Why Dems' move to hold the health care conference committee behind closed doors is awful news

by: David Sirota

Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:15


UPDATE: C-SPAN has now issued a formal request to televise the secret House-Senate health care negotiations. Wonder how Democrats will respond...

UPDATE II: The Iowa Independent produces a 4-minute video clip of Obama going over - in explicit detail - why these specific negotiations should be public and not secret, saying that the difference between true transparency and secrecy is the difference between real reform and failure. Watch it here.

UPDATE III: Here's the first DC think tanker actually arguing that transparency in the most basic legislative processes is somehow evil. Never thought I'd see that kind of open loathing of democracy - but, alas, there are still firsts and new worsts, even for the Beltway crowd.

UPDATE IV: Asked about the discrepancy between candidate Obama's pledge of full C-SPAN viewable transparency in the health care negotiations and President Obama's embrace of secret negotiations (both in Congress and between the White House and PhRMA), White House press secretary Robert Gibbs actually insists there is has been no discrepancy at all and that the current process was "very similar to what the president envisioned." I'd say this is a classic example of the Mad Men 2.0 strategy of today's cynical politics whereby Washington operatives offer up full denials in the face of verifiable facts.

To follow on Chris's post yesterday, I want to point out that a lot of activists have been insisting that there's a Nixon-esque "secret plan" in the works - only not to end the Vietnam War, but to make the health care bill radically better than the gutted carcass that passed the U.S. Senate in December. In general, I don't believe in the Secret Pony Plan Theory (ie. the theory that says that when any politician we're supposed to love does something awful, it's actually part of a secret 15-dimensional plan to do something awesome) - never have, never will. Politicians do things because they are forced to do things, not out of the goodness of their own hearts, and if there ever is a secret plan, it's usually to pull one over on the public.

As it relates specifically to health care, I especially don't believe there's a secret plan to make the bill better in conference committee for two reasons.

First and foremost, it's a good rule of thumb that from a progressive perspective, most bills get worse - not better - in conference committee. These negotiations are where lobbyists have their most influence, because much of the wheeling and dealing is done through winks and nods, and because everyone knows the final product is an inexorably moving train that both chambers will likely pass. I defy you to name more than a few bills that have gotten markedly better - rather than markedly worse - in a conference committee.

Second, if there is any hope of making a bill better in conference committee, that hope relies on the conference committee negotiations actually being open to the public. But that's not guaranteed - not even close.

David Sirota :: Why Dems' move to hold the health care conference committee behind closed doors is awful news
Sure, there is always a final conference committee vote - but the real, most pivotal work of ironing out the different bills can be done behind closed doors. On many conference bills, the one party in control holds secret meetings, and then all the public gets to see is one two-minute vote for final-passage and that's it.

This doesn't have to be the way it's done - and in many cases it isn't (I spent many a long night in contentious and controversial Appropriations conference committees when I worked on the Hill - and they were public).  But on health care, it looks like the closed-door approach is now the way forward, according to some stenography by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn:

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are "almost certain" to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate.

Cohn, regurgitating his Democratic sources' spin without so much as a question, couches this turn of events as wonderful news because it will disenfranchise congressional Republicans and expedite the process. It's a classic authoritarian argument. And as I wrote in a San Francisco Chronicle piece about American Czarism way back at the beginning of 2009, I'm someone who believes in democracy - so I'm not inclined to cheer at anyone's disenfranchisement (I know, that sets me apart from the cynical and partisan DC chattering class). That's particularly true when  when said disenfranchisement impacts not just the GOP, but also rank-and-file progressives.

You see, if there was even a tiny chance this bill was going to get better in conference committee, that chance was, in part, reliant on progressive pressure on an open process. Ya know, pressuring individual conferees on specific amendments, etc. But if the conference negotiations take place in secret, that progressive public pressure is far harder to muster and to appropriately target. This is probably why Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is none too pleased about the news.

I still remember the good ole days when President Obama promised to make sure that all the health care negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. I didn't think that would happen (although I was hoping he'd try), but I did think there would be at least a modicum of transparency in this process. That we've gone from promising all negotiations would be televised for everyone to see to potentially a situation where the final, most important negotiations are locked behind closed doors is sad - not just from an objective transparency/democracy perspective, but, as you can see, from a progressive final-legislative-product perspective.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why Dems' move to hold the health care conference committee behind closed doors is awful news | 41 comments
Conference committees are always behind closed doors. (4.00 / 1)
And if they were to play around with public conferences they certainly wouldn't pick one which is a) informal because the Republicans interfered with setting up a formal conference, b) insanely complicated, and c) wildly controversial. This is "news" in the same sense as "the sun came up in the east yesterday".

You're really tilting at windmills here.

Right... (4.00 / 7)
Right, because all those public and controversial conference committees that I was in when I worked on the Hill were just a figment of my imagination.

Great point.

[ Parent ]
There's Little Chance of This Bill Changing Period! (0.00 / 0)
Remember that President Lieberman won't vote for any substantial changes to the bill the Senate passed, so they're out.

It doesn't make the slightest difference whether hearings are televised, secret, or whatever. Joe and Mary Landrieu and Max and Conrad have spoken.

Reportedly, they're skipping a full blown commitment to a conference committee and are going to "ping-pong" the bill by private agreement between the negotiators. They've already been having staff talks for weeks and have already laid the groundwork for agreement -- which will be minor modifications to the Senate bill. Certainly no major changes.

Those modifications will be pre-negotiated with President Joe so that they won't raise his ire by costing too much or doing anything.

The only reason they're going to closed conference is that they hope to avoid more Republican obstructionist tactics forcing several more cloture votes to commit the bill to reconciliation (which is required under the insane Senate rules). Reportedly that would take until sometime in late February if Republicans play this out filibustering every single thing -- which they will.

That automatically means that the House bill has to be modified to fit the Senate bill (which was going to happen anyway) and not the other way around.

I have no idea what activists you are talking about, but they clearly have no idea what's happening if they have some vague hopes that the bill will get appreciably better in the conference committee.

As for the "15 dimensional chess" I doubt anybody with sense believes in that by now. That was attributed to Obama, but he's made it violently clear that what WYSIWYG.

There's no "secret" plan and there never was. It sounds to me like you had too many arguments with such people and got all bent out of shape instead of simply saying: "just wait and see if a magic pony emerges by January!"

Well, it's January and no pony. Res Ipsa Loquiter.

[ Parent ]
Seems like you kinda missed the point FairEconomist (4.00 / 1)
Most meetings of any kind are behind closed doors, but the important aspect is who get to go through the doors before they are closed.  In this case, we'll never know.  Seems to me that either your windmills aren't turning, or some special interest is turning them for you.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
Correct, again (4.00 / 4)
The fewer people involved, the more likely this will be a Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman sell out.  Some "democracy" where the five (all "representing" small states and large corporations) outweigh the 55.

All we need is ten people with guts in the House to shoot this mess down.  Please!

Doesn't seem to be a lot of courage (4.00 / 3)
in elected officials with D's behind their name.  It would seem to me that a principled progressives has to ask themselves whether or not they can support a Democrat next November.  Short of that, how would you motivate them?

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
Oh yes, there nothing we can do except ensure that Republicans take the house. (0.00 / 0)
Yep that there's some good planning.

Primary the conservadems, donate ONLY to progressives, donate to ad campaigns that expose them, end the filibuster, build organizing in your town and state around issues, write directly, organize with other groups who share issues you and whose issues you can support....

We must take responsibility to elect the most progressive governments possible. Giving up that responsibility is a moral failure, bad planning, bad tactics, cynical and not incidentally, a big part of the Republican re-election effort.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Great establishment response (4.00 / 3)
The only thing that motivates the electorate is pain.  Apparently eight years of Bush wasn't enough to demand leaders that will support change.  It appears to me that to motivate the public, perhaps another dose of pain is necessary.  Voting for more corporate Democrats, which is what the choice will be, will only delude the people into thinking they are getting something they aren't.  If it could happen the way you suggest, I would be there, but it won't.  

The point of the next election is to get the attention of the Democrats.  Perhaps, like the proverbial mule, we need to smack them between the eyes.  I do not mean to mock or make fun of your response.  I think that someday we may again agree and want to work together.  But for now, I see your way as rewarding politicians willing to say one thing during the campaign and to govern differently.  These are not your father's Democrats.  To get away from this pattern may necessitate some pain for the Democratic Party.  So be it.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Oh yes, by putting Republicans in office you propose to hurt, not the innnocent, (0.00 / 0)
the voter, the economy, the country, peace or the environment but "the democrats" -- as if the losing of a few seats by a few elected officials is equivalent to the pain meted out by the crazies and racists and teabaggers with legislative power.

It is well beyond mockery, it is beyond ignorant, it is moral failure. It is the cowardice of violence in the face of difficulty. And letting the crazies back into in office is violence, just as you say "The only thing that motivates the electorate is pain." I am sure the people waiting to be lead by compassion, cooperated with in empathy and who plead to be joined in the struggle for redress would want from you.

Peddle your piddle, but dont expect mere mockery.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Republicans In Congress (0.00 / 0)
At most there's gridlock, and the way this healthcare debacle is playing out, I'm not so sure Third Way Democrats (Obama, Rahm, Geithner, etc.) are any better at all than Republicans. At least Teabaggers won't let Republicans vote more funds for TARP. Obama has the veto pen, anyway.
At any rate, it's not my duty to vote for a candidate that's POS. It's up to a candidate to give me good reason to vote for him or her. Otherwise, it's third party or write-in.
I won't be politically blackmailed. I was voting Democrat before Obama could shave, and neither he nor his New Democrat buddies are conning me again.
The economy's going to get worse under either Democrats or Republicans, and woe to the politicians in office and the corporatists when this all reaches a boiling point.
[ Parent ]
Thats rigth theres no difference betwe the crazies and the centrist dems (0.00 / 0)
None at all, hell thats what they said to let GWBush become president. I need to puke, be right back.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Cut to the chase (4.00 / 2)
Should, despite all of your good faith efforts,

Primary the conservadems, donate ONLY to progressives, donate to ad campaigns that expose them, end the filibuster, build organizing in your town and state around issues, write directly, organize with other groups who share issues you and whose issues you can support....

yet another conservaDem get nominated.

How do you vote? With the Party or against it? Maybe you should abstain (from voting in that particular race), or attempt to lodge some kind of protest vote. Will you support the party-anointed candidate?

What is your fall back position? Fall in line, or stick to the principles you expressed?


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

[ Parent ]
Yes I will always vote for the best possible outcome of my voting. (0.00 / 0)
And that will never include a conservative.

I know the Deeds/Baker rule, and driving the base away will hurt any effort to defeat the crazies, but encourage a vote for a Republican? encourage people to stay home?

I could not.

But the single vote is the least of my political efforts. I shake my head in sad recognition that Deeds brought the defeat of the democrats on himself, or more correctly, the people who brought Deeds forward as the Democratic Party candidate for governor. They must feel great shame, must as in should as much as might.There are two kinds of people who wish for the defeat of the democrats, neither of them is progressive, or democratic.



--

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

[ Parent ]
Who said anything about voting Republican? (4.00 / 2)
You're making an awfully big leap there.  Dems and Repugs are not the only options out there.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Winning an election at the federal level is two parties, except for specific, nameable exception(s) (0.00 / 0)
If you can name someone other than Bernie Sanders, I'd like to hear it.

I love Working Families Party in New York State, and when they can run a Statewide election for federal office the country will be better off.

The problem isnt fighting back against the conservatives, it is fighting back and winning, and without the putrid odor of  statements like this:"The only thing that motivates the electorate is pain" or anything like it.  

--

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

[ Parent ]
Vote for Dems because they are not GOPpers (4.00 / 1)
Lieberman, Nelson, Lnadrieu and Lincoln thank you for your support as they stick the knife in your willing back and laugh.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Couldn't have said it better myself. (0.00 / 0)
Partisans don't seem to care how bad their politicians are.  No matter what the policy, there's always an excuse to be made.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Do you live in any of those peoples electoral districts? (0.00 / 0)
Have you ever voted for them? Have you worked to primary them? Called?

Have you called into their district for any organization that is trying to hold them accountable? Have you installed VoIP on on your computer? Can you name an organization in ND, Louisiana or Nebraska that is pushing these Politicians? Did you work for Lamont?

--

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

[ Parent ]
Luckily (0.00 / 0)
(or is it by design?)

I don't have nitwits like these folks representing me in DC.

If you do, then that seems all the more reason to reconsider your approach to electoral politics. Just sayin'.

Me? I'm represented by Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar as well as Rep. Keith Ellison in the House. Two out of Three ain't bad. Klobuchar is arguably the most conservative of the group, so my focus will be on getting her to move to the left. Even so, I'd like ALL of them to take more liberal/progressive positions and stand up for them.

One thing that helps me to realize these political ends is the relatively open system in Minnesota. Each of these elected Democrats faced two serious opponents in the general election and that situation forced them to clarify their positions. It is very difficult for a Senate candidate to present themselves as a "Conservative Democrat" in MN because the Independence Party has pretty much taken that position from them. See? Even a slightly viable alternative party can improve the Democratic candidates. Clear as a bell.



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

[ Parent ]
Odd. it seems you have absolutely no intention of missing a vote. (0.00 / 0)
I am at a loss.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Who said I don't vote? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
As long as the majority of Democrats feel this way (0.00 / 0)
and I believe the majority does support the President, we will keep getting Corporate Dems who lie to us and get personally rich (Bill Clinton anyone?).

Do what you have to do House.  So far your way has achieved what?

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Thats right the only way to fight back is to lose elections. (0.00 / 0)
Hmmm, that is not the best political advice I have heard. And you can call me anything you like.

Its harder to organize than it is to sit a bar, or your kitchen and insult people, and call for people not to vote. In fact almost everything else is harder than that. Opening a beer and not voting does not feed your principles, and  the beer only helps you ignore your conscience.

--

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

[ Parent ]
You have your point of view (4.00 / 1)
And regardless of how lacking in principle, you are entitled to it.  I don't vote party I vote for honesty.  I haven't seen much from the Dems lately.  At least a Repub tells you he's going to bend you over.  I don't mind anyone who has an opposing view as long as he holds it up front.  Not even you  ;)

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
We have a responsibility. (0.00 / 0)
It comes with rights.

The two are entwined, one is the cause of the other. If we have the right to govern our country, then we have the responsibility to govern. Soldiers for example, give up the right to make an almost infinite number of choices to serve a democracy. The democracy, you, then have the responsibility, to ensure the things they are told to do, are in line with what our principles demand, to ends in line with our democracy etc etc. You. It comes with the rights.

It isnt about "rewarding" a politician. Or even about 'politicians' its about getting things done.

We may not give up. we may not cease voting, or organizing, or filling in forms, or making lists, or calling other voters, or calling elected officials.

Being a citizen is hard work.  

--

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

[ Parent ]
I have no responsibility to the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
My responsibility is to myself, my family, my friends, my city, my county, my state, my nation, and my world.

Not necessarily in that order.


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

[ Parent ]
For f-- sake. Nowhere do I suggest a even loyalty let alone responsibility to the Democratic party (0.00 / 0)
What do I have to restate?

What have you missed? I cannot fathom.

We cannot walk away, we cannot advise others to walk away, we have to struggle each and every day, the world and our country and democracy and freedom require it of us.

That is what I said, that is what I mean.  Everything we do, has to be part of the struggle to save democracy, save the environment, save the movement toward sanity and evidence based living.

The Democratic party is a tool. Not using it, fixing it, making it represent us all is not a choice.

Voting along with seventeen others in your state, for example, for the Progressive America Refoundation Party, who while they have the exact same policy planks as you would like, does nothing.

Allowing Republicans to undercut democracy, up front and without irony, by throwing people off the voters list, using dirty tricks, redefining what we can vote on, isnt just disappointing and harmful, it leads to the end of democracy. They dont even pretend to support democracy any more, the support 'the republic' which as Rome showed at its height and decline, has nothing at all to do with democracy. A few years, even five of ten, could be the margin we need to stop catastrophic climate change.

Playing around, punishing politicians, acting out of anger, or revenge, or anything else besides your responsibility to govern is a moral crime.

--

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

[ Parent ]
I'll stick with my principles. (0.00 / 0)
I don't have much, but I've got those, and I'm keeping them.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Someone once said. (0.00 / 0)
Opening a beer and not voting does not feed your principles, and  the beer only helps you ignore your conscience.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Closing your eyes or holding your nose (4.00 / 1)
is precisely how we got the system and the status quo that sickens us so.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
You know I have never suggested doing less, I have always suggested working harder. (0.00 / 0)
I just also suggest working smarter.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
There's the rub (0.00 / 0)
I just also suggest working smarter.  

We each think we are doing precisely this.


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

[ Parent ]
Oh, but I do vote. (0.00 / 0)
I vote my principles.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Hoodwinked (4.00 / 5)
The excuse Democrats are floating about prevent Republicans from gunking-up deliberations is bullshit. Democrats could have cut-out Republicans from the jump by choosing reconciliation.

This move is about minimizing the remote possibility that some liberal Democrat finds a spine and fuck up the deals made on the abortion provision and, of course, the public option.

Considering the betrayals and corrupt deals made to get these corporate bills through the process, this move should not come as a surprise to anyone. (Fix the bill in conference my ass!)

Assuming the Senate Parlimentarian Would Go Along. . . (0.00 / 0)
which he wouldn't on many aspects of this.

The problem is the arcane Senate rules. When the problem of unbreakable gridlock arose before the Senate adjusted the rules to call for 60 votes for cloture instead of 65.

Well, now they'd just better go to 55. Because NOTHING is going to get done in the Senate without changing the rules.

Reconciliation was never going to work because you couldn't get a full bill through using it.

The notion that once you try and ram through some PORTION of the bill that has budgetary impact, that you could come back and pass the "non-controversial" portions of the bill -- such as restrictions on dropping coverage due to pre-existing conditions, etc., was clearly wrong from the start.

The frustrating thing is that ONLY Obama could have broken the gridlock -- and only by beginning a full-court press of the Senate by mobilizing a populist grass roots campaign and barn-storming around the country giving speeches and holding rallies for at least 6 months.

You can criticize Obama for playing the institutional game instead of trying, but the reality is that NOTHING was ever going to move Snowe or Joe Lieberman to support a robust public option. No amount of rallies or grass roots lobbying efforts or pressure brought by Obama. Nothing. Period.

And reconciliation wouldn't work either. So, unless the Senators were willing to go to a straight nuclear option right off (which they never were and still aren't) then there was ZERO chance for meaningful health care reform in the U.S. Senate.

Sad but true.  

[ Parent ]
If you say so. N/T (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Any chance that they're hiding from lobbyists? (0.00 / 0)
Will the lobbyists be in the "secret" meeting too?

Exactly who WILL be in the negotiations?

I know it's a stretch, but sometimes Congressmen don't like to go to a voice vote because they don't want to piss off industry types. It's rare, but it does happen occasionally. Last year, Melissa Bean called for a roll call vote on an amendment to the Himes-Grayson Pay-for-Performance Act in order to get it watered down, and it worked.

Not that transparency isn't the way to go, but the thought that they might stiff lobbyists a little during negotiations did cross my mind. ... OK. C'mon, stop laughing.


Not laughing. Crying n/t (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
If the lobbyists aren't in the room, they'll (0.00 / 0)
be right outside. And the blackberries will be in full buzz.  There's no way this is happening without them.  Not after $400 million invested in the outcome.
[ Parent ]
Thanks David for giving this subject an airing. (0.00 / 0)
I think it points out just one more time that the Obama forces (along with Harry Reid, the soon to be former Senator of Nevada) have shafted the citizens in favor of the corporations.  It is truly amazing to listen to the Obamapologists spin the need for unity.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
The Obama forces, the same ones who put in those death panels? (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Why Dems' move to hold the health care conference committee behind closed doors is awful news | 41 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