Obama

House Passes Health Care Bill With Help Of Illinois Dems

Adam Doster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:49:39 -0800

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

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

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

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

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

From the House floor, Rep. Jan Schakowsky called the Stupack amendment a "back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade" and "an insult to millions of women." Here's an excerpt from her statement:

“This health reform bill is about improving access to care, not further restricting a woman’s right to choose. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country.

In his own floor speech, Rep. Mike Quigley echoed that sentiment:

QUIGLEY: But this amendment disrupts that sense of equality. This amendment says only women who can afford insurance deserve access to reproductive health care. This amendment says that women who need a little help paying for health care have to surrender their right to privacy. This amendment will serve only to hurt low-income women and restrict their ability to access reproductive health care, even with their own money.

Joining Lipinski and Costello in backing the Stupack amendment, though, was Rep. Mark Kirk, a candidate who has earned endorsements from Planned Parenthood in several elections because of his pro-choice voting record. Kati Phillips, spokesperson for Alexi Giannoulias, offered this assessment of the Republican Senate candidate's latest flip-flop:

"Mark Kirk proved tonight he will abandon all of his principles to curry favor with right wingers like Sarah Palin. He flip-flopped on the Clean Energy bill because the right wing demanded it, and now he has abandoned his once pro-choice voting record to take private insurance coverage away from women. Mark Kirk has sold his soul in the pursuit of Sarah Palin's endorsement."

Democratic Senate contender Cheryle Jackson chimed in, as well:

Mark Kirk says he is pro-choice but Halloween has come and gone and now that mask has been stripped away and we see him for what he is – an anti-choice, right-wing extremist who panders to Sarah Palin and turns his back on the women of Illinois. The final health care bill must provide access to reproductive health services for all women and girls, whether or not they are poor and receive government subsidized care. We cannot allow income to determine who gets care and services, and who does not.

Aside from the abortion measure, Kirk threw his lot in with the Republican leadership's bare-bones reform plan, which was promptly defeated 258-176. It's no surprise why; the CBO estimated that the Democratic plan covers 12 times as many uninsured people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican bill. Rep. Tim Johnson must have been the only Republican member to read the report, as the Urbana lawmaker was the lone member on his side of the aisle to vote against the substitute bill. He also sided with the Democrats on a motion to recommit vote intended to derail the legislation entirely.

The focus now turns to the Senate, where Sen. Dick Durbin says the going will get tough. Formal debate should begin after Thanksgiving.

Obama Signs Unemployment Benefit Extension Bill

Adam Doster — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:11:27 -0800

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

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

But Congress might not be done. Yesterday, CongressDaily reporter Peter Cohn talked to Rep. Jim McDermott, the Ways and Means Income Security Subcommittee Chairman who ushered the latest bill through the House. The Washington Democrat told him that before the end of 2009, he will push to extend unemployment insurance benefits through all of 2010, which would ensure that anyone who loses their job next year or exhausts their current benefits would still have access to federal unemployment insurance. (Our backgrounder is here). More from Cohn (subscription required):

The projected cost of such a program is potentially $80 billion to $85 billion, according to preliminary estimates.

Ways and Means Income Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said it was his preference to renew the unemployment insurance programs in one fell swoop rather than resort to a piecemeal approach.

"It is not a cheap program, but you've got to remember, it is a bridge to the economy getting better, which people say is going to get better in the third quarter of 2010. So if somebody loses their house in March, and then gets their job back in September, it really is a terrible hole you're created for them. So I really think there will be justification and I think there will be support on a bipartisan basis," McDermott said.

In the coming months, we'll be keeping an eye on this proposal.

Dillard: I Warned People Obama "Was A Socialist"

Adam Doster — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:26:32 -0800

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

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

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

This clip raises a few questions.

The first is about the ad itself. If Dillard thought that Obama was "a socialist," why would he agree to appear in his campaign video in the first place? Also, during an appearance on Jeff Berkowitz's show last year, Dillard spent over ten minutes discussing his work with Obama and his decision to appear in the ad. Not once did he bring up these "socialist" warnings.

Second, Dillard is attempting to position himself as the heir to Jim Edgar, a moderate Republican who can win statewide by picking off independents and Democrats wary of corruption. Denying man-made global warming and calling the state's popular favorite son "a socialist" is not going to get you very far with that bloc of voters.

Finally, Steve Rhodes adds some much-needed snark over at NBC 5's website:

As long as we're talking about red-baiting here, let's play an old game. You say you warned everybody that Obama was a socialist? Name names! We want to see just who was told and sat back and did nothing.

Illinois Reps React To Obama's Health Care Pitch

Progress Illinois — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:49:11 -0700

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I was very impressed at how the core principles that he enunciated were actually accepted by both sides of the aisle,” Foster said, citing not building up additional debt and stopping policies that make it difficult for those with preexisting medical conditions to find health insurance. [...]

“I’d like to see the details of what will determine whether or not a state would have the public option or not. He mentioned being willing to talk about trigger mechanism, but the details are very important,” Foster said.

He said he wants to see rapid progress in Washington.

“People have been waiting for presidential leadership, and I think tonight that in many, but not all, areas they got it,” Foster said.

The White House released an overview of Obama's health care proposal last night, but it doesn't provide the level of specificity Foster is referring to here. Meanwhile, downstate Rep. Jerry Costello (D) remains on the fence and is also calling for more "details":

Costello called Obama's speech before a rare joint-session of Congress "well-crafted and well-delivered." But Costello said he won't make up his mind about supporting the president's proposals until he understands how it will work and how it will be financed.

"I think we'll have to wait until he gives us the details of his proposal," he said.

If you watched the speech and saw the cut-away shots to the GOP side of the aisle, then you can guess how the Republicans from Illinois reacted. Here is Rep. Don Manzullo:

“Unfortunately he presented nothing new. He did not present a blueprint of where he wants to take the nation,” Manzullo said. “That’s unfortunate because the devil is in the details. We are left with nothing but a speech.”

More from Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk:

"The American people in August have decided that they don't like Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's bill, and I think we need to make some major changes. The speech I heard tonight was like the 28 other healthcare speeches that the president has given."

And Rep. John Shimkus responded -- not surprisingly -- with more fearmongering:

"We are not ready to allow the government to run a health insurance policy that will be subsidized by taxpayers," Shimkus said. "That would drive the private insurance market out of business and eventually lead to a one-payer system."

Biggert Joins Right-Wing In Drumming Up Fears About Obama's School Speech

Adam Doster — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:48:40 -0700

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

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

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

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

Did any of these people, I wonder, speak out in protest when students were encouraged to write letters supporting our troops? That's considered a patriotic act. But it could also be criticized as supporting the war effort, about as political a decision as any.

I've seen governors in this state arrive at public school buildings, surround themselves with children and professional administrators, only to tout their political agendas. There was hardly a peep from taxpayers.

We can just add this to the list of other questionable behavior from Biggert in recent months, including her effort to take credit for a transit bill she voted against and and her decision to circulate literature falsely claiming that the Democratic health reform effort would lead to government-directed euthanasia. Strange choices for someone who represents a quickly bluing district.

Is Obama's IL Support Really "Shaky"?

Adam Doster — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:45:35 -0700

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

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

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

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

Then there's Pearson's conclusion regarding independents:

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

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

Health Care Roundup: Public Plan Troubles, Biggert Whacked by Sun-Times

Adam Doster — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:27:24 -0700

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

More Hedging On The Public Option

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

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

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

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

Sun-Times Whacks Biggert Over Scare Tactics

Last week, Rep. Judy Biggert deliberately distributed literature at a town hall falsely claiming that the health care bills working through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia. Admitting that the statement was "a little inflammatory," she told the Daily Herald that "I probably wrote it when I was mad." Today, the Sun-Times editorial board nails Biggert and other conservatives for promoting these ridiculous lies:

Democratic health-care reform will require "end-of-life counseling for seniors that might encourage them to give up when facing serious illness," read a flier passed out by U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert of Hinsdale. Now, [Iowa Sen. Chuck] Grassley and other conservative Republican politicians want to make sure seniors are denied what is in fact a reasonable and desirable benefit. They have removed coverage for end-of-life counseling from the Senate's version of the health reform bill.

Shame on all of them. [...]

When mainstream, usually respected politicians pick up the lie, repeat it and lend it their credibility, they do a massive disservice to the very people they claim they are helping -- senior citizens who have an understandable anxiety about any potential changes to their health-care benefits.

During WTTW's Chicago Tonight week in review show on Friday, the first 10 minutes were devoted to health care. The segment focused in large part on what Obama can do to combat the misinformation about his administration's health care proposals. Conspicuously absent from the debate was any mention of the media's role in fact-checking politicians who play fast and lose with the facts. Watch it here:

While the national media has put out a few decent pieces on this front as of late, they were slow to respond and are still fumbling with the details. Locally, the media isn't doing much better. As a result, it's going to be tough for the truth to catch up with the lies.

Edit Boards Call For More Town Hall Meetings

Sen. Dick Durbin is taking some shots from editorial boards in the state for his decision not to hold a town hall meeting on health care reform. From the Daily Herald:

But it also seems like it's such a transcendent issue for all of us that our representatives in Washington ought to make an attempt to listen to their constituents. It also seems to us that any public hearing could be controlled easily enough by rules of decorum that are stated in advance and then enforced. Local government does this all the time.

Sen. Durbin is, presumably, the second most powerful person in the U.S. Senate.

If that's the case, what is he afraid of?

The State Journal-Register agrees, arguing that Durbin and fellow congressmen Rep. John Shimkus "should reconsider and face their constituents." But the paper also notes that town hall participants need to change their temperament if they want lawmakers to take their concerns seriously:

This is one of the most complex and important issues to face the American people in decades. This page doesn’t have an opinion today on which approach will work best. We do know the American people need to rationally talk with their representatives and senators, continue to educate themselves and be willing to listen when answers are provided.

Mancow: Obama "Popping Champagne," "Excited" After Holocaust Museum Shooting

Josh Kalven — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:02:01 -0700

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

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

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

Internal mp3

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

Full transcript below:

MULLER: Did you hear that Obama and Rev. Wright were popping champagne last night?

PAT CASSIDY (co-host): Yeah? Where was this at?

MULLER: Well, they were excited over the shooting at the Holocaust Museum.

CASSIDY:Oh, please.

MULLER: No, Pat. I am convinced that this president hates Jews and he hates Israel. And look, he spent 20 years sitting in a pew --

CASSIDY:Rev. Wright does, I think so.

MULLER: He spent 20 -- look guys, he spent -- and I know the criminal, liberal, state-controlled media doesn't report it, but Obama sat in our city folks -- before I knew the name Obama, I knew Rev. Wright. I'm a churchgoing guy. And I knew what a racist anti-Semite this guy was. What church -- I ask you people -- what church celebrates Louie Farrakhan that isn't -- what Christian church would celebrate this guy?

So now here's Rev. Wright: "Them Jews won't let Obama talk to me."

[PLAYS AUDIO CLIP OF WRIGHT COMMENT]

MULLER: Okay? Obama sat there with this Jew-hater for 20 years. Obama, let's remember this, dedicated his book to him. Named his book after one of Rev. Wright's sermons.

CASSIDY: The "audacity of hope" is from a Rev. Wright sermon.

MULLER: Okay? And then when anyone question this anti-Semite, race-baiting hater, oh they're charged with being a Republican attack machine. Okay? This guy is no man of God. He is evil. And when you see the way Obama is kissing Muslim butt and selling out Israel, you realize where it all came from: the radical wife, okay? The radical, Black Panther wife and Rev. Wright the anti-Semite.

So here we go. Here we go again. World War II. Here we go.

CASSIDY: Well, there's no question that Rev. Wright is a racist. And he certainly appears to be anti-Semitic, certainly his comments last night -- and he's made a million of them.

MULLER: "Those Jews" aren't going to let me talk.

CASSIDY: Exactly. And that was pretty clear. It's hard to hear the sound-bite, but you could definitely hear it.

MULLER: Yeah, well, "them Jews won't let me talk to Obama." Who's he talking about? Rahm Emanuel?

CASSIDY: That's exactly right.

MULLER: Yeah, yeah, so I'm betting these two, these two anti-Semites -- yes, your president; you voted for him, mouth-breathers -- your president and Rev. Wright -- two great Chicagoans, two great race -- hey, race-baiting is a way of life here in Chicago -- two great race-baiters. I bet they were popping champagne over the shooting at the Holocaust Museum.

CASSIDY: I doubt that. That's ridiculous to say that. No question.

MULLER: Really?

CASSIDY: Yeah. They're celebrating a shooting at the Holocaust Museum?

MULLER: Yeah. Yeah.

Durbin "Skeptical" Of White House Foreclosure Plans

Adam Doster — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:25:28 -0700

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

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

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

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

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

In February, the administration launched Making Home Affordable, a program designed to provide refinancing to a large pool of borrowers and to set new standards for modifying troubled loans. Because these modifications require lenders to take some loss, the administration provided them with generous incentive fees. But a stick was included alongside those carrots: If lenders couldn't modify loans enough to keep borrowers out of bankruptcy, then changes in bankruptcy law would allow judges to make the terms of the loan more favorable to borrowers. The change didn't appeal to mortgage bankers, and they set out to convince Congress to reject the idea.

Meanwhile, by favoring loan modification programs that seek to reduce monthly payments, the Obama administration is still ignoring a large problem of negative equity. Currently, 15.4 million homeowners are "underwater" borrowers, meaning they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Even if those payments are reduced, as the New York Times wrote last week, a lack of home equity puts them at risk of default.

During the hearing, Durbin cited projections suggesting there could be as many as eight million foreclosures in coming years. With that threat looming, now would be a good time for the White House to buck the banks and find ways to protect homeowners.

Politico's Rich Take On Democracy

Adam Doster — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:21:49 -0700

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

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

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

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

But that's not to suggest that the many wealthy voters don't also favor Obama's economic proposals, which he has spent the first few months in office pursuing. These include long neglected public investment in things like health care, education, and energy. As Steve Benen notes, paying for these will require Obama to return tax rates for the top five percent of Americans back to the marginally higher pre-Bush levels. But these voters have known that was the case for over two years:

If this were some kind of new, post-inauguration proposal, I could see why it might be slightly more controversial. But the point of the article seems to be that wealthy voters may reject the same Obama plans he outlined during the campaign.

In other words, the same people who voted for Obama and his platform might be disappointed if he keeps his promises and does what he said he'd do.

Also, the underlying premise of the piece -- that those making over $200,000 deserve greater political attention because they sided with Obama -- is a bit annoying. If Democratic politicans really decided to pay off their electoral "base," America's poor would have a lot more assistance coming their way. Gelman's work is instructive here, as well. Obama would have won only in California and a handful of Northeastern and Midwestern states if the 2008 election was decided only by the rich. On the other hand, if the poor alone choose the president, Obama would have won every state but two. What is notable about the "degree of class-consciousness" in the White House plans is that so many hidden and explicit subsides are already carved out to protect the interests of the wealthy.

This piece follows perfectly the Politico formula for "must-read" coverage. Don't buy the hype.