The first in what no doubt will be a series of attempts to put Obama's slap-in-the-face moments in perspective. I'm told being contrarian is good for your career.
Reports indicate that Barack Obama has asked congressional Democrats to remove a provision from the stimulus package that would fund contraceptive programs through medicaid. Nicholas Beaudrot explains that it isn't a funding change so much as a cosmetic delay in the program; states can still access those funds but the bureaucratic procedure is more difficult. Ann Friedman makes the stark case that this is a bad idea.
Indeed, in pure policy terms the move is a bad decision -- making it easier for states to access medicare funds, for family planning or anything else, will improve their budgetary situations and prevent them from cutting social services, public jobs or raising taxes. And of course providing family planning funds is smart public health policy. Reproductive health advocates are angry about this, and rightly so.
Nonetheless, Obama apparently put some heavy personal pressure on Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the committee with jurisdiction of Medicaid, to take the provision out. It's the first time he's really put the screws to a House Dem, so presumably the new administration sees some political benefit in the decision. Despite a general consensus that the stimulus package as a whole is good policy, even with its high price tag, Republicans are seeking any argument they can to oppose it. First they tried tax cuts, but Obama made 40 percent of the package tax cuts, some of which are actually beneficial; some of which are sops to business.
Now the opposition is trying to demagogue the contraception issue with people like House Minority Leader John Boehner going on TV and misrepresenting the goals of the policy. After pulling the provision, the Obama team has the opportunity to say, "Ok, we listened, and we changed it. Hope that's the only problem you had with the bill, because we're not changing anything else." Of course, this strategy is undercut if the White House or congressional Dems give in on anything else. My colleagues here at TAP are already predicting that other provisions will go -- probably a safe bet -- but I'm a dreamer. I may be the only one.
In any case, Republicans look increasingly petty if they argue over other provisions in the bill after staking their case on contraception. One of the reasons they had to do it, and why Obama is smart to call their bluff, is that it's the only argument they have -- the Republican stimulus counter-proposal was all tax cuts, including capital gains tax cuts, that don't make any economic sense during a recession. The more they fixate on individual provision in the bill, the more petty a good media strategy can make them look.
Of course, many Republicans will likely vote against this bill no matter what, leading some -- and I count myself in this camp -- to argue that Obama, and the Democrats, should really just put together the best bill he can, ram it through, and take credit for what he can get. But that's clearly not his strategy, and given the results of that strategy during Bush administration's middle-years, maybe that's a good thing. Now the question is how many Republicans can be brought over to make this gambit worthwhile. If Obama can show enough good faith to split the Republican caucus, he's won an important battle. This all may be an attempt to test the party discipline of the GOP's legislators. Matt worries that Obama isn't getting anything in return for these concessions, but it's way too early to know how rank-and-file GOPers will vote when the bill comes up, and if they're leaning towards supporting the bill, they're not going to say anything publicly and give their leaders time to put the screws in.
Another option: This is all a mutt-and-jeff plan, and House Dems will put the provision back in. Obama can go wide-eyed to the public, disappointed in Congress' dislike of bipartisanship, and then cheerfully sign the bill. It's also possible that the Medicaid family-planning provision will be re-inserted in the Senate version of the legislation, or come up in a stand-alone bill soon, so this policy isn't dead, merely delayed. It's also a lesson that we need to expect congressional Dems -- and progressives outside of government -- to keep steady and loud pressure on Obama to make good decisions.
The ultimate take-away here is that governing is a messy and oft-disappointing business.
-- Tim Fernholz
