home

The Stand Alone Senate Bill's Only Constituency: Village Dems

The Plan B discussions being forwarded by the Village Dems and Village Bloggers seem to focus on the idea of the House passing the Senate bill and, as an afterthought, maybe, fixing the bill through reconciliation. It is clear is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the only constituency for the Stand Alone Senate Bill is them. Consider this Open Letter to House Dems from Jonathan Cohn:

Dear Nervous and Frustrated House Democrat,

It’s up to you. [. . .] [I]f you find a way to pass legislation, then you have something to show for your efforts--an accomplishment you can tout, legitimately, as making people's lives better. [. . .] [Y]ou can pass health care reform very quickly if you want. All you have to do is vote for the Senate bill, as written. Yes, I’m aware of its flaws. But it’s also far better than nothing.

(Emphasis supplied.) Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the idea of "touting" the Senate health bill in the 2010 elections elicits hearty guffaws from Republicans. And rightly so. The Village Dems need a better pitch. And it happens to be there for them. From Cohn's letter:

Once the main bill is passed, you can always revisit it--perhaps right away, by passing a “patch” through the reconciliation process. If you're clever--and you are--you'll extract some sort of promise from the president and Senate leadership to make sure the patch gets enacted.

The Village Dems need to make this central to their pitch, not an afterthought. At least if they are pitching progressives. If pitching Blue Dogs, I suppose you will have to promise them that will NOT happen. But do not pitch them to vote for the Senate health bill with lines that make them laugh in your face:

I don’t want to mislead you: You could pass the Senate bill, which you may really not like, and still lose reelection. But passing health care reform would seem, if anything, to improve your odds of political survival. And if it doesn’t--if you’re doomed to lose anyway--enacting health care reform would give you a meaningful accomplishment in your record.

Heh. Passing the Stand Alone Senate bill increases the chances of losing reelection. Imagine what the unions will say and do. Progressive activists. Folks who oppose the bill period. Indeed, no one is actually FOR the Senate bill. Except the Village Dems. Therein lies the political problem.

The Village Dems need a better pitch.

Speaking for me only

< A Real Plan B - Understanding The Senate Bill Is Part Of The Problem | AFL-CIO: No To Stand Alone Senate Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Didn't they just lose a Senate seat (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    after the candidate did a 180 in order to support the Senate bill and then had the President campaign for her by arguing she was the vote he needed to pass HCR?  Seems like it was only yesterday.

    Reminds me of (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    The Farmer in the Dell

    "The cheese stands alone, the cheese stands alone, hi-ho the dairy-o, the cheese stands alone."

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    if this is the thinking of the beltway dems then they deserve to get smacked in November.

    The Obama Village (none / 0) (#42)
    by norris morris on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:21:01 PM EST
    If the villagers and the Unions have their way with a PlanB there is no question that this is suicide for the Democrats and not just in Midterms.

    Team Obama are way off their game. They've lied, dealt from the bottom of the deck, and proved that they are just as dysfunctional as our legislators.

    Obama is not an instinctual leader. He's removed emotionally and while he's a great motivational speaker there isn't much else. The team had trotted him out for every day photo ops, but were tone deaf.  We really  expected Obama to take a stand and explain his positions. This never happened as he  waited in the wings taking political cover as Congress went wild.

    What did we get? Muzak. You know it's playing in the elevator, but you don'thear it.

    Parent

    I'm willing to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    bet it has a larger constituency than the Village--do you want ot bet on the creative class? They are the ones that seem to think this awful bill is better than nothing.

    Josh Marshall views it that way (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    I do prefer the sidecar myself....

    I think many often forget how helpful Josh was in defeating the privatization of Social Security in early 2005 when Democrats were completely demoralized.  He was on the scene early, figured out the politics of the situation, knew that Lieberman had to be neutralzied, and hounded many democratic pols with his catchy phrases of Fainthearted Faction and Conscious Caucus....

    Sidecar may be the only way--but it's looking like a longshot....There may be problems in the House....Lemmings, all, they appear to be.

    Parent

    I remember it well (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    and wish I had that Josh Marshall back. I trusted his judgment back then.

    Parent
    Guilty (none / 0) (#19)
    by Manuel on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    I think the senate bill is good policy (over doing nothing) but, as BTD pointed out, that is irrelevant.  I wish the Democrats had the guts to pass it and then retire if they can't stand the heat but I know they lack the political courage.

    Parent
    BTW, passing the Senate bill alone (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    will cause it to suffer the fate of the stimulus. It won't do enough, and so people will be even more skeptical of "Washington" healthcare solutions.

    Put the excise tax fix and public option (or (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    Medicare expansion) in a reconciliation bill.  Pass it first in the House.  Send it to the Senate.  If the Senate passes it, then the House can pass the original Senate bill.

    That's the sidecar reconciliation everyone is talking about now.

    If Bayh, Webb, etc won't do even that, if the Dems can't even get 50 votes in the Senate for that, AT LEAST TRY TO DO IT.

    At least then we'll know if there really is any point at all in wanting to run the government.

    Love that sequencing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    I think asking to pass the Senate bill first, regardless of what it touted as coming later, is a losing proposition policy-wise and politically.

    Parent
    Good fix but must do it soon (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    The Dems have got to pivot to jobs very soon.....

    More protracted wrangling would be even more wretched yet.

    Parent

    Yes. The HCR sausage factory has got to close. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    It is making people sick.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    One more thing: Add a jobs tax credit to that (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    reconciliation bill too, and a bank tax (if procedure allows).

    At least we'll know who the real populists are after that.

    Parent

    I vote for you (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    to be Obama's CoS.

    Parent
    I even have BOTH my middle fingers to use! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    This is mean, but (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    That's cold :o) (none / 0) (#36)
    by beowulf on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    Picking on the cripple, high five!

    You made a great that reconciliation has to pass the Senate first before the House takes up the Senate Healthcare bill (which won't expire till Congress dissolves at the end of the year anyway).

    The House may enjoy playing student council giving advice to the Senate's school principal, but I can't believe the House Democrats are so stupid that they'd pass the Senate bill and trust Rahm and Obama not to take advantage of one more chance to punch the hippies and kill the reconciliation bill in the Senate.  

    Hell, the House should wait till the Senate pass their reconciliation bill-- locking in, say, an immediate start public option plan plus premium tax credits  for the public option but not private plans-- and THEN blue slip the Senate bill (e.g. send it back to the Senate for reconsideration because it contains revenue measures not introduced in the House).  

    Parent

    No, they don't (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    You made a great that reconciliation has to pass the Senate first before the House takes up the Senate Healthcare bill (which won't expire till Congress dissolves at the end of the year anyway).

    In theory, at least

    The potential loss of a 60th vote in the Senate for health care reform has many in Washington focusing on the budget reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes in that chamber. Since a reconciliation bill must contain provisions that have "budgetary impacts," many of the regulatory and consumer protections in the House and Senate health bills would not qualify, so the idea now gaining traction would be for the House to accept the Senate health care bill as is, pass it without change, and then try to implement as many of the compromises now under discussion as possible in a subsequent reconciliation bill.

    Politically, this is difficult, as it means swallowing all of the ugly compromises in the Senate bill whole in hopes of a possible (but not guaranteed) fix down the road. House members would have to go on record in favor of the Cornhusker Kickback, the Senate Cadillac Tax, and all the rest. Obviously, all of the House Democrats who held their noses and voted for their own bill the first time around after being told by their leaders "don't worry, we'll fix it in conference" are right to be extra-skeptical of this approach. But an interesting trial balloon floated by Ron Pollack of Families USA in a recent article in Politico points out that a reconciliation bill amending the health care bill could actually be voted on before the House votes to accept that health care bill.

    That's right. When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn't matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill.

    No matter whether the House votes on reconciliation or the Senate bill first, the Speaker can ensure that the health care bill is signed into law before reconciliation. (The dirty little secret of Congress is that even if the House votes to pass the Senate health care bill tomorrow, the Speaker has unilateral power to hold that bill at her desk until January 3 of next year before sending it to the President and starting the 10-day Constitutional veto clock.)



    Parent
    bank tax, no prob (none / 0) (#38)
    by beowulf on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    Since everybody worries about deficit (unnecessarily I should add, but then I'm a Warren Mosler fan), the tough part is adding new spending programs to a reconciliation bill, adding new taxes, in contrast, is easy peasy.

    So there's no problem addding Obama's bank tax... which really is weak tea compared to a full on financial transaction tax like Edgar Feige's APT, that one would raise a sick amount of money-- in 2002 dollars, .5% = %1.8 trillion a year, enough to both fund Medicare for All and abolish payroll taxes.
    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/comments/_files/APT%20Tax.pdf

    Somewhat more realistically, since cap and trade will never pass now-- there's a 16 page Republican House bill (Flake-Inglis) that'd create a revenue-neutral carbon tax, the funds raises are used to reduce payroll taxes.  The House could add the carbon tax to the reconciliation bill and kill two birds with one stone.

    Parent

    sorry about typos, eating lunch and typing :o) n/t (none / 0) (#39)
    by beowulf on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    What Cohn Fails To Realize (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by The Maven on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    is a simple concept known as "leverage".  His letter notes,
    If you're clever--and you are--you'll extract some sort of promise from the president and Senate leadership to make sure the patch gets enacted.

    Given both the separation of powers and the practicalities of the Senate, how exactly could the House extract any sort of actionable promise aside from completely holding any HCR bill hostage in the interim?  Once the House were to agree to pass the current Senate bill, the administration would claim victory and immediately move along to watering down the next issue.  They'll say, We don't have time to revisit health care now -- maybe we'll get back to it after Obama's re-election, so just be patient.  And in the Senate, the Republicans will scream bloody murder if post hoc additions are made via the reconciliation process and they're denied their "right" to filibuster, so the Dems will back down as they always do.

    If there's anyone out there who hasn't been made far more cynical by this whole affair, they must really be living in a delusional bubble world.  A generation from now, students of public policy will still be pointing to all this as the epitome of how not to enact a major piece of legislation.

    Say you're in the process.. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    of getting new tires put on your whip, and the mechanic is already talking about the need for patches on the new tires before he's even tightened the lug bolts, wouldn't the wisest course of action be to find a new mechanic?

    Naw, I just ask him if I also (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    need a brake job and a new muffler...

    ;-)

    The current legislation is dead.

    Now maybe they can start over and work on a single payer plan, financed by a National Sales Tax that everyone pays and get it passed.

    This playing group a against group b against ab vs cz doesn't work in today's world.

    Parent

    One born every minute... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    or so they say...I think its gotta be every 10 seconds these days.

    Parent
    I'm so tired of reading and writing (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    about what they could do and should do.  I don't think I care anymore if they commit suicide.  I'm sick of them and all of their cheerleaders too.  It isn't even worth it anymore to be concerned about what they are going to do. It is a waste of time to even care. It will come down to screwing all of us over, and then they will pay the price.  And I don't care anymore.  I'm done being a racist, Obama hater, want the party destoyed, WATB, caring PUMA.

    Don't forget 'feminazi', MT. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    And please don't quit!

    Parent
    You reminded me that a part (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    of the MT machine will never die, the feminazi part :)  Time for an intertube break though I suppose.  I don't think Coakley ran a good race, but she didn't give herself that whoopin.  I can't deal with the people fishing around in the Christmas stocking still looking for the missed prize. There is no missed prize.  It is listen to the needs of the people or get fired as soon as you are fireable.

    Parent
    Do what I do MT... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:55:05 AM EST
    expect nothing but the threat of arrest & taxes and you're never let down:)

    Parent
    Dumb question: shouldn't our duly (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    elected representatives and Senators already know the process-related ins-and-outs of passing legislation?  I mean, it's not like it's a big secret if WE know about it, but then again, maybe they don't know that we know...and are planning to go with the oh-so-popular "there was nothing we could do."

    The last thing I would have any faith in is the pass-it-now, fix-it-later promise, because, given the political climate and the chance that Dems will lose seats in November, if they wait, the fix may never come; if they were to pass something, the next thing we would hear is that  they can't "waste" any more time on fixing it because they need to start working on other issues - jobs, anyone?  And besides, what will be the rush to "fix" something that won't take effect for a couple more years?  

    I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for that FISA fix Obama promised when he voted for it in 2008...

    The thing that just makes me want to grind my teeth into stumps is the claim that passing that Senate bill will be making people's lives better, and that it's better than nothing; those are claims that are easy to make when one already (1) has the means to afford "good" insurance and the cost of care, (2) works for an employer that provides coverage, and (3) has taken both of these things for granted.  The "millions" who have no coverage, cannot afford basic care and have been driven into bankruptcy or died are as much of an abstraction and academic thought exercise for these people as the cost of wars in blood and treasure and the whole foreclosure crisis, and I'm getting a little sick of it, frankly.

    The signs that the Democrats will materially change their course are not apparent to me; time and time again, they have failed to make choices that evidence any courage at all, and I don't expect this to be the moment when that changes.


    As long as we are grinding teeth (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Manuel on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    I am tired of seeing people make assumptions about the personal crcumstances of people holding a particular position.  I would never take health or health care for granted.  Health coverage is a big reason why I work at a job that may go away at any moment.  Beleive me, as the paret of a child with a disability, health care and health insurance are far from an academic exercise or an abstracton for me.

    Parent
    I wasn't talking about you, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    I was talking about people with a much bigger audience - people who write the drivel they write for a living, who have syndicated columns in major media outlets, who have their own shows on cable news networks, who run A-list blogs, who can afford to make this all about process because they don't have to worry about the nitty-gritty of what the process means in terms of real lives.

    There are no doubt hundreds of thousands of people who would leave jobs they hate if they could take their health care coverage with them.  There are hundreds of thousands of employers who could afford to keep long-time, older, valuable employees on board if it weren't for the fact that health care coverage has tied a noose around their necks.

    I am teeth-grindingly sick of pundits and so-called experts who DO live at a different level trying to convince those of us - and I include you in that group - who DON'T live in that world, that the Senate bill is something it isn't, that it will do what it is advertised as being able to do, and millions of people will end up with actual CARE instead of an expensive, mediocre insurance policy that won't help them AT ALL.

    Parent

    Ham and Eggs (none / 0) (#34)
    by Manuel on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    The chicken is involved.  The pig is committed.  As a committed health care pig, let me assure you that I find the Senate bill preferable to nothing.  Others, perhaps even some pigs, may arrive at a different conclusion.  As for the chickens,  I think they'll continue to lay eggs.

    Parent
    God, how I love and respect your (none / 0) (#43)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:27:40 AM EST
    and support your opinions!!!!

    Parent
    I have seen several articles lately, (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    including LAT politics blog, dissing the concept of reconciliation re HCR bills as secretive, not transparent, etc.  Of course, I immed. flashback to WH secret pre-deals with insurance industry and big Pharma and think--huh?

    Parent
    tragically (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    it may be the only constituency required

    Obviously, it is the only constituency (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    they care about

    Parent
    I don't think that will work (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    because the "media darling" coddlers have already decided that the bill should die (it's way too liberal, after all).

    Parent
    Has anyone figured out why some (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:58:23 AM EST
    pundits favor the Senate bill?  Access?  Do they also get funding from health insurance industry?  What is it?

    I think it is situational favor (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    When it became apparent that Coakley would likely lose, they quickly realized that the Senate bill as it stands is the only thing that could pass without reconciliation And they believe that something has to pass.  

    Parent
    But, if I am reading BTD correctly, (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    the "Village pundits" have been ok with the Senate bill for a long time before it looked as if Coakley might lose.

    Parent
    Oh, yes, the Village thought (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    that the scene of the Senate pushing through its bill on Christmas Eve wouldn't make the Senate Dems look rushed, even desperate -- and even downright appalling to a lot of people.  I saw some of that sentiment then, and it really surfaced in some of the things that MA people have said in recent weeks.

    The packaging smelled fishy, so it was a tipoff that what was inside the package stunk.

    Parent

    they never read it.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:28:50 AM EST