The news that Democrats have just selected Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to continue as House Minority Leader has led a number of commentators to note her continuing unpopularity. Blogger Nate Silver, for instance, recently came up with a column titled "Is Pelosi America's Most Unpopular Politician?"
There is no denying that Ms. Pelosi is very, very unpopular. This is old news, and relatively boring stuff.
What is more interesting is exploring how Ms. Pelosi became one of the least-like politicians in America.
Last Thursday I wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking that she not endorse Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) in his effort to become Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet (CTI). The reason is simple — Congressman Rush has been a leading Black voice against net neutrality since 2006, maintaining that net neutrality is a "solution in search of a problem." The position he seeks to occupy — if his record is any clue — would mean an advantage for corporations and a disadvantage for everyone else when key decisions about the Internet are made.
The Congressman's response? Avoid everything I've said, ignore what more than 60,000 of our members have said, along with that of literally millions of other everyday people across this country. Congressman Rush relies on the fabricated notion that ColorOfChange is "Silicon Valley funded" and "controlled." I'd like to know what the Congressman means and where he got such a bizarre idea. I personally led a successful protest on behalf of more than 600,000 people in which we called out Google for proposing a framework in collusion with Verizon that would undermine net neutrality — it's not the kind of thing you do if you're funded or controlled by Silicon Valley. Further, we don't have a single major donor representing the interests of tech companies in Silicon Valley — not an individual, a company, or a trade association. Maybe it's the fact that our offices are in the Bay Area?
This doesn't totally break precedent, Sam Rayburn stuck around after losing the Speaker's gavel in 1947 and 1953, and he eventually got it back both times.
The only people who don't want her back are some scattered Blue Dogs who don't like the way she passes actual legislation and gets things done. Heath Shuler wants to run for Minority Leader against her, and Jim Matheson (D-UT) thinks she should step down. But the Blue Dogs are decimated after this cycle, and can't really dictate the actions of the caucus.
The second interview Pelosi gave after the election was to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post, which says quite a bit there. She said she has received a positive response from members who want her to stay on.
From a progressive standpoint, it's best to have Pelosi still on board. She's the most liberal of all the leadership, and the most effective. Practically the entire Democratic agenda was passed in the House in the last two years; the Senate was the roadblock. And nobody raises money like Pelosi, adding over $50 million for Democratic candidates this cycle. Anyone who thinks Heath Shuler will get votes from the caucus over that mountain of cash is dreaming.
Pelosi rightly noted that the lack of jobs cost her the Speaker's gavel.
In her estimation, the jobless problem swamped their accomplishments. "We believe that there's a big distinction between Democrats and Republicans, but nine and a half percent unemployment is just such an eclipsing phenomenon that no message really can come through unless it's a message that says, 'Here's your job,'" she said. "From our standpoint, we have saved the country from eight and a half million jobs lost, from 14 and a half percent unemployment and the rest. But you don't get any credit for what you prevented from happening."
Pelosi is an old-fashioned Democrat. She comes from a Baltimore political family, and spent her adult life while raising her children doing the sort of serious political work that political wives in families like that have always done--plus more and more as women finally gained stature and recognition for what they could do.
So when she first came to Congress, that wasn't the begining of her political career, it was just the beginning of new phase. And all that past history was rooted in the long period in which Rayburn (a name probably unknown to many here, but LBJ's mentor, among other things) was one of the key figures. And getting things done legislatively lay at the very core of what Democrats did during that long period of political dominance. And it's what Pelosi did, too. In fact, it's what's been used against her by her enemies: she passed too damn much legislation!
But guess what? That's what voters want! They want politicians to get stuff done. The new politics of messaging uber alles is at was with that basic reality, and it won a round this last Tuesday. But Pelosi represents the reality-based politics of getting stuff done. And she's not about to go anywhere just now. And that's arguably the best news we've had all week.
Blade: Madame Speaker, a question on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. How confident are you that if that measure came to the floor there would be enough votes for passage and to overcome a motion to recommit?
Pelosi: Well, first of all, we still have to finish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We were able to pass the bill with a 40-vote majority in the House of Representatives last Thursday before the break. We're very proud of that vote.
I was disappointed, however, the next day, when the full measure came to the floor to pass the defense authorization bill. Only nine Republicans voted to pass the defense bill. This is historic. Republicans are now voting against the defense authorization bill - only nine did - because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was in the bill.
And now, of course, we'll go - after the bill passes in the Senate - we'll go to conference. But our work is not finished in that regard, so one thing at a time.
ENDA is personal priority for me, and I [understand] the focus for that, but because the defense bill came up now, we did "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" first. But we want to finish that.
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that if the Speaker's timeline means what I think it means, that will mean no action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act this year. DADT still needs to pass the Senate, go into conference, and be voted upon by both houses, and from what folks close to this have told me, all that is scheduled for completion in September- and that's assuming the funding for the F-35 strike fighter doesn't make it in and the President vetoes the bill and we have to do this all over again. It is extremely unlikely that either House will act on ENDA before leaving for the fall campaign recess. And I don't think last week's defeat of GENDA in a New York State Senate Judiciary Committee vote, complete with Sen. Lanza's concerns over the bathrooms issue, helped any, nor did Sen. Reid recently leaving ENDA off his proposed legislative schedule.
On the other hand, owing to Speaker Pelosi's penchant for not voting on bills until they have sufficient support, it was very unlikely there was going to be action anyway until the votes were had. It is widely known that the votes are not there to defeat a motion to recommit that would strip gender identity protections from the bill. So I feel less like I want to shake my fist at the House leadership and more angry that this bill has already been negotiated and re-negotiated to incorporate concerns over that issue, but still lacks sufficient support.
This week and weekend is Pride in DC, when most people I know will drink heavily, go clubbing, watch parades, and go to a street festival on Sunday. And maybe celebrate action on DADT. For me, Pride will also serve as a reminder that there are those in our community who cannot have any pride at the workplace, and must remain closeted. Going into next year, it will still be legal to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation (who you love) in 29 states, and on the basis of gender identity (your actual or perceived sex/appearance) in 38 states- over half the Union in both cases.
When I wrote my earlier article there were doubters among the readership as to who actually was perpetrating violence against those in Congress who had voted in favor of health care reform. Since that article there continues to be a growing stack of evidence of both borderline seditious rhetoric as well as actual examples of threatening behavior having been leveled against the more progressive elements in American political society.
The F.B.I. defines domestic terrorism as follows: "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. ...Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change." (F.B.I. "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" (February 12, 2002): http://www.fbi.gov/congress/co...
If you had the opportunity to watch the Chris Matthews Show this past Sunday, the 18th of April, you would have witnessed a lively discussion on the nature of the present threat of political violence emanating from the far right side. I have taken the time to delve into several of the show's references, as a means of producing undeniable evidence of the propensity for political violence among right-wing extremists.
First there is Michael Savage who, on his April 9th Savage Nation Show said: "What we need is a vigorous right-wing movement in America, not a Tea Party. And you need to face off against those scum on the left and then you'll have a nation." (See - Michael Savage: "Obama a traitor who is not Loyal to America" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/2... Then there is the example of Mike Vanderboegh, former Alabama Militiaman who now hosts the Freedom Radio Show. In his "To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW." He clearly and explicitly incites his followers to violence: "Pelosi and her ilk apparently do not understand that this Intolerable Act has some folks so angry that they are ready to resist their slow-rolling revolution against the Founders' Republic by force of arms... These are collectivists. They do not hear you grumble. They do not, it is apparent after the past year of town halls and Tea Parties and nose-diving opinion polls, hear you SHOUT. They certainly do not hear the soft "snik-snik" of cleaning rods being used on millions of rifle barrels in this country by people who have decided that their backs are to the wall, politics and the courts no longer are sufficient to the task of defending their liberties, and they must make their own arrangements.... So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows. Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats." (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-all-modern-sons-of-liberty-this-is.html).
Finally there is Michele Bachmann who recently advocated that Minnesotans become "armed and dangerous" in reaction to Barack Obama's energy policy. As reported in the Minnesota Independent: "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States." Quoting the author, Chris Steller: "Smart Politics notes it's not the first time since the election of President Obama and a new Democrat-led Congress that Bachmann dubbed her conservative compatriots "foreign correspondents reporting to you from enemy lines." The metaphor, combined with her "armed-and-dangerous" rhetoric, drifts close to Sean Hannity's excited speculation about a militant right-wing reaction." ("Bachmann wants Minnesotans 'armed and dangerous' against Obama energy policy" BY CHRIS STELLER, MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT, March 24, 2009 http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/a...
If the above dosen't constitute incendiary or seditious rehetoric, than what does in fact constitute? At this point in time it would seem to me that the preponderence of reported incidents seems clearly aimed at the current administration and its supporters, not the other way around. I know there are those on the right who are bending over backwards to try to explain away today's clear and present evidence of a trend toward right-wing violence with comparisons back to the sixties, violence by animal rights or enviornmental groups but that was then and this is now. Today the problem lies clearly on the far-right and generally speaking, nowhere else. There are those who will say that there is plenty of evidence of current left-wing violence if one cares to look, well fine, give us some credible and empirical examples in the present and not five or six or forty years ago. As we observe the fifteenth anniversary of the America's greatest act of domestic terror, the Oklahoma City Bombing, let us be ever mindfull of those clear and present threats aimed at our public safety, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they come from, and as good citizens, stand up to reckless rehtoric when ever and where ever you confont it.
The most unnerving part of the debate on financial reform is wondering which of the retiring Senators spending time on crafting the legislation are thinking about, or even actively discussing, going to work for one of the Wall Street mega-banks.
One of the great myths in American political theory is that once a politician gets ready to retire, or can't run again because of term limits or other reasons, it makes him or her likely to be a "statesman" because he or she doesn't have to worry about the voters anymore. The presumption that actual voters are unhelpful to getting good legislation passed is profoundly undemocratic because once voters don't matter anymore, other things begin to matter too much: where you will work next, how much you will get paid, what your close friends (many of whom have raised all that money for you over the years) think, what the DC establishment that you will be hanging out with at cocktail parties in your retirement think. Things like that may start to matter a lot more to some retiring Senators than being able to defend the deals you are cutting to voters.
It's not like the kind of thing I'm talking about has never happened. The most obvious case is Billy Tauzin working on the prescription drug bill that was such a sweet deal for Pharma, and then going to work for them as a seven-figure salaried president after he retired. But there are many, many other cases of Congresspeople and Senators working on legislation affecting an industry the year they retire, then getting a great consulting gig with the industry trade association soon thereafter.
The financial reform bill is way too important to let this happen. All of the Senators and House members working on this bill should pledge right now that they will not go to work after they retire for Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, any other of the other mega-banks, the American Bankers Association, or any of the other big industry players on this legislation. There are too many rumors swirling around on Capitol Hill right now of major players in this fight who are retiring this year starting to feel out industry players for jobs in 2011. The White House, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid should demand that all the Senators working on this bill take such a pledge to not sell out the American public.
The Dodd bill needs to be strengthened. Democrats need to draw a line in the sand and fight for a bill that really does something to take on the big banks. If the Republicans want to defend Wall Street by filibustering such a bill, God bless them, I'd be delighted to have that fight. But to get the best possible bill, we need the Senators negotiating it to not be preparing to work for the industry.
We're asking folks to contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-4965 and ask that she move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017) to a floor vote.
Dr. Jillian Weiss over at The Bilerico Project explains:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, first introduced in 1994, would prohibit job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But LGBT people have never been able to achieve the enactment of the bill, known by the acronym of "ENDA".
Last year, the Administration's highest ranking gay official, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, indicated that ENDA was highest priority on the LGBT civil rights agenda.
"If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens," he said. "It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there."
Hearings were held in the House and in the Senate to demonstrate the need for the bill, and testimony was heard on the severe unemployment, underemployment and harassment experienced by LGBT workers. Witnesses testified to the scientific studies demonstrating this.
The reason that workers need this protection is that the LGBT community is a relatively small minority, estimated around 5% of the U.S. population, and prejudice is common, particularly in more conservative states.
She's right. 30 states do not have employment protections based on sexual orientation, and 38 states do not have employment protections based on gender identity. That's over half the Union. As Pam Spaulding wrote from North Carolina this morning:
Here in North Carolina, if you do not work for a private company or organization that has its own inclusive non-discrimination policy, you can be fired by your employer simply for being LGBT. All a homophobic supervisor has to say is the equivalent of "I hate fags, and don't want to work with one" and out you go - no questions asked, no recourse of any kind.
The bottom line is this state's legislature has not shown it believes tax-paying, productive LGBTs deserve the same rights as other North Carolinians. Employment protections will happen at the federal level before our General Assembly will move to consider legislation of this kind.
This is a federal law- like the hate crimes law President Obama signed last year- that would apply universally.
Various sponsors promised that the bill would move to a vote in August, September, October, and November of 2009. But in order to go to a vote, the bill had to pass through the House Committee on Education and Labor. Markup was finally scheduled for November 18, 2009. At the last minute, the markup was postponed, and has still not been rescheduled.
As I wrote last year, Speaker Pelosi publicly told Democrats that she would not move controversial bills until the Senate went first. Meanwhile, the House Committee has stated its readiness to move, but is waiting for movement from the Speaker. That movement has not come. Meanwhile, LGBT Americans continue to suffer discrimination and harassment with no recourse. Some might say to wait until the health care is finished, but reconciliation is still going to take up time and attention over the next month, and there isn't much time left in the legislative calendar. There's can't be any more "wait".
Weekly Pulse: Pelosi Makes Her Move; GOP Rep. Calls for Coup
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has laid out a strategy to pass health care reform in the next couple of days by allowing the House to vote on the details of the reconciliation package instead of the Senate bill itself. As usual, progressives are fretting that winning will make them look bad. On the other hand, conservatives are baying for blood and calling for revolution.
'Deem and pass'
Nick Baumann of Mother Jones discusses the parliamentary tactic known as "deem and pass" (D&P), which House Democrats plan to use to avoid voting for the Senate bill before the Senate fixes the bill through reconciliation. The House doesn't want to sign a blank check. If the health care bill passes the House first, there's no guarantee that the Senate will make the fixes as promised.
Originally, the hope was that the Senate could do reconciliation first. The problem is that you can't pass a bill to amend a bill that isn't law yet. That would be like putting the cart before the horse. To clear that hurdle, the House will invoke a rule that deems that Senate bill to have passed if and when the House passes the reconciliation package. It's sort of like backdating a check. Ryan Grim explains the process in more detail on Democracy Now!
D&P does not equal treason
Progressives like Kevin Drum worry that D&P will make the Democrats look bad. Meanwhile, the Tea Party crowd is calling for Nancy Pelosi to be tried for treason, as TPM reports. The bottom line is that D&P is no big deal. Republicans used the process 36 times in 2005 and 2006; Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008. D&P is constitutional. We know because it has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. Kevin Drum writes, "If you have a life, you don't care about the subject of this post and have never heard of it."
Teabag revolution
There is no joy in Tea Party Land, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The tea baggers are frantically lobbying to stop the bill, but the reality is starting to sink in. Their leaders are shifting from trying to kill the bill to planning the tantrum they're going to throw when it passes:
While many held out hope that plans to pass the Senate's version of reform in the House would stall out, others pondered their next steps. Some, like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), took a dark view of what might come.
"Right now, they're civil, because they think they have a chance of stopping this bill," said King to reporters, waving his arm at a pack of "People's Surge" activists forming a line to enter the Cannon House Office Building. "The reason we don't have violence in this country like they do in dictatorships is because we have votes, and our leaders listen to their constituents. Now we're in a situation where the leaders are defying the people!" Later, King would expand on those remarks and speculate on a possible anti-Washington revolt in which Tea Parties would "fill the streets" of the capital.
Sounds like King is calling for a revolution, doesn't it? As it turns out, that's exactly what he says he wants if health care reform passes. Eric Kleefeld of TPMDC reports that King is hoping for something akin to the uprising that overthrew the Communists in Prague in 1989. "Fill this city up, fill this city, jam this place full so that they can't get in, they can't get out and they will have to capitulate to the will of the American people," King said in an interview with the Huffington Post.
Women and health care reform
Health care reform seems poised to pass. Amid the heady excitement, there's a sense of gloom in the reproductive rights community. Bart Stupak was defeated, but health care reform will probably end private insurance coverage for abortion.
In The American Prospect, Michelle Goldberg urges feminists to support reform anyway. She argues that the women suffer disproportionately under the status quo. If reform passes, it will insure 17 million previously uninsured women. Expanding health care coverage might help reverse rising maternal mortality rates in the United States.
A recent report by Amnesty International found that at least two women die in childbirth every day in the U.S., a much higher rate than most developed countries. The anti-choicers had the advantage because they were willing to kill health reform over abortion. The pro-choice faction did not allow itself the luxury of nihilism.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Key takeaways from today's meeting with Speaker Pelosi on health reform:
Who killed the public option? When asked about the public option, Speaker Pelosi said she was told there were not enough votes for it in the Senate. She did not name names, which isn't surprising, as I don't believe she has ever named names on matters such as these.
Further, she endorsed single-payer, claimed that kept the public option alive as long as she could, and said her goal was to round up enough votes to pass the boldest bill possible.
Public options already in the Senate bill (Medicaid and Community Health Center expansion). The Speaker indicated that the reconciliation bill corrects Medicaid funding inequities by providing more federal support, and also expands funding for Community Health Center funding.
Can the bill still be changed? In response to my inquiry about whether the bill can still be changed or not, the Speaker indicated that the bill is substantively done and just awaiting final word from the CBO. Only minor changes would be conducted from here on out, all of them while working with the CBO.
On this front, the Speaker emphasized the need for quick passage, ruling out any significant changes. She referred to Washington as the "city of the perishable." The Speaker said that if the process drags out any longer it will make the town halls of august look like a day at the beach, given the forces that are lining up to defeat the bill.
Vote counting Pelosi said the whip operation began on Friday, and she does not have numbers yet. Seemed very confident about passage.
Procedural notes Speaker Pelosi said that both she, and the majority of the caucus, were leaning toward a procedure where they would not directly vote on the Senate health reform bill itself. Instead, they would vote on a rule that would mean the Senate health reform bill had passed the House once the reconciliation bill passed the House. So, they vote on the rule, then on the reconciliation bill, and when the reconciliation bill passes, it means the Senate health reform bill has passed the House and can be signed into law.
In this way, the House does not directly vote on the Senate bill, and the Senate bill passes the House simultaneously with the reconciliation bill. Expect the House to take this path.
Getting assurance from the Senate. Speaker said that the House was seeking an iron clad guarantee that the reconciliation bill would not be changed in the Senate. When I asked her what sort of guarantees the House was looking for, she said they had asked the Senate "to show us what they can show us to convince us they have the votes for the bill we pass."
Speaker Pelosi is very engaging in person. She was animated in her defense of the bill as a progressive victory, and said those who support its passage can, and should, do so with pride.
At 11 a.m., I will be attending an on the record roundtable discussion on health reform with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
I will be covering the event live on Twitter. As such, the Open Left Twitter feed will appear at the top of the middle column until at least the early afternoon. You can also follow it on Twitter itself, by following the Open Left Twitter feed.
****
Also, I incorrectly noted a few minutes ago that the reconciliation bill was posted online (enormous PDF). It has not been. The bill currently online is the Senate bill, with reconciliation instructions attached for the Budget committee. David Waldman explains:
The bill on the Budget site could just be a discarded early draft from October that they'll use tomorrow as a vehicle for the fix material.
When the health care debate began lo these many (many, many, many) moons ago, I felt sure of some things based on my experience with the health care reform battle in the Clinton White House. I was certain that it would take far longer than was being projected; that the bill would have lots of compromises that would make me unhappy; that the process would be messy, ugly, convoluted, bitter and highly partisan; and that every single step of the way would be wrenchingly hard.
It turns out that I was an optimist.
All of my assumptions came true in spades, but in every single case it's been worse than I feared. We are now finally - finally - coming to the end game. Over the next couple of weeks we will finally know whether having gone this far, Democrats can drag this wounded beast of health care reform across the finish line.
There are so many things about this process and this bill that I am unhappy about. The Obama White House made way too many tactical mistakes, compromised too early and too often, gratuitously insulted their base multiple times, and failed to show the leadership they should have on some of the biggest issues. The final package, while improved in some very significant ways from what the Senate passed, will be deeply flawed both policy-wise and politically. At this final moment of decision, though, I think progressives need to say yes to getting the bill passed.
Over 40,000 Americans a year are dying from not having insurance, and that number will go up if this bill isn't passed. People who don't have any way of getting insurance currently will get insurance with this bill, and subsidies to help pay for it - subsidies that progressives have succeeded at increasing from the inadequate Senate bill. A right to health insurance would finally be established in this country, crossing a rubicon that we have worked to cross for over a century. Insurers will no longer be able to screw people who have pre-existing conditions. Insurers will finally be subject to federal rate regulation.
For all the disappointments, for all the flaws, this legislation does some critically important things, and I believe it sets the stage for doing better things down the road. If Democrats can't get this passed now, the lesson that Democrats will learn is to never try anything big or difficult again. If we get this legislation passed, it begins to change the psychology of Democrats just a little: that they can succeed at being ambitious and that they can make big changes if they persevere in the face of big money and political challenges.
So I'm all in. As painful as the process has been, as disappointed as I am by the flaws in the bill, I'm all in. I'm not consulting with anyone anymore on this issue (HCAN has had me as a consultant for a while, but that's been done for some time). I'm in this fight because I think it's the right thing to do. Which brings me to the rather painful decision I had to make late yesterday: that cruise trip I won a few months ago in the Air American contest (many thanks to all of you who voted for me) leaves from San Diego tomorrow, and I've decided not to go. My wife and I were really looking forward to it, having never been on a cruise, and we were very excited to be able to spend some time with Rachel Maddow, who is the featured guest on the cruise. (Seriously, Rachel, you are my all-time favorite cable show host, and getting to hang with you was the main reason I wanted to go on this trip. Maybe we can do lunch sometime.) But with the fate of this bill hanging in the balance, with the Speaker still facing a tough hill to get the necessary votes, and next week being the time to finally pin people down and get this done, I could not in good conscience go on the trip. I started working for universal health care 30 years ago, I fought the good fight with the Clintons the last time around, and I am not going to leave the battlefield for a week now. I am going to fight tooth and nail to get it done this time.
Today, President Barack Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his plan to move forward on health care reform. The president is expected to advocate the use of budget reconciliation.
Art Levine of Working In These Times warns that some centrist Democrats are already getting cold feet on reconciliation. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, went on TV to declare reconciliation impossible. These guys just don't get it. It's reconciliation or defeat. There is no other way. Without reconciliation, the bill dies. Without a bill, the Democrats get massacred in the mid-term elections.
Health care reform to date
Quick recap: The House and the Senate have both passed health care reform bills. The original plan was to merge those two bills in a conference committee and send the final version back to both houses of Congress for a vote. However, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when Republican Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election in Massachusetts.
Once they recovered from their shell shock, Democrats reluctantly converged around Plan B: Let the House re-pass the Senate version of the bill, thereby skipping the step where the Senate votes on the conference report. However, the Senate bill could not pass the House in its current form. So, the Senate needs to tweak the bill to make it acceptable to the House-either before or after the House re-passes the Senate bill. In order to make those changes without getting filibustered, the Senate Democrats will have to insert the modifications through budget reconciliation, where measures pass by a simple majority. Whew!
Of course, the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as tyrants for using reconciliation. Nevermind that 16 of the 22 reconciliation bills passed since reconciliation was invented in 1974 were passed by Republican majorities.
Whither the Public Option?
Reconciliation would appear to give the public health insurance option a new lease on life. The House bill has a public option, but the Senate bill doesn't. The public option was traded away on the Senate side to forge the original filibuster-proof majority. As a procedural matter, the public option could easily be reinserted during reconciliation because it has such a direct impact on the federal budget, i.e., it would save the taxpayer a lot of money. The White House claims to support a public option. Yet Obama didn't propose one in his health care plan last week.
Some observers take that as a sign that the White House doesn't think the votes are there. (Cynics say it's proof the White House never cared about the public option in the first place.) Even Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) told radio host Ed Schultz that he can't support a public option for fear of killing the health care bill, according to Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent. Harkin has been taking a lot of heat from progressives for refusing to join with other senators in signing a letter calling for a public option.
Abortion Storm Clouds
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say about how she plans to overcome resistance within her own caucus on abortion and immigration issues within health reform, as Brian Beutler reports for TPMDC. Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass a bill. The original House bill only passed by 5 votes. Rabid anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims to have assembled a coalition of like-minded Dems who consider the Senate's slightly less restrictive rules for abortion funding "unacceptable." There is no reliable public vote count on how many of these representatives, if any, would vote to kill health care over abortion. If they do, it would be purely out of spite. Abortion language can't be tweaked in reconciliation because it doesn't directly affect the budget.
Stupak and the myth of federal funding for abortions
In The Nation, Jessica Arons takes a closer look at Stupak's radical and misleading anti-choice rhetoric. The federal government is already legally barred from funding elective abortions, and nothing in the Senate bill would change that. Arons explains that the Senate bill would allow plans that participate in the federally-subsidized exchanges to offer abortion coverage provided that customers buy that coverage with their own money, not with subsidized federal dollars. If the government pays 30% of the cost of the policy and the consumer pays 60%, the money for abortion coverage comes out of the consumer's end.
There's a long tradition of segregating government money. Both Planned Parenthood and Catholic hospitals get federal funds. By law, Planned Parenthood can't use that money to perform abortions, but it can use it to do pap smears and offer other health care. By the same token, a Catholic hospital can take federal money to provide medical care, but not to proselytize to patients. Arons ably satirizes Stupak's extreme position:
If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:
(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;
(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;
(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;
(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;
(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.
Bunning backs down
In other health care news, AlterNet reports that yesterday Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) ended his one-man filibuster of the extension of a bill that would have prevented a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement rates and extended unemployment benefits while the Senate finalizes the jobs bill. Bunning caved under pressure from his own party. Even Republicans realized that there was no political percentage in stiffing doctors and the unemployed.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Pelosi's final remarks at today's health care summit. (Suck it, Steny Hoyer.)
Mr. President, I harken back to that meeting a year ago. At that time, Senator Grassley questioned you about the public option.
And you said the public option is one way to keep the insurance companies honest and to increase competition. If you have a better way, put it on the table.
Well, I bring that up because we have come such a long way....As a representative of the House of Representatives, I want you to know that we were there that day in support of a public option which would save $120 billion, keep the insurance companies honest, and increase competition. [This describes the Medicare-rates version of the public option, not in the House bill. The current version saves $25 billion.]
We've come a long way to agreeing to a Republican idea, the exchanges...because the insurance companies opposed the public option. They couldn't take the competition.
We have in our bill [which includes a weaker public option], market-oriented, encouraging-to-the-private-sector initiatives. I think the insurance industry, left to it's own devices, has behaved shamefully. And we must act on behalf of the American people.
We have lived on their playing field all this time. It's time for the insurance companies to exist on the playing field of the American people.
This seems to me like an embrace of the House version of the public option going forward. What do you think?
UPDATE: Obama pretty much admits that he abandoned the public option not because of a lack of votes, but because the White House couldn't stomach Republican "government takeover" talking points being used against them and they really really wanted Republican support. This is actually huge news:
"There were criticisms about the public option. That's when supposedly there was going to be a government takeover of health care. And even after the public option wasn't available, we still hear the same rhetoric...We have the concept of an exchange, which previously has been an idea that was embraced by Republicans before I embraced it. Now, suddenly, it became less of a good idea."
UPDATE II: Statement by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and Credo Action
"President Obama gave Republicans one final chance, and the verdict is in: Bipartisanship is dead. It's clear that no Republicans will vote for health care reform. So Senate Democrats should pass the highly popular public option through reconciliation. Starting tomorrow, we will ramp up our pressure on Senate Democrats to do the will of the people -- and do what's best for America's health care system -- by passing the public option into law."
Well it looks like it's mid afternoon in Health Care Reform land. You remember Health Care Reform don't you? That thing that some of the talking heads were carrying on was a dead thing? Yeah well about that, not so much. People might not completely agree on details, but the one thing that pretty much everyone who's not a politician or a CEO Can agree on is that we are sick and tired of having to go through our days living in terror of getting sick. The system is broken and we want something done about it. NOW!
On a blogger conference call today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly stated that the Senate must pass a fix to the health care bill before the House will pass the Senate bill. From Greg Sargent, who was also on the call:
On the call, Pelosi was asked by a reporter whether the Senate would have to go first. "Yes," she replied, twice, saying her members had repeatedly said they wouldn't pass the Senate bill if it weren't fixed before they were asked to vote on it.
When asked by a different report how many votes there were for the Senate bill in the House without the fix, Speaker Pelosi replied "very few." When asked if there were any parliamentary obstacles to the Senate acting first, she told Brian Beutler:
"No. It is not an obstacle to this path forward."
In closely related news, at least 15 Senators have now made public statements in favor of fixing the health care bill through the reconciliation process.
Later on in the call, when asked if she believed the Senate bill was worse than no bill at all, the Speaker said "there are many members who will not vote for the Senate bill" without the fix.
When asked by another reporter if there was enthusiasm about the public option in her discussions with the White House, Pelosi cryptically replied "I will leave that to you to decide." The implication is that no, there was no enthusiasm from the White House, and that the public option would not be part of any bargain with the Senate. She also reiterated that she will do what it takes to reach 218 votes.
Although I was unable to ask a question on the call, I have placed a follow-up question about whether the Speaker believes it is possible to pass the health care bill without adding the restrictive, anti-women's health language pushed by Representative Stupak. Further, I asked about the dozen or so members who supported the health care bill in November only on the condition that Stupak's language was included. Would those members be pushing to add the language to a series of regulatory measures, such as the repeal of the anti-trust exemption for the health care industry, that the House will take up next week? When a response comes, I will publish it on Open Left.
STATE BLOGS
