Last year President Barack Obama filled out his NCAA tournament bracket and predicted (as many did) that North Carolina would take the whole thing. He was right. And he was very popular at the time, too, I might add. This year the president's approval numbers have tanked—he's somewhere around 46 percent at the moment. And this year he picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament—the Jayhawks entered the tourney as the overall number one seed. And earlier today in the second round they were eliminated by number nine seed Northern Iowa, 69-67. What else will he get wrong in 2010?

Coming, as it does, after Obama's pep rally today, this announcement from an important swing Democrat is very interesting. Zack Space is afraid of taxes squeezing the middle class in the Senate versions of the bill:

Obama arrived in the visitors' center under the U.S. Capitol for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus this afternoon that had the definite feel of a pep rally before a big game.

I just got back from a Tea Party protest and an anti-war protest (And, they think the righties are the unreasonable ones??? Pictures to come.), so I'm catching up on healthcare news.

The latest is that the House will push ahead with two real votes— one on reconciliation and one on the Senate bill. They're likely to vote on the reconciliation bill first, and there is reportedly a letter from more than 50 Senators promising to vote for the House reconciliation bill. Steny Hoyer said the Senate bill, once voted on by the House will go directly to the President for his signature.

From the office of Senator Mitch McConnell: 

Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote

Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

There are reports that Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has said that they are discussing a compromise that would use an executive order to allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats. The National Right to Life Committee just put out a release explaining that an executive order cannot fix the abortion related problems in the health care bill: 

NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.

It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter -- with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) -- would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.  Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.

Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.

During today's House Rules Committee meeting on the health care, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter diverted discussion of the health care bill into an attack on Paul Ryan's roadmap.

Slaughter repeatedly interrupted Ryan and said his plan would end Medicare. Ryan told Slaughter it was obvious why "you want to talk about someone else's bill than your own." After Ryan explained that individuals now under 55, when they become Medicare-eligible, would be able to purchase their own Medicare with a check from the government, Slaughter replied, "I think that verges on cruelty."

Watch it here:

"I can tell you don't understand it accurately," Ryan said of his plan at one point during the tense exchange. Democrats Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, and Sander Levin all piled on Ryan too.

The boss has a new post up at Washington Post's Post Partisan blog.

By all accounts Bart Stupak has been pushing for an ironclad guarantee that the bill would only pass on the condition that his amendment is included. Kathryn Lopez hears what I hear:

Prospects for a Stupak deal may be collapsing. (Which, yes, could mean prospects for a vote tomorrow are collapsing. Or it could mean the White House/Pelosi twisted enough arms.)

The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on a deal with pro-life Democrats to add Bart Stupak's amendment to the health care bill with an "enrollment corrections bill." That means she doesn't have the votes without Stupak and his band of brothers (and sisters).

“There's a proposal out there, and we want to see it in writing and massage it,” Stupak told The Hill. “We have nothing yet.”

We're getting deep, deep into the weeds of parliamentary procedure, but I believe this is how an enrollment corrections bill could work. There would be a separate vote in the House, and it would then go to the Senate (if it passes the House). What is crucial for Stupak is that he needs to get an ironclad procedural guarantee that the health care bill would be passed only on the condition that the Senate passed his correction. Stupak would need the rule to deem the Senate bill passed, but make its passage conditional upon the Senate's passage the Stupak enrollment correction. 

Small groups, gathered in meeting rooms scattered around the world and focused on a single issue, can affect the way we live, at least now and perhaps for a long time. Consider only this week’s conclaves.

Here in Washington, the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy gurus met and decided to keep interest rates low until unemployment drops, even though they agreed that the economy is already improving. Meanwhile, meeting in committee rooms and in the corridors of power, Congress agreed to give the White House what its economists and the president, meeting in the Oval Office, demanded: more stimulus spending. It is true that there is considerable excess capacity in the economy, as the deflation-worriers continually point out. But anyone who believes that the meetings at the Fed, in congress, and in the White House are not laying the ground for future inflation carries a heavy burden of proof.

If the first day's output is any indication, Kausfiles fans can look forward to much more prolific blogging thanks to Mickey Kaus's decision to challenge Barbara Boxer in California's Democratic primary.

Democrats waste time -- don't want to talk health care -- on the House floor: 

Rep. Keith Ellison: "The fact is, we're honoring a great American novelist, but we have to divert that important conversation…the Republican caucus wants to go toe-to-toe on health care."

From Greg Sargent:

Another big get for Dems: Rep Brad Ellsworth, a former Yes vote who shared the concerns of the Stupak dozen and was intensely wooed by both sides, will vote Yes on the Senate bill, his spokesman confirms to me.

“He’s a Yes,” Jonathan Kott, communications director for Ellsworth, just said by phone. “He will vote in favor of health care reform.”

A press release detailing his rationale is forthcoming from his office.

This is a blow to the Stupak coalition. Will he bring others along?

Ellsworth just sealed the Democratic Senate nomination as well as his defeat in the general election.

Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?

Allen Boyd of Florida, a Blue Dog facing a primary challenge from an Obamacare supporter, will flip his vote from "no" to "yes." He is the fifth representative to flip in Pelosi's favor. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania will remain a "no."

The health care debate is beginning to resemble trench warfare. You have two camps -- the Yeses and the Nos. They spend most of their time launching artillery attacks on the opposing position. Every so often, though, a soldier traverses No Man's Land as he rushes to join the other side.

So far four Nos have joined the Yeses. But there is a larger, much more undefined, group of Yeses slowly crawling across the barren wasteland toward the No trench.

Fox says Pelosi is one or two votes away from victory. Don't believe it. Jeffrey H. Anderson puts the count at 203-214 and writes: "Don't forget the other wavering representatives, all of whom have yet to cast their votes. Let's make this a triumph of American democracy. Let's make Sunday a day when — at long last — the will of the people, expressed by their representatives, resounds victoriously."

On Sunday the cannons cease. And we find out who's left standing on either side.

A friend of TWS writes:

For those Democrats for whom the right to life is more than just a political calculation:

Everything is going according to plan.  Well, almost everything.

Buried in Vol. 2 (of 3) of the Air Force’s FY 2011 R&D budget (the entire budget encompasses 33 documents, some of them are more than 1,000 pages long) is an item referring to the “reliable replacement warhead.”  This is the controversial Bush administration proposal (once, and perhaps still, supported by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) to design a less complex nuclear warhead that is less prone to decay and dysfunction over time.  This is important because every weapon in our current arsenal is at least 20 years old (and some are much older) and many of them are incredibly complex and thus, potentially, don’t work any more—but we don’t know it.  Former nuclear weapons designer Thomas Reed analogizes a nuclear weapon to highly complex sports car: You can’t leave a Ferrari in the garage for 20 years, and then decide one day you want to take it for a spin, and count on it starting just like that.

No matter how this weekend's vote turns out, we're going to need to take a break from health care reform. Like government spending, health care has crowded out the market for political discussion. Glance at the news, and you would have no way of knowing that other things are happening.

The votes of House Democrats on Sunday will largely determine the votes of independents in November.  Individual members of Congress who vote “no” on the proposed health care overhaul will strike an immediate chord of respect with their constituents, establish an instant reputation for fiscal prudence and independent thinking, and gain the appreciation of voters for listening to them.  Those who vote “yes” will invite the disdain of voters across the entire political spectrum, save the far left.

The whole House Democratic Caucus is headed to the White House for a face-to-face with the man himself this weekend:

Update: Here is the Democrat denial on this memo, and the Politico withdrawal notice. Let's hope someone wasn't freelancing fake memos around the Hill. Or worse, had some direction to do so. It would be ever so unhelpful if, in highlighting Dems' budget tricks, Republicans get caught in a ridiculous trick of their own. No named Democrats or aides aren't denying the memo yet. My guess is folks on both sides are less sure where it came from than the original report suggested, and they're scrambling to figure it out now. Will update when I hear more.

Anyone following health care and its attendant budget gimmickry knows that something called the "doc fix" was removed from the health-care bill last year because its price tag—between $200 and $400 billion— shattered Democrats' claims of deficit reduction and put the total CBO score over $1 trillion, which was not deemed politically palatable.

John Boccieri becomes the fourth Democrat who voted against the health care bill in November to flip his vote to "yes". He joins Betsy Markey, Bart Gordon, and Dennis Kucinich. I expect Scott Murphy of New York to become the fifth soon. Other potential flippers from "no" to "yes" include Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Jim Matheson (Utah), and Jason Altmire (Pa.).

Today President Obama traveled to George Mason University in northern Virginia for a pre-vote health care reform rally. You can read his remarks here. If you're too busy to click on the link, don't worry. You've heard them before.

Sen. Tom Coburn, whose cranky floor speeches and Democrats-may-care attitude have charmed conservatives for years, laid down the gauntlet yesterday, telling Democrats that their special deals for health-care votes would be revealed and publicized when he found them.

Now, Darrell Issa, according to The Hill, may start a probe on "special deals" in the health-care bill. Issa is ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.