Everybody on the internets is linking to this E. J. Dionne piece, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading:
The core problem is that the House Democrats no longer trust the Senate Democrats. And let’s be honest: There is no reason in the world for House Democrats to trust the Senate Democrats at this point, or even to feel very kindly disposed toward them.
That’s why there is resistance in the House to the most straightforward solution, which is for the House to pass the Senate health-care bill and send it to the president, and then to use the reconciliation process (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to pass the changes in the bill that House and Senate negotiators have agreed to — or, at least, as many of those changes as is procedurally possible. They can’t get all the changes into law that way, but they could get a lot of them.
The catch is that the House Democrats don’t believe the Senate Democrats will necessarily keep their word and pass the reconciliation bill containing the amendments. And it’s not only the question of trust: anyone who has watched the Senate for the last year can be forgiven for wondering if it is even functional enough (given Republican obstruction and a lack of cohesion in the Democratic caucus) to keep a promise sincerely made.
Update. A Sully reader replies to a different statement, but what he says is also a good reply to House Dems:
With all due respect, this totally ignores the fact that 100% of Senate Democrats support healthcare reform (all 59 of them), but because of the antiquated, undemocratic filibuster rule, which is being used as a daily weapon by Senate Republicans, we aren’t able to pass it. As a Chief of Staff to a Democratic Senator….
The “all 59 of them” line is a big disingenuous, but there’s not much doubt there are 53 or more Senators who are on the same page with the House. If this can be boiled down to the proverbial up-or-down-vote, then it’s silly for House Democrats to pretend they’ll be punched in the neck and slapped in the face as they slide under the bus.
Cat Lady
C’mon Rahm – it’s horse heads in beds time.
eastriver
Yes. And how.
jnfr
They need to get over themselves. It’s not all about their hurt feelings.
meh
i think the technical phrase is “no shit”
mcd410x
Over at Sully’s, a senator’s chief of staff:
Dear Mr. Democratic Senator’s Chief of Staff: It’s your job to get this message out—full fucking stop. If the tables were reversed the only thing Republican senators, congressmen and operatives would have said for the last three months is: Why won’t the Democrats let us have an up or down vote on health care?
You would have heard it morning, noon and night. You would have heard it when you eat, you would have heard it when you sleep. You would have heard it when you wake, you would have heard it when you quake (? .. well, it rhymes).
How hard can this be?
Sincerely, mcd
P.S.: Blaming the GOP for your lack of initiative doesn’t make you look more effectual.
John Cole
So it appears every member of the House Democratic caucus is smarter than Harry Reid.
beltane
Thanks for cheering me up. There are certain Democratic senators who had a strategy to doom this thing from the beginning-Max Baucus, I’m looking at you. Did it have to be this way? I don’t know. All I know is that Harry Reid is possibly the worst majority leader in living memory; he makes Tom Daschle look like a ninja.
The Supreme Court decision has guaranteed that we are not entering purgatory but hell itself.
clonecone
The fix doesn’t have to be in a single bill. In fact, putting it all in one bill ensures that it will never pass. Instead put the fixes in various appropriation bills throughout the session. Are there no legislative experts in the house?
The senate bill must pass, regardless of its lack of unicorns. The status quo is not an acceptable alternative and that’s the only realistic alternative offered by the bill killers.
dr. bloor
If the House Dems are looking at a situation in the Senate where someone like Russ Feingold won’t do reconciliation to save the bill because it violates some precious, dated principle he holds about its uses and misuses, it’s easy to see why they don’t trust them.
General Winfield Stuck
Yea, I’d say that’s a catch. Like Wimpy wanting his hamburger and will pay on Tuesday. And if the senate were to flub the tricky reconc. process, then you have a signable bill that was passed with dem IOU’s to other dems. If Obama were to sign such a bill, under those circumstances, it would make for a circular firing squad with hellfire missiles.
Batocchio
My question with the solution Dionne outlines is whether they have time, or more accurately, whether they can move quickly enough to do it, given their generally glacial pace. Plus, there’s the major narcissistic asshole factor in the Senate, which could delay things, unless procedurally that’s not a possibility.
mcd410x
Moon is lying still, shadows on the trees, witnessing the wild breeze?
Update: Of course in my previous post, the Dems would never last three months of being called “obstructionist” before caving. Wouldn’t make it three weeks.
beltane
@dr. bloor: Why is Feingold held in such high regard? Someone who would rather force people to chose between their home and their cancer treatment just to uphold some archaic rule written by a group of wealthy old men doesn’t seem all to admirable to me. If the Supreme court doesn’t have to uphold the Constitution, the Senate does not have to uphold the bylaws of their exclusive millionaires club.
Glocksman
@John Cole:
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Malron
DougJ, whether or not the House trusts the senate is pretty much irrelevant at this point. The only reason its being thrown about is because the House wants political cover to do their jobs.
Let’s say the House passes the senate bill and the senate reneges on reconciliation. Should that happen, the House has every right to go to the media and crucify every member in the Senate caucus for being liars, but the House would also be able to say they did their part to help Americans get healthcare. The senate would be stuck holding the bag, Americans would be stuck with a flawed bill but the door would still be open to improve the bill in future sessions.
But, let’s say the House stays firm because of their fears, refuses to pass the senate bill and health care dies. The senate would be able to say “we sent the House a bill; all they had to do was pass it and it would be on the president’s desk the next day – but they refused to do it.” The American people would be left with absolutely nothing, the House would be branded the as the group that destroyed health care and no amount of posturing and buck passing would change that perception.
While the members of the House are worried about their image, there is a growing consensus urging the House to pass the bill. They really need to stop posturing and procrastinating and just get it done.
I also need to bring up another point. Even though it only took 51 votes for passage the entire Democratic Caucus in the senate voted for their bill, while 30 or more House members voted against theirs. I believe the senators, in the final analysis, knew the political implications of passing reform and wanted to be able to say they came together when it counted. I hope the House will figure our how to do the same.
beltane
This quote from Greg Sargent (via Sullivan) just about says it all:
Elie
What happened to this once disciplined, organized and focused WH? Its like they came apart like wet cardboard. Are there some divisions that have emerged between Rahm and Axelrod or others? While I no longer have hero worship, I do have to wonder what happened to the prep for alternatives or plan B, the blind whack on Massachusetts and the flailing generally on the health reform initiative in the last weeks. Something is up — I smell it though can not offer any evidence of any kind — just my gut. And Obama’s whole kind of distant thing — I was not prepared for that at all and I am totally suspicious of underlying shit and internal WH internal politics
Tomlinson
Yep.
I’m wondering if these guys are capable of basic electoral math.
Pass the bill, the republicans hate you, the independents are pissed for a little while until they understand what the bill means, and your base is mostly intact.
Fail to pass the bill, the republicans hate you, the independents hate you for wasting a year doing nothing and a huge chunk of your base is gone.
And they are worried that there are politically difficult aspects of the senate bill? Eh? What the hell is more politically difficult than failing to pass the bill?
Kobie
It’s dead, Jim.
Glocksman
@Malron:
Is there such a consensus?
If the House and Senate can work together to guarantee that the compromises Obama negotiated with labor will be implemented, I will not only call my Congresscritter to express my support, I’ll also work in my shop to get others to do so.
If they can’t and the options are ‘take it or leave it’, then not only will I do the opposite, I’ll be telling everyone I work with to call Ellsworth up and oppose the Senate bill.
As I’ve said before, this union person is fucking tired of taking it up the ass because the bedwetters in the DLC don’t want to piss the corporatist wing off.
As for those who think labor is outmoded and doesn’t matter, I hope you have enough cash to hire paid workers to replace all of the volunteers who have more important things to do than help elect so-called ‘democrats’ come election season.
Personally I’d rather watch mold grow in the shower stall than help elect an SOB who stabbed us in the back.
dr. bloor
@Malron:
I doubt this is just posturing. Your reasoning is sound, but the subtlety of a House member being sold out by the Senate is lost in a real campaign. They’d be sitting ducks for a tsunami of negative ads about having forced a shitty bill on the American public.
eemom
and all of this because one Democrat in one state ran a shitty campaign.
To state the obvious, our system of government is profoundly fucked up.
And I don’t think I’m an Obot anymore.
God, this is depressing.
Malron
@beltane:
Co-freaking-sign.
Maude
@beltane: I don’t know. He does not like Obama. He has health care. What does he care about the millions who don’t?
I think he’s arrogant.
General Winfield Stuck
@Malron: I see your point as a possible strategy explanation, but this is too big for that I think, and union workers who are House dem members constituents would not buy it. They would likely look at it as, well, nice plan on paper, but a stoopid one and blame their reps anyway. Especially if they get shook down by the excise tax, or other bad components in the senate bill that will hurt them.
clonecone
@beltane: I have no idea why Feingold is held up as some sort of progressive hero. According to Progressive Punch he’s voted with the Republicans nearly 27% of the time this session. That ranks below Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, and Mary Landrieu. By those numbers he’s the 5th most conservative Democrat in the Senate.
On their crucial votes list he’s even worse. He votes with the GOP 44% of the time. Only Bayh and Ben Nelson score lower.
Link.
DougJ
It’s dead, Jim.
Yeah, there’s a lot of good lines to use if/when the thing actually dies. If Obama announces it is dead, I’m going with “and he said one word to me and that was `dead'”.
NR
Good for the House Democrats. I don’t trust Senate Democrats (or, for that matter, the White House) at this point, either.
However, there is an easy way to resolve this situation. The Senate passes the “fix-it” bill (using reconciliation) first. The House then passes both bills together and sends them to Obama to sign.
Let’s get it done. And since we’re using reconciliation anyway, let’s get a public option passed, too.
eemom
@DougJ:
but we’re supposed to GET what we NEED.
DougJ
but we’re supposed to GET what we NEED.
I think we will, in a way, if this passes.
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
Better watch out DougJ, or Cole will be around calling you a magical thinker.
inkadu
@General Winfield Stuck: Like Wimpy wanting his hamburger and will pay on Tuesday.
An original Popeye’s reference? And just when I was feeling old with all this weird WoW talk, too.
Thanks, General.
camchuck
Many house dems need union support come November (and unions have free spending reign now). They need to show that they are doing everything possible to get rid of the excise tax.
dr. bloor
@clonecone:
I would assume he’s not voting with Republicans as much as he’s voting against moderate/centrist stuff. He hasn’t, up until now anyways, been the sticking point in anything important.
Be interesting to see what he did if he was the 50th vote on a reconciliation bill.
eemom
@DougJ:
I totally agree, IF……
That insufferable smug ass Bobo was on Newshour tonight smirking that the chances of it NOT passing are 80-20, up from his 45-55 odds on Wednesday.
Not that I care what Bobo thinks, however.
WereBear
@Kobie: I saw what you did there.
dr. bloor
@eemom:
I’m amazed he came up with two different estimates that both added up to 100.
General Winfield Stuck
@eemom: All Democrats need to start treating republicans with the contempt they deserve. All of them, all of the time.
inkadu
@clonecone: Feingold was one of the only Senators to stand up to Bush’s abuses of executive power. That’s why he was a progressive hero.
His veneration of principles insulated him for the political fall out and made him a hero to progressives. The same trait now makes his a liability.
But the man has principles, and he sticks to them no matter what. Compare that the finger-in-the-wind democrats and assclowns like Joe Lieberman willing to abuse the filibuster to get on Sunday talkshows. I’d like a few more Democratic Senators like him, even with his voting record.
General Winfield Stuck
@WereBear: Was that the rock boring critter on a Star Trek episode? Ignore this if I am in left field.
Jim
When the Senate voted on the Iraq AUMF, Brooks piously mewled about the Senators who voted against it were “preventing the flowering of democracy in Iraq.” He’s been just as wrong about just about everything else since, but maudlin sanctimony of that gem has stayed with me.
clonecone
@dr. bloor: Feingold voted with the Republicans on most of the stimulus bill amendments in committee. He’s a contrarian, not a progressive.
Edit – you can break down his rank by issue. He’s terrible on on of them, even his pet issues like civil liberties. For example, he’s number 51 on the environment.
Task Force Ripper
I’m not sure what people thought was going to happen. Even if Coakley had won that race – there was still the reconciliation process between the House and Senate.
The House wanted to make changes to the Senate bill, and if they had 60 nominal votes we’d still be fighting this fight to get something, *anything*, passed.
The House would have made their suggestions and the Senate would’ve balked at the result.
We’d be done either way.
beltane
@clonecone: I’ve never quite forgiven him for his behavior during the Clinton impeachment trial. Tom Harkin and Paul Wellstone, on the other hand, were a hoot.
Mary
@beltane: What did Feingold do during impeachment?
Kobie
@General Winfield Stuck: Won’t happen. They don’t have a pair of balls between ’em
clonecone
@inkadu: See what I mean? Actual records don’t matter. He made one vote against the Patriot Act and he’s forgiven for everything else. Ron Paul voted against the war. Are you going to kiss his ass forever too?
General Winfield Stuck
@Kobie: I will dream of such things nonetheless.
Sly
I wouldn’t go as far to say that the Senate Democrats who have been pains in the asses oppose HCR, it’s just that they want what in their mind is best for their states. Is the right thing for them to do? Sure. The problem is that they’re position (Baucus being Finance chair, Conrad being his little pet) and the fact that Republicans are assholes gives them disproportionate influence over the process. And we’re talking about an institution that already gives de jure disproportional influence to people from low pop states.
People need to realize that we don’t have one health care system in the U.S., we have fifty of them and some are comparatively better than others. Each state delegation is going to want some things and not want other things whenever national changes are being decided. So in terms of there being 59 Senators in favor of reform, I’d agree. I’d probably go further and say that there are actually closer to 70. But 11 of them, come the seating of Brown, are stuck in asshole mode and care more about Waterloos and whatnot than their own constituents.
As for the issue of trust… who gives a shit? They’re going to let a key aspect of the Democratic Party platform go down in flames, after it got the closest its ever been to reality, because they “don’t trust” the Senate?
Can we not be governed by a gaggle of high school cliques?
clonecone
@beltane: I agree. I think Harkin should be majority leader.
Task Force Ripper
@dr. bloor:
I’m wondering, because I do not know the answer, if his rejection of reconciliation is to *passing* a bill, and not really to *fixing* a bill that’s been passed.
IOW, would he vote to be part of 51 on something?
beltane
@Mary: He voted with the Republicans to introduce “evidence” and drag the dismal proceedings out far longer than they should have been. On principle, of course.
Mary
@beltane: That’s bold. Hasn’t he been married 4 times?
Zach
Again, can the Senate pass changes in reconciliation before the House votes on the bill? I’ve heard mixed responses, but the answer is usually, “yes.” If so, the Senate needs to do it’s part fast. If not, the House needs to suck it up.
If this is true, it opens up an interesting possibility that hasn’t really been tested since the filibuster hasn’t been used like this before: pass progressive bills in the Senate with less progressive budgetary measures that are made more progressive in reconciliation… this would generally be a good tactic to largely circumvent obstructionism.
The biggest failure of this Congress was not even trying to set the narrative ahead of time that a vote for cloture is not a vote for a bill. If Dems had agreed ahead of time to vote in unison on all procedural measures (and work out behind closed doors whether they’d bring something to the floor), no one would have even talked about the filibuster because it never would’ve been an issue, and Nelson & Bayh & friends could vote against the bill and say they did.
inkadu
@clonecone: I don’t follow him very closely; so your bile might be perfectly justified.
All I’m explaining is why he’s is (or was) considered a progressive hero, and why I still admire him. Here’s what you can do to change my mind:
1) Make a case that he doesn’t have principled stands.
2) Make a case that his principles suck.
or
3) Make a case that he is really just as self serving as any other politician.oo.
And, yeah, actually, I do like Ron Paul, too; for much the same reasons; though I recently saw him on Maddow and now think he’s a self-serving loon ala Nader.
evil twin
I think it’s actually even funnier than that. If Harry Reid (or Barack Obama, or basically anyone with enough power to get a major resolution introduced in the Senate) wanted to keep things moving then all they’d have to do is get the Senate to pass it’s half of a reconciliation bill first. That way the House gets to vote on both bills at the same time.
The question is whether Reid, or Obama, or PhRMA, or whomever, actually wants HCR badly enough to take the risk that the House will fuck with the language of such a bill and reintroduce features that the WH and Senate thought they had blocked. (which I believe they can do)
Zach
@mcd410x:
It’s not possible because there aren’t 50 Democrats willing to do it, but it’s interesting that the Chief of Staff doesn’t even consider the nuclear option or acknowledge that it exists.
One thing: a lot of anger at Senate Dems’ lack of unity is somewhat misplaced. I wish it wasn’t like this, but on the whole I’m glad Dems allow moderates to be part of our caucus rather than eating our own. The GOP may be disciplined, but there are only 41 of them because of the consequences of demanding discipline.
Does anyone know about George LeMieux (Crist appointed Mel Martinez replacement)? I’d think that his vote would be gettable if he’s in line with Crist’s ideology (this would ensure a Rubio candidacy, but that seems likely anyway).
Edit: his Twitter feed makes it seem like he was gettable… http://twitter.com/George_LeMieux
eemom
@Mary:
I believe his marital issues are why he didn’t toss his hat into the presidential ring in ’08.
Mary
@eemom: Well you would think such a guy might have had a little human compassion.
Ailuridae
@inkadu:
Actually its because he’s always willing to shit on the leadership when the progressives don’t get their ponies. Maybe someone should ask themabout Feingold’s incredibly progressive stance when he voted against this:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
inkadu
@Ailuridae: You link to a bill to expand funding for police. I’m not sure what that says about Feingold.
I don’t think he’s really progressive; he just does what he thinks is right and damn the consequences. The Democratic caucus can use more of that.
But, yes, God help anyone who gets between the progressive base and their ponies.
Ailuridae
@inkadu:
That “bill to expand funding for police” contained the Violence Against Women Act and the Federal Assault Weapons ban. But, hey, as long as he keeps telling the FDL-bots that Obama sank the public option in the Senate bill he’s a superstar amongst progressives.
clonecone
@Ailuridae: How about this one. An amendment to:
He was the only Democrat to vote against it. Even Vitter took off his diaper long enough to vote in favor.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Because, Christ knows, every member’s electoral situation is just like every other’s and voting for the Senate bill is a no-brainer.
Comrade Luke
I find it fascinating that the actual merits of the bill itself have been completely dropped, replaced by 400 people in Washington trying to figure out how to cover their collective ass.
And it seems like Obama has retreated to a closet somewhere in the White House, biting his fingernails in the dark and mumbling “I don’t got this, I don’t got this.”
Ripley
Feingold is a purity troll. Kucinich, on the other hand, is B.O.B.
Mary
Kucinich goes on the board too, right along with Stupak.
Tax Analyst
On being a Democrat today: “Another thing I got is a sensk of humiligration.”
mcd410x
@Zach: Uh, sure there were 50 votes, there were 60, actually. I’m talking about the original Senate vote when we couldn’t get Lieberman or Nelson — the GOP, who would have never had 60 members in its caucus, would have been screaming bloody murder about an up or down vote when they couldn’t break cloture.
They have. And will again. Every single member would have been on TV talking about how the Dems were “killing the bill” and “why can’t we get an up or down vote.” Google it.
CalD
Note to House Democrats: Nobody likes a whiner.
PASS THE DAMNED BILL.
Comrade Kevin
Okay, I know that when people say this it means killing the filibuster. What I would like to hear is how, exactly, this would be accomplished, and whether it really can be accomplished, with the current makeup of the Senate.
Ravenwind
Small voice here, hand raised. Why does NOBODY care about the big boost in Medicaid funding and the decently big money for community health centers in both bills?
Do poor people (many of whom were middle class not so long ago) not count? Does the fact that the bills make Medicaid available to single people at long last not count? That anyone can go to a CHC, don’t need insurance, pay on a sliding scale, not count?
Do you recognize “single payer” in this scenario?
Those young people a lot of commentors keep mentioning, how angry they’ll be because they’re mandated to buy insurance? Well, a hell of a lot of young people today need that Medicaid and those CHC’s. Now they have NOTHING.
Care about saving lives, anyone?
Church Lady
@General Winfield Stuck:
Jigs up, bub. Or should that be Bob?
Elie
@Ravenwind:
Great questions — hard questions because in the thickest part of this whole discussion about health care, having something for “poor” or working class people and covering “everybody” just has not been front and center. Interstingly, there has been more concern about people paying for others — the shared mandate under fire.
I think that demonstrates the power and effectiveness of decades of antigovernment frame and 2) the full send of desperation that many must be feeling to cut and run on the weakest so readily.
It is not a high water mark for Democrats or any liberals though I expect our ranks lately have been invaded by the libertarian frame
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Elie:
I think that while the White House has made its share of mistakes in its actions and messaging, it may be that they are letting the ‘dynamics’ of the House and Senate play out. Unlike the previous administration, Obama wants to let the legislative branch play their roles with minimal messaging from the White House (at least publicly/initially). It may be that Obama did not want to come out of the gate saying that he was going to ‘make’ the Democrats do what he wants because they are too lily-livered to do so on their own.
While letting the legislative nightmare play out is agonizing for those of us who pay fairly rapt attention to what is going on politically, others in the middle who are not so politically attentive might pick up the gist of what is going on and if/when Obama decides to step up and provide some party ‘leadership’ and direction they may be more in agreement with him doing so than if he had come right out of the gate pushing hard from day one.
We just had eight years of government led by the executive with a meek/submissive legislative branch taking their marching orders and running with them. Let the absolute dysfunction of the legislative branch make itself apparent to the simplest-minded person out there and then he could step in, saying that if they can’t do their job without direction then he will provide it.
But then this thinking could only be a pipe dream of mine but what the hey… ;)
duck-billed placelot
Comrade Kevin – check out yglesias or klein for clear explanations of how it would work (although both of them have this weird ‘delayed-effect’ concept that makes no sense), but basically it is a pipe dream. It would require 50 Senators plus Biden to trade their personal power to filibuster/threaten to filibuster for a working Senate.
Never going to happen. Look forward to three years of lame duck presidency.
gwangung
Probably because of unfamiliarity with the concept (and what they do) or the scale at what they’re currently operating at (and thus not cognizant of what the money could do). Or both.
Comrade Kevin
@duck-billed placelot: I looked through Think Progress, and found a link there to a Daily Kos diary that explains how the “nuclear option” is supposed to work. I’m skeptical that it would be possible to get enough Democrats to go along with it.
General Winfield Stuck
@Church Lady:
What are you jabbering about now?
Ailuridae
@Ravenwind:
I do. But I’m actually a progressive and don’t really care about being right here as much as I am concerned about doing the just thing.
There’s also the added plus that we have a demand gap in our economy and the 40B a year in Medicaid operates at about a 1.6 multiplier in such a situation. More if the Nebraska compromise is adopted for all states.
Elie
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
Hey — I like your pipe dreams DougL.. I hope that they are so and I have thought similarly about his priorities at other times but missed this in the emotions and sense of loss in the last two days sine MASS. I would be happy to regain my lost sense of confidence that he actually has a “plan” for all of this…
We will see — we will see
Waynski
Late to the thread party, I know, but foam fingers for Cat Lady on comment Number One! Warning though, Cat Lady is only one consonant away from Cart Lady.
Waynski +5
Elie
@Ailuridae:
I hear THAT…gets lost in the shuffle though in all the emotion and angst
eemom
@Ravenwind:
I care too. Indeed that is all I care about at this point. Yes, I’d like to mow down the Wall Street robber thugs, regulate their gluttinous asses before they sink us all down the toilet again, and do lots of other fine things……..but I cannot believe in or take seriously a government that lets HCR fail after having gotten it this far, and continues to let tens of thousands of people in this so called “great country” die every year because they aren’t able to go to the doctor when they are sick. I just can’t. If that happens, I’m turning in my Obot card.
Uriel
@Mary:
Actually, my first thought would be that it might just be the lack of that exact quality that explains being married 4 times.
But I admit, I don’t know much about the specifics of his case.
Uriel
@General Winfield Stuck:
Bob Johnson. He had a 1976 single titled “Fighting For Strangers/ The Mooncoin Jig.” She probably thinks this tonight’s open music thread. It’s pretty catchy.
She gets confused easily, the poor dear.
duck-billed placelot
@Comrade Kevin
Yes, I agree with you.
The reason people think it’s an option is because most of us here in the cheap seats (and some pundits in the not-so-cheap seats) see that the Senate is broken and Democrats are squandering this opportunity to govern. And that without changing the filibuster rule, it is pretty much assured that Obama’s presidency will be wildly underwhelming. Republicans are not going to suddenly start to do their jobs – they’d rather waste four years if it means their party will be ascendent again for another four decades. And while that is morally reprehensible, I’m not sure it’s any worse than Democratic Senators trying to hang on to the comity of their cushy Senatorial perches even though all evidence shows that it means they can’t get anything done.
It’s been a rough week, but I don’t think it’s just that; the filibuster will persist, because the Democrats are too greedy and cowardly to change it.
J. Michael Neal
@Glocksman:
All I can say, Glocksman, is, “Fuck you.” You are so wedded to your special tax break that you would rather leave me out in the cold, unable to get health insurance at all, than give it up. You don’t think your job pays you enough? At least you have one. You don’t think you should pay taxes on all of your income? Too bad, because some of us do have to.
You are the epitome of the, “I’ve got mine, so fuck you,” brigade.
J. Michael Neal
@NR:
It’s not going to happen. The Senate has made it perfectly clear that they are moving on, and aren’t going to do anything about health care right now. The only chance is to pass the Senate bill now, and come back to the reconciliation process later. Otherwise, the bill is dead. If you want a health care bill at all, you have to go for just passing the Senate bill and hoping to fix it later. For me, it’s not even a matter of trusting the Senate, because the bill available is still better than what we have now. Community rating. Billions of dollars in subsidies. Medicaid and community health center expansion. Exchanges. What’s in their is, by itself, much more ambitious than any of Howard Dean’s proposals that progressives swooned over in 2004. If they were willing to advocate that then, why are they refusing to do it now?
It’s not even about blaming the hippies. If I were interested in playing the game of trying to figure out who to blame most, there is no question that I’d go with the Senate centrists; they are so far beyond useless I can’t really describe it. On the other hand, the House managed to pass its bill on time and under budget.
But you know what? I’m not interested in playing that game. If this thing dies, and there is no health care bill at all, there is so much blame to go around that everyone drowns in it. Liberals. Blue Dogs. Senators. Representatives. Obama. Everyone. Every single Democrat in an elected position in the federal government is covered in so much shit that I don’t care who has the most.
The Democrats in the House are faced with a choice: they can pass the Senate bill, or they can let the whole thing die. At this point, I don’t care what has come before. If their response is to worry about who is going to get blamed, and refuse to pass it because they are afraid it might be them, then they are such moral cowards that they are unfit to hold their offices. Pass the bill, then start pointing fingers. If they can’t do that, then I don’t want to hear them whine about anyone else. The relative amount of blame is irrelevant. Everyone failed.
Comrade Kevin
@J. Michael Neal:
As a former member of the Communication Workers of America, Local 1701, it pains me to say this, but I agree with you. Glocksman can go fuck himself.
Tomlinson
Agree. For the last many years, the union negotiators have settled for health care rather than cash, then they’ve sold these cadillac (and they are cadillac) plans to their members as a win. That’s a bill of goods.
What’s really galling is that they have been using a corporate tax break to do it. In a nutshell, they’ve been negotiating “raises” for which the rest of us pick up a significant chunk of the tab.
Tomlinson
This.
I know the house democrats are being asked to dump all their work. I know they are being treated like second class citizens. I get that.
But it is in their best interest and in the countries that they suck it up. The key part is the first. It is in their best interest.
Zach
@Comrade Kevin: What I would like to hear is how, exactly, this would be accomplished, and whether it really can be accomplished, with the current makeup of the Senate.
It involves doing it and hoping the Senate Parliamentarian agrees with you (that you can change the rules in that way with 50+1 votes instead of 2/3 of the Senate); if so, there would probably be a court challenge and the courts probably would defer to the legislature to let them make their own rules.
It doesn’t really matter, though, because there aren’t 50 Dems who will vote for it; ergo the “up or down vote” stuff is toothless: when the GOP was shouting it they literally were a few days from attempting to axe the filibuster.