Latest News

Leaderless: Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

2009-10-25T03:00:39Z

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

"The leadership understands that pushing for a public option is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

"Everybody knows we're close enough that these guys could be rolled. They just don't want to do it because it makes the politics harder," said a senior Democratic source, saying that Obama is worried about the political fate of Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats if the bill isn't seen as bipartisan. "These last couple folks, they could get them if Obama leaned on them."

But with fundamental reform of the health care system in plain sight for the first time in half a century, the president appears to be siding with those who see the Senate and its entrenched culture as too resistant to change. Administration officials say that Obama's preference for the trigger, which is backed by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, is founded in a fear that Reid's public option couldn't get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. More specifically, aides fear that a handful of conservative Democrats will not support a bill unless it has at least one Republican member's support.

The president's retreat leaves Reid as the champion of progressive reform -- an irony that is not lost on those who have long derided the Majority Leader as too cautious.

"Who knew that when it came down to crunch time, Harry Reid would be the one who stepped up to the plate and Barack Obama would shy away from the fight," emailed one progressive strategist.

On Thursday evening, after taking the temperature of his caucus, Reid told Obama at a White House meeting that he was pushing a national public option with an opt-out provision. Obama, several sources briefed on the exchange, reacted coolly.

"He certainly didn't embrace it and he seemed to indicate a preference for continuing to work on a strategy that involved Senator Snowe and a trigger," said one aide briefed on the meeting. Several other sources, along with independent media reports, confirmed the exchange.

On Saturday, the activist group Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- which just days earlier had targeted Reid in a separate campaign -- took out a new television advertisement in Maine accompanied by an "emergency petition." Titled, "Time to Fight," the spot featured a former Obama campaign volunteer pleading with the president not to abandon the public plan.

"If this once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass a public option goes down the drain after we were just a couple votes away in each house of Congress, everyone will remember exactly who was and was not willing to fight when it counted," said the group's co-founder, Adam Green, when asked why he aired the ad. "Our grassroots pressure is an attempt to get President Obama to live up to the mandate for sweeping change that was given to him in the 2008 election."

MoveOn.org rallied its base on Friday. "The President has said many, many times that a public option is the best way to keep insurance companies honest and lower skyrocketing health care costs. Senate Democrats are ready to fight for a public option -- if the White House gives up now, it would be a tragic mistake," said an e-mail to the group's membership.

White House aides responded to the pressure not by embracing Reid's more aggressive stance, but by denying reports that he was discouraging the opt-out proposal.

"The report is false," Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide whose portfolio includes health care, said of a story in Talking Points Memo. "The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills. We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."

But the push-back, say sources with direct knowledge of deliberations between leadership and the administration, does not square with Obama's private indications to Senate leaders. The sources say that the president has left little doubt about his apprehension regarding an opt-out approach.

It is not philosophical, one White House aide explained, but is a matter of political practicality. If the votes were there to pass a robust public option through the Senate, the president would be leading the charge, the aide said. But after six months of concern that it would be filibustered, the bet among Obama's aides is that Reid is now simply being too optimistic in his whip count. The trigger proposal, said Democratic aides, has long been associated with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"He's been so convinced by his political people from the beginning that we can't get a bill with a public option, he's internalized it. Even though it's now become obvious we can get a bill without selling out the public option, he's still on that path," said a top Democratic source. The White House, he said, continues to assure progressives it'll improve the bill in conference negotiations between the Senate and House, but advocates are unconvinced.

"If we're this close in the Senate and they're not helping us, I have a feeling they could screw us in the conference," said one.

Advocates of a public option largely consider a "trigger" the equivalent of no public option at all. A trigger would implement a public option only if insurance companies failed to meet certain benchmarks over time and it would only be implemented in the regions of the country where those benchmarks weren't met. The Medicare prescription drug proposal passed in 2003 includes a "trigger," but the public provision has never been activated despite soaring drug costs. The industry can help craft the trigger language and can game its stats to prevent it from becoming reality.

"The current state of our health system should be trigger enough for anyone who's paying attention," said a congressional aide in the middle of the health care battle. "The American people pulled the 'trigger' in November."

The intellectual father of the public option, Yale Professor Jacob Hacker, told HuffPost that the trigger proposal is a betrayal.

"The trigger is an inside-the-beltway sleight of hand that would protect private insurers from the real competition that a strong public health insurance option would create," he said in an e-mail. "It is unworkable in the current Senate bills, unwise as public policy, and unwanted by the substantial majority of Americans who say they want a straight-up public option."

Reid Is Only One Or Two Votes Shy On Opt-Out Public Option

2009-10-23T17:37:31Z

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is just one or two Senate votes shy of having a filibuster-proof majority in favor of a public option for health insurance coverage with a provision allowing states to opt-out, multiple sources tell the Huffington Post.

The Nevada Democrat, according to Hill sources, is furiously working the phones today to ensure that 60 Senators (including him) will back the provision. The work will continue through the weekend and comes despite the president's indication in a meeting Thursday evening at the White House that he prefers a public option that would be triggered in by certain conditions over the "opt-out" alternative.

Advocates of the public option consider the trigger an industry attempt to kill the public option because it likely would never be triggered. Obama's support of the insurance industry position saps momentum from the public-option drive.

Reid doesn't intend to drag the decision out. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told HuffPost that when he asked the leader on Wednesday if he could send Reid a letter reiterating his support for a strong public option, Reid told him to hurry.

"He said, 'Yeah, but do it today.' And that's a hint of the pressure he's under and the pace he wants to keep," said Rockefeller.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the lone congressional Republican to hint that she would support health care reform, favors the trigger proposal and has said she would oppose the opt-out version. At the White House, Democratic sources say, Reid told Obama he intended to pursue the national public option with an opt-out provision and was busily gathering the necessary votes. Obama reacted coolly.

"He certainly didn't embrace it and he seemed to indicate a preference for continuing to work on a strategy that involved Senator Snowe and a trigger," said a senior Democratic source who was briefed on the meeting. A second aide whose boss was in the room confirmed the general nature of the exchange.

But administration officials claimed on Friday that the president "did not express a preference" between the trigger or opt-out proposals during the meeting with Senators.

"The president thinks that the public option is the best way to achieve choice and competition and bring down health care costs for the American people," spokesman Bill Burton added on Friday. "And he will continue to ensure that it is achieved in the final health care reform legislation."

Reid is likely to push ahead for the public option despite Obama's inclination toward a trigger. Aides on the Hill and strategists outside of Congress say that Reid sees an opening for getting a public option with a state-exempt clause past a Republican filibuster. The proposal is far more popular than the trigger within the Democratic caucus, these sources stressed. And it would be met with approval among the progressive community, which believes that triggers would result in a public option never coming into existence.

"If we can get an opt-out in federal program with no trigger -- that is not everything we wanted but it is a huge victory and good policy," emailed one high-ranking strategist. "The trigger is really a deal-killer."

Going down this route, however, will still require the recruitment of at least one conservative Democratic hold-out and maybe two. The identity of the hold-out(s) is not known. Nor were names shared by sources. But it's not difficult to compile a list of suspects; namely the group of Democrats who have already expressed skepticism about a public plan.

Already, the lobbying campaign around the opt-out public option is intensifying. Overheard at the America's Health Insurance Plans state conference rally on Friday was a company official discussing the need to work with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on her position on a government-run plan. "I've put a call into her office," the official said. "We need to chat with her."

Tensions are at a fever pitch, both within the Capitol and among the Democratic base. "Debbie Stabenow, as I am, is a huge advocate of the public option," Rockefeller said, referring to the Michigan Democrat. "She changed what she called it to something like 'consumer's choice,' or something like that, and [got] these thousands of emails and letters and telephone calls condemning her as a traitor to the cause. So you've got to be very careful with all of this."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Seething Dems Hit Back At Report That Public Option Is Dead In House

2009-10-23T14:56:33Z

Democratic lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are adamantly pushing back against reports that she does not have the necessary votes to pass a robust public option and is poised to abandon the provision.

"Speculation that a final decision has been made about the public option are not accurate," read a statement issued by the Speaker's deputy communications director
Nadeam Elshami. "We continue to work with all the members of the caucus to build consensus."

"It's not true. No decisions have been made," said Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-M.D.), meanwhile, told The Huffington Post that Pelosi did not tell the caucus that a robust public option was dead Thursday night.

The remarks, offered early on Friday morning, were a quick effort at damage control after Politico reported that Pelosi had determined that a "robust public option" could not get the 218 votes in the House needed for passage. The alternative approach, it was reported, would be a "trigger" option for a government plan.

In private, aides were seething that the story was based on politically motivated leaks if not sheer speculation. A Hill aide wrote in to say: "The leadership did not tell progressives last night that the robust public option is off the table. The votes are still being counted."

At the very least, the story as well as the reaction it engendered shows just how frantic and constantly evolving the reporting on the health care reform debate has become. In addition to Politico's story, several other publications reported that in meetings with Senate Democratic leaders, President Obama himself pushed for the "trigger" compromise. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Obama "did not express a preference" on what kind of public option (if any) he would like to see in the Senate's final health care package.

Indeed, a Senate aide whose boss was in the meeting said that Obama was "non-committal" on which approach he preferred, though he was "skeptical" on a proposal that would allow states to opt-out of a national public plan. Another aide whose boss was also in the room said that Obama "stopped short" of embracing the so-called trigger idea.

Exactly where deliberations stand is, indeed, quite difficult to pin down. But sources inside and out of government vehemently stress that talk of a trigger proposal is -- at this point -- off base. For starters, Pelosi doesn't need to go there.

"It makes no sense that she'd count votes, come up a few short, and just call it a day," said one Democratic health care strategist. "The debate in the House is over either a national public option, available everywhere, that pays Medicare +5 rates or a national public option available everywhere that has to negotiate rates. And that's only if the horse-trading doesn't come up with votes. [Pelosi] probably only needs at most a dozen - and the horse trading could involve other issues besides health care or the public option... the idea that the compromise will be a trigger is nuts."

Secondly, the Senate itself doesn't seem inclined to go for the trigger approach either. According to several sources, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stands just a few votes short (one or two, really) of the 60 needed to pass a public plan with an opt-out clause. The work right now is to get those remaining votes not, necessarily, to scrap the work already done in favor of pushing a trigger proposal (which, it should be noted, is the preference of the lone Republican on board -- Sen. Olympia Snowe).

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Budget Buster: Kent Conrad's Long Opposition To The Public Option

2009-08-21T17:22:00Z

Kent Conrad, the Democratic Senator who declared the public health insurance option dead on Sunday, portrays his activism on behalf of health insurance cooperatives as the conscripted service of a pragmatic warrior.

The public option, he has said over and over, just doesn't have the 60 votes he thinks are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

The accuracy of that supposed whip-count aside, Conrad's opposition to offering consumers a government-run alternative to private insurance companies goes deeper than political pragmatism.

Though he has refused to take a public position on the matter, in private meetings with colleagues and staff dating back to the beginning of the year, Conrad has repeatedly expressed his opposition to a public option, four top Democratic aides who've sat in meetings with him told the Huffington Post.

Conrad, they say, sees the public option as a dangerous expansion of federal responsibility for health care spending. "His position seems based on ideology more than practicality," said one of the aides.

Without fundamental changes to the health care system, Conrad sees the public option as unable to reduce the cost of health care. The argument by proponents of the public option that a government-run alternative within the insurance market would drive that fundamental change and help push health costs lower apparently doesn't hold any water with him.

Instead, he has presented a vague proposal to create health insurance cooperatives as an alternative.

But if it were up to Conrad, the Senate wouldn't be talking co-ops, public option or health care reform in 2009 at all, the aides say. The focus on health care runs afoul of his singular and career-long devotion to cutting the federal deficit.

The more responsible move, Conrad has argued behind closed doors, would have been to straighten out the budget first and then work on a health care overhaul. President Obama's position is that the budget can't be fixed without controlling health care costs -- and Conrad has been dragged along.

Conrad's fixation on federal spending is legendary; it's easy to imagine him waking in a cold sweat in the middle of the night, praying that those Medicare cost projections were only a nightmare.

And it is his fear of runaway spending that has made him extremely cautious in his approach to health care negotiations. Conrad has been a consistent and loud voice on the Finance Committee -- and within the bipartisan "Gang of Six" -- pushing a go-slow approach.

He has repeatedly rejected deadlines with the mantra that "we'll be ready when we're ready." He fought against the Democratic leadership's attempt to include language in the budget that would allow health care reform to be achieved using the reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority rather than 60 votes. He lost that fight, but was able to make it much harder to pull off the legislative maneuver by insisting on a five year window rather than ten -- meaning any changes achieved through reconciliation will lapse in five years and need to be renewed.

And when the White House put out its health care proposal with a five-year timeline, Conrad insisted on using a ten-year frame. That's why we're talking about a $1 trillion price tag rather than a $500 billion one. The real-world difference is negligible -- the two scenarios are the same -- but the trillion dollar figure increases the political focus on costs.

At a July 16th Budget Committee hearing, he argued against expanding health care coverage if it raised the debt, emphasizing that "[w]ithout fundamental changes in the organization and delivery of care, expanding health insurance coverage will worsen the nation's long-term budget outlook."

Conrad worked early on to make the deficit the year's top priority. One of the first supporters of Obama's presidential candidacy, Conrad pushed the new administration to hold a summit on fiscal responsibility as one of his first official events, angering progressives who saw it as undermining an agenda that might need to rely on increasing the deficit in the short term.

His deficit concerns go way back. When a 38-year-old Conrad first ran for the Senate in 1986, he made a pledge that would define his career: If the federal deficit increased while he was in office, he wouldn't run for reelection.

It was quintessential Conrad, telegraphing both his ambition and his (wildly misplaced) sense of what a freshman senator could accomplish in office. But when the red ink kept running, his response was equally telling. Instead of merely breaking his pledge, Conrad ran for the state's other Senate seat -- vacated by former Sen. Quentin Burdick, who had died in office. It wasn't, after all, technically in violation of his promise. The deficit pledge only applied to the first post.

Conrad would win a special election in 1992, with his old spot taken over by his mentor, Dorgan. He ran for and won reelection in 1994 -- when a conservative wave wiped most rural Democrats to sea -- and again in 2000 and 2006, with nearly 70 percent of the vote in the most recent tally.

Beyond ideology or pragmatism, however, the North Dakota Democrat has a pocketful of other reasons to oppose a public option. Despite being from a state where campaigns cost a relative pittance, Conrad has found himself the recipient of largess from a host of private actors with interests in the health care debate. Over the course of his career he has received more than $828,000 from insurance companies, $610,000 from health professionals, and $255,000 from pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2009 alone, Conrad has watched industry cash pour in at a high rate, according to a review of FEC filings. His Political Action Committee, DAKPAC, received a $2,500 donation from the American Medical Association; $2,000 donations from the pharmaceutical companies Merck & Company and Eli Lilly; as well as $1,000 donations from Johnson & Johnson, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, American Hospital Association, AstroZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, and the Federation of American Hospitals.

Meanwhile, a slew of prominent industry lobbyists have been donating to Conrad's leadership PAC as well.

• David Castagnetti, of the firm Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, donated $1,000 to the Senator's PAC. Castagnetti and his firm have been paid $877,500 to lobby on behalf of America's Health Insurance Plans, including $250,000 in 2009 alone. He has also earned $825,000 ($180,000 in 2009) to lobby on behalf of PhRMA.
• Charles Brain, of Capitol Hill Strategies, donated $1,000 to Conrad's PAC. Both he and his firm have been paid $1.4 million to lobby on behalf of PhRMA.
• John Jonas, of the firm Patton Boggs, gave $1,000 to Conrad's PAC. He and his firm have been paid $280,000 to lobby on behalf of American Healthcare Association in 2009, as well as $280,000 by BristolMyers Squibb for lobbying this year alone.
• Brian Griffin, a lobbyist for the Duberstein Group, made a $1,000 donation to Conrad's PAC. He and his firm have earned $300,000 to lobby on behalf of AHIP in 2009, as well as $960,000 overall.
• Michael Levy, a lobbyist for the firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck, donated $500 to Conrad's PAC. He and his firm have lobbied on behalf of a host of insurance and pharmaceutical companies including United Health Group, for which it was paid $110,000 in 2009.

The money from these private interests is coming in at rates greater than past cycles, even though he isn't up for re-election until 2012. But both the Senator's staff and many other who know him insist that Conrad is a true believer and that the cash doesn't unduly influence him.

"It's actually more philosophical than that," said one senior aide about the connection between Conrad's opposition to a public option and his contributions from the health insurance industry. "He sees skyrocketing deficits. He thinks the number one priority should be cutting deficits by not spending money."

"For anyone who has survived a lecture with him in a private room, these are pretty deeply held beliefs," said one senior Democratic aide who has survived his fair share.

"Conrad is a real master of the material," said longtime strategist Paul Begala. "He is the substance guy. He always has these budget charts. And when I worked in the White House, every single day year round, I would spend one to two hours a day on the budget. It is what you do. That's how you govern. The budget is the nation's destiny. It is the most important document. So in my world, guys like Kent Conrad and [OMB Director Peter] Orszag are sex symbols."

The Senator is certainly well trained for the current role he plays, with a high school diploma from the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, a degree from Stanford University and an MBA from George Washington University. It's a background omitted from his official bio, which jumps from junior high to tax commissioner. Still, Conrad has been a budget wonk for decades. After grad school, he became the assistant to the state tax commissioner at the time, a man named Byron Dorgan who would become the junior senator from North Dakota. Conrad succeeded him and became commissioner in 1980.

While Conrad hasn't given up his deficit hawkishness, not all spending has been equal. Conrad quickly spiked Obama's plan to trim nearly $10 billion from the federal budget by cutting farm subsidies. The subsidies are given to wealthy farmers regardless of market conditions and help prop up the North Dakota economy.

The stance on farm subsidies neatly illustrates the paradox that is the conservative Democrat. Typified by House Blue Dogs, the faction claims the mantle of principled, fiscal responsibility. But, in practice, the position is often defined by fealty to the business interests that fund their campaigns or dominate their states.

In Conrad's case, it's difficult not to see how North Dakota affects his approach to health care. Thanks largely to farm subsidies, the state has one of the nation's lowest rates of unemployment and few uninsured people -- under 70,000, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Conrad also bases his support for health insurance co-ops in his state's experience, calling it a good example of an efficient and workable system.

And yet, in North Dakota, one insurance provider has near monopolistic dominance, and although it is technically a co-op -- a nonprofit owned by its members -- it hardly serves as an example of best practices. Indeed, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota raised its insurance premiums 74 percent from 2000 to 2007 and its incoming president commands a salary of somewhere between $500,000 and $750,000.

Before his recent proclamation on Fox News Sunday, Conrad's biggest moment in the health care debate came when, as Budget Committee chairman, he gave a gut punch to Obama's effort to get a bill done before the August recess. At a July 16th hearing, he prompted testimony from Congressional Budget Office chief Doug Elmendorf that mirrors his own concerns.

Conrad had already gotten a letter from Elmendorf in which the director said that the reform proposals he had seen so far -- because of their subsidies for coverage -- would increase the federal responsibility for health care provision.

"I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right," Conrad said in his opening question to Elmendorf. "Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

"No, Mr. Chairman," said Elmendorf. "In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Elmendorf's answer ignored savings that Democrats insist will come from large parts of the bill, but a media uproar over the testimony erupted anyway, just as Conrad knew it would. The Finance Committee continued to drag its feet, and emboldened Blue Dogs in the House clamped on to the bill hard. Conrad would tell reporters later that day that he knew the essence of what Elmendorf's answer would be and wanted it out there for public exposure.

The Finance Committee's Gang of Six have inched toward Conrad's co-op idea, with Republican Senators Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Mike Enzi (Wyoming) speaking warmly of it. The rest of the Republican caucus has been much less impressed. Indeed, although the push for co-ops is tied to the effort to get bipartisan support for the bill, that's a prospect that aides see as less likely by the day.

When the debate shifts to one between Democrats, the co-op proposal will meet stiff opposition. Advocates of the public approach didn't meet Conrad's proposal kindly. Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.) initially said the idea didn't "come close to satisfying anyone who wants a public plan."

Conrad, in response, has tried his hand at political diplomacy. In June, the budget wonk sat down with Schumer to try to merge the two ideas. After the talks, Conrad said a number of points had been agreed on, including allowing the co-ops to have a national structure and to have bargaining power. Schumer, meanwhile, said his hope was to endow the co-ops with enough leverage that they could then use to keep private insurers honest, negotiate lower prices and trim health care costs. Conrad, however, only wanted to appropriate just a few billion dollars in start-up capital for the co-ops, several times less than what Schumer and others say is necessary for them to be competitive with private insurers.

But the more competitive they become, the more the insurance industry, conservative Democrats and the Republican Party object to them as a "Trojan horse" that will destroy private insurance.

Conrad is insulated from reelection pressure in 2010 and comfortable in North Dakota, with its population of less than 650,000. And he sees nothing untoward about a man representing so few people guiding policy for so many.

Indeed, he wouldn't have it any other way. Told in June by the Huffington Post that the largest coalition of health care reform groups opposed his co-op proposal, he couldn't have been less impressed.

"They have no votes on the floor of the United States Senate. And I am dealing with votes in the Finance Committee and the floor of the United States Senate. I am frankly not terribly interested in what these myriad groups all think. I am interested in what people who vote think," Conrad said.

Citizen researcher Lew Okun contributed to this report.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

House Dems Rally Behind Public Option In Weekly Caucus Gathering

2009-08-19T00:08:29Z

House Democrats dialed in Tuesday for their weekly caucus meeting and uniformly expressed support for a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive reform. Not a single member spoke up on behalf of co-ops, according to both people on the call and people briefed on it.

The weekly meeting is generally held in the Capitol basement, but during recess a members-only conference call takes place instead.

"There was tons of support for the public option," said one participant. Fifteen members spoke during the meeting, which was opened by Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.), who then gave the telephonic floor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

In the face of White House backsliding Monday, Pelosi reiterated that a public option is essential to reform. Pelosi gave the caucus a "pep talk," one attendee said, pushing the party to keep pressing the message. She assured an ultimate victory.

"Everyone has said on the record that they would support [the public option]. But there is a concern that the conference report would give them an out," said an aide briefed on the call by his boss. "Some people spoke up and said, 'We can't give in on the conference report.'"

If the House passes reform with a public option and the Senate moves a bill without it, the two chambers will meet in conference to negotiate a final bill. Some Democrats are concerned that conference negotiators will use the opportunity to yank out the public option. At the same time, there is a sense of fear among some members that the public option -- a critical component of health care reform, as far as most Democrats are concerned -- might be slipping away in favor of health insurance co-ops.

Wisconsin Democrats David Obey and Tammy Baldwin told the caucus about the performance of the state's own public health insurance option and co-op. The co-op hasn't saved the state any money whatsoever and shouldn't be a model for a national plan, said Obey, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Baldwin concurred, adding that the state's public option -- seniors can buy state-sponsored health care for a nominal fee -- cut costs by two-thirds.

"I was surprised there were so many people who were still so firm on [the public option]," said a participant. "A lot of people were saying this is what they're hearing from their constituents."

A member who was not on the call said that typically leadership and senior members speak for a large part of the call and then open it up toward the end. Fifteen members, including leadership, voiced their opinions, according to notes from one listener.

Rep. Donna Edwards said that she'd been talking with small business leaders in her suburban Maryland district and found them fully behind the public option. She argued that Obama shouldn't be on the defensive.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) spoke up passionately in defense of the public option, as did bill author John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), who said that 80 percent of her district backed it.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.) also spoke up.

Nadler reiterated his pledge to oppose any bill that didn't include a public option.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Specter, Key "Centrist" Dems Open To Public Health Care Plan

2009-05-11T18:15:45Z

Progressive health care reform advocates got a major boost in their efforts to secure a public plan for insurance coverage when newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter said he would be open to such a proposal in a legislative compromise.

In a letter to the group Health Care for America Now, the Pennsylvania Democrat backed away from his position weeks ago opposing the plan. Now, under increasing pressure from progressive groups, Specter says he looks forward to "discussing and considering" the issue.

Separately, centrist Democratic senators told the Huffington Post they are keeping the door open to a public health care option after a compromise proposal from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) last week. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) publicly announced his opposition to a public option the week before, spurring worry among advocates that more defections could be on the way.

Schumer's compromise emphasizes that the public health care plan must finance itself through premiums and must follow the same laws private insurers follow. He argues that it will be a better plan because it won't need to focus on advertising or generating short-term profits for Wall Street.

Even Nelson said he's listening. "I know he's making a strong effort here to find something that would work and I've talked to him about it and we're going to continue to talk," Nelson said.

So you're open to it?

"I'm open to listening to him explain to me how this would work and certainly congratulate him for coming forward with something. It's better than just saying no."

Specter, in his letter, said Schumer's proposal could serve as a useful "starting point" for discussions about a public health plan.

"With respect to the clause in the third bullet - 'to join a public health insurance plan' - I look forward to discussing and considering the issue. A starting point could be the proposal made by Senator Schumer earlier this week which seeks to maintain a level playing field between the private sector and any public plan. There may well be other proposals on this issue which should be considered in drafting legislation and debating the bill on the Senate floor."

"The other issue which I think requires extensive debate and analysis is the clause in the eighth bullet - 'using the public's purchasing power to lower drug and other prices.'.... In order to maintain a level playing field between the private sector and any public plan, consideration would have to be given to the implications of the Government's purchasing power in buying prescription drugs which could provide an unfair competitive advantage. There may be other proposals on this issue which should be considered in drafting legislation and debating the issue on the Senate floor."

The Associated Press first reported Specter's openness to a public plan. The Huffington Post obtained his letter to HCAN.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) says that she's still weighing the public option. "I am actually not sure," she told the Huffington Post. "I don't think I am [for it], but I told the folks that are promoting it that I would talk with them, but I am an original cosponsor of the Wyden-Bennett bipartisan proposal -- the only bipartisan proposal that I know of. And so I'm going to stay focused on that as a core, but I'm not going to shut the door on anything right now."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is not pushing his proposal aggressively; the biggest fight in the Senate is whether to include a public option. Wyden supports a public option himself, but didn't include it in order to garner Republican cosponsors.

But not all Senate Republicans are entirely closed off to a public plan.

"I am looking at all the alternatives at this point," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the public option. "I have a lot of concerns about the impact of a public plan. The Lewin Group has estimated that it could cause 119 million people to be transferred from private plans to public plans, which would mean the collapse of the private insurance system which I don't think would serve our country well."

Asked specifically about Schumer's compromise, she said she had yet to review it. Public plan advocates dispute the Lewin Group findings and insist a public plan can work in conjunction with private insurers.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) sounded disinclined to support a public option, but he hasn't shut the door yet. "I don't have a closed mind on it, but I want to hear folks out through advocates and we'll decide," he said.

Sen. Jim Webb is one centrist Democrat who has come out in favor of a public plan. His Virginia colleague, Democrat Mark Warner, hasn't gone that far yet. But he's open.

"I haven't weighed in on that yet," Warner said.

The White House announced a commitment Sunday night to partner with the insurance industry to cut health care costs by $2 trillion, a collaboration that Paul Krugman declared "some of the best policy news I've heard in a long time."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

White House: House GOP Budget A "Joke"

2009-04-01T15:08:52Z

House and Senate Republicans emerged from an early morning meeting in a closed House chamber Wednesday morning to unveil their much-awaited budget alternative.

Roughly a hundred GOP men and women descended the East Capitol steps in a light drizzle to announce their product to the American people.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined their colleagues, entering from the side, and addressed the gathered reporters.

After ripping the Democratic budget as too expensive, Boehner said that "Republicans in the House will offer a better solution that'll be less on spending, less on taxes and a lot less on debt for our kids and grandkids."

But there was no budget. "Do you guys have a formal budget yet?" asked a reporter.

"Mr. Ryan will outline the Republican budget at 10:30 this morning. And yes we do have it," replied Boehner, referring to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

A silence followed, with reporters apparently unsure what to ask next.

Democrats, in contrast, had plenty to say, with Obama officials mocking the Republican document as a sad April Fools prank.

"If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fool's," said Kenneth Baer, OMB communications director.

Another administration official added on background: "We read the Ryan budget alternative -- or what we know of it -- in the Wall Street Journal. It appears that this is more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess."

Meanwhile, Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the president and increasingly active administration spokesman, told MSNBC: "Well, look, I thought it was most appropriate that this thing came out on April Fools' Day because this thing is the biggest April Fools' Joke and cruelest that we have had in years. If you look at what they are doing...they are calling for putting in a multi-trillion dollar additional tax cut for the highest income Americans, they are now talking about privatizing Medicare turning it into a voucher so that they can cut it substantially. That's not the reform of an entitlement -- it is the gutting of a program."

Baer's and Goolsbee's remarks are far sharper than the generally inclusive approach the Obama White House took with the House GOP during the crafting of the stimulus. The change in tone may be owed to the fact that the president was unable to persuade a single Republican in the House to vote for that recovery package. Mainly, however, the alternatives that the GOP is offering for the budget -- entitlement reform, $4 million in tax cuts primarily for the wealthy, a freeze on discretionary spending for five years on everything except national defense and veterans health care -- are diametrically at odds with where the president stands.

That said, Goolsbee pivoted from his condemnation of the GOP to note potential points of agreement, telling MSNBC: "There are a few areas where they seem to be looking in the correct direction. And that is following some of the reforms that [OMB Director] Peter Orszag and others in the administration have been putting forward and some health care reforms. But in a lot of areas it is problematic."

* * * * *

More from the Huffington Post:

Republican Budget Plan Assumes Americans Would Choose Higher Tax Rates

McCain Rumored To Be Working On His Own Budget

Pelosi Expects Zero GOP Votes On Budget

For even more stories, go to HuffPost's Politics page.

Dems Fuming Over White House Plan To Make Vets Pay For Service Injuries

2009-03-17T22:33:37Z

Democrats in Congress are organizing to squash a White House proposal that would require veterans to use private insurance to pay for treatment of their combat and service-related injuries.

In a letter being sent to the White House, a group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Glenn Nye (D-VA), warned that such a proposal "could harm our veterans and their families in unintended, yet very serious ways, jeopardizing their families' health care and even negatively affecting veterans' employment opportunities."

"While we strongly support your plans to increase funding for the VA by $25 billion over the next five years," the letter reads, "it is with equal conviction that we oppose the proposal to bill veterans' private health insurance plans for care and treatment of service-connected injuries or disabilities."

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) is leading a similar effort in coordination with Nye. Her letter is even more forcefully worded, calling the White House proposal "deeply troubling" and charging that it "ignores the mission of the VA."

"We cannot compromise on the promise we have made to those who serve our Nation," Kirkpatrick states.

Additionally, in a statement to the Huffington Post, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, one of the foremost champions of veterans' concerns in the Senate, called the issue of outsourcing health coverage from the VA a non-starter.

"Treatment for service-connected injuries is clearly within the responsibility of the U.S. government through the Department of Veterans Affairs -- period," Webb said.

The Obama administration has insisted that they are non-committal when it comes to a final decision on the actual policy, and White House officials will meet for the second time with veterans groups on Wednesday.

During his press conference on Tuesday, spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed out the president has pledged an "11 percent increase in the discretionary spending" in the VA budget.

Veterans "can have confidence that the budget the president has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors," said Gibbs. "[T]his president takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world."

Veterans groups say they're concerned that the Obama proposal could ultimately lead to the privatization of health care for returning soldiers, and note that third-party billing for war-related injuries could result in ballooning insurance costs.

While giving the administration the benefit of the doubt that they may dismiss the proposal, Jon Soltz, executive director of VoteVets, nevertheless offered preemptive disappointment.

"We don't know if this is going to be the proposal, or if it is a serious consideration or not," he told the Huffington Post. "So, it's premature to go to the White House with pitchforks at this point. That having been said, if it is proposed, we would be opposed, and can't imagine any veterans group that would be for it. There's no appetite for it on the Hill, either. There are ways to eliminate waste at every level of government, though, including the VA. I think we'd all like to sit down with the administration and find areas of the VA budget that are redundant or wasteful, to make sure every dollar spent there is necessary."

Here is the full letter being circulated by Rep. Nye:

March 17, 2009 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,

We first want to take this opportunity to thank you for the clear commitment your administration's budget outline makes to our nation's veterans. The proposed 10 percent increase in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for next fiscal year is truly historic. We believe the 2010 budget will ensure the VA never again faces the chronic under-funding that prevented countless veterans from receiving the health benefits they have earned.

While we strongly support your plans to increase funding for the VA by $25 billion over the next five years, it is with equal conviction that we oppose the proposal to bill veterans' private health insurance plans for care and treatment of service-connected injuries or disabilities.

We do not give our veterans health care - they earn it - and it would be unacceptable for the VA to ask our veterans to pay for the treatment of injuries received while serving our nation in uniform. That responsibility belongs to the VA, and it would be wrong to outsource the responsibility of covering the care of those veterans to private insurance companies.

Additionally, this proposal could harm our veterans and their families in unintended, yet very serious ways, jeopardizing their families' health care and even negatively affecting veterans' employment opportunities. Billing a veteran's private health insurance for the treatment of service-connected injuries could lead to increased health care premiums, and could potentially discourage employers from hiring veterans.

We know you are committed to expanding employment opportunities for veterans. Already this year, your administration and Congress have worked to create countless jobs for veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this proposal would undermine our efforts.

We urge you to take this proposal off the table, and let us instead focus on ensuring that our veterans receive the full care and benefits they have earned. The moral obligation our nation has to our veterans demands nothing less. We are happy to discuss these issues with you further as we move toward a final budget for the VA.

We would like to thank you again for your commitment to improving care for the men and women who have borne the battle, and who have sacrificed their health and well-being in serving their country. Thank you for your service to our nation.

How Labor Can Get 60 Votes On EFCA Without Getting 60 Votes

2009-03-10T22:31:52Z

The labor movement's mostly unspoken tactic to pass the Employee Free Choice Act -- its legislation of generational importance -- seeped out into public Tuesday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was asked about the bill's chances for passage.

"We, of course, are looking for 60 votes," he said. "I think, frankly, they're there. Now remember: these are procedural votes. These aren't votes on the substance of the bill."

Sixty is the Senate's magic number, the tally needed to end a filibuster by invoking cloture and moving to a final vote. Senators who oppose a bill generally vote against cloture, effectively killing the bill. But Democrats and their labor allies hope to wipe that calculus off the board and persuade some opponents of the bill to vote for cloture even if they vote against the final bill. If 60 vote for cloture, only 50 are needed for final passage (Vice President Joe Biden can break a tie.)

"I think getting 60 votes on the procedural aspects of it is certainly there," Reid said.

Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the kind of centrist who might vote against the bill but for cloture, told reporters that he opposed the bill as currently formulated. He left open the possibility of voting for a modified version or of voting for cloture.

Reid said that if he got Republican cooperation with some of the agenda over the next few months, EFCA could come up before the August recess.

"Reid understands his parliamentary procedure well and people who are gloating about Senators not 'supporting' the bill may be missing the trees for the forest," said a Democratic strategist working on the legislation. "It's definitely possible, as Reid is saying, for Senators to vote against the bill itself but for cloture."

"The GOP has successfully moved the markers of a majority to 60 in their quest of continuous obstruction. The reality of procedure is we need 60 votes to proceed to vote on the bill, and then 50 on final passage. There will inevitably be different coalitions together on each vote, but we're confident we'll get the numbers we need on each step to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," said a labor official.

The opposition, though, has seen the unions coming and plans to give centrist senators no quarter behind procedural arguments. "This bill is a mortal threat to American freedom and we will never forgive somebody who votes for cloture or for passage," former House SpeakerNewt Gingrich told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

"There is only one vote on card check and it has a 60-vote threshold," said a lobbyists working against the bill. "Any senator believing they can get away with a procedural argument is underestimating the intelligence of the American people and supporting legislation that will crush small business and increase unemployment."

The Resurrection Of Romney

2009-02-28T00:44:56Z

As the Dow closed in on 7,000, a low it hasn't hit since the mid-'90s, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took to the stage of the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference with a full-throated defense of the free market.

In an unmistakable signal of the path Romney hopes to chart out of the wilderness, the former presidential candidate exhorted his conservative followers to stay true to conservative principles.

"America's challenges are different from year to year, yes, but our defining principles remain the same," he said. "Conservatives don't enter into each new political era trying to figure out what we believe. Facing new and complex problems, we find answers in principles that endure."

Democrats would -- and certainly will -- restate Romney's prescription in simpler terms: More of the same.

Romney sounded the free-market trumpet as a solution for everything from the economic collapse to the health care crisis so that, he said, "America stays America."

He suggested: "Medicare should finally be reformed with a dose of free-market reality."

He ridiculed the notion, put forward by Obama during his speech to Congress, that children should have access to education from birth until their first job. That was wrong, Romney said, because it would be "universal preschool and universal college." If that prospect isn't frightening enough, he warned "there were hints as well of universal health care and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world."

Romney payed homage to the courts, which, he said, will be packed with activist judges who will "force their own biases on an unwilling nation."

Hanging the hopes of the Republican Party on his brand of free-market economics, Romney pegged the Democrats as out-of-touch big spenders. "Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy; Democrats wanted to stimulate the government," he said of the differences between the two parties' recovery plans.

The effectiveness of Romney's economic message is undermined, perhaps unfairly, by his appearance: the man couldn't look any more like a corporate raider if he was personally consulted by Richard Gere.

And so when he tells the crowd that "Democrats' plan to take away [workers'] rights is an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people," well, you might forgive the guy in the back of the room, emptying the trash, if he's a bit unsure who, precisely, is insulting whose common sense.

Then again, that guy's not Romney's target audience today. The CPAC audience has always been a receptive one, if not always fully ready to embrace him. In 2007, he won the presidential straw poll. Last year, in the very same room, Romney announced to the crowd that he was dropping his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Only, no one in the audience knew in advance, the consequence of the technologically arcane set-up of the hotel, where BlackBerry service was cut off in the lower ballroom. People in the audience - mainly frightened by the prospect of being stuck with a McCain candidacy - screamed "No!" and begged him to reconsider. Behind the curtains, Bay Buchanan wiped the moistness from her eyes. "This is rough," she told the Huffington Post, "very rough."

He's still a crowd favorite. Outside the halls, attendees were raving about the qualifications Romney could bring to the ticket, one calling him the best hope for 2012.

"He is the only guy who can legitimately run against Obama," said Jason Persinger, who had trekked from Ohio to take in the CPAC weekend. "With McCain running... a lot of people wanted him to pick Romney as his vice president. Considering where the economy is, he would have fared better."

Others were equally convinced. "Absolutely, he would have been our nominee," if the economic situation was then what it is now, said a 48-year-old conservative businessman named Dan from New Jersey.

Though Romney had carried the 2007 straw poll, his conservative credentials had still been in question. He was still, after all, a former Massachusetts governor.

David Keene, the conference organizer, put it best in his introduction of Romney. "Just as we realized that he was one of us," he said, "he decided to go back to the private sector and not pursue the presidential nominee."

"He is more important to us today than he was last year," offered Keene. "We didn't know then, because it was before the economic collapse, just how important the values...Mitt Romney had would be to our movement."

John Stortstrom, executive director of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans, seconded Keene. "I give Mitt a little bit of leverage," said Stortstrom. "He's from Massachusetts. And if you're from a blue state and aren't 100 percent conservative that's okay. With McCain it was the opposite. He's out there from Arizona," where, presumably, it's not okay to buck the party.

And yet, reservations persisted. Romney, observers noted, seemed much more at ease addressing the crowd, as opposed to the 2008 election when, at times, his speeches seemed like a robotic regurgitation of Republican talking points. But his pedigree remains problematic for some. One attendee wondered: "Do we want a CEO who laid off thousands of workers?"

And while conservatives are more than willing to admit the former governor's advantageous perch for the Republican nomination, not all are ready to proclaim him one of their own.

"Romney is a good man who did not run a particularly good campaign last time, but he also knows that very few Republicans get the nomination on the first try, including Reagan, Bush 41, Dole and McCain. So you would have to consider Romney as a serious contender for 2012," said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist and head of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs. "If he is a member of the family, it is through adoption and not birthright."

Or, following Bobby Jindal's political bruising this week, through process of elimination.

Burris Bound For Ethics Committee Grilling

2009-02-17T22:34:33Z

That didn't take long.

Roland Burris, the newest senator from Illinois, might be setting a new record for the quickest dash from the swearing-in ceremony to the Senate Ethics Committee.

A statement just out from Jim Manley, spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) effectively clears the way for the committee to look into the situation. "Senator Reid supports Senator Burris's decision to cooperate with all appropriate officials who may review this matter, including state agencies and the Senate Ethics Committee," said Manley in a statement. Burris has invited the ethics investigation.

"I have made an effort to be as transparent as I can, and I'm willing to take a further step as I have nothing to hide," Burris said in a prepared statement to reporters in Peoria.

A spokesman for Sen. Barbara Boxer, who heads the committee, responded with the following statement. "Whenever allegations of improper conduct are brought to the attention of the Senate Ethics Committee, we open a preliminary inquiry," said the California Democrat's communications director, Natalie Ravitz.

Meanwhile, good government groups aren't willing to let the process play out with the traditional Congressional sluggishness. Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington put out a statement late Tuesday evening calling for the Senate to expel the Senator, which would require the support of 67 members.

From CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan: "The evidence suggests Sen. Burris lied under oath when he failed to disclose these contacts earlier. As a result, prosecutors should investigate and see if Sen. Burris can be prosecuted for perjury." Sloan continued, "Separately, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics should commence its own investigation to determine if Sen. Burris lied to Senate leadership or the Senate Rules Committee when the Senate was considering whether or not to seat him. If so, the ethics committee should recommend that the Senate expel Sen. Burris for improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate."

Sen. Harkin Backs Dean For HHS Secretary

2009-02-05T17:56:12Z

The idea of nominating Howard Dean to head up the Department of Health and Human Services has the backing of at least one prominent national Democrat.

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who endorsed Dean's presidential campaign in 2004 and is rumored to be in the HHS running himself, applauded the idea of the former DNC header taking over the cabinet post vacated by Tom Daschle.

"I think that would be a very good move," Harkin told the Huffington Post. "He brings all the background and experience. He's very strong on prevention and wellness, which I'm very strong on. I think he'd make an outstanding secretary of HHS."

Asked if he had spoken to White House on the matter, Harkin demurred: "I'm not going to get into that," he said after a pause.

Dean's hopes of taking over HHS -- he would, those who know him say, take the job if offered -- is, at this point, not a campaign. The former Vermont Governor has and will remain mum on the notion because, as he himself admitted, the surest way to not be chosen is to actively pine for a post. In progressive circles, however, supporters of Dean insist that he is best suited for the job, having managed health care in Vermont and served as a doctor himself.

Whether this endorsement helps or hurts is a topic of debate. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Dean's frosty relationship with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel will be the main impediment to his ending up at HHS. Others are concerned that a major netroots movement to appoint Dean will actually turn the White House off the notion. They don't want it to seem like they are "bending to the demands of the left," as one Democrat put it -- not because they aren't concerned with progressive priorities, but because the choice will be criticized as an effort in political pacification.

Mr. Burris Goes To Washington: The Inside Story

2009-01-13T00:50:20Z

When disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to fill a vacant Senate seat on December 30, Senate Democrats reacted strongly, refusing to grant the appointment. On Monday, they reversed course. Burris was deemed acceptable as the junior Senator from Illinois.

"How were we supposed to react?" asked Harry Reid on January 7, as it was becoming increasingly clear that Burris was on course for Congress. After all, Reid reminded reporters, Blogojevich had referred to the Senate seat as "an effin' goldmine."

Reflecting on what happened, Reid spokesman Jim Manley argued on Monday that once Blagojevich was arrested for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat, leadership had to go big.

"We're not going to apologize for coming out with such a strong statement initially. In light of the charges against him there was no other tack to take," he said. "Certainly the Senate felt it wasn't dealing with your everyday politician. 'Who knows what's in that man's mind?'" Manley said, in reference to the Illinois Governor.

And yet, while each individual step that Senate Democrats took through the Burris minefield may have been the right one, by the end of the two-week stroll the process still blew up in their faces. Democrats were left with a colleague whose volatile two weeks of media performances did little to assuage concerns about the next two years.

"The party ended up looking bad on this," said one Senate aide. "We hardly know anything about Burris... The only bright spot is the circus is over."

Added Stu Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report: "It looks to me as if Senate Democrats crawled out on a limb without looking to see if someone else had an axe. Burris played his hand well, and Senate Democrats probably didn't have the law on their side on this one."

Light first began shining through the cracks in the Democratic wall when Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) went on NBC's "Meet the Press" on January 4. He began with a hard line. "We determine who sits in the Senate," he said. "So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to."

The interview, however, ended on a bit of a backpedal. "There's always room to negotiate," the Majority Leader offered.

Burris made his first offer on January 6, when he showed up in a frigid rain to present his credentials to the Secretary of the Senate and was told that, without a signature from Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, his paperwork wasn't in order.

Later that day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the outgoing chair of the Rules Committee, said that from a legal standpoint, Burris ought to be seated. According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, Feinstein called Reid personally to press Burris' case. "All due respect to Dianne," said Reid, "it's not a legal appointment."

The next day, Burris met for 45 minutes with Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). They emerged to tell the press corps and assembled TV cameras - without prompting - that Burris didn't think their refusal was racially motivated.

"Roland Burris, one of the first things he said to us, 'This is nothing that's racial. I understand that,'" Reid recounted.

When Durbin took the mic stand, he replayed the Burris exoneration.

"At the outset, he said, 'I want to make it clear: I understand that this controversy has nothing to do with my race and I understand that both of you have excellent records when it comes to racial relations,'" Durbin offered. "So, I want to make sure that everyone understands, we are trying to deal with this in terms of the rules of the Senate, the laws of our land, the laws of the state of Illinois and our constitutions."

But despite the public proclamations, race clearly was playing a role. Shortly after Burris was nominated, he broached the issue on NBC's "Today" show. "It is a fact there are no African-Americans in the United States Senate," said Burris. "Is it racism that is taking place? That's a question that someone may raise."

Whatever the dynamics, Burris had made a good impression on Reid. Asked later that afternoon if he was concerned that a Senator Burris might not be able to win reelection, the Majority Leader shrugged off the suggestion. "You should meet the guy," he said. "He's a pretty impressive guy."

Certainly, the way Burris' team got around the signature requirement showed a bit of political skill. White, who refused to sign Burris' certification papers, nevertheless signed paperwork certifying that he had filed a document registering that he had received the appointment from Blogojevich.

Good enough, argued Burris.

Good enough, said Senate Democrats, no doubt looking to put the matter to bed.

"The Secretary of the Senate has determined that the new credentials presented today on behalf of Mr. Burris now satisfy Senate Rules and validate his appointment to the vacant Illinois Senate seat," said Reid and Durbin in a joint statement Monday afternoon.

By that point, however, legal matters were overwhelming the politics. Several Constitutional scholars told the Huffington Post early after the Burris appointment was announced that the former Illinois attorney general was likely on the Senate track. He met all the requirements -- age, citizenship and residence - and had been appointed legally.

"Legal advice left Senate without a leg to stand on," said one Senate aide, though Reid spokesman Manley insists that the legal argument was in their favor and that the Senate can set additional requirements - such as state certification - for its members.

Burris now faces one final hurdle: the GOP. "Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week," said Durbin and Reid.

It doesn't look like Republicans will block him. "Well you know Americans are clearly tired of hearing about ethical issues in Washington," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday. "My colleagues, my Republican colleagues, I think to a person would prefer a fresh start that allows the people of Illinois to choose their new Senator, but candidly, if Mr. Burris presents the correct paperwork, he's going to be a Senator."

Burris, upon hearing the news, released a statement of gratitude for the "autograph" that made him a Senator.

"Secretary of State Jesse White, whom I have known for more than 30 years, is also owed a debt of gratitude," he said after thanking Reid and Durbin. "He also happens to be someone whose autograph I cherish."

Obama Heading To The Hill Tomorrow

2009-01-13T00:22:29Z

Barack Obama will head to the Hill tomorrow for perhaps the final time before he takes the oath of office.

The president-elect will be attending the Senate's weekly Democratic caucus meeting on Tuesday, a Senate aide tells Huffington Post. A transition official confirmed the Tuesday plans and said that Obama is expected to discuss the makeup of an economic stimulus package and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, among a host of other topics.

Reflecting his post-partisan demeanor, Obama will be meeting with the Republican Senate conference sometime after he becomes president, the official confirms.

Obama's economic advisers have been working with legislators on the Hill for much of the last week in efforts to grease the wheels on the construction of an economic stimulus package. The president-elect himself has also been in consultation with members of Congress. Tomorrow's visit, however, comes after Obama -- through the Bush administration -- requested that the Treasury Department release the second $350 billion tranche of TARP money.

The Obama team has the political power to secure the funds without Congress' approval - the House and Senate can vote against the release of the money but the president can veto that disapproval. Unless Congress can override his veto, the funds would be released. Nevertheless, Obama will have to use a bit of legislative finesse to assuage concerns about the programs' lack of transparency and the direction of its funds.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has said he would sign off on the money if Obama gave "his word" that he would implement major portions of his legislation, according to a House Democratic aide.

The Senate seems destined to move a bit slower. As Jim Manley, a spokesman for Majority leader Harry Reid, told the Huffington Post: "As you're about to find out, the Senate is not the House. We're going to have to rely on [Obama's] assurances to some extent."

Burris Admits He Reached Out To Blago Confidant Named In Criminal Complaint

2009-01-08T22:46:45Z

Inches away from securing a seat in the United States Senate, Roland Burris suffered what could be a serious setback on Thursday.

Appearing before an Illinois House impeachment committee, Burris acknowledged that he had reached out to a close friend and former chief of staff to embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich to discuss the Senate seat. That appears to contradict Burris' statement in a sworn affidavit that he had no contact with any of the governor's "representatives." The former chief of staff, Alonzo Monk, is named as "Lobbyist 1" in the criminal complaint, and ran Blagojevich's most recent reelection campaign.

Grilled by members of the Illinois House, Burris said he brought the idea of filling Obama's Senate seat to "Lon" Monk -- whose cell phone was tapped by federal agents investigating Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme.

Moreover, Burris testified that the meeting with Monk was to drum up state business from the lobbyist -- the image of back channel dealing that Burris has sought to avoid during his Senate roll-out.

In a sworn affidavit filed January 5, Burris stated that before he was asked by Blagojevich staff if he was interested in the Senate position, "there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United States Senate."

During Thursday's hearing, Burris insisted that the conversation with Monk was innocent, saying that he merely wanted to let the governor's people know that he was interested in the post and believed he was qualified for it.

"He said, 'I think you are too,'" Burris said of his conversation, emphasizing that he did not talk to Monk or anyone else on the governor's staff after Blagojevich's arrest.

Nevertheless, the revelation casts something of a shadow over the behind-the-scenes process by which Burris obtained Blagojevich's favor. Burris, by his testimony, appears to consider Monk a representative of the governor, since he was confident that a message given to Monk would get to Blagojevich. That would contradict his sworn assertion in his previous affidavit.

A high-ranking Democratic Senate aide said Burris' remarks should give Congress pause. "It shows people should perhaps slow down just a little bit in their rush to seat Mr. Burris and wait until all questions are answered regarding his relationship and conversations with Blagovich and his associates who might have been linked in the criminal complaint."

Monk is a longtime friend of Blagojevich. He resigned as chief of staff shortly before becoming a lobbyist in early 2007, but avoided the "revolving door" ethics law that requires government employees to wait a year before lobbying by leaving government to run Blagojevich's reelection campaign.

Monk did not return a call for comment.

Burris suffered other, smaller, trip-ups during the day's proceedings. He admitted that he had not read the criminal complaint against Blagojevich. He was also asked to explain the donations -- which are on the small side -- that he and his firm had made to the governor's political campaigns. He said that he had not donated nor held a fundraiser for Blagojevich since June. Finally he was pressed on the reports that his lobbying partner had tried to help Blagojevich's wife get a job with the Chicago Christian Industrial League, on whose board the partner serves. Burris claimed to not know anything about how the first lady got the job.

Towards the end, a representative put the whole inquiry in the bluntest terms possible: asking Burris whether he had promised Blagojevich anything in return for the Senate seat.

"I can before this committee state that there was nothing legal, personal, or political exchanged for my appointment to this seat," Burris replied.