TPM News

Despite recent disagreements with conservative members of their caucus, House Democrats will unveil their health care reform bill on Monday, and Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) says they will propose a more than $500 billion tax on Americans making more than $350,000 a year to help finance it.

Between the tax revenue, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and other savings--including, perhaps, from a public plan--Democrats should have enough money to cover the cost of the bill, which will likely cost about a trillion dollars. Early indications suggested that the Senate might propose a different tax--on employer-provided health benefits--to cover the remaining costs of reform. But more and more that idea looks dead in the water.

Late update: More detail from Jeff Young of The Hill: "There would be different surtax rates, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent, for workers with annual earnings of $350,000, $500,000 and $1 million, Rangel said."

One passage on the IGs report on surveillance suggests something that perhaps shouldn't come as a surprise -- that President Bush was kept in the dark by members of the White House staff about about serious objections to the surveillance program raised by others in the administration.

To wit:

Read More →

So is Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) running for the Senate in 2010, or not?

Kirk began telling people in the last few days that he was running. Then it was reported this afternoon by Chris Cillizza that Kirk was suddenly telling people that he wasn't running.

Not so, Kirk told Roll Call. He is still talking the race over with his potential primary rival, state Republican chairman Andy McKenna.

The issue here appears to be that Kirk might have had trouble winning support from other Republicans in the state's Congressional delegation -- because he broke ranks to support the Democrats' energy bill.

Jon Cohn over at The New Republic is reporting that, in early estimates, the Congressional Budget Office is finding that a robust public option, along the lines of the one recommended in the House health care bill, could save about $150 billion over 10 years--a notable chunk of the approximately $1 trillion Congress will need to finance an overhaul package.

Keep in mind, though, that the public option creates savings by driving down prices, and it can't do that nearly as effectively if it's prevented from setting below-market pay rates. But that's exactly what conservative Democrats are trying to do. At the same time, those Democrats are demanding that health care legislation do a better job of lowering health care costs. And that's just one of the contradictions inherent to the position of those attempting to scale back reform efforts.

A great nugget we missed from the portion of Doug Hampton's interview that aired last night...

Ever since the appearance last month of the famous letter Hampton wrote to Fox News -- asking for the network's assistance in exposing John Ensign's "relentless pursuit" of Hampton's wife Cindy -- there has been intense speculation that someone at Fox tipped off Ensign to the fact that Hampton was preparing to go public, prompting the Nevada senator to pre-emptively admit to the affair.

Read More →

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he'd likely oppose health care reform legislation if it didn't include a public option--and that he'd have company. "I think a number of Democrats, and I among them, would have great difficulty voting for a bill without a public option," Brown told me today. "I don't want to say absolutely wouldn't. But I would have great difficulty voting for a bill without a public option."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has similarly suggested that he'd oppose legislation without a public option.

Brown co-wrote the public plan provision in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)--a temporary member of that panel, who has nonetheless become a vocal proponent of the idea. In his capacity as a surrogate, Whitehouse has insisted that health care legislation include a government insurance option, though he hasn't come as close as his colleagues have to drawing a line in the sand.

Read More →

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released a statement about the inspector generals' report on President Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

I am pleased that the Administration has met this important obligation under the FISA Amendments Act. From the moment I learned of the Warrantless Surveillance Program, I have been committed to getting all the facts on the table. Today's report includes an unclassified discussion of the program that I hope will bring greater clarity for the public on what has been a troubling chapter in our nation's history.

Unfortunately, the bulk of the report is classified and cannot be released to the public. But the Committee will scrutinize every page and, wherever warranted, push the Administration to provide more information. If necessary, the Committee will investigate the matter ourselves.

Some readers will find the recounting of the program's history very troubling, but we need to cast light on such matters and subject them to public debate. Where the subject matter is too sensitive for public discussion, the Congress and the courts must still be involved. The FISA Amendments Act offers an excellent example of how the Congress can act to bring necessary oversight to important intelligence activities.

For many years, the Bush Administration chose to keep almost everyone in the dark about the Warrantless Surveillance Program. They didn't tell the FISA Court. They briefed only a select few in Congress. They didn't even tell some of the most experienced national security lawyers inside the Justice Department. This is not the way to conduct the business of national security. Our nation was founded on the principles of checks and balances, and all three branches of government must be involved in the process.

The FISA Amendments Act is important legislation. It created rigorous oversight mechanisms to review and control Executive Branch surveillance powers. It took what was a program that had no oversight--even from within the Executive Branch--and it established new requirements for judicial review, congressional oversight, and periodic reviews by agency inspectors general. It also called for the report that was released today, which I hope will be a big first step in bringing this program out from the shadows.

Moving forward, the Committee will continue to do its job of overseeing the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, and we will continue to push for public disclosure wherever possible.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) has made it official, announcing that he will not be running for a full term in 2010. In explaining the reasons why, Burris said that the strain of raising money would be too great, and the people of his state should come first.

"Political races have become far too expensive in this country," said Burris. "And in making this decision, I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state. I believe that the business of the people of the state of Illinois should always come first."

Burris reportedly raised only $20,000 last quarter. It should also be noted that polls have consistently shown that he would lose the Democratic primary, and that if nominated he would lose the general election, thanks to the controversies surrounding his appointment to the Senate by the later-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement on the inspector generals' report on President Bush's warrantless surveillance program:

This report, mandated by Congress last year, documents what many of us in Congress concluded long ago: President Bush's warrantless surveillance program was illegal from the beginning, and of questionable value. It clearly violated FISA and was based on legal analysis that was 'factually flawed.'

All the recommendations of the report should be promptly followed, and we in Congress will continue to carefully review today's surveillance activities to determine if further changes to FISA are appropriate. The refusal of key Bush Administration officials such as David Addington and John Yoo to cooperate with the IGs' review underscores the need for an independent commission with subpoena power to further review these issues, as I have called for.

As new controversies about the prior Administration's secret intelligence activities and the accuracy and completeness of intelligence briefings to Congress arise, this report offers a stark warning of the risks of executive branch overreach and the power of the executive to shield its activities from scrutiny. At the same time, this report reminds us of the many heroes of the past Administration who questioned these and other secret programs and stood up for the rule of law.