One of the truisms of life in DC is that whenever one party controls the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, it is virtually certain that the last of those three institutions will be the toughest nut to crack in terms of actually getting anything done. Between the filibuster, a variety of other arcane procedural rules, the clubby atmosphere of the chamber, and the six-year term making Senators less concerned about the year-to-year swings of their constituents, the Senate is inherently slower and more resistant to change.
That well-known fact to political insiders has congealed into a hardened nugget of conventional wisdom about the health care fight, which is that there is no way a strong health care reform package, including a public option, can make it out of that body. However, if you really look at reality, at what we actually know, that piece of conventional wisdom is mythology.
The Baucus mark-up only adds to this conventional wisdom, of course. But keep in mind that Senate Finance is almost without question the most conservative committee in either house of Congress right now. Its chair, Max Baucus, is in the top five Democrats in terms of conservatism, and has been historically very close to big business and the ranking Republican on the committee (Grassley). He was happy to cut the deal with Grassley in 2001, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Democratic caucus, for the massive Bush tax cut for the rich that was the main cause of our massive federal deficit over the last few years. Other key committee Democrats like Conrad and Bingaman, of the Gang of Six fame, aren't exactly liberally stalwarts either.
But in a soon-to-be-60-Democrats chamber (when Kennedy is replaced), the most conservative committee does not determine things for the rest of the Senate.
Let's look at the actual facts in terms of passing a bill acceptable to most Democrats:
There are between 44 and 50 Senators, depending on how you interpret their public statements, who have said they would support a public option if it was part of the health care package.
There are six other Senators (plus a new Massachusetts Senator, likely to soon be appointed by Deval Patrick once he law re Massachusetts appointments is changed) who have stated no public position on the issue. At least some of these are likely to be open to it with the right amount of arm-twisting by President Obama and Harry Reid.
Depending on how you interpret their various muddled statements, there are three Democratic-caucusing Senators (Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson) who have stated outright opposition to a public option.
There are no (zero, nada, not a single one) Democratic Senators who have announced that they would join a Republican filibuster in the event Democrats decide not to go to reconciliation to pass a bill. That's not to say it couldn't come to that, but no Democratic Senator has said they would.
Reconciliation is a very live option. Many experts in Senate rules think it can be used to pass the financing and public option parts of the health care bill, and Reid has indicated a willingness to use any procedure available to him.
These are the facts about the Senate, facts which apparently are not being considered by every pundit and every public official who says the votes aren't there for a public option. The conventional wisdom- fed in no small part by well-connected insurance industry lobbyists who spend every day running around Washington telling every reporter and political insider they know that "the votes for a public option aren't there"- is simply false.
One of the reasons so many House and movement progressives are a little peeved about all the unnamed Administration sources and the signals that the White House is backing off on this issue is that it is apparent that the Senate can be won on this issue with just a little bit of elbow grease and arm-twisting. It won't be easy, but getting this bill passed is within reach, if the White House and Harry Reid fight for it. The clubby nature of the Senate might have to be shaken up, the bipartisan comity might have to be given up, and insurance industry lobbyists/contributors might have to be angered. But passing a strong, comprehensive bill, with a public option, through the Senate is eminently doable.
Now, it must be granted that Coburn is a heartless monster, but has insights about getting legislative victories from even the minority that I would be happy to see Democrats get a glimmer of. For example, he ingeniously got the Democratically controlled Senate to vote in favor of lifting the ban on guns in national parks as part of a recent credit industry regulation bill.
So how about Democrats include livestock market competition reform amendments that have previously been either cosponsored or introduced by Sen. Grassley (favored by other Senate Republicans and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), alike), but had a hard time securing passage. Such reforms are extremely popular in Iowa, and farm country in general.
It would at least make it harder for Grassley to vote no. Even Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) has supported at least one of the competition reforms described here, though it's good, progressive legislation that would push back against overwhelming corporate power in an industry that's steadily strangling the entrepreneurial spirit of independent farm businesses to death. It's even syntactically in the spirit of health insurance reform that would make this country more viable for small businesses of all types.
Anyway, Democrats could at least f*ing pretend like they were trying all avenues to get this done without compromising every principle they've been campaigning on since forbloodyfrakkingever.
Six worthy items on health care for this evening (most of which were first posted on Open Left in Quick Hits):
The RNC sends out a press release attacking the co-op proposal. No one could have predicted that Republicans would also not agree to the co-op "compromise" proposal, either. Just like no one could predict that Republicans will still attack the health care bill once co-ops are dropped, too.
In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans -- even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.
"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good negotiator."
Grassley will only vote for the bill if it is supported by a majority of Republicans. Given that the RNC is already attacking co-ops, that should be an easy bar to cross. It truly is a relief that Grassley is negotiating in good faith.
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), says that President Obama could lose "100 votes" in the House if the public option is dropped:
WEINER: The President does seem like he's moving away from the public plan, and if he does, he's not going to pass a bill. Because there are just too many people in Washington who believe that the public plan was the only way that you effectively bring some downward pressure on prices, and if he says well we're not going to have that, then I'm not really quite sure what we're dong here.
BECKY QUICK: So you would not vote for a bill that made it through, if it got through...
WEINER: Not only I but I think there's probably a hundred members of the House, who believe for various reasons that you need to have something to bring down prices. Otherwise you're basically, what you're doing, you're keeping the cost arc. . . the CBO agrees with that. You know as it was, I think the public plan had been watered down so much. So if the President thinks he's cutting a deal to get Senate votes, he's probably losing House votes.
It is a good thing that the Democratic leadership will be able to make up the votes by negotiating with Chuck Grassley and through Kent Conrad's co-op idea. Here is the video on Weiner:
Joe Sestak (whose campaign I work for) seems to have found a way to avoid rowdy protesters at town halls: just hold the meetings in places where right-wingers feel uncomfortable about being loud and noisy. Recently, he has held two town halls, one in a predominantly African-American church, and another in a veteran's center. Neither event had significant protests.
So, just find places wingers are scared of--like African American churches--and the protests melt away.
Speaking of town halls, is the national news media just done with that story? There is virtually nothing about the health care protests today on the Elections section of Google News. Last week, there was virtually nothing but the town halls in that section of news. Either national news outlets are bored with the story, or there are more taken with the latest conflict: Dems vs. Dems on health care. Or both.
As Democrats, we should have known all along that fighting with ourselves was a sure way to clear Republican protesters off the headlines. There are few stories the national political news media likes more than Dems vs. Dems.
Here is a great speech by Howard Dean to fire you up on the health care fight:
I spoke just before Howard did, and I remember almost nothing about what I said. Best speech I have heard in a while.
STATE BLOGS
