Harkin: Senate Down To Three Choices

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 16:56


Today, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said the Senate was down to three options on what sort of health care bill to send to the floor:

During a conference call hosted by the liberal activist group Families USA, Harkin indicated that Senate Democrats had narrowed their choices to a full public option, a proposal that would allow states to opt out of the program and Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) idea of creating a "trigger" that would launch a public option in any state where insurers fail to meet residents' needs.

Harkin also offered an internal whip count:

The full Senate Democratic Conference met Thursday to discuss healthcare. Harkin counted 52 senators who support the public option and about five who do not.

"The vast majority of the Democratic caucus is for the public option that is in the HELP bill," Harkin said. "Should the 52 give in to the five, or should the five come along with the majority?"

Harkin's count is odd, as it only adds up to 57. There are 60 members of the Democratic Senate caucus. Still, it is very close to the count we have been running:

  • 52 supporters sounds right: Our latest count was only at 51, but it is highly unlikely that Alaska freshman Mark Begich would oppose the public option. He is probably the 52nd.

  • Up to 7 opponents: Senators Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson have all done one of the following: voted against all forms of the public option in committee, stated their opposition to the public option in the press, or told Harry Reid they are actively contemplating filibustering a health care bill with a public option. That makes seven opponents, not five.

  • Lieberman won't filibuster? If I had to guess, Harkin probably isn't counting Lieberman, who has said he will probably not filibuster:

    U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., whose vote could be crucial to breaking an expected GOP filibuster on health care legislation, Thursday said he would consider voting to move the bill forward, even if he ultimately casts his ballot against the reform package.

    Lieberman said he was "inclined to let the motion to proceed" (or cloture) go forward, but "I haven't decided yet."

    Lieberman is shooting off his mouth to both get some attention and water down the bill before it reaches the floor, but in the end I will be stunned if he breaks ranks on cloture votes.

  • Baucus definitely won't filibuster. I would also bet that Harkin is not counting Baucus among the opponents. Baucus has stated he supports a public option, proposed a public option, and simply is not going to filibuster legislation that he had such a large hand in writing.

  • Who is #60?. The 60th Senator in this equation is Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Pryor has said he is open to a public option, but doesn't think it has enough votes to pass. This is Democratic code for "I don't want it in the bill, but I will vote for it if it is in the bill."
With three options on the table, one dynamic to keep in mind is that all of the center-right Democratic Senators listed here often attempt to be "moderate for the sake of moderate." That is, they will reject the more left-leaning (full public option) and more right-leaning (trigger) proposals for no other reason than because those are the right-leaning and left-leaning options. That means the opt-out might be what the Senate brings to the conference committee. If the House can bring the Medicare +5% public option to the conference committee at the same time, then the public option campaign should be in a pretty good position for the final bill.
Chris Bowers :: Harkin: Senate Down To Three Choices

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Harkin: Senate Down To Three Choices | 47 comments
Great post (4.00 / 3)
It gives specific information I haven't seen elsewhere, and it gives hope.
The missing 3 (0.00 / 0)
Since the Harkin whip count adds up to only 57, and there are 60 in the Dem caucus, do you think the missing 3 are Senators who would vote "present" or wait until the last minute to see what they can do with their leverage? I can see the MSM calling them "The Gang of Three."

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
yeah, by the way (4.00 / 6)
Open Left has had by far the best coverage of the health care reform process I've seen anywhere. No one else I've seen in the media has been nearly as informative, or done nearly as good a job of avoiding the spin and hyperbole of the news cycle.

Even if Chris does spend all day in his pajamas.  

[ Parent ]
Yes and you are talking about a billion dollar industry (4.00 / 4)
with tens of thousands of people clusterfrakking the hell out  of the story.

I could not agree more.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Here and Congress Matters. (4.00 / 1)
CM for the nuts and bolts (for example, this), here for the political side.  Excellent combination.

I might disagree with Chris and Mike over certain things (especially their rosy assessments), but if it weren't for their coverage, I wouldn't have enough information to disagree with anything in the first place.  Kudos to both.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
He just got married... (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure he is spending that much time in his pajamas ;-)
[ Parent ]
Now, honestly... (4.00 / 3)
Who thought in August that we'd be in this position with the public option at this point in the process? Despite the opponents' strategy of delay, the extra time seems to have had the effect of allowing reason to percolate to the top of the debate: it just doesn't make sense to not have the public option, and more and more people (well, Democrats involved in the process) are realizing it. It's also given the left more time to organize on the issue, while the right blew its wad with the town hall protests that no one even remembers now (though they sure won a few news cycles at the time, huh! (cf. McCain's 2008 campaign strategy)).

We're not there yet, obviously. But the trends, for this stage in the game, look pretty good to me.

I did not, not even as far back as the primary. (4.00 / 1)
In fact the further back you go the less likely it seems. It is good reporting like here on openleft, hell just like, and not seen elsewhere, that has moved it so far along.

Good data streams, fine analysis, great post report communication and actionable suggestions.

Friends romans countrypeople, let me introduce the new politics.

--

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

[ Parent ]
The Real Nuclear Option (4.00 / 6)
A handful of Democrats filibustering a 50+ vote majority of their own conference on the seminal domestic issue of our generation.

It can't happen. Any rational evaluation of the situation says this just cannot happen. How could the conference survive? How do you welcome them back?

Just call bullshit. Just call their bluff. They're don't have the nuts to play for those stakes. They'll fold.

If only we had a leader from Nevada who could understand the gaming here...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

yes, call their bluff (4.00 / 1)
no way they filibuster this
[ Parent ]
I keep on saying this (4.00 / 4)
When Blanche Lincoln voted against the public options in the finance committee, she did it in absentia. These people have no courage, does anyone really think they're going to publically stand in front of everybody and derail their party's #1 priority?? Hell no. The only dem who has the potential would be Ben Nelson, but even he wouldn't do it unless he was finally committing to showing his true colors and switching parties. Many in the media are severely underestimating the ramifications of joining a republican filibuster by a democrat, especially when that democrat will probably be the deciding vote.  
[ Parent ]
It takes a Democrat to filibuster (4.00 / 4)
...the ramifications of joining a republican filibuster...

It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and the GOP only have 40 members. There is no such thing as a "Republican filibuster."

It takes a Democrat to filibuster. It would be "a Democratic filibuster." We need to start saying it that way.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Could someone explain the filibuster procedure? (0.00 / 0)
It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and the GOP only have 40 members. There is no such thing as a "Republican filibuster.

Really? Why do they need "60" votes then? Wouldn't it be possible to have a few abstentions then if the only requirement was that no dems join the republicans? I don't understand. I thought that once one republican calls for a filibuster, you need 60 votes to break it, not that you need 41 votes to start a filibuster.

If someone could clarify, thanks.  

[ Parent ]
That is correct. (4.00 / 3)
But you could say that failing to vote to break it constitutes joining or sustaining it.
[ Parent ]
So if a certain number of Republicans fillibuster (0.00 / 0)
or threaten to filibuster, 60 senators need to vote for cloture? Wouldn't this be a republican filibuster then, since they initiate it? I doubt a democratic senator would initiate or threaten to filibuster, though I can easily imagine them abstaining, or voting with an already initiated filibuster, but I would still think of it as a Republican filibuster since they are the ones initiating it, if I understand the procedure correctly. I don't understand how it becomes a Democratic filibuster. I would define it that way if a Democrat initiates it.


[ Parent ]
Actually any single senator can force a cloture vote. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It's not a filibuster... (4.00 / 3)
...until a cloture vote fails. Any single senator can object to unanimous consent to proceed, requiring successful cloture to end debate. However, preventing cloture is the only way to actually filibuster a bill.

The only way to absolutely ensure cloture fails is to have 41 votes against it. 40 votes alone will not do it without the help of someone else not voting. In that sense, the only way cloture can fail and to effect an actual filibuster is for one (or more) of the 60 Democrats to either vote against cloture or not vote at all. It would therefore be a Democratic filibuster. The 40 Republicans have no control over how the 60 Dems vote, nor can the 40 Republicans alone prevent cloture.

It takes a Democrat to have an actual filibuster.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Courage (0.00 / 0)
It might take more courage to go along with your party on health care than to go against what you perceive is the consensus of your constituents.

I'm specifically thinking of Blanche Lincoln here.  She is convinced that ObamaCare is deeply unpopular in her home state where she's fighting for her political life. (And the thing is, she's probably right, even though, oddly enough, AR is in favor of the PO.) If she thinks that she has to move to the right to survive, she'll do it.  In that case, the cowardly instinct to protect her seat will outweigh the cowardly instinct to stick with her party in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
Someone needs to tell her... (4.00 / 2)
...that Democrats moving right on issues tends to lead to electoral disaster.  I realize that is not the common wisdom, but even a cursory glance at history says it's true.  The Alan Grayson approach generally works better.  Voters appreciate people standing up for something rather than caving on issues.

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 ]
<i>Stand up</i> for something? (4.00 / 1)
DEAR GOD, NOOOO!!!!
[ Parent ]
Not in Arkansas it doesn't. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes, in Arkansas it does... (4.00 / 1)
People respect someone who stands up for their beliefs, even if they don't agree with them.  DO you really think that Lincoln is gaining any votes by "pretending" to be a Republican.  Everyone can see through the charade...

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 ]
No, I don't believe they do (0.00 / 0)
This is a state where Lincoln voting party line IS her NOT standing up for her beliefs, but cowtowing to the party line. This is a politically backwards state, she is better off pretending to be a Republican, because she can tout her "independence" and say she is her own woman and not run by a President half the state believes is a Kenyan Muslim.

This state is a anomally.  

[ Parent ]
agreed (4.00 / 1)
Their very lack of balls actually might help us here.  I simply don't believe any of the 3-4-5 possibilities will stand in the heat of that particular spotlight.  They'll be bought off if necessary or just wimp out on their 'principles.'
[ Parent ]
Some democrats are indeed capable of filibustering. (0.00 / 0)
Did anyone here predict Lieberman trashing the dem candidate at a Republican convention? Without accountability and leverage, anything is possible, including 2 or 3 dems filibustering. There is no threat to stop them because threats are virtually meaningless to these people. Also, most of the problem senators come from conservative districts. I don't think there's any precedent to really predict behavior either. With 60 dems, all dems have to put their true ideological cards on the table, perhaps for the first time. When you're just 50 dems, you can hide behind, and continue to hide, behind the mantra of "just not enough votes to break a filibuster". With that cover gone, we're likely to learn who these people really are even after years in the senate. I think we're in for some troubling drama.  
[ Parent ]
Senate could leave PO till conference (0.00 / 0)
If (as seems the best bet) the Senate will allow a POINO to be enacted, there's no reason why it should be in the Senate bill.

Harry is clearly no fan himself of a robust PO; and thinks that the weaker the PO, the more chance it has of securing cloture.

Going into conference with an M+5 House bill and a no-PO Senate bill would tend to make for a weaker PO compromise in the conference report than if both houses' bills had a PO.

Harkin says here that Obama will have a PO bill to sign by Christmas; that doesn't imply that the Senate-passed bill will have a PO.

(Of course, lefty senators might balk. That could happen...)

You basically explained why we need a PO (4.00 / 2)
in the Senate bill before a compromise. Obviously, the Rockefeller PO is a no go, and it seems even the Schumer PO may now be tough, although if Reid and the WH fought for it, it could happen. But if we, as I expect, get the Opt-out POINO, then it gives the House leverage to demand at least the Schumer PO in conference.  
[ Parent ]
what makes you think that center-right democrats (0.00 / 0)
won't simply go for the center-right trigger option?
Don't Think Snowe Will Filibuster Public Option (4.00 / 4)
From a recent interview:

You've been supporting a trigger proposal that would bring a public option into being if insurance didn't prove affordable over the next few years. Why wait?

We need a lever to force industry to drive down prices. If the goal of the public option is to ensure the industry performs, then the same could be true of a trigger mechanism. That lever could be equally potent in providing the maximum incentive to the industry to perform. The CBO has said we'd realize $15 billion in savings. I think that would be preferable to giving a disproportionate advantage to government. There's not an incentive for the government to be very efficient at what it does. It can do it, and sometimes we need to rely on it. But I don't think it would be preferable if we could accomplish the goal in other ways.

The trigger would run concurrently with the submission of the insurance company's bids to the exchange. If affordable plans weren't available in any particular region, then the mechanism would kick in for that year. The industry would have one opportunity to recalculate their bid and give a better bid, but it would be measured against specific standards of affordability.

The part I italicized sums up her opposition to the Public Option and it doesn't appear all that strong.  She backtracks her own statements with "It can do it, and sometimes we need to rely on it".  That just isn't very strong opposition; that is someone almost convinced.

I could be wrong, particularly with all the Republican pressure on her, but I just don't see her filibustering this bill over the public option.

On a more humorous note, I just don't see how she squares "giving a disproportionate advantage to government" with "There's not an incentive for the government to be very efficient at what it does".

I've always assumed (4.00 / 1)
that it was stupid for everyone to think Snowe would automatically join a republican filibuster. She was very complimentary of Obama personally in a recent interview and I think appreciates the attention she's gotten from the WH, so she would probably prefer keeping that relationship good.  
[ Parent ]
i think you might be right (4.00 / 2)
It's also telling that when Ezra asked her what her concerns are going forward, she mentioned affordability and the individual mandate.  she didn't say anything about the PO, which suggests that it may not be a dealbreaker for her.
[ Parent ]
re: snowe (4.00 / 1)
The trigger would run concurrently with the submission of the insurance company's bids to the exchange. If affordable plans weren't available in any particular region, then the mechanism would kick in for that year.

that year? if the trigger is 5% uninsured could that mean a public option before 2013?

[ Parent ]
i think the idea is that insurance companies would submit (0.00 / 0)
in advance their bids for the exchange for year 2013.  that way they could tell in advance that whether the affordability criteria are met, and if not, the state PO would be created in 2013.
[ Parent ]
Anti-government ideology is the whole point of the Republican Party (0.00 / 0)
just as pro-government ideology is, or at least should be, the whole point of the Democratic Party. (We just don't articulate it as well as Republicans, and that's why we liberals keep losing these battles, or at least have to work harder than we should.)

Snowe's anti-government sentiments may not be as strong as those of her fellow Senate Republicans but I would not dismiss them as trivial.

[ Parent ]
Wrong on Pro-Government (4.00 / 2)
I think it is incorrect to say the Democrats either are pro-government or should be.  Like many things, the two positions are not mirror images.

Liberals don't think government is the solution to everything, we are simply open to the idea that government might be the solution in certain situations.  Over time and discussion, of course, we can be pretty specific about some of those cases.  We know government can handle medical insurance better than the private sector, for example.

But liberals don't want government just for the sake of government!  That would be the reverse of conservatism, which really does want less government just for the sake of less government.  (Other than the military, police and other cool, macho things like that, of course.)

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Thats a common misconception, that liberals just want a heavy does of goernment involvement even when its not warranted. We just happen to not be infected with this warped perception that government is always bad and does no good unless its for defense or national security. In other words, we happen to see reality.  
[ Parent ]
Let's not split hairs here (0.00 / 0)
This is off-topic but important nonetheless.  At the end of the day, at least in our economic lives, liberals want to expand government and conservatives want to preserve or constrict it.  Neither side wants to do it for "its own sake"; it's that way because liberals believe government can expand freedom whereas conservatives believe government only denies it.  I know there's more nuance but every time we cling to nuance (as we liberals tend to do) it makes it look like we're running away from defending government and we end up losing the ideological debate.
[ Parent ]
Snowe wants something (4.00 / 1)
I don't think her trigger is the final straw for her, she's almost certainly willing to compromise further with the understanding that as long as she's in the compromise, her trigger is getting tossed around.

[ Parent ]
give her her damn lobster subsidies already (0.00 / 0)
It's one senator, it can't be that hard to work this out.  
[ Parent ]
that's not what she wants (0.00 / 0)
she wants attention
[ Parent ]
great talking points by steve in sacto (0.00 / 0)
gop doesn't have enough votes to filibuster (need 41-only has 40).

snowe unlikely to join filibuster (and so goes snowe may go collins) which leaves the gop with only 39 votes or even possibly 38.

likelihood of enough dems joining a limp gop filibuster to go against a 53+ dem majority on the most significant piece of legislation in a very long time is practically nil.

they must have already figured this out up on capital hill (and in the WH too you think?)

On a conference report... (4.00 / 1)
...vote for final passage that has 50+ vote support in the caucus, I don't see how a Dem senator can vote against cloture without leaving the party. It would be a nuclear act. How could they possibly be welcomed back into the caucus? Imagine that next caucus meeting...

The same should hold on the current Senate passage phase, though the stakes aren't as high and pressing now is not as critical. Indeed, an argument could be made to give the Conservadems their trigger now so they can vote for it ("See, I supported a public option"), so they have cover for when they vote no on final passage of a robust, level playing field PO in the final conference report. Lieberman loves playing 'for one version, against the other', 'yes on cloture, no on passage games.' I could see Lincoln wanting this 'both ways' play for her reelection bid.

Getting to conference and the content of the final conference report are the only things that matter.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Pryor won't fillibuster a Senate healthcare bill (4.00 / 2)
or at least that's what this looks like.



John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

So, what's the gameplan? (4.00 / 1)
Who do we hit and how do we hit them?

BTW, thanks so much for the info! This is incredibly valuable intelligence for us to use! Now, we have to figure out the best strategy to attack!

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!

The 3 Outstanding Votes (4.00 / 1)
Harkin's Whip Count seems to make sense to me. I know it is often common practice not to whip the leadership. So of the 3 that are not included, two may be Harry Reid and Dick Durbin which would mean we have more votes than we think. Also, I would venture to guess Robert Byrd is the other vote. If that is the case, that would equal 55 senators with 5 opposed. My guess is that Baucus is included in the count that Harkin gave as a yes vote. This is just a theory and maybe even wishful thinking. Thoughts?
Baucus is almost certainly a yes (0.00 / 0)
the noes are Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and Conrad.

[ Parent ]
The votes will be there if the bill is good. (4.00 / 1)
The negotiated rates PO needs to be dropped. The government would never be good at negotiation. It's good at administering Medicare, and therefore the PO should be modelled on Medicare. The opt out idea is silly. I would only consider it if it was the only way I could get a robust Medicare-rates PO. The trigger idea is silly too. There is no way the exchanges will have two competing plans costing <13% AGI available to 95% of the people, unless the insurance is junk. So consider the trigger triggered. Reid's mark should therefore have the Medicare+5% PO that Pelosi's bill will have. If they try to do less than that it's just political grandstanding at the expense of good policy, and it will backfire badly.
Harkin: Senate Down To Three Choices | 47 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