House Dems Dropping Another Measure Wanted By Liberals?
So what’s really going on between Nancy Pelosi and President Obama?
You may have already heard the news that the House Dem leadership, acting on a personal appeal from President Obama, is likely to drop family planning funds for low-income people from the $825 billion stimulus bill.
Republicans like House leader John Boehner have been hammering House Dems over the funding, and more than a few liberals are wondering whether Obama and House Dems caved in the face of Republican pressure.
Now it looks like House Dems may be about to drop another measure — also prioritized by liberals — in the face of external pressure.
Politico reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be dropping from the bill the so-called “cram downs,” which give judges the power to renegotiate mortgages on terms that are better suited to homeowners who are in trouble.
House staffers tell Politico that she’s dropping it in “the face of a massive lobbying effort by banks — and concerns it might further alienate Senate moderates already wavering on the $825 billion stimulus,” as Politico puts it.
If true, it raises a few questions. What’s the dynamic here, exactly? Is Pelosi dropping this measure, too, in response to requests from the Obama administration? Or is Pelosi acting on her own? After all, cram downs were an Obama campaign promise.
We’re digging into this and will keep you posted.
I wondered what family planning had to do with the stimulus and thought it was just asking for trouble when they included it. Who knows about the cram down. It’s been obvious for some time that Pelosi and Reid are easily influenced by the republicans’, but the jury’s still out on Obama and his postpartisanship. I shouldn’t speak because I know next to nothing about effective negotiating, but it seems to me the Dems have a lot to learn as well.
yeah, agreed on House leadership … one possibility re Obama is they want to throw some bones to the House Repubs to make it easier to cast them as the partisan obstructionists if/when they try to scuttle Obama initiatives.
I would think cramdowns are a) pretty popular and b) have a clear connection to the financial crisis. So folding on that issue makes no sense. If they want to make the family planning measure the quid they give up for the quo of cramdowns that may make political sense.
Still, expanding the states that cover family planning as a part of Medicaid makes good policy sense and would help stimulate the economy (as would pretty much anything that puts more money in the hands of less well off folks). In an ideal world, they shouldn’t concede that either. Maybe they can introduce it as a standalone bill or in a different bill.
“The idea [has] long [been] opposed by the financial services and construction industries, . . . Nancy Pelosi [has] abandoned that effort in the face of a massive lobbying effort by banks.”
Is Pelosi dropping this measure, too, in response to requests from the Obama administration? Or is Pelosi acting on her own?
I would think that Pelosi is dropping this in response to lobbying efforts from some pretty big Democratic Party donors and in response to requests of Democratic members of the House. Didn’t Obama raise more from the financial services industry than McCain? Aren’t the Dems now situated to raise more from the banking industry than Republicans? Isn’t this simply a matter of kowtowing to your donors’ interests?
Family planning as fiscal stimulus? What a joke. It’s easy to surmise that it’s not negotiating skills the Dems need, it’s Econ 101. But the less simple and pathetic truth is that they DO know it’s a joke but think they can get away with it. Giving away condoms (or anything else, for that matter) does nothing to create, innovate or produce. The fact that neither Mr. Sargent nor the Post’s editors never bothered questioning this wild presumption speaks volumes about the editorial slant of the organization. But of course you can attract more eyeballs with horse race political writing, I suppose. Will anyone at the Post ever question the administrative costs of such a program?
Family planning *is* an important part of fiscal stimulus. The problem is that this has been inadequately explained and so GOP talking points have ruled the day.
Here is the actual text from the stimulus package’s summary (HT Think Progress):
“State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.”
According to Think Progress:
“Like other portions of the stimulus bill, this measure would not only aid states, but also provide preventative, cost-saving health care **to help low-income women support their families and keep working.** It focuses on access to recommended services and contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies and promote maternal and infant health — not abortion. ThinkProgress reports that an upcoming Congressional Budget Office report estimates that this change would save $200 million over five years and $700 million over 10.”
That’s how family planning helps fiscal stimulus: It keeps low-income women in the workforce so they can help support their families. I have no problem with low-income women having access to the same family planning services that I do.
States can now cover low-income women if they get a state waiver, but approval can take a long time. This bill would simply allow states to skip the administrative delays.
Media Matters also reports public support for family planning is very high (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901260006?show=1).
This issue could have been better reported here as well.
cab91?
This:
is an excellent summary of why family planning actually helps. But thanks to the parrots in the media, the Republican talking points (wrongheaded but simplistic) rule the day.
I think what’s going on here is that Obama and Democrats are making very public concessions to House Republicans, and when House Republicans continue to say no, they’ll just write the plan that they wanted in the first place.
Boehner is committing political malpractice by letting it be known that he told House members to vote against the bill before even meeting with the President.
I agree that family planning is important and I certainly would like to see the Democrats address the issue at some point. But I don’t think it had a place in this particular bill unless the states requested it. All the states were supposed to provide a list of needs. If family planning was at the top of the lists then, fine. Include family planning in the stimulus bill. I’m guessing that it wasn’t at the top of many, if any, lists.
The engine of this economy is dead and we need to be spending our money on major parts. Family planning is more like fine tuning.
That’s ridiculous. People want foreclosure relief. It’s the most popular part of the package. Have the Dems lost their collective minds?
My 1st comment:
What angers Rush L.?
craig
I’m preying every day to hear from the FED they are firing all the Big 5 Banks CEO’S because they are who are trying to worse the Houses crisis.In my personal view and experirence they are not helping familys who really wants stay in their homes and only are pleased to help them with a loan modification lowering their payments and even if they are working but there’s hours were cut they want still paying with a good faith of the loan modification instead the Banks are aproving only a few and denied a lot.what they are trying is delaying the crisis and acting as a passive form of economic terrorism agaisnt the Goverment that we the US worker citizen elected….The goverment must act NOW and FAST before be late…..FIRED THEM………NOW