The Progressives' Trump Card On HCR: Reconciliation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:26:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the ongoing battle for meaningful health care reform, President Olympia Snowe made a powerful move yesterday, supporting her puppet Max Baucus in the Senate Finance Committee vote. But progressives in the House and Senate have more cards they can still play to trump President Snowe.

From a political bargaining basis, being willing to walk away from a bill is an extremely powerful weapon. Just ask President Snowe. And if the Progressive Block continues to hold that attitude, then it will be in the game at the end. But Senate progressives have a card to play too - reconciliation.

When the pressure to "just pass a bill" comes weighing down on them, they have a great response - "Ok, let's pass what we can through reconciliation." Watch the bluster then. For example, Max Baucus:

[Reid can] invoke[] reconciliation, which allows the Senate to pass a bill with 51 votes rather than 60 votes. From a policy standpoint, this scenario gives the Democrats and the president more of what they want out of health care reform. It would include a public option, as well as more-generous subsidies to make insurance affordable.

But reconciliation can also be a minefield, Baucus warned in a phone interview with POLITICO. It’s “fraught with so many perils,” he said. “More perils than trying to get 60 votes.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Perils for who one might ask Baucus? Certainly not for the Democrats' alleged policy agenda. Is it peril for President Snowe's veto power? Is it peril for Baucus' insurance industry bosses? Peril for who Max?

Speaking for me only

< Obama Or Snowe? Who Calls the Shot On The Public Option? | Wednesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Progressives' Trump Card On HCR: Reconciliation | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Senate will merge and vote (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:52:43 AM EST

on their bill on Oct. 26th. The House is not scheduled to vote on their bill prior to the Senate vote.

It seems to me that if the House intended to pressure the Senate for a robust public option that they would have voted first. Not a good sign IMO.

: The House went first on the Climate Bill which the (none / 0) (#16)
by steviez314 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:29:19 AM EST

Senate is letting die, so the House felt left out on a limb.
They didn't want to do that again.

Before we get to reconciliation we need a vote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by fuzzyone on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:16:39 AM EST

on cloture. I want to actually see democrats vote against allowing a bill that the majority of the party supports to have a vote on the floor.

: Cloture (none / 0) (#31)
by norris morris on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:02:14 PM EST

It would be good to see Democrats behave like accomplished politicians. So far from Obama to Baucus to Snowe to Reid all I see is confusion and a lack of spine that creates dithering and compromise.

Protecting their own (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:29:58 AM EST

Reid refuses to name the Democratic Senators that have said they would filibuster with the Republican's if the public option was included.

I would make them stand up. I've had it with everybody ducking for cover and blaming everyone else. There's no reason to give them or Obama any cover. If they're against the bill stand up and say so.

: Seems they are the ones (none / 0) (#20)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:39:57 AM EST

on the Finance Committee for starters.

: Obama's Cover (none / 0) (#32)
by norris morris on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:07:14 PM EST

Obama has been covered by Baucus and the prentense of President Snowe as power player in this bizarre exercise in futility.
Unless progressives can organize and scare the hell out of the Chicago Mafia, we will see the inadequate political minuets continue to give Obama cover.
I get the feeling that Obama feels any criticism from progressives is irrelevant, and he doesn't give a damn. Hope for our sake and his that I'm wrong.

"Fraught with perils?" (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by desertswine on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:52:28 AM EST

O Rhett, I do believe I'm going to faint.

Frankly, my dear (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:56:19 AM EST

you and I don't give a d*mn about their perils -- since those who do not do the job that we send them to do clearly do not give a d*mn about the people.

It's time for some of them to be gone with the winds of real change, hmmm? :-)


: Nonsense (none / 0) (#27)
by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:36:57 PM EST

Just as bad as the perils that GWB was faced with when he used reconciliation for the tax cut. I didn't see any. Did I miss something? It seemed to accomplish exactly what the Republican's wanted.

He should have known better (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by Steve M on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:02:49 PM EST

than to cast his perils before desertswine.


: Bravo sir! (none / 0) (#25)
by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:07:19 PM EST

Having Snowe (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:38:27 AM EST

vote for the Finance bill to me pretty much put reconciliation off the table, unless Senate Progressives are going to mount a stronger smarter PO campaign than Schumer is doing right now. Bipartisanship has been lionized and now anything less is going to be seen as partisan, radical, etc. Is Obama going to stick his neck out there and stop loving Snowe anytime soon? No.

How much longer will Pelosi stand for (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:51:23 AM EST

Obama devoting all his attention to Snowe?


Pelosi has been put in her place. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:58:35 AM EST

Not by the generals but by a Republican Senator. The first woman Speaker of the House has been to all intents and purposes been deemed irrelevant by her own party by them ceding the power on HCR to Snowe.

The Republicans are having a great time. Unfortunately, it will be the people of this country who will pay for the Dems allowing the Republicans to write horrible legislation.


It ain't over til it's over though. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:02:46 AM EST

I like BTD's reference to what happens if Reid actually includes a public option in bill presented to full Senate.


I wish I could believe that Reid (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:35:26 AM EST

will actually include a real public option in the bill presented to the full Senate. I think that Reid will put a faux public option label on triggers or some other mechanism in an attempt to fool at least some of the people who support the public option.

I guess we will all know for sure by the end of October. Here's hoping you and BTD have read the tea leaves correctly.


Listen to BTD, not me. He is a much (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:40:56 AM EST

better predictor. See football.


He's bet against the Broncos every week... (none / 0) (#28)
by magster on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:45:12 PM EST

...Hopefully BTD knows politics better.


: He bets against Mich., but turns out (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:49:24 PM EST

he's right.

the ultimate conference (none / 0) (#30)
by christinep on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 03:37:17 PM EST

At some point, we will focus on the House/Senate Conferees and the eventual conference bill...the bill that needs only 50 (plus 1). Up till then, we will have a House bill with public option and (here is what I'm supposing) a Senate bill with just a bit more than the Senate Finance Committee proposal. I'm guessing that the SFC+ position for the whole Senate will be a Goldilocks kind of offering. I.e., Goldilocks would like it a bit better to address somewhat the obvious affordability issues in the Baucus approach, but not too much change so as to hold the 60 together somehow. So... if the eventual House/Senate Conference receives the House public option version and something less from the Senate, the next packaging challenge will be the task of the Conferees. And, the identity of the Conferees will tell us a lot.


But we need peace... (none / 0) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:54:29 AM EST

...between the parties, and BO just got that big award. His call to action. He just defines action differently than us, and he should know, he won the award, not us. He can't possibly rock the "bi-partisan" toy boat now.


: I bet Pelosi rocks the boat though. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:55:59 AM EST

This is Obama's character flaw that will (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by sallywally on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:53:05 AM EST

bring down the Dems - it's hard to even process how stupid this 'bipartisan' cr@p is. I wonder what the DNC thinks now about their decision to push Obama into the nomination.

Even KO and Rachel have lost their Obama Kool-Aid. And he's what the rest of us thought he'd be, only much worse.


Why wouldn't Snowe vote YEA on the (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:37:17 AM EST

Finance Committee bill? It has no public option in it. Seems like a Republican plan to me.

I've just sent messages to both my Senators and my Representative. I sure hope the people are making sure their members of Congress know exactly what they have to do to prove they are supporting the people who sent them there.


Peril for timid Dems (none / 0) (#7)
by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:58:10 AM EST

that can't stand the GOP hissy fit that would ensue post-reconciliation. I know the GOP used it too, but that won't stop them from acting like reconciliation is the end of democracy. I think that timidity is pretty widespread.

I'd like to see 3-4 (none / 0) (#8)
by magster on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:58:23 AM EST

Senate Dems using Lieberman's and Ben Nelson's non-committal answers on whether they'd filibuster with the Republicans on a bill that did not have a public option. That would help push the reconiliation process.

Sanders, Franken, S. Brown, Burris?

It is also looking like the unions, FDL and Schumer are trying to exploit Reid's electoral vulnerability to stand for PO.

Are you referring to (none / 0) (#12)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:02:58 AM EST

"Triggers are a pretty doggone good idea Harry."

: Yes, unfortunately (none / 0) (#13)
by magster on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07:17 AM EST

Man, I hate Reid.
Who in leadership is going to be strong on PO? Reid does have the most to lose, so I can see that strategy in the "pols are pols" theory. I think it's risky and unlikely to work under the "weenies are weenies" theory. I'd rather see a couple of Senators be recalcitrant from the progressive end of the spectrum.

A tutorial on the reconciliation process (none / 0) (#10)
by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:02:30 AM EST

would be most helpful, as the little reading I have done suggests that it is not as simple as it is being made to sound.

Reconciliation seems to have most of its application with respect to the financial end of things, not policy and programs. Am I correct that the Baucus bill, for example, would have to be broken down into essentially two parts, one of which would only need 51 votes and the other which would be subject to "traditional" rules?

And how difficult could the Byrd Rule make things - isn't this the wrench that could be thrown at individual elements that could result in their having to be pulled from the bill?

I guess I either need to study this more, or hope that someone here can enlighten me.

Comment (none / 0) (#15)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:18:32 AM EST

from Booman, the 11 dimensional chess believer:

The only way to avoid this chaos is for the White House to use all the tools at their disposal to either get cloture in the Senate or break the will of the House progressives. In truth, going the latter route would require a lot of pressure on liberal senators, too. The decision should be an easy one, despite the unpleasantness of it all. The White House should fight for the plan they campaigned on. And, if they fail, they should use the reconciliation process and just deal with the ugly fallout.

As a non-believer, I think he should've been fighting for this the whole time. To go back to Booman's post from the past on this issue:

If the bill was not going to pass through the Senate, he needed to make sure the public saw the problem as one of Republican obstruction, not executive rigidity.

How is that accomplished when you get President Snowe to vote for the bill, and then jump up and down and huzzah about it? And now Collins is piling on.

I still think some national public option (possibly Schumer's, hopefully more) is going to be signed into law, but I think the Senate process has been bungled a bit, and it's going to take a pretty strong PO campaign to get the PO into the Senate bill.

The problem here (none / 0) (#26)
by CoralGables on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:31:27 PM EST

is everyone has lost sight of what they should have set out to do. We've fallen into the trap of calling this health care reform when in reality it has never been anything more than health insurance reform.

The only true way to health care reform is to offer free medical just as we offer free education. It could start out from prenatal to age five, sixteen, eighteen, or even for life with strictly regulated health care benefits after 18. Anyone wanting something different than the standard government provided health care would need to purchase their own coverage from an insurance company or pay out of pocket, a system similar to those that choose private school over public school.

I proposed this idea in grad school 20 years ago for a medical sociology class as a means of eliminating the middle man that skyrockets the cost of health care. Even then it was obvious that insurance company number crunchers were the decision makers for the doctors office as a way to inflate insurance profits, leading doctors to over test and over treat to inflate their own income.

Wheels turn slowly when dealing with any government entity. I'll be happy if it's accomplished in anther 20 years. For now though, any step in the right direction is better than nothing.