Specter Joins Call For Public Option Through Reconciliation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:10:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Senator Specter's folks sent out an e-mail last night that said:

Senator Specter announced today that he will sign Sen. Bennet's letter supporting a public option through the use of reconciliation.

I do not know what that brings the number to, but there must be at least 30 sure votes for this in the Senate. Are there 50 votes? I have no idea. But I think it will get interesting if the number on the record exceeds the 41 GOP votes in the Senate. I'll be curious how the "bipartisanship" argument works when you have an objective that over 70% of Democrats in Congress want ignored in favor of the desire of 41 GOP Senators. Another flash point is what the White House will put in its proposal next week. They'll definitely take some heat when the public option is not included and the excise tax is.

Speaking for me only

< The Rahmbo Agenda | Obama Weekly Address: On The Health Insurance Issue >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Specter Joins Call For Public Option Through Reconciliation | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Don't you think (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:28:09 AM EST

it's kind of embarrassing that the WH is now putting out an proposal? they really look kind of idiotic doing this now IMO.

From everythign I've read about teh WH proposal, it's nothing more than a rehash of the senate proposal.

As far as the public option, they really aren't going to do anythign about that. It's just trying to rally demoralized troops for the fall.

A spoonful of sugar (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Anne on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:29:14 AM EST

helps the medicine go down, or so Mary Poppins told us; in this case, however, the sugar will be the (urk) Splenda of the public option, and the medicine of the excise tax is more likely to be poison.

Is there no one in the media willing to ask these Senators what this so-called public option they are asking to have in the bill actually is? Is there no one in access-blogger land willing to challenge this, either?

I bet if you gave each of these Senators a piece of paper and a pen, and asked them to write down this public option's structure and features, you would get as many different descriptions as there are Senators.

And, in typical Democratic fashion, the most minimal, least effective "plan" there could be will be the one that gets included, because they don't ever start from a position of strength and work down - they start from the bottom so the only way to go from there is to lay down, belly up in submission.

Any PO functions as a social democratic (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Salo on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:32:32 AM EST

Beach head. It is infact the only real reform in the bill. You have it all backwards.


"Any" public option? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by Anne on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:00:26 AM EST

I think not. And especially when what these guys are talking about is just a catchphrase, and they're using it to help pass a really, really bad idea: the excise tax.

If you want a beach head, lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 55 immediately, and then lower it incrementally each year thereafter, until everyone is eligible.

This call to include "a strong public option" in a bill that would be voted on via reconciliation is political posturing that is utterly meaningless in terms of legislating real reform. It is being used as a fundraising tool by politicians, the DNC, the DSCC and the blogs, and I can think of little that is worse than playing on people's real desire for affordable care to raise money to keep ineffective and craven politicians in office, and keep access bloggers' pumps primed to keep spewing the Village message direct from the Beltway.

But don't listen to me; just see if you can find any discussion anywhere by any of these Senators about which public option they are talking about in this letter. They don't know. And no one is asking them.

"Public option" - the term that has no definition - is the Trojan Horse/Magic Sparkle Pony within which are elements of so-called reform that neither the WH nor the bought-and-paid-for politicians want you to be paying attention to.

Obama's "proposal" will have no public option, but that's okay, because the proposal isn't meant to be anything like an actual blueprint for legislation, it's just supposed to be a tool for driving the discussion. Discussion. Over a year into this, and Obama wants to have a discussion.

Hallelujah - I guess we're saved!


: I think that is the fallback (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:05:38 AM EST

and like you (and Ezra Klein actually), I think that superior to the public option in the House bill.

Yeah, the public option (none / 0) (#5)
by WS on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:44:57 AM EST

is a seed that will grow into a very beautiful tree.


What worries me (none / 0) (#2)
by Salo on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:29:08 AM EST

About this excise tax for PO is that the Mandates were the swap for the PO. Originally. It's very Lucy and Charlie Brown.

On Maddow last night (none / 0) (#6)
by kenosharick on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:47:19 AM EST

Lawrence O'Donnell claimed that even with reconciliation 60 votes will be needed at several points. If this is true, why bother? Maybe this is all about trying to mollify the progressive base by "fighting" for the PO.

He always claims it (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:49:51 AM EST

and he is simply lying.

If what he says is true, why even have reconciliation?

Indeed, if what he says is true, then this initiative, with or without a public option, is dead.


If the Dems keep the reigns on (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:54:13 AM EST

the Parliamentarian, this will not be a problem. But they're so incompetent that I could imagine them allowing him to exercise independent judgement. If that happens, the chair can ignore his advice, but who thinks the Dems have the spine to do that?


That is not the issue imo (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:57:31 AM EST

Individual points of order on specific portions of a bill will not derail the entire bill.

O'Donnelll is simply spewing falsehoods on this, as he has for months now.

Say for example, a national exchange is ruled to be subject of the Byrd Rule. then it is out, or you seek 60 votes for it. You won't get them, but that will not stop the rest of the reconciliation bill.


My point (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:10:30 AM EST

is that they can easily keep everything in order if they use the procedural tools available to them. They need to be willing to not defer to the Parliamentarian.


They could (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:19:50 AM EST

They won't.

That said, I do not see how a public option or a Medicare Buy In could possibly be subject to the Byrd rule.

If it is, then half of the budget is subject to the Byrd Rule.


In my mind I have the Parliamentarian (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:21:41 AM EST

as an agent of Fred Hiatt. I could be wrong, of course, but I think it's safest to assume that.


I would hope not (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:32:10 AM EST

But if he is basically a GOP tool, then why in Gawd's name would Reid pick him?


: An open question: (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:35:31 AM EST

A graduate of Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, and Georgetown University's law school in Washington, he's worked in the parliamentarian's office since 1977. He was appointed to the top job in 2001 after his predecessor, Bob Dove, was fired by then-Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican. Frumin became the first parliamentarian named by both parties. The job pays about $167,000 a year.
Reid kept him on for some reason.

Reconciliation will make asses out of the dems (none / 0) (#11)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:11:21 AM EST

and swiss cheese out of any HCR bill.

For those that think the magic 51 vote reconciliation process will be quick, easy and painless, here is a good read on the details.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/how-reconciliation-would-work

The Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin will have more control than anyone in either chamber.

Here's an excellent Bloomberg article on the subject.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk

The dems risk losing so many core components in this gamble. The result will be no actual reform and the American people turning against the democrats for such a massive cluster f. outcome.


Pay attention (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:12:37 AM EST

You aren't introducing any new information to this discussion, and you missed the whole point of this thread.


A newbie I assume (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:18:04 AM EST

: He's been around for a couple of weeks (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:19:38 AM EST

An unoriginal GOP chatterer.

The subject of the thread (none / 0) (#18)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:27:25 AM EST

is the PO and reconciliation. Whether is it is yet another dem senator signing on is a moot point.

You can continue to whistle past the graveyard all you want but the reality of the entire reconciliation nonsense is that it is a non-starter.


I think you are right (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:31:16 AM EST

in one sense - this is all probably whistling past the graveyard, but not for procedural reasons as you first asserted, but because of a lack of votes.

The subthread you joined was about Lawrence O''Donnell's false statements, statements he has made before.

O'Donnell is lying. I think it is interesting that no one even pays attention to O' Donnell anymore on this.

The reason is the Village understands there are not the votes in the House for the Senate Stand alone bill, the preferred course of the Villagers.

Now that they have realized this, O'Donnell's falsehoods do not serve the purpose intended. Indeed, O'Donnell is hurting the Villager cause with his lies. Unintentionally of course.

But now there is just embarrassed looking away from his lying.


This is true (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:32:42 AM EST

As I said yesterday, it's really hard to see how the House gets to 217. Ezra said so too in his bizarre missive about the PO.


: Perhaps so (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:36:35 AM EST

But there is no way they get to 217 without a major overhaul of the excise tax and not once has Ezra written about THAT.

Apologies (none / 0) (#26)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:37:21 AM EST

for inadvertently commenting in the O'Donnell subt-hread if that caused the confusion.


: It certainly caused mine (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:11 AM EST

No need for apologies.

I hate it when folks who just join the discussion (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:17:51 AM EST

think they are bringing something new to the discussion.

The Passing the Senate bill in the House + a reconciliation fix has been the approach for weeks now.


Then why (none / 0) (#19)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:29:28 AM EST

has it not been done already? If it is a slam dunk, then Thursday's dog and pony show would not be needed.

This is just an echo chamber of a failed agenda item but instead acknowledging such, let's beat the drum louder and faster.


As I state to you in other comments (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:35:21 AM EST

Having the votes is a different question than whether, procedurally, you can do it when you have the votes.

The House does not have the votes to pass the Senate Stand alone bill.

A reconciliation fix needs to be negotiated that will pass the House and Senate. It may never be achieved.

But the hurdles are not procedural, it is a question of votes.


It is always a question of votes (none / 0) (#28)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:41:16 AM EST

regardless which side of the aisle one sits.

The procedural process is significant when all those negotiations required by reconciliation must pass through house and senate committees. That shines more light on the entire mess long before it gets back to either chamber's floor. The process itself will throw more ice onto the already cold feet of many dems.

It is a hand and glove situation.


All those committees? (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:44:11 AM EST

Nah, there is not problem with the Committees.

that is not how reconciliation works.

But of course the votes are the issue and the procedural stuff is not an obstacle here. Just the votes.

Come on, you see how the Villagers who were once so concerned about the "procedural obstacles" now have gone silent on those? It was all just posturing.


From the TNR article (none / 0) (#30)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:55:39 AM EST

In order to qualify for reconciliation, three committees in the House and two committees in the Senate have to mark up provisions within their jurisdiction.

As also detailed in the:
"The Budget Reconciliation Process:
House and Senate Procedures"

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33030_20050810.pdf

The only question is what did the current Budget Resolution legislation verbiage require? If it includes the jurisdictional committees and not just the Budget Committees, then it becomes messy and prolonged. Prolonging the issue is yet another problem for many dems in both houses.


Oops forgot to (none / 0) (#31)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:57:43 AM EST

address the Villagers comment. Not being one but observing from the outside, my take is that they don't want to put any focus on the issue as it will put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons in their camp.


Indeed (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:04:31 AM EST

the RELEVANT committees will have to have their bills reconciled.

Most likely, if a deal is struck, each committee will pass the same bill, no doubt on a party line vote.

Then the bills will be brought to the floor.

Good thing the Dems have a majority so that they can pass the bills through committee.

Not sure what you point is here.

I repeat, if you have the votes, the committees are not a problem.

And if you think there is some doubt about passage in the committees, then you must not be aware of the Dem advantage on each of the committees, including the Senate Finance committee.


: There a numerous problems (none / 0) (#35)
by BTAL on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:17:24 AM EST

even with the committee votes.
The first is getting to that magical "deal" in the first place and a timely manner. The differences between the Progressives, Villagers and Blue Dogs just within the democratic party will make crafting that deal very difficult. Toss in the rejuvenated PO as being discussed above and the negotiations become even harder.
The next could be a timing issue as the Budget Resolution has an expiration date, which IIRC is March 6th? Could be wrong on the date. But with a expiration date on the horizon that adds more to the perception of ramming something through. A political lightening rod at this time.
The final issue, as mentioned above is the wild card of the Parliamentarian.

By the time you are done helping (none / 0) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 05:38:31 PM EST

Arlen remake Arlen, he's going to look more like a Democrat than half the democrats. I hope he's paying you for your services. I don't think he's any worse than half the scumbos with a "D" after their name. Is he really coming up with these ideas all my himself though, or are you his new stylist? Inquiring minds would like to know :)

Arlen's not that bad (none / 0) (#37)
by Lora on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:00:18 PM EST

And maybe getting better. I guess I'm not so cynical with regard to him. Seems like even when he was a Republican, every so often he would do something decent.


: Arlen's not as bad as Evan Bayh huh? (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:09:34 PM EST

Cracks me up :)

Dems need cover (none / 0) (#39)
by diogenes on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:16:44 PM EST

Many lib commentators on this site have said that the senate version of the bill, even with a "public option", is crap. Is the dems ram it through in a bloody reconciliation battle, then when it finally happens in 2014 that people realize that it is crap then the dems will get all the blame.