The Washington Post and New York Times note that the White House tried to stay above the political fray over Jimmy Carter's comments about race. Here's the Washington Post: "[A]t the White House, the official line is: Race issue? What race issue? 'I'm not sure I see this large national conversation going on right now,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday. He said Obama 'does not believe that that criticism comes based on the color of his skin,' attributing it instead to honest policy disagreements."

The New York Times: "Mr. Obama's response to all this, aides say, has been to tell his staff not to be distracted by the charges and to focus on health care and the rest of his policy agenda. 'He could probably give a very powerful speech on race, just as he did in the course of the campaign,' said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. 'But right now his top domestic priority is health care reform. It's difficult, challenging and complicated. And if he leads by example, our country will be far better off.'"

The New York Daily News on the Carter story: "White House to Jimmy Carter: Stop helping us. ... Obama has long worked to project a 'postracial' view of the world, addressing matters of race only when forced. That happened during the presidential campaign when Obama had to defuse an uproar over his ex-pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As President -- a job that requires him to cobble together disparate factions --  talk of racism is about as welcome in the White House as a case of swine flu."

"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs fired back at GOP critics of White House czars on Wednesday," The Hill writes. "Gibbs said GOP 'silence was deafening' on the issue of czars during former President George W. Bush's administration.  'You've read Sen. Bennett was pushing for a Y2K czar that he didn't think was powerful enough,' Gibbs said. 'You've seen Lamar Alexander call for a manufacturing czar.' He also brought up the name of Randall Tobias, a Bush administration deputy secretary of State and 'abstinence czar' who resigned after it was discovered his name was on a prostitution-services call list. 'You know, somebody referred to in the Bush administration as the abstinence czar was on the D.C. Madam's list,' Gibbs said. 'Now, did that violate the Constitution, or simply offend our sensibilities?'"
 
And in apparently coordinated push back, White House adviser Anita Dunn blogged about the Bush czars "[I]t's really the hypocrisy here that is noteworthy," Dunn writes. "Just earlier today, Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration's use of 'czars', had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration's use of 'czars'. Many of these members who now decry the practice have called on Presidents in the past to appoint 'czars' to coordinate activities within the government to address immediate challenges. What is clear is that all of this energy going into these attacks could be used to have a constructive conversation about bringing this country together to address our challenges moving forward -- and it doesn't take a 'czar' to bring that about! Just some folks willing to act in good faith."

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee has a new Web video pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative/GOP criticism aimed at the Obama administration's numerous czars.

Does increased health-care spending mean less money for the military? That's what Greg Zerzan, a former Bush Treasury official, argues in the Wall Street Journal.

The latest issue of Time magazine looks at Glenn Beck. "He is the hottest thing in the political-rant racket, left or right. A gifted entrepreneur of angst in a white-hot market. A man with his ear uniquely tuned to the precise frequency at which anger, suspicion and the fear that no one's listening all converge."

More: "His fears are many — which is lucky for him, because Beck is responsible for filling multiple hours each day on radio and TV and webcast, plus hundreds of pages each year in his books, his online magazine and his newsletter. What's this rich and talented man afraid of? He is afraid of one-world government, which will turn once proud America into another France. He is afraid that Obama 'has a deep-seated hatred for white people' — which doesn't mean, he hastens to add, that he actually thinks 'Obama doesn't like white people." He is afraid that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are deeply corrupt and that their corruption is spreading like a plague. He used to be afraid that hypocritical Republicans in the Bush Administration were killing capitalism and gutting liberty, but now he is afraid that all-too-sincere leftists in the Obama Administration are plotting the same. On a slow news day, Beck fears that the Rockefeller family installed communist and fascist symbols in the public artwork of Rockefeller Center. One of his Fox News Channel colleagues, Shepard Smith, has jokingly called Beck's studio the 'fear chamber.' Beck countered that he preferred 'doom room.'"

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner's office has unveiled a research document entitled "ACORN'S Enablers: House Democrats' Lengthy Record of Protecting a Troubled Organization." 

CONNECTICUT: Chris Dodd has pulled within five points of Rob Simmons in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Simmons leads 44%-39%, which is a slimmer margin than the 48%-39% margin Simmons led by in July. Dodd's approval is still a net negative at 43% approve, 49% disapprove. That's a slight improvement from where he was in July at 42%/52%. Still, Dodd sits at 39% in the poll, which is low for an incumbent, but there's a lot of time until Election Day 2010.

MASSACHUSETTS: There's buzz that Dukakis, the former governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, could be the pick for interim senator. The Boston Globe calls him "a leading choice for the interim appointment."

NEW JERSEY: Jeb Bush attended a fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie (R) last night. Christie spokeswoman Maria Comella said he was invited by one of the host committee members, who did not check with the Christie campaign. PolitickerNJ: "The Corzine camp -- which last month played up the disclosure that Christie spoke with former Bush political point man Karl Rove about a potential run for governor -- did not pass up the opportunity to once again associate Christie with Bush." Corzine communications director Sean Darcy said, "[I]t's no surprise Christie is embracing Bush's brother."

VIRGINIA: Let's get ready to rumble… "Gubernatorial rivals R. Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell meet Thursday in the one debate every statewide candidate circles on his calendar and dreads," according to the Virginia newspaper Daily Press. The debate, taking place in Northern Virginia and moderated by "Meet The Press" host David Gregory, is Deeds' "opportunity for a breakout moment that could lift him in statewide polls that have consistently shown him trailing." For McDonnell, "[I]t's a chance to score points in Washington DC's suburbs, his boyhood home and a reliably Democratic area for years." 
 
A few topics to expect to be addressed, per the Washington Post: "How will Deeds respond to federal issues? McDonnell has spent much of the campaign trying to… tie him to President Obama and the Democratic Congress." And: "How will McDonnell react to questions about his graduate thesis and social issues" Kumar asks: "Will McDonnell be able to answer in a calm, relaxed way without sounding defensive or changing what he has already said? In other words, will he be able to keep on message at the debate?"

And E.J. Dionne weighs in on the Deeds-McDonnell contest, saying the race could turn into a battle over McDonnell's social conservatism (exemplified by his '89 thesis) and the Obama administration's spending.

From NBC's Luke Russert
A usual Wednesday on Capitol Hill doesn't draw a lot of star power, however, today the Capitol became A-list territory with Paul Simon, Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez appearing to champion their respective causes. The beneficiaries of these visits were Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
 
First, in the morning, renowned musician Paul Simon, appeared with Reid and Pelosi at a rally on the West Lawn in support of the Children's Health Fund, a group that provides health care to children in impoverished rural and urban areas.

Reid made analogies to famous Simon songs saying, "If there was ever a time that we have troubled waters it is now…Our children die, infant mortality is extremely high, those are our troubled waters. And if there was ever a bridge we need over these troubled waters, it is passing comprehensive health-care reform."
 
Reid continued the analogies by making the point that by passing healthcare reform "we can really say we have diamonds on the soles of our shoes." Reid concluded, "Inaction is not an option."
 
Pelosi asserted, "What we want to do in the bill is to bring health care and prevention where the children are -- in their homes, in their schools, in their neighborhoods, in their communities -- so that it is accessible. When all is said and done, reform means that America's families will no longer have to spend too much of their hard-earned paychecks on health care and keep more money in their pocket to raise their children."
 
Simon, donning a black leather jacket and a gray fedora sang his first words to the crowd in his distinct voice, "Poor kids can't vote, neither can they afford to hire lobbyists to plead their cause or to describe their situation." The singer continued, "We believe that a healthcare bill would go a long way to fill the gap that these children live in and suffer in."
 
Showing a mild disdain for the slow debate regarding healthcare reform, Simon finished his speech by saying, "Let's cut out the political stuff and let's pass this legislation, it is very much needed."
 
Later in the afternoon, super power couple Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez made an appearance in the Speaker's balcony to promote Hispanic Heritage Month as well as education initiatives for Latino children. Pelosi said the appearance by the stars was "thrilling because they are so loved by the young people in America." The Speaker continued that "We are pleased that the came the same day that in the House we are debating a bill on higher education." The Speaker then even threw in her antidote as to why she had a personal connection to the stars claiming her grandchildren always sing Anthony's hit "Tell me baby girl because I need to know."
 
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) heaped praise on the duo saying, "Most importantly they provide opportunity for our kids in school, this is why we are so grateful to them." An emotional Anthony, dressed in green madras pants, said thank you to the Speaker and pointing to the representatives said "We all started as dreamers and never took no as an option."
 
Lopez did not answer questions or give a statement.

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell
The Senate Finance Committee says the always critical Congressional Budget Office "scoring" is ready.  Here their info:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates of the America's Healthy Future Act are now available on the Senate Finance Committee website."

• The estimates show that the Mark (which means the Baucus team's plan) would extend coverage to 94 percent of nonelderly Americans
• Reduce the deficit by $49 billion over the next 10 years and in following decade as well.
• Achieves the overwhelming majority of its savings -- nearly three-fourths of its savings outside of coverage -- $409 billion -- from spending reductions, and only a quarter of its savings outside of coverage -- $139 billion -- from revenue.

The CBO document can be found here.
The JCT document can be found here.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
As expected following some of her recently reported comments, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe will not support the health-care bill unveiled today by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

Snowe, the last member of the Gang of Six to formally withhold her support, called the bill "a first step," but added, "a number of issues still need to be addressed -- including cost assumptions and ultimate affordability to both consumers and the government as well as ensuring appropriate competition in the health insurance exchange."

Her full written statement below:

"This is a first step in the process and those of us as members of the bipartisan Group of 6 fully intend to keep meeting, moving forward and continuing to work with the Chairman during the committee process toward crafting a bill that I, and hopefully other Republican members of the Finance Committee, can support. I believe the Chairman's legislation moves in the right direction away from a government-run system contained in bills that have passed other Congressional committees, but a number of issues still need to be addressed -- including cost assumptions and ultimate affordability to both consumers and the government as well as ensuring appropriate competition in the health insurance exchange. "

"Moreover, I have repeatedly insisted that Committee Members are given sufficient time to read the legislation - and for the Congressional Budget Office to provide its cost projections - given the monumental complexity of this issue. As one of three Republicans in the Group of 6, I have appreciated the Chairman's leadership of the only bipartisan effort in any committee in either the House or Senate, which has laid real and substantial groundwork for bipartisan cooperation during this ongoing process - and I will continue to work toward that goal as the committee continues its deliberations."

From NBC's Ken Strickland, Kelly O'Donnell, Domenico Montanaro and Luke Russert
Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, a member of the so-called "Gang of Six", says he cannot support the health-care bill introduced today by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. This effectively means that the three Republicans who've spent months working with Baucus on a bipartisan proposal won't be standing with him today.

"Unfortunately, there are fundamental issues that we were not able to resolve by the deadline that was set for us," Enzi said in a statement. "The proposal released today still spends too much, and it does too little to cut health care costs for those with health insurance."

Enzi joins fellow Republican negotiator Chuck Grassley in withholding support for Baucus' bill. Olympia Snowe, the other GOP negotiator, has yet to release a formal statement on her position, but her recent statements strongly suggest she too will not join with Baucus at this point.

All three Republican have pledged to continue working with Baucus as the committee begins the process of amending the bill next week. "While I cannot support the current proposal, I remain committed to working on health care reform proposals that will have broad bipartisan support," Enzi said.

He said the bill doesn't do enough to improve competition in the insurance marketplace or lower healthcare cost. He also said, "I also believe that health-care reform should not be built on expanding the unsustainable Medicaid program, which 40 percent of doctors will not accept."

Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released this paper statement and also spoke on camera on the Senate floor:

"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program. Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

Here is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press release reaction. Not surprisingly, she likes the House bill better and advocates for the public option:

"Assuring the affordability of health care for all Americans and requiring accountability for insurance companies are two of our central principles in this reform. We look forward to studying the impact of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman's mark on America's families and businesses, and on the cost of health care. The fifth and final Congressional committee is now putting forward a product that will move this historic debate forward.

"We are pleased that Senator Baucus' plan mirrors some key provisions in the House proposal, including sweeping insurance reforms and consumer protections. The House bill clearly does more to make coverage affordable for more Americans and provides more competition to drive insurance companies to charge lower premiums and improve coverage. The House bill also does more to help seniors afford prescription coverage, closing the donut hole completely, while the Baucus proposal simply reduces the cost of brand name drugs in the donut hole.

"As this proposal evolves, we hope to see modifications that result in the Senate bill better reflecting the work of the House to make health care more affordable for all Americans and promote competition that is key to keeping costs lower. I believe the public option is the best way to achieve that goal."

And a main liberal-leaning group advocating for reform, Health Care for America Now, is opposed to the Baucus bill. It calls it "a gift to the insurance industry" and urges it be replaced by the more liberal plans on the table. Here's the group's statement in the name of the group's campaign manager Richard Kirsch:

"The Baucus bill is a gift to the insurance industry that fails to meet the most basic promise of health care reform: a guarantee that Americans will have good health care that they can afford. The Baucus bill would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans - high-deductible insurance - without having to face competition from a public health insurer.

"Under the Baucus bill, employers would have no responsibility to help pay for their workers' coverage and would be given incentives to have workers pay more for barebones insurance. Americans who don't get health benefits through work would still not be able to get good, affordable coverage.

"We urge Senators on the Finance Committee to replace the Baucus plan with legislation that will do what the Senate HELP Committee and three House committees have done: guarantee that Americans have good health insurance that they can afford with the choice of a strong national public health insurance option."

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Here are some details on some of the most talked about and controversial provisions of the bill that deal with money: things like what people and businesses will have to pay if they don't get insurance, business and personal tax credits, and subsidies for the poor.

The following is directly from the Finance Committee's release (For reference, here are the 2009 Federal Poverty Level Guidelines):

Personal Responsibility - The Mark would create a personal responsibility requirement for health care coverage, with exceptions provided for a variety of reasons including religious conscience (as defined in Medicare) and an exemption for undocumented workers.

Individuals who fail to meet the requirement are subject to a penalty. If an individual's income is between 100 and 300 percent of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain health coverage is $750 per person per year with a maximum of $1,500 per family. If an individual's income is above 300 percent of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain coverage is $950 per person per year with a maximum of $3,800 per family.

Exemptions from the penalty will be made for individuals where the full premium of the lowest cost option available to them (net of subsidies and employer contribution, if any) exceeds ten percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI); those below 100 percent of FPL; any health arrangement provided by established religious organizations comprised of individuals with sincerely held beliefs (e.g., such as those participating in Health Sharing Ministries); those experiencing hardship situations (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services); and an individual who is an Indian as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Additionally, in 2013, individuals at or below 133 percent of FPL will be exempt from the penalty. When making these determinations, income from individuals not subject to the mandate should not be considered.

Responsibility for Employers - The Mark would not require employers to offer health insurance. However, effective January 1, 2013, all employers with more than 50 employees who do not offer coverage will have to reimburse the government for each full-time employee (defined as those working 30 or more hours a week) receiving a health care affordability tax credit in the exchange equal to 100 percent of the average exchange subsidy up to a cap of $400 per total number of employees whether they are receiving a tax credit or not.

As a general matter, if an employee is offered employer-provided health insurance coverage, the individual would be ineligible for a health care affordability tax credit for health insurance purchased through a state exchange. An employee who is offered coverage that does not have an actuarial value of at least 65 percent or who is offered unaffordable coverage by their employer, however, can be eligible for the tax credit. Unaffordable is defined as 13 percent of the employee's income. A Medicaid-eligible individual can always choose to leave the employer's coverage and enroll in Medicaid. In this circumstance, the employer is not required to pay a fee.

Medicaid - The Chairman's Mark would standardize Medicaid eligibility for all parents, children, pregnant women and childless adults at or below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), or $30,000 a year for a family of four ($14,400 for an individual), beginning in 2014. Individuals between 100 percent of FPL and 133 percent of FPL would be given the choice of enrolling in either Medicaid or in a private health insurance plan offered through a health insurance exchange. The federal government would provide additional funding to states for services for newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. The Chairman's Mark would also guarantee prescription drug benefits to all Medicaid beneficiaries.

Health Care Affordability Tax Credits -The Mark would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit for low and middle-income individuals to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Beginning in 2013, tax credits would be available on a sliding scale for individuals and families between 134-300 percent of FPL (Federal Poverty Level) to help offset the cost of private health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2014, the credits are also available to individuals and families between 100-133 percent of FPL. The credits would be based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, rising from three percent of income for those at 100 percent of poverty to 13 percent of income for those at 300 percent of poverty. Individuals between 300-400 percent of FPL would be eligible for a premium credit based on capping an individual's share of the premium at a flat 13 percent of income. A cost-sharing subsidy would be provided to limit the amount of cost-sharing that individuals and families between 100-200 percent of FPL have to pay. Undocumented immigrants are prohibited from benefiting from the credit.
 
Small Business Health Care Affordability Tax Credits - This proposal would provide a tax credit to small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. In 2011 and 2012, eligible employers can receive a small business credit for up to 35 percent of their contribution. Once the exchanges are up and running in 2013, qualified small employers purchasing insurance through the exchanges can receive a tax credit for two years that covers up to 50 percent of the employer's contribution. Small businesses with 10 or fewer employees and with average taxable wages of $20,000 or less will be able to claim the full credit amount. The credit phases out for businesses with more than 10 employees and average taxable wages over $20,000, with a complete phase out at 25 employees or average taxable wages of $40,000.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has finally unveiled his version of the health-care reform bill. Now what?

Here's a look at what comes next en route to getting the bill to a final vote on the Senate floor...

First, the full committee -- and the public -- will now get a chance read the details of the bill. But, as you'll read below, some of these details will likely change next week. Still, of all the other health-care bills moving through Congress (three in the House, one in the Senate,) the Finance bill more closely resembles what President Obama wants in cost and substance, except it doesn't have a public option.

On Tuesday the 22nd, the committee starts the "mark up," voting on amendments to change the bill. We suspect there will be lots of them -- lots. After a few days of amendments, the committee will take a last vote to approve the bill and send to it the full Senate. Baucus seems convinced that after the amendment process, some Republicans will vote in favor of the bill. We'll see.

Once the Finance bill is approved, it has to be merged with the Senate HELP committee bill before it can go to the floor. This should be interesting because the HELP bill has a public option, and the Finance bill more than likely won't when it's passed out of committee. It's Majority Leader Harry Reid's job to pick what's in the bill that goes to the floor.

When will the merged bill get to the Senate floor? Yesterday, Reid said he felt it was "certainly possible" the bill could be on the floor by September 28. That would mean the Finance Committee would have to "mark up" and bill AND Reid with have to marry it with the HELP committee bill in about a week. Again, we'll see. 

After the bill gets on the floor, Reid will have to decide how to proceed. Will he go through traditional process of "regular order," which means he'll need 60 votes to break filibusters? Or will he use the procedural hammer of "reconciliation," which would allow him to jam it through with a simple 51-vote majority?

Stay tuned.

From NBC's Mark Murray
RNC Chairman Michael Steele, the Republican Party's most prominent African American official, has issued a press release criticizing former President Jimmy Carter for arguing that much of the opposition that President Obama is facing is due to race.

Steele:

"President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn't about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president's wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose. Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn't create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.

Characterizing Americans' disapproval of President Obama's policies as being based on race is an outrage and a troubling sign about the lengths Democrats will go to disparage all who disagree with them. Playing the race card shows that Democrats are willing to deal from the bottom of the deck. Our political system has no place for this type of rhetoric. As the leader of the Democratic Party President Obama should flatly reject efforts by those in his Party, including Jimmy Carter and Tim Kaine, to inject race into our civil discourse in ways that divide, not unite, Americans."

When First Read asked the RNC how DNC Chairman Tim Kaine was injecting race into the discussion, it provided as evidence this Politico clipping, which explicitly says that Kaine DIDN'T bring up race.

"Virginia Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine used a speech Friday to single out those conservative critics whose hostility toward President Obama goes deeper than just opposing his policies — but without mentioning that which many in his party believe drives the anger. 'Republican leaders…rose up to say that he did not deserve honorary degrees from colleges that were giving him degrees last spring, members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, are spreading bogus rumors about where the president was born, and they whipped up opposition all across this country when President Obama wanted to give a speech to our nation's schoolchildren to tell them to take responsibility, study hard and stay in school," Kaine said here at the party's fall meeting.'"

"He demurred when asked later whether this often-personal criticism is rooted in contempt for a president who happens to be black."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** America's Rorschach Test: Jimmy Carter's comments to NBC's Brian Williams -- that racism is playing a role in much of the current opposition to President Obama -- will be the ultimate Rorschach test. The question is whether this turns into an adult discussion, or whether it turns into your usual political food fight (and we probably know the answer to that, right?). It's tough to find a middle ground on this issue. Call us cynics, but we're not sure the debate on cable today will successfully explore a middle ground. The fact is that MANY of the president's supporters see the collective opposition coming mostly from the South, and they believe it's hard to come to any other conclusion after the armed protestors outside Obama events, the questions about his citizenship, the Nazi/Hitler/Communist signs, etc. But obviously, there's more nuance to that, even when simply examining the southern opposition. Yet nuance is something that never gets the attention. Instead, it's the loudest, shrillest voices on both the left and right that do.

*** A loser for the White House? Politically, the White House sees this as nothing more than a political loser. As Michael Eric Dyson acknowledged on "Morning Joe," to even entertain the idea of race being a part of the opposition to the president is political suicide. Of course, there are those on the president's side who will argue that they believe the mainstream elements of the opposition to the president haven't done enough -- or anything -- to denounce the extremist elements on their side, and that's yet another reason why we can expect this back-and-forth over the issue of race won't go away. Yet the last thing White House needs is for the 10-15% of people who disapprove of his policies right now -- but at one time approved of his job -- to feel alienated away from ever supporting him. Let's face it: One of the worst insults anyone can feel is being called a racist, and the White House politically doesn't want average white independents to believe if they ever disagree with the president, they'll be labeled racists. By the way, Colin Powell is visiting the White House today. Will he comment on this?

*** Baucus' bill: After months of bipartisan negotiations, after other key congressional committees have already passed their bills, and after keeping Washington waiting, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus will finally introduce his health-care today at noon ET. And it's not being embraced by either party. Said ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) in statement last night: "I'm disappointed because it looks like we're being pushed aside by the Democratic leadership so the Senate can move forward on a bill that, up to this point, does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage that we set forth when this process began," he said, per NBC's Ken Strickland. On the other hand, Finance Committee Democrat Jay Rockefeller said he was disappointed that Baucus' bill wouldn't include the so-called public insurance option. "There is no way, in its present form, that I will vote for it," he said. But "present form" is key here, given that the Finance Committee will mark-up the bill and add amendments next week.

*** How did you get from $300 billion to $500-$600 billion: Speaking of health care, how has Obama gone from touting $300 billion in Medicare waste/fraud/abuse savings in June as part of his plan to pay for health care to now claiming the White House has found $500-$600 billion in these savings. The fact is the president still hasn't release a detailed plan in general, let alone gotten into the "how to pay for" weeds when it comes to exactly how they found yet another $200 billion in cuts. This actually gets at the nut of the president's potential credibility problem: If there is so much money in waste/fraud/abuse in the Medicare system, then why do we continue to let it happen? Why are we waiting so long to deal with it? The average cynical voter is thinking, "Well, the president may be well meaning, but the bureaucracy that is the American government let this waste/fraud/abuse happen once, who is to say they won't let it happen again?"

*** Mr. Exposure: If it weren't for Carter's comments, we're guessing one of the topics that cable and the internet would be focusing on today is the fact that the president is EVERYWHERE. It started last week with his joint session speech, continued with his "60 Minutes" interview, and then business cable interviews followed the next day. Now five Sunday shows (on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Univision) are coming up this weekend, and then there's Letterman next Monday. We're sure the White House will also be doing something online, since that seems to be the only venue they haven't touched on this week.

*** Is the Amtrak Corridor elite wrong? The issue of over-exposure has come up before, and while the Amtrak Corridor Elite (NY-DC) believes he may be over-exposed, the White House has previously gotten positive results from its strategy. They believe that with folks getting their news and info for hundreds of different places on multiple platforms, you have to use multiple platforms to touch everyone you want to touch at least once. By the way, our reporting from a summer Peter Hart/Annenberg focus group of swing voters suggested that Obama's speeches, interviews, and news conferences were a plus for him, not a minus. So this may be one of those Beltway-created storylines that the facts don't bear out as much. Still, the White House should be a tad concerned that last week's address attracted 31 million views, compared with the 50 million he got for his first presser. Then again, 31 million is a lot of people…but where do those 19 million go? Are they tuning out Washington?

*** A Buckeye bounce? A day after talking to GM workers in the battleground state of Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll conducted last week shows that President Obama's numbers have slightly rebounded in the Buckeye State, from 49%-44% approve/disapprove in July to 53%-42% now. Moreover, the two Democratic candidates for Senate, Lt. Gov. Lee Fischer and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, lead the top Republican in the field, Rob Portman. With perhaps the exceptions of Colorado and Virginia, there's no state in the country that's more important in measuring the Democrats' health than in Ohio. On the other hand, of course, Republicans have argued that recent national polls (WashPo/ABC, USA Today/Gallup) didn't move the needle that much on Obama's health-care numbers.

*** Obama's day: In advance of next week's G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, President Obama sits down at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper beginning at 10:45 am ET. Then, at 1:00 pm, Obama has 2016 on his mind – not that year's presidential election, but rather the Olympics. He and First Lady Michelle Obama host an event at the White House promoting Chicago's bid for that Olympics.

*** 2010 watch: Let's get ready to … RUMBLE. First Read has confirmed that Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO and wife to WWE honcho Vince McMahon, today is announcing that she's running for the Senate in Connecticut, setting up a Republican cage match for the right to challenge vulnerable Sen. Chris Dodd (D). Indeed, McMahon will be joining a growing GOP field that includes former Rep. Rob Simmons, former Ireland Ambassador Tom Foley, and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri. Considering the image Congress is portraying to the American public these days, is it any wonder that no one dismisses out of hand the possibility that someone associated with professional wrestling is a legitimate candidate for the U.S. Senate? Forget Mrs. McMahon; why not just have Vince himself run. At this point, it's only fitting, right?

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 48 days
Countdown to Primary to Replace Ted Kennedy: 83 days
Countdown to Special Election to Replace Kennedy: 125 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 412 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

On the day Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is set to unveil his committee's health-care bill, he pens an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal laying out why he believes reform is necessary and what is in the bill. "Health care is a complicated and deeply personal issue; it takes time and effort to get reform right. Legislating every piece of this puzzle would be impossible and counterproductive. What we can do is seize this opportunity to put America back on a fiscally sustainable path. The Senate Finance Committee proposal builds on what already works and fixes what threatens to break the bank for future generations."
 
He laments misinformation and writes, "[O]ur plan pays for every cent of new spending without using additional tax dollars. Our plan would lower costs and would not add to the federal deficit. In fact, it would begin reducing the federal deficit within 10 years by containing costs through industry reforms." He concludes: "The time has come for action. And we will act. In the next several weeks, the Senate Finance Committee will do its part to control costs, protect consumers from unfair insurance industry practices, and put America back on a path toward fiscal sustainability."

The AP: "[D]espite numerous gestures to Republicans, Baucus has fallen short in his quest to assemble a coalition of senators from both parties behind his proposal."

Is Snowe not supporting it, either? The Hill writes, "Senate Democrats are going to have to move forward on healthcare without a single Republican supporter after Sen. Olympia Snowe said Tuesday she could not back the Finance Committee's bill." Said Snowe: "I do have concerns and I'm not sure they can be addressed before he issues [legislation] tomorrow."

"Sen. Max Baucus, a leader in the troubled effort in Congress to write a health care overhaul bill, has received more campaign donations from the health industry than any elected federal official except President Barack Obama and three other senators."

"President Barack Obama's speech to Congress last week galvanized House Democrats to help him push through his health care plan -- but lawmakers and their aides say it is increasingly clear the president also left some wounds festering and caused new ones to open," Roll Call writes. "While Democratic sources say lawmakers are generally pleased with the speech, which they believe boosted morale and possibly public support, they say the president created some new difficulties. Though the address was billed as an effort to provide clarity about Obama's position, Democrats say that on some issues it has created new confusion."

Race and Joe Wilson: "Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) ripped Wilson as having 'winked' at a racist element, which had appeared at town halls over the August recess opposing the president. 'There is no question when you look at the banners and posters and some of the comments that are made there is a fringe element that feels racial hatred toward African-Americans and that vein has been opened up for public display, and I don't think there should be many Republicans who would sanction that kind of excessive, radical, almost anarchist type of mentality,' Johnson told reporters. Wilson 'did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man I would say that he instigated more racist sentiment, feeling that it's okay. You don't need to bury it now… I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again riding through the countryside intimidating people. That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked and Congressman Wilson represents… That's why I support the resolution.'" 
 
When asked by one of us at First Read yesterday outside his office what role has race played in this controversy, Wilson dismissed it. "That's a distraction," he said before heading into his office.

Politics, ain't it grand? "More than two dozen members of Congress are paying family members thousands of dollars to work for their campaigns, according to a review of documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. Although the practice is legal, it raises eyebrows among ethics watchdogs, who say it smacks of nepotism."

The Washington Post's Kornblut looks at the White House's strategy to counterpunch against conservatives and Republicans. "Facing a near-daily barrage of attacks from conservative opponents, White House officials are engaged in an internal debate over how hard to hit back, even as they have grown increasingly aggressive in countering allegations they deem to be absurd."

"After brushing aside criticism during the presidential campaign that they tried to keep candidate Barack Obama too far above the fray -- and with memories of the abundance of media coverage during the Clinton years -- administration officials are accelerating their efforts to anticipate and respond to the most sharp-edged charges." 

So how is Massachusetts' health experiment working? "The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers… The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."

The New York Times on Obama's AFL-CIO speech yesterday: "President Obama did not deliver a robust sales pitch on the details of his health care agenda here Tuesday at a convention of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., but rather asked labor leaders to stand with him in resisting opponents of the White House and focus on lifting the economy. 'We've been hearing a lot of stuff from folks who aren't that friendly to me, or the union movement,' Mr. Obama said. 'So let's just take a stroll down memory lane. Let's just remember where we were when I took the oath of office.'" 

And… President Obama has enjoyed union backing, and yesterday spoke before the AFL-CIO national convention. Today, the labor group holds its elections, and current Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka is expected to become the group's next president. There has been political battle going on over card check, and today, one of the main opposition groups, the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), has "assembled a two-and-a-half minute, potentially incendiary web video likening the leader of the powerful organized labor group to organized crime bosses," The Hill writes. "The video, featuring music in the background meant to mimic the soundtrack of mob classic 'The Godfather,' compares quotes from Trumka to words from mob dons like Carlo Gambino, John Gotti, Al Capone, and even the fictional 'Don Corleone.' 'Mob Boss vs. Union Boss: Should it be so hard to distinguish between the two?' the ad asks."

A new book by a former White House speechwriter contends that former President George W. Bush warned the party before John McCain picked Sarah Palin. "This woman is being put into a position that she is not even remotely prepared for," Bush said, per Matt Latimer's book, "Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor." "She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out."
 
More: On Joe Biden: "'If bulls*** was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.'" On Hillary Clinton: "'Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk." On Obama: "This is a dangerous world, and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you."
 
National Review's Corner blog writes that Dana Perino questions the accuracy of the book. For one thing, she writes, "I don't think he's [that is, President Bush] ever even said the word 'keister.' C'mon."

PENNSYLVANIA: Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) -- who was for card-check, then against card-check before he was for it again -- on Tuesday declared before the AFL-CIO national convention that a deal had been struck in the Employee Free Choice Act and, "I believe before the year is out, and I will join my colleague Sen. [Bob] Casey [Jr. (D-Pa.)] in predicting, that there will be passage of an Employees Free Choice Act which will be totally satisfactory to labor." 

VIRGINIA: Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell is hitting back at ads released by his opponent Creigh Deeds last week, which accuse McDonnell of recommending a $180 million rate increase for a state power company. McDonnell's campaign released an ad yesterday, accusing Deeds of supporting a proposed federal "cap and trade bill," which the McDonnell ad says would eliminate 56,000 jobs. Deeds spokesman says the nominee does not support the bill, but served on a climate change commission with Gov. Tim Kaine, who does support it.  
 
Deeds and McDonnell both appeared at a luncheon in Hampton Roads yesterday, focusing on local issues in anticipation of their matchup on Thursday in Fairfax County. In back-to-back appearances, both nominees took swipes at each other's transportation plans. McDonnell said Deeds' plan amounted to "elect me and we'll figure things out," while Deeds said McDonnell's blueprint was "robbing Peter to pay Paul" because it taps into the state's main financial artery, the General Fund, which Deeds said would take money away from priorities like public schools. 
 
"Democratic gubernatorial nominee R. Creigh Deeds outraised Republican nominee Bob McDonnell in July and August, but McDonnell entered the final two months of the campaign with a clear financial advantage, campaign reports show. McDonnell had $5.8 million in the bank Aug. 31, while Deeds had about $4.4 million, the campaigns reported yesterday."

From NBC's Mark Murray
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter attributed much of the conservative opposition that President Obama is receiving to the issue of race.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

From NBC's Luke Russert and Mark Murray
By a mostly party-line 240-179 vote, the House of Representatives officially rebuked Republican Rep. Joe Wilson for his "You lie" outburst at President Obama last week.

Twelve Democrats voted against the resolution: Michael Arcuri (NY), Bill Delahunt (MA), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Paul Hodes (NH), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Dan Maffei (NY), Eric Massa (NY), Jim McDermott (WA), Gwen Moore (WI), Gene Taylor (MS), and Harry Teague (NM).

Seven Republicans voted for it: Joseph Cao (LA), Jo Ann Emerson (MO), Jeff Flake (AZ), Bob Inglis (SC), Walter Jones (NC), Jim Petri (WI), and Dana Rohrabacher (CA).

And five members voted present: Eliot Engel (NY), Bill Foster (IL), Barney Frank (MA), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), and Ike Skelton (MO).

From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, we noted how conservatives -- especially the conservative media -- have been targeting Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, with some notable success. Several days ago, Obama administration official Van Jones resigned after conservatives highlighted his controversial statements and actions, like signing a petition suggesting the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been an inside job.

Now, after two young conservatives (dressed up like a pimp and prostitute) produced videos apparently exposing ACORN employees encouraging fraudulent behavior, Republican lawmakers are trying to crush this group that they've long considered suspect. (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, is a group that helps low-income Americans with housing, voter registration, and other services.)

Just today:
-- House Minority Leader John Boehner introduced legislation, the Defund ACORN Act, to sever all ties between the federal government and the group.
-- Boehner, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, and GOP Rep. Dave Camp wrote the Internal Revenue Service a letter, asking that agency to end its association with ACORN, which helps low- and middle-income Americans with their tax preparations.
-- And GOP Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, called for the FBI and Justice Department to investigate the group.

Today's activity comes after the Census Bureau already severed its ties to ACORN, and also after the Senate voted on a GOP amendment to cut ACORN funding.

From NBC's Bobby Cervantes
Former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a conference call with reporters this afternoon, responding to President Obama's speech today to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, as well as his fundraiser later in the day for newly minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter. Santorum also left open the possibility that he might run for president in 2012.

Santorum argued that Pennsylvanians will see through Specter's continuous flip-flops as nothing more than moves for "pure political survival." He singled out Specter's record of opposition to -- then support of -- the Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. "card check"), and also his shift to the Democratic Party.

The White House has made it clear it's backing Specter in his primary race against Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Sestak.

Specter has "done a hard left turn to get into the good graces of the president" and to "survive a Democratic opponent," Santorum said, adding that he doesn't believe Specter will win the Democratic nomination.

Asked about a possible run for the White House in 2012, Santorum -- who received just 41% of the vote in losing his Senate seat in 2006 -- said "the dynamic has changed" since Obama was elected. Those who may not have thought about running against an incumbent with high ratings, including himself, are now looking at their options as the president's poll numbers slip, Santorum said.

"[President Obama's] ratings have fallen because of his inability to deliver," he said. "Not just me, but a lot of people ... will look to see what they can do to confront this presidency."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Luke Russert
OK, C-SPAN watchers, the House is in recess, but when the get back in the next 20 minutes or so, House Democrats are expected to introduce the "resolution of disapproval" against South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson for his "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress.

The resolution (language below) will be offered by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.

Don't expect a vote for about an hour or so afterward. Republicans will likely try to hold the line on the vote -- in opposition to the measure.

It should be interesting to see which, if any, Republicans decide to break with their party.

*** UPDATE *** The resolution has been introduced. Republicans are backing up Wilson, and calling for everyone to vote "no." "We'll rue the day that we set this precedent and brought this resolution to the floor," House Minority Leader John Boehner said, adding that Wilson should be "respected" and he would be "respected" by voting "no."

Clyburn, however, closed by saying, that "If the rules of the House are not here to maintain order, then we can never get to" the kinds of discussions "that will make our country proud."

He added, "The proper thing to do is to show proper contrition. The accepted form of contrition ... is to come to this floor and to recrest the apology of these members. And until that is done, proper contrition has not been made."

Here's the text of resolution: 

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION

RESOLUTION
Raising a question of the privileges of the House. Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson;

and

Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
"Resolutions of disapproval" have been used several times in the U.S. House's history. But they're not always used to discipline a member, as Democrats are set to do shortly for Rep. Joe Wilson.

The last time one that was introduced as a disciplinary action, according to the House Historian's office, was in 2003 by Nancy Pelosi against California Republican Bill Thomas. Thomas, then the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, "called the U.S. Capitol Police to eject protesting Democrats from a committee room," The Hill recalls.

The action never saw a vote, as it was tabled by the Republican majority, but Thomas later "tearfully apologized."

Wilson, however, has no plans to apologize again.

Several members have faced harsher sanctions (that's below as well -- and there are some good ones). A "resolution of disapproval" is the least severe disciplinary action the U.S. House can level against a fellow member.

Per the historian's office, here's the language of that "resolution of disapproval":

H.Res. 324 (108th Congress): Relating to a question of privileges of the House …. "Resolved, that the House of Representatives disapproves of the manner in which Representative Thomas conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on 18 July 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House."

(The motion was tabled by a vote of 170 to 143.)

More from the Library of Congress:

"Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the manner in which Representative Thomas summoned the United States Capitol Police to evict minority-party members of the Committee on Ways and Means from the committee library, as well as the manner in which he conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House."

Here's a history of disciplinary actions, per the historian's office:

Office of the Historian
U.S. House of Representatives

MEMO: Resolutions of Disapproval

REPORT:
The term "resolution of disapproval" refers to two very different types of resolutions.  House Resolutions in general are used for internal actions or expressions of the "sense of the House."  One common example is a resolution expressing the sense of the House "disapproving" an action of a foreign government.  This is a sentiment, and has no force of law.  A resolution criticizing, or reprimanding, or censuring, or rarely, "disapproving" the actions of one of its own members, is a disciplinary action, under the privileges of the House.  It is in the form of a House Resolution, and while it "disapproves" of the actions of an individual member, it is somewhat confusing to refer to this as a "resolution of disapproval."  Such internal disciplinary actions are not normally referred to that way. 

The most common use of the term "resolution of disapproval" involves a statutory review of a proposed executive branch action. "Congress has, from time to time, passed laws reserving to itself an absolute or limited right of review by approval or disapproval of certain actions of the executive branch or independent agencies. These laws, known as 'congressional disapproval' statutes, usually envision some form of congressional action," either a joint resolution, a simple resolution, or an action by a congressional committee.  Some examples of such areas where there could be "resolutions of disapproval" include the War Powers Resolution, the DC Home Rule Act, a number of acts involving arms export controls, federal land policy, and the Defense Base closures and realignment.  See Rules and Manual of the House, section 1130. 

Here are several examples of the statutory "resolution of disapproval":

            - H.Res. 79 (107th Congress): Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 6) providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor under chapter 8, title 5, of the U.S. Code relating to ergonomics.  Introduced by Representative John Linder (R-GA) on 6 March 2001.  Passed by a vote of 222 to 198.

            - H.Con.Res. 484 (95th Congress): Stating Congressional Disapproval of the proposed sales, announced by the Secretary of State on 14 February 1978, of certain military aircraft to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Introduced by Representative Norman Lent (R-NY) on 21 February 1978. Status: Referred to House committee on 21 February 1978

            - H.Res. 905 (93rd Congress): Providing for the disapproval of the recommendation of the President of the United States with respect to the rates of pay of offices and positions within the purview of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-206) transmitted by the President to the Congress in the budget for the fiscal year ending 30 June 1975.  Introduced by Representative Don Clausen (R-CA) on 21 February 1974.  Status: Referred to House committee on 21 February 1974.

However, there are examples where the House has used a resolution of disapproval in a different sense that reflects internal disciplinary action.  These are in the same category of other disciplinary resolutions, such as to reprimand, censure or even expel a Member.  A resolution to disapprove of a Member's actions is the least severe of House discipline.  One example is the following, which resolution was tabled, on July 18, 2003.

H.Res. 324 (108th Congress): Relating to a question of privileges of the House ….  
- "Resolved, that the House of Representatives disapproves of the manner in which Representative Thomas conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on 18 July 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House." Motion was tabled by a vote of 170 to 143.

---------

Office of the Historian
U.S. House of Representatives

MEMO: House Discipline: Reprimands, Censure and Expulsion

REPORT:
The United States Congress is authorized within the Constitution to punish its own Members for misconduct. With regards to disciplinary action to its Members, Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution states that; 

 "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Justification for discipline has traditionally been to protect the integrity and dignity of the institution and its proceedings, rather than merely to punish an individual.  Members of the House and Senate are subject to outside law enforcement and criminal prosecution if their misconduct constitutes a violation of federal, State, or local criminal law. Unlike members of the legislatures or parliaments of many foreign nations, there is no general immunity from all criminal prosecution for Members of the United States Congress during their tenure in office.

Members of the House of Representatives are subject to internal, congressional discipline for any conduct which the institution of the House believes warrants discipline. This was drafted by the Framers of the Constitution and drawn from the British Parliamentary practice. The institution of the House has the right to discipline those who breach its privileges or decorum, or who damage its integrity or reputation, even to the extent of expelling from Congress a duly-elected Member. 

Internal, congressional discipline of a Member may take several forms. The most common forms of discipline in the House of Representatives are now expulsion, censure or reprimand, although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary assessment, loss of seniority, or loss of certain privileges.

An "expulsion" is a removal of a Member from the House of Representatives by a two-thirds vote of the House. A "censure" or a "reprimand" is a legislative procedure where the full House, by majority vote on a simple resolution, expresses a formal disapproval of the conduct of a Member. In addition to these punishments or disciplines by the entire House of Representatives, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is authorized to issue, on its own accord, a "Letter of Reproval" to a Member when the Committee disapproves of conduct but makes no recommendation for legislative sanctions to the full House of Representatives. The Committee has also from time-to time expressed its disapproval of particular conduct in informal letters and other communications to Members.

There is no precise listing or description in the Rules of the House of Representatives of the specific types of misconduct or ethical improprieties which might subject a Member to the various potential disciplines. The Rules adopted by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct provide simply that:

"With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is appropriate for the most serious violations."

A recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it is likely that the violation was committed to secure a personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or immunity.

Below is a listing of examples of Reprimand, Censure and Expulsion Resolutions that have been introduced (both that passed and failed);

REPRIMAND
Last motion to reprimand, but failed, was;
22 May 2007, H.Res. 428; Raising a question of privileges of the House- "Declares that the Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has been guilty of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and merits the reprimand of the House for the same." H.Res. 428 introduced by Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), House tabled motion by vote of 219 to 189, 13 voting present.  Reprimand not agreed to.

Last motions to reprimand that succeeded were;
21 January 1997, H.Res. 31: Recommended adoption of report of the Select Committee on Ethics regarding Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that, "Mr. Gingrich allowed a Member-affiliated tax-exempt organization to be used for political purposes; providing inaccurate, and unreliable information to the ethics committee. Committee recommended reprimand and directed Mr. Gingrich to reimburse $300,000." Complaint filed originally by Representative Ben Jones (D-GA) on 12 September 1994.  H.Res. 31 introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT), motion agreed to by vote of 395 to 28, 5 voting present.  Reprimand agreed to.

26 July 1990, H.Res. 440: Recommended adoption of the report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct regarding Representative Barney Frank that, "Mr. Frank used political influence to fix parking tickets for personal friend and to influence probation officers.  Committee recommended reprimand and restitution of parking tickets.  H. Res. 440 introduced by Representative Julian Dixon (D-CA) on 20 July 1997, motion agreed to on 26 July 1990 by a vote 408 to 18.  Reprimand agreed to.

CENSURE
Last motions to censure, but failed, were;
31 July 2008, H.Res. 1396; Raising a question of privileges of the House- "Declares that: (1) the Member from New York, Mr. Rangel, by the conduct giving rise to this resolution, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits its censure; and (2) such Member is censured." Representative Rangel's acceptance of more than one rent-controlled apartment for his personal use is a violation of the House gift ban, failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts on his annual Personal Financial Disclosure statements is a violation of House rules, Representative Rangel's campaign of illegal corporate contributions from the Olnick Organization, Inc. violates Federal law and failure by Representative Rangel's campaign to disclose certain contributions from the Olnick Organization, Inc. violates Federal law.  H.Res. 1396 introduced by Representative John Boehner (R-OH), House tabled motion by a vote of 254 to 138, 34 voting present.  Censure not agreed to.

23 October 2007, H.Res. 767; Raising a question of privileges of the House- "Declares that: (1) the Member from California, Mr. Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits its censure; and (2) such Member is censured." Mr. Stark, stated: ``You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President' amusement.'' H. Res 767 introduced by Representative John Boehner (R-OH), House tabled motion by a vote of 196 to 173, 8 voting present. Censure not agreed to.

Last motions to censure that succeeded were;
20 July 1983, H.Res. 265 (Studds) and H.Res. 266 (Crane); A resolution in the matter of Representative Gerry E. Studds (D-MA) and, a resolution in the matter of Representative Daniel B. Crane (R-IL). Censures Representatives Gerry E. Studds and Daniel B. Crane for sexual misconduct with a House page.  H.Res. 265 introduced by Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) and motion agreed to by a vote of 420 to 3, H. Res 266 introduced by Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) and motion agreed to by a vote of 421 to 3.  Censure agreed to for both.

EXPULSION
Last motion to expel a Member of the House that failed:
12 December 1995, H.Res. 300; Providing for the expulsion of Representative Walter R. Tucker, III, (D-CA) from the House. Convicted on seven counts of extortion and two counts of tax evasion while Mayor of Compton, California.  H.Res. 300 introduced by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and motion sent to House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, however Mr. Tucker resigned 15 December 1995 before further action could be taken. Expulsion not agreed to nor voted on as a result.

Last motion to expel a Member of the House that succeeded;
24 July 2002, H.Res. 495; In the Matter of James A. Traficant, Jr. (D-OH) expels Representative Traficant from the House of Representatives. James A. Traficant of OH was expelled for his conviction of conspiracy to commit bribery and to defraud US receipt of illegal gratuities, obstruction of justice, filing false tax returns and racketeering, in connection with receipt of favors and money in return for official acts, and receipt of salary kickbacks from staff. Introduced by Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO), motion agreed to by a vote of 420 to 1, 9 voting present.  Expulsion agreed to.

Others include;
 13 July 1861 John B. Clark of MO was expelled for disloyalty to the Union and  taking up arms against the United States.

 On 2 December 1861 John W. Reid of MO was expelled for disloyalty to the  Union and taking up arms against the United States.

 On 3 December 1861 Henry C. Burnett of KY was expelled for disloyalty to the  Union and taking up arms against the United States.

 On 2 October 1980 Michael J. Myers of PA was expelled for a bribery conviction  on accepting money in return for promise to use influence in immigration matters.

##

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
House Democrats launched what amounted to a high-profile public relations blitz and locker room pep rally with a three-hour panel on the need for health reform.

The panel -- entitled, "Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Forum on the Need for Health Reform Now" -- brought together policy experts and a wide range of health reform advocates, from a small business group (Small Business Majority), the American Medical Association (which recently came out in favor of reform), the American Hospitals Association, American Nurses Association, the AARP and a former spokesman for CIGNA. 

Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, under his own ethics cloud, tried to sound a unifying message by thanking leadership for organizing the panel "to shore each other up," he said.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "Momentum is building stronger everyday" to pass reform. He noted what he called "progress" in the Senate. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is set to introduce legislation to his powerful Finance Committee tomorrow. (Baucus chairs the committee.)

But there were signs that not all House Democrats have completely jumped on board and divorced themselves from the public option.  

The public option had become a flashpoint in August for Democrats that exposed fractures in the Democratic caucus -- between liberals and moderates. Rep. Pete Stark, for one, had declared that some of these moderates were "brain dead."

Democratic House leadership, though, after consultation with the White House before the president's joint address to Congress, signaled that the public option was negotiable. And Democratic aides said President Obama's speech had something of a galvanizing effect on Democratic members.

But some of those fissures below the surface showed themselves again today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her opening remarks, vowed that health reform would provide choices and noted, "I believe a public option is the best way to do that."

Others pressed further, trying to take down the proposed alternatives.

Democrat Rob Andrews (D-NJ) prodded Yale professor Jacob Hacker, a proponent of reform, on ways in which co-ops would not be effective.

Hacker said it's difficult to create a large enough provider network with co-ops and declared they have "little chance of success." He said the public option is better because there's a "presumption of participation." In other words, there would likely be more people who participate; it would guarantee a larger pool.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), who was the first and only Democrat to invoke the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, asked Hacker if co-ops were "simply a transfer of an idea from agriculture to health" and if they have any track record of working.

"I'm afraid it's the latter," Hacker said of co-ops. "And there's very little evidence it actually works."

He cited the failure of attempts at co-ops 60 years ago. He did hold up GroupHealth and Wellpoint as co-ops that are good health plans. But, he warned, that the notion co-ops will work nationally is "mythical" because, he said, most importantly, that they can't offer competitive plans to large, private insurers.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (R-TX) took a stab at Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe's proposed "Trigger," which would madate insurance industry changes, and if they are not met, a public option would then be implemented.

How would a "Trigger," in fact, kill a public option? Dogett asked the star witness.

"Any trigger should have been pulled years ago," Hacker said, adding, "The trigger was in Nov. 2008, when the American people voted for change."

The panelists largely -- and politely -- pledged their support for reform, with a few exceptions.

John Arensmeyer, chief executive of the Small Business Majority, said that though internal polling for the organization showed his members generally and broadly support for reform efforts, they are concerned about cost.

"Despite the confusion and distrating noise," reform is necessary, he said. But he added later, that "Members ... really still need to understand ... that there are visceral reactions out there." And that Congress should better address "affordability concerns" because estimates have showed that the cost curve would bend upward.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MA) shot back that House Resolution 3200 would reduce cost for small businesses and make purchasing insurance for owners and employees more affordable.

Thomas Priselac, of the American Hospitals Association, largely expressed support for reform. But, he said, hospitals have concerns over potential payment cuts and also increased costs to them because of the public option being tied to Medicare rates.

"We come together at a starved moment in our history," Pelosi said, adding, "We're closer than ever" to passing health reform.

The panel is continuing until noon with questions and answers between members and the seconf panel with the AMA, AHA, ANA, the former CIGNA spokesman, and AARP.

From NBC's Mark Murray
A smart move? Or a myopic one?

Republicans are firmly lining up in opposition against today's House Democratic resolution reprimanding GOP Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele released this statement: "In another stunning example of hypocrisy, congressional Democrats are wasting taxpayers' time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don't have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan. Without question, Joe Wilson made a terrible error in judgment and has wasted no time in extending a personal apology to the president. The president has accepted his apology... Democrats don't want an apology. They want a side show -- something to shift the focus away from their government-run experiment on health care."

Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee adds, "Democrats only seem interested in condemning the actions of Republican lawmakers when it is politically convenient, but when it comes to cleaning up real corruption and ethical misconduct in the House, Nancy Pelosi continues to look the other way. The American people are still waiting for a public repudiation of the corrupt actions of Democrat members like Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, and Pete Visclosky, whose actions have truly disgraced the integrity of the People's House that Democrats claim to be so concerned about defending."

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Luke Russert has more: At a press conference following their weekly caucus meeting, GOP leaders criticized Democrats for their upcoming resolution aimed at Wilson. Rep. Mike Pence claimed that Democrats wanted to promote the issue in order to take attention away from more pertinent issues like the economy and health-care reform. He added, "This Congress is poised to demand an apology from a man who has already apologized."

Minority Leader John Boehner said of House Democrats, "They want to change the subject because health-care reform is unpopular." Boehner stressed that Wilson had already apologized -- and, just as Speaker Pelosi said last week, "It is time to move on."

When asked whether the GOP would be unified against any resolution condemning Wilson, Boehner replied, "Members are going to have to make their own decision."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Today is the one-year anniversary of when John McCain uttered the words, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." As we pointed out at the time, it was a remark McCain had said before, but after Lehman's collapse, Obama's campaign pounced -- and it produced this devastating TV ad.

[Youtube:6reQLzgywzk]

As we wrote yesterday, Lehman's collapse was both a blessing and curse for Barack Obama -- a blessing because it turned the presidential contest into a referendum on the economy (which benefited the Democrats), and a curse because the economy he inherited will largely determine his political fate.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Nobody puts GM in a corner: President Obama has a very busy, and interesting, day today in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He starts things off in Lordstown, OH (outside of Youngstown), where he participates (at 10:40 am ET) in a roundtable discussion with GM workers and then delivers remarks (at 11:10 am) to these workers on an assembly plant floor. This will be the president's first GM event since the federal government, essentially, took over the automaker. Whether or not that intervention turns out to be successful could end up being important for the Obama administration, more so, frankly, than health care or the other big government decisions he's made. Indeed, GM's success or failure could impact how Americans view government. More than health care, more than the bank bailouts, more than the economy, how GM goes, so goes this presidency -- and moreover, so goes the country's capacity to support (or oppose) government intervention.

*** Siding against The Outsiders: After speaking to the GM workers in Ohio, Obama then heads to Pittsburgh, where he'll speak at the AFL-CIO's convention and where health care will obviously be Topic No. 1. Later, he travels to Philadelphia to headline a fundraiser for newly minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter. Obama's fundraiser with Specter is a reminder how the president is taking sides in some key Democratic Senate primaries or potential primaries -- in Pennsylvania (for Specter), New York (for Gillibrand), and Colorado (for Bennet). And especially in the case of the Specter-Sestak race, Obama is siding with the establishment and against the base.

*** Point Break for Senate Finance? Per NBC's Ken Strickland, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus yesterday announced that he will introduce the panel's version of a health-care reform bill on Wednesday. Although the core of the bill will be a product of weeks of bipartisan negotiations among the so-called Gang of Six, it's still unknown if any Republican negotiators will sign on to it. While many Democrats believe -- and hope -- GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe will support the committee bill, they're skeptical of her fellow GOP negotiators Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi. On Monday, Strick says, Grassley said there was a strong desire in the group for a bipartisan bill, but added that "nothing's done until it's done." Baucus acknowledged the possibility of a Democrats-only bill when it's introduced Wednesday, but predicted it will attract GOP support as the committee votes on amendments. "I'm going to continue working with Republican's all the way through," he said, "but I'm moving forward irrespective of whether anyone is on this draft." The president himself has hinted that there are some secret Republicans the White House has been talking with beyond Snowe. Could they be ready to spring a surprise? A good place to start, by the way, would be the Republicans who voted with the president on SCHIP earlier this year.

*** To Health Care Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar: Here are some other odds and ends in the Great American Health Care Fight: "A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken after the president's dramatic address to a joint session of Congress last week shows Americans almost evenly divided over passing a health care bill and inclined to think it would make some of the system's vexing problems worse, not better."… The liberal group Health Care for American Now (HCAN) is up with a new TV ad targeting the health insurance industry… GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who has a child with Down Syndrome, holds a press conference to argue how the health-care reform proposals "will adversely affect" children with special needs, per a release… Finally, Democrats are quietly trying to assuage Republicans on at least three issues: illegal immigrants, abortion funding, and the public option. Will these changes do anything to bring over a few other Republicans to the President's cause? It's an interesting test. For what it's worth, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell's press shop highlighted the one Post clip dealing with these issues. Could it be the GOP leader sees this as a positive sign for bipartisanship? ,

*** Road House (of Representatives): A Democratic House leadership aide confirmed to First Read that a resolution reprimanding South Carolina GOP Rep. Joe Wilson -- who shouted, "You lie" at President Obama during last week's joint address to Congress -- will likely come this afternoon. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell adds the official language of the resolution is expected to be "short, direct, non-partisan," and it will address the "breach of decorum." Yet after House GOP leaders reportedly urged Wilson to apologize on the House floor, Minority Leader John Boehner said he would oppose the resolution, the New York Times says, adding: "Democrats are likely to paint the [GOP] stance as evidence of a lack of Republican respect for the House as an institution and an outgrowth of the unruly and uncivil atmosphere that marked town hall meetings in August." Folks, it could be a very ugly day on Capitol Hill -- one of those days that explains why Americans, no matter their ideology, have a negative view of Congress.

*** Red Dawn? Check out this Washington Times headline: "Conservatives hunt for next Van Jones." From the story: "Emboldened by the ouster of presidential adviser Van Jones, conservative and business groups are launching fresh challenges aimed at derailing President Obama's nominees. The latest of these targets is David Michaels, Mr. Obama's pick to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), who as an academic published a book attacking corporate executives for the tactics they used to fight class-action lawsuits. Republican critics said they considered Mr. Michaels to be too close to trial lawyers because of his aggressive advocacy on their behalf." (Is this really a sin, or simply a reminder that to the victor go the spoils?) The recent Van Jones, ACORN, and now Michaels stories have this in common: They're examples of the how the conservative media is trying -- and being largely successful -- in taking down Democrats or some GOP bogeymen. What also they have in common: They have little to do with today's most important stories (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care). This doesn't excuse ACORN's practices; and clearly, of the three targets mentioned above, that group has for years allowed too many questionable practices go unchecked. But how POWERFUL ACORN actually is versus how some on the right believe it is are two different stories.

*** He's like the wind: Finally, Vice President Joe Biden has arrived in Iraq. Per a release, "Vice President Biden has arrived in Iraq to visit U.S. troops and meet with Iraqi leaders. During his trip, he will meet with Iraq's President Jalal Talabani; Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; Speaker of the Council of Representatives Ayad al-Samarrai; Vice President 'Adil 'Abd al-Mahdi; Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi; Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Rafe Al-Eissawi; President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani; Prime Minister-designate of the Kurdistan Regional Government Barham Salih, among others. He will also meet with representatives from the United Nations mission in Iraq. Vice President Biden will convey the strong U.S. commitment to Iraq's future and national unity."

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 49 days
Countdown to Primary to Replace Ted Kennedy: 84 days
Countdown to Special Election to Replace Kennedy: 126 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 413 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.