Some good news prior to Obama's speech tonight. Via Matt Yglesias, Senator Schumer still talking reconciliation :

I’ve always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we’ll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we’ll be judged by whether it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn’t work, even if we pass it, leading to hurting both the country and the party.

Schumer gets it. It is also interesting to me that Anthony Weiner is a political protege of Schumer's, considering Weiner's statements that whether the public option survives is up to the President. Even Yglesias likes the idea. The new Center.

Speaking for me only

Via TPM:

"I talked to [President Obama] last week while I was in Maine and I talked to him on Monday as well," [Senator Olympia] Snowe said on MSNBC earlier today. "We talked about the public option. I was ... urging him if he could take the public option off the table in his speech this evening so it could provide, I think, a momentum of a different kind in moving this issue forward overall."

(Emphasis supplied.) So who was elected President last November, Obama or Snowe? Time will tell.

Speaking for me only

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor cleverly asks whether conservatives really are judicial minimalists (recording of the argument in Citizens United here, transcript here (pdf):

Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for Citizens United, argued for a broad ruling that would reverse two precedents allowing the government to restrict the campaign speech of all sorts of corporations notwithstanding the First Amendment. That prompted a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, her first as a Supreme Court justice. “Are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are statutory interpretations that would avoid the constitutional question?” she asked Mr. Olson.

(Emphasis supplied.) A basic tenet of Supreme Court jurisprudence is constitutional avoidance (link to Conservapedia.) Do not decide the constitutional question unless you have to. Those opposed to "judicial activism," as conservatives purport to be, would want Citizens United decided on narrow statutory grounds, rather than on sweeping constitutional grounds. But the extreme right wing Roberts Gang of 5 plow forth with their judicially activist right wing agenda. And so would extreme Republicans like Mitch McConnell, who hired Floyd Abrams to argue for judicial activism on his behalf:

President Obama has promised Americans clarity in his speech tonight on health care. I hope he does better than he did on Good Morning America today. What did he say? No one knows for sure. Even the journalists can't agree on what he said. Check out the different versions in the Washington Post and LA Times. (Clue: It all depends on the meaning of "it.")

According the the Washington Post, Obama will argue strongly for a public option. But if the final health care bill (not the public option per se) adds one one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill.

He said there were "principles that, if they're not embodied in the bill, I will not sign it," but he ducked a question on whether those include the public option. Instead, he cited as an example, "if it's adding one dime to the deficit, if it's not fully paid for, then I will not be supportive."

According to the LA Times, he said the public option is a good idea but if it (the public option) passes and adds one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill. [More..]

The Hill, one of the local Village papers, reports:

Tide turns against public option on eve of President Obama's address

Political momentum appeared to swing sharply against the public health insurance option prized by liberals Tuesday, on the eve of President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress. . . . Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said it’s time for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to wake up to the growing opposition to her position. Obama should convince “Speaker Pelosi and others that the [public option] is a distraction and it’s not the main event,” Lieberman said during a television interview on Tuesday.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hey now, Lieberman agrees with the logrolling twins, Joe and Ezra Klein. But it is still up to the Progressive Block and, the irrelevant and impotent one, President Obama:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). . . said the [President's] speech is likely to decide whether [the public option] is included in a bill. “We can cobble the votes together for a public option if the president says that’s what he wants,” Weiner said. “If he gives it up, there’s no other way to interpret that than as a retreat.”

(Emphasis supplied.) It's Big Wednesday, Barack.

Speaking for me only

Via Dave Weigel, Shame on them! BTW, I wonder how much they would want for the web address if President Obama nominates Sunstein for the Supreme Court. Cuz I'd be interested.

Speaking for me only

The Citizens United case will be reargued today before the Supreme Court, which now includes Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I will crib something from someone who knows more about the issues than I do later.

I understand some irrelevant and impotent person is giving a speech tonight on health care reform. Based on what some centrist bloggers have told us, I am not sure why we should watch it. It's not President Snowe, but we'll give it a shot tonight anyway, Jeralyn and I.

This is an Open Thread.

Remember this Ezra Klein logrolling for Joe Klein? Now Joe Klein returns the favor:

Here's Ezra Klein, who has established himself as a real voice of sanity in this debate, on what a public option actually might accomplish--and what it won't.

Is that a good trade for Ezra? Getting props from Joe Klein is not what it used to be. Wonder if they are discussing it on the JournOlist.

Speaking for me only

In response to "even the liberal" Ezra Klein's arguments against the public option, Paul Krugman wrote:

[W]hat is one to make of the practical, political argument from the likes of Ezra Klein, who argue that any public plan actually included in legislation probably wouldn’t make that much difference, and that reform is worth having even without such a plan?

There are three reasons to be suspicious of that argument. [. . . MORE]

More details about the Baucus compromise for health care reform:

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected....The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds. (my emphasis)

So a 60 year old and a smoker who can't afford premiums gets fined for not having insurance? But the 25 year old, whose premiums are 5 times less than the 60 year old, will get help with catastrophic insurance?

Mr. Baucus’s proposal would offer low-cost catastrophic insurance as an option for people 25 and younger. Policy experts say many people in this age group cannot afford comprehensive coverage or see no need for it.

And the public option? The AP says it's sinking fast: [More...]

Here's Markos of Daily Kos with a message to President Obama on the public option and health care legislation:

We're not talking what we really wanted - we really wanted single payer - so we already compromised from our position. I think the public option at this point is sort of our Waterloo, This is where we stand and fight.

I'm watching Big Brother 11 (seems all but certain Michelle will be leaving tonight) and America's Got Talent. What's got your attention, on TV or elsewhere? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Ezra's latest is much better:

How you'll judge Max Baucus's framework depends on how you understand the goal of health-care reform. . . . It really would insure tens of millions of people. . . . It really will expand Medicaid and transform it from a mish-mash of state regulation into a dependable benefit. . . . The main disappointment is that insofar as you see the bill as a vehicle for moving us towards a better, more efficient, less costly system, there are some problems. In particular, this bill seems to block off . . . possible points of expansion. . . . [T]he co-op plan is an interesting policy proposal, but unlike a public insurance option, it's difficult to imagine it growing into anything significantly stronger than what's outlined in the paper.

To follow Ezra's point, if this is where health care legislation is heading, it is no longer reform, but merely providing relief to the poorest among us. And that is an absolute good. That is the cannolis. Let's take that. But let's leave the "reform" (the mandates and the co-ops), or the gun.

If we are giving up on positive incremental structural reform, and to me that means a public option, then let's leave reform out altogether. Let's take the money for Medicaid and other coverage expanding programs, and leave out the mandates. And that makes a reconciliation bill quite doable. Then, maybe, we can do health care reform right later.

Speaking for me only