks to get around the pay-as-you-go rules Mr. Obama is embracing.” About that discipline: It’s nice that the government is getting TARP money back, but deficit reduction?  “The president’s assertion that the national debt will be lessened by $68 billion seems less than certain,” ABC’s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report. “During his Senate confirmation hearing on June 4, Herbert M. Allison Jr., nominee to the assistant secretary for financial stability, said any repayment could be extended to additional firms.”  Said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, but I also wouldn’t rule it in.”  A battle that would be consuming a week under different circumstances: “A bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a major legislative challenge on Capitol Hill, as members press President Obama from the left and the right on a number of fronts: the logistics of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the release of photos showing abuse of detainees and a proposed loan to the International Monetary Fund,” Perry Bacon Jr. reports in The Washington Post.   The liberal blog FireDogLake is rallying the troops to urge Democrats to vote no.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s hearings are set for July 13 — and Republicans are going to keep making noise about that being too soon. We just hope the judge’s brother has cleared his calendar: “It’s just insulting,” Juan Sotomayor tells ABC’s Claire Shipman about some of the name-calling since his sister was nominated for the high court. “Angry is just beginning of the emotion that I could describe.”  On the “wise Latina” comment: “I’m not going to pretend I know what she was talking about, and I’m sure it was done in a context that was meant totally different than it was taken out of. And it’s not my place to say that,” Juan Sotomayor said, on “Good Morning America” Wednesday. As for the hearings, the announcement of an early start date for hearings had the effect of “infuriating Republicans who said that they had been blind-sided and that the timetable would recklessly short-circuit the review process,” David M. Herszenhorn reports in The New York Times. “But as Republican leaders went to the Senate floor yowling in protest on Tuesday afternoon, they seemed virtually powerless to slow the confirmation proceedings.”  “Republicans claim they would have to read 76 cases per day of her record to be prepared for her hearings, math based on the fact that Judge Sotomayor has heard appeals on over three thousand cases in her current job on the Court of Appeals,” per ABC’s Sarah Tobianski. “But Sotomayor has only 264 published opinions on the Second Circuit, according to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.”   A boycott in the making? “If I’m ready to attend, I will attend. If I’m not, I won’t,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the Judiciary Committee, per Politico’s Alex Isenstadt and Manu Raju.  NPR’s David Welna: “Committee rules say at least eight members must be present — and at least two of them must be members of the minority — for business to take place. So if at least six of the seven Republicans on the panel were to stay away, no executive action could be taken to advance the process, including voting to forward the nomination to the full Senate.”  A different strategy, per the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, who has the video: “The Christian group ‘Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capitol’ has made its way to Capitol Hill and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor might be interested in what they did. They blessed the doors of Senate Hart Building Room 216 with prayer and oil because they believe this will be the room most likely used for her confirmation hearing which begins July 13th.”  In Virginia, a re-match is set — with national implications, certainly and surely  Creigh Deeds beat Terry McAuliffe in Tuesday’s Democratic gubernatorial primary — convincingly, and your marquee 2009 match-up is set, as Deeds takes on Republican Bob McDonnell.  “This time, the two men with deep roots in the state will not only battle for Virginia’s highest office, but will do so in an election that is expected to draw intense national attention and be viewed as a bellwether for the Democratic Party,” Rosalind S. Helderman writes in The Washington Post. “Their 2005 race for attorney general was dominated by law-and-order issues. Now, the campaign will emphasize the serious pocketbook concerns facing Virginia voters and will trace the themes that dominated the primary: jobs, the environment, energy.”  “Both national parties are looking to the contest as a warm up for the 2010 midterm elections and for signs of how voters are responding to the policies of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats,” Susan Ferrechio writes in the Washington Examiner.  “Deeds dominated his rivals, winning vote-rich counties such as Chesterfield, Henrico, Fairfax and Prince William and cities such as Richmond, Roanoke, Norfolk and Virginia Beach. He carried 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts; McAuliffe took the 3rd District,” Tyler Whitley and Jim Nolan write in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “Political analysts said Deeds, as the most moderate of the three candidates, could have a better chance of defeating McDonnell on Nov. 3.” The Macker, gracious in defeat: “Virginia needs Creigh Deeds,” Terry McAuliffe said. A week into the general election in New Jersey: “Fresh from his Republican primary victory, former federal prosecutor Christopher Christie leads Democratic incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine 50 – 40 percent among likely voters in the New Jersey Governor’s race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.”   Some clarity coming to Wall Street? “The Obama administration is dropping its plan to cap salaries at firms receiving government bailout money, leaving them subject to congressionally imposed limits on bonuses, according to people familiar with the matter,” per The Wall Street Journal. “The move is likely to end months of confusion on Wall Street about separate pay directives from the White House and Congress. The administration is expected to announce the compromise on Wednesday. In addition to standing behind the restrictions passed by Congress in February, the administration plans to push for broad changes in compensation practices across the financial-services industry, these people say.”    Who’s this designed to help recover? (And how many jobs will this save or create? Will that count the reporters assigned to gaffe-duty?) “Vice President Joseph Biden will kick off what the White House is billing as his ‘Road to Recovery’ tour on Thursday, traveling to communities across the country to highlight stimulus bill projects,” Keith Koffler writes for Roll Call. “Congressional Democrats have been demanding a more public role from the White House in touting the stimulus and its effects on job creation.” Before you run for president, you have to learn how to return phone calls: “Watching the dinner-speaker spectacle develop, then unravel, then redevelop (Will she or won’t she speak/attend?) felt like watching a middle-school romance in which a friend tells another friend that so-and-so has a crush on you-know-who, but don’t tell anybody. A little silly, in other words. And embarrassing,” Kathleen Parker writes in The Washington Post.    “Seven months after the election, Palin still can’t shoot straight. Unless something changes dramatically and soon, ‘Missed Opportunity’ should be the title of her memoir,” Parker writes.  “It’s a measure of the Republican Party’s problems that its members managed to turn their biggest fundraising event this year into a circus highlighting their own differences. The question of whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would show up eclipsed virtually anything said about President Obama or the party’s vision,” The Washington Post’s Dan Balz writes.   Dissecting Sanford’s stand: Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., “tried to decline the economic stimulus funds, intended for education and law enforcement. In a case that boiled down to a power struggle between two branches of state government, the court said the Legislature had allocated the money and Sanford had to apply for it,” Jill Lawrence writes for Politics Daily. “His stand is certainly a bracing antidote to empathy, a trait much maligned these days in conservative circles. But that’s hardly the path to the White House, for Sanford or for his party.”   Team Romney finds a way to pay the bills. From the release going out Wednesday: “Four political veterans with a strong mix of campaign, government and private sector experience today announced the formation of the Shawmut Group LLC, a Boston-based strategic communications, public affairs and political consulting firm,” per the press release. “The Shawmut Group consists of Beth Myers, Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom, all of whom served in senior leadership roles with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Rob Cole, a senior aide and political adviser to former New York Governor George Pataki.”  ABC’s John Berman goes from running for president back to playing pundit in his latest “Quick Fix” segment — and George W. Bush and Britney Spears have something in common, if you know what I mean.   
The Kicker:  “I think the only thing she said to me is, ‘Hey, they paid for my flight to Washington.’ ” — Juan Sotomayor, on his sister’s reaction to being named to the Supreme Court, on “GMA” Wednesday. “When I travel 250 miles to make a case on how to save the state a lot of money … and the guy comes into his office and starts playing with his BlackBerry, I was miffed.” — Billionaire Thomas Golisano, to the New York Daily News, in the first recorded instance of a legislative body switching party control because of a handheld electronic device.   Today on “Top Line,” ABCNews.com’s daily political Webcast: Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.; and Air America’s Ana Marie Cox. Noon ET.   Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote   For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/