TPMDC
Rahm: Health Care Will Come After Jobs And Bank Regs
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Share
Send to a friend!
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has told the New York Times that health care will have to wait until after legislation aimed at creating jobs and regulating banks.
Emanuel said he hopes Congress will take up a jobs bill next week and then turn to President Obama's plan to tax banks to help pay for the TARP program. Then, after looking at an overhaul of financial regulations, they'll turn to health care.
"All these things start and lead to one place: J-O-B-S," he said.
Senior Adviser David Axelrod told TPMDC yesterday that it would be "a great political mistake" to walk away from health care -- but he didn't offer a timeline.
"When heads cool a little we will decide the best way to move forward," he said. "We haven't transitioned away from it ... we are going to take the steps we think hold out the most promise to getting this done."
Obama wants Congressional Democrats to "go back at it soon," Axelrod said.
Comments (29) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Moose49
January 29, 2010 9:13 AM
There is no good reason why they couldn't get health care reform through with the combination of a reconciliation measure and the House passing the Senate bill within the next two to three weeks, leaving them free to focus on jobs, financial regulations and other matters without any of this hanging over their heads and with some momentum after winning an historic victory. Seems to me that on health care reform, at least, Rahm's "running for the hills."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 29, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Moose49
Am I the only one who takes the message in this new p.r. push, from Rahm and his White House, as: suddenly "jobs" and "bank regulation" are on their radar? As if they'd just now become pressing issues?
Quite obviously Rahm feels that this will bode well with the voters, who now supposedly will understand that they're On It, when it comes to the Important Stuff (as opposed to HCR!).
To me, however, it screams: what, didn't you think these other issues were important before? Why now? Oh, right, because you're running away from your incompetence on health care, and you think this sudden public focus on the same crises which have been on your table since you took office might DISTRACT everyone from your failures!
Where the hell does Rahm think health care's going to go with the voters? Down the memory hole? I'm sure the only parties who will be giddily-enamored with this sudden push on the "real" issues will be the MSM... who will applaud President Obama, even as: [a] the people of this country sour on him further, over abandoning or delaying health care, and; [b] the Republicans, who for all their verbal masturbation about "fiscal responsibility", will vote against LITERALLY ANYTHING he does in the area of jobs or bank regs...
... because that's their m.o.! And why should the the introduction of new WH legislative agendas change a thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
January 29, 2010 9:38 AM
I still hope that Obama realizes before it's too late that Rahm's political instincts are really overrated.
A better plan would be to pass HCR quickly to show you're still in contgrol, then move on. The best plan would be to actually show you can do more than one thing at a time, the way DC used to function.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 29, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to howie
Sorta makes you wonder about Obama's political instincts. He's in charge here, not Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 29, 2010 9:39 AM
This strikes me as completely wrongheaded at best, and as an admission of an impasse at worst. The bill needs to be passed NOW. Time is not our friend on this, and it's painful to see the administration continuing to signal that while it may talk about fighting, the reality is that they have no intention to fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
January 29, 2010 9:44 AM
Stupidest thing I've heard all week.
Given the spending freeze idea, that is really saying something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 29, 2010 9:48 AM
This confirms the impression I've had: HCR is back-burner. Like it or not, that seems to be the White House decision (assuming they are actually the ones deciding, not the Senate).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 29, 2010 9:51 AM
Jobs And Bank Regs are important.
But neither are reasons to forego finishing the work started.
This is guy is the huge leak in the Obama Administration where all the political capital is spilling out at an alarming rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 29, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Agreed. But the Dems reading of MA is that HCR has to be deferred. Probably to wrap up a few easier wins and put the GOP on the defensive. Re-build squandered political capital and then return to HCR. Just like Rahm drew it up on the chalkboard. Not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 29, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to wbgonne
The problem of course is that there are no easy wins right now. I have little doubt that republicans and blue dogs will stretch the job and bank bills out as long as possible and successfully turn them into long and bloody fights. The bank bill in particular is a long hard climb with murky prospects at best.
Even if you assume that these bills will build political capital, the time to vote on HCR is now. The courage of the Democratic party to make tough votes, never much more then a sliver in the best of times, is inversely proportionate to the upcoming elections.
I think we can all agree that Jobs and Bank regs are what Congress needs to get to work on -- but HCR is now the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and if the necessary courage could be found, it could be finished in a matter of days. That is what needs to be done, and if the deadbeats in the Senate won't play ball, the House needs to just bear down and pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 29, 2010 10:07 AM in reply to lonesomeliberal
I'd say the House democrats have taken many hard votes.
if the deadbeats in the Senate won't play ball, the House needs to just bear down and pass the bill.
I disagree with this as well. For all the reasons Dean said the Seanate bill should be killed, and the nurses union said the senate bill entrenches the worst of our healthcare system, etc.
I don't believe a bad bill is better than no bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 29, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Absolutely right. It's time the Senate started doing something to earn that nice health care we're paying for them to have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 29, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I agree that the House has taken the hard votes this year. Even the Senate, in voting their HCR bill, took a tough vote. So, your point about tough votes is fair enough.
However, as the pressure of the election looms larger, I think it is going to get harder and harder to find political will for tough votes, and I also think that the pressure to pass HCR that is currently coming from the Base and from the big interests groups will wane as the months go by. Now is the time for this.
We disagree on the merits of the Senate bill, which I see as having real strengths to go along with it's real weaknesses. I do, though, have several immediate family members who would have access to insurance that they could afford if the Senate bill passes, and thinking of them and others in their position is enough for me to support the bill over the status quo. It's not like the bill that would have emerged from the conference if Coakley had won was going to be significantly better then the Senate Bill, so in my opinion people who would have supported that theoretical bill should cede to reality and take what they can get. Is it a single payer, or even a public option? Unfortunately, no. But it will make a huge difference in the health and financial security of millions of people, so I'd take it over nothing at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 29, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to lonesomeliberal
I completely agree that they SHOULD pass HCR now. But it is not apparent that isn't going to happen. And if Obama let's the Republicrats stall his other initiatives -- if he hasn't learned anything yet about the political climate -- then he's screwed. And, by the way, so are we.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 29, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to wbgonne
Please disregard typos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 29, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to wbgonne
And speaking for myself, I'd like to ask everyone to extend that request to every single comment or blog I've ever written here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 29, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 29, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to wbgonne
And if Obama let's the Republicrats stall his other initiatives -- if he hasn't learned anything yet about the political climate -- then he's screwed. And, by the way, so are we.
Hard to argue with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 29, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to lonesomeliberal
I still don't believe a bad bill is best.
With two studies all ready produced by the Insurance Industry to show why they'll continue to raise prices (though their studies have been debunked), and no regulations regarding premiums (even with the loss ratio, they control both the numerator and denominator in that ratio, and its been pointed out many times that it is no way to control prices), and no anti-trust provisions to allow the Justice Department to investigate the industry for collusion and other illegal practices as in any other industry, with premiums rising this year, and the CBO saying the Senate bill will only ease the rising costs of premiums, etc; I think it isn't a far leap to see you family members with insufficient subsidies, and yet a mandate to purchase insurance. Leaving them in the bronze level, which is 60/40, which would leave many with insurance, and yet no money to use it, like the 20% of Mass Care people.
But I respect your right to disagree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
smartone
January 29, 2010 10:14 AM
My idea is pass a "fix" - make it very modest but include the a few popular items - medicare buy in for 55-65 year olds - ending tax exception for insurance companies and a public option
then once this passes Senate -- the House passes this bill but not the Senate Bill.. the old bait and switch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 29, 2010 10:39 AM
HCR will be pushed into next year. It will be better for conservadems in the Senate and Blue dogs in the House. It will take it out of an election year while also putting the 2012 Senators on notice - ie Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe and Scott Brown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 29, 2010 10:41 AM
A personal message for Rahm Emanuel: If you put health care reform ahead of the deficit, you can take your version of the democratic party and shove it up your ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 29, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to rbe1
Concur!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 29, 2010 10:43 AM
Correction: If you put health care reform behind the deficit, then the rest of my message is the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 29, 2010 10:49 AM
Look, look! A picture of Rahm Emmanuel! And he said something about healthcare! Ow! What's going on? My left knee is jerking without my volition! Can't control it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 29, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yeah. Republicans are the ones who bend over and face the past, and progressives are the ones who bend over and face away from Emanuel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 29, 2010 1:11 PM
Hmmmmm, after the brilliant success with healthcare I'm breathless with anticipation about jobs and banks.....
oh, wait.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 29, 2010 5:48 PM
Message to Rahm: My next vote for a Democrat will come AFTER a universal healthcare is passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ashiaali
February 2, 2010 11:39 PM
This is a great post. I’m glad it was bumped. Otherwise I would’ve missed these very useful information.
Regards.
http://www.servocahealth.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?