In this case, the Democrats are correct. The reason that House Speaker Paul Ryan and the White House are loudly signaling that they have no interest in pursuing the bipartisan negotiations between Senate HELP Committee leaders Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray is because they’re engaged in a whip operation in support of the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill:
Democrats portrayed the rejection of the bipartisan push as intended to create pressure on Senate Republicans to hold their nose and support the Graham-Cassidy bill, and as the only way out of the party’s political quagmire. If that bill fails, Republicans may have to return to bipartisan talks, particularly if Trump again threatens to halt subsidy payments.
A few things have happened in recent weeks that have revived the Republicans’ interest in giving repeal another go. One is that Trump started talking aggressively about turning to the Democrats to make deals since the Republicans clearly cannot deliver on their own. Another is brutal polling data. Gallup has approval of Congress at somewhere between 16% and 18% in August and September among Republican voters. It was at 50% among Republicans in February. For context, Democratic voters give Congress a 14% approval number. Probably more importantly, a quick glance at the generic congressional preference polling shows that the GOP’s position has deteriorated badly since the failure in early August to repeal Obamacare. Before August, the Dems’ advantage ranged roughly between two and six percent, with only a couple of more disturbing outliers. Since the failed vote on Obamacare, however, the range is more like six to nine percent. The RealClearPolitics rolling average is actually at 9.2% at the moment, which is high enough to predict a wave election that could cost the Republicans control of the House of Representatives. A third recent development is that the Senate parliamentarian clarified that the Republicans must repeal Obamacare by September 30th or give up trying. That’s because their special budget reconciliation instructions will expire at the end of the fiscal year.
In combination, the Republicans gained a new sense of urgency. At the very, very least, they weren’t willing to ignore the displeasure of their base and let the deadline come and go without giving it one more try. They feel like they have no cover from the president and they know and can see that he’s lost faith in them. As they began to digest the magnitude of their failure and the likely consequences, the urge to pass something, no matter how horrible and foolhardy started to grow irresistible.
And that’s really all this is. The Graham-Cassidy bill is a toxic piece of crap. It ought to have significantly less support than the stupid skinny repeal did, and for several reasons. The most important reason is that the Senate Republicans could vote for the skinny repeal bill and have some reasonable hope that the House wouldn’t actually pass it, too. For the individual Republican lawmaker, the ideal situation is a bill they can vote for that will never become law and cause tens of millions of people to lose health coverage. Ultimately, every Republican who could get away with voting for skinny repeal did so, but many would have been absolutely horrified if it had ever been signed by the president. That dynamic hasn’t changed. What’s changed is the level of desperation to deliver something in light of the polling data and the president’s turn against them.
Since the Graham-Cassidy bill is in many ways more radical and obviously worse than the skinny repeal bill, there are more reasons not to want to see it become law. So, maybe the increased pressure and the worse bill somewhat cancel each other out. The more it looks like the House might actually follow suit and pass the Senate bill, as is, the less likely it is that individual Republican senators will vote for it.
The governors of Nevada, Alaska, and Ohio are all asking their Republican senators to vote ‘no,’ and that could provide cover for someone like Rob Portman or Lisa Murkowski to oppose the bill. Right now, it looks like opponents’ hopes lie with Rand Paul and John McCain, but that’s deceptive. The list of Republican senators who know the Graham-Cassidy bill is irresponsible and will come back to bite them is much longer than the list of Republicans who are willing to express doubt about its merits. Without question, Lamar Alexander understands what’s at stake.
Here’s what you can be certain about. Every Republican senator who thinks they can vote for repeal without a repeal actually occurring will almost certainly do so. No one wants to be the next John McCain, including potentially John McCain. But if it looks like the House will rubber stamp the Senate bill, there’s a long list of Republicans who might feel like they have to bite the bullet and be the bad guy.
In my estimation, the chances of repeal are currently higher than they were in August, although I think the risk in August was actually very low. The difference is that the Republicans have had a chance to see what failure looks like, and they’re not sure they can live with the results. Also, McCain is Graham’s best friend, and this is Graham’s bill.
The danger is that the Republicans are in a similar situation to the members of Delta House after they were expelled by Dean Wormer.
Otter: Bluto’s right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.
If nothing else, passing Graham-Cassidy would be really stupid and, considering the consequences, a very futile effort to avoid the consequences of all the Republicans’ unhinged railing against the Affordable Care Act. But that doesn’t mean they won’t do it.
I don’t think they’ll all be so crazy as to go ahead with it, but I cannot rule it out.
Truly awful legislation. We’re calling our Senate offices in our state daily. Ours is one of the red states that has Medicaid Expansion, so our state would be one of the losers if this bill came to pass, and I am sure that the damage done to the budget would end up harming social services among other necessary state government functions. The second the news came out that this would be a thing, we were on it. Our local Indivisible group is on it. We’ll do what we can to jam the phone lines.
We are trying to.
I won’t lie – the initial burst of enthusiasm from the Spring has declined. There was pretty good turnout for the NH State Democratic Convention though.
I do think O’Care repeal is an inflection point for activists in both parties. If it is stopped it will feed some needed enthusiasm among Dem activists.
But my God there was so much talk about 2020. I have been involved in one way or another in most of the IA/NH cycles since ’84. I cannot remember so much talk this early.
I know this is extremely basic, but … what are the consequences of voting for Graham-Cassidy for individual Republican senators, as opposed to the consequences of not voting for it?
Isn’t it far safer for, say, Lamar Alexander, to vote for G-C with the vast majority of the other Republican senators than to vote against it with the RINO few?
This is precisely my question, too. The consequences of voting against this bill, as well as the consequences of suffering another loss were not made clear to me.
Consequences for the GOP? This:
The Koch Brothers aren’t going to take their ball and go home if they don’t get their pony. Besides, only 8 Senators are up for re-election in ’18. If this bill passes that $400 million will be throwing good money after bad because it will be a bloodbath for the House GOP.
That $400 million can mitigate a lot of damage. Besides, why would it be a bloodbath when the DCCC can’t recruit its way out of a paper bag?
Seems to me Phil is right about this. Getting a very bad feeling they are actually going to do it even though it is a political suicide note for their party. Policy has become divorced from the framing and narrative of politics. This is a ridiculous promise they couldn’t weasel out of because Trump; a perfect storm of expediency.
I’ll bet the typical Republican Congressperson assumes their own constituents are easily enough gulled to not figure it out until after 2018. And that’s as far as they’ve thought it through.
On his trips back to Colorado Cory Gardner had time for Americans for Prosperity, ALEC and a conservative religious convention, but none for his constituents until the PR got so bad he had 3 live town halls. Where he was roundly booed.
One of the worst consequences of the toxic Republican approach to governing is the constant re-emergence of the “vote X, hope not-X” caucus, another example of which we see here. When you know that what you are doing is substantively wrong and deeply harmful, but you lack the courage and integrity to vote what you know, you sign up as a member of that caucus. As long as Republicans keep trying to govern based on hatred and lies, this situation will keep recurring.
Of course this can be a more general legislative problem, but the Democrats have dealt with it by supporting policies generally based on careful thought and a truthful appreciation of the evidence. Republicans haven’t, beginning especially in 1994 and become more so over time.
This comes just in time to cut off the Houston victims of Harvey who will have to deal with the medical issues resulting from being soaked in toxic materials.
Also, in addition to the horrible consequences for millions of individuals and families, the potential consequences for the U.S. economy are scary. As their health coverage evaporates, people will be cutting back on spending in anticipation of uncovered medical contingencies.
McCain will vote for it, his governor supports it.
His governor supported the last stupid bill, too.
And I have a hard time believing McCain will vote against a bill his BFF Mini-me is co-sponsoring.
It is hard to read where McCain is on this. I talked to some people on the Hill – the fear is if McCain votes for it Murkowski will too. They were seen talking on the Floor for some time today.
Collins is a no, and so is Paul.
The Hill quoted McCain as saying he wanted “regular order” and that he had amendments he wanted considered. But he hedged in a way he hadn’t before.
It also appears the compromise Bill between Alexander and Murphy blew up.
It’s not really knowable what is going to happen. Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance – so maybe that means the best guess is McCain is still a no.
Having said all of this, the GOP will back. If they pick up seats even 1 or 2 seats in the Senate – as seems likely – they will have the votes.
They have a very thin margin, and the fact they have gotten this close suggests a caucus that is able to find agreement better than I would have anticipated in January.
Yes, they’re getting 1 for sure after that scumbag Menendez goes down.
Aren’t there real structural problems to passage?
They need a CBO score to pass it via reconciliation but a CBO score will reveal exactly how toxic the bill is. I’ve heard estimates of 26-27M people losing coverage.
They need to be budget related to pass it via reconciliation but there are elements of the bill that are so far outside of that remit it’s incredibly unlikely the parliamentarian will approve, leading to major last-minute rewrites and/or amendments which will trigger the first point again.
You’re the guy that gets into the weeds, Booman. Can you offer any thoughts on these points?
I see in answer to my first question that they’re going to try to pass the bill based on a “partial” CBO score that doesn’t include coverage losses, which, hoo boy that’s ballsy. That number is going to come out within days of passage if they manage to ram this thing through and it’s going to be worse than any previous attempt.
Still have no idea how they’re going to dodge the second issue though.
Does the Parliamentarian decide how much ‘partial’ is needed for reconciliation?
The bill needs to be at least budget neutral to be eligible for reconciliation, so that’s the part of the analysis the CBO must complete.
Other aspects of the bill like removing essential health benefit requirements and allowing insurers to charge the moon on clients with preexisting conditions clearly are not eligible to pass via reconciliation so I have no idea what the plan is to bypass the parliamentarian there. Hoping Booman weighs in.
Don’t the non-budgetary elements that you mention, like charging the moon for those with pre-existing conditions, fall under the state level regulation of health insurance providers? If so, and I many be wrong about that, the bill would elide your structural problem by leaving it up the states to address those issues (or not).
I’d think not but I’m very much not an expert on how they Byrd rule is interpreted and how much hand-waving they allow in order to pretend a policy change is directly budgetary.
Just read this, which is responsive to your question:
To which Bluto famously replied, “And we’re just the guys to do it!”
I’ve thought this too. The GOP is in a fix, and they’re perfectly willing to shoot all the hostages in some desperate notion that shooting them will somehow work out to their advantage.
There’s never been a bill this unpopular, but the minute Trump calls on his supporters to rally behind it, they will all swallow their fears and leap off the bridge together. Well, we all know what happens to people who leap off bridges.
But, that isn’t going to stop the morons. My senator is absolutely useless and will certainly vote for this bucket of crap – Corey Gardner. He’s voted for every single Trump boondogle since Trump took office. He figures he’s got until 2020 to make amends with the voters, but his calculation is only correct IF this fails.
Every single one of these assholes is going to vote for it and hope somebody else falls on their sword to block it. But, as Democrats learned in 2010, it never pays to piss off the majority of voters – even if you’re right and they’re wrong. In this case, this vote is going to hurt.
They are simply hoping their base will vote for them and that will be enough. But, for Senators in states like Colo. that voted for Obama and Hillary, this behaviour is totally insane. The GOP base here is just not big enough to win a statewide election.
Any candidate must attract Independents to win, as Gardner did in 2014. Only they hate this bill too.
Gardner my Senator as well. I have already FAXed and will call and email today. I think he’s feeling the pressure, but will it be enough? I doubt it. And hope Coloradoans don’t forget his vote when he’s up for re-election.
Slightly off topic, but have you met or heard Morgan Carroll, the new chair of the Colorado Democratic Party? She’s been on a tour of the state and I heard her speak, take questions, etc. She’s VERY impressive and on a mission to reinvent the state Democratic Party, a makeover it surely needs.
I do not think the chances are higher than they were in August. The reasons are: 1) Medicaid; and 2) The risk/benefit for individual Senators is quite different from the risk of the party as a whole.
Neither Collins nor Murkowski will vote for this thing, and as you say, there’s a long list of Senators who could easily be #3. They’re all waiting in the hope that someone else will do it, of course. But someone will do it.
I see no reason why John McCain should care about being the next John McCain, since he isn’t even going to live through his term, much less run for another one. And there are several other potential spoilers. If I had to put my money on one, I might go with Shelly Moore Capito, whose state would be devastated by this bill.
It’s like The Fyre Festival
That unnamed marketing exec is Cassidy and Graham. They just want to be legends.
The Schumer/Pelosi debt ceiling/hurricane relief deal with Trump doesn’t look good at all right now. Instead of debating those issues right now, it gave them time to try another ACA repeal.
And Bernie’s timing for his Medicare for All bill looks stupid too.
Why couldn’t those things waited until at least the end of the month?
And Bernie’s timing for his Medicare for All bill looks stupid too.
This is stupid. The GOP was always going to try again, regardless. The GOP big money boys demand it. Why? Passing a repeal makes tax reform/tax cuts easier. At least it would involve less shenanigans on the tax cuts end. And the Koch brothers still want their Randian utopia.
I would like some explanation about this as well, from people with more experience in how the timing of legislation works. Did the early conclusion of the debt ceiling hostage crisis give Republicans more time on health care? If so, it might end up being a terrible deal by Pelosi/Schumer.
Trump and Ryan will want to shoot this bipartisan bill down as well, but if nothing else it signals Sen. Collins is not amused by the latest repeal effort.
I wonder if she can be bought given her concern about the Maine Hospital Association.
Meanwhile:
No Resistance on The Hill. Barely a blip in the MSM. Not even a topic of discussion on liberal blogs. Why no How Are You Going to Pay For It standard dismissal from both parties wrt anything good that people want. What do people think the Oval Office nincompoop is gonna do with all that increased U.S. military might? Let it sit around and collect dust?
FWIW — the Nays:
Corker (R-TN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Pathetic that the HI and NM liberal delegations are missing from the nays.
Also pathetic that the only ‘possible Dem 2020’ name on the list is GiIlibrand.
I’d rather consider Merkley. Gillibrand does have more identifiable familial roots in a progressive orientation than all the other wannabe presidents, but that’s thin gruel considering her actual political affiliations. She and/or her closest confidants are either cunningly setting her up as the progressive insider savior for a 2020 or 2024 campaign or maybe there is some there there. Odds don’t favor the latter.
Here in NM the federal dollars are a lifeblood to our flagging economy. Defense/nuclear industry very crucial. Hard to turn away from that on principle when real incomes are involved.
Same excuse House Reps and Senators in most CDs and states have been using for decades. Yet, except for NoVA, the economies in those CDs and states dependent on “defense” spending never seems to improve. Because military spending is always a sink and not an economic boost.
You are a purist, I think. The federal money is a backstop. Without it, NM would be totally dependent on oil and gas. Oh, what fun! Not that we like living upwind of nuclear waste or nuclear research. We’re not crazy about the chance of fire or water contamination. But, geez, there would be nothing here without a few air bases and nuclear. It’s always a trade-off. Can’t be a purist all the time.
You’re missing my point. Why is there only a) “defense” dollars or b) nothing? That’s the best decades of high-priced education that moves to DC can come up with?
If your point was that the money would be better spent on other things, which is true, why did you say “military spending is always a sink and not an economic boost”, which is false?
It’s always a sink if you cherry pick which study to justify your position.
Of course this is one of the few examples of “bothsiderism” that I agree has merit. Just spent 5 minutes on Teh Internetzes and you can pull up equal numbers of Miller Lite-esque “TASTES GREAT!” “LESS FILLING!” pieces from the usual suspects justifying massive military spending as some great economic boon or others saying it’s a “sink”.
The problem is finding sources and data with accompanying analysis that don’t have one of the above screaming biases built in. A quick primer that takes a middle-of-the-road approach:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/how-military-spending-affects-economy.asp
Essentially takes a Goldilocks approach: there’s a “just right” level of spending.
A more academic approach highlights the problematic nature in studying this issue:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~mrgarfin/OUP/papers/Dunne.pdf
The second section of that piece is worth reading for an overview of the issues involved.
It’s obviously complicated, if for no other reason than that military spending encompasses so many disparate elements. Some spending (dumb foreign adventures) are just about pure waste. Most others are a mixed bag. Some, like hiring, housing and feeding soldiers and providing them with skills applicable to civilian jobs are in line with traditionally left policy analysis about the role of government in confronting poverty and unemployment.
You can if you’re a member of the Our Progressive Betters Club. They share the same goal as the Greens “Always doing what’s best, electorally, for the GOP”.
It’s pretty clear who here is a member.
If you think it’s an accident the same people come out of the woodwork every time the Republicans are close to achieving major conservative goals in order to slag the Democratic party, Democratic leaders, and Democratic policies you’re a much more generous person than I.
Heh heh, I do not think it’s an accident.
Why they feel the need to do that, given the audience here will tune them out as soon as they see the source, does remain a mystery.
At this point I get the all hands on deck for Obamacare stuff.
But the fact that this ignored is as much about embarrassment as anything else.
And shows how scared Democrats are on National Security.
Gilibrand’s vote is interesting.
How crazy is it that Democrats have spent and continue to spend all their political capital defending a Heritage Foundation/GOP health insurance policy? Where are the financial stakeholders — insurance companies and drug manufacturers — in this fight? Of the estimated twenty million that directly benefited from the ACA, what percentage votes and of those that vote, what percentage votes D v. R?
If SS and Medicare didn’t permanently win the senior vote, why should there be be a strong electorate for the ACA? Particularly since the argument for it wasn’t strong.
What did partisan Democrats and elected Democrats fight hardest against from 1996-2000? It sure wasn’t any of the wretched GOP legislation that the Clintons supported.
In case you hadn’t noticed, every repeal bill makes its savings by savaging and killing Medicaid by blockgranting it and placing caps on its spending growth, but don’t let me let you get ahead of another self-righteous rant about how everyone is doing it wrong.
Goddamnit, this bullshit is one of the reasons that I stepped back in my participation in this community. Mission accomplished for you, I guess, but I’d ask you and the community to consider your callous disregard for the health and lives of fellow Americans.
While I’m working with my Union and my/our allies to make phone calls to voters in swing States and patch them through to their Senator’s office so they can demand that their Senators vote to preserve health insurance for tens of millions of people and prevent costs from rising for most Americans, you, a frequent participant here who constantly attempts to exhibit control over the discussion, trots out this “THE ACA IS THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION HEALTH REFORM” again. Lie, fucking lie, despicable lie, over and over. The Heritage proposal, like all conservative/Republican proposals, sought to undermine Medicare and destroy Medicaid as the programs have existed. Tens of millions of Americans would not have gained free or low cost Medicaid health insurance under the Heritage proposal. That’s not the only factual difference between the two policies, but it’s the most important. So stop lying, stating lies, despicable lies, over and over.
If you want to try to claim that, well, President Obama and other Democrats tried to gain bipartisan support for the ACA by declaring it centrist and noting that Heritage advocated for health insurance exchanges, I’d ask you to deal with the fact that BROAD POLITICAL RHETORIC IS NOT POLICY.
We should also put the cherry on this sundae by recalling that the Heritage Foundation only introduced their 1993 proposal under duress, in an effort to derail the Clinton Administration’s campaign to get Congress to pass health reform which in its full policy recommendations was even more progressive than the ACA.
You and a few others came here trot out anti-ACA horseshit throughout the 2016 campaign, even as we heard what the two candidates had to offer in comparative policy proposals. We were encouraged, actually lectured, to believe that Clinton’s proposals to improve the ACA were unacceptable because the ACA was unworthy of defense, and that Americans should not support Hillary’s campaign on that basis.
We’re all suffering in this and other policy and cultural ways today because of that unbelievably catastrophic error by people on the left side of the political spectrum who just did not care to defend out movement and its accomplishments, and our Nation, its people and progressive institutions.
Regrets about the rehashing here, but since we’re stuck responding to some of the same stuff this year that we responded to last year from those who claim to support progressive policies, rehashing seems necessary.
I’m very grateful to have effective organizing work to do at a time like this.
Consider this: the defense budget in 2000 was about 300 Billion. If the increases had been limited to inflation the current budget would be 416 Billion, which is nearly 300 Billion lower.
With that you could:
And not effect the defect a dime.