House Talks Break Down--Will Waxman Steam Roll Blue Dogs?
Just about an hour ago, negotiations between Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and chairman Henry Waxman broke down, perhaps irreconcilably.
Earlier today, Waxman lashed out at the conservative Democrats for trying to "eviscerate" house health care legislation, and threatened to bypass their concerns completely in order to get a timely floor vote on a healthy bill. That seems to have sent tempers flaring.
"It pretty much fell apart this afternoon," said key Blue Dog Mike Ross (D-AR), who called Waxman's rhetoric "not helpful," according to Congressional Quarterly.
"It's my understanding that will be the last meeting we have," Ross said.
Now the ball is in Waxman's court. Will he try to mark the bill up anyhow? Or will he freeze them out completely. Democratic leaders will host a caucus meeting on Monday to address all members' concerns about the bill--a sign, perhaps, that they aren't going to wait for this intra-panel tiff to be resolved. If that's the case, all eyes will return again to the Blue Dogs to see whether they'll revolt against the bill. Showdown!
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
These Blue Dogs have got to look at 1994 and what happened when Clinton failed -- the GOP took over the house, and vulnerable Dems got swept out of Congress.
If you are in a conservative district, as they claim, then wouldn't he voters be more likely to vote for the real deal, instead of GOP lite?
So, paradoxically, if they are loyal to the president and he succeeds, they will be bouyed up.
If he fails, they will all pay the price.
The GOP scaremongering is deceiving them a little -- voting against the president is actually the riskier thing to do.
July 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly what they want - every non-Blue-Dog Democrat out of Congress and the repugs in charge again.
They're spoiled brats who have to be the center of attention every fucking second.
The only way to deal with people like that is to ignore them. No matter what they do, no matter what they threaten, ignore them.
Waxman is right - cut their nuts off and stomp them into the ground on your way to the floor with a real bill.
July 24, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Blue Dogs will be the first to go if things go bad because they represent conservative districts.
Liberals aren't in trouble.
July 24, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but irrelevant to how Blue Dogs "think."
They want a repug majority because that's when they get more attention.
They're spoiled brats who scream and break things and projectile vomit for attention - electoral logic doesn't enter into the picture.
July 24, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. Unfortunately, the problem is that they are utterly incapable of enaging in a political calculation that involves more than one logical step.
And that's really kind of the problem that's crippled our entire system in a nutshell. At some point, our politicians got so stupid that anyone who thinks more than one move ahead is either lauded as some kind of political genius or else is derided as an ethereal egg head.
July 24, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Benen covered this pretty well a few days ago.
Not all the Conservadems would be "the first to go." A lot of them have been around for a while. They have other agendas, ideological and other. And what Benen didn't say, but I will: Staying in office is not necessarily the be-all and end-all for them. Any of them have a cushy seven-figure K Street gig waiting for them should they ever leave office, whether by their own choice or not. The revolving door is a wonderful thing for them.
July 24, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can not believe I live in the 21st century watching politicians debate 14th century ideals.
July 24, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's got to be an angle here. No way Waxman, one of the most experienced and accomplished legislators in the House, loses his cool and goes nuclear just as it seems like the final few pieces are falling into place. If they do force it past the E&C then they risk another avalanche of bad publicity, not to mention a very difficult vote wrangling session. This smells like the first move of a gambit; keep your eyes peeled on this one.
July 24, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waxman is the best,period. He knows what he is doing. If he skips mark up, he guess they have the votes.
July 24, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely
Withholding a vote in Committee allows Blue Dogs to hid behind a sheer curtain of bi-partisanship, a bid to improve the bill. Bullshit yes, but bullshit works surprisingly often.
Withholding a vote on the floor by any individual Blue Dog means nothing, only if they all stuck together and put in a 'Not voting' could they kill the vote. But that would be as glaringly obvious as just going ahead and voting no to kill health care outright. And I don't think they will have the balls. Delay yes, outright kill no.
July 24, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANY ANY ANY Democrat that votes against HC....it will get ugly.
July 24, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Primary the motherfuckers mercilessly.
July 24, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found it hard to believe that the House leadership doesn't have enough muscle to whip the Blue Dogs into line. I'm sure the DCCC has the money to hit these guys hard with ad ad blitz. And if they won't come along, leave 'em behind.
July 24, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House leadership doesn't have the muscle to force the Blue Dogs into line because ...
the Blue Dogs aren't Democrats.
They're repugs who pretend to be dems because that lets them play little "centrist" games that keep them the center of attention.
Take away their oxygen of attention and they'll wither away.
July 24, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Democrats like these, who needs enemies?
July 24, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but totally ignored by the media and blogs:
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/74379/a_pew_survey_first:_u.s._president_more_popular_than_bin_laden_in_most_muslim_nations/
So Obama has literally improved America's image around the world, just like he said he would. In many places, America is up to PRE-BUSH LEVELS.
If a Republican president had done this, you can bet there would be triumphalism on the nets, and not only on FoxNews. (Oh, and on the same day, Bin Laden's son was killed -- Bush would have had some kind of Mission Accomplished mediagasm.)
It's just funny how the media is spending July concern trolling about "is Obama struggling" and ignoring anything positive.
July 24, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tain't funny. Stopped being funny a long time ago.
July 24, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, it seems that the only thing the "Blue Dogs" (aka corporate shills) care about at the moment is collecting their paychecks from all the moneyed interests lined up against reforming our broken system. Waxman should ignore these hypocrites before they bring down what's left of Obama's presidency.
July 24, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think there's more to it than that. They're also stuck in the 1980s from an economic and social policy standpoint. They think Keynes is a nut and Laffer is a genius and government can't do anything right.
July 24, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the big thing here is making sure we have the votes before we bring it to the floor. There is a fairly strong block of conservative Democrats who feel they're getting shafted.
There are a couple of way to proceed: bring a chunk of them back into the fold and mark the bill; skip the markup altogether. if we go with the skip, we better have the votes. Democrats have a way of procedurally screwing up.
The real trouble with the BD argument is this: they want better reimbursement rates, but they want to complain about the cost and they want to oppose any revenue increase. So, you can't have it all three ways. I would say that we discuss reimbursement calculations, but revenue has to stay on the table. Period. If they cannot live with that, there's not much left here.
July 24, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a complete contradiction. If cost is a problem, lower the goddamn costs and stfu.
Why is this so hard for them and the media clowns to get. Which is it? Too hard on the insurance cos and hospitals, or too expensive. If it is too expensive, lower costs. If it is too much govt and too much regulation, then be prepared to pay for it since he private sector has proven they will never lower costs on their own.
July 24, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let em get their campaign cash from the NRCC
July 24, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there needs to be more discussion on Option A for health care. In option A the health care costs double in 10 years. The number of people covered is reduced by 30 percent leaving more than 90 million people uncovered. The insurance for profit monitor stands between the patient and their doctor deciding what they will permit. People will be thrown off of programs if they get sick and pre-existing conditions are not covered. What is Option A. This is doing nothing. Keeping exactly what we have now. Who in their right mind would vote for option A??????? GOP would.
July 24, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night Rahm met with Waxman and the Blue Dogs and pointedly thanked the Republicans for being "honest" in their opposition to health care reform. This morning Waxman threatened to walk the bill slamming the BD's for making common cause with republicans to eviscerate the bill.
I don't for a minute think that any of this this is coincidence
July 24, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dearly want to believe you're right.
July 24, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the battle of Waxman vs. anyone, I take Waxman.
July 24, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Waxman rolls over the Blue Dogs (as he should) will they have the balls to vote against the bill? That won't look good if it passes and they have to run for re election.
Passage of a health reform bill will get a lot of positive press, so Mr Blue Dog, where did you stand?
July 24, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
SECOND!
Imho this is going to be one of those votes that -- to "moderates" -- looks like a shitty choice up front, but when it passes and 72% of the country goes apeshit with glee, then they're going to know that they did the right thing by voting for it (or the converse).
The same MSM that pounds the Dems for "splintering" and rips the Dems every single chance they get probably has a Pro-Reform story shot, cut, and wrapped just waiting for final passage in the fall. They'd be stupid not to.
They just want the negative press (controversy/sensationalism) to drive ratings until it passes when they can jump on the bandwagon and get the positive press ratings bump too.
Just like the GOP/BD coalition, they want it their way every time. Pathetic.
July 24, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
These "Blue Dog" Democrats are a bit perplexing.
I think they are really DINO(Democrat in name only).
How can these folks not be for healthcare when this has been a focus of the Dems for decades??.
Go around them. They are in a catch 22. They will lose in their district for not supporting Obama because the democrats wont show up at the polls.
And they will lose if they support Obama because their districts are mostly Conservative and the republican voters will show up and vote them out.
sucks to be them.
July 24, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we at least entertain the possibility that these folks are reflecting the views of their constituents? Far-fetched, I know.
Congress critters understand they have to keep the folks back home happy or they will be ex-congress critters real soon.
The Repugs are headed for collapse because their extreme rightwing is shoving all the moderates out of their party. The Democrats should embrace the moderates, those in the party and those soon to join.
No, that doesn't mean roll over for everything the Blue Dogs want. But the Dem leadership is wise to at least listen to all the members of the majority caucus -- otherwise it won't be a majority caucus.
July 24, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
normally they are caught btw a rock and a hard place, but most of these Blue Dogs have high rates of uninsured Ross - 22%)and poverty (Ross 30%) in their districts - the House bill is clearly aligned with their constituents interests.
no less than Nate Silver is saying guys like Mike Ross had better support the President on healthcare or they wont be around much longer
July 24, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have to be consequences. I have received countless e-mails soliciting contributions to the DCCC over the past months with health care reform as the message get. I have responded to a couple
I don't want a dime of my contributions to go to any congressman who aids and abets the Republican party
July 24, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Holding-Their-Breath-Until-They're Blue Dogs need to back down and realize they're not going to get their way on everything.
July 24, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now Roll Call says Waxman is convening an "Emergency Meeting" to bring everyone back. Did he blink? Did something change? This is crazy inside ball going on right now.
July 24, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ryan Grim at the HuffPo is saying the same thing: talks are back on for now. I think this is a moving story made more volatile by egos and tantrums.
Unfortunately the tantrums have already been spread in the press. Talks may eventually collapse, but the issue is not resolved yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/lead-blue-dog-health-care_n_244496.html
July 24, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the sound of it, there are at least a couple of things going on - first, the people in favor of HB 3200 on the committee want to have it come out of their committee as well - they want to finish markup so that their pet amendments - some of which are about policy, some of which are about pork - will be part of the final bill.
Next, this is a face-saving maneuver for someone, and my guess is that it's for the Blue Dogs.
Here's how I hope things are going: In Blue Dog-ese "they're not interested in saving money" means "they don't want to spend money on the things we want them to spend it on, even though we've worked hard to make appropriations a zero-sum game." Waxman knows this, and has decided to call their bluff by denying them their pork.
He's saying, "if you don't let a public option make it to the floor, you won't get a damn thing. No subsidies for rural medicine, no public option financial centers in your districts, nada."
And so we're going back into the committee where a few blue dogs will vote to remove a public option — just enough to preserve the coalition's street cred — and they'll get to pass a few money-laden amendments, and that will be that until conference.
At least I hope that's what's happening.
July 24, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
key Blue Dog Mike Ross (D-AR), who called Waxman's rhetoric "not helpful
Mike Ross to the white courtesy phone please!
Mike, bless your little heart, Waxman is the committee chair. If you want to badmouth him, you had better be prepared to spend the rest of the session in a broom closet in the House basement ....
July 24, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the Money... Link
Sign this Single-Payer Health Care Pettion: Link
Call Congress and demand,
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
SEMPER FI!
July 24, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's health plan is outrageous. The true waste and inefficiencies of healthcare are largely a consequence of the HMO / private insurance model. Rather than attack this central problem, Obama has chosen to try to contain health care costs by stripping a trillion dollars out of medicare. He would do this by taking decisions re medicare reimbursement out of the hands of our elected congress, and putting them into the hands of a board of technical specialists appointed by the president. The bureaucrats would then promulgate policies that would reduce medicare reimbursement for the treatment of elderly or terminally ill patients. This is the core of Orzsag's philosophy, to eliminate "wasteful" and "unnecessary" care, based on cost benefit decisions re how much is an extra year of life worth to an old and dying person, compared to the cost of the treatments. This is an echo of the national board in Britain which makes such care denying decisions, and is reminiscent of the same policies in nazi germany. Let's build more hospitals, adopt single payer, and stop the bureaucratic rationing.
July 24, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume.
THANK YOU !
July 25, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the latest news.Baucus needs to be removed. I wonder if that is possible?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/26/757905/-Liberal-Bloc-Rebels-Against-Baucus-as-HCAN-Goes-After-Dogs
July 26, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink