Obama caves to Republicans on family planning provision in stimulus

[geek tragedy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_co/obama_stimulus

So much for "I won."

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

Okay, Obama skeptics: Now you can bash the crap out of him. I'd be surprised if anyone respects this surrender.

For a discussion of what the provision Obama threw overboard would have really done, see this link:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/republicans-irate-over-expansion-of-republican-approved-program.php

First of all, the family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding in the stimulus bill was created in 1972 under the leadership of Republican president Richard Nixon.

What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to "the abortion industry," as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?

Additionally, the process of obtaining a waiver for Medicaid family-planning coverage is extremely cumbersome. A letter written by Wisconsin health regulators in 2007 noted that some states have had to wait for as long as two years before their request was approved. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years.

[sakabatou]

1. Dammit....

[elocs]

2. Well, I guess the spineless Obama administration is officially over now. n/t

[geek tragedy]

10. No, the "I won" Presidency is over.

Now we're back to Clintonist Triangulation and appeasing the rightwing.

Will the V-Chip and school uniforms be next?

[Thrill]

12. Overreact much?

[geek tragedy]

15. The Republicans demanded that it get removed, and he complied.

Have you heard a Republican announce their support for this stimulus yet? So, Obama grants a concession to people who are going to vote against his stimulus bill anyways. Stunning strategery.

[Thrill]

37. You fail to understand politics. This was their main talking point against the bill

they were all over the Sunday shows banging away on this. Poisoning the public opinion of the bill. Obama takes it out, shows he's trying to work with them. And he is the one that comes out looking good. If there is one thing in this bill that didn't have to be in it. Its this.

You can bet your ass. This was going to be scrapped in the Senate anyway.

[geek tragedy]

42. Then let the Senate scrap it.

It didn't have to be the President who personally scrapped it.

[Enrique]

44. no, lots of other things don't need to be in the bill

like tax cuts for one example.

[Shiver]

92. The tax cuts are for the middle class

They are the same ones he talked about during the campaign.

[PVnRT]

81. Um, no. Their main talk point is too much spending and not enough tax cuts.

[bdamomma]

144. the filthy repigs want the tax cuts for the rich permanent.

[biopowertoday]

161. Obama showed he is willing

to throw poor families and women overboard. That is what happened.

[VADem11]

14. Not quite

Don't jump to label Obama's week old Presidency as triangulation just yet. This isn't at all comparable to Clinton.

[geek tragedy]

17. Um, he should hear from the base on this kind of stuff.

I don't see how this isn't triangulation.

[Radical Activist]

49. He should hear from the base.

And how about the base sound halfway reasonable when he does? Saying he's just like Clinton for this one thing is totally off the wall.

The expansion would be a good thing, but honestly, do you really think it's an economic stimulus program? Really? Do you really think Obama won't push for this another day in another bill?

[Shiver]

93. The base has been against this unknowingly, anyway

The family-planning items were considered part of the "tax cuts" so many here were against.

Honestly, if people would read the bill themselves....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

80. I'm sorry, but he's already triangulating. Tax cuts, backpeddling on the money devoted

to infrastructure. And now giving the Republicans what they want on this issue? He and the Democrats won an overwhelming majority but no one would know it. The bill will fail in the Senate but that doesn't mean that we don't need a leader. When is Obama going to start acting like a president rather than an appeaser?

[Shiver]

91. The tax cuts are aimed at the middle class

The ones he talked about during the campaign, remember?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. I thought those were for the wealthy, not middle class. Also, shouldn't we forego

tax cuts right now? ALL OF THEM?? Tax cuts are not going to spur the economy. Investment in infrastructure and jobs are the keys to success. Tax cuts aren't. Sure, I could use the break, but it's not #1 on my list. Spurring the economy through job creation will do the trick. Can we afford tax cuts right now? My guess is NO. Save the tax cuts for another time after we have created jobs.

[Shiver]

125. After we have created jobs, the middle class should be able to keep mor of the money they earn

Tax cuts won't spur the economy, not completely. Jobs are what is needed, but what good are they going to do if the people don't get to keep enough of their money to spend and jumpstart the economy? Most of the tax items in the bill are aimed at the middle class, either in giving them back more of what they earn or funding services and programs (education, law enforcement, unemployment, etc) without taking the money directly from them. For that reason alone most of the "tax cuts" would be more accurately described as "tax relief".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

128. But tax cuts aren't enough to help families who are struggling to pay their mortgage

or school loans. They need to be able to renegotiate the terms of those mortgages to get the interest rate back down to what it was before. In addition, the administration needs to ensure that banks issue credit. I am looking for a house right now, and I earn a decent salary, job security (I work for the Feds), and good credit. I should not have to be forced to put down 20% for a home in this expensive D.C. area housing market; or, have trouble getting a bank loan or credit because banks are sitting on that money. We need more oversight. Spur economic growth through an expansion of credit, job creation, etc. The housing market needs those infrastructure and construction jobs. (I work at HUD and the housing industry is hurt badly; invest in the industry that way. There are people who are looking for homes.) Expand public works programs as well, just as FDR did. A tax cut is fine, but I think it's misguided. This is one of only a few times where I will agree with Nancy Pelosi. The tax cuts can wait; job creation and credit expansion cannot.

[Shiver]

130. Agreed, and well-argued

My only goal, really, was to point out who the tax cuts were aimed at and clear up that misconception. I am a little worried, though, that if we don't go for them now, we might not be able to get them later.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

138. That's a thought. Obama may not be able to deliver on his promise right away

I just hope Americans will understand that and give him some slack.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

129. In addition, let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. They don't need them.

[Shiver]

131. They expire in 2010.

The Repubs want them made permanent, and that's one of the reasons they're opposing this bill. Those are the tax cuts they want, not the ones the bill has.

[roguevalley]

142. and people continue to suffer to appease the nazis. thanks for

more nothing, fucking dems. I am sure Thomas Jefferson is very proud of you.

[LynneSin]

148. Sorry, but this was a smart move by Obama

We will need a few republicans to get this thru senate without delay. The Senate Republicans are looking bleak for 2010 and voting against this stimulus bill will not be good for re-election. But you toss choice in there those republicans who might vote yes will suddenly join the filibuster and delaying this very important bill.

I think family planning should be it's own separate bill. It needs to be done but if it's delayed we do not want it to stop the stimulus package.

[elocs]

156. I thought my sarcasm was over the top enough.f

Congratulations on spelling "separate" correctly since it is a word I so often see misspelled.

[quiller4]

158. You are so correct

I have nothing against funding family planning but adding to the stimulus package was a huge mistake.

[JerseygirlCT]

160. I tend to believe the theory others have put forward

that this was intentionally added in order to allow the GOP to take something out. They won this "battle" and will focus on that, while the bill passes, and the family planning gets done in another bill.

[LynneSin]

165. I have to agree with you on that

It seems too fricking obvious to be in that bill. Now we 'gave' something to the republicans, something that probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place but helped the republicans 'look good' to their voters.

[thunder rising]

3. Then an Executive Order can simplify and expedite the waivers.

[AZ Criminal JD]

118. Executive waivers can't overrule existing law

[Thrill]

4. The Senate was going to kick that out anyway

And I wouldn't call that a cave. He's basically taking one of their main talking points on the talk shows away. Now take the money that was going to be used for that and just add it to infrastructure.

I didn't think that needed to be in the Stimulus anyway

[leftstreet]

6. Yes. We'll need more babies to build all those bridges. n/t

[bdamomma]

145. yes, the infrastructure could use more money.

[LittleBlue]

5. Frankly, I don't know why all this crap is in the bill

If we really want open government, let's vote on a stimulus bill. Then we can propose a separate bill dealing with family planning, and another for tax breaks (their issue).

To throw all this crap into one bill is not the best representation of open government.

[geek tragedy]

9. Funny Obama didn't think that until John Boehner made a stink

about it.

Remember that John Boehner isn't going to vote for it anyways. Note also that we don't need a single Republican vote to pass it. Note also that the Republicans supposedly have a much weaker hand to play.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. You should run for office

[geek tragedy]

19. I don't have 1/100th his talent.

That doesn't make this move any less offensive.

[LittleBlue]

20. Yes, I know. We can pass virtually whatever we want.

But I really would want some political cover for anything that costs $800bln.

Politically speaking, of course. :)

[RayOfHope]

72. delete n/t

[sandnsea]

23. It's easier to get it passed at once

The tax cuts in the bill are not anything like the ones they're jabbering about. And states need bailing out on health care, particularly, so they'll be asking for it to be put back in.

[geek tragedy]

29. We don't need a single Republican vote for this.

Not a single one.

Fuck them.

[LittleBlue]

32. Do we have 60 in the senate?

For cloture, I mean.

[Thrill]

39. You do if you want Political Cover

[MilesColtrane]

90. We absolutely need Republican support for it to get through the Senate.

Look at the numbers.

[Life Long Dem]

97. Maybe that was the intention.

[AyanEva]

105. iawtc

[alwysdrunk]

112. I agree, it's a good idea, but why here?

Let a stimulus bill be a stimlus bill. There will be other oppurtunities for thi initiative.

[Chulanowa]

7. It damn sure WOULD help the economy!

Unwanted and accidental pregnancies are a huge drain on the pocketbook. Making birth control more available means money saved means money going towards actual industry. Fewer single mothers trying to juggle a kid and a job means a stronger work force.

Don't fucking let your jellyfish reps and senators back out of this. Give them a call and chew their ears. We cannot kill this to please the misogynists of the Republican party.

[bluestateguy]

8. And the thing is I don't think that doing this would necessarily pick up more Republican votes

Executive Orders are your friend Barack.

[MilesColtrane]

95. An Executive Order doesn't allow the President to create a law.

It can only expound upon, or clarify an existing law.

Now if Congress passed a law allowing the President discretion in budgetary matters, then Obama could direct money where he saw fit.

[firedupdem]

11. That's not a Win for the gop or a cave on Obama's part....I kinda

wondered why it was part of a "stimulus package" anyway. It will get done just not in this package. No biggie to me...others may not see it that way.

[VADem11]

38. Kinda agree

I really wish that Obama hadn't dropped this provision since the Republicans are being so damn stubborn and this emphasis on bipartisanship is pointless.

Hopefully he will pass it though. From the LA Times: They feel strongly that this is not the right place" to fight the family-planning battle, a senior House Democratic strategist said. "But they are still committed and want to do it, just not in the stimulus."

[Clio the Leo]

88. Because it creates a job......

..... while cutting back on unwanted pregnancy. Someone has to be there to hand out the condoms and do the counciling. Killing two birds with one stone so to speak.

[AyanEva]

106. iawtc <nt>

[elleng]

13. I respect him,

and won't characterize what he does as 'surrender.' Its the way this country works, we've got the best possible administration, and we've got to appreciate it and appreciate what its able to do.

ps, I didn't support him all along, so don't bash me.

[MarjorieG]

22. This is a social wedge issue, not a health issue, unfortunately. Int'l gag rule was more important.,

and possible.

[geek tragedy]

26. The international rule won't affect women

in the United States.

This would have.

[MarjorieG]

36. This will still get done.

[Thrill]

40. This isn't something that HAD to be in this bill

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Pelosi didn't exactly sell it well on This Week w/ George S.

x(

[kywildcat]

59. agree-if she had articulated a strong case for

it for the public to counter balance biddy boehners whinefest, or better yet, gotten on top of this issue before he did-we would have been spared some of this republican ranting.

[Enthusiast]

74. Pelosi is just weak.

As we know caving to Republican wishes does nothing to help our position.

[napi21]

21. Don't you think it really belonged in the health care bill?

I can see how it might be part of this bill too, but I don't see it as any big deal taking it out of this bill either.

[geek tragedy]

24. And then it'll get dropped because the Republicans

make a stink about it again.

[napi21]

48. I'm sure they'll fight against it, but in that bill I think they'd lose.

It's much easier to argue the cost savings of a pill v/s an abortion or the price of medicade for single moms in a "health" discussion than it is in a "fiscal stimulus" plan. Personally, I think chosing the nae "fiscal stimulus" was a mistake. I'm not sure what the name should have been, but using the word "stimulus" gave the opposition the opportunity to tak almost any line item and complain that THAT won't stimulate anything.

[bdamomma]

147. Boehner just whined and whined about this

but it should be transplanted in a Health Bill.

[sandnsea]

27. It's part of aide to states and cities

Depending on how much they take out, governors and mayors will scream at their Senators and Congressman. That'll be fun to watch local repubs get mad at national repubs.

[sandnsea]

25. Do you suppose the Governors and Mayors will scream now?

And people will see that the Republicans are just stupid again.

[geek tragedy]

28. Too late. He jumped through the hoop. n/t

[EraOfResponsibility]

30. oh please he didn't jump through any damned hoops

it didn't belong in the bill anyway, he can deal with that later on.

[sandnsea]

33. Actually it does

It's for helping cities and states with anything that they might be tempted to cut. We don't want women's clinics cut.

[EraOfResponsibility]

34. Obama doesn't want women's clinics cut either

[sandnsea]

35. That's why the money was in the stimulus

and that's why it belongs there.

[Enthusiast]

75. Exactly, sandnsea. nt

[sandnsea]

31. Maybe he called their bluff

Knowing how much the Governors and Mayors need this. Let them carry the water and embarrass the national Republican Party. Sounds like a plan to me. There's nothing that says this money can't go right back in. Why don't we start pressuring our Mayors and Governors to get this money back?

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. Governors and Mayors are more concerned about road and bridges than family planning

[saracat]

41. Yeah well women are always at the back of the bus. Nothing on FOCA yet

either. So many more important issues to consider!:sarcasm: :mad:

[AllentownJake]

51. Ledbetter will be signed sometime next week

[firedupdem]

113. Your comments are never a surprise. You're staying true to your promises. n/t

[MadBadger]

126. Rosa Parks is laughing at you right now.

[depakid]

43. Post partisanship at work- or simply more congressional Democratic cowardice?

Either way- we can expect to see A LOT MORE OF IT.

Can't wait to see what happens when abstinence only comes up again.

Heck of a job, Dems!

[Enrique]

45. they're afraid of Obama's high approval ratings

so if he says pull the family planning funds, they're going to do it. Up to a point.

Ok, so that explains the congressional democratic cowardice, what explains the presidential democratic cowardice?

[depakid]

47. While I'm not at all convinced of Obama's commitment to reproductive health

based on past statements made while pandering to fundies- and due to some reading between the lines on statements about abortion law- I DO KNOW where congressional Democrats stand:

8 June 2007

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs--an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs--they'll give them a $27 million increase--the first in three years!....

http://mediagirl.org/node/1497

The worst part about it of course is that Republicans will simply view the capitulation as a weakness- and will only be emboldened by it.

Wouldn't you, if you were a Republican (who'd kicked Democrats around with unprecedented impunity for years)?

[AllentownJake]

52. They aren't going to be able to touch the economic portions of the bill

This was purely a negotiation tactic. GOP can claim some minor victory till the Healthcare debate and the economic portions of the bill pass.

[depakid]

56. They already have! There's already a TON of tax cuts

that eminent economists have said give far less bang for the buck in terms of gtting people back to work and creating multiplier effects in local communites than investments on infrastructure, universities, etc. and federal revenue sharing.

Yet there they are!

100's of billions worth of failed Republican policies.

Behind the Dems backs- they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[AllentownJake]

58. Those tax cuts were President Obama's campaign promises

I'm sorry you didn't listen to him during the election. He has this funny thing he does...he actually tries to do the things he said he would do...I know I get frustrated at him at times for doing that as well.

[depakid]

60. Sorry- but these don't refect campaign promises- they're far more extensive than that

I don't recall Obama talking about corporate tax cuts.

Though I do remember something about repealing the Bush tax cuts....

Here a bit of a take from Huffington Post about it:

Yet while Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn told Chris Mathews on MSNBC that he agrees with Speaker Pelosi that the tax cuts on the wealthy should be repealed, he also said it's unlikely to happen because instructions from on high coming from the White House are telling Congress to ignore this issue.

What's the problem here? Why is Obama seemingly reluctant to follow through on his own campaign promises in this regard? Are he and his centrist economic advisors still too enthralled with conservative theory that almost always opposes tax increases of any sort? Is he so intent on his unnecessary goal of passing his economic stimulus plan with at least 20-25 Republican votes in the Senate that he will sacrifice good policy in order to obtain consensus?

Either way, it's a mistake that will harm the country. While the Democratic Congress should be working with the Obama White House as much as possible, it should also use its independent judgment as a separate branch of government to change Obama's policy in this regard.

Already, Obama's stimulus package is somewhat out of balance, with over 40% projected to go for individual and corporate tax cuts and less than 20% for infrastructure spending. This despite the fact that $100 billion in government spending is projected to increase GDP by approximately $150 billion dollars, $100 billion in individual tax rebates is projected to increase GDP by approximately $129 billion dollars, and a $100 billion in corporate tax cuts is projected to increase GDP by only $30 billion dollars. Since $150 billion dollars in increased GDP is projected to create an additional 1 million new jobs, a $100 billion corporate tax cut would create just 200,000 new jobs, a $100 billion temporary payroll tax cut would create about 860,000 new jobs, and $100 billion in new government spending would create about 1 million new jobs.

Moreover, all tax cuts are not created equal. The figures above show the significant differences in the job creation effect between corporate and individual tax cuts. I can't find exact figures on the difference in economic impact between individual tax cuts on poor and working families and those on the wealthiest 1%. But all economists agree that working families who live paycheck to paycheck will likely spend any tax cuts on goods and services, thus bolstering the economy, while the wealthiest Americans will likely save any tax cuts, thus providing almost zero economic stimulus.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/all-tax-cuts-are-not-crea_b_160910.html

[AllentownJake]

62. Obama never promised to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts

They expire in 2010 and I highly doubt they will be renewed by this congress or signed into renewal by a President Obama.

The corporate tax cuts I'll agree weren't there. However, corporations don't pay taxes when they don't make a profit. I don't know if you've been paying attention lately but the number of them actually making money outside McDonalds and Wal-Mart is falling.

[depakid]

65. errr....yes he did

if the point of the stimulus is to create jobs- and you believe progressive economists (who've been right time and time again) -tax cuts aren't going to do the job.

Now, if the poinjt is to pander to the right- and curry favor for campaign contributions down the line- then the motive is perfectly understandable.

Excepting of course- that if Obama's plan fails to revive the economy- due to his and Congress' pandering- he's unlikely to be re-elected in any case.

[AllentownJake]

66. During the General Election Obama send they would end

He refused to say whether or not he would directly urge their repeal or if he would simply allow them to expire in 2010.

I know because I knocked on doors and had to answer that question a few times.

[depakid]

67. Obama's plan called for people with taxable income over $250,000 to pay higher marginal rates

beginning in 2009.

That's ipso facto a repeal of Bush's tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

Now, it's arguable whether it would be wise to do that this year rather than next- but certainly before 2011, given the amount of money the stmulus will cost (on top of the already bursting federal deficit).

[AllentownJake]

69. Obama said various times through out the campaign

He was unsure whether or not to repeal or allow to expire.

That was the position we were given to say at doors and on the phones so I'll go by what was on the campaign instructions over the tax policy institute as to what Obama was saying.

[depakid]

70. The tax policy institute analyzed the details- that's what they do

Campaigning is necessarily a bit vaguer than that...;)

Congrats on that though- good to have had your boots on the ground!

It made a difference. Without it- we'd be arguing about MUCH worse.

[sandnsea]

84. It has a huge EIC tax cut

For working families who live paycheck to paycheck. I do not know why they are distorting this bill, but they are. I don't know what corporate tax cuts they're talking about either. Any time you give small business a tax cut, they can call it corporate because many small businesses are S Corporations.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/stimulus-tax-cuts.htm

[Undercurrent]

46. Nicely played, Mr. President!

It's called sacrificing a pawn.

Always put something on the table you know you can live without, then when you give it up your opponents think they won something! When in fact they didn't. LOL Well done!

These monies can be allocated in a different way. They will be, and they should be.

[AllentownJake]

53. Ahh someone on here who gets what they did

:toast:

[Undercurrent]

54. .

Nice to see you are hip to this sort of move too!

I'll see your pint, and raise you a fistbumb. :fistbump:

[AllentownJake]

55. Its amazing how few on here know how the legislative process works

One only has to look how the House and Senate Republicans played our leaders for 6 years to see that.

[geek tragedy]

85. How did rewarding Republican hissy-fits work out

over the past 8 years?

[depakid]

61. What I find AMAZING is how little some have learned over the past 8 years

which is only slightly less amazing than the extent that some will go to rationalize Demcratic capitulations that give ZERO in return, create BAD PUBLIC POLICY, and embolden the far right in the process.

It's a lose/lose sitution- just as the dozens and dozens of similar actions were before them.

[AllentownJake]

63. I'm sorry

I agree with the idea that is in the bill on birth control, however I have to agree which disgusts me with the right that I fail to see how this is part of the economic stimulus package.

So it was either there to give them something to take out or it was there foolishly.

[lamp_shade]

57. Yup.. very smart move. n/t

[Claire Beth]

68. You're exactly right...

It's good to see SOMEONE knows how politics work.

[babylonsister]

71. Exactly.

After all the moaning the rethugs have done over this, and then seeing Rep. Van Hollen interviewed yesterday (he had no defense for this bill being in the stimulus package), I figured it was destined to be a bone thrown to the rethugs, too. What will they bitch about now? No doubt, they'll find something.

[Proud-D]

78. Well played indeed!

"It's called sacrificing a pawn." I believe in the chess world that is called a gambit and so far President Obama seems to be playing Grand Master level political chess. His skilled and measured moves won him the Presidency and I think they will carry over into his first term. He did say in his inaugural speech that not everyone would agree with him all the time. It really is not fair for those on our side of the political spectrum to judge him harshly like some on this thread are when his first term is not even a month old yet. Leave the jumping to conclusions and early harsh judgments to the rightwing wackos I say.

[Clio the Leo]

89. 'xactly, NT

[Demi_Babe]

98. finally...someone who totally gets it!!!

[MadHound]

110. Nice to see how people around here think that women's reproductive rights are a "pawn"

And frankly, Obama sacrificed something that he didn't need to sacrifice. Let the goddamn 'Pugs wail and gnash their teeth, the fact of the matter is that they're not needed to pass legislation. However Obama seems to be foolishly fixated on this whole bipartisan schtick. All that remains to be seen is how much is Obama willing to sacrifice to get his precious bipartisanship? So far it's women's reproductive rights, what's next, the economy?

This is a stupid move, one that makes Obama and the Dems look weak. Fuck the 'Pugs and pass a good stimulus bill.

[MadBadger]

133. answer this honestly...what was it doing in the bill in the first place?

[MadHound]

134. Hmmm, producing more birth control products, which creates more jobs,

You don't think that's an economic stimulus? Not to mention the fact that by using birth control, many men and women won't have unwanted pregnancies, which can be a drag on the economy.

Besides, the point isn't whether or not this particular item was in there. It got thrown in, so now that it's in there (and don't forget, this is an important issue that needs to be addressed after eight years of abstinence only programs), Obama and the Democrats need to grow a set and stop caving to a group of people who are in the minority, who can't stop the bill, and whose actions have been proven to be destructive.

This whole reach out and work with the 'Pugs is doomed to failure. The 'Pugs are simply going to take it as a sign of weakness, and hold out for more, more, more in every bill from here on out, thus weakening and watering down laws and policies that shouldn't be weakened or watered down.

Fuck compromise with these idiots, why the hell do you think the American people not only voted Obama in, but gave the Democrats large majorities in Congress? It certainly wasn't to play political games with the 'Pugs, but rather to actually get things done.

[bdamomma]

149. very smart strategy there.

[bvar22]

154. That is great....

...except when YOU are the pawn.
The Democratic Party has been sacrificing the Liberal Wing (pawn) for 30 years.

Isn't it time to sacrifice someone else's pawn?

[AllentownJake]

50. Its called giving them a meaningless victory

It was put in the bill with no plan on ever actually being passed.

Standard negotiation tactic when your negotiating from a position of strength. You throw some things your opponents hate into a bill so that when you take it out they have something to crow about while in reality you never planned to have that in the bill originally.

I think that such a provision should exist however, I don't know if it belongs in an economic stimulus bill. I believe it was put in there as something the right could latch onto and can leave the economic portions of the stimulus untouched because they were spending all their time talking about family planning (which a majority of Americans support).

[acmavm]

64. Of course they did. This is just the beginning.

[GeorgeGist]

73. A far-sighted approach.

Future generations will need all those unplanned children to pay for the nonsense of two-faced partisans.

[RayOfHope]

76. "Okay, Obama skeptics: Now you can bash the crap out of him...."

You know, you should let Skinner know you want to change your username. Obama Skeptic suits you well.

[geek tragedy]

86. I stand up for him more than I criticize him.

I didn't go off on the Rick Warren thing.

But this sucks. It's a policy concession that will affect women's lives and he's doing it because the Republicans threw a hissy fit.

And, congratulations, now contraception is controversial. Heckuva job.

[Pike]

77. That is called

politics as usual. You didn't really think that President Obama wasn't going to play the game, did you?

[jefferson_dem]

79. "Now you can bash the crap out of him..."

That's really what you want, isn't it? Not surprising.

Instead, i'll see this for what it is - a single, small gesture, one minor pivot in what will be a mammoth economic policy debate...one concession worth making at this point. It's called...the policy-making process. Get real. Spare us the outrage.

[sohndrsmith]

82. Just a comment from someone who questions this issue from

a less political angle...

Imagine being an inadequately educated young (or not so young) woman... for whatever reason - with few prospects and less of a future. Imagine being without family, or having family that is too poor to offer support or a leg up out of poverty, much as they might want to.

Imagine making a small life for yourself, but it's not enough to keep you from being homeless, not enough to keep you from being sick. You apply for state health insurance, food stamps... you're denied - UNLESS you have dependent children.

I think the term "unwanted" pregnancies is a little too general and sometimes inaccurate, because I think many babies are born so that women (or families) in poverty can survive, or even live.

It's too bad we didn't have a system that could offer people with college or education or training when they don't have dependents - rather than make it the sole prerequisite for not going hungry, much less getting out of the vicious cycle of poverty and poor education (or lack of education).

What is going to add to this problem are the growing numbers of people falling from middle class into poverty, joblessness, homelessness...

I'm not making a judgment on right or wrong here, I'm just offering a scenario that I think is a very real problem - and decision - that many disadvantaged people, especially women, will often make in the absence of any other options.

[marshall]

83. Get Pelosi to lecture them, she had a great take on it

When she finally got around to explaining it, her notion that less children being born equals less mouths to feed, less sick kids to find health care for, etc. It should appeal to the Republicans who care primarily about the economics.

[Renew Deal]

87. This doesn't need to be in the stimulus bill, especially if it's going to hurt support

It doesn't really fit in. It should be passed separately on what will likely be a party line vote.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

94. You know what's disgusting?

The idea that just being poor means you are going to breed like rabbits. The idea that if you're poor you're too stupid to keep your legs closed or your pants zipped.

This provision should not have been part of this massive economic rescue plan bill. However, were I to play political chess I would have added this one just so the Repubs could complain about it, then drop it, thus eliminating their source of complaints, and letting the overall bill sail through. As others said, you sometimes have to sacrifice a pawn.

[geek tragedy]

100. Checkmate was November 4.

As I said, what happened to "I won?"

[bdamomma]

150. I would of said you already had your chance and you screwed up.

well maybe I would of just said you had your chance.

[northernlights]

103. that's just what I was thinking...

You stick a couple pawns in there for them to take out. The provision didn't sound like it really belonged in an emergency economic stimulus package. Not that it's not important. But it belongs somewhere else.

And as someone posted in here already, Obama can later make the needed change by executive order.

[florida08]

96. the now defunct GOP

will be fighting with the democrats and Obama for the next 4 years. This is just the start. They will have to pick their fights to keep the hearts and minds of the public. This one is just now worth it right now. The public is concerned about jobs and keeping their house right now. This can come in later once the economy starts to pick up.

[Shiver]

99. We have the votes to get this passed on its own

Or as part of a different bill. I hate that it was cut, but it was something that could be cut. As said up-thread, this was a bone thrown to the Repubs, dismantling one of their talking points against the bill.

It can pass on its own; we just have to make sure it becomes its own bill, or part of another one in the near future.

[Thrill]

107. No we don't. Cardin was just on MSNBC saying he wouldn't supported it

with that in the bill.

You seem to think Democrats in the Senate are just going to walk in lockstep. Its not going to happen

[Shiver]

109. I don't know Cardin's overall position on the matter

Did he specify if he was against it in general, or just against that item as part of the stimulus?

[Thrill]

111. He didn't think that it needed to be in a stimulus bill

[MilesColtrane]

135. self deleted

Because I can't read.

[Life Long Dem]

101. The Democrats had enough to pass this bill. But Obama wants more repubs.

Obama has proven to me over and over how clever he can be, and this is another one of those clever moments.

[Thrill]

108. No they didn't. Not in the Senate

[MilesColtrane]

Senate Republicans can prevent a vote on this bill if they want to.

Obama needs some Republicans on board for it to pass.

[Life Long Dem]

141. The point I'm making about Obama.

Is that he doesn't want "some" Republicans onboard, he wants as many as possible onboard and "that's" mostly what he is doing by speaking to the Republicans alone today.

[momto3]

102. He didn't "cave" on anything.

This is how the political game is played.

[TwilightGardener]

104. That's the way it works--you stick something in the bill, the opposition party

howls in protest, the majority party takes it right back out and calls it a big concession. Just politics. I'm sure the family-planning legislation will pop up again in a more suitable place.

[geek tragedy]

124. Except the opposition party isn't going to vote for it no matter

what. They will bitch and bitch and bitch and bitch and Obama needs to tell them to go fuck themselves.

[ClarkUSA]

114. He'll just put the $ somewhere else later. Chill out. You've got to give a little sometimes.

What's the big deal? Sorry, but I don't want him following in the footsteps of Bush/Cheney andf being an arrogant asshole
about getting his way 100% of the time.

[debbierlus]

116. DU has changed from a activists board to a fan board - didn't you get the message

There is plenty wrong with this bill yet I see little to no debate on DU about it.

I am going to write a much longer post about this issue in the next day or so.

Bipartisanship is the new word for screwing the people.

[firedupdem]

137. Make sure you are more informed than you were on your

inauguration cost post.

Anytime someone agree's with the President that "fan" bullshit comes up. People are entitled to different opinions.

[Shiver]

139. Did you read the bill?

[Shiver]

140. Did you read the bill?

[Lucky 13]

117. It's called a C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E.

Let the thugs get all upset about a minor issue, concede the one point, and viola! The bill passes!

Family-planning program will be worked into another bill later on.

THINK BIG PICTURE.

[geek tragedy]

123. The Republicans don't compromise. They're not going

to support this bill no matter what.

Obama needs to wake up and realize that Republicans in DC are the enemy, not friends who disagree.

[WI_DEM]

120. It's out of the stimulus but that doesn't mean he won't try to put it elsewhere.

[bdamomma]

151. and knowing Obama he will put it in another bill.

[Jennicut]

121. I'm sorry but I don't think this belongs in a bill about the economy either

It will become a grocery list of things that people want. This is a non issus. He compromised on one little thing. But if Rethugs want major tax plans overhauled I say forget it and I bet Obama will too. It will pass without them.

[Occam Bandage]

122. I'll side with the Republicans on this one. That should be passed, but in a separate bill.

It does absolutely nothing stimulative for the economy.

[jenmito]

127. It's not caving. It's taking away an excuse for them to oppose the bill. n/t

[high density]

132. Don't you put in things like this for bargaining?

Now Obama can say to the Repubes, "OK there you go, I capitulated. Feel better?" There's plenty of time to attack these issues under the appropriate header. What this has to do with stimulus is beyond me.

[AtomicKitten]

136. The legislation is still work in progress and this is premature micromanaging. n/t

[bdamomma]

143. that family provision will show up in another bill.

Boehner can go to hell.

[LynneSin]

146. I think it's smart to keep family planning out of this bill - as long as it's not neglected

I would rather have family planning as it's own separate issue brought before congress. I think this is an important issue and I would prefer the stimulus bill to NOT be hampered because of it.

Consider this: Doesn't matter what we do with the house - the republicans have no ability to stop this bill. However, we do not have enough democrats to prevent slowdown or even a filibuster in the senate. You put family planning in there and you might scare away a few republicans, especially those who have re-election bids coming up in 2010, away from voting for this bill. Leave Family Planning out of the bill and we can probably get this stimulus package off our plates and move on to more important things. Bring up Family Planning in it's own bill.

[demo dutch]

152. It should never have been included in this bill in the first place, save it for healthcare

[biopowertoday]

162. Top Dem: No comprehensive health reform this year

I have to wonder if it will get into the health bill---sure looks like that is on the back burner also.


Top Dem: No comprehensive health reform this year
Wed Jan-28-09 03:32 AM

Source: The Hill



By Bob Cusack
Posted: 01/25/09 04:05 PM


........"I would much rather see it done that way, incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can't chew. We've been down that road. I still remember 1994."

Clyburn was referring to President Clinton and Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, which failed to pass the Democratic Congress and helped Republicans gain control of Congress after the 1994 elections.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is
Top Dem: No comprehensive health reform this year battling brain cancer, has made it clear that he favors a comprehensive healthcare bill. When he gave up his seat on the Judiciary Committee late last year, Kennedy issued a statement that stressed his commitment to pass a universal coverage bill soon: "As chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I expected to lead a very full agenda in the <111th> Congress, including working with President Obama to guarantee affordable health care, at long last, for every American. This is the opportunity of a lifetime, and I intend to make the most of it."

Obama has not detailed his timetable for healthcare reform, but has emphasized that the recession will not stop him from launching his effort to revamp the healthcare system. The president has vowed to enact major healthcare reforms by the end of his first term............

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/citing-1994-clyburn-embraces-incremental-health-reform-2009-01-25.html

[Ikonoklast]

153. Nice to see the same old Obama bashers in this thread.

They still don't understand what is going on.

If you don't think the funding for family planning won't come back up in another bill, you just don't get it.

But, snipe away. It makes you look small.

[bvar22]

155. Yes !

The Democrats will "Fix It Later".
& they "will put in protections for taxpayers".

They have such a good track record for that!

I'm so glad you smart people are around to tell us not to worry.
I feel so much better.

[Bonobo]

157. Some people are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs, that's all I can say.

[sasquatch]

159. Dumber than whole tray of southern fried homemade stupid

[ElsewheresDaughter]

163. and they are going to vote no on the Stimulus Bill anyway...Rethugs won't unclinch their fists EVER

[marshall]

164. Obama is reeling "em in!

A year from now we'll be laughing at how he pulled this over on them.