There are lots of ways to change Congress that falsely appear easy, that would alter the rules and patterns of behavior if only Congress were already fixed and willing to make the changes, or if we owned the television networks, or if people could suddenly hear what they're paid good money never to hear. But I've got a way to change Congress that is actually easy.
Progressive caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva has told The Hill that the caucus will not, as a group, draw a specific line in the sand on the climate change / energy bill--at least for now.
Liberal House Democrats are shifting their political tactics on climate change after failing to secure a public option in the new healthcare reform law.
The move comes in the wake of liberals having to walk back threats that they would vote against a healthcare bill without a government-run program.
"Drawing the line in the sand too quickly was part of the lesson we learned on healthcare," the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), told The Hill.
Grijalva voiced strong concerns about the direction of the climate and energy bill, which has moved toward the center as Democrats try to build a bipartisan consensus that can win 60 Senate votes.
Key takeaways from this:
Hard to argue with a need to change tactics, given the ultimate failure of the Progressive Block strategy on the public option.
Still, Grijalva did not rule out drawing a line in the sand--he just said that the Progressive Caucus was not going to draw a line this early in the process.
The reason the public option line didn't work is because defeating the health reform bill because it did not go far enough was only supported by 12-13% of the population. Any left-wing line in the sand that is drawn on the climate bill, or any other legislation, needs to have more popular support among the Democratic rank and file to be an effective. Specifically, it needs to be less popular among the Democratic base to cross that line than to cross President Obama by defeating a bill he is supporting.
Given the popularity of President Obama among the rank and file, it the line that is drawn is going to have to be over something pretty odious. A bill that strips EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, or guts the Clean Air Act, are probably the best bets. Still, I worry that even those concessions might be supported by the rank and file if President Obama, supported by many green groups, says it is still a good bill. Driving up popular support for defeating a bill that has too many concessions will be a monumental task, but it is still necessary to any "line in the sand" strategy working.
Still, even with all this said, it might be easier to convince people that the energy / climate bill is worth defeating because it has too many concessions than the health care bill, since there are potentially some pretty clear ways that the bill sends energy and climate policy in America backward. Stripping EPA regulatory authority, or gutting the Clean Air Act, seem more obviously to be backward movement than anything in the health reform bill outside of reproductive rights.
While it is true that there is a substantive difference between Medicaid and a public health insurance option tied to Medicare rates in the exchange, it is also true that the bill strengthens Medicaid in important ways. By moving most of the funding to the federal level--a $99 billion addition to the Senate Finance Committee bill--Medicaid recipients in red states are now in little or no danger of having their public health insurance taken away by local right-wing governments. Cutting Medicaid now becomes nearly as politically difficult as cutting Medicare.
Number of people receiving public primary care Additionally, there is $11 billion extra for Community Health Centers in the reconciliation bill over five years. At current rates of patients receiving care (20.27 million annually) to federal funding for Community Health Centers ($2.5 billion annually), that projects to an additional 17.8 million patients receiving public primary care from the bill. This compares to zero extra patients in the Senate finance committee bill, and 22.7 million extra in the House bill in November.
Since this concession was directly made to win progressive votes, again I guess it means Progs got nothing.
****
It is factually untrue that progressives won no concessions in this bill. People are free to debate over whether the concessions are enough either to support the bill or to demonstrate increased influence, but it is simply untrue that they won nothing in return for their support.
In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.
Now, pardon my exasperation, and please don't anyone talk anything I am about to write personally, because it is a generalized rant. But...
Bullshit. This is just wrong. Its bullshit like all the other bullshit out there in the blogosphere about how progressive activists who want to pass the health reform bill got nothing and have been forced into their "veal pens" or some other offensive formulation. That entire line of "argument" is just demonstrably false, and either intellectually dishonest or blinded by egregious cynicism
Here are two huge public option concessions that ended up in the Senate bill as concessions to progressive activists and members of Congress (more in the extended entry):
Obama thanked the assembled, mostly liberals, for their ongoing insistence from the left over the months that the bill be improved, Woolsey says. "He thanked us," she recalled. "He said the bill wouldn't have been nearly as good as it is if we hadn't advocated."
Hearing President Obama thank House Progressives honestly made me feel good. Most of the time, it feels like progressives are a punching bag. Often, President Obama uses us as a foil, saying thing like "some on the left believe X crazy thing, and some on the right believe Y crazy thing. I believe sensible Z thing in between those two." His chief of staff tells us efforts to pressure conservative Democrats are "f*cking stupid.". And then administration supporters online yell at you when you fight back.
So yeah, it feels good to hear President Obama acknowledge our efforts in a positive, rather than a derogatory way. And it is appreciated.
Obama went further in his message to Progressives, saying that his Presidency and 31 million Americans are riding on health reform. It seems to have been a compelling message for wavering Progressives, like the other Progressive Caucus Co-Chair, Raul Grijalva (emphasis in original):
Speaking to reporters in the Speaker's lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that "If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side...it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue."
I asked if the message was convincing to those in attendance.
"It's pretty compelling," Grijalva said.
That's a significant change from his tone earlier in the week, when Grijalva said he was inclined to vote against the bill from the left.
At the same time, President Obama said that there were not enough votes for the public option. Greg Sargent:
In a private meeting at the White House this afternoon, Obama told a roomful of House Dems he doesn't think the votes are there to pass the public option, and urged them to take the long view and to support the Senate bill as merely the beginning of reform, Dem Rep Lynn Woolsey tells me.
But, she said, Obama said the current healthcare legislation is a "foundation," adding he "would work with us on the next effort."(...)
Lee did say, however, that the president was "noncommittal" about pushing for a public option in the future.
It is at least good to know that our fights are appreciated, but it is also clear to me that we have to wage them ourselves. If there is ever going to be a public option, whether in this bill or in the future, we are going to have to round up the votes on our own.
The PCCC's response to the meeting, sent over email:
"Obama is telling America, 'No, we can't.' But as Senate moderates like Tim Johnson, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and 32 other senators joined the call for the public option in the past two weeks, the truth became increasingly clear: 'Yes, we can.' If President Obama doesn't think the votes exist in the Senate, he needs to name which senators would oppose it. If he's too weak to stomach that, than he needs to get out of the way and let those who know how to fight lead the charge." -- Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
If you want a public option, and you are not willing to give in, then sign up with the PCCC. They are leading this fight.
Yesterday, I reported that Progressive caucus co-chair Lynne Woolsey is holding a fundraiser for Blue Dog Jane Harman, who is facing a primary challenge from Progressive Marcy Winograd.
Now, at FDL, David Dayen reports that powerful Progressive Caucus member Henry Waxman sent out a fundraising letter earlier this week. Apparently, Dayen himself was asked to co-chair the Woolsey-Harman fundraiser. The Harman campaign is trying to hard burnish its progressive credentials through progressive surrogates.
Waxman apparently doesn't like Winograd because of her views on Israel and Palestine. That is really lame. In the House, power is rarely wielded by individual members, and instead comes in networks. Even if Winograd were in Congress, she wouldn't be able to change American I/P policy one iota.
What Winograd wold do, however, is be the first Progressive member of Congress who defeated a Blue Dog incumbent in a primary challenge. Instead, Waxman--through Harman--is strengthening a network that in 2009 successfully weakened education reform, health care reform, new financial regulations, climate change legislation, and the budget.
Harman wants to use progressive surrogates to boost her progressive credentials. That is nothing more than symbolism. If Harman really wants to prove she is progressive, then she publicly renounce her membership in the network of right-wing Democrats that have successfully weakened every single major piece of Democratic legislation over the past year. It is the same network that helped George W. Bush pass his agenda through a Democratic Congress.
We need to weaken this network. They are helping to deny our generational opportunity for change. Unfortunately, along with her Progressive surrogates, Jane Harman is strengthening it.
Marcy Winograd is one of the very few serious, viable, progressive challengers to a Blue Dog in Congress. In the California 36th congressional district, Winograd, who has spent a lifetime as an activist for progressive causes, is taking on Blue Dog Jane Harman.
Please join Congresswoman Jane Harman in welcoming Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for a special evening of conversation and hors d'oeuvres with Lynne and Jane in support of Jane's re-election to Congress!
Danny's Venice
23 Windward Avenue
Venice, CA 90291
Saturday, January 16, 2010
4:00pm to 6:00pm
A cash bar and discounted parking will be available (two lots: one next to Danny's or on Speedway just south of Windward)
For more information, please contact Marc Saltzberg at XXXXXXXX or Email: Harman_Woolsey@yahoo.com
Please join us at this extraordinary event, a fund raiser for Congresswoman Harman in an historic Venice location.
To ensure everyone has an opportunity to attend, Democratic Club members can attend for as little as $36. Not a Dem Club member? You can still attend with a small donation of $50!
Aarrgghhh!! Come on Progressive Caucus!! A little help? Even Progressive Caucus leaders are supporting Blue Dogs in primaries against prospective Progressives? Do the Progs even want to have more influence in Congress?
This is not even to mention that Jane Harman is the third wealthiest member of Congress, with a net worth of $112 million. She doesn't need any additional funding for her re-election campaign--she could self-fund another 20 re-election efforts. What she needs is progressive credibility to cover up her Blue Dog membership and past endorsements from Republicans. In that regard, Progressive Caucus Co-chair Lynne Woolsey is happy to deliver.
If you live in the Los Angeles area, I would strongly suggest that you attend the above meet and greet. Show up and challenge Representative Woolsey for undermining attempts replace Blue Dogs with Progressives. She should be working to increase Progressive power in Congress, not limit it. And why should we be working to support the Progressive Caucus if the Progressive Caucus leadership actively undermining our efforts to strengthen the caucus?
The Senate voted this morning and got a healthcare bill out of their chamber. Now key people from the House, the Senate, and the White House are going to meet to hash out the differences. And I am hoping - for substantive policy reasons, contrary to rumors that any progressive opposing the Senate bill is either an idiot or acting in bad faith - that we end up closer to the House version, because the Senate version of the bill does not address the single biggest issue with healthcare in this country, nor does it put us on a path to do so.
Until we get our hands around the problem of paying twice as much as the rest of the world for healthcare that doesn't keep us as healthy as people who pay half as much, we're not actually fixing the real problem with healthcare. We are merely putting bandaids on bullet wounds and pretending like that's all we need to do.
So indulge me in a metaphor, if you will. Imagine you have a leak in your roof. If you fix it now, it's going to cost you $500. If you don't fix it, the water getting into your attic will eventually breed mold, which will cost many thousands of dollars to mitigate - if it hasn't already gotten to the point where your house is unsalvageable.
So what do you do? Do you spend the $500 to fix the leak, or wait and pay the thousands of dollars later?
If you plan on living there for the rest of your life, you will fix the roof now. But what if you know you are going to move next year? Do you hope that the prospective buyer doesn't notice the leak? That by the time the mold sets in, it isn't your problem anymore?
The tenets of capitalism suggest you should defer - you have, after all, deniability. "A leak? Thanks for catching that! It could have ruined the whole house!"
That's exactly the behavior the insurance companies engage in. This kind of distortion of incentives is at the heart of the problem with our healthcare system. They don't do the relatively inexpensive things that would keep Americans healthy, because they figure they won't be the ones footing the bill later when people need really expensive care.
And the current Senate bill isn't going to fix it.
Yesterday, I argued that most of the House Democrats in danger of losing in 2010 were relatively conservative compared to the House Democrats who are safe for reelection. As such, the defeat of these Democrats would have the short-term progressive benefit of moving the overall House Democratic caucus to the left. Further, in 2012 and beyond, it would have the long-term benefit of creating more opportunities to replace Republicans with more progressive Democrats. This is a benefit, because taking Republican-held seats has consistently proven much easier for progressive Democrats than defeating conservative, incumbent Democrats in primary challenges.
Nate Silver disagreed with my argument. Focusing on the stimulus, climate change and health care votes, Nate noted that among the Democrats who are endangered (according to the Cook Political Report), a majority voted in favor of all three bills. Thus the endangered Democrats are not, as I claim, conservative:
On all three issues, the vulnerable Democrats were more likely than average ones to have voted against their party. Nevertheless, solid majorities were in support of each of these agenda items. The Most Vulnerable Democrats (MVDs) voted for the health care bill 22-17, the climate bill 24-14, and the stimulus package 34-4. Only 12 of the 39 voted against at least two out of the three initiatives, and only three of the 39 (Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, and Walt Minnick of Idaho) completely struck out.(...)
Unless there's some 11-dimensional chess angle that I'm not seeing, it seems to me that randomly wiping out, I don't know, two-thirds of the members listed above and replacing them with Republicans would be extremely injurious to the progressive agenda.
I like Nate a lot myself, and return all of the kind words he sent my way. Still, I think he is missing the big picture here. As such, I am more than happy to try and elucidate my 11-dimensional chess angle on the 2010 House elections.
First, we need a broader measurement of progressivism than just three votes. Beyond the stimulus, climate change and final health care vote, there are many other key votes such as cramdown, Stupak, Afghanistan, and the budget. As such, I prefer the 2009-2010 "crucial votes" score on Progressive Punch as an effective measurement of progressivism for the 111th Congress. This score measures the entire House caucus against its most progressive members on a few dozen, particularly close votes.
With this new measurement, we can quickly identify a big difference between the "endangered" and "safe" Democrats in terms progressivism. In fact, the endangered Democrats actually vote against progressives more often than they vote with them:
Note: Eight House Democrats are not seeking re-election in the House, and as such are not included in either the group of 215 "safe" or the group of 35 "endangered" Democrats.
The differences are even greater between the endangered and safe Dems, if the median is used instead of the mean:
The 215 safer Dems seeking re-election: 76.5%
The 35 endangered Democrats: 47.1%
All 177 Republicans: 2.0%
The stated goal of Open Left since our inception has been a progressive governing majority. In the House of Representatives, that means a minimum mean of 50.1% on crucial votes for the chamber as a whole. Right now, we are at 42.0%. To reach 50.1%, we are going to need some unorthodox tactics.
The current National House Ballot shows Democrats ahead by 2.80%. However, most of those polls focus on registered voters or even "all adults," not on likely voters. Current polling among likely voters by Rasmussen shows Republicans with a comfortable advantage. Lest you think that Rasmussen is to be dismissed, Daily Kos recently published information showing that 81% of Republicans will either definitely or probably vote in 2010, compared to only 56% of Democrats. Even Democracy Corps shows Democrats only ahead by 2% among likely voters. This means Rasmussen is not really much of an outlier, and Republicans are well positioned to make major gains. Retaking the House is even a possibility for the GOP.
My current feeling on this is a strong: "meh." Why should I care about Democrats facing such electoral difficulties? It is hard to figure out how this is much of a negative for progressives:
The House currently has a non-progressive majority. According to Progressive Punch, 227 members of the House have voted with Progressives less than 50% of the time on crucial votes in 2009. That makes for an overall non-progressive majority in the House of Representatives of 227-208. So, we are not even defending a progressive majority.
Most of the Democrats set to lose are part of that non-progressive majority. Of the 34 Democrats most endanger of re-election, 19 of them are part of the non-progressive majority. One, Jerry McNerney, is exactly on the fence, with a 50.00% voting record in 2009 on crucial votes. Only 14 are in the progressive minority. So, most of the Democrats in trouble are part of the non-progressive majority.
General elections are easier to win than primary challenges. Since 2006, only two members of the progressive minority have won their seats through primary challenges against sitting Democrats (Hank Johnson and Donna Edwards, neither of whom actually defeated members of the non-progressive majority). However, twenty-five members of the progressive minority have won their seats through general election challenge in seats held by Republicans (including five members of the Progressive Caucus).
It sure seems a lot easier to acquire new members who vote progressive 50% of the time or more through general elections than through primary challenges. As such, a necessary step to getting a progressive majority in the House actually requires a large number of the non-progressive Democrats to lose to Republicans.
This means that the Progressive Caucus could very well gain seats in 2010. Combined with overall Democratic losses, this would make the Progressive Caucus a much larger percentage of the overall caucus. This would in turn give Democrats more control over institutions such as the DCCC, which would make it easier for 50%+ progressives to win Republican seats in 2012 and beyond. This greater influence is needed since, of the 50 Democrats who vote with progressives less than 50.00% of the time or less, 41 of them were first elected in 2004 or more recently. The DCCC is packing the House with non-progressives.
So, why should progressives really care about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face? The non-progressive majority will stay in place no matter what. Not many Progressives are in danger. A lot of non-progressives are going to lose to conservative Republicans, but those losses will actually make it a lot easier to get a 50%+ progressive into those seats in 2012 and beyond. Demographics remain in favor of progressives over the long-run, as well.
As such, I'm feeling pretty ambivalent about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face. Those losses do not appear to threaten the goal of a progressive governing majority in the House in either the short-term (it doesn't currently exist) or the long-term (in fact, the losses might make it easier over the long-term). It just isn't enough for progressives to be a junior partner in a centrist majority governing coalition. We need to be the dominant partner, and that probably requires the current dominant partner--Blue Dogs and New Dems--to suffer heavy losses.
Which House Democrats are in danger in 2010? According to the Cook Political Report, mainly it appears to be Blue Dogs and New Dems, and unaffiliated Democrats:
Given how few Progressives are in danger, in the extended entry I discuss how the 2010 elections are likely to increase Progressive power in the House Democratic caucus.
(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."
Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)
Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."
Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.
I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.
Last night in Quick Hits, art3 alerted the Open Left community to the ugly repercussions of the defeat of the Medicare +5% public option. Now, it appears quite possible that even if the negotiated rates public option passes as a part of the final health care bill, it will not cost any less than private health insurance plans. From the CBO analysis of the House bill (page six, PDF):
Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO's assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that "adverse selection" on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the "risk adjustment" procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)
Ouch. That is pretty awful. In plain English, it means that the public health insurance option won't cost less than private health insurance options because, on average, the people purchasing it will be sicker and less well-off. So, even though it will save on administrative costs, its risk pool will force it to charge rates very similar, and possibly even higher, than private insurance companies.
After such a loss of momentum, at this point the public option campaign is just about getting a legislative architecture in place that will allow the public option to be improved later on with only 50 votes in the Senate. Unfortunately, however, any such improvement will be dicey, given that we apparently lack simple majorities for a stronger public option in both the House and Senate. So, in addition to still struggling just to get the public option in place, we are going to have to struggle down the road to get a better group of people elected to both the House and the Senate.
In this bleak environment, yesterday the House Tri-Caucus (Congressional Black Caucs, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus all met with President Obama to voice their frustration. The White House simply described the meeting as productive:
It was a productive meeting that lasted for about an hour. The President congratulated the members on working so hard to get a meaningful reform bill put together in the House.
In a post-meeting interview with Democracy Now!, Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva used much stronger language:
[We] basically brought out that now that we're in this stage of having to deal with this negotiated rates that came out of the House, and something much worse coming out of the Senate, on a public option, that we felt-set some parameters of what we felt very strongly about, that the bill still needed to be strengthened; that there had to be cost controls on the private insurance companies, especially with negotiated rates, because they get to set the rates and we have to chase those rates with taxpayers' dollar; and no triggers and no opt-outs, that we feel those are detrimental to the public interest and certainly to constituencies that have lacked the ability to access healthcare in this country for so many years.
That is just for starters, as Grijalva also criticized the White House for catering to Olympia Snowe, and not being a strong enough advocate of the public option. Grijalva also indicated that he would not work to defeat the bill, given that he criticized Senators who have threatened to do the same:
We're facing the most historic vote that any of us are going to take in our careers. And for procedural reasons or for other reasons, to threaten to filibuster, to threaten to scuttle, whether it is Senator Bayh, Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman, I think they're missing their opportunity with history, and I think the White House and leadership shouldn't allow them to be absent in this fight.
This may be a tough bill to swallow, but with language like this, it sure doesn't sound like Grijalva is looking to round-up Progressives to vote against it anymore.
This bill may very well provide a lot more people with coverage, we may well still get some sort of public option passed, and the Progressive Caucus does appear to have increased its influence. However, the cost of premiums will continue to rise beyond what are already unacceptable levels, and even without the filibuster we apparently still do not have a good enough Congress to pass transformative legislation. It is a hard pill to swallow, and a very frustrating day.
The House Democratic leadership unveiled its health care bill this morning. Some details:
The bill -- a combination of versions passed by three House committees -- includes what is termed a "negotiated rate" public option. It will cost $894 billion over 10 years and extend insurance coverage to 36 million Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office.
The bill guarantees that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, Pelosi's office said. The figure is based on an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
One of the main differences between the House bill and the Senate Finance committee bill is that a significant portion of funding comes from a surtax on wealthy households, rather than on high-cost health care plans (which mainly target unions)
The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 - just three-tenths of 1 percent of all households, Democrats said.
"I will insist on a Medicare-plus-5 [percent] amendment on the floor so that the full caucus can vote on it. We are hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow this amendment, which has tremendous public support, to be voted on for the record."
They will also get a chance Thursday to press their case for a public option in the final bill to Obama in a White House meeting. Many liberals have been irritated by Obama's wavering on the necessity of a public option.
Asked if her caucus would be prepared to balk at supporting a public option with negotiated rates - a threat they made in writing at the beginning of July - Grijalva's fellow co-chairwoman, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), said: "When we see what the bill says, we'll decide if we can support it."
Woolsey added that while Progressives don't intend to sign off on just anything that's handed to them, "this isn't walk-away time."
The problem with an amendment strategy is that the House leadership will likely not allow many, if any, amendments to be offered on the House floor. The reason is because of Bart Stupak, who is trying to defeat the entire bill by rounding up 40 House Democrats to demand that none of the insurance plans receiving subsidies in the exchange are allowed to cover abortions. If such an amendment passes--and the leadership believes that it would if offered on the floor--then the entire bill goes down to defeat, since it will lose the votes of dozens of pro-choice Democrats. As such, the leadership is going not going to allow any amendments, and make Stupak's only move to try and prevent the bill from going to the floor at all. It is unlikely he will succeed.
Floor amendments are approved by the House Rules committee. As such, the next step in the fight will be fought there. The committee is generally thought of as an extension of the leadership, so those fights may already be a foregone conclusion. Still, look for Representatives Stupak, Grijalva, and Weiner to try and get their amendments on restricted abortion funding, a vote on Medicare +5 rates, and single-payer to the floor.
Even though the Senate health care bill merger process is getting more press, the House is undergoing the same process for its three health care bills.
The two main disputes in the House merger process:
The first is over Democrat Bart Stupak's attempt to prevent any health insurance plans from covering abortions. If he were successful, health care reform would lose so many pro-choice votes that the entire bill will die. Fortunately, Stupak's plan seems likely to fail.
The second debate is over whether to include a public option tied to Medicare +5% rates, or one with negotiated rates. Three weeks ago, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was challenged by Speaker Pelosi to demonstrate enough support to pass the Medicare +5% public option. Since, then, the CPC has been engaged in a whip count to do just that.
The second argument is the main event in the House merger process at this point. The general thinking is that if the House passes the Medicare +5% public option, then the conference report is much more likely to emerge with a triggerless public option of some sort (negotiated rates, Schumer's level playing field, or perhaps the opt-out).
A whip count being undertaken by the Congressional Progressive Caucus indicates that support for the liberal public option among House Democrats is just shy of the needed 218. There are "about 200" solid supporters, 15 leaning yes, 20 undecided and 30 "no" votes, according to a Progressive Caucus source. Of the 30 "no" votes, 23 are likely "no" votes on the overall bill, the source said.
With Robert Wexler's retirement, there are currently 255 members of the House Democratic caucus. The numbers above suggest the following breakdown of House support for the Medicare +5% public option:
STATE BLOGS
So indulge me in a metaphor, if you will. Imagine you have a leak in your roof. If you fix it now, it's going to cost you $500. If you don't fix it, the water getting into your attic will eventually breed mold, which will cost many thousands of dollars to mitigate - if it hasn't already gotten to the point where your house is unsalvageable.