Obama Kills Deadlines for Health Care Reform

White House photo.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


When is a presidential deadline not a deadline?

On Wednesday night, during a primetime White House press conference, President Barack Obama was asked why he had been pushing to complete action on a health care reform package by August 7, the day Congress is scheduled to shut down for its summer recess. He replied:

if you don’t set deadlines in this town things don’t happen.  The default position is inertia.  Because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy.  There’s always going to be some interest out there that decides, you know what, the status quo is working for me a little bit better.

But the next day Senate majority leader Harry Reid said there was no way Congress could meet Obama’s August 7 deadline. This was not a shocking pronouncement. Virtually no one in Washington truly believed legislation this complex could be wrapped up in time for Congress’s vacation. And with the slow pace of the recent deliberations within the Senate finance committee, it seemed especially unlikely that a Senate bill could be written by this date–let alone voted on.

So Obama, acknowledging reality, gave up on the dog-day deadline. At a town hall meeting in Shaker Heights, Ohio, on Thursday, the president responded to Reid’s statement of the obvious:

My attitude is I want to get it right, but I also want to get it done promptly.  And so as long as I see folks working diligently and consistently, then I am comfortable with moving a process forward that builds as much consensus as possible.

But not only is Obama rolling with the punches; he’s dropping the whole idea of a deadline.

At Friday’s daily White House press briefing–after Obama made a surprise appearance to say that he had spoken with the police officer who had arrested Skip Gates and to note that he regretted accusing the Cambridge cops of having acted “stupidly”–I asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs whether Obama will be establishing a new deadline. Maybe one in September? Or October? By Christmas?

Gibbs chuckled. But seriously, given that Obama on Wednesday night had said that a deadline is necessary to concentrate the mind of Congress, wasn’t a new one required?

Gibbs replied that the deadline Obama had previously set had led to real progress, noting that various committees in Congress had taken steps toward constructing health care reform legislation “because we poked.” He said that Obama and his aides had always realized that the final bill would not be produced until after August. “We continue to believe we can see health care reform this fall,” Gibbs said.

And what about a deadline? Gibbs said nothing about a new deadline.

******

Meanwhile, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, according to informed sources, is telling people that the demise of the August 7 deadline is no big deal. His scenario: during the August recess, members of the House and Senate will work to make sure that the House and Senate health care reform bills will be similar to one another–with a collection of different taxes being adopted to finance reform–and then in September returning legislators will have an easier time handling the final steps. Sounds easy.  If this is what happens, no deadline will be necessary. If.

You can follow David Corn’s postings and media appearances via Twitter.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest