| Here are the recent events that have raised doubts about the Block:
1. July 31st letter not replicated
Of all the various letters that the organizers of the Progressive Block have sent to either Speaker Pelosi or President Obama this year, only the July 31st letter met the requirements of a true threat to defeat health care legislation lacking a public option. That letter had both 60 signatures and the specific language of "we simply cannot vote for such a proposal."
Other letters, including the two (see September 3rd and September 10th) sent by Progressive Caucus co-chairs Grijalva and Woolsey lacks either sufficient signatures to block legislation without a public option (September 3rd), or language specifically threatening to vote against any legislation lacking a public option (September 10th). As such, it is not hard to imagine the September 3rd and September 10th letters actually weakening the July 31st letter. One reasonable impression is that either there are no longer enough members able to block a bill without a public option, or that the leaders of the effort have dropped their threat to block a bill altogether. Until there are at least 39 House Democrats willing to sign a letter to President Obama clearly stating that they will not vote for legislation that lacks a strong public option, it is hard to imagine the White House taking the Progressive Block seriously.
2. Public willingness to compromise yet further
One of the main arguments supporters and members of the Progressive Block have used from the very beginning of this campaign is that the public option is already a compromise from single payer, and they don't want to compromise any further. However, since the July 31st letter, multiple members of the Progressive Block have indicated that they are indeed willing to compromise further.
On August 3rd, the Hill reported one anonymous member of the Block saying he would probably fold:
But at least one of the 60 lawmakers who signed the letter admitted he might not be able to follow through on his threat.
"I probably wouldn't vote against it. But we have to let leadership know that we're serious too."
That's some genius messaging there. Nothing lets the leadership know you are serious more than telling the press that you aren't.
On August 25th, in a lengthy story on the Progressive Block, Ryan Grim was unable to get Representative Donna Edwards to replicate the language of the July 31st letter:
But even Edwards hedged a bit when asked by HuffPost if she was firm in her commitment to oppose a bill that comes out of conference without a public option.
"Let me just say this," she said. "I believe that there is widespread support for the public option, so I want to discuss how we get from the politics of where we are right now to achieving the thing that we know is widely supported in the Democratic caucus and also widely supported around the country. And I don't think you do that unless you get a bill out of the House of Representatives that has a solid public option in it, because you don't bargain the opposite direction in the Senate. So we need to make sure we have the strongest bill possible out of the House of Representatives. I know that there's support for the public option and I fully expect that to be a part of the bill that we pass out of the House. And that in itself will be the leverage to achieve it in the final product."
On September 8th, Roll Call quoted two members of the Progressive Block indicating they are ready to compromise further:
The "trigger" approach has been considered a deal-killer by liberals on and off Capitol Hill, and the willingness of some Congressional Progressive Caucus members to entertain it reflects a recognition that a bruising August recess has imperiled prospects for reform and redrawn expectations for what is possible.
"This is a way to get a bill," Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. "I believe it's worth listening to because I want legislation that is going to, in some shape or form, expand coverage and bring down the cost of health care."
Liberals stressed that the shift does not amount to an abandonment of their commitment to a "robust" public insurance option. They said they would only support a trigger if that approach guaranteed the same access, quality and affordability.
"I don't want to give the impression that I'm so flexible that I'm willing to compromise away meaningful reform," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. "But there may be a variety of ways of getting there than the one I originally formulated in my mind."
These public leaks of Block weakness would only reinforce any interpretation of the September 3rd and 10th letters as signs that the Block was no longer able or willing to defeat health care legislation without a public option.
3. The Block folded in June
On May 14th, a supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan passed the House 368-60, with all but 9 Republicans voting in favor and 51 mainly Progressive Democrats voting against it. When the supplemental bill came back from the Senate, it had IMF funding attached to it, and House Republicans decided to oppose it. This put the 51 Progressives who opposed the bill because they oppose the war in Afghanistan in a position to defeat the bill, or at least extract concessions before passage. It was the first time the Progressive Block was put to the test.
However, with minimal concessions (pretty much just cash for clunkers), 19 of those 51 Democrats folded and ended up voting for the bill. This includes 8 Democrats who singed the July 31st letter: Representatives Yvette Clarke, Barney Frank, Luiz Gutierrez, Jim McDermott, Grace Napolitano, Ed Towns, Nydia Velazquez, and Anthony Weiner.
If 8 members of the Progressive Block can fold on an issue like opposition to the war in Afghanistan just in return for a cash for clunkers program, there are good reasons for the administration to believe that the Block won't require much cajoling in order to fold on health care.
*****
In summary, there are good reasons to doubt the strength of the Progressive Block right now. The White House seems to be doubting it too, given that last week they never followed up on a meeting with the Progressive Block and instead scheduled a meeting with Senate Conservadems. In order to resuscitate the effort, the Progressive Caucus whip count needs to produce at least 39 House Democrats who are willing to sign a letter to President Obama saying they will vote against health care legislation without a public option. If they pull it off, their position within the overall health care debate, negotiations, and media coverage should increase. Failure to do so will give them little leverage to make sure that a public option is in the final conference report for the health care bill later this year.
At the very least, House Progressives need to demonstrate enough strength to get in the final negotiations over any health care bill. If they can't make it into that discussion, then not only will they have failed to increase their relative power to the Blue Dogs and Conservadems, but they may have in fact made themselves look weaker because this effort fell apart so easily. This will make it extremely difficult to make the Progressive Block strategy work at any point during the Obama administration. |
