This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is conducting a whip count of House members who will vote against health care legislation if it does not include public option. Results of this whip count will determine if the Progressive Block strategy remains viable. This is because some recent events that raise real doubts as to whether the Progressive Block is even still operational. Only a hard whip count, with results made public, can ease these doubts.
Following Obama's speech, Mike wrote a diary praising it (Hitting The Jackpot), while David wrote a diary underscoring its deficits ("Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech"). I immediately thought that both had a point. Obama had given progressives reason to hope-but only because progressives had finally gotten aggressive and drawn a line in the sand. And David had pointed what Mike was overlooking, and just how little reason there was to let up. That's what I thought Wednesday night.
By now, it's clearly back to business-as-usual, squeezing the progressive to get back into line. But in the process, an inconvenient truth was let out of the bag: Obama's speech placating the liberals was a big hit with the public. Sure, some of it was because he smacked down some big rightwing lies. But if liberalism was really so terribly unpopular, what with us being a "center-right nation" and all, then the gains Obama made by debunking rightwing lies should have been undercut by his liberal moves-not just supporting the public option, but also praising Ted Kennedy.
In short, once again, Obama has inadvertently exposed the profound disconnect between conservative Versailles and progressive America. Unfortunately Obama is on the wrong side of that divide, despite sporadic rhetorical forays to the contrary.
A closer look at the speech and Mike and David's take on it on the flip.
Next week will be gut-check time for the bloc of progressives standing in opposition to any bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option.
The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a "whip count" for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses.
Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a member of CPC leadership, estimates that eighty to 100 members will make the pledge.
So, next week we will know if the Progressive Block will be continuing their campaign or not. The odds appear to be in favor of continuing.
Here is my favorite part of the article:
A senior administration official said Wednesday that killing the bill for not including a public option would be "tragic." Centrist and conservative Democrats have expressed frustration at the forcefulness of the support for the public option, arguing that it's a distraction from the broader package.
If the public option is just a minor distraction, then why don't moderate and conservative Democrats just give into the Progressives? Seriously--if the public option is so meaningless, then what's the big deal? Just give into the demands, and pass the bill.
The reason why this doesn't happen is that the basic political calculation for most moderate and conservative Democrats is to claim credit either for voting against, or watering down, a Democratic bill that passes. By voting against or watering down the bill, they can claim credit for standing out from the dirty hippies that make up most of the Democratic Party. However, if no bill passes, then the Democratic Party as a whole is severely damaged, and these moderates and conservatives are usually the first ones to lose their seats in a bad political climate for Democrats. So, they need a bill to pass, but they need to stand apart from that bill at the same time.
However, through their ongoing threat to defeat any bill that lacks a robust public option, the Progressive Block is taking that option away from conservative and moderate Democrats. Now, conservative Democrats can only choose a stronger bill (giving into the Block) or no bill at all (not giving in). From their perspective, they are screwed in both cases. They don't get the option of voting against a bill that passes, or removing the provision the dirty hippies love. Thus, the Block denies Conservadems and Blue Dogs their primary political mode of operation, and all of the power that comes with it.
As such, the Progressive Block actually threatens the continued dominance of Conservadems and Blue Dogs within the Democratic Party. In addition to taking instructions from their corporate masters, that is an important reason why the Conservadems and Blue Dogs don't want to give into the supposedly minor distraction that the Progressive Block is demanding.
It looks like I may have spoken too soon about House Progressives successfully forcing their way into key health care negotiations. From TPMDC, it appears the White House never called them back about their expected meeting with the President:
Remember back on Friday, President Obama discussed the public option on a conference call with House liberals? And remember how the upshot of that call was that Obama planned to meet yesterday with the chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, And Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus?
Well that meeting never happened. Yesterday, sources told me that the meeting hadn't been scheduled, but could happen as late as this morning. Today, a House aide tells me that it's not going to happen at all.
"They never called," the aide said.
This doesn't mean the meeting isn't going to happen. However, it does mean that the Congressional Progressive Caucus still doesn't have the same role in the negotiations as, say, the 17 Conservadem Senators who have been summed to the White House:
ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.
They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
That this happens to be identical to the membership of Evan Bayh's Conservadem group, plus conservative Mark Pryor and party switching Arlen Specter, is not a coincidence. The pecking order has been reaffirmed. Conservative Democrats like these still hold all the power in the Obama administration.
They have taken that power by providing a credible threat to vote against legislation the Democratic leadership considers essential to pass. So, the Democratic leadership has no choice but to negotiate with them. Until that threat from Progressives is equally credible, or until the threat of primaries from the grassroots is even more credible, this Conservadem gang will continue to hold all the power.
Ever since Democrats retook Congress, individual Progressives have held a lot of power due to their dominance of committee chairs in the House. However, as a group, they have been irrelevant to key negotiations on major legislation. In the House, deals have been hashed out with Blue Dogs since the first week of the Obama administration, while gangs of Conservadem and Maine Senators still do all the negotiating for the Senate.
One of the goals of the Progressive Block strategy has been to change this dynamic, and force House Progressives into these key negotiations. While they are now getting conference calls and mentions in major addresses, it seems there is still some distance to travel before taking part in the truly important discussions. Until that distance is traveled, Progressives still haven't made the gains in influence that the Block strategy was designed to provide.
Update: Hopes that this meeting with the Conservadems is about whipping them into line are, to borrow a phrase from Rahm Emanuel, f*cking stupid. The White House has told progressvie groups to stop attacking these Senators. In the speech last night, House Progressives were called on to be be flexible while the co-ops and triggers supported by many of these Conservadems were praised as avenues to explore. Not to mention that the White House has been offering concessions to Democrats like these on every major piece of legislation in 2009.
The White House is siding with, or at least capitulating to, these Senators, not whipping them into line.
Political speeches are designed for specific purposes. As such, their "success" should be judged by how well they achieve that purpose, not by the rhetorical and cultural implications contained within the text and body language. In the case of President Obama's joint address to Congress last night, the specific goal was to advance his push for health care reform. At least so far, all indications are that the speech was enormously successful in achieving that goal. Consider:
Advanced the legislative timetable. Among the five committees with legislative purview on health care, the Senate Finance Committee is the lone holdout in passing a bill. As recently as August 21st, the negotiators on that committee had rejecting even a September15th deadline for a framework for the bill, vowed to reduce its size to $700 billion, and pledged to keep working on a bipartisan basis. Now, committee chair Max Baucus released a framework of the bill on September 7th, put its size at $900 billion, and appears to have foregone the bipartisan negotiations. The draft of the Finance Committee bill will now be released next week, and the committee mark-up of the bill will begin the week of September 21st.
This acceleration of the legislative process happened because of the speech. The announcement of, and build-up to, the speech put Baucus in a position where he could have been the lone hold-out when the speech took place. Not wanting to be such a negative focus of the news cycle, Baucus finally began to take proactive steps to release a legislative framework, however flawed, and push a bill through his committee. So, the speech successful moved up the legislative timetable on health care reform. That could dissolve later on, but at least for now, it makes the speech a success.
Increased the popularity of health care reform. According to the CNN poll of people who watched the speech, the popularity of President Obama's health care reform plan increased as a result of the speech:
About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience - 53 percent - favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland
This poll has been accurately criticized for oversampling Democrats. However, while that may call the overall percentages in favor of the President's health care reform plan, it has no impact on the trendline for support. The speech increased the popularity of the President's health care reform plan--and apparently by a substantial amount. Polling later in the week will be needed for confirmation, but once again, the speech has so far been successful at achieving one of its major goals.
Mark Blumenthal and Democracy Corps have more on post-speech polling.
Put Republicans on the defensive. President Obama said in his speech that he would call out Republican members of Congress who are lying about health care reform. On that front, the speech has already resulted in a major news story about a Republican member of Congress, Joe Wilson, apologizing to the President for his outburst during the speech. This is probably the first Republican in Congress to apologize during the health care debate at all.
While this may appear less "objective" a success than the other two bullet points here, it is safe to say that whoever is apologizing during a news cycle is losing that news cycle. For Republicans, an apologizing Congressman is their part in the news cycle right now, instead of their rebuttal to the President's address. That is a clear win.
The goal of the speech was to advance the President's health care reform agenda. Given that is pushed the legislative timetable forward, improved the popularity of the plan, and put Republicans on the defensive, it was successful in achieving that goal. So, leaving rhetorical and ideological analysis aside for the moment, the speech was a success for its own purposes.
Finally, last night's speech was also a big success for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, too. It marked the emergence of the CPC as a major player in the health care reform debate. President Obama specifically mentioned the bloc of House Progressives threatening to oppose health care reform without a public option as the major group that needs to be negotiated with:
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
For a group that was last in line to meet with President Obama about anything this year, that is quite a step up in visibility and power for the Progressive Caucus. Negotiating power over the President's agenda has no longer been ceded entirely to Blue Dogs and Senate Gangs of Conservadems and Maine Republicans. Not only is that a clear victory for our efforts to increase Progressive power in Congress, but it is also a big victory for President Obama's agenda. By validating the power of the CPC in sucha major forum, President Obama has now given himself some space to work on the left.
To serve as a counter to the more widely publicized positive analysis of the proposed health care bill from Max Baucus, here is a round-up of the negative appraisals that (mostly) progressives have given of that proposal:
Three weeks ago at Netroots Nation, I unloaded perhaps my Best Rant Ever explaining what would happen to health care reform legislation if the Progressive Block were to fold. It has finally been broadcast, and kovie was nice enough to put it up on YouTube. Check it out:
It appears the Progressive Block has raised the stakes (maybe). The co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva, just delivered a letter to the White House reiterating that they will not vote for a bill that does not contain a public option. Here is an excerpt:
We continue to support the robust public option that was reported out of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor and will not vote for a weakened bill on the House Floor or returning from a Conference with the Senate.
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable.(...)
A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.
The reason I am not saying this definitely raises the stakes is because the letter was, at first, only signed by Representatives Woolsey and Grijalva. Since that time, Representatives John Conyers, Hank Johnson, Barbara Lee, and Eric Massa have also signed. I will update as more signatures come in, but unless it is signed by at least 40 members, then it is not an effective threat to block health care legislation if their demands are not met.
The letter is open, and more Representatives can sign on. Updates will appear in this space as that happens.
The letter also requests a meeting with President Obama. If it reaches 40 signatories, I wonder, via Joe Sudbay, if President Obama will grant that meeting.
Update: No matter how many signatories there are so far, Speaker Pelosi once again reiterates that a bill without a public option cannot pass the House:
The latest statement out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office is unequivocal: "A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House," Pelosi said.
Responding to the Progressive Block strategy, which was designed to put the Progressive Caucus on equal footing with Blue Dogs, Ezra Klein seems to conclude that Progressives can never have more influence than Blue Dogs. This is because Blue Dogs only have incentives to oppose must-pass Democratic legislation, while Progressives only have incentives to support it:
What, in other words, is the endgame of this strategy? The hope seems to be that Rahm Emanuel turns his attention to beating Blue Dogs, rather than liberals, into line. Maybe. But what makes people think that's possible? What's his actual leverage against vulnerable Democrats voting for initiatives their voters don't obviously support in districts Barack Obama didn't win at a time when the president is no longer popular?
There's no successful model for blunting the power of centrists to write -- or kill -- the final compromise.(...)
The outcome of this strategy, then, seems to be that the Democratic Party pretty much collapses into infighting and fails to pass its top priorities and loses a bunch of seats in the next election. The media explains that the liberal Nancy Pelosi and her liberal House Democrats caused the electoral disaster, or that Democrats couldn't agree on an agenda.(...)
But it's hard to imagine that liberals will ever beat the Blue Dogs at their own game. The likelier outcome is that everybody loses.
Klein's central premise is that Progressives have no leverage to make Blue Dogs want to vote for good legislation, since opposing Democrats is popular in their districts. However, Blue Dogs have leverage over Progressives, since Progressives don't want Democrats to lose seats.
The reason I disagree with Klein is fairly simple: if no health care legislation passes, and Democrats lose seats as a result, Blue Dogs are the people who will lose the seats, not Progressives. Even if Klein is correct and Democrats lose a bunch of seats because Progressives blocked it, Blue Dogs are actually the ones who will bear the brunt of those losses. As such, Blue Dogs have more to lose if health care fails to pass than Progressives.
And yes, we can afford to do this. Not only do Democrats have a wide majority, but demographically the country is turning in a decidedly progressive direction. Further, most (but admittedly not all) Blue Dog approved public policy sucks. They pushed the Iraq war just as much as Republicans. They pushed for financial de-regulation that led to our financial crisis just as much as New Democrats and Republicans. They wouldn't even come to the negotiating table on cap and trade without removing EPA authority to regulate carbon, adding huge give-aways to polluters in their districts during the negotiations, and then most of them voted against the bill anyway.
If we feel that we have to protect Blue Dogs at all costs, then of course it will be impossible for Progressives to have as much leverage as Blue Dogs. However, as soon as we make it clear that we don't feel much of a need to protect Blue Dogs, then they are the ones who have a lot more reason to cave into our demands. If another Republican wave really is coming, Blue Dogs will be the first Democrats to lose.
There's lots of worry on the Internets today over a report that the Obama administration will ditch the public option. But I would like to argue that for the progressive block in the House of Representatives it will be a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing.Why?
Win Scenario 1
Let's say, despite reports, that Obama decides to embrace the public option. This is an obvious win for the progressive block and the Democratic party as a whole. Progressives will have flexed muscle and won. Win. People who currently can't afford health care will eventually be able to do so. Win. The activist base of the party (which I would argue is quite large, not just a fringe) would be super enthusiastic and would likely go "all in" on donating and working for the party during the 2010 cycle. Win. Shore up the large Democratic base and Obama's approval numbers will also go back up. Win.
Win Scenario 2
The Obama team tries to lead from the middle and kills the public option in the Senate. The progressive block in the House responds by voting "no" on the resulting crappy health reform measure and the bill is defeated. What's good about this? While obviously not as good as win scenario 1 above, there are benefits to this:
a) In all future legislative fights, the progressive block will have to be bargained with and accomodated. There are more than 3 years left of President Obama's first term and, despite the current mood, a potential 4 years of his second term. That's a lot of bills the progrssive block will be able to mold if they are seen as potential bill killers. If they fold, they'll have no leverage in future fights. None.
b) Health care reform will not be dead if the first bill dies. Just like it won't be dead if Obama decided to veto the first bill. Democrats will still have large majorities in both chambers and can try again. The second time they will have no choice but to accomodate the progressive block.
c) Mainstream Democratic voters are just starting to engage on this issue and if the first bill is defeated may voice their displeasure loud enough for Representatives and Senators to really hear them.
Now, faced with a progressive block that will gain power and influence with either of the outcomes above, what will the Obama team do? My opinion: they really need a bill passed. If the progressive block sticks to their commitment on the public option the White House will have to bend to their will. As Chris has documented there are already enough votes to pass health care reform with a public option if Obama wants to.
The only "lose" secenario for the progressive block: cave in to Rahm Emanuel's scare tactics (which could be intense and convincing) and agree to some kind of crappy compromise. That's just a win for the insurance companies and a loss for any future demands progressives want to make on any future issue.
In case you were wondering why single-payer hasn't passed into law, I wanted to let you know that I am the reason. Even though I support single-payer health care, I have not spent much time on Open Left advocating for it. As such, single-payer has not passed because of me.
Here is what could have happened:
Progressive blogs and email organizations advocate for single payer all the time every day;
This advocacy leads to millions of progressive activists attending rallies and contacting members of Congress on behalf of single-payer;
Members of Congress are so scared of these activists, they pass single-payer into law.
The path was pretty straightforward. It is common knowledge that there is an unstoppable corps of left-wing activists who can force Congress into passing left-wing legislation. However, in order to mobilize that corps, bloggers need to advocate for positions that corps likes. Once they do, the left-wing activist corps will spring into gear and get the job done. But they won't do it until bloggers advocate for it.
I first noticed this when I appeared on Hardball criticizing President-elect Obama for loading his cabinet with moderates. The marches on Washington, D.C. that resulted my appearance left him no option but to appoint real progressives from there on out. I could have done the same thing for single-payer, but I didn't. Here is what I did instead:
I convinced the tens of millions of progressive activists who are familiar with the work of Jacob Hacker that, while Congress was not going to pass single-payer, Democrats could pass a public option that would cover 130 million Americans. Like most public option advocates, I wrote about that all the time during 2007 and 2008, just around the same time that Hacker was becoming a household name.
While I was unable to voice my opposition to Hacker's proposal at the time due to his overwhelming popularity among progressive activists, I was engaged in behind the scenes maneuvering with the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees to introduce legislation with a much weaker public option. Since I can't stomach 130 million people being covered by the public option, I instead successfully persuaded the committee chairs to introduce legislation that would only cover around 10 million Americans. It was necessary for me to do this behind the scenes, because otherwise the Hacker legions would know that I was using them.
By lying to the Hacker legions like this, I was able to harness some of their activism on behalf of the weaker public option. Unfortunately, most of these activists saw through the lie and as a result we were out organized in town halls in August anyway. Foiled again!
While the Progressive Caucus still has a long way to go to match the media and policy influence of the Blue Dogs, because of the Progressive Block campaign, for the first time in at least a decade they are relevant to the overall Congressional power structure.
At the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm has a must-read feature story on how Progressives fought their way into relevance. Most of it won't be new to regular readers of Open Left, but it is a great read anyway and should help introduce the new progressive organizing on The Hill to a wider audience.
From the article, there were three keys to the rise of the caucus: be organized instead of just righteous; finding a legitimate way to threaten those in power; and developing better connections with natural allies in the progressive ecosystem. In my experience, those tend to be the three most common reasons progressives have failed to gain relevance in the past.
So, here's the deal, folks: Looking at the current state of play on health care through the multicolored lenses I acquired working on Capitol Hill and then working in politics out here in the West, I'd say it's a good bet that the House will pass a health care bill with a solid public option in it, and the Senate will pass a health care bill without a solid public option in it. I'd say it's also a good bet that the major reason - though probably not the only reason - Obama has gone back and forth on the public option is because the administration is solely focused on getting bills - any bills - passed through each chamber and into one conference committee for a final negotiation.
Once that happens, the health care shit hits the legislative fan. We won't have to speculate anymore about whether the president is really committed to the public option, nor will we have to speculate about whether top senators and House members on the conference committee are committed to the public option. At that point, their actions will be far louder than their words.
Obama will be forced to take a position on the public option as he either draws a veto line in the sand, or doesn't - and if he doesn't on the public option, it means he's willing to sell out the public option. Similarly, conference committee lawmakers will either have to vote for a public option, or vote with the insurance industry against it.
A month ago, I would have said that the administration was planning to lay low while two templates got into a conference committee, and then sell out the public option in that committee, believing that ultimately, progressives will vote for a bad health care bill (ie. one sans public option but with a few regulatory goodies) rather than kill it outright. The White House is, after all, packed with staffers like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina who have made their careers coddling corporate lobbyists - and the president himself is a guy who has often chosen to seek common ground instead of confrontation with moneyed interests when an avenue is available to do that. That's why, for instance, this administration has exhibited two different standards for dealing with progressive and conservative Democrats - it tries to push progressives around while kissing the fat, mostly white and mostly southern asses of the so-called Blue Dogs.
A month ago, all of these forces might have made the "roll the progressives, sell out the public option" strategy a legislatively successful one, even as it would produce a bill that would likely be terrible public policy. I say that because let's be honest: the bloc of congressional progressives who the White House would be hoping to steamroll, while fighting the good fight in the lead up to key votes, has nonetheless capitulated on nearly every single do-or-die final-passage vote in recent memory (and I say that sadly, having served as an aide to Progressive Caucus leader - and dear friend - Bernie Sanders).
However, after the fantastic organizing/whipping/fundraising being done by Firedoglake, OpenLeft and Moveon and after the strong progressive media pressure on radio, TV and in newspapers, I believe the dynamic - and therefore the White House political calculus - could change.
But the 60 signatures might be soft. The signers include lawmakers who have said they can accept health cooperatives and others who say they wouldn't vote against the House bill in the end.
That article in The Hill provided no examples, anonymous sources, or links to support this claim. So, I asked Open Left readers to contact The Hill, and find out what this assertion was based on. To his credit, author Mike Soraghan emailed me a link to an August 3rd article he co-wrote on the subject. It contained many specifics on possible Block weakness, including the following:
But at least one of the 60 lawmakers who signed the letter admitted he might not be able to follow through on his threat.
"I probably wouldn't vote against it. But we have to let leadership know that we're serious too."
You really have to wonder about the strategery of a member of Congress signs a letter stating the following:
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable.
And then, off the record and anonymously, immediately says the following,
"I probably wouldn't vote against it. But we have to let leadership know that we're serious too."
Letting the leadership know you are serious by telling The Hill that you plan on caving? Truly, a great strategic mind is at work.
It is not so much that I doubted Soraghan as it was that I wanted to know what specific information he had on potential weakness in the progressive group, if any. I am glad he sent it along. Admittedly, there are reasons to believe that the Progressive Block won't hold itself together. It is something we will have to work at to keep in line.
This diary is about strategies for pushing House Populist Caucus members toward joining the "Progressive Block," our last line of defense against efforts to destroy meaningful health care reform.
Some progressives, like Mark Schmitt and Matt Yglesias, are arguing that one of the reasons the Progressive Block on health care should eventually fold is because passing a health care bill now will be just a start which can be fixed next year.
Schmitt:
Use the 60-vote Senate to pass whatever they can pass now -- we liberals will grumble but live with it -- and then use reconciliation next year to fix it.
Yglesias:
It's a bill liberals would find horribly disappointing, but you could imagine it getting sixty votes in the senate.
Then if you get that done, all you need is a second bill. At that point, changing the co-op rules to make it work like a real public option, making the subsidies more generous, expanding Medicaid, and other wholesome progressive stuff all becomes budget-relevant material that can be done through reconciliation with only fifty votes.
This idea isn't going to work. It rings as hollow as the argument about how, if it turned out that the stimulus wasn't big enough, we could always pass a second stimulus later on. That worked out really well:
Just after the inauguration, Hotline polled the country on the stimulus package. Even with a question wording that emphasized increasing the deficit, there was clear majority support:
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD. Jan. 21-24, 2009. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (for all registered voters).
"In general, do you support or oppose Congress and the President passing an $825 billion economic stimulus plan to jumpstart the economy, even if it means increasing the federal deficit in order to do so?"
Support: 54%
Oppose 34%
In July, Hotline polled on support for a second stimulus, using a question wording much more favorable than the one above. Even with the better wording, there was clear majority opposition to a second stimulus:
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD. July 9-13, 2009. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (for all registered voters).
"As you may know, there's been some discussion about the potential for another stimulus package that would be designed to provide more economic stimulus to the economy. If there was a proposal for another stimulus package, would you support it or oppose it?"
It is going to be extremely difficult just to pass this bill. The idea that we can pass it again next year, when both the reform and the people passing it will be significantly less popular, doesn't hold up.
Passing a public option is a once in a generation chance that we have now, and only now. It will fail unless the Progressive Block holds the line, and unless we can get fifty votes for a public option in the Senate. The political situation probably won't be this favorable again until kids I don't even have, and I am not even currently trying to have, are in middle school. If we fold and give into the "oh, we can fix it later" canard, we will be having this same argument again in fifteen years time.
The Hill claims that the Progressive Block on health care is soft. It doesn't name any names (emphasis mine):
Members say the letter underestimates the strength of liberals, that the more than 60 members would oppose a health bill with no public option. Rep. Anthony Wiener (D-N.Y.) has said deleting a public option from the House bill would cost 100 Democratic votes.
"I take my colleagues' word when they say they have the votes. And so does the Speaker," Wiener said, noting that Pelosi quickly responded to the administration's shifting with a strong statement of support for the public option.
But the 60 signatures might be soft. The signers include lawmakers who have said they can accept health cooperatives and others who say they wouldn't vote against the House bill in the end.
Ummm... like who? Surely, a claim of this magnitude should be justified. Wouldn't basic fact-checking demand that at least one example be given to back up this claim?
Another possibility is that this claim is based on off-the-record conversations. However, the article doesn't even mention off-the-record sources confirming this position.
Maybe they are even right. However, without any supportive claims, it reads as pure speculation on the part of The Hill. This is important, as it baselessly undermines the position of the 60+ House members who have said they will vote against health care reform unless it includes a robust public option. Actually, it calls multiple members of the House of Representatives liars.
Ask Bob Cusack, managing editor of The Hill, why such a claim was allowed in a story on The Hill without any supporting evidence. His email is [email protected]. I would ask you to contact Mike Soraghan, who wrote the piece, but he doesn't have an email listed on their "about" page.
Send an email to Bob Cusak, managing editor of The Hill, asking him if either he, or Mike Soraghan, has any evidence supporting the claim that the 60+ House members who wrote a letter saying they would vote against any bill without a public option "include lawmakers who have said they can accept health cooperatives and others who say they wouldn't vote against the House bill in the end." Mr. Cusack can be reached at [email protected].
Update: We broke $300,000 overnight, and we're kicking it up to $450,000. I do so like a challenge.
Stunning. In less than 72 hours, over 4,700 people have given close to $300,000 to the Blue America page thanking members of the Progressive Block for standing firm on the public option. It's been covered now in a NYTimes health care blog and in Roll Call, one of the "must-read" newspapers on Capitol Hill. Thanks in part to a MoveOn blast today, the goal is now $50,000$100,000$200,000$350,000 $450,000.
There are a ton of members of Congress out there who vaguely get what the netroots is, vaguely understand what blogging is. I scroll through the list of members, and I see a lot of people who have been solidly on the left for years, but haven't written on DKos like Louise Slaughter or thanked OpenLeft in a video like Donna Edwards. A lot of the newer members like Eric Massa get it, and folks like Darcy Burner, who now runs the Congressional Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, get it, and have been working all year to connect progressive members of Congress with us through means like the special hours to answer questions from the online progressive community on the House floor. However, this will help members get it better than anything- waking up to find an extra $1K, then $2K, then $5K in their account- and all from signing a letter. As David wrote, carrots, not sticks, also work.
I just threw another $10 in for Anthony Weiner, whose awesome video smack-down laying out the inherent problems with the insurance industry I just can't get enough of. This man deserves a thank you.
S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won't be able to pass health-care legislation in her chamber if the measure doesn't include a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
"There's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option," Pelosi, a California Democrat, said at a press conference in San Francisco today.
In response to this, the priests of High Broderism will tell you that when Conservadems oppose something, there is nothing that can be done and everyone must bow to them:
This is not a matter of ideology but of political nose-counting. The kind of comprehensive health reform that the president rightly wants -- changes that would extend affordable coverage to millions of people and help slow the growth of health-care costs -- requires 60 votes in the Senate.
Progressives threatening to block Democratic legislation unless they are given a major concession is a new concept for Villagers. Let's make sure it stays a reality.
Via Hopeful in NJ in Quick Hits, Senate Democrats are now publicly talking about passing health care reform through reconciliation. Emphasis mine:
In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.(...)
"We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary."
We are getting close to a public option now. Consider the political situation:
The Democratic leadership has made it clear they will pass health care reform this year no matter what. "Any legislative means necessary" is the strongest language I have ever heard coming out of Harry Reid's office.
Both the White House and the Senate are floating passing health care reform through reconciliation, thereby requiring only fifty votes, plus Vice-President Biden, for health care to pass the Senate.
Health care reform with a robust public option will pass the House of Representatives. In fact, due to the actions of the Progressive Block, it is impossible for health care reform without a public option to pass the House of Representatives. Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself has said this on numerous occasions.
According to our latest whip count, forty-six forty-five Senators favor a public option in health care reform.
In this environment, fifty Senators making statements in favor of the public option would be a tipping point. If health care reform without a public option cannot pass the House, if there are enough Senators to pass a public option through reconciliation, and if passing no health care bill is considered politically unacceptable by the White House and Congressional leadership, then passing a public option--either through reconciliation or by convincing all Democrats to not filibuster--becomes by far the easiest move for the leadership to make. And as far as reconciliation goes, it is a choice that rests with Senate Democrats, not with the Senate Parliamentarian.
We are only four five Senators away from reaching this point. That's it. In the morning, we are going to start an action campaign to put us over the top. I remain convinced we are going to win this fight.
For each DVD you purchase, Brave New Films will donate $5 to OpenLeft.com to support our various projects. Please click on the buttons above to make a purchase.
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
