Just a short action diary for those that live in Rep. Gutierrez' distict here in Chicago. As you may know, he came out with this earlier on:
At this time, I am a 'no' vote on health care. It's no secret that I have been critical of proposals that would exclude our nation's hardworking immigrants from the health care exchange, and I would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care purchased with their own dollars.
If we bar the immigrant community from buying private insurance with their own money, we relegate them to emergency room care at the highest cost to taxpayers and deny them the important opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a healthier America. Immigrants are prepared to pay into the system, and excluding them from the private marketplace runs counter to the very goals of health care: containing costs, increasing the use of preventative care and streamlining the health delivery system.
Note - This is repost of an earlier diary from Mark Louis. I don't think there is going to be any problem with the reconciliation fix in the Senate. In fact, the whole reconciliation fix, I think, will be anti-climactic once the House passses the Senate Bill. But that will not be easy. That's why these Congressmen and women need to know why they need to vote Yes on Health Care Reform this time around.
The AP has an article up saying that there are at least 10 House Democrats who voted no on the HCR bill that are currently open to changing their votes. For more on this story, check out this diary from bzr. The Democrats listed in the article need to hear from us.
Jonathon Cohn has apost out on possible vote schedule which would get health care reform, with reconciliation fix, done by Easter
Inside Health Policy's Julian Pecquet and Amy Lotven report on a Democratic memo sketching out a timeline for passage of health care reform. The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19. A few days later it passes a reconciliation bill and sends it over to the Senate, which starts the voting process on March 26.
The Wonkroom seems to have more details on the dates:
Timeline: House passes Senate bill 3/19. House amends Senate bill 3/21. Senate takes up package 3/23. Final vote before Easter recess.
The AP is producing the names of the Representatives who have indicated the possibility that they could change their no vote to yes when the final bill comes back to the House.
Paul Ryan had a lot to say at the Health Care summit about costs and the deficit, but there is one thing I'd like to focus on, namely his line that
And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is fill of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors.
Now what do I mean when I say that?
First off, the bill has ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. The true ten year cost when subsidies kick-in? $2.3 trillion.
I hear this a lot, as a way of saying the cost of the bill is being misrepresented. But the reality is that if you ask the question, what is the cost of this thing, how much does it spend, over the next ten years, the CBO will say that it will cost $871B and have revenue and savings offsets to produce a net reduction in the deficit of $132B. But these are only somewhat helpful numbers. The reality is that we could frame the fiscal impact of the bill any way we want. What is the cost over the next twenty years? the next 100? or go back and ask the impact over the first ten after full implementation. Or the first twenty.
Mariak had a diary yesterday on the various House Democratic representatives who voted no on Health Care Reform last year, but that had either won their 2008 races by more than 12 points or had won a district that Obama had carried. I wanted to go one further and cross reference to pull out out those who also voted against the Supak Amendment, with the goal beingh to find thre House Dems whose objection was not abortion-related and did not have as much to worry about in November. I'm not sure how good of a metric this is, but below the fold is what I got.
Eric Cantor has a memo out this morning saying that even the reconciled Senate bill can't make it through the House. Why's that? Basically he assumes that Bart Stupack and Dems who voted for HCR the first time around won't this time because the Senate language does not reflect that of the original Stupak amendment.
Two things. Yes, Congressman Stupack has come out and said recently he's still not there as far as the abortion language. But he's also said he's happy about a lot of the fixes President Obama has proposed.
Congressman Stupack, I believe, is sincere about his beliefs regarding the federal funding of abortion. (Even though I disagree with his interpretion) He is also, I believe, very sincere about getting comprehensive health care reform done. He needs to reconcile those positions, be it legislatively or otherwise. If you live in his district, let him know you respect his beliefs but that he needs to do whatever he can to be in a position to vote for Health Care Reform when it comes back to the House.
Reuters is reporting the following:
"Negotiators on Wednesday reached a deal that may resolve a crisis in Honduras sparked by a coup three months ago, but the agreement needs to be approved by ousted President Manuel Zelaya and the de facto leader, Zelaya's lead negotiator Victor Meza told reporters."
They're up now with the following :
"We have agreed on one unified text that will be discussed and analyzed by President Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti," Meza said. "I wouldn't talk of an end to the political crisis, but an exit, yes," he added.
BBC is also reporting the same, also without details. Local Media says that a text has been agreed to by the negotiators, and is being sent back to Micheletti and Zelaya, respectively. The details of the text are not yet known.
Alfredo Xalli at Mimalapalabra has a post today on de facto Honduran President Roberto Micheletti's attempt to convert the Honduran National Congress into an Constitutional Assembly in 1985 whose principal goal was to extend the term of then-President Roberto Suazo Córdova.
Cid-Gallup is out a with new poll from Honduras that has a couple of interesting set of numbers. According to the AP:
Forty-six percent said they disagreed with Zelaya's ouster and 41 percent said they approved of it, according to the face-to-face survey of 1,204 Hondurans in the days following the ouster. Another 13 percent declined to answer.
They were about evenly divided on Zelaya himself, with 31 percent saying they had a positive image of him and 32 percent negative. That was close to findings of a similar poll four months ago in which positive views outpaced negative by 4 percentage points.
The pollsters said the survey, conducted in 16 of Honduras' 18 provinces from June 30 to July 4, had a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.
In addition, as per Boz
47% of Hondurans believe Zelaya was convoking the constitutional referendum to change the reelection rules and remain in power. 36% believe he was just trying to change the constitution overall.
I was going to wait until the end of the day, but frankly, I think everyone's waiting for the talks to start tomorrow and there won't be anything else to report today. Litho brings us up to date in his diary from this morning.
The only real news thus far comes from a BBC interview (thanks, Litho, also, for the find) in which Arias expresses his optimism that an agreement can come about by the end of the week, possibly by Sunday.
Reports that both the Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos and Pepe Lobo are both on board with moving up the election date which will definitely help negotiations go forward, if that becomes one of the negotiation items.
Let's hope that Arias is correct and that something does get done, hopefully whereby Zelaya can return, even if for a truncated time period. The other scenario gets messy quick, especially with the US cutting off all but humanitarian aid.
If any updates do come, I'll put them up after the fold.
Two things happened yesterday that I think are of note:
1. It was announced that Zelya will meet with Sec. of State Clinton directly. It appears as if that will occur today and the fact that Zelaya is hinting at a July 8 return to Honduras seems to suggest so. We'll know a lot more about what the Obama Administration thinks following that. The US Embassy in Tegucigalpa is opening tomorrow, if security can be guaranteed, but I'm not how that fits into everything.
2. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that Porfirio Lobo coming out for Zelaya's restoration was indeed important. Now, if he's just trying to position himself for the next election, figuring that if Mel carries out his term the end, the Liberal party will be so discredited that it couldn't put up a fight, then that's not such a big deal. But if he's sincere, then it is. Feel free to criticize me here, as I realize it's probably the first rather than the latter.