Has A Conservative Republican From Wyoming Taken Over The Health Care Debate In The Senate?
If it was up to reformers, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) probably wouldn't be anywhere near the heart of health care negotiations. But unfortunately for them, he's right in the middle of the action. Yesterday he said he'd vote against the legislation he's helped craft in the Senate Finance Committee unless Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate guaranteed they wouldn't make it any more liberal. And now he's suggesting that, after months of delay, the committee probably won't settle on a final product before adjourning for August recess at the end of next week.
Enzi's access infuriates liberals--but in a way his presence at the negotiating table is emblematic of the Finance Committee's entire process.
If after the Democrats' historic election in November, I had suggested that one of the Senate's most conservative Republicans would stand a chance of hijacking President Obama's health care proposal, you might have waved off the threat, and rightly so. But thanks to Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus--who has insisted on passing a consensus bill at the expense of a number of liberal goals--that's basically what's happening.
Enzi, the ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, isn't without health care knowledge--but he's also not the sort of Republican who comes to mind when Democrats need a few Republicans to pass a major piece of legislation. He probably less in common with Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) than do most Democrats. In fact, he vociferously opposed the HELP Committee's reform bill, and is basically insisting that that bill, and House legislation, be completely scrapped before he and other conservatives hop on board. But despite that distinctly GOP-first outlook, Baucus gave him a seat at the table.
Joining them are Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). (Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--whose ties to industry are famous--also participated for a while, but ultimately left the negotations on his own.) Left out were public option point man Chuck Schumer (D-NY) health care expert Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), whose commitment to reform rivals that of ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and the liberals leading the effort in the House. All are members of the Finance Committee.
You probably wouldn't expect such a right-tilted group to arrive at a progressive solution to the country's health care crisis--and you'd be correct. But in the end, this all comes down to Baucus. As chairman of the committee, he committed to passing a bipartisan bill. Some viewed that move alone as a concession, but on a committee packed with moderate Democrats, it was arguably necessary. But as vague of a concept as bipartisanship is, it can mean almost anything when it comes time to vote. As with the stimulus, it can mean Democratic unity combined with the support of three moderate Republicans. And it can mean consensus, where members of both parties--in similar numbers, and of roughly balanced ideology--pass a bill at the expense of liberals and conservatives.
For some reason, Baucus went further than that, soliciting the blessing of deeply conservative Republicans, and no liberals. That doesn't surprise his long time critics, but many still want to know, Why? An aide insists that none of the members of the coalition are supposed to fill specific niches--so we can only speculate. But whether it's Enzi's willingness to play along, or Baucus' desire to burnish his bipartisan cred with a truly conservative Republican on board, or whether there's some sympatico between the two western senators, the results have driven liberals to apoplexy.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Apoplexy is right!
How can a guy who represents less than 1/4 of 1% of the population of the country have veto power over healthcare?
Insane!
July 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice that every single member of that coalition represents a low-population state. Chuck Schumer probably represents more people than all of them combined.
Some bipartisanship: all rural interests and no urban ones. No union ones, either.
July 30, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct and that has been a major focus of conservative lobbyists for years. Focus on small state Senators who can't raise much money in state and shower them with campaign funds. Even Baucus receives something like 80% of his campaign funds from out of state and in the last two years he has received more than 50% of his funds from health care industry alone.
It's absolutely on purpose and has everything to do with Senators wanting to keep their power at our expense yet again!
July 30, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the thing: Enzi only has veto power if Democrats refuse to stand firm. If Ben Nelson give to Enzi veto power, then he has veto power. If Joe Lieberman gives to Enzi veto power, he has veto power. But, if we stand firm and demand that meaningful health care reform pass the Congress, it should pass the Congress and Mike Enzi won't vote for it (unless he supports a public option open to everyone). Baucus is part of the solution, but so are many other Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
July 30, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
More evidence of Harry Reid's strong leadership. This is how Harry governs with a 60-seat majority, from a position of weakness on every issue.
July 30, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can Reid do, short of abolishing the seniority system? Head of the Finance Committee is, in real terms, more powerful than the Majority Leader.
July 30, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the biography of Lyndon Johnson. The Majority Leader of the Senate has plenty of options, he's only using cowardice now.
July 30, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I agree with you if Reid has to rely on his own repertoire of persuasion techniques then we're screwed.
As much as I would love to hear about him cornering Baucus in the cloakroom and subjecting him to The Treatment, it's not going to happen.
Golden gloves, my ass.
July 30, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone can enter Golden Gloves, doesn't mean he won any fights. He probably wore pink silk trunks and gave up after the first punch.
July 30, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing to note is that being a boxer (even a successful one) does not equate to being a leader. I doubt that Reid has the intellectual steel to go head-to-head with someone who opposes him. Reid is an appeaser, not a leader.
July 30, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it about time for Durbin's rise to Majority Leader, although with Chicago running the white house perhaps Schumer would be better for some balance.
I used to be all for the quiet un-assuming Majority Leader wielding power out of the view of the cameras, it was perfect as a contrast to the more in-your-face Speaker of the house. But it seems, unless he is a genius and fooling everyone, its time for him to step aside as Maj. Leader.
July 30, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats in the Senate are a disgrace in every respect. What a bunch of pathetic cowards and bootlickers they are! Is there nothing they will refuse to do if it involves kissing the asses of the powerful?
July 30, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
could it be any clearer how corrupt these bums are?
July 30, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has been in my thoughts lately, is who Reid will sit at the Senate Conference Committee to mesh both of the Senate bills? If reid loads the conference committee w/ blue dogs, then we are truly fucked. Baucus will have already gutted the bill from Finance so will how will reid bring real reform out of the senate?
Thoughts anyone?
July 30, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dogs = House, not Senate
July 30, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rockfeller and Brown are great and strong adovcates for the public option and major reform. Where are other the democrats?
July 30, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Senator F**king Flyover.
Take the gavel from Baucus.
July 30, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apoplexy is the natural state of liberals.
July 30, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid reflects the lame, spineless Senate Democrats who elected him as their leader. When they did so I knew there was no hope for these losers and that the country would suffer for it. I'm through voting Democratic. They couldn't politic their way out of a wet paper bag.
FDR, Truman and LBJ are spinning in their graves from watching these total, complete failures who, after being handed the Senate, House and White House (due not to their political skills but to the utter failure of the Republicans) get rolled over by a tiny, conservative minority led by: Max WHO????? What sickening losers.
July 30, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, I wish Teddy was in better health, I believe he is trying to save his interjection until it seems things are going to crumble w/o it.
I too am quite frustrated w/ the situation, I somehow think that voting other than democratic is not going to make the situation any better though.
I'd like to think someone like Russ Feingold or Teddy himself are writing a single payer bill to be ready when it comes time for the reconciliation vote that only requires 50 votes +Biden.
July 30, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingaman is a Democrat who supports the public option. Other than that, you're 100% correct.
Baucus is a toad. And a world-class shitbag of a senator.
July 30, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about health care, per say, but here is a must watch clip about Glenn Beck and Fox News. Hilarious and disturbing all at the same time.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2337
July 30, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisan? Bush also committed to bipartisan, and followed a strictly right wing agenda. All of a sudden bipartisan means the right-wing tail wags the dog. I guess bipartisan means the same thing...right wing control. Who said elections have consequences?
July 30, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the stimulus debate?! That package got watered down to appeal to Republicans and appear bipartisan and it still resulted in NO HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND 2 SENATE Rs!
Fool me once...
Stop wasting time. Republicans will not support any bill when it comes to the floor. This will be an exact replay of stimulus, any fool should see that by now. So we end up with sham reform and still no bipartisan cred.
As much as I hate to admit it, you have to admire the R's ability to "rule." This never would have happened under R leadership. It's time for Ds to rise up and start cracking skulls.
July 30, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late. The damage's done. And the repug's know now they wield full control in the Senate Chambers even though they're the minority. In short, Baucus just made Obama a lame duck for the rest of his term.
July 30, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Senate voted to allow reconciliation (50 votes +Biden) if things weren't moving along in a bipartisan manner by Oct. I knew the repukes would push it in every which way to force that. As w/ the stimulus they are betting on failure of whatever the Dems pass. They are going to force the Dems to do it alone w/ 51 votes this is a forgone conclusion. Everything until then is just noise. I expect a strong Democratic bill to be on the shelf waiting for this and we'll shove it down the repuke's throught a la Bush tax cuts (passed the same way)
July 30, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that was true. I would actually wait to see that happen. At least we would have a strong bill.
July 30, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the only way to get an effective bill...
July 30, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone remind me why I've spent so much time and money fighting to get liberal Democrats elected to office over the past 10+ years? I didn't think it was so that conservative Republicans could set the agenda on healthcare reform, but that is what is happening.
July 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee..it hasn't been obvious for months that getting the Senate Finance Committee out of the way by reporting a bill, any bill that could be used as a stalking horse to bring health care reform to the floor by unanimous consent, isn't critical
Once out of the way, there really are no obstacles to a robust public option w/ meaningfully expanded coverage
Bend over Max here it comes again
July 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT THE FUCK???!!!!
None of these GOP assholes will vote for this. NONE!!! NEVER !!!
Which part of "these GOP assholes ONLY want to kill the bill" don't they understand?????
Grrrrrr, I hate that Baucus piece of shit so much.
(Needed to vent)
July 30, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enzi's not a politician; he's an extortionist.
July 30, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
just like that othe Sh*t bag from Wyoming...
July 30, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a Democrat
Honest mistake
July 30, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what's worse: In 2007, Mike Enzi voted with the Bush administration on the S-CHIP bill and all the other Republican amendments. Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, and Chuck Grassley all voted the opposite way on every single measure but the "unborn" amendment. [Olympia Snowe voted with Democrats on that amendment.]
July 30, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it ... single payer just got the proverbial stake driven thru it's heart. It's a dead issue. Time to concentrate on getting the Democrat's who are responsible for the debacle thrown out of office.
July 30, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
THAT' S RIGHT FUCK THOSE DEMS WE'LL BE BETTER OF WITH REPS!!!!
July 30, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh...this drives me crazy. We are not talking about single payer - at all. Single payer has been dead for a very long time...it was never even seriously considered. What's on the table now is the public option.
July 30, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The headline to this story needs to be amended. Before the word "Has" insert the words "How the fuck".
July 30, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a guy who represents less than 1/4 of 1% of the population of the country have veto power over healthcare"
Wyoming has vetoed health care...
nothing new to him
living in SD I'm amazed at how many neighbors drive in from WY (Enzi) and MT (Baucus) for health care.
July 30, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are Baucus' motives? Really? In addition to the fact that negotiating within the 60 Dem caucus would be sufficient, the next easist votes to get would be the likes of Snowe and Collins. He knows this and yet he insists on negotiating with the most conservative of the Rs. Why??? It's a critical question.
I don't think I ever understood how powerful committee chairs were until now.
July 30, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes down to these 3 possible scenarios...
1. If Dems don't pass Healthcare Reform, we will lose seats then soon the majority.
2. If repubs succeed in tarnishing the "Democrat" name by forcing their will and force an unsuccesful bipartisan bill that does little more than lock in Insurace company profits, we will lose seats then soon the majority.
3. If Dems say "we got 51" for a reconciliation vote and pass a Democratic bill (at that point, f**k it, go for single-payer) we will still likely lose seats then perhaps the majority because repubs have the "liberal media" drinking their Kool-aid.
Seems to me any way around it we are kinda screwed so lets go with scenario 3. At least when things start to get easier from a heathcare cost POV we will have a winning issue to take back the majority with.
July 30, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but can someone answer a few questions for me?
Is there a Single Payer proposal in any of the proposed bills? I didn't think there was but a comment above made me think otherwise.
In any of the Public Option proposals, what are the details? I assume anyone who joined would have to pay something (like I do now with my employer provided insurance). What do they pay? Would there be deductibles, co-pays, out of pocket maximums, etc.?
I've heard people say that congress has "Government run Health Care". According to a report on NPR the other day, they have what every federal employee has which is a plan with many options. The most popular option is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The Federal Government heavily subsidizes the insurance like most employers do. If that option (and I assume the others) are through insurance companies, how is their plan "Government Run"?
Maybe there is something out on the web with all of this info pulled together in 1 place, but I haven't found it.
Thanks
July 30, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone put a single payer bill out there in the House but it is forever lost in committee. It will never see the light of day. None of the bills being worked in committee include single payer.
Can't answer the other questions.
July 30, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people confuse the public option with single payer. Pretty basic error, but then some people also need to be informed that Medicare is a government program.
July 31, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonny, I don't know. Before I agree with you, I really need to see your birth certificate. Not the fake one you've been peddling, the original.
July 30, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice...
July 30, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry reid is as much at fault as the blue dogs and baucus. Perhaps it's because he's made our of the same whole cloth. Senate Dems will be captives of the conservatives on both sides of the aisle until they get rid of Reid.
July 30, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we care about this because...?
What am I missing here? Why can't the Democratic leadership tell him to take his vote and shove it where the sun don't shine?
Also: isn't there a procedure by which the Senate as a whole can force a bill out of committee, even if the committee doesn't vote on it?
July 30, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics has always been about the lesser of two evils, always, if you refuse to support the lesser you will inevitable wind up with the greater. The bigger issue, though, is how the Senate is constituted, it gives people who represent states with very small populations WAY more power than thir constituency deserves. Combine that with Reid and Obama's reluctance to lay down the law and what we have is Senators that represent 500,000 people telling 300 million what to do, and the 300 million don't seem to mind.
July 30, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lesser of two evils is still evil. If you continue to vote for it, it's the best you'll ever get.
I think that we deserve better.
July 30, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the distinguished Sen Baucus know how you feel: (202) 224-2651. I had to wait through some busy signals, which is a good sign - this "Democrat" can't have all of us arrested.
July 30, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still afraid what we'll end up with is a compromised, watered down mess that the republicans have successfully amended extensively,that the democrats have agreed to, and that the repubicans will ultimately vote against anyway. The bill will pass because of the plurality of democrats, but the bill will be just a milquetoast, useless piece of crap that won't give us the helath care and insurance reform we need.
July 30, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's who is on the committee
DEMS:
Baucus, MT
Conrad, ND
BIngaman, NM
Kerry, MA
Lincoln, AR
Wyden, OR
Schumer,NY
Stabenow,MI
Cantwell, WA
Nelson, FL
Menedez, NJ
Carper, DE
REPUBS:
Grassfed, (Grassley), IA
Hatched, (Hatch), UT
Snowed, ( Snowe), ME
Pyl, (Kyl) AZ
Crapo, (Crapo), ID
Rob it,( Roberts), KS
(P)en(i)sign, (Ensign), NV (is he still there?)
Ponzi, (Enzi), WY
Cornball, Connin', ( Cornyn) TEX
July 30, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be clear by now that the very architecture of congress is undemocratic. Decisions are not made with science and reason in mind. As Eisenhower warned us, there has to be a mechanism to guard against "unwarranted influence". How is legal or normal that elected officials can accept payola to thwart the will of the people? Perhaps a constitutional convention is in order.
July 30, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think repubs are obstructionists now...
July 30, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not give up but I'm angry. At this point I'm beginning to think that bipartisanship in that committee means 100% republican bill that a dem blesses.
July 30, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink