Contrary to common wisdom in Left Blogistan, I do not think the House should attempt to pass health care reform before they recess. I am aware of all the reasons for doing so (mainly, to pass something before opponents can rally a defense), but Ezra Klein explains perfectly my reasoning.
Some sources are speculating that the Blue Dogs are getting cold feet as they watch Max Baucus dither. Many of them felt burned by the hard and damaging vote on the cap-and-trade bill, as it looks like nothing will come of it in the Senate. Committing themselves to a health-care bill before the Senate shows its hand carries similar risks, and they’re no longer in a risk-taking mood. The worst outcome for conservative Democrats in the House is that they’re on record voting for a health-care reform bill that dies in the Senate and is judged a catastrophic example of liberal overreach.
The problem, of course, is that the more dissension there is among Democrats in the House, the less pressure there’ll be on the Senate Democrats to make a hard vote on health-care reform. This makes health-care reform something of a prisoner’s dilemma for conservative Democrats. If Blue Dogs in the House and centrists in the Senate both put it on the line to pass the bill, they’re both better off. But if one puts it on the line and the other whiffs, then the other pays the price.
If the House passes a bill in this atmosphere, it will probably receive the bare minimum of votes (218-220), and that will only serve to highlight the intraparty squabbling on the Democratic side along with the monolithic opposition of the Republicans. That does not create a good dynamic for Max Baucus to work with in trying to get something through the Finance Committee.
Remember that the only vote that that the electorate will really remember is the vote on final passage of the conference report. That means that House Dems can get an almost free vote against the House bill now and make up for it later by voting for final passage. It would be far preferable to have the Senate pass their bill first so that centrist Dems don’t feel like they are taking a difficult vote that might not be translated into law. But, even if the House goes first, they should have a better idea than they have now of what is going to be in the Baucus bill.
We want the largest vote in favor of the bill that it is possible to get in the House…not the narrowest. But we can’t get anything but the narrowest of victories if we force the bill through before the recess.
Congressional leaders should spend August hammering out deals so that they are prepared to come in after Labor Day and pass both bills without worrying about a Prisoner’s Dilemma.
I like your argument, Booman, except for this: a realistic expectation is that August will see the “government takeover” trounce the “public plan” on the airwaves by a margin of many millions of dollars.
Does the existence of a tangible proposal on the docket diminish the effects of fear-mongering? My answer is yes.
.
WASHINGTON — A strong force, perhaps as powerful in Congress as President Barack Obama, is keeping the drive for health care going even as lawmakers seem hopelessly at odds.
Lobbyists.
The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul — not the groups’ objections to some of the proposals.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I have to say, I’m less supportive of this version of health care reform the more I hear Democrats insist that anyone who doesn’t buy insurance be penalized.
I disagree with you, mainly because I think the Blue Dogs are nothing but pussies that should be shown the door if they don’t vote for healthcare reform. Harry Reid is worthless piece of shyt.
well, without necessarily disagreeing with your points there I still think my advice is solid.
Obama is on the “Bully Pulpit” now. More time lets him work his magic.
In a less self-serving environment, I think your analysis would hold up much better. Sadly, I don’t believe enough of the Blue-Dog obstructionists feel threatened enough in their own districts. Given that it’s almost axiomatic that for most house members their seat is effectively a pretty safe sinecure. This is in some cases even more true for certain of, but by no means all, of the Blue-Dogshitters because their key support at home comes from people who have been conditioned to oppose health care reform anyway, despite it being against their own best interests to do so.
So, in my opinion, much more than constituent activism is necessary to change these dynamics. The media needs to be involved in getting at the truth and in being able to characterize the obstructive politicking as just that, obstructionism, rather than principled and noble stands on ideals. But since the media is now openly aligning against any meaningful, effective health care reform, they are disregarding relevant facts and have returned to their knee-jerk trashing of all things ‘liberal’. And if the obstructionists are not revealed as being such in the media, and if the media conversation continues to be organized around the wingnut talking points, those hometown ignorati will continue to simply buy into the current mountain of bullshit and never realize they’ve been had again. As a result, creeps like Ben Nelson and Evan Baye and Landrieu and Pryor and many of the others will keep getting returned to power. And never was there a bunch of people less deserving of their positions than these characters.