Any Legislative Means Necessary

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 00:14


Via Hopeful in NJ in Quick Hits, Senate Democrats are now publicly talking about passing health care reform through reconciliation. Emphasis mine:

In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.(...)

"We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary."

We are getting close to a public option now. Consider the political situation:

  1. The Democratic leadership has made it clear they will pass health care reform this year no matter what. "Any legislative means necessary" is the strongest language I have ever heard coming out of Harry Reid's office.

  2. Both the White House and the Senate are floating passing health care reform through reconciliation, thereby requiring only fifty votes, plus Vice-President Biden, for health care to pass the Senate.

  3. Health care reform with a robust public option will pass the House of Representatives.  In fact, due to the actions of the Progressive Block, it is impossible for health care reform without a public option to pass the House of Representatives. Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself has said this on numerous occasions.

  4. According to our latest whip count, forty-six forty-five Senators favor a public option in health care reform.
In this environment, fifty Senators making statements in favor of the public option would be a tipping point.  If health care reform without a public option cannot pass the House, if there are enough Senators to pass a public option through reconciliation, and if passing no health care bill is considered politically unacceptable by the White House and Congressional leadership, then passing a public option--either through reconciliation or by convincing all Democrats to not filibuster--becomes by far the easiest move for the leadership to make. And as far as reconciliation goes, it is a choice that rests with Senate Democrats, not with the Senate Parliamentarian.

We are only four five Senators away from reaching this point.  That's it.  In the morning, we are going to start an action campaign to put us over the top. I remain convinced we are going to win this fight.

Chris Bowers :: Any Legislative Means Necessary

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Any Legislative Means Necessary | 86 comments
Chris - I too remain convinced (4.00 / 7)
we will win this fight for our generation and generations to come.  The problem for the rest of the political world with us Progressives is we like facts and tend to base our decisions on the greatest good for the greatest number. So in the end, we are the individuals that help write the history of this countries foundational premise to strive for 'a more perfect union' while in the 'pursuit of happiness'.

So, I look forward to your guidance tomorrow on building a Senate Bloc(k) and also gaining 50+ Senators that we can demonstrate support a public option.  

Reconciliation (4.00 / 4)
I actually care more about reconciliation than the public option.  Reseting the norm to 51 votes in the Senate would do more to help passing good legislation in the next few years than basically everything else combined.

True, in all odds this one time wouldn't really do that, but it comes close.  A great step.

Be careful what norms you wish for (4.00 / 1)
Filibustering, at least in theory, has existed in the Senate almost from its inception, so "reseting" seems a bit off the mark.

More important than that quaint historical fact, people who are congenial to liberal legislative goals won't always be in power, and we might need to make use of the filibuster to save whatever reform it is we achieve.

How many of us justifiably wished that the Democrats would've been more amenable to filibustering during the Bush administration?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with reconciliation here, but such tactics should remain exceptional and not an ordinary feature of Senate procedure.  

[ Parent ]
Nobody ever abused the filibuster (4.00 / 4)
like Republicans are doing now.
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what you're referring to (4.00 / 2)
other than the Defense Authorization Bill, but it's pretty obvious that as far as health care goes, nothing has gone beyond the level of threat.  And if threat is the test, the action of southern senators during the Civil Rights legislation era would seem to equal or surpass what we're talking about here.  

While non-discrimination against employees in the 40s was successfully filibustered, I'm not sure that the use of a procedure which by design endows a minority party with substantial power can be defined as "abuse."

My larger point is that political power fluctuates, and an effective check on majority power can and should be a useful thing.    

[ Parent ]
I meant to say (0.00 / 0)
the Republicans have filed more cloture motions in the past two Congresses than nearly all Congresses combined before it.  
[ Parent ]
This doesn't really support your statement... (0.00 / 0)
..since it is evidence for the DEMOCRATS staging more filibusters than the Congresses before! Remember, no cloture move without filibuster first!

What is evidence for your argument is that the number of DEMOCRATIC cloture motions has gone up, compared to the same timeframe in all prior Congresses!

Certainly only a simple mix-up by you. But it shows you have to be careful with presenting the evidence for your arguments. It easily happens you accidently show the opposite of what you wanted to present.

[ Parent ]
what? (0.00 / 0)
what are you talking about? The 110th Congress broke the record for most filibusters ever. We're on track to break the record again in the 111th.

What Democratic filibusters?

[ Parent ]
Look upthread for what you wrote! (0.00 / 0)
"the Republicans have filed more cloture motions in the past two Congresses"

The party that files a cloture motion wants to break a filibuster, right? The GOP filed, so it were the Dems who filibustered. The Republicans had no reason to filibuster, because they had the majority in "the past two Congresses", the 109th and 110th.

[ Parent ]
And Abe Fortas (0.00 / 0)
would have made a far better Chief Justice than Warren Burger.  
[ Parent ]
I think what happened (0.00 / 0)
around Civil Rights and the filibuster goes miles beyong this case.
[ Parent ]
What case???? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I love how people continue to give this a 4 (0.00 / 0)
when it's so clearly devoid of any shred of truth whatsoever, and the person who put it up originally understands this.
[ Parent ]
But wob, you didn't get any fours. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Ha! I'm in it for the virtue (0.00 / 0)
not the glory
[ Parent ]
Filibuster History (4.00 / 3)
The accepted belief that "it takes 60 votes in the Senate" is relatively new.  In fact, the number 60 only goes back to 1975, before that it was 67 (2/3 present, not total, though).  

It used to be the filibuster was a rare thing.  Today 51 votes in the Senate means nothing.  Quite honestly, the way the Senate works today is not Constitutional where simple majority rule is assumed.  (Where it was not assumed was laid out very explicitly.)

Here is a brief history via wiki:

The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters. The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008, though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.

[ Parent ]
I'm aware of the changes over time in what constitutes a filibuster (4.00 / 2)
Again, I'm talking about the principle of a check by a minority party against majority power.
[ Parent ]
Imho that was obvious. Mark, I see your point... (4.00 / 1)
..but the history of the filibuster can be used to argue both ways, so it's not much value here. And certainly Wobbly already knows that Wiki article, so that's not the point.

The question is, what are the arguments for keeping this or getting rid of it? I tend to lean towards pure majority rule, because that's the pure standard of democracies everywhere, but I'm aware that there were times when the filibuster made a positive difference...

[ Parent ]
those are some new and bad norms... (4.00 / 6)
The principle of majority rule in a representational body should be reserved for 'exceptional' cases?

The US system of government already has lots of choke points for legislation: the House, the Senate, committees in both the House and Senate, and the Presidential veto. Bills can and do die at each of those points. To add to this a supermajority rule for the Senate just goes way too far, and makes it damned near impossible for us to even address the problems we have as a country anymore.

And yes, the filibuster adds a supermajority rule. Tt used to be used only in truly exceptional cases; its normalization is a new phenomenon (and a radical one that has gotten shockingly little attention), and was never anticipated by anyone for the vast majority of the history of the Senate.

[ Parent ]
Exactly! And look at other democracies, too. (0.00 / 0)
Afaik no other western democracy das something similar to the filibuster. And still, the British, French, German, etc, parliamentary systems seem to work fairly well. So, whatr argument can there be for the filinuster being necessary? Maybe it's really about time to get rid of that speciality, especially since it's own a procedural rule and has no constitutional base. The US Congress, as designed by the founding fathers, has already enough roadblocks against "spontaneous" legislation. But trumping the well established rule "the majority rules" with an artificial supermajority requirement really goes too far. It can even be asked if the filibuster is really democratic. Good reason to think about its abolishment.
[ Parent ]
With respect (0.00 / 0)
we are vastly different country.

The idea of seperation of powers exists here because of the diversity of the country.  The filibuster is in some ways consistent with the founding ideas expressed by Madison.  

[ Parent ]
Excuse me pls, Fladem, but the seperation of power... (0.00 / 0)
..is one of the basic principles of western democracies, not a US specialty! Here in Europe its common, with only Berlusconi's Italy weakening judicial independence recently. Well, maybe I misunderstand you, but I don't see how this is related to the filibuster, which is a purely legislative issue.

But then, I'm not familiar with the work of Madison, even though I recognize the name, of course. He invented the 1000$ note, right?

[ Parent ]
Our two party system is far different (0.00 / 0)
from the parliamentary system of western European democratic republics.  
[ Parent ]
Hmm. I guess the Brits would disagree, Wobbly. (0.00 / 0)
Don't forget, a two party system until recently. No filibuster! But real Habeas Corpus instead. I guess they even invented it! To me, that looks like the US have been copying much more from the Brits than you think.
[ Parent ]
The US is a former colony and certainly modeled Brit political culture (0.00 / 0)
Yes, they invented Habeas Corpus, an exceedingly limited proposition in the early 13th century, but we invented natural rights.

Moreover, suffrage wasn't nearly as wide in Britain in the mid to late nineteenth century as it was in 1830s America.  

And it was "only recently" and contemporaneous with the decline of the Lords in relation to Commons that multiple parties emerged in England.  

Therefore, I maintain the difference between the two systems.  They're comparable in many respects, but the presence of multiple effective parties is a fundamental difference that must be weighed heavily when comparing political culture in Britain and the US and understanding the role of the filibuster in the latter.  


[ Parent ]
we need better arguments than this for bullying as good way to keep Americans from governing themselves. (0.00 / 0)
must be weighed heavily
This is not a reason to prevent democracy. Everywhere democracy is 50% + 1

There is not logic here.


And it was "only recently" and contemporaneous with the decline of the Lords in relation to Commons that multiple parties emerged in England.  

Therefore, I maintain the difference between the two systems.  They're comparable in many respects, but the presence of multiple effective parties is a fundamental difference that must be

There are dozens and dozens of two party states. In Canada, not far away, two party states are states (provinces) where the NDP has gotten within governing range. When two Parties can "trade power" they have a three party system, when the NDP starts winning, the two main parties join. The conservative government in BC is called the Liberals (they fired 1/3 of the public sector within months of replacing the NDP in power), In Saskatchewan its called the Saskatchewan party, formed of the Liberals and Conservatives, and it just squeeked in there after 4 NDP wins..

Let me explain:


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
It's not logic you agree with, but it's logic (0.00 / 0)
Why don't you dispose of the Constitution, the federal judiciary system and judicial review while you're at it?  Because that's what it will take to get your "50% + 1" democracy.  
[ Parent ]
Come on Wobbly, that's not an argument at all! (0.00 / 0)
Getting rid of the filibuster doesn't require any change of the constitution, and the judiciary would have no precedent and no legal reasons to block such a change of Senate rules. That's not the problem here.

Really, I have the suspicion you forgot what was the starting point of this discussion - maybe it's a good idea to view the whole thread again (I did that, too)! Remember, this is about the filibuster and you're arguing that it somehow makes sense because the US is a two party system. HoP rightly pointed out that there are more two party systems in the world, and that they are based on simple majority decisions. Why should it be different in the US? That's the question, and, with all honest respect, but so far you haven't really answered it.

[ Parent ]
If you look back (0.00 / 0)
that's one reason....
[ Parent ]
Many states have two parties (0.00 / 0)
It isn't the only government with that system. And there are plenty of Presidencies in the world. There are systems to stifle democracy in many states, and systems to block transparency, and systems to block accountability.

Arguing against something is not repeating a tautology: "its a usa thing you wouldn't understand" -for example. If there are reasons why the Senate is a restricting force on democratic decision making, it needs, even requires, a good reason.

And since you didnt give one, it might there isnt one, and you tried to pick a way to defend it.

With respect, analysis doesn't come from the gut.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
You talk about simple democracy as though its inherently virtuous (0.00 / 0)
If the Dems had any guts, they would've filibustered the hell out of Bush post 9/11.

HousesofProgress, it's Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Robert Bork calling, and he wants his "democracy" back.

[ Parent ]
Majority rule is the standard everywhere. (0.00 / 0)
And the point that the side who can muster half of the votes plus one, a simple majority, has the say is obvious, because of it's elegance and simplicity. I guess you agree that ruling with less votes than a majority wouldn't be democratic. And requiring more votes for passing laws necessarily requires establishing a total arbitrary threshold.And it's really arbitrary, don't forget that the limit for breaking a filibuster used to be even higher and has been changed. Because there can be no logical argument why it should be 66 votes or 60 and not, say 62, the weak foundation of such a legal hurdle is apparent.

In the case of constitutional changes, putting a threshold at two thirds of the vote can be explained with the negative consequences if the legal foundation of the nation would be subject to changes every time the majority changes. You need more legal stability, people have to have confidence in the long term validity of constitutional rights and regulations. OK. But why put a similar hurdle on passing regular laws? This is quite unusual, and so I think you have to provide arguments for that, and not those who stand by the internationally common standard of 50% +1.

[ Parent ]
No misunderstanding, Wobbly, I respect you defending the filibuster (0.00 / 0)
And if I were advocating for the other side, I sure would find some arguments for keeping it, even though I gues they would be weak. However, sry, but I honestly think you haven't provided anything concrete so far. Excuse me pls, but I really can't take the one reason you brought up, that the US is somewhat unique, for serious. You didn't even provide evidence for this. Pls understand that the rest of the world has problems with accepting that America can't be compared to other nations, because it somewhat implies you're better than us. And that's ridiculous.
[ Parent ]
Certainly simple (0.00 / 0)
not necessarily elegant, obvious, nor ubiquitous.  

What you say about Constitutional amendments applies to the fact and power of the  judicial branch of government.  Where are the cries to dissolve it?  

[ Parent ]
Sry, I don't understand this. What do you mean? (0.00 / 0)
Can you rephrase that question, pls? What amendments? And what's got the judiciary to do with this?
[ Parent ]
This is a very odd set of arguments from some who is a progressive and a democrat. (4.00 / 1)
Democracy is inherently virtuous.

The filibuster, like the Senate, itself a holdover from the negotiations to include slave states, is a prima facie and a priori undemocratic institution. It is undemocratic on its face. There is no defence to a system that prevents the majority from acting.

The wildly unrelated attempt to compare the "plumping"  of slave state votes, with the constitutional protection of rights enshrined in the constitution, once again points to a total lack of argument, logic and principle available to defend it.

Please explain what the Bjork reference is. I like her singing, but I don't like straw dogs. If you want to make a case for Supreme Court justices being approved by a 2/3's or 6/10's or 75% rule feel free.

Don't just lump the appointment of the Transportation Secretary, the changing of medical regulations and the raising of funds in the same breath as if they were similar.

There is far too much awe and acceptance of leaders being special. Impeachment ought to happen a lot more often. Scalia has done enough to be removed, he should be impeached and removed, his sitting on the bench is an embarrassment to the country, to jurisprudence generally and to America internationally.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Good luck with your bid to abolish the Senate (0.00 / 0)
And its existence as an institution wasn't an accommodation to slavery, nor is the concept of the filibuster.  

But sure, the GOP has been filibustering like crazy lately, majorities are always virtuous, and I too prefer Ahhnold to Gray Davis

I've said what I think, supported it, you disagree, and that's fine.

In all sincerity, this is so far off any realizable agenda that its the equivalent of wishing that sea monkeys could be elected to the Senate.      

[ Parent ]
You prefer Ahnold to my namesake? WTF? (0.00 / 0)
You're joking, right? Or aren't you aware what a joke California has become under Arnold? Schwarzenegger didn't solve the budget crisis, like he promised, with his ideologically based policies he made it worse! Gray Davis looks like an icon of responsible governing in comparison.
Grrr.
[ Parent ]
You don't agree but it isn't odd (0.00 / 0)
What I say lacks a type of ideological consistency you clearly prefer, I respect your position, but disagree.
[ Parent ]
What do you mean by "normalization"? (0.00 / 0)
The threat of a filibuster has been fairly normal, especially over the past 50 years; it's actual use, even in the very recent past, has most definitely not.

And of course we all know that it "adds a supermajority rule."  However, if you doubt that openly defying it through reconciliation - something I support for health care reform - should be reserved for exceptional cases, wait until you see what it's like getting legislation through the Senate should it prove necessary to resort to it.  

The replacement of Justice Stevens will make what Bork went through look like a game of pattycake.  

[ Parent ]
The history of filibuster usage over the last 50 years... (0.00 / 0)
..shows the numbers have been climbing, especially during the last decades. The use of the filibuster emerged from being a total exception to beconming almost normal, and has reached a level now where it seriously hampers the ability of the majority of the Senate to pass laws. Isn't this dangerous development reason enough to think about a change of the rules?

And, if you think it isn't, what reason can you then give for the last time the Dems changed the filibuster rules? Was this totally arbitrary, not based on correcting a problem, just a political manipulation? Hmm.

[ Parent ]
In Power (4.00 / 3)
More important than that quaint historical fact, people who are congenial to liberal legislative goals won't always be in power, and we might need to make use of the filibuster to save whatever reform it is we achieve.

How many of us justifiably wished that the Democrats would've been more amenable to filibustering during the Bush administration

Let them have at it; perhaps they will be held accountable faster.  They couldn't pass their dream bills, anyway.  Bush never even came close to doing anything with Social Security, for example.

In reality we shouldn't even have a Senate.  The House alone is enough to provide a democratic government.  Do you realize how many "veto points" we have in our system of government?  For any bill normal bill you have at least 5, House committee, Senate committee, full House, full Senate (super-majority today), and the president.  For something like this health care bill the number of veto points is extraordinary.

That is why we don't have universal health care and a bunch of other stuff every other country has.  That is why we have a center-right government on average.  Veto points favor the status quo and the status quo always favors the moneyed elite, who are masters of changing the fine print while no one is looking.

Other countries only have 2 or at most 3 veto points.  Big liberal programs might not be passed all the time, but they are passed more often.  Once in, they become too popular to remove, regardless of any conservative majority that comes around.

[ Parent ]
I like your last paragraph (0.00 / 0)
and I agree about filibusters. I would rather junk them, and keep the geographical skew of two Senators per state. To me it's one or the other, but perhaps it is not fair to equivocate.
[ Parent ]
Hmm, now that's a different question: What is more undemocratic... (4.00 / 2)
..the filibuster or the "two Senators by state" rule? I would say, it's obvious that the unequal way Senators are allocated is much more undemocratic, because it's a dire violation of the "one man, one vote" principle. But we have to be realistic, and since the Senate configuration is a constitutional law, but the filibuster only a procedure rule, it's clear that it's much easier to get rid of the 60 vote supermajority.

So, this is what can be changed, and that's what the discussion should be about. Changing the Senate is just a pipe dream right now. Discussing it only diverts from the urgent issues at hand. Only my personal opinion , of course...

[ Parent ]
In many ways (4.00 / 1)
the biggest obstacle to Health Care Reform is James Madison.
[ Parent ]
nah (4.00 / 5)
The filibuster isn't good for progressives.  The social safety net survives periods of right wing governance in countries without a filibuster or like provision because it is simply too damn popular to fuck with.  Margaret Thatcher had numerous big majorities in parliament and could have killed the NHS, but it would have killed the Conservative party.

Other than blocking a few of Bush's low-profile lower court nominees for awhile, and Bolton as UN ambassador, the Democrats rarely use the filibuster to any meaningful progressive effect.  To balance against these small boons, consider all the popular, and very potent progressive legislation that conservatives used it to block - starting with the civil rights laws.  Liberals have never blocked anything that big via filibuster.  Bush's attempt to kill social security died because the public realized what it was, and wouldn't support it.  Even the House didn't want to vote on it.

In the long run America would be much better off without it.

[ Parent ]
This is as true as anything written today. (0.00 / 0)
The filibuster isn't good for progressives.  The social safety net survives periods of right wing governance in countries without a filibuster or like provision because it is simply too damn popular to fuck with.

This is the staff of protection and the goal of organizing. HealthCare is a self protecting entity. Only fools play with Univeral health Care, and none not even fools talk against.

Democracy is democracy. No other system comes close.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
What you say is eclipsed in its naivete (0.00 / 0)
only by its falsity.  
[ Parent ]
The problem with reconciliation (4.00 / 5)
is that anything passed using it is time-limited. If the Dems pass a public option through reconciliation, it will expire at the end of the current budget cycle - which is five years from now. So it's not the ideal choice.

However, five years would get us through the next election and buy us time to make the public plan permanent - assuming we can get enough seats in the next election, of course.

[ Parent ]
Which makes it very important (4.00 / 6)
that we pass a bill which has a broad and easily identifiable public benefit that a significant number of people understand as working towards their personal advantage.  
[ Parent ]
AND it means, let me be blunt here, that we keep a winning team (0.00 / 0)
with the most engaged, self instructing, self leading, self educating, self organizing and calmly demanding American citizenry of history, fighting intelligently to protect its healthcare system, its retirement system, its democracy and freedom.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Do you not sense any contradiction (0.00 / 0)
between what you say about "engaged" and your constant invocation of "self" as a qualifier?
[ Parent ]
I've heard both ways... (0.00 / 0)
5 years and 10 years... not sure which is right, really...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Which is kinda important (0.00 / 0)
given that, last I heard, the PO wasn't even going to start until 2013.
[ Parent ]
OK, did more research... (4.00 / 2)
It's 5 years, but only 5 years to run a deficit...  the program can be permanent, but cannot run a deficit after 2014....  Since the public option was always meant to be self-sufficient, the key would be to frontload it's revenue and get enough premiums in to be self funding by the deadline...

This means no 2013 start date... it would have to start ASAP to get members in and paying...  Since this would be a separate bill, it shouldn't be a problem anyways...  Of course the fact that it would start sooner is a major plus for the program....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Deficit (0.00 / 0)
The whole reason it starts in 2013 is to make it better deficit-wise over 10 years.  That implies delaying it would be even more important.  I believe the issue is public option doesn't save much money according to the CBO and it has a startup cost.  The CBO only rates programs over 10 years.

(Note the CBO doesn't deal with theoreticals and the savings are mostly theoretical, as any new idea would be.)

[ Parent ]
The costs of the public option depend on its market share... (0.00 / 0)
...and is not something the CBO can easily predict. Even economic experts would be hard pressed when they should predict how popular the public option will be. Obviously, the higher the market share, the more customers, the better. As I understand it the CBO can only give a rather conservatice estimate, so it's not much of a fantasy to expect the program being much more self sufficient than the official predictions say.

And I don't see the savings as theoretical at all. We're talking about very real dollars! If you only look at all those emergency room visits of the uninsured, which had to be paid by the hospitals, driving their prices up, a new reality where everybody is insured will lead to very real savings that will allow to reduce premiums (and the public options ensures the necessary competition that will drive prices down). That's not theoretical at all, it's a fact that ERs will become dramatically more profitable!

[ Parent ]
And Mark, one more point: I understand that you... (4.00 / 1)
..just like for instance Bruce Webb, argue that a bill without the public option would still be better than no bill at all. A reasonable argument, but one that focusses on the strategy progressive should adopt. But this isn't really the issue right now. We're at a point where the public option has become a very real possibility. I mean, 47 votes, that's damn close to the finish line! And you certainly will agree that a bill with a public option is better than one without, right?

So, your determined arguing against the public option at this point starts to look like your prinicipally, stubbornly  against it. i'*m sure this is a false impression, but that's how it sure looks to manby here. And, sry, but this isn't helpful. Wouldn't it be better to drop this issue now and only revive it IF the progressive drive fails (which seems to be increasingly unlikely). I mean, why struggle about soemthignthat may stay a hypothetical question?

I'm just another commenter, so of course you don't have to listen to me, but I would say better focus on trying to help the progressive side now. Worrying about possible, but unlikely developments is an unnecessary waste of energy, imho.  

[ Parent ]
Very True (4.00 / 2)
So, your determined arguing against the public option at this point starts to look like your prinicipally, stubbornly  against it. i'*m sure this is a false impression, but that's how it sure looks to manby here. And, sry, but this isn't helpful. Wouldn't it be better to drop this issue now and only revive it IF the progressive drive fails (which seems to be increasingly unlikely). I mean, why struggle about soemthignthat may stay a hypothetical question?

I keep thinking the same thing, actually.  Why the hell am I going on in this debate like this?  I just find some of these arguments frustrating and prefer more intellectual honesty, even when it doesn't actually help.

But it is actually worse than you think.  Not only am I in favor of a strong public option, I'm in favor of the Progressive Block.  This is how we keep the bill from being watered down and end up with the best bill possible.

But if we actually "succeed" in blocking the final passage because the public option isn't in the final bill, I'll be really, really pissed...  (shut up, Mark... stop it... we aren't at that stage, yet...)

[ Parent ]
You are so contrary! (4.00 / 1)
But you remind me of a RL friend. We agree on virtually everything yet argue all the time.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
True Believer (0.00 / 0)
The problem is I think it is a good strategy to promote the reasons why the bill should be defeated without the public option.  However, I don't actually believe it is true.  But I personally can't lie about it and it feels like others are when they say it.  And if they actually believe it, why can't they see the reality??....

So it is probably best for me to promote those parts I both honestly believe in and think is a good strategy while staying out of the rest.

But that requires discipline.

[ Parent ]
"it feels like others are [lying] when they say it" This feeling is false! (0.00 / 0)
You are very confused! See, you're not really a mindreader. Believe me! If those hallucinations persist, pls see a specialist!
;-)
[ Parent ]
* FEELS * (0.00 / 0)
I assume you aren't lying.  The very fact I'm tempted to makes me think someone might be, but I make no assumptions about anyone individually.  In fact, I don't think anyone specific is being dishonest.

But because it would be dishonest for me it feels dishonest in general.  Does that make sense?

Anyway, that is why used the subject "True Believer".  To really push this strategy you have to be a true believer, which, you'll note, is the opposite of lying.

[ Parent ]
Mark I honestly think you (0.00 / 0)
mistake worry for a position. Or emotion for thinking. Empathy is being able top see things from a perspective other than your own, the ability to prevent blindness caused by self-involvement. I am only being pedantic by saying that that isn't thinking its feeling, it isn't analysis, its an opinion.

Its a bit like feeling icky about Solomon's wisdom, everyone does, but no one doubts the wisdom.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Well Hell Ya That Would Be A Major Plus (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for looking into it.


[ Parent ]
I think it might be 10 years (0.00 / 0)
Welfare Reform (1995-2005) was ten years.  
[ Parent ]
Buy time for what? (0.00 / 0)
We've got the Presidency, we've got the House, we've got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they still can't get the job done.

Better for them to fail and face the wrath of the voters in 2010. Then we might get a better deal. Because HR3200 doesn't kick in 'til 2013 anyhow, what's the hurry?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
You Sir, are officially bat shit crazy. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I hope you're right (0.00 / 0)
but I have to say that I must have read 10 different articles/blog posts aimed directly at getting the base to drop the PO.

Don't listen to the siren sounds of those who have repeatedly betrayed us for the last 20 years, seemingly on every issue imaginable.

It's Reid saying this... (4.00 / 3)
...take it with a grain of salt... Tommorrow, he will apologize and be begging for Chuck Grassley's forgiveness!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
I think Wyden is a safe vote on PO (4.00 / 3)
Josh Kardon wrote on Blue Oregon that Wyden would go for PO if that is the Dem. final bill. And I've seen other statements from Wyden to that effect. He's been pitching his own bill, of course. But that seems off the table.
Link? (0.00 / 0)
do you have a link? that would be great--then we are up to 47!
[ Parent ]
this? (4.00 / 5)
Josh also reiterated that Senator Wyden is "very open to a national public option". When I told him that Governor Dean had concerns about "fake reform", he said that the Senator shares that concern:

   Senator Wyden is also worried about fake reform, though fake reform could also include a public option while not do anything about the caste system that exists in the American health care system today. Today, the Medicaid public plan offers such poor reimbursements that for many poor Americans it is similar to having no insurance at all. The Wyden proposal offers everyone on Medicaid an insurance plan equal to what members of Congress receive, fully paid for, and with reimbursements such that every American, regardless of income, would have access to quality health care. Reform that doesn't gain control of spiraling health costs would be fake reform. The reason Senator Wyden's plan can offer everyone the same benefits enjoyed by Congress is that he controlled costs system-wide. A national public option is one potential tool for controlling these costs, and as long as it helps us reach that objective in can be an important and useful element of real reform.

So what would it take for Senator Wyden to get on board in a promotional/advocacy role with the public option? Kardon says that the President and committee chairmen must produce legislation containing a national public option that also meets the Senator's tests for real health reform. Kardon says that he trusts that Senator Wyden will become a very valuable public advocate for all of the bill's elements, including the public option. Senator Wyden is choosing however to highlight and champion portability, reining in health care costs, and raising everyone's health care to the level currently enjoyed by every member of Congress.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009...
[ Parent ]
I was just looking for that (0.00 / 0)
And ended up reading Steve Novick's entry instead.  (Which I just put in QHs.)

Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Thank you (4.00 / 2)
That looks good to me. Forwarded to others for review before adding Wyden.

Wow--we could be at 47. Really, really close.

[ Parent ]
Actually, I thought Wyden was already in the 46 (0.00 / 0)
guess not...as I had understood it, he was already behind a public option, but preferred his bill (as usual with Senators, "I'll vote for your plan when you stroke my ego and give mine some attention")

But, good, 47. Who are the 13 stand outs?  

[ Parent ]
Only 3 standouts! With reconcilation, no filibuster-proof is necessary (4.00 / 1)
So, 50 + Biden are the minimum. And you'l find the unconvinced Senators in this blog posting by Chris, it comes with a list:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

Check the "maybe" entries. And if "your" Senator is in that category, it may be a good idea to call him. If their constituency turns up the heat, demanding the public option, sure some Senators will move.

[ Parent ]
Addendum: On Wyden (4.00 / 3)
Josh Kardon is Wyden's chief of staff.
excellent Chris (4.00 / 5)
I know you are no Pollyanna, so your words give me hope.  I think we will prevail.  Cautiously optimistic.  I've always felt that the townhall nonsense and ongoing media circus were sideshows that will be forgotten in a few weeks.
Isn't This Rather Simple? (4.00 / 1)
All that is needed is a committment from all Democratic Senators to vote for cloture-to agree that the final bill deserves a straight, up-or-down vote.  If they will not take the pledge, then the retaliation can start right away.
In a perfect world (0.00 / 0)
that's how it would work, but not all Democrats are going to agree for cloture yet, I think there are at least five who won't commit; Ben Nelson, Conrad, Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman. Not sure what you can do about them, none of them are up for reelection next year, some not for another five years.  
[ Parent ]
I'm all over the place on this (4.00 / 2)

  One day this fight looks winnable, the next day it looks lost. I honestly don't know where we're going to wind up.

  Part of the problem has been the mixed signals coming out of the White House. The President says he supports a public option, and says so repeatedly and publicly -- but in the next breath he continues to praise the glories of bipartisanship, which is guaranteed to NOT produce any kind of productive bill, and Obama HAS to know that.

  And of course, Rahm (who serves at Obama's pleasure) is forever knocking the heads of progressives (who support Obama's public option), rather than the blue dogs (who don't).

  So I don't know what the endgame is. But I get the feeling that the White House didn't factor in the massive and passionate grassroots resistance to the Democrats yet again caving to Republicans and special interests. This is the REAL grassroots in action, not the numbnuts disrupting the town meetings. I honestly don't think they saw this coming. And if we've changed the equation this much so far, there's no reason we can't continue to.

  It would be MUCH easier if Democratic leaders were Democrats. Having our ostensible allies cut us off at the knees time and time again makes this a much more difficult battle. But this is winnable if we stay focused.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

I'm with you. (4.00 / 4)
This summer I was visiting family in DC, and while at the Mall jokingly said, "we should go to our Congressman's office, since we're here, and tell him we want the public option."

But I didn't do it because it seemed futile. It was early July, the fight was over and done with it, and we had lost. Public option wasn't even on the table. My eleven year old gave me hell, told me I should be ashamed of myself, but I didn't want to try to navigate the city with three children in tow, to talk to a Congressman who is not on my side and probably not in town anyway.

And now here we are, mid August, and it's not over yet. We might even win.

As penance for my apostasy I've written a letter to the editor, and gone to a townhall meeting, but I'm writing another to send to even more papers in the district and going to more meetings. I can keep this up as long as they can.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Which public option? (0.00 / 0)
Hacker's Medicare-style bait with 130 million enrollees, or HR3200's means-tested and firewalled switch with 9 millions enrollees and the broken health exchanges?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
"Medicare-style bait" sounds good to me! :D (4.00 / 2)
However, is HR3200 really that bad? The way you summarize it, there's more than one devil hidden in the details. This is an important issue we should know more about. Got a good link to educate us, lambert?
[ Parent ]
Try these (0.00 / 0)
Try this and this. (PNHP is Physicians for a National Health Program. More here.)

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Any Legislative Means Necessary | 86 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox