Schumer: White House Preferred Strong Public Option — And Didn’t Insist On Trigger
Yesterday I speculated that all the chatter about the White House supposedly demanding a public option with a “trigger” — rather than with the opt-out — may have been largely driven by Senate aides who had over-interpreted the White House’s private expressions of worry about the opt-out’s ability to get 60 Senate votes.
Now Senator Chuck Schumer has shed a bit of light on this — and he says the White House never preferred the trigger. Schumer is supporting the White House’s claims that they never expressed such a preference.
The debate over what happened behind the scenes is a big deal: It goes to the heart of who really deserves credit for the startling turn of events yesterday. The claims that the White House wanted a trigger, and tried to bigfoot Harry Reid into inserting one, infuriated liberals who saw it as Obama’s latest stiff-arming of the left-wing base.
But Schumer says that’s not so. Here’s what he told TPM about this:
“I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger,” Schumer said. “We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts — and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together.”
This supports the idea that the White House expressed worry about the opt-out’s viability, but never went so far as insisting on a trigger.
No question, Schumer would be expected to support the White House’s line in public, and it’s very possible that there were divisions within the White House and that some administration officials did try to bigfoot the trigger. But for what it’s worth, Schumer is saying that it just didn’t happen this way.
****************************************
Update: It’s true that Schumer said the White House preferred the trigger “substantively,” which means Obama aides may have lacked the stomach for it politically. But Schumer is also suggesting that the White House let Senate leadership determine the way forward, rather than insisting on its preferred course of action.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
God bless this man and his ugly pink shirt he wears every year at the Puerto Rican Day parade while shouting ‘yo so boricua.”
“Yesterday I speculated…”
Yes, you did, Greg. A lot.
” infuriated liberals who saw it as Obama’s latest stiff-arming of the left-wing base.
But Schumer says that’s not so. Here’s what he told TPM about this:
“I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger,” Schumer said. “We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts — and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together.””
This blog notwithstanding, can some liberals tell me why they believe it when these damned anonymous sources say these things that then are repeated by the media, who we all learned to distrust, I thought?
I mean, the left ends up acting like the opposition 3/4s of the time and we’re not.
The right is the opposition.
Honestly, I just don’t care what the back and forth was. We know where things now stand in the senate. We have moved the chains, and now have a fresh first down, with favorable field position. I just don’t care what was said in the huddle, where the ball ended up is all that matters, and focusing on getting it across the end line should be what we focus on, instead of obsessing about might or might not have happened during some practice sessions.
Good analogy, Liam. As Obama keeps saying, “keep the eye on the ball”. Rest is all noise. And “journos”, including Greg, love the noise.
I’d be willing to bet anyone $100 right now that Obama not only wanted public option, I bet he doesn’t like the idea of opt out. I know Color of Change sure doesn’t = I got an email from James Rucker about it this morning and I predicted this = there are a lot of African Americans living in red states.
Tena, I’m willing to bet 100 bucks that optout will be jettisoned along the line soon and it’ll become a true PO. Just watch.
I’d argue that what actually happened is very important, because the idea that the WH wanted the trigger is now built into a narrative of WH betraying the left. worth figuring out whether it’s true or not.
Tena,
I think you are right and I too got the email from Color of Change. AA’s are VERY important to Obama’s win and the win of many down ballot dems. I think this all goes back to the NAACP getting involved to pressure the WH on the public option last week.
“The startling turn of events yesterday?”
What was startling about yesterday? That Reid included a very weak public option even though four out of the five bills already have a public option, and all four are stronger than the one Reid included?
The startling thing is that no one seems to realize that the big news yesterday was that both HR3200 and Reid’s bill are NOT tied to Medicare rates. The baseline now looks to be a very weak PO that is only available to a relative few. I don’t understand how that will lower premiums for the 80% of us who get our private insurance through our jobs?
Greg, I agree it would be worth figuring out if it’s true or not, but do you think we’ll ever really know? I believe the WH probably supported the Trigger because of Snowe but by the same token if we could get something better why not?
Remember last week when OFA organized all the phone calls into Congress. The calls were scripted by OFA to say the caller supported Obama’s vision of HCR. But most of the callers threw in their support of the PO as well and I got the feeling they (OFA) were caught a little off guard by that.
And now, I’ll agree with Liam, who cares, we moved the ball forward.
I see no built in narrative that “Obama betrayed the left” I see some blog headlines , ending with question marks, that intimate that something like that might have been going on, according to some unnamed Senate Staffers.
Who was actually establishing the false perception? I think that certain bloggers need to consider how they are helping to perpetuate the myth.
sbj
You’re still struggling with unfinished business. Let’s see where we end up in 5 or 6 weeks before freaking out about your coverage, which you probably don’t pay for anyway.
Greg, sausage making is not pretty. People like the end product. Let’s move on to the next stage.
And sbj’s “concern” about PO being not “librul’ enough is laughably trollish.
HuffPo is still running with the Reid-White House tension meme.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/white-house-to-reid-dont_n_335250.html
I can barely read that site anymore.
So a lot of the “anguish” yesterday was the work of aides who don’t seem to have a lot of work, so they gossip with one another and do a “muddy the waters” routine.
The MSM and the Cable Gang are very good at all this breathless style of reporting. The blogosphere seems to have also caught this disease. Yesterday was a classic exercise of conjecture and disinformation. Had we waited until Reid’s conference we could have saved ourselves oddles of nonsense spweing our from aides all over Washington. Sure the WH was playing games. Some of the folks there are too clever by half.
@lmsinca: “Before freaking out about your coverage, which you probably don’t pay for anyway.”
I “freaked” out?
Isn’t the idea behind the public option to provide competition in order to lower premiums charged by private insurance? If the PO has to compete just like other insurers in the exchange and negotiate rates, and if their pool of insured is strictly limited, then where is the competition?
The idea that I don’t “pay” for my coverage is just absurd.
In the House, Waxman had to jettison tying the PO to Medicare rates to get the Blue Dogs on board. In the Senate, Reid is sending a combined Senate bill to the CBO and floor that contains a PO with something called an opt out (that no one understands) that is not tied to Medicare. The House, I believe, has already sent a variety of bills to the CBO for scoring, one of which that contains a PO that is not tied to Medicare rates.
I can read the writing on the wall.
holyhandgrenaid,
The site that’s getting even harder to read is FDL, especially the comments. About 75% of them are already talking about a primary challenge of Obama in 2012. They’ve never had it so good and they actually think we could do better? With who?
It is all very silly. Last week, People were beating Harry Reid over the head, and calling him spinless, etc. Now we have some of the same people telling us that Harry is the tough one, and that President Obama is not so tough. All just meaningless windsocking blather by those who need to stir the pot on an hourly basis.
I said the following last week, when Harry was getting beat up on, and I say the same thing now applies to The President.
………………………..
# Liam | October 21st, 2009 at 01:52 pm
Cut the man some slack:
Harry is not in a position to make absolutist pronouncements at this stage of the game. He has to talk in vague terms, because he has to avoid upsetting one faction or another in his own caucus.
Harry has to serve many masters, especially 59 of them in his own caucus. They are all Independent Actors, and a Majority Leader is constantly trying to herd cats.
Let us see what the end product turns out to be. If it is not to our liking, there will be plenty of time to unload on those who did not deliver. On the other hand, if they do pass a very good bill, then all this current vituperative language, aimed at Harry, will look down right mean, and have served no useful purpose.
It is counter productive to start calling Senator Reid names. That is not going to make him more likely to support the position of the name callers. In fact it might make him want to stick it to them. That is just human nature, so just push for the PO, in a positive manner, and hold your fire until you know if you really need to pull the trigger or not.
lmsinca – kucinich or feingold, anyone ?
sbj
Don’t pay for as compared to some of us who see an actual check leaving our house to their house (BC/BS) to the tune of $1400 per month. And the level playing field is the moderate version of a Public Option, one which I don’t particularly care for but it’s a start. Your fears that the PO is not progressive enough is very progressive coming from a Libertarian.
amk
Actually I’ll stick with Obama but I do like Anthony Weiner on Health Care at least.
Greg..Please forgive my ignorance…”because the idea that the WH wanted the trigger is now built into a narrative of WH betraying the left.” I understand FDL and others have been pretty strong in their objections, but I’m not sure how ANYBODY can come up with the WH betraying anybody YET? There is NO bill on the floor…To borrow that worn phrase from Jerry McGuire…”Show me the money” Let me see what gets passed before I start the blame game…I believe there is a very strong chance that it will be a good bill..not perfect…actually only a start to real HCR..but the FIRST REAL START in my lifetime……excepting Medicare of course.
As a progressive I’ll be really upset if they ratchet up the war in Afghanistan..don’t speed up getting out of Iraq..and close down Gitmo…HOWEVER
Obama has been in office less than a year..”Show me the results”…when they come in and we can actually tally them…then I’ll know whether I’m upset or not.
As for now it seems to me that Obama has pulled off the ole “rope a dope” strategy to perfection…let the dopes blow off steam through August and September and then knock them out in November.
It seems to me that it goes beyond trying to decide if Obama actually pushed for the trigger. Listen to what you’re saying: “the White House let Senate leadership determine the way forward, rather than insisting on its preferred course of action.” Last time I checked Harry Reid was not the index of what mainstream, pragmatic progressives wanted from “Change We Can Believe In.” If anyone thinks a sitting President who truly backed a contested measure would not be working round the clock to help pressure hold-outs and round up votes for it, I have a bridge to sell them. All previous Presidents have done this, it is absolutely routine. IF, that is, those Presidents actually wanted the measure to pass. Muting the bully pulpit and refusing to lift a finger to round up votes in this context is tantamount to opposing the measure outright–and fully consonant with the idea that the backroom deals included a pledge not to fight actively for the public option, though paying it some lip service would be a political requirement to keep the base quiet. Valerie Jarrett literary paid it service with her lips–and only her lips–a couple of days ago, when she simply asserted Obama’s support for it in the face of the fact that not a single player, including Obama himself, has cited a single instance of his pressing a single reluctant legislator to adopt a strong public option. Think really, really hard. Is this the change you voted for? Is this what Obama promised? What is the use of ignoring the fact that he has turned out to be stunningly regressive on a number of issues?
lmsinca- I can imagine. I’ve never liked FDL or Kos much at all… too reactionary. The comments at HuffPo are almost all Obama= Bush all the time. Even on stories that are about Obama taking a policy stance a full 180 from Bush’s policies (such as Obama reenforcing today that Gitmo will be closed, by hook or by crook).
@lmsinca: “Don’t pay for as compared to some of us who see an actual check leaving our house to their house (BC/BS) to the tune of $1400 per month.”
I am sure that my paycheck reflects the fact that my company is “providing” my health insurance. I don’t write the check leaving my house, but I pay for it all the same – don’t kid yourself.
And if you are currently paying $1400 a month then congratulations, the CBO predicts that you can purchase the PO for $1260 month.
“Your fears that the PO is not progressive enough is very progressive coming from a Libertarian.”
I believe you miss my point. One of the main purposes of h/c reform is to lower premiums. I’m not a fan of the PO as a means to do it, but I am stuck with that because that’s what the Dems are forcing down our throats. The problem is that the PO that is not tied to Medicare rates won’t do doodly-squat to lower premiums. So we are witnessing a brilliant charade that won’t do anything to lower the cost of private insurance.
“I’m not sure how ANYBODY can come up with the WH betraying anybody YET?”
Are you not familiar with Obama’s campaign and what he promised regarding healthcare reform? The Reid bill isn’t even close…
lmsinca – I was being facile.
amk
I know. But I do still like Weiner on Health Care.
lmsinca – The time is not yet ripe for Weiner/Grayson types. May be 2016 ?
SBJ voted against Obama because he was a black man. SBJ said that if Obama was not on the ticket, then he would not have bothered to vote.
Now SBJ keeps complaining that Obama is not keeping his campaign promises. Don’t you just hate it when a Racist feels let down by the person he voted against, to keep him out of The White House!
Speaking of Grayson/Weiner:
“Republicans and Democrats slammed Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) for calling Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street *****” in a month-old radio interview that circulated on Capitol Hill Monday night.
…
“Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28763.html
via hotair
“I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger,” Schumer said.
Update: It’s true that Schumer said the White House preferred the trigger “substantively,” which means Obama aides may have lacked the stomach for it politically.
Have I lost my ability to read, or are these two statements in direct contradiction to each other?
sbj
I didn’t realize you could read the mind of Elmendorf, you’ve been holding out on us. What CBO score?
@SBJ “Are you not familiar with Obama’s campaign and what he promised regarding healthcare reform? The Reid bill isn’t even close…”
The Reid bill isn’t even close to law…it hasn’t even reached the Senate floor yet much less gone through reconciliation with what will EVENTUALLY emerge from the house…It’s all speculation right now…NOT LAW..NOT EVEN A REAL BILL!!!
As for Obama’s campaign promises perhaps you were stepping in the booth specifically to vote against a man for different reasons than I voted FOR him. I distinctly heard him offer his ideas on the campaign trail and then quickly add that he was OPEN to ideas from both sides of the aisle…in other words SBJ you keep up this tired old refrain about campaign promises…but what you are really asking is..”Aren’t you upset that Obama is not a pure idealogue?” NO! NO! A 1000X NO! Right wing..thoughtless idealogues are what almost totally ruined our country…two wars..worst economy since the great depression…again if I were forming a new party I would call it the Pragmatic Party. And so I answer your question SBJ…do you want to have a pragmatist leading our country or an idealogue who refuses to change course regardless of the fact that our nation constantly faces challenges that change from day to day….The real question I suppose your asking is do I think Obama behaves with enough consistency…YES for a pragmatist!
White House to Reid: “Don’t come crying to us when you need that last vote” (see Todd’s report today).
Dem voters to Obama: “Great. Don’t come crying to us when you need that last vote in 2012.”
If it’s not true, great. Let Obama prove it by publicly helping to round up those last votes. It’s a thing called leadership.
“What CBO score?”
HR3200
You can’t possibly know from any CBO score what my monthly premium will be so I wouldn’t go there if I were you.
I’ll wait for the CBO score on the current level playing field PO with an opt-out to decide for myself how much or how little I like it.
@lmsinca: Hey – I’m just telling you that the CBO report estimated that the HR3200 public option would be 10% less than other insurance providers in the exchange. I didn’t go there – he did.
Except for one thing, I am paying for small group insurance now with almost no bargaining power. Under a PO I would have the same bargaining power as large group less 10%.
Correction needed: Mr. Sargent, your update misrepresents Schumer’s actual quote. Schumer states: “I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger,” Schumer said. “We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts–and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together.”