MOTIONING TO PROCEED.... Going into today, Senate Democrats had lined up 58 votes in support of bringing health care reform to the floor for debate. Every Republican in the chamber hoped to kill the initiative before the discussion could even begin, and two center-right Southern Dems remained on the fence.

This afternoon, one of the two made the right call...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hopes of pushing ahead with a sweeping health reform plan got a boost Saturday when Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said she will vote to start debate.

"My vote today to move forward on this important debate should in no way to be construed as ... an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end," she warned in comments on the Senate floor. "It is a vote to move forward.... But much more work needs to be done."

...and about two hours later, the other followed suit.

Senate Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said Saturday she will support bringing the Senate health care reform bill to the floor for debate, giving Democrats the 60 votes they need to prevent a Republican filibuster.

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I believe it is important to begin this debate," she said. "This issue is very complex. There is no easy fix," she said in making her announcement on the Senate floor, just hours before Saturday night's 8 p.m. procedural vote.

Barring any extraordinary surprises, there are now 60 votes to bring health care reform to the floor for a debate, at which point plenty of amendments will be considered. It's the first key procedural hurdle -- the vote is still scheduled for 8 p.m. -- and senators will begin the next phase of the process a week from Monday.

Pay particular attention to the talk about public option "triggers," which lingers despite opposition from the left and right. Brian Beutler reports this afternoon that Landrieu told reporters "she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) -- the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates -- has been tasked as a point man on the issue."

A variety of conversations have been underway this week, most of them surrounding Sen. Tom Carper (D) of Delaware, who's been working on various public-option compromises for months. Carper has been talking to Landrieu, Schumer, and even Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) about some kind of deal. Given the nature of the discussions, it's safe to assume the deal will include a public option provision that's even weaker than the one currently in the Senate plan.

With that in mind, we'll likely run into the same dilemma that's been apparent for quite a while -- keep the public option and the reform bill will likely die because center-right Dems won't accept it; compromise even more on the public option and the reform bill will likely die because center-left Dems won't accept it.

Expect plenty of arm-twisting, deal-making, needle-threading, and legal bribery in the near future*.

* updated

HOW STIMULATING.... Republican critics of the economic recovery efforts, when they're not taking credit for the money that's benefiting their state/district, take it as a given that the stimulus "failed." For the right, it's a foregone conclusion, hardly worth discussing anymore.

The New York Times reminds us today that "dispassionate analysts" agree that a fair look at the stimulus package shows that it may be "messy" but it's also "working."

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama's promise to "save or create" about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

"It was worth doing -- it's made a difference," said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: "I don't think it's right to look at it by saying, 'Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn't work.' I'm afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus."

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years -- longer for major construction -- considering the probable length of the "jobless recovery" under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.

Obviously, a bigger investment would have meant a bigger return. The $787 billion package would have been more ambitious if the Senate operated on majority rule, and even White House economists have conceded that the stimulus bill should have been larger to accommodate the size of the hole in the economy. That aid to states had to be curtailed to bring on GOP votes continues to undermine the effectiveness of the strategy.

But on the whole, we're talking about a recovery package that saved us from a wholesale economic collapse. Conservative Republicans -- who've been wrong about every major economic challenge of the last generation -- who whine bitterly about the stimulus are, as is usually the case, misguided.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers from both parties, added, "[T]he stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do -- it is contributing to ending the recession." Zandi added that without the recovery bill, the "G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus."

Left unsaid is what the economic consequences would have been if we'd listened to congressional Republicans -- 95% of whom voted for a truly insane five-year spending freeze at the height of the downturn.

Politically, however, the stimulus has proven problematic -- much of the public is convinced it didn't work, since the economy is still struggling. The more effort the White House invests in explaining reality, the better.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a push among conservative political activists on something called "imprecatory" prayers, which are basically appeals to God to hurt, or possibly kill, a specific target.

It's become an offensive political development, because a growing number of right-wing outlets are praying for something bad to happen to President Obama. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield had this report on BeliefNet this week. (thanks to reader K.P. for the heads-up)

Any time the citizens of a state, particularly a democracy, invoke their faith to pray for the demise of those they oppose politically, we should be concerned. When the call for such prayers becomes one of the most popular Google searches in the country, we should shake, especially those of us who believe in God, prayer and the Bible. Psalm 109, verse 8, went viral this morning in just that way.

Among the world's top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words "Psalms 109 8", and "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama". For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads "May his days be few, may another take over his position." And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".

In fact, the entire chapter is about the prayer for death of an evil person. Not to mention that anyone who knows enough Bible to have thought about this verse in particular, surely knows the entire chapter and appreciates its message. Pretty scary stuff.

All this is especially upsetting in light of the last weeks' events at Fort Hood. Exactly how long is it going to take us to figure out the danger of linking faith claims and violent fantasies?

A few too many on the right have begun taking this very seriously, putting "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" -- prayers, in other words, for something awful to happen to the president -- onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, and even teddy bears. It's a bit of a dog whistle -- the typical person who sees it might think it's simply a prayer in support of the president, but a closer look makes the malicious intent clear.

Frank Schaeffer told Rachel Maddow this week that the right-wing activists embracing this lurid nonsense are dangerous, threatening, and "genuinely frightening."

The more people in faith communities speak out against this nauseating hatred, the better.

Also from the God Machine this week: A large group of evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders have teamed up to promote something called the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." As the NYT reported, the signers of the document agree that "they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples."

The "Manhattan Declaration" is intended, at least in part, to signal the relevance of the religious right movement, and declare that those involved with the project will be unyielding on issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, and stem-cell research.

A friend of mine was on hand for the D.C. event unveiling the Declaration, and asked a good question: "The divorce rate is 50 percent. Earlier, Mr. [Chuck] Colson indicated that fatherlessness impacts the prison population. Is anyone here willing to state, for the record, that divorce is a bigger threat to the American family than same-sex marriage?"

The speakers didn't want to touch it. Imagine that.

OBAMA IN ASIA.... All week, administration officials have expressed a great deal of satisfaction with President Obama's trip to Asia. And all week, U.S. reporters have told the country that the trip has been unproductive and unsuccessful. It's probably worth taking a moment to note who's right.

For its part, the White House seems genuinely pleased. In the president's weekly address, Obama touted the importance of the trip, and explained why his efforts in Asia will pay dividends domestically. "I traveled to Asia to open a new era of American engagement," the president said, before pointing to progress on national security, climate change, human rights, trade, and economic development.

Likewise, U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, explained yesterday that there's been an important disconnect between U.S. media reports on the trip and reality. "I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier. "I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings."

James Fallows noted this morning:

Two colleagues with different perspectives -- from each other's, and sometimes from my own -- marvel at how badly the mainstream American press distorted the picture of what happened during Barack Obama's just-ended tour of Asia. [...]

We're all familiar with one "crisis of the press," the business collapse. This is a different kind of crisis, though it makes the business crisis worse: the distortion of reality by compressing every complex issue into the narrative of the DC-based "horse race."

Fallows quoted one journalist, with extensive experience covering foreign policy, saying, "Even through a veil of censorship and propaganda, the Chinese people managed a clearer view of Obama's visit than the U.S. media did."

But just think of how many fascinating reports there were this week on Obama bowing!

Please.

As far as I can tell, U.S. political reporters covering the trip looked at this as if it were a campaign. The notion that the president may have been laying the diplomatic groundwork for future progress was completely lost, and incremental progress was ignored.

This was an important week for the administration. It's a shame we don't have a media establishment equipped to report on it.

ALL HE IS SAYING, IS GIVE ESCALATION A CHANCE.... I'll take, "People whose opinions should no longer matter" for $100, Alex. (via Atrios)

US Senator John McCain predicted an allied win in Afghanistan in one year to 18 months if sufficient troops are sent, as the White House mulls sending tens of thousands of reinforcements. [...]

"I am absolutely convinced and totally confident that with sufficient resources we can turn the situation around," McCain told reporters at an international defense summit in easternmost Canada.

"I even am bold enough to predict that in a year to 18 months you will see success if the effort is sufficiently resourced and there is a commitment to get the job done before setting a date to leave the region," he said.

McCain didn't get around to explaining why his perspective on this should have any salience at all, which is a shame. I'd love to hear why anyone should take him seriously on the subject.

Keep in mind, as recently as a year ago, McCain rejected talk of sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. He later changed his mind, and then changed it back. The seriousness with which McCain took U.S. policy in Afghanistan became clear when the senator endorsed the notorious "muddle through" strategy.

But of particular interest right now, it'll be great to hear McCain flesh out this position in more detail. In 12 to 18 months, he says, the U.S. will "see success" in Afghanistan, but only if an additional 40,000 troops are on the ground. But what does "success" mean? Gen. McChrystal has said largely the opposite -- that the mission may very well fail even with an escalation.

McCain has long loved bumper-sticker-style slogans as a substitute for actual thinking about foreign policy. But that's all the more reason to press further. What does "get the job done" mean? What can 108,000 soldiers do that 68,000 soldiers have not? If escalation is the key to success, why has McCain resisted troop increases in the past?

Inquiring minds want to know.

IF THEY'VE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS.... On Fox News yesterday, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) explained, in no uncertain terms, that "every single Republican" in the Senate "will oppose" health care reform. Kyl conceded that the reform bill may change before a final floor vote, but every Republican already realizes that the legislation "will only get worse."

Since it's his job to keep track of such things, Kyl's declaration is probably accurate. Indeed, it's not the least bit surprising -- the far-right Minority Whip has made similar declarations before.

But Kyl's affirmation led Sam Stein to raise a good point. If the entire Senate Republican caucus has already decided to oppose the bill, no matter what changes might be made, then why should anyone care that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants six weeks of debate?

...Kyl's prophecy of across-the-board opposition does seem to undercut that other GOP tactic. Why do Senate Republicans need six weeks to debate and consider the legislation if they're already determined to vote against it?

"We know it's been in Harry Reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators haven't seen it," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" last week. "I think we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had."

And why, for that matter, are Senate Republicans complaining about a limited three-day window to read the legislation if they have already come to a final verdict on its contents?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that GOP demands for six weeks of debate has very little to do with genuine interest in good-faith deliberations, and everything to do with pointless delay tactics. Call it a hunch.

Here's hoping Senate Democratic leaders ignore Republican pleas for more time to attack a bill the minority has already decided to oppose en masse.

AS IF STANDISH HASN'T SUFFERED ENOUGH.... Few communities have been as hard hit by the recession as Standish, Michigan. With an unemployment rate for nearly 25%, Standish's economy has been kept above water, barely, by the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility. The prison generates one-fourth of the revenue for the town's budget and is easily the largest employer.

In June, the state announced it would have to close Standish Max, and the struggling town realized things were poised to go from dreadful to abysmal. In August, however, there was a glimmer of hope -- the Obama administration was considering the prison as a location for Gitmo detainees. Most locals were thrilled at the prospect of a lifeline, and area politicians, from both parties, hoped desperately that Standish would be selected.

But then the right-wing politicians decided to intervene. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), who's inexplicably running for governor next year, decided he'd fight to prevent the White House from "bringing terrorists to Michigan." This week, Liz Cheney's new political operation kept the demagoguery going.

Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, has released a short documentary starring several residents of little Standish, Michigan, slamming the Obama administration over a proposal to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to the town's maximum security facility, one of several facilities being discussed.

The vid ... ominously warns that unnamed "politicians" want Gitmo detainees placed in their "small farm town," without saying who the politicians are or whether they're Federal or local. A resident says those politicians "aren't listening to us little people in Standish."

But Standish's City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney's efforts as "fearmongering."

Cheney is "certainly not representing the views of our community," the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.

Standish's city council recently approved a resolution encouraging the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the prison. The vote was unanimous. It's almost as if local officials think they understand what their community needs better than Liz Cheney does. The nerve.

For more on this, Chris Bodenner had a terrific item on the Standish issue last month. It noted that, thanks to Republican efforts, the community will probably not be chosen by the administration. The community will suffer terribly, but Hoekstra will no doubt claim "victory" for taking away the struggling town's last hope.

HARDHEADED ON HARDBALL.... During last year's presidential campaign, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had some annoying habits. Particularly when it came to sizing up Barack Obama, the "Hardball" host repeatedly questioned whether the candidate was disconnected from regular ol' America.

For example, Obama ordered orange juice in a Pennsylvania diner, and Matthews complained ad nauseum -- real Americans order coffee at a diner, not o.j. When Obama demonstrated poor bowling skills, Matthews whined incessantly about Obama's alleged difficulties in making a "regular connection."

By April, Matthews argued on the air that Obama's appeal may be limited to "people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees," but not with "regular people." It was an observation that was offensive on multiple levels.

And yesterday, the MSNBC host re-embraced the talk that made "Hardball" largely unwatchable for most of the campaign. "President Obama has his chin out on just about every hot issue out there," Matthews told viewers, adding, "Health care. Terror trials. Job losses.... Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front-man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world, so they could tell their story?"

Remember, when conservatives attack MSNBC as in the tank for the administration, they count Matthews as a liberal partisan.

It's a challenge to respond to this nonsense quickly; Matthews said a lot of dumb things in a short period of time. But it's worth noting that Obama isn't "leading with his chin"; he's tackling the issues in front of him. That's what presidents do. Obama bowed to the Japanese emperor as a matter of protocol, and no one cares except the media establishment. Obama isn't "dithering" -- though it's good to know Chris Matthews is willing to read directly from Dick Cheney's script -- he's crafting a forward-thinking U.S. policy, which is what Bush/Cheney should have done a long time ago.

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isn't being invited to NYC for story-telling -- he'll be on trial for mass murder.

As for the general nonsense about "eggheads," anti-intellectualism, alas, remains alive and well.

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Still no word from Sens. Landrieu and Lincoln as to whether they'd rather kill health care reform than let the Senate debate the bill. Landrieu said she'd end the suspense in the morning.

* Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) gets a provision he was looking for: "Senate Democratic leaders have amended their newly released health reform bill to include a contentious provision allowing some workers to receive cash vouchers toward exchange coverage in lieu of enrolling in employer-based plans."

* It's encouraging to see Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, two top ranking officials from the Bush Justice Department, defend the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in an NYC criminal court.

* The House passed the "Doc Fix" last night, on a 243 to 183 vote. House Republicans were for it before they were against it.

* A slap on the wrist: "The Senate ethics committee on Friday issued a sternly worded rebuke to Senator Roland Burris of Illinois, saying he had made misleading and inaccurate statements about the circumstances surrounding his appointment by disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich. But it made no recommendation for punishment."

* Did Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) knowingly violate Senate ethics rules? Probably.

* The University of California probably didn't intend to be one of the most expensive in the country, and yet, here we are.

* Systemic change doesn't happen over night: "Narratives will always be with us, but it would be nice if they could at least be tenuously based on reality.... [T]he 'silver tongued orator' narrative has really been plucked out of nowhere. Yes, Obama is a good speaker, but there's zero evidence that his administration or his governing style is based on this in any significant way. Just the opposite, in fact. So knock it off, folks."

* Impeachment is still a possibility for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R).

* I argued yesterday that it takes a lot of nerve for Karl Rove to criticize the White House for releasing bad news on Friday afternoons. Media Matters fleshes the point out in more detail.

* If Dick Armey goes around saying "read the bill," mantra like, he should probably take the time to read the bills he criticizing.

* Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), still not very bright.

* Stephen Colbert and David Letterman seem mildly concerned that President Obama is cooler than they are.

* And in Utah, state Sen. Chris Buttars (R), one of the nation's more notorious homophobic bigots, explained a little bit about his worldview this week. "I meet with the gays here and there," Buttars said. "They were in my house two weeks ago. I don't mind gays. But I don't want 'em stuffing it down my throat all the time."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PLAYING A GAME WITH ELLIPSES.... Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), who is considered a vulnerable House incumbent next year, voted against health care reform two weeks ago. She'd been under fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee, and when push came to shove, Kosmas sided with the GOP on the bill.

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell wrote a column recently about how Kosmas' vote didn't stop the Republican attacks.

Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill. But she also backed the National Republican Congressional Committee into a corner ... at least she would have if the party hacks had any shame or integrity.

For months, the NRCC had been sending out releases, asking whether Kosmas had the courage to do the right thing (in its mind anyway) and stand up to "Pelosi's health-care takeover."

Well, she did. She voted against it.

This apparently confused the simpletons at the NRCC, who don't know how to do anything but gripe. So now, they are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted. So they still hate her.

Why anyone pays attention to these petulant partisans who couldn't care less about Central Florida issues is beyond me. In fact, I'm hearing from more and more Republicans -- including respected ones contemplating congressional campaigns -- that the NRCC's incessant whining makes the whole party look like amateur hour.

Jason Linkins, however, noted what the National Republican Campaign Committee did with the column, when the NRCC embraced it as their own. The Republicans' press release read:

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell notes that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas --far from covering her political bases with a 'NO' vote on Pelosi's healthcare bill -- continues to get hit from both sides:

"Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill...[and Republicans] are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted."

Got that? Maxwell blasted Republicans for being "party hacks" and "simpletons," with no "shame or integrity," who engage in such "petulant" partisanship "incessant whining" that the "the whole party look like amateur hour." And the National Republican Congressional Committee nevertheless thought this column was good for them, and eliminated the pesky criticism with some creatively placed ellipses.

The moral of the story: don't trust NRCC press releases.

NORAH O'DONNELL'S REASONABLE QUESTION.... A clip made the rounds this week of MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell appearing live in Michigan, at a bookstore where Sarah Palin fans had lined up to get their copy of "Going Rogue" signed. The video seems to have become a little more interesting as the week went on.

If you haven't seen it, O'Donnell starts interviewing random folks waiting in line, eventually coming across a young woman with a t-shirt that slams the financial industry bailout from last year. O'Donnell asks the young woman, named Jackie, whether she realizes that Sarah Palin actually endorsed the bailout. "Where'd you hear that?" the Palin fan asked.

In the same exchange, asked specifically what she likes about the former governor, the fan said something about Palin's approach to the Constitution (the response was eerily reminiscent of an item in The Onion this week).

Now, I know this made for some easy mockery, but I'm inclined to cut the young woman a fair amount of slack. It's easy to get flustered during a national television interview, especially if you're not prepared. She's just 17, and anyone can appear foolish in such a situation.

But since the segment aired, conservative activists have lashed out at O'Donnell for asking Palin fans if they know anything substantive about Palin. Worse, Jackie personally decided to blast "the liberal media and their crafty schemes." She called O'Donnell a "buffoon" who asked "a gotcha question."

Nothing erases sympathy faster than cheap nonsense. Jackie wore an anti-bailout t-shirt to a Palin event, and got asked a question about Palin and the bailout. This is hardly the result of a "crafty scheme." It's not O'Donnell's fault the young woman has a limited understanding of her hero's record.

And that record is unambiguous. As Dave Weigel noted earlier, Palin really did endorse the bailout at the time, and did so again in "Going Rogue" (page 270).

It's hardly beyond the pale to ask Palin's anti-bailout supporters about this. So what's with all the whining?

TRENT FRANKS' SHORT MEMORY.... Six years ago this month, the floor of the U.S. House was the scene to one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of the institution. It was when the Republican majority brought Medicare Part D up for a vote.

GOP lawmakers saw Medicare's long-term finances as a problem, and decided to make matters worse with a new drug benefit. Every penny of the program -- which costs hundreds of billions of dollars -- was simply thrown onto the deficit, and Republicans were deliberately lied to about the cost (the Bush administration literally threatened officials who considered telling Congress the true price tag).

When the vote was scheduled, the bill was defeated -- so GOP leaders kept the vote open for hours, bribing members to change their minds. Humiliated, Republicans demanded that the C-SPAN cameras be turned off, so Americans couldn't watch the soul-crushing antics.

Bruce Bartlett reflects on this today, calling it "one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history." Of particular interest is Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, one of just three Republicans who were convinced to switch their votes, from Nay to Aye.

Like all Republicans, [Franks] has vowed to fight [health care reform] with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction -- the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured -- which is deficit-neutral -- somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.

It's easy to forget -- some of us would like to block the memories from our minds -- but the Republican majority in Congress from 2003 through 2006 was so comically awful, it made many reasonable observers question whether the American experiment was really a good idea. The vote on Part D was a genuine embarrassment to the institution.

With that in mind, seeing Franks whine now, after having switched his vote six years ago, is a reminder of the ridiculous amount of chutzpah some of these members have. Just shameless.

COBURN'S CRAVENNESS.... Sen. Tom Coburn, a right-wing Republican from Oklahoma, is apparently not above callous opportunism. He saw headlines about mammogram screening, headlines about a proposed tax on elective cosmetic surgery, and in his drive to kill health care reform, decided to combine some disparate talking points.

[Yesterday], Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who is a physician and staunchly opposed to this legislation, suggested on the Senate floor that a woman would be taxed if she had breast reconstruction surgery following cancer.

"In this bill is a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery," Coburn said. "Just yesterday -- the day before yesterday, U.S. preventive task forces, services, recommended because it's not cost effective that women under 50 not get mammograms unless they have risk factors. Well, you tell that to the thousands of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer lat last -- last year under 50 with a mammogram. You tell them it's not cost effective. Also in this bill is a 5% tax on the breast reconstruction surgery after they had a mastectomy. They're going to tax having your breast rebuilt after your breast is taken off because it is elective plastic surgery. It is elective cosmetic surgery. We're going to have a tax on it because we've taxed elective cosmetic surgery. We're in trouble as a nation because we've taken our eye off the ball."

As Republican lies on health care go, this one's pretty despicable.

For one thing, Coburn doesn't understand what the Preventive Services Task Force said -- the mammogram recommendation had to do with research-based standards, not cost.

More important, though, the legislation's provision on a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery clearly excludes procedures for those with congenital abnormalities, disfiguring diseases, or traumatic injuries. Anyone requiring reconstructive surgery resulting from accidents or diseases would be exempt.

There is no "5% tax on the breast reconstruction surgery after they had a mastectomy." Coburn's making it up, hoping no one notices how offensive his lying really is.

Ruth Marcus asked the other day, "You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?"

It's a question that will be coming up again and again.

CLOTURE WATCH.... Senate Democrats need 60 votes to bring health care reform to the floor for a debate. As of this morning, three Dems -- Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) -- had not yet committed to letting the Senate consider the legislation.

As of this afternoon, one of the three made the right call: Nelson will vote with the majority. In a statement, the conservative Democrat concluded:

"In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion -- needing 60 votes -- to end debate, and oppose the final bill.

"But I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the health care system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so."

Nelson may, in other words, slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans some other time, just not tomorrow night.

Landrieu hasn't made any official announcements, but she made some comments that suggest she's already looking ahead to the next stage of the debate. "I have leverage now, I'm using it to the best of my ability, I'm going to use it on the Senate floor," Landrieu said. If the senator doesn't think the bill is going to the Senate floor, she probably wouldn't say this.

Lincoln continues to be the most cryptic of the group. Earlier today, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters that Lincoln had told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) how she intends to vote. Lincoln's office quickly said that wasn't the case, and that the senator was still reviewing the bill.

Truth be told, especially after Nelson's statement, it's hard to imagine a lone Democratic senator siding with Republicans to block a debate on health care reform, effectively strangling reform in the crib. But when center-right Dems feel panicky, they become unpredictable.

THE DANGERS OF ILLITERACY.... OK, so most Americans have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the deficit. How are they when it comes to understanding stimulus efforts? Arguably, on this, they're even worse.

Rasmussen has a new poll showing a 51% majority believes cancelling the economic recovery efforts would "create more jobs." Derek Thompson, flabbergasted, characterized these beliefs as "insane."

It's one thing to say that canceling the rest of the stimulus money would help our deficit. That's arguable, even if I think it's dead wrong, since the best way to help our deficit is to put people back to work when demand is nonexistent so that they (1) receive taxable income and (2) spend that taxable income on products to help other people's taxable income. [...]

The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html

So this is a crazy statistic, but I think it's important to ask why Americans think the stimulus is actually hurting job-creation.

It's a good question, and your guess is as good as mine. Chances are, it's not just one thing. Part of the confusion is likely the result of an electorate that doesn't quite understand the basics, and is therefore easily misled by the same people who got us in this mess. Part of it comes from a media that hasn't made much of an effort to explain the basics. And part of the problem has to be politicians -- one party believes Hoover was right about the Great Depression, and the other party is afraid to talk about how government spending and intervention prevented a wholesale economic collapse.

Regardless of the cause, the consequences of widespread confusion and ignorance can be, and may turn out to be, devastating. If most Americans believe government spending undermines job creation, and are convinced that short-term deficit reduction is more important than economic growth, they're more likely to vote for arsonists to put out the fire.

The surest way to make things even worse is to reward those who created the problem in the first place.