
After an afternoon meeting with House leaders and health care principals yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke in vague terms about what reform must accomplish: Affordability, accountability, and accessibility. "A triple 'A' rating," as she described it.
But aides say she's particularly steamed that the White House wants her to largely adopt the Senate bill in its entirety. And she's particularly unhappy that the White House has thrown its weight behind the Senate bill's chief funding mechanism: an excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance policies, which she and many in her caucus have long believed violates President Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. According to one aide, that--not the public option--was likely the reason she ribbed Obama at her press conference yesterday, quipping, "there were a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."
The House proposes paying for its bill by imposing a surtax on high-income Americans. And though there's been speculation for months that the final reform package will include a combination of both sources of revenue, Pelosi, who's already had to accept the demise of the public option, wants the excise tax gone.
That will be a tough sell with the White House, which has endorsed the Senate's measures. But other issues are coming into focus as House priorities as well. The House bill organizes insurance exchanges at the national level, while the Senate bill requires states to erect their own. Pelosi's proposal would also make mandatory insurance more affordable for individuals below 300 percent of the poverty line, require insurance companies to cover a greater percentage of health care costs, and would implement most major benefits a year earlier than would the Senate bill.
Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with Obama yesterday to continue negotiating what shape the final bill--which will be based on Senate legislation--will take. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin participated via conference call.)
This afternoon--after another meeting with members--the principal authors of the House bill will convene at the White House. What happens at that meeting will be key. Tomorrow afternoon, leadership will brief the House Democratic Caucus on the state of affairs. And weary congressional progressives--still bruised over the loss of the public option--will want to hear some good news for a change.
AnswerFrog
January 6, 2010 9:55 AM
Obama's fault that we don't have 60 votes in the Senate?
Maybe you can find one, Nancy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 6, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
p.s. Goddamn Dems. The only thing the Republicans do well is discipline. You never heard this kind of crap from Republicans during Bush years. Even now, they vote in lock step. Meanwhile, we have various factions constantly bickering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 6, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Bill Clinton is on record as saying that he wishes he had had more vigorous criticism from the left in 1993-94- it would have helped him by establishing his health care plan as the real center. But I guess you understand politics better than Bill Clinton does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 6, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Uh, Clinton got vigorous criticism from the left in 93-94. It took all of two weeks for the left to basically abandon his presidency and help pave the way for the GOP takeover in 94 (and Clinton's subsequent swing to the right). It doesn't surprise me that he's pandering to bloggers on his wife's behalf now, but those of us old enough to remember this movie the first time it played know that "loyalty" from the left was never a problem for Clinton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 6, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to Stroszek
Which isn't to say that people shouldn't criticize and debate, but history shows that attacking your allies as a principle for political organizing is almost always counterproductive. It should tell you something that the the far right is both vigorously loyal to the GOP and has infinitely more influence over their party than the left has over the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 6, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to Stroszek
You go argue with Clinton too, then. I'm glad to see we have so many people here more savvy than he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 6, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Steve, is this really the argument you want to make?
It's nothing more than a retooling of the facile "Obama is smarter than you" meme.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 6, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to Stroszek
No, it's a reminder that no matter how much you may dislike the left, the Democratic party would have no hope of accomplishing anything, or having any kind of lasting electoral success, without exactly the kind of "indiscipline" on the left that so many mainstream Dem apparatchiki love to hate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
And no matter how much you dislike the DNC/DLC, etc., the Democratic party would have no chance at any electoral success.
You act as if there are enough hardcore left Democrats to win elections without the other wings of the Democratic party. How'd that work out for you 2004? How'd that work out for you in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988? Geez!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 6, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to FreeRider
We understand that we're not the whole party. It's the "centrists" who don't accept that THEY are not the whole party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I have never heard the "centrists" calling for Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer to be primaried but almost every day some asshole on the left says "we need to get rid of those centrists."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
January 6, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
So the progressives, forced to compromise away everything are wrong, and the "centrists" who blackmailed the rest of the party are right? Not in my book. When Democrats lose in 2010, it will be because of the unpalitable compromises the Democratic right wing insisted on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to condew
This is about the liberals acting like leftwing teabaggers by constantly trying to "purify" the party, which would have us down to 40 Senators and 175 members in the House. Sure, we'd be all proud and shit but we'd have no voice in governing.
These nutters (left or right) don't deal in reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 6, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
I co-sign on all your posts on this discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 6, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to condew
The far left isn't compromising away everything, The left is the only faction that wanted a Health Care Reform bill. Every other faction, right and center, was content to do nothing. The left is going to get a bill. But the left is complaining hurting the President and thus all Democrats in the process.
There is a time to debate among ourselves about what to do. But now is the time to stop the internal debate and come together and pass what we have. We should do that now because we have to focus on a common enemy Republicans.
We have to win the next election. Believe me if Republicans get control of ONE house of congress they will have hearings on all types of BS and crap and we won't get anything done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
He doesn't need to argue with Clinton. The FACTS argue with Clinton! Good grief! The left took out after Clinton hammer and tongs from the start! The left forced Clinton to take on gays in the military when he wasn't ready and turned that into a disaster.
So Clinton got plenty of criticism from the left. Plenty. That's a fact. Clinton is just lying now or, using Clinton-speak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mamiller
January 6, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Yes, I so hate representstive Democracy. I really like it better when the will of the power brokers is jammed down my throat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 6, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
If Obama had half the chops that idiot Bush had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bush got pretty much whatever he wanted, when he wanted. So yes, if Obama were a leader - not just a talker - this would be good legislation. He isn't, so it isn't.
You people remind me of the Bush apologists. You're always finding some excuse for why Obama is failing here. It's never his fault - after all, his Party only has 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate. I mean, what do all those critics on the Left want him to do? Perform miracles? Lead? Do they think he's George W. Bush or something?
No, we don't think he's Bush. Carter, maybe....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to EastWest
Bush got to privatize social security like he wanted, right?
And Bush got permanent tax cuts instead of the ones that expire after 10 years, right?
And Bush got to push a constitutional ban on gay marriage, right?
Talk about clueless revisionist history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 6, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to FreeRider
Don't misquote me. I did not say, "Everything."
Bush got the lagest tax cut - aimed primarily at the top 5% of income brackets - in US history.
He got the Patriot Act.
He got Iraq.
He got massive deregulation.
He got - and got away with - politicization of DOJ
He spent us into the deepest fiscal and financial hole ever, and his policies almost caused the second Great Depression.
He placed more restrictions on abortion than at any time since Roe v. Wade. (And thanks to Obama's weakness, more are on the way.)
Brought us the Defense of Marriage Act, along with faith-based contraception (aka Abstince Only "education" programs).
Gutted the Estate Tax so that those poor, downtrodden children of millionaires will no longer have to subsidize welfare queens or their kids.
Brought us No Child Left Behind.
Killed the Kyoto Treaty.
Allowed virtually unlimited road building and logging on Forest Service land, and directed his EPA to facilitate mountain top removal practices.
Restricted judicial review and compliance actions under the Endangered Species Act.
Killed CO2 emmissions rules put in place by Clinton.
Ended U.S. involvement with the International Criminal Court.
Refused to work with the U.N. on anything of importance.
Out-sourced tens of thousands of Federal jobs, increasing Defense contractor pofits and gutting unions.
The list goes on, but the point is clear: If Obama were a leader, we'd have a good HCR bill. Instead we get "Any bill, at any price. Mission accomplishd."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JREinATL
January 6, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to EastWest
I count only two of those things -- NCLB and the Patriot Act (or three if you want to include the AUMF/Iraq) -- that needed and got a supermajority in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 6, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to JREinATL
...Hit "submit" before I meant to, so I'll add as a PS: That Congressional approval list would include DOMA, NCLB, Iraq, Patriot Act, estate taxes, and high $$$ tax cuts (two separate tax bills in the first three years). And that is just the bits from the short list posted above.
You need to be careful, you know. That straw man you keep putting up there could catch on fire and burn you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to EastWest
DOMA was under Clinton, genius.
Ted Kennedy co-sponsored NCLB and it got 87 votes in the Senate. So touting this as an example of Bush pushing something through Congress despite strong opposition is fantasy!
The tax cuts you keep citing were passed through reconciliation and expire in 10 years. Bush wanted a permanent rewrite of the tax code but couldn't get it. (Contrary to your claim that he got everything he wanted).
Only Bush wanted the Patriot Act? Wow. That explains why it got 98 votes in the Senate, huh? Man, Bush really had to twist some arms to get that one through.
Bush had to be a really, really tough leader to get the Iraq resolution through, right? Tell that to the 25 Democrats who voted for it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to JREinATL
And Democrats strongly supported those measures. But don't confuse EastWest with the facts. Bush got those "really, really tough" measures through because he was a kick ass tough leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 6, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to EastWest
Ah. Then I guess you're right. Obama isn't showing a lack of leadership. Nope. Not at all. It's his job to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. And by golly, he's doing a bang-up job, isn't he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to EastWest
Yes, because if the president isn't on cable news talking like the Sheriff of Tombstone, then he's "doing nothing."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 6, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to EastWest
This is a great example of the danger of falling in love with an argument. Occupational hazard in my business. It's easy to get so much ego invested in what you thought was cleverness that you can't see that your cleverness has led you into saying things that are, well, stupid. Been there and done that myself a few times.
And he did it through reconciliation because he didn't have 60 votes. That would be why this crown jewel of Republican ideology is expiring this year. And it's one reason why all the people screaming to do health care through reconciliation were misguided. You don't know who will control Congress when the ten year limit on reconciliation laws runs. Bush just assumed that tax cuts were so intrinsically popular that Congress wouldn't dare let them expire. Kind of like "progressives" were assuming that the attenuated HCR that could have been passed through reconciliation would be so popular Congress wouldn't dare let it expire.
It's called "learning from the political miscalculations of your predecessors."
Yeah, Bush did that with the force of his brilliant political skills and winning personality. No irresistable external forces driving that one whatsoever. And none of the same intrinsic cowardice characteristic of some of the same Democrats giving Obama problems now was implicated either.
See above.
Entirely within the scope of Excutive power. Which is why and how Obama's been undoing it at least as fast as Bush did it. Though he's getting no cred for it, apparently.
Ask Monica Goodling and Gonzo if "he got away with it." Bush, thanks in no small part to Josh and TPM, btw, got his nuts toasted for that little act of hubris. And, yeah, Obama's undone what was done in much less time than it took Bush to do it.
Yeah, quite the leadership coup, that. Convincing Congress to cut taxes, spend money and pass laws that will get them big contributions from big bidness? What a leader of men you have to be to make that happen. Undoing it? Just a bit a little harder.
The ones done administratively by Bush, are being undone the same way they got done. The limitiations being written into HCR? Yeah, right, Obama had the power to just order people in Congress with a genuine moral objection to abortion to change their minds and let it slide. It's good to be the king.
Nope, sorry to break up the Obama is the awfulust prezident evah train with mere facts, but Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Obama has successfully zeroed out the billion a year Bush wasted on abstinence only funding, though the yahoos are trying to sneak 50 million back in through HCR.
And, once again, expiring due to reconciliation. The only question is whether Congress will manage to close the gap between the zeroing out year and the next year when the tax springs back into something like its pre-Bush glory, so people don't have an incentive to off their parents.
So, do tell, were you one of the ones screaming because Reid wouldn't use reconciliation to save the public option?
Aided and abetted by well-known Republican Ted Kennedy.
Executive power. Notice how we're back at that table now, by any chance?
He overturned regulations put into place under Clinton. That's an executive power. Obama's people are undoing most of it as fast as they can. I am pretty pissed about the lack of agressive action on mountain top removal, so I'll grant you that one, but that insanity predates Bush.
Okay, seriously? You think Obama hasn't done anything on a par with this magnificant legislative and administrative achievement?
No such rules were ever put into place by Clinton. Obama, on the other hand . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123997738881429275.html
Right. Whereas Obama has done absolutely nothing of note or interest in the area of foreign relations or international cooperation in his less than one year in office.
Obama's gone further down the road to multilateralism than any president since the U.N. was founded. But, in any case, how is this even relevant to your thesis ?
Started under Bush I, continued under Clinton. Allowing existing trends to continue trending the in the direction set by bureaucratic inertia is isn't exactly "leadership," methinks. So, again, how is this even relevent to your thesis?
Now leadership would be trying to get that oil tanker turned around. That's hard because you can't just wave a magic wand and fill all those places with soldiers or new civil service employees. Damn Obama for not doing that. Oh, wait, he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tenaciousd
January 6, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yeah, nice sarcasm, jack@ss. Too bad Obama didn't have any external circumstances he could leverage for his policy agenda. If we'd just had an economic collapse, two unopopular wars, and a wildly unpopular out-going president, he might have been able to do some great things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to tenaciousd
$900Billion Stimulus.
Healthcare.
Financial Regulations Overhaul.
Credit Card Reform.
Tobacco Regulation.
Keep ignoring the facts and pretty soon you too can be a Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 6, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'll add to that list
Obama accomplishments
Signed on October 28, 2009
Hate Crimes Bill
Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
#
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
#
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
#
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
#
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
*
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
*
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 6, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Dude (NC Steve),
This is why I need you blogposting more often.
I keep having to dig into the comments section to get this stuff.
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 6, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Great Post Commenter. Schooling the ignorant is hard work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to EastWest
The vast majority of the things on your list didn't even need Congressional approval and others (like DOMA) were enacted under Clinton.
You also include things that got a lot of Democratic support such as the Patriot Act and NCLB. Unlike Obama, Bush had people in the opposite party who would support some of his initiatives.
You're citing things that can be accomplished solely by the administration. He didn't need Congress to politicize the DOJ, withdraw from Kyoto, refocus the EPA, etc. That falls under presidential power.
Using that yardstick, you can cite an even longer list of things Obama has done in his first year such as unpoliticize the DOJ, tell the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, reengage with the UN and International community, fund stem cell research, fund birth control measures around the world.
Bush didn't get a great deal of what he wanted but people like you think he did because he talked tough and fucked up things so badly.
"If Obama were a leader we'd have a good HCR bill." Tell that to Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Clinton. It's soooooo easy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
January 6, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Obama is claiming that the "Cadillac Plans" tax is good per se, not that it's bad but needed to get 60 votes.
============
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BG46S20091223
"Taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier, but just take money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to -- that's actually a good idea and that helps bend the cost curve," Obama said in an interview with NPR.
============
According to that dubious statement, when an employer buys cheaper insurance and workers have bigger co-pays, it's actually good for the workers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 6, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Eric Jaffa
The health plans in question are just a way for Goldman Sachs to pay its executives an extra 40K a year tax free. They give them one of these plans that impose absolutely no restrictions or cost containment measures whatsoever on the beneficiary or his family--no out of pocket costs, no deductibles, no co-pays, nothing. That's money put into the pockets of rich people tax free. Nothing to keep them from seeking and obtaining totally unnecessary services.
Not taxing them is regressive and, beyond that, it's corrosive to the entire system.
For most of the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill that are on the table, the House version is better, hands down. This one thing, not so much.
If unions are upset because they gave up wage increases to get heath plans that they are scared (mostly needlessly) will meet the defintion of a taxable plan under the Senate bill, the answer is to go back and get the goddamn wage instead of the high-end health plan next go-round.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Instead of just stripping things, why don't we actually put something back in?
A PUBLIC OPTION!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Do you think that Lieberman, Landrieu & Nelson will suddenly vote for a public option once it goes back to the Senate for a vote?
The bill will still be subject to filibuster. Duhhhhh!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
Why do we need them? Bush got his agenda through with 52 seats.
You do realize the super majority is not enshrined in the Constitution, right?
It was put there by the bluebloods to temper the popularly elected house.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 6, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Look, the simple fact of the matter is, we don't have sixty votes. We have 58 Democrats in the caucus, and two independents, one of whom is completely unreliable.
We also have Senate rules, which are passed at the beginning of every Congress. They are arcane. They are asinine, but they also cannot be changed until the next Congress, after 2010, when the Senate will look completely different.
And the 52 of which you so blithely mention is called reconcillation. We're way too far down the rabbit hole to try that now, though it may be a good way to amend HCR in the future. If you want to punch major, major holes in the HCR you want to pass (see: Byrd Amendment) which neither you, I or anyone else (short of the Senate Parlimentarian) can see coming, I say we just pass this thing and get onto jobs, jobs, jobs.
In order to make the change you are suggesting, aka adding the Public Option, you have to change the minds of the Senators FreeRider mentioned. Unless you're Gandalf (or at least Dumbledore), that ain't happening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
January 6, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Aren't you being just a little generous in suggesting that we have 58 Dems? Isn't it, in reality, a little closer to the mid-high 40s?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to stillidealistic
No, I would suggest we have 99 actually. Bernie Sanders is the only true liberal left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 7, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to stillidealistic
You're right about the 40. Mea culpa.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to admiralmpj
My point is, that Bush's Senate seemed to ignore this pesky rule when it needed to.
Maybe its time we did away with it altogether. I mean, that IS in effect what the Republicans did during their reign, correct?
Maybe, since I don't understand this parliamentary sleight of hand, you can show me where it is written in the CONSTITUTION that this "asinine" and "arcane" rule cannot be changed mid-session?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 6, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I agree that it is time to do away with the Senate rule requiring 60 votes.
However, you should argue against the Senate rules that make the Senate dysfunctional, and not against President Obama, who has no real power to change or ignore them.
The Senate rules are the problem not the President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Darrius
If the President had led with courage, rather than selling out to Insurance and Pharma last summer in closed door meetings, the "super" majority would be a moot issue.
But, ultimately it must be scrapped if democracy has any hope of emerging in this country
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yes, because doing that would have made Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman surefire votes for a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 7, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
"Led with courage". What the hell does that mean, exactly? I mean, I've been hearing it from the angry left for the last couple of weeks, but it's an empty phrase.
Tell me what the President should have done. Specifically. Within the legal framework of how Government works to get what you want into HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 8, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to admiralmpj
Pretty simple really...."I will veto any bill that does not contain a public option"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 8, 2010 2:16 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
The crazy thing is Obama did just what Cheney did back in '03 when he met with the big oil companies, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, to write his energy bill.
I mean... COME ON!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
There is no rule that 60 votes is required to pass a bill, but under general parliamentary conventions each member of a deliberative assembly shall be afforded time to speak on an issue. Authorities differ on the matter of how long they should be able to speak, but there is a general principle that members should be allowed to speak at least twice, and generally at considerable length.
The Senate's Rules implement the unlimited version of this; any Senator may make two speeches (of any length) on a particular motion on a particular legislative day.
Another general parliamentary principle is that a deliberative assembly cannot limit its own freedom (by imposing special restrictions on debate that aren't normally there, such as time constraints) or end the debate and vote immediately without a vote of two-thirds.
Since the Senate's rules do not allow for a motion to end debate immediately, the cloture motion was introduced, which allows Senators to essentially request that a 30-hour time limit be applied to the debate that is going on. Originally, this required a vote of two-thirds (as a motion to limit or end debate would in most groups). It was later decreased to three-fifths as a compromise when a nuclear option was threatened.
So, in a certain sense, requiring only three-fifths for cloture is actually more pro-majority, anti-minority than most common sets of parliamentary rules would allow for.
That said, there's a viable argument that parliamentary conventions that are useful in businesses, private organizations, clubs, etc. are not always effective and useful in legislative bodies, and the House has already gone the way of systematically limiting debate in order for legislation to progress smoothly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to Icon
Great! No 60 vote rule. Should be a simple fix then.
Cheerio!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Just a note here. I'm not a Senate parliamentarian, but as far as I know the Senate does not have to reauthorize its rules every other year as the House does.
Rule V indicates that this is the case, so most likely if the Senate formally reauthorizes its own rules it does so purely as a symbolic resolution with no procedural meaning.
Also, the Senate can amend its rules at any time, but Rule XXII (which creates the cloture motion) requires a vote of two-thirds for cloture to be invoked on a motion to amend the rules.
So, barring any nuclear options that overturn existing precedents, the Senate can change its rules at any time, but doing so is more difficult than passing a bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to Icon
Has anybody challenged these rules in the courts? I wonder what "standing" it would take? Couldn't the ACLU pick this up?
After all the parties are private clubs, but the "Legislative Branch" is not. It seems to me these "rules" are not advocated in the Constitution. I realize one branch interpreting the structure of another is a prickly subject, but there must be something that can be done.
Not being a lawyer, I'd welcome some good links explaining why this option has not been exercised.
Here is one I dug up...
http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
The Constitution enables both houses of Congress to establish the rules that govern their procedure, and if there are no rules nothing will get done. The House's rules are much more complicated than the Senate's, but unquestionably more efficient.
As for the matter of whether it's ever been challenged, it happens from time to time that a group (typically the minority party) feels that the procedure was not properly followed. Their caucus in the legislature generally sues the government.
In virtually all cases, the courts refuse to rule, and in the few cases where they have ruled they always sided with the party that prevailed in the legislature itself. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, courts rule on matters of law, and since the rules of legislatures are usually not laws (at least in the US) most courts arguably do not even have jurisdiction to hear cases on matters of procedure.
Secondly, there's a big separation-of-powers problem if the courts start getting into the question of if the legislature's rules are being followed. If a precedent is established that the courts can nullify a passed law because the procedure wasn't followed, it opens thhe door to any number of frivolous and invalid lawsuits alleging improper procedure for a bill certain politicians simply don't like.
If I were a Republican (I'm not) and my state just passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and now there was a precedent that the courts can rule on procedural issues, I can sue the Democrats for denying me my right as a legislator to express my opinion. Courts rule of matters of law, but they won't establish precedents that will make the court system itself unsustainable. Most if not all judges want the bench to be less political than it is, not more.
Thirdly, there's also just the fact that the population elected the majority party to the legislature and thus empowered them to do all of the things the legislature is capable of doing. The courts do not exist to indulge sore losers.
The "nuclear option" has been used before, but there are huge political consequences with mucking with the procedure. The filibuster itself is not unconstitutional; what may be unconstitutional is requiring a vote of three-fifths to invoke cloture.
People sometimes forget with the nuclear option that it wouldn't end the filibuster entirely. The filibuster would still be there unless the Senate were to substantially change, even rewrite its rules. It would just require a simple majority to break the filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Icon
Thanks for your insights! Are you a Constitutional Lawyer? Maybe you can shoot us some links on your analysis?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I'm a parliamentarian, not an attorney. My legal background is pretty strictly limited to the cases and issues associated with parliamentary procedure in the private and public sectors.
By the way, courts are much more likely to rule on matters of procedure in the private sector. If a club doesn't follow its own rules its leaders are legally liable for civil lawsuits from anybody who is harmed by them not following their rlues. They just don't generally do this in government because it creates legal headaches.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
January 6, 2010 9:56 AM
If they're not going to have a PO, they need to make permanent the 85% medical loss ratio minimum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 6, 2010 10:14 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Nothing goofy about that. It would be a crime if they didn't include that in the final bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 6, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
That is already in both bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
peterboy
January 6, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Stroszek
it is not in the house bill AND it is 80% for non-group policies. It should be 90% for both.
you dont need 5% FOR marketing if you have exchanges.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 6, 2010 10:12 AM
Another key part of the House's financing is the employer mandate with an 8 percent payroll tax on employers not providing adequate coverage. This would level the playing field between responsible employers and the Walmarts of the world, while also raising $135 billion vs. the paltry $28 billion generated by the Senate's pathetic provisions. Adopting the House language here could also make it possible to reduce (or ideally help eliminate) the "Cadillac" tax by raising the threshhold and including an automatic adjustment for inflation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
January 6, 2010 10:21 AM
Well, if they're going to scratch the excise tax, they might as well fix the other bugs in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 6, 2010 10:24 AM
Pelosi is smart as hell and a great leader. The excise tax will almost certainly stay in, but she knows which buttons to push to get the things she's actually shooting for.
First rule of parliamentary negotiations: Never negotiate about the thing you actually want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 6, 2010 11:05 AM
I don't pick on Obama too much, but he did make mention many times, during his campaign and after, about rolling back the Bush tax cuts. The Senate Dems are treating that like a third rail. What? They're worried about losing the billionaire vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to chimpale
No. It's a recession. Duhhhh!! You don't raise taxes (or interest rates) during a recession. Even Krugman and Reich say that would be a bad idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 6, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
Wow. That sounds exactly like a GOP talking point.
So, taxing health care plans on workers is a good idea during a recession? But, rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy is a bad idea during a recession?
You do realize that we're talking about a rollback on the top marginal rate to what it was during the Clinton administration, right? And that would still be a lower top marginal tax rate than what it was under Reagan, right? And, the idea that they had in the House was to end the tax cuts for those making at least $250,000.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 6, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to chimpale
Yeah Right! According to the right wingers it is NEVER a good time to make the rich pay for anything ..... but it is always a good idea to let average people keep pulling on their fucking bootstraps till their hands bleed. Over the last decade ALL the gains in wealth from increased productivity have been stolen by the rich with the endless help of republicans and conservative democratic whores.
IN A GOD DAMNED DEMOCRACY WHY THE HELL ISNT ANY ISSUE OF ECONOMIC FAIRNESS EVER EVER EVER DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIZENS ???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gdb
January 6, 2010 11:33 AM
Obama and Senate Dems don't need 60 votes. They need 50 plus Biden and a pair of cahones among the lot of them to break with "Senate Tradition". Pelosi may have several cajones to spare for them.
Unless the Senate filibuster is broken, no real reform is going to occur in the next 8 years. It takes 50 votes plus the VP to break the filibuster parliamentary maneuver by the nuclear option or other similar parliamentary maneuver. It could have/can be done at any time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 12:09 PM
To Pelosi: The excise tax is considerably better health policy. Wage your fight on other issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 6, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Icon
How so?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 6, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to agio
High-premium insurance plans increase health care spending at large (since insurance is a health care expense) but they don't really make people any healthier than many lower-premium plans.
If you view insurance as a scale, after a given point, the amount of additional insurance one may purchase stops providing any real additional benefit. However, unions (and some really risk-adverse rich people) sometimes buy or negotiate for these plans for irrational reasons.
Creating an excise tax on some of these plans will increase the cost of them, which will both decrease the number of people who are willing to buy them and create disincentives for insurers to offer new high-premium plans.
This is why the excise tax is said to 'bend the cost curve'--It stops and to some extent reverses the growth of a segment of the health care industry that provides no real benefit to anyone but the insurance company.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
peterboy
January 6, 2010 12:24 PM
We are calling our representatives and neighbors to tell them to have the HOUSE stand up for its bill.

If we are going to give up the public option, we should get some things for it.


Yes, the good stuff should start in 2013. Forget the impact on the CBO score, or hike the medicare tax on 200k earners to 1.2% and drop the excise tax on good plans.

what else?
We should require insurance companies to spend 90 percent of premium on medical care, pre-existing condition ban for everyone not just kids starting in 2010, the House 2x rating for older insured and, we must have a permanent COBRA extension for workers who lose their jobs.


Particularly important is for the HOUSE to stand up for COBRA extension for the unemployed, which is in the House bill, Section 113. 
We need to help the unemployed keep their insurance until the exchanges start, without forcing them into expensive high-risk pools.
Section 113 of the House bill permits the unemployed, many of whom can’t get individual coverage because of pre-existing conditions, to buy into their old group insurance until the insurance exchanges start in 2013.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
January 6, 2010 12:41 PM
It is so good to know that everyone who posts on this page are all knowing about what good public policy is and how to make good public policy happen. NOT!
Politics is the art of the possible. It is not carving out a position either on the left or in the middle and sticking with without compromise. The fact is that all the great social programs in existence today have been improved on from imperfect original programs.
Social Security did not cover farm workers or domestic help when originally passed. Medicare was not perfect when originally passed.
It does no good for anyone to sit around and whine and whimper about how someone else should have or could have preformed in different ways. The simple fact is that the fruits of that labor are in effect a defense of the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable and that is what we get when we divide up and shoot at one another. Let’s pass what we can on health care reform and then go to work to improve the product.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to LeeJo
"the art of the possible"?
You mean like electing a black man president?
Look, we have listened to you spinmeisters for long enough. Since when has this become the party of "NO WE CAN'T"?
Where is your fighting spirit? You have 59 Democrats in the Senate and you can't manage to even keep the BIGGEST COMPROMISE you made? THE PUBLIC OPTION!
Bush didn't have nearly those numbers and he managed to cram his agenda down this nations throat.
Go back to sleep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Bush crammed privatizing social security down the nation's throats?
Bush crammed the permanent change to the tax code down the nation's throat?
Bush "crammed" the Patriot Act and The Iraq War down the nation's throat with 90 votes in the Senate. Some cramming.
Stop making shit up! And go back to sleep!
FYI, 59 isn't 60, kimosabe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
Why do we need 60? Bush got his agenda through with 52 seats.
You do realize the super majority is not enshrined in the Constitution, right?
It was put there by the bluebloods to temper the popularly elected house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 6, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Loud sigh. Bush got his tax cutting agenda passed through reconciliation. Now, that agenda is expiring because laws passed under reconciliation rules have to sunset after ten years. Can you honestly not see any lesson a reasonable person might draw from that fact that's relevant to what they're doing in health care reform?
Obama does not have the power to make the Senate change its rules. He does not have the constitutional power and, given the institutional imperatives in question, he does not have the soft power. Any attempt by the executive to tell the Senate to change its rules would backfire the same way FDR's court packing plan backfired.
The filibuster has to go. But no one but the Senators can make it happen.
Of course, if you'd rather keep the discussion at the level of hurling childish epithets, there are lots of folks around here who can play that too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Long yaaaawn....
Tell me this, Who is the leader of the "Democratic" Party right now?
And yes, it is the Senate who must change its "rules". I'm not the one advocating for passage of this bill at any cost as you folks seem to be.
I want this bill SCRAPPED until it can be fixed. If they want to pass this bill with NO MANDATE I might go for it.
Because at least I won't be fined for choosing not to give my money to the same corporations that bankrupted this country.
As long as this bill forces us to do business with FOR-PROFIT institutions, I will be vehemently against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 6, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Obama needs to get to a microphone and say to the millions and millions of people who supported him that now feel completely screwed that he is very very disappointed that the 60 vote rule in the Senate has gotten in the way of doing the decent and fair things on healthcare. Obama is sinking like a rock because the people who worked their asses off for him are now feeling betrayed because some inside the game rules have called the game for the corporate team and we can all just go home and eat shit.
AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!
THE HOUSE OF LORDS HAS SPOKEN!
LET THEM EAT CAKE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to hollywood
Its gonna be ugly in November, if he doesn't actually lead here, rather than practicing the same old backroom politics.
He has got to funnel more money to Federal jobs programs and get a "public option" passed.
Its all in the FDR playbook. He has the advantage of 20/20 sight here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
1. Bush didn't get his agenda through with 52 votes. He got PARTS of his agenda through with a vote of votes from Democrats. He didn't get his wish on social security or permanent tax cuts.
2. Instead of trying to to convince me that the Supermajority isn't in the constitution, perhaps you should spend your time trying to convince the US Senate to do away with the filibuster. Right now, that's how things work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
Precisely, I have said all along these ReDemlicans are the problem. I advocate for a multi-party system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 6, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
If you add up the Bush tax cuts plus the interest paid on them (since it is all money borrowed from the Chinese) then Bush got about 2 Trillion dollars worth of money sucked out of the pockets of everyone else for his rich friends. I would say the super rich consider that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
So, in essence, you are saying Democraps are NOT much different from the Republiturds.
I mean, since as you say, they voted for everything Bush asked for. Did I get that right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 6, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
FYI, I never supported the War in Iraq or the Patriot Act or NCLB or the Bush Tax Cuts but there were a LOT of Democrats who did, and not all of them were in Congress.
The Democrats voted with Bush on PARTS of his agenda the same way Republicans voted with FDR & LBJ on Civil Rights, Social Security, Medicare and Voting Rights. If that makes them Democraps to you, then cool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 6, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yeah Bill Clinton - who sold us down the river on Glass Stegal and Nafta. And because he couldn't keep it in his pants, he cost us the 2000 election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Don't forget Gramm, Leach, Bliley. You know who his point man was on that one?
....Larry Summers!
Obama's right hand man on the economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 6, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to lousgirl84
he couldn't keep it in his pants
I am second to no one in loathing fat Bill for the (Reagan!) Republican he really was, but Gore fucked us (& himself) by being a stinkin' Yahwist prude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 6, 2010 3:43 PM
You Democraps haven't learned how to play hardball yet? I guess that's because you never intended to "CHANGE" anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 6, 2010 9:16 PM
Why are we utterly innocent of meta-analysis as we watch the dance unfold?
People go so far as to opine that Rahm and Prez are a pair of naive punks who had no idea that Backstabber Joe and DINO Ben might pull some shit.
No idea that once you get to 59, #60 has your balls in a jar.
And everyone knows that Rahm will give you his balls just for a smile and pleasant reach-around.
Maybe, maybe not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?