Getting the Deal Done

by: Mike Lux

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 12:00


With the Republicans becoming locked into being the party of No/Hell, No/Not Ever/Nada/Absolutely Not/Never Ever, Democrats are going to need to seriously consider revising the rules of the Senate at the beginning of next term. The gritty reality of the Senate rules minefield is making the passage of health care reform way too complicated. But it's virtually impossible to change the Senate rules in the middle of a term, so we are stuck with getting this thing done with the rules we have.

Fortunately, the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill and at the White House are completely bound and determined that they will pass a health care reform bill by any means necessary. We have come too far, spent too much time and political capital, to turn back now. I think almost everyone in the party (except maybe 3 or 4 Senators) understand the disastrous consequences of not getting a bill passed.

There are, however, two realities that in combination make getting the deal done really complicated.

The first is that the progressive wing of the party is as dug in as I have ever seen them on having some form of a public option in this bill. This reality, which has been building for months now because of stronger progressive leadership in Congress and a powerful grassroots campaign to push for the public option, has been slow to dawn on the Washington elite, but my sense is that progressives are getting more determined on the issue every day , not less, and that with their rhetoric, their promises to activists, their signatures on letters promising to oppose anything without a public option, that their willingness to give on the issue has gone out the door.

The other reality is that getting the final four or five moderate Senators to vote to let this bill get passed at the end of the process- whether to take it to conference committee or for final passage- is extremely difficult. Between a range of factors including genuine policy and ideological concerns, worries about conservative home state politics, fears about money being cut off from the insurance industry for their campaigns, desire to extract every possible concession on every possible subject, and the egos of being a Senator, getting every last Democratic Senator is a massive challenge. This would be true, by the way, with or without the public option, but the high-profile symbolism of the public option just raises the degree of difficulty with some of these Senators.

I actually think Harry Reid is doing a remarkable job working with the holdouts. He has gotten a lot of criticism over the past few months, but given the Senate rules, he is doing a remarkable job working every last angle to get this bill moving (beginning of next term, you gotta get the rules changed, though, Senator). He is now really close to getting the 60 votes to get this bill to the floor for debate, and I think that will happen.

The biggest question, though, is what happens next. No one wants to go the reconciliation route because given those ugly Senate rules, it is just a convoluted mess to do things that way. It would take more time, create enormous logistical hassles and tie-ups, and almost certainly force the bill to be broken into two parts, one that would go through the reconciliation process and one that could not because its provisions aren't directly related to the budget. I can understand why Reid and the White House would rather not go down that path unless they absolutely must.

Unless all 60 Democrats stick with Harry Reid, though, that's what they will have to do. Getting this omelet done may require breaking a few Senatorial eggs. Having talked with some Senate staffers, I know they are preparing for every contingency, including reconciliation, and that's a very good thing, because I think that's what this will probably come down to in the end. I know it's a messy, irritating, uncomfortable way to get the deal done. But if any of those Senators decide they want to say no, and don't want to be players on the most important piece of legislation in at least 50 years, so be it. This legislation is too important not to pass.

Mike Lux :: Getting the Deal Done

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Breaking a few Senatorial eggs (4.00 / 3)
Oh, promise me...on an anvil...with a six-pound sledge...in front of God and everybody. Start with Baucus, or Bayh, or Lieberman, I don't really care -- just, please, please, don't stop until every last one of them is well and truly gelded.

Thank, you, Santa. I'll never ask you for another thing again.


Senate rules (0.00 / 0)
"...Democrats are going to need to seriously consider revising the rules of the Senate at the beginning of next term. "

What is possible? Can they get rid of or severely restrict the filibuster?


The filibuster is a _simple_ 'rule'. (4.00 / 3)
It is a simple procedure rule. There is NOTHING in the constitution. It is a simple rule of the Senate. It can be removed by a simple majority vote. 51% and its gone. They voted at some point, lets make a rule that says you need 60% to procede, it passed. It can be removed the same way.

They merely agree to keep it in place. All it takes is a motion to remove it.

Or better this one: (IANAL the wording is completely wrong I'm sure.)

"Cloture is to be invoked by a vote of 53 % of of all sitting Senators, except for the approval of supreme court judges which shall be 58%"

Please please remove the damn 60 vote filibuster!!!!

[[[expletive deleted]]]

--

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


[ Parent ]
Forget Where I Saw This (4.00 / 2)
This is not my idea, but someone on the intertubes (maybe a commenter here?) proposed that the filibuster function as follows.

Firstly, the filibuster's supposed purpose is to extend debate.  When first invoked successfully, aka the majority fails to proceed with 60%+ of the vote, debate will be extended by X amount of time.  After said debate time has elapsed, the majority may resubmit the motion to proceed, this time requiring 58%+ to proceed.  If they fail to get that, extend debate again by X.  Repeat until the requirement is 50%+1.


[ Parent ]
I would accept that, but with fewer & large step downs. (0.00 / 0)
60% becomes 55% become 50%+1
20 hours, twenty hours, twenty hours.

And fewer places it can be used.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Sounds like the Lieberman/Harkin proposal (0.00 / 0)
Our good friend Joe Lieberman (no I am not kidding) proposed something like this along with Tom Harkin in 1994. Link

From Huffington Post:

Lieberman concluded the conference by noting that his effort was an uphill battle. What he and Harkin wanted to do was to make it so that senators could delay the consideration of legislation, but not inevitably. The Senate would still need 60 votes on the first motion to end debate, (the cloture vote). But the next motion would require just 57 votes, the third motion 54 votes, and the fourth and final effort would need just 51 votes -- a simple majority. In all, roughly 25 days would elapse between the first and fourth vote.

Maybe this is the way to go.


[ Parent ]
25 days, wow (4.00 / 1)
That is still far too long.  The simplest rule that would still keep the filibuster would be to allow a simple majority to force a, say, one week deadline.

I like my idea, though, that keeps the 60/40 split as it is, but puts all the pressure on the 40.  Instead of requiring 60 votes to close, 40 votes should be required to continue for the next hour.  These means all 40 filibustering members would need to be present at all times, 24 hours a day, while the majority would only need one Senator around to force the hourly vote.

The minority could make its point, but it could never keep it up for more than a day or two, tops.


[ Parent ]
I like this idea (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't sound like a big change, but in practice this will make it much hard to maintain a filibuster.  It would allow us to say that we aren't eliminating the filibuster - which will make it easier to get it done.

[ Parent ]
Yeah this is really good (0.00 / 0)
cuz it makes the minority who are obstructing a democratic vote the ones who have to do the hard work.

Only in a system as messed up as ours do we have a Senate whose rules are tilted against those who want to have a vote.


[ Parent ]
Speaking of breaking eggs.... (0.00 / 0)
Single payer actions in 11 cities.

Too bad single payer stuff like this never gets front-paged on "progressive" blogs, but I guess Harry, Nancy, and Rahm might raise concerns in the next conference call.

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


Seems to me that both the Senate and the House have come through. (0.00 / 0)
My take on the legislation being proposed by both the Senate and the House addresses what I believe to the biggest problem in this economy: people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will have access to affordable health care.

I would see this as a good thing. I believe you would, too.  

The complaint I am seeing (not by you, Mike, but frequently at Open Left) is that because the bill adresses the needs of 10 million people and not 100 million people, it should be killed.  The feeling seems to be that the 10 million figure is an insult to progressives. Obama should be primaried in 2012 for his support of the public option.  And, any public figure, say Howard Dean, who supports the public option is a sell-out.

I wonder if you might be surprised at this line of reasoning as well.


For my part (0.00 / 0)
the "complaint" is that some folks are a bit too willing to give up any threat of voting the bill down and thereby have no more negotiating leverage.

I hear a lot of hand wringing about how this is a once in a lifetime chance for which I do not hear or see much justification, but not much discussion of what the downstream effect of a weak reform on the political future of the Democratic party.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
The complaint is---- This isnt Reagan's administration!!!! (0.00 / 0)
This is the chance, THE chance for reform, on a wide wide range of issues. Issues that till now hace been kept out of the discussion for decades.

9/11 killed less than one tenth of the number killed every year by Private insurance and / or the private insurance system and / or the lack of single payer.
OR

For the first time in human history, ever in all human history this summer you could sail around the polar ice cap. We cannot with any accuracy tell what crises are going to come from global warming, from the climate crisis, but it has already killed tens of thousands, and just for example, the ice fields that provide most of northern India's water are about to evaporate forever. Water for drinking, for washing, for industry, water for growing food... for example.

OR

The peace candidate can't end either war.

OR

The Banks wreck our economy, and steal our money, and our future money, and our children's money and the next "bailout" is just a few days away, not a stimulus, bailout, and we can't stop it, slow it down, or even keep them from charging unemployed people 30% on their credit cards.

Should I continue?... with more examples on what issues?

And this, THIS!!??, is what we can achieve, with all polls in hugely in favour, with even a super majority of republican voters in favor, with a complete lock on all branches of government, during the honeymoon of a wildly popular president? This is all we can do? THIS!?

With this level of shitty weakness and cowardice we will accomplish less than nothing, and Glen Beck will be president in how long?

--

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


[ Parent ]
36 million (0.00 / 0)
I've heard the number 10 million in comments here, but the number I hear elsewhere is over 30 million:

Where the House bill clearly outstrips the Senate Finance Committee's bill is in its projected coverage expansions. CBO projects that the House bill will bring insurance to 36 million more Americans, leaving 18 million people under the age of 65--and 12 million citizens--without health care. That's millions more than the Senate Finance Committee's bill. According to CBO, "the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 96 percent."


[ Parent ]
Bill would help many more than just (0.00 / 0)
those who've lost jobs & health care. Would help pre-existing conditions by outlawing exclusion. Would help those whose employers don't offer health insurance. Would help small businesses provide insurance for employees. Has funding for community health clinics.

And by providing alternatives to employer-paid insurance, gives the entire economy a lot more flexibility. People would find it easier to change jobs, move to areas where more jobs are available, help people avoid bankruptcy by limiting how much they have to pay out of pocket and eliminating lifetime caps on insurance.

However, without a public option, if mandates are still imposed on individuals, there will be no pressure on insurance companies to keep down premium charges to stay competitive.

A public option is an essential part of the legislation.


[ Parent ]
I dont know if you realize this (0.00 / 0)
But complaining about rules and thinking about changing them to better your own party is a dangerous idea. Its common practice in countries like venezuela, zimbabwe, and many other corrupt thirdworld countries with dictatorships. Its sad to see how Massachusetts ended up where the rules were bent one way to support one particular party and then bent the opposite when it suited the same party better. This is exactly how many of these dictators keep themselves in power. Term limits up? Lets just get rid of term limits then. Election not going your way? Then lets rig it and create an election commission that will say everything is ok.

Just think for a bit, how many of you would want filibuster removed if it were a Republican majority instead of a Democratic majority? How many of you were arguing against procedural roadblocks when George Bush was in town with a Republican Congress? Is this really a change for better government or an excuse to get your legislation through easier?


Not convincing (0.00 / 0)
In a democracy it is necessary for the majority to rule. The filibuster has gone from a rarely used tool to one that is routine. It is time to fix that problem.

Besides, do you really believe the Republicans, if they were in charge, would allow the Democrats to filibuster everything. No. They would find a way to get rid of the current filibuster rule and they would do it in a nanosecond.

Correct that. They would do it in a femtosecond.


[ Parent ]
"[would you] want filibuster removed if it were a Republican majority instead of a Democratic majority?" (0.00 / 0)
Yes.

Some people even took that position several years ago when Republicans first brought up the 'Nuclear Option'.

The filibuster is innately conservative.  Small 'c' conservative, sure, which doesn't always correspond to political Conservatism, but it is close.

We already have far more veto points then just about any other nation.  That is one of the reasons we have such a hard time getting real political change.


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
lack of filibuster would suck in a Republican majority, but then again, Democrats barely used it and when they did, it was rarely successfull, so it wouldn't really be different.

Besides, if our government from now on is going to run on a 60 vote strategy in the Senate, then it won't function right, no matter who is in power...it wasn't how the Constitution designed it.  


[ Parent ]
actually forcing them to speak forever? (4.00 / 1)
Why is no one talking about forcing Republicans and Lieberman to actually filibuster, continuously speak for hours day after day? wouldn't it change the public's perception of those filibustering especially if the measure is as popular as the public option?  

Because you can't force them to speak forever (0.00 / 0)
A filibuster does not require speaking forever, in the past when that was done, it was because said Senator(s) who spoke forever wanted to show off the fact they were filibustering, but in almost all cases, all one has to do is file a cloture motion and keep suggesting the absence of quorum.

If there is a quorum present, then a Senator may speak, but only if a quorum is present.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox