NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.... Recently, President Obama has made a more conscious effort to note that while right-wing detractors are bashing the idea of health care reform now, their forebears were doing the same thing when previous progressive presidents tackled major challenges.

As the president reminded Congress last week, "In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind."

But there's more than a just a general parallel here -- in many instances, conservatives have used the same language to stand in the way of domestic policy progress. Media Matters had a great report on this in March, and I was encouraged to see Bloomberg News have a similar piece today.

The debate is about health care. The threat is of a march toward "socialism." The words come from a famous voice.

Not Sarah Palin in 2009. It was Ronald Reagan in 1961.

"From here, it's a short step to all the rest of socialism," Reagan, then an actor, warned in a 1961 record sponsored by the American Medical Association after President John F. Kennedy created a commission that laid the foundation for Medicare. [...]

In 1945, the AMA helped portray Truman's proposal for national health insurance as a creep toward communism. Three years later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce produced a pamphlet, "You and Socialized Medicine." [...]

The experiences of Truman, Kennedy and Clinton offer lessons for Obama, said Richard Rapaport, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley who has researched the AMA's initiative in the 1960s, dubbed "Operation Coffeecup."

Once the public associates the word "socialism" with a plan, it's hard to change the impression, he said. In 1945, when Truman addressed Congress about a national insurance plan, 75 percent of Americans supported the proposal. By 1949, after it was targeted by opponents, only 21 percent did.

When JFK first raised the prospect of Medicare, Reagan warned that it had to be stopped or that generation would "spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." When FDR proposed Social Security, a Republican congressman said, "If this bill becomes law, the lash of the dictator will be felt."

Glenn Beck and his minions are annoying, but they're not exactly breaking new ground.

HEALTH CARE ROUND-UP.... It's the first day back from the August recess on Capitol Hill, and there were quite a few developments of note.

* A few weeks ago, 60 progressive House members said a public option is "essential" in a health care reform bill. Today, Roll Call reports that at least four of them would be satisfied with a "trigger" compromise.

* Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has finally released his reform bill. Putting another nail in the coffin of the Gang of Six, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is reportedly unimpressed with the Baucus plan.

* President Obama will lay out his vision for reform tomorrow night, but as of today, the White House does not intend to present Congress with a bill of its own.

* House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters today the House may be able to pass a reform plan without a public option. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the opposite.

* We haven't heard too much from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) lately. Today, she said she's "opposed" to a public option, and described the "trigger" as a "better approach." She stopped far short, though, of endorsing the policy.

* Any chance that a "trigger" compromise might satisfy the concerns of right-wing lawmakers? Of course not. Today, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said a public option a "terrible idea," whether it comes now or in the future. He also insisted, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the public is "clear" in its "firm opposition" to a public option.

* Similarly, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Texas), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also believes the "trigger" policy is unacceptable. "The vast majority of CPC is not prepared to wave a white flag on public option," he said today. "A trigger would be a surrender."

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted today that Senate Republicans haven't negotiated in "good faith."

* Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) told reporters today that if President Obama drops the public option and the idea of non-profit co-ops, there could be "tremendous progress" on bipartisan reform. (Note to White House: please don't believe him -- Crapo's Lucy holding the ball, you're Charlie Brown.)

* There are 435 members of the House, 256 of whom are Democrats. To pass a bill, the majority will need 218 votes, meaning the Dems could afford to lose only 38 members of their own caucus (assuming no Republicans vote for reform, which seems like a safe bet). The Hill reports that "at least 23" House Dems are now on record opposing existing reform efforts.

Not exactly slow on the first day back from the break.