Health Care and Legislative Strategy
For whatever reason, the Democratic Party is a risk-averse bunch. Right now, Senate Democratic leaders are discussing how to merge the various versions of the health care bill that have passed out of committee. Based on news reports (and having watched how Democrats operate for years now), my guess is that the discussion is largely centered around gaming out what kind of a bill can garner enough votes on the floor to survive cloture and pass. Driving this discussion will be the assumption that it would somehow be politically disastrous to miscalculate and advance to the floor a bill that doesn't have enough votes. As a result, the bill that finally emerges will likely be one that falls well short of what many of us would like to see.
This calculation might make some sense if there was some sort of rule preventing the Senate from considering more than one health care bill per term. But of course there's no such rule. The Democrats control the legislative agenda and can always scale back the bill and vote again. Indeed, they could keep doing this until something passed.
So why be so cautious on the first round? I strongly suspect that if the Democrats put a strong bill on the floor, one that included a robust public option, and then aggressively pushed all of their members to vote for at least cloture, at the end of the day, no one would join the Republicans in filibustering the bill and it would pass. Just call their bluff. They'll fold.
And if I'm wrong about that, well at least those of us who want a strong public option (a group that includes nearly all Democratic voters who are following the debate closely) will know exactly who to blame, i.e., the Democrat Senator(s) who joined with the Republicans to filibuster the most important piece of Democratic legislation in the last forty years. That would itself be very clarifying.
I understand that this would create a flurry of headlines declaring that Obama and the Democrats have suffered a legislative defeat, but those headlines would be short-lived, and wouldn't necessary hurt the Democrats (obstructing health care legislation has its own political downside). But more importantly, the Democrats could easily regroup, water-down the bill however much is necessary and pass it. Some kind of bill will surely pass. And it least then we'd know it is the best we could do under the circumstances.
I know that I'm being naive for even suggesting this, because it's just not how Democrats operate, but it is the way a less neurotic and cowardly political party would operate, so I thought I'd at least throw it out there.
This calculation might make some sense if there was some sort of rule preventing the Senate from considering more than one health care bill per term. But of course there's no such rule. The Democrats control the legislative agenda and can always scale back the bill and vote again. Indeed, they could keep doing this until something passed.
So why be so cautious on the first round? I strongly suspect that if the Democrats put a strong bill on the floor, one that included a robust public option, and then aggressively pushed all of their members to vote for at least cloture, at the end of the day, no one would join the Republicans in filibustering the bill and it would pass. Just call their bluff. They'll fold.
And if I'm wrong about that, well at least those of us who want a strong public option (a group that includes nearly all Democratic voters who are following the debate closely) will know exactly who to blame, i.e., the Democrat Senator(s) who joined with the Republicans to filibuster the most important piece of Democratic legislation in the last forty years. That would itself be very clarifying.
I understand that this would create a flurry of headlines declaring that Obama and the Democrats have suffered a legislative defeat, but those headlines would be short-lived, and wouldn't necessary hurt the Democrats (obstructing health care legislation has its own political downside). But more importantly, the Democrats could easily regroup, water-down the bill however much is necessary and pass it. Some kind of bill will surely pass. And it least then we'd know it is the best we could do under the circumstances.
I know that I'm being naive for even suggesting this, because it's just not how Democrats operate, but it is the way a less neurotic and cowardly political party would operate, so I thought I'd at least throw it out there.
posted by A.L. at 9:20 AM
9 Comments:
I would say that I think the strategizing, such as it were, isn't so much about how they're going to arrange the bill to get through the Senate as it is about which potential path gives them the best standing in the public relations battle for the rest of the process, namely conference. Obviously the House is going to pass a bill with a public option, which is going to come up in conference. I think there's a perfectly legitimate question over whether it's better to stick a public option in the original Senate bill or insert it out of conference. For my money, I'd say the biggest problem is the possibility that putting it in the reconciled bill that goes to the floor, and having Democrats defect over it, pretty much kills the idea altogether, especially if those same Democrats then support a bill without a public option. Ramming the public option through would still be possible, of course, but it would be a much tougher media narrative to get through.
Do the Democrats even have 50 votes for a strong public option if they convince folks not to join a filibuster? Also, I think any bill with a public option will run a deficit next year (the two I've read fund it up front and require repayment over 10 years or so), so you'd need 60 votes to get past PAYGO. This would seem more reasonable to voters than allowing the GOP to filibuster.
Generally I agree with this. An alternate strategy, though, is taking the House public option in conference. If you're doubtful that Dems will join a filibuster now, then you can be even more sure they won't filibuster the bill out of conference. John Kerry will give them a call and let them know how voting for something before you vote against it is a poor idea.
Practically all of the spending that was stripped from the stimulus by the group-of-six or whatever it was that drafted the compromise bill in the Senate was added back in conference. A few people switched their votes, but no one even talked about filibustering it. The momentum gained by passing both houses will be unstoppable (and expect Obama to go all out on PR after it happens to ensure this is the case).
When Tom Delay was in control of the House, he used to engineer coalitions that would pass legislation by a 1-vote margin. So now that democrats have both houses and the white house, why is it suddenly so difficult to get democratic legislation passed? Why all this focus on bi-partisanship? the Republicans have shown that they will not even consider the idea of a publicly-run insurance option, even though it is actually the middle-road on healthcare (with single-payer on the left, and market-driven private insurance on the right).
What I hear time and time again is that this is an "unwarranted expansion of government." This tells me that the GOP's rank and file is dogmatically opposed to any expansion of government, at all, even if it can be shown that a government-run program would benefit the American people. they think that giving the government control of anything at all is equivalent to having rights taken away. and yet, how would a public option affect their gun rights? Where in any of the healthcare bills currently in Washington is people's ability to speak freely infringed? Or to express themselves in whatever manner they choose? to have a beer with friends? Where are people prohibited to continue seeing their preferred family doctor simply for being publicly insured?
Any rights we can be said to have are protected by the Constitution, and not one freedom we have from that sacred document is removed by introducing the Public Option.
Here's what I don't understand: alot of people argue that a government-run option will drive private insurers out of business. Isn't this an argument against private insurance? Isn't that just proof that the public option can provide the same service for less, compared to what private industry is capable of providing? Doesn't the average Joe end up better off if he can get the same coverage from the government at a smaller cost?
are they against the public option because they're terrified that Keynesians will be proven right on the issue of healthcare?
As I noted yesterday, when between 74 and 90% of Americans say they want either fundamental change or a complete restructuring of healthcare, all this posturing is not about realting to your constituents or keepin gtheir support. Democracts are not afraid of public backlash - they are afraid of the loss of power and the loss of major donors.
You are right, of course. Better to fail trying your best than settling for less.
Hey! That rhymes!
Seriously, Anyone who thinks it's better to "just pass something" doesn't understand leadership, let alone how to be a true democrat. (DINO anyone?)
I'd argue that most of them are DINO's these days, but whose looking?
We already know who the "Democratic" Senator who will vote against cloture would be for a strong public option bill: Lieberman (probably joined by Bill Nelson and two or three other paid servants of the insurance industry).
If you like true religion jeans, diesel jeans and evisu jeans , welcome to my site.
Right on! Put up the best bill and VOTE! Why does there have to be only one bill a year? Keep putting something up for a vote until it passes. Then we'll know who is blocking reform and we can do OUR job. By the way, why doesn't the leadership go back to the rules of filibuster which include constant talking by the filibustering side. Make them talk and talk and talk so the public can see and hear the people blocking the bill. Sitting around waiting for a bill that can pass is making our position weaker.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home