Evan Bayh acknowledges that 50 Democratic senators can get a public option using the budget reconciliation process. And that is probably true, depending on how the parliamentarian rules on the germaneness to the budget deficit of a public option. Until very recently, I always thought the Obama administration was carrying out a careful strategy of planned failure. They would try to get Republicans to support a good bill, but blame them when the effort failed and use the reconciliation process to pass what they campaigned on. That became a bit harder to pull off once the Democrats seated Senator Kirk and Senator Byrd returned to health. With sixty available members of the Democratic caucus, it simply wasn’t possible to blame a successful filibuster on the Republicans.
It would be preferable to pass a bill under regular order for a whole host of reasons. We can see how hard it is for Pelosi to round up a majority for a robust public option. It won’t get any easier in reconciliation. And the Byrd Rule can play havoc with efforts to pass a lot of the reforms. It would also put less members at risk and give the reform more stability if it passed without the maximum amount of drama and controversy. But, having said that, a good bill is better than a bad bill. Using reconciliation has to be ‘on the table.’
My question for Bayh is, why not make things easier for everyone by getting what you can (in this case, a break for medical device manufacturers) in return for your cloture vote? Why force this process to be as lengthy and painful as possible? Sure, the administration can do this in the most divisive way possible. But what is the advantage of forcing them to do that?
The biggest risk we face is that the Obama administration will cut a deal to pass something unacceptable because the downside of using reconciliation is so high. I guess that is what Bayh is banking on. But I find it unconscionable that he, or any other member of the caucus, would hold reform hostage. If he wants to dare Obama to use reconciliation, there isn’t much I can do about it, but I think it is a pure dick move on Bayh’s part.
Since Reid and Durbin are openly calling Bayh’s bluff, I hope they are willing to play some serious hardball. I know Bayh wants to strip out the tax on medical device manufacturers, and Landrieu wants more Katrina-aid, and Lincoln and Lieberman want to keep their committee chairs. Maybe they can get what they want in return for their cloture votes, and lose it if this has to go to reconciliation.
The biggest downer is definitely Pelosi’s failure to get a robust public option. My hope was that we could get that much easier using reconciliation. But it appears that we might have 50 votes for it in the Senate but not 218 votes for it in the House. Therefore, it doesn’t appear that we can get it no matter what strategy we use. I think that is very pathetic.
It’s hard not to get impatient with this reporting which consistently lacks procedural context.
Yes, I just happened to read it before coming here, and my only reaction was — “what…?”
My question to you: Are you sure the situation in the House is set in stone? Isn’t there room for some movement there? And organized constituent input can often have an impact with House members, no?
It looks grim to me.
While, we’re on the subject of that strange TPM piece, I suggest everyone go over to Al Giordano, specifically the eloquent comments below. They talk, among other things, about that TPM article and your big article of yesterday also gets a mention:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3564/health-care-%E2%80%9Copt-out%E2%80%9D-baits-trap-us-r
epublicans#comment-32739
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3564/health-care-%E2%80%9Copt-out%E2%80%9D-baits-trap-us-r
epublicans#comment-32743
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3564/health-care-%E2%80%9Copt-out%E2%80%9D-baits-trap-us-r
epublicans#comment-32745
This one too:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3564/health-care-%E2%80%9Copt-out%E2%80%9D-baits-trap-us-r
epublicans#comment-32693
Exactly which Dem House members are not for a robust public option? Is there a list somewhere?
You’re on the magic listerv right? Has anyone asked Josh about it openly?
That and well, whether Obama had the procedural in mind or not Progressives have been shit upon and betrayed so often they are psychologically spooked. Obama’s constant refrain of “We like the PO best, but we can certainly live with something less” has not helped. Maybe he had to say that in public, but was there ever any private assurances that he would actually put the PO in? We have all these anonymous leaks about pushing the trigger, but nothing to show them pushing the PO in at the end. You have certainly said it, but no one from Obama’s end has, have they? With his record interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as one of compromise on progressive issues during his term so far, he wouldn’t he even give some anonymous off the record assurance he’d put it in.
What are they supposed to think?
This news of Pelosi not having votes is extremely disappointing. Questions, Can the House Liberals call the centrists bluff? Why does the blue dogs support mean more when the progressives out number them? Could there not a be a scenario where the WH/Pelosi are pressuring Blue Dogs to accept the robust bill? The Liberals always seem to be the ones having to give up something in this process. Choosing between an opt out govt plan and a govt plan with low purchasing power while forcing individuals to buy an expensive Corporate product appears to be not only shitty policy but awful politics.
These corporate Dem lackeys goals are the same as most wise Republicans(excluding the hate the govt ideologs), hamstring the public plan so much that it does not save any money or work significantly better in order to demigod the issue and call reform a failure. They will do that anyway but now you have an angry public pissed that govt is forcing them to buy shitty, expensive insurance. These will be majority of young Obama voters too. Hell, wait until the public finds out that they can not even buy into a shitty public plan anyway.
You have done a helluva job on the procedural analysis but do you have a point of where passing the shit policy will kill Dems in the future? Or do you believe any bill is better than no bill for Dems in 2010 and our Presidents agenda?
Nice post. I think we could have got a robust public option in the House with more hardball tactics and pressure from Obama. Release the names of the House members who don’t want to save us $1000/year on health care. Run ads in their districts (instead of these wasted ads against Snowe in Maine). Have Obama make calls to them.
Botched job by the leadership. Including Obama. I keep thinking back to how the GOP held the vote open for hours on the Medicare drug bill while roping in the final votes. Why the hell can’t Pelosi and Hoyer do that on health care reform (without the bribery, of course)?
I made it sound like it’s all on Obama. It’s not. The hardball tactics should mainly come from Pelosi, the House leadership, and outside groups. But there didn’t seem to be much coordination or effort here. Just a behind-the-scenes whip count and a quick capitulation.
That’s not how you get major things done. Lyndon Johnson would never have passed Great Society if he operated this way.
Well, Jim Clyburn on Countdown tonight claimed that they are going to put out a very strong bill (though he didn’t mention Medicare +5%) and leave it open for 72 hours and that when they are ready to vote they will have more than 218. Who knows? Maybe he’s whistling past the graveyard.
What strikes me odd about the whole thing is that the so-called public option they are gunning for isn’t a public option at all. Most of us will never be able to opt for it. On top of that it makes no fiscal sense. As you pointed out BooMan, the government already pays for the weakest members of our society without being able to have the rich and the healthy pay in. This so-called public option only widens that. Without having the ability of insuring the rich and healthy, they will continue to pay more than they get. It makes no sense. I’m afraid if they pass this, and then see what a money loser it is, that it will be repealed down the road. We need a real public option that everyone can opt into.
What we need and what we will get are two different things in Congress.
Ron Wyden has been making the same point that you make.
My reading is that Congress is afraid that opening up the public option would knock the props from under the employer-based system and result in a default single-payer system. There are a lot of practical issues with that much change that fast; so their concerns are not totally out of line. But I think they are more worried about the accusations of “socialism” that they would be faced with from opponents in 2010.
When the truth of the matter is that having a bill passed and having folks actually seeing benefits of it will help them more in 2010 than anything else.
“Talking Public Option Blues”
Isn’t that a Bob Dylan song from the 60s?
it’s a downer all right, but not exactly unexpected.
I think you really believed they were going to pass something good.
people shouldn’t make promises they can’t, or won’t, keep.
The biggest downer is definitely Pelosi’s failure to get a robust public option.
Um, why is this Pelosi’s failure? Surely Obama, Reid, the Senate HELP committee, the House Commerce committee are equally culpable.
Think this is bad? Wait til the two bills from the House and Senate have to be merged into a final bill.
We’ll lose even more of the decent stuff and be left with just virtually zip.
This is a disgrace. Naturally no one has any problem voting for a 680B defense bill but quibble over hcr because it’s to expensive.
I’m disgusted with the whole lot of them.
Bayh’s conflict of interest in mind boggling. He shouldn’t be voting on anything related to health care.
It’s pretty obvious that we have The Golden Rule on steroids with regard to reforming health insurance laws.
You know, the one that says, “He who has the gold, rules.”
The rest of us can take this time off until the next election when we will be asked to contribute, contribute, contribute and vote for the people who have been screwing us to keep their big bucks contributors “happy”.
Oh, so cynical, but then it’s a grey day with rain in the offing and much cooler temperatures to follow.