TPMDC

Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Howard Dean and Democracy for America have launched a new campaign called America Can't Wait, to bring grassroots pressure to bear on elected officials to pass health care reform with a public option through via the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.

In a letter to supporters, obtained by TPM, America Can't Wait founder Howard Dean to supporters writes that pursuing the 51-vote should be the priority over the regular legislative order because it will be more likely to produce a public option.

"At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats have said they would vote for the final healthcare bill if it included the choice of a public option rather than vote against the bill and kill reform," Dean writes.

Some have said it takes 60 votes to pass any bill in the U.S. Senate. It's a myth.

It's a myth because while any Senator can attempt to block most Senate bills with a procedural tactic called the filibuster, there are exceptions. Senate rules don't allow filibusters of certain bills that affect the budget. That's right; the healthcare reform plan including the choice of a public option can be passed in a budget bill by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

Mary Rickles, communication director for Democracy for America says the campaign is an outgrowth of the group's earlier projects: "This is an extension of what we've been doing...drawing a line in the sand for the public option."

"This is us saying that there's the support based on what elected have told us. We haven't necessarily been in contact with electeds to say we're going to start this new campaign. But we saw this a logical next step for the grassroots."

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders are preparing a reconciliation strategy for health care reform in parallel with their efforts to amass a 60 vote majority. But, for now, they regard that as a final contingency. You can read the entire letter below.

DFA -

Join President Obama in calling on Congress to get the job done

We've worked together since the beginning of the healthcare debate to draw a line in the sand -- the choice of a public option must be included in any reform bill passed this year. And every time Republicans have tried to kill it or the insurance industry has claimed it's already dead, we've stood up and proven them wrong.

The new line from opponents of reform is that Congress doesn't have the votes to pass a public option.

Once again, thanks to you, we've proven them wrong.

We've asked everyone in Congress where they stand. At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats have said they would vote for the final healthcare bill if it included the choice of a public option rather than vote against the bill and kill reform. That means Congress has the majority votes needed to pass a public option -- TODAY.

Now is the season for action. The majority of Americans want it. Majority votes in Congress will pass it. Join President Obama in calling on Congress to get the job done this year.

ADD YOUR NAME NOW

Some have said it takes 60 votes to pass any bill in the U.S. Senate. It's a myth.

It's a myth because while any Senator can attempt to block most Senate bills with a procedural tactic called the filibuster, there are exceptions. Senate rules don't allow filibusters of certain bills that affect the budget. That's right; the healthcare reform plan including the choice of a public option can be passed in a budget bill by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

Don't take my word for it. Numerous budget scholars and experts on Senate procedure have staked their reputations on it. Stan Collender, a contributing editor at the National Journal, contributing writer for Roll Call, and author of "The Guide to the Federal Budget" is an expert on the subject. Here's how he explains it:

"The House-passed version of the 2010 budget resolution allows health care reform to be included in a reconciliation bill and, therefore, adopted in the Senate with 51 votes..."

"First, contrary to what some have been saying, reconciliation has become such a standard part of the budget process that using it for health care would be neither surprising nor precedent-setting. When they were in the majority, Republicans insisted that reconciliation was allowed by Senate rules and used it in 2001, 2003 and 2005. Back then, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has been one of the biggest opponents of using reconciliation this year, made what in retrospect is an almost infamous floor speech about the appropriateness and legality of using reconciliation.

Second, health care reform will have a substantial impact on federal finances and so can't be said to be unrelated to the budget, which is one of the critical criteria for using reconciliation. In fact, given that at least two of the largest mandatory federal spending programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- are health care programs; health care reform and reconciliation would seem to be a perfect fit."

Over 25 times in history the Senate has passed major reforms this way, including the Bush tax cuts and funding for the Iraq War. Whether the Senate passes reform through a budget bill or in a different bill that has overcome a filibuster, the truth of the matter is it only takes a majority vote to get the job done.

JOIN ME IN CALLING ON CONGRESS TO PASS REAL REFORM WITH MAJORITY VOTES

Even after months of right-wing fear mongering and misinformation, the majority of Americans still want the choice of a public option. Just last Saturday, CBS News released a poll that showed support for a public option has increased since the President's speech to Congress in which he explained what it would provide as a part of his healthcare plan.

President Obama can sign healthcare reform including a public option into law this year if we make sure Congress passes real reform.

When we work together, we're unstoppable. Thank you for everything you do.

-Howard

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Democracy for America

Join the Conversation!

18 comments

Recommend Recommend (4)

rj

user-pic

September 17, 2009 10:10 PM   

I'm all for this if it comes to that, but given reconciliation's drawbacks wrt what can be passed and how long what's passed can remain law (not to mention the procedural aspects of reconciliation that are themselves subject to the 60-vote rule), I don't for the life of me understand why the bigger push isn't simply for a cloture vote. Remind Joe Lieberman (for instance) of his gloriously principled opposition to the filibuster when the GOP pushed through a draconian bankruptcy law; talk incessantly in the media and elsewhere about what a recent phenomenon the "must-have-60-votes" thing really is (basically since the GOP returned to the minority); have Judd Gregg's eminently reasonable, circa-2005 defense of a simple majority vote playing on an endless loop; note constantly that the 51 most-likely "yes" votes on real reform (w/public option) represent considerably more than 51% of the population; etc., etc. Relentlessly.

It also seems to me that one simple mark of respect for Ted Kennedy might be to, at the very least, not block a clean vote on his last legislative effort -- a bill that would largely reflect the work of his HELP committee, in which he was actively involved, the culmination of his efforts in what he called the cause of his life. Honor Teddy: vote for cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 11:30 PM    in reply to rj

When did the filibuster become the standard? Oh. When republicans became the minority. If the Dems had any balls they would change the rules, getting rid of the filibuster altogether (yes they COULD).

That said, I think this bill should get through by reconciliation if that is what needs to be done. I disagree that it should be done one way or the other "out of respect for Ted Kennedy." Once the bill is passed it can be dedicated to him, but no bill as widesweeping and important as this should be passed out of sentiment; it needs to be passed because it is the right thing to do.

The same people who want to kill healthcare so they can permanently wound the President, also hate Kennedy, so they would use the "Kennedy boondoggle" meme to forever taint this important bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rj

user-pic

September 18, 2009 12:32 AM    in reply to CVille Dem

No, my point was that they should simply let the thing come to an "upperdown vote" rather than support a GOP filibuster, and that one small argument for that could be to "do it for Teddy." Then vote how you must on the bill itself. But mainly I really do not understand why I don't hear the Dems pushing for cloture rather than letting the only alternatives be 60 votes or reconciliation. Bernie Sanders is the only one who's consistently argued the point. Mystifying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 12:56 AM    in reply to rj

Well, I'm with you. It is mystifying why, when the population, even in Baucus' state really wants the Public Option, how they can say that no one does. I guess they continue to listen to the people who keep handing them money.

I'm sorry though; I still don't understand what you are saying about Kennedy; sounds like you want them to pass a small thing in his name and then fight the rest out? Would that get things going in the right direction?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rj

user-pic

September 18, 2009 1:30 AM    in reply to CVille Dem

It was just a thought that one way for his colleagues to express their presumed affection and respect could be to at least do him the posthumous courtesy of letting his bill actually come to the floor rather than help the GOP block the vote; ie, they may or may not want to vote for the bill, but they could at least vote to close off debate -- ie, end a filibuster -- so there can be clean up-or-down, majority-rules vote. You know, the way things used to work. Didn't mean for the Teddy aside to become the main point; just one more little thing that might be used to persuade a few Senators to let the Chamber actually work again...in this one instance, at least.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 8:16 AM    in reply to rj

I get it, and agree. Sorry for being so dense!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rj

user-pic

September 18, 2009 10:30 PM    in reply to CVille Dem

np :)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 10:16 PM   

Yes we can!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 11:48 PM   

Has anyone ventured the observation that by Dean's definition, any and all Congressional business involving money in some respect, can be fit into a budget bill? Since there is virtually no Congressional business without money attached, it would effectively repeal filibusters.
Democrats may think they can do a Kennedy and change precedent on a whim for advantage, but this is too big to whipsaw. Republicans will be happy to invoke the same rationale when they return. Be careful what you ask for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 12:42 AM    in reply to shooter242

Well, since the Republicans won't return, it's OK . . . HA!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 2:42 AM    in reply to shooter242

Tut tut now little republican doggie ... remember the Bush years?

Senate Republicans, however, have not been so timid about abusing the reconciliation process. In 2001, they used it to push through Bush's tax cuts (after replacing the Senate parliamentarian because they suspected he would rule for Democrats who argued that Bush's tax cuts violated the Byrd Rule). A huge amount of war-gaming among Senate Democrats right now concerns how to respond if Republicans try to use reconciliation to pass Bush's Social Security plan.

Or even the Clinton years

With a battle of "brinkmanship" underway, Republican Congressional leaders have announced a strategy and are threatening to attach all the remaining individual budget bills along with the authorization to exceed the current $4.9 trillion national debt limit to the Omnibus Reconciliation Bill that they will consider in late October. By this tactic, they would try to force the President to accept their policy changes[...]
With an omnibus reach including the policy products of a number of Congressional committees bent upon putting a Republican stamp on national policy, in reducing the federal budget deficit by the year 2000, and in achieving tax reductions, the likely policy changes in the Reconciliation Act that would be rolled into one up or down vote are truly profound. Lack of long-term guarantees of federal funding and problems of the poor moving to states with higher benefits are obvious problems in current versions. The prior safety net would be removed from many of the poor over time, immediately in the case of drug addicts, alcoholics, and non-citizens.

The magnitude of the changes being made make it hard for the public to grasp the enormity of the changes that will affect them. When they do, watch out.

And where did all this precedent for messing with the reconciliation process begin ...
Congressional procedures call for reconciliation of various budget bills through one act, and therefore only one vote, that re-allocates expenditures to keep them consistent with an overall budget policy. Starting with President Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, this process was perverted starting in 1980 to reimpose Presidential policy on prior Congressional appropriations.

Now, get down off the sofa!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 3:31 AM    in reply to kgb999

And to recap the precedents set by the republicans (because as a summary it's fascinating):

1: Republican president perverts reconciliation to force will on democratic legislature. (Clinton returned favor)

2: Republican legislature loads reconciliation down with major policy changes to counter democratic veto (dems haven't).

3: Republican president and legislature use reconciliation for major policy to bypass democratic filibuster (dems haven't ... yet).

4:**Bonus Precedent** Republican legislature dismisses parliamentarian and appoints a new one based on willingness to allow reconciliation's use to avoid filibuster despite violations of Byrd rule(dems haven't).

All I'm saying is dayum ... republicans have some monster cajones to whine about anything the democrats want to do with reconciliation. They wrote the precedent book.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 9:07 AM    in reply to kgb999

Now, now. You can expect the resident clueless and cowardly Republican to be able to admit being flat out wrong, do you? It is a moral defect; they have no ability to accept responsibility or accountability. And they are so insecure that they can not admit to being wrong. But they sure love showing off their ignorance! :-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 11:52 PM   

Alas, the Democrats do not have the balls to do this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 12:44 AM    in reply to pvel

Yep. Not gonna happen unless Obama drops his bipartisan crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 1:37 AM   

Yea better hurry, if you wait more then a week a lot of these congressman and women might be doing a purp-walk down the stairs of the capital.

Obama/ACORN vs. CITI Bank

hundreds of nuisance lawsuits to loosen mortgages underwriting standards.
With help from Congress co-conspiritors passing legislation to force financial insiitutions to underwrite unqualified applicants.
Can you say RICO ACT ?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 18, 2009 1:55 AM    in reply to hawaiian

First the birthers ... then the teabaggers ... this is just screaming out for a new nickame. Ohhhh, snark don't fail me now ..... the nutters!!!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 19, 2009 6:54 AM   

Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please.

Please Democrats use some trick manuever to ram something America clearly DOES NOT WANT down our throats. You will turn a tough 2010 for Democrats into an epic pwnage never before seen in politics.

Please ram this through. Please listen to Dean.

I simply cannot wait. The campaign slogan for 2010 will be, "Elect us and we will repeal Obamacare!" It's just too perfect.

P.S., I have another question for America. What has happened to America since the Dems took Congress in 2006? If they had campaigned promising our current condition, would they have ever been given power? Ask yourselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on