Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

kf Spins the Illinois-5 Results

kf, Unions Don't Deliver: In the free-for-all race to fill Rahm Emanuel's House seat, the Service Workers International Union (SEIU) backed one candidate. The AFL-CIO backed another. They both lost! So, unfortunately, did Tom Geoghegan. ... P.S.: An endorsement from the dead tree Tribune still seems to be worth a lot. ... [via NewsAlert] 1:53 A.M.

___________________________

Et Tu, Baucus?

Mike Allen buries the lede:

In the end, Obama believes, forward motion on his agenda matters more than any details.

“Even if we’re busting the budget, we’ve got to solve some of these problems,” said a member of his inner circle. “I’d rather live with a debt than have people go without health care.” [E.A.]

Aha. ... And here I almost believed Obama's health care plans were all about lowering costs and getting the budget under control. ... 2:48 P.M.

___________________________

HuffPo 1, NYT 0: Sam Stein on the possibility of Dem Senate defections on "card check." Don't tell NYT designated labor spinnee Steven Greenhouse!
 

A senior official involved in getting EFCA passed into law said he was underwhelmed but not surprised by the support being offered for this union priority from the White House ...

P.S.--J-School Extra Credit Assignment: Compare Stein's article, in the biased, amateur-filled Huffington Post, with Greenhouse's article in the venerable and highly professional New York Times. They aren't in the same ballpark in terms of a) sophistication and b) reporting on the actual situation. Could Greenhouse even get a job at HuffPo? ... P.P.S.: Stein's story could serve a pro-labor function, of course, by focusing union-led pressure on potential defectors Bayh, Landrieu, Baucus, and Nelson. ... 12:26 P.M.

___________________________

Up-to-the-second twitters on the Illinois-5 Congressional race: Geoghegan's been endorsed by the prestigious Hideout bar. ... 12:12 P.M. 

___________________________

It's good to spend more on health care

I'm for Geoghegan, but Sirota? In an email, David Sirota overcomes his "unease" at self-promotion and modestly campaigns for an MSNBC show (the 10:00 slot). He's doing it for "the issues"! ("[I]t would make a huge difference"). ... FYI: See here. ... 1:15 A.M.

___________________________

Don't focus on health care costs! ... 12:50 A..M.

___________________________

kf Resorts to Homespun Metaphors

Monday, February 23, 2009

Go Geoghegan, Beat SEIU: The liberal magazine writer's favorite Congressional candidate--former liberal magazine writer (turned labor lawyer) Tom Geoghegan--is still in the hunt in the wild, multi-candidate, low-turnout race to succeed Rahm Emanuel in Chicago's Fifth District. Geoghegan's been endorsed by everyone from James Fallows to Rick Hertzberg--and he still has a shot to win. That's in part because he's also been endorsed by influential non-eggheads like ex-Rep. Abner Mikva. ... I like Geoghegan too, not because I agree with him on most issues (though I do) but because it would be great to have him in Congress. I've known and admired him for decades. He's the opposite of a hack--a big-thinking reformer who wants to actually solve the country's problems rather than pass a few little bills and get himself reelected. He knows exactly what's wrong with conventional liberalism, even as he runs to the "left" of the field--maybe that's even the reason he runs to the left. ... He's funny. He's even elegant, in a rumpled, narrow-lapel way--so Sean Penn will be happy. ... My main dispute with Tom concerns his fierce defense of traditional American labor unionism--he supports "card check"--which is why I'm not completely distressed that his biggest obstacle seems to be the support of Andy Stern's Blagojevichist Service Employees International Union for one of his more conventional opponents, state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz. ... The S.E.I.U. is spending $250,000 in last-minute Feigenholtz ads. The election is Tuesday. The only way Geoghegan can raise money to fight back at this point is on the Web. If you want, you can donate to his campaign here. ...

Update: US News' Michael Barone endorses, but stops short of fundraising. (Ethics!) He says Geoghegan is "intelligent, intellectually honest, idealistic."

He's way, way to the left of me on issues, but, hey! it's a heavily Democratic district, and it would be helpful to have an intellectually honest Democrat in the not intellectually very venturesome House Democratic Caucus.

11:00 P.M.

___________________________

Sometimes you have to sell your old car to buy a new one: Robert Kuttner argues

a) there's no need to cut Social Security because "Social Security's accounts are actually near long-term balance." Let's assume that's right (though last time I looked, the accepted liberal "fix" for Social Security, co-authored by current OMB chief Peter Orszag, was more unpleasant than I'd thought). Kuttner also says that

b) what we really need to do is establish "comprehensive universal health insurance." Assume that's right too.

What I don't understand is why Kuttner assumes that (a) and (b) don't have anything to do with each other. Universal health insurance will be expensive. Why can't we get some of the expense by cutting into Social Security--especially Social Security for the affluent? Just because Social Security might be in "near" balance doesn't mean that it's in a watertight compartment sealed off from the rest of the budget. Money is fungible. If liberals can save a few hundred billion from the Social Security pot and use it to fill up their new, much-needed universal health insurance pot, that might be a good thing to do. It's the sort of thing responsible governments, like responsible households, are supposed to do. Why should it be off the table? .... P.S.: I'm not saying we should cut Social Security now. But that's because we'll cut it much more sharply later, if Dems (as I hope) get their health insurance wish, at which point even people like Kuttner will be desperate for any and all forms of revenue. ... 10:15 P.M.

___________________________

kf Goes In the Tank

I saw my friend and Slate contributor Tom Geoghegan speak in L.A. at a fundraiser for his Congressional run.** He wasn't as good as I expected. He was much better. The joy of Geoghegan is that he usually has a big interesting new theory, often a (dare I say it) contrarian one.  He can be earnest, but that's soon subverted by a fleeting isn't-this-all-absurd smile. What I didn't expect is that he'd be tightly focused--paring his pitch down to three points. You can hear them here. At least two of them aren't things you'll find in the official Ambitious Dem Playbook.. ... Plus he's able to disagree with his audience in an agreeable way, a non-trivial gift ...  Plus he only mentioned "card check" once. ... P.S.: Katha Pollitt got it right, I think, when she said that Geoghegan could be the next Paul Wellstone--meaning a left-liberal who's liked and respected by those to his right (i.e.,everyone). ... Reminder: Geoghegan is pro-union but he's well aware of the deficiencies of "interest group liberalism." ...
**-- I gave $250. ... 1:59 A.M.
___________________________

That welfare-expanding provision remains in the Senate stimulus compromise, alas, the language of which has now been released.  (You can read it here.) I can't help but think that if even a few Republicans squawked the potentially damaging publicity might force the Dems to drop it or at least rewrite it (to fund hard hit states, for example, whether or not they expand their welfare caseloads). ... Update: The New York Times gives the game away by explicitly calling for "rolling back work requirements" in an editorial endorsing the stimulus welfare provision. These are people who never liked welfare reform's work requirements in the first place. ... 1:16 A.M.

___________________________