Via Memeorandum Politico has the text of an amendment introduced by Senator Tom Coburn as part of the GOP strategy to force Democrats to make some awful votes (in an election year) just to avoid sending the health care bill back to the House for another vote. Senator Coburn gets serious props for the creativity put into this amendment:
No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs. (Note: the creation of exchanges could allow sex offenders to receive taxpayer-funded Viagra and other ED drugs unless Congress expressly prohibits this action – see additional background attached)
Watching Democrats vote against a ban on coverage of erectile dysfunction prescription drugs for rapists might be just the group therapy we need while we wait for the Supreme Court challenges to begin. I have to applaud the inclusion of a provision to prohibit fraudulent prescriptions being written by dead providers to dead patients. Lovely ads those will make this year when Senator Blanche Lincoln casts her vote against this masterful amendment.
Allahpundit makes an excellent point as he explains what's in store for Democrats:
So anything the GOP proposes — anything — they’re basically bound to vote no on. And Coburn knows it. One tasty shinola sandwich, coming up! Although I’m confused: If, as the left has convinced itself, ObamaCare is pure win for them politically (see, e.g., today’s ridiculously overhyped Gallup poll), what’s the aversion to another House vote? In fact, why not ping-pong the bill back and forth between the chambers for another month, loading it up with ever more crowd-pleasing amendments? It’s time to own the glorious political victory that looms in November, liberals.
Democrats should relish the opportunity to cast another vote for the still wildly unpopular health care bill they dare the GOP to make an issue of in the midterm elections. Can we play poker with these liberals sometime? How long before we see a Hitler finds out Harry Reid supports Viagra for Rapists parody? The over/under for the “Why does Harry Reid want to give rapists erections”? video is two days after this vote. I'd expect the Hitler parody to hit about the same time.
Senate Republicans are plotting to stop this health care fiasco first in the House while preparing for the reconciliation vote in the Senate as well, should it come to that. The most important vote to stop, however, is the vote currently scheduled for Sunday:
“Our initial goal is to stop the bill in the House,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “Part of convincing House members to vote for the Senate bill is that it can be fixed by reconciliation, and I think that is a highly questionable proposition.”
It’s a pre-emptive strike meant to scare jittery House Democrats into withholding their support from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who needs 216 votes to pass the Senate bill and a companion measure that fixes unpopular elements of the bill. If she falls short, comprehensive health care reform dies.
Senate Republicans will advance their campaign Thursday with floor speeches detailing why a provision to delay the “Cadillac tax” — a must-have for House liberals in the companion bill — could fall victim to the chamber’s parliamentary rules.
Heaven knows the Democrats must do all in their power to please their union cronies. Targeting the Cadillac tax is thus a key provision to be targeted, though there are definitely others. There are other ways to telegraph to nervous Dems, who have made it clear they want to take as few painful votes as possible, they might not be done voting this Sunday. It is rare for a reconciliation vote to make it through without amendments. Republicans have a slew of amendments in store and should just one make it through, Democrats will need to vote again in the House.
That's not all, Senate Republicans took to the microphone to telegraph a few more warnings today as well. Senator Tom Coburn warns vulnerable Dems considering switching their no vote from the fall to a yes, "sell your vote, and we will publish it." Coburn draws a chuckle from his contingent when he warns that anyone in the House taking a dive for health care, their fabulous new job awaiting them as reward might just be hung up in the confirmation process. Wouldn't that be sad? Anyone who would sell out their constituents for a failed president on the promise of a glam job, deserves to wait at the back of the line behind all those who have lost their jobs while this administration focused on health care, health care, health care.
Paul Ryan's opening statement from the today's reconciliation markup session. This is 8 minutes of Ryan laying it all on the line as we've come to expect from him in this debate. Ryan notes there is one man who necessitated the process begun today and that man was Scott Brown. Without his election the Democrats had two choices, set the reset button and begin again or continue on their partisan path throwing caution and the Constitution to the wind. In short, Ryan declares the Democrats can't pass health care the "normal" way so they chose to go the "Washington Way."
One thing you will notice if you watch, there is a real buffoon seated behind Ryan with a bandaid smack in the center of his forehead. I have no idea who this was but his face making had all the charm of an out of control two-year old in need of a time out. The person operating the camera had the sense to switch the angle after two minutes of this stupidity. Anyone know who that might be? Regardless, Ryan's message is powerful. I am awfully glad he is on our side.
The House released the reconciliation bill tonight with little fanfare. Before you rush off to read the 2300 page tome be forewarned the bill is not likely to be the actual reconciliation bill. It is merely a shell. Ezra Klein, chief cheerleader for all things ObamaCare at The Washington Post explains, this is just like an artist painting over an old canvas. It all sounds so perfectly charming and harmless that way doesn't it? Here is the nitty gritty:
Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.
"They don't have the votes right now, but they're creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want," Ryan said.
What was released, therefore, is the phantom bill that will have the language stripped to be replaced with whatever the heck the Democrats feel like putting in there. They could also leave a few things in there like the public option that causes a fevah in the left at mere mention of the words. The Democrats have added a little bonus though, the plan to nationalize the student loan industry, despite the inevitable job losses that would follow, to make voting for ObamaCare a bit more palatable for those who might choke on their vote.
Paul Ryan issued a detailed evaluation of the numerous hurdles facing Democrats in choosing to go the reconciliation route. He also wrote a great op-ed for The Washington Post outlining what legitimate reform should and could look like if Democrats were not so hell-bent on passing their fiscal disaster on a strictly partisan basis. In addition to the procedural hurdles, there is great risk of constitutional challenges that appear to be well founded. Michael McConnell, professor and director of Stamford's Constitutional Law Center writes:
The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."
These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal." These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.
While we may take some comfort that there are reasonable grounds on which to challenge this blatant power grab by the Democrats, it would be far better if this never makes its way into law. While the Democratic leadership attempts to hold their persuadable members in Washington so they will not have an opportunity to hear from their constituents, they can't stop the constituents from coming to Washington.
Bring a pitchfork, well maybe not. In all honesty, I think it is possible this will be the law of the land by this time next week unless we act. There is still time time to make our voices heard.
Like so many B Movie Monsters, declaring health care dead can be a tricky thing. When, by all counts, the bill was on its' ninth life and on life support, Pelosi's declaration she did not have the votes seemed a certain fatal blow. Still, we've witnessed the monster open a gruesome eye and proceed to unleash more terror in the villages. Keep this in mind when following the latest blows to ObamaCare.
The first is largely a public relations blow, but still a blow nonetheless. Who knew President Obama had a cousin who is a practicing physician? Who knew he opposes ObamaCare? Compelled by the never ending health care push, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, second cousin to Barack Obama, finally made his opposition public. Here are few choice excerpts but, by all means, read the rest:
The justification for Obamacare has been to control costs, but the problem is there is little in Obamacare that will do that. Instead, there are provisions that will ration care and artificially set price. This is a confusion of costs and price.
Then there is this choice morsel:
Between Barack and a hard place
I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.
I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.
I have long felt this health care debate would have fallen apart long before this, long before the guy with the truck even, had the Obama administration not been shrewd enough to secure the support and subsequent silence of the health care industry. While some have expressed serious concerns over aspects of the plan, they have generally flown under the radar. Had they not, the already skeptical public would have been unnerved to a greater degree than has been expressed thus far. The support, superficial or sincere, of the health care industry has given at least some credibility to the administrations efforts thus far. For this reason, the editorial penned by a member of Obama's own family opposing the reform is stunning to say the least.
The second is potentially a much more serious blow. In any other world this would be fatal but with this Congress and this administration, such limitations seem not to apply. "This is their do or die moment," according to Paul Ryan so it's "game on" despite the fact the Senate Parliamentarian has declared the Senate bill must be signed into law before any reconciliation games begin, if they ever do:
Regardless of how bad a reconciliation package looks, Ryan says it is the passage of the Senate bill in the House that troubles him the most. “The Senate parliamentarian made it clear today,” he says. “The Senate bill has to become law before reconciliation can be taken up in the Senate. Knowing this, the Democrats are doing whatever they can to convince House members to walk the plank. But let’s be very clear: If the Senate bill passes in the House, it’s not just some setup for reconciliation — it’s a huge, new federal entitlement that’ll be signed into law.”
“To get that, they need to make promises to members about what’ll come next, so look for them to thread the needle on policy changes and abortion in the budget and rules committees,” Ryan says. “Reconciliation is a distraction for the Democratic leadership — something to talk about with members while keeping their eye on the main prize, which is passing the Senate bill.”
This puts passage of the House bill in jeopardy, particularly because the Stupak contingent have all but sworn they would not vote for the Senate bill without the guarantee of a fix for abortion language in the Senate bill they find objectionable. Early in the day it looked as though House leadership would attempt to gain the 216 votes needed for passage without seeking to find a strategy to secure the votes of the Stupak group. The news of the Parliamentarian's decision, however, raises the potential that Stupak had already decided at least he could not support the intended path to passing legislation. The following interview with Greta Van Sustern makes clear Stupak has severe doubts there will be a fix, whether by reconciliation or a magic wand, to the Senate bill once passed:
What becomes rather clear in the interview, there is a good deal of dysfunction amongst the Democrats about passing this bill. The timelines, growing distrust between the chambers and genuine fears members of the House will be fed in sacrifice to appease the great government health care gods all appear to be weighing against the likelihood of passage. Michelle Bachmann was interviewed on Hannity's radio program earlier today and stated the Democrats were at each others throats. Nevertheless, the Obama administration and Democratic leadership will not be deterred.
Despite the fact that everyday brings at least another potential no vote to the surface, we must remember we've seen this all before. When no one could believe they would stay in session in the Senate to pass the unpopular bill on Christmas Eve, the odds were defied and the bill passed. If there is a will there is a way with this Congress and we can say without absolute certainty there is a will. Astonishing though it might be, the progressives are actually still looking for ways they can add on the public option. Don't look now, Glenn Close just opened an eye from the bathtub. The health care "Fatal Attraction" continues.
Darn that Al Gore and his internet. Dems sure have said a lot of damning things about reconciliation that miraculously, through the magic of the internet, tend to resurface just in time to bite them on their backsides. This is one of those videos I am sure Democrats are likely to regret. Senator Byrd will likely issue some kind of clarifying statement reminding us they aren't really using reconciliation to pass health care because the bill already passed on Christmas Eve without it.
Meanwhile, Hill Buzz is wondering if we can demand proof of life on the old Byrd yet. Maybe we can get the same folks who analyze Osama's tapes to take a look at Byrd's statements, writings, etc., to prove they are coming from him. Like Osama, we're certain Byrd is still alive. A certain Billy Joel song reminds us why. Still, it would be nice to know if Byrd is reasonably functional these days and lucid enough to cast a vote. One thing is for certain, it is most definitely Senator Byrd bragging in the following video that he single-handedly stopped President Clinton from using reconciliation to pass his health care travesty.
Jonathan Chait went on something of a rant directed at Mike Allen of Politico because he just isn't smart enough or something to get that the Dems are not really using reconciliation (the process that must not be named) to pass health care. Senator Kent Conrad explains why reconciliation is a figment of our imaginations:
Reconciliation is not being considered for passing comprehensive health-care reform. Major health-care reform legislation passed the Senate without reconciliation on Christmas Eve. If the House now passes that legislation, it can go immediately to President Obama's desk to be signed into law. What the president and others have suggested is that, after the House acts, reconciliation could then be used to pass a much smaller "fixer" bill to allow for modifications to the comprehensive bill that will have passed under regular order.
Conrad is correct, the health care reform passed on Christmas Eve without reconciliation. That, of course, was before a guy with a truck took Ted Kennedy's seat. They weren't done on Christmas Eve, if they were, the bill would have been rushed to Obama's desk long before this. Byron York explains the "normal" procedure legislation would have taken from there:
Now, if you did in fact ask a kid who just took a civics class, she -- could be he! -- might explain that the House and Senate pass bills, and if there are differences between them, the bills usually go to a House/Senate conference committee, where lawmakers appointed by the leaders of both parties resolve the differences between the bills and come up with one final bill, which the House and Senate pass and which then goes to the president's desk for signature into law. (Wasn't that the method used for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 1996 welfare reform bill and other legislation often cited by Klein and his allies today?) Isn't that what a kid who just took a civics class would say? Isn't that what we teach in textbooks? And is that what's being practiced in the case of the national health care bills?
The answer to that question is no mainly because that guy with the truck came along and took away the 60th vote they needed to close the deal. Now left with few alternatives and a desperate need to ram health care through at all costs, the House of Representatives must pass the Senate bill because we all know there is no way the House bill gets through the Senate. Clearly Chait understands this because he writes:
Since a bill can't become a law until the exact same bill passes through each chamber of Congress, and Democrats now lack the ability to break a Republican filibuster, they have a different plan. They'll pass the Senate bill through the House. Then, to appease House members who disapprove of certain Senate features, they'll pass a second bill through reconciliation. This will only address budgetary issues -- some taxes will be raised, others lowered, some spending will be rejiggered. In the grand scheme of things, the changes in the reconciliation bill will be minor. As National Review's Rich Lowry has noted, "Only the House vote matters."
Reconciliation is necessary to convince the House the things they dislike about the Senate bill they must now swallow whole will be fixed. The Senate could ultimately shaft the House and skip the reconciliation process altogether. As of right now, however, the House wants the fixes to the bill. Why the rant from Chait? The left doesn't want you or the American people as a whole to focus on reconciliation. They don't even want to say the word because it is *really really* unpopular.
Chait tears into Mike Allen for making the following interpretation of Conrad's latest op-ed
When Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made this confusing argument last week on “Face the Nation,” we weren’t sure he was being deliberately disingenuous. It was, in fact, spin. Now, he’s made the same case in a similarly obtuse WashPost op-ed, “Reconciliation is not an option for health-care reform.” Don’t misread it: It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland argument FOR the use of reconciliation as part of the recipe for getting comprehensive health reform to the president’s desk: “Reconciliation is not being considered for passing comprehensive health-care reform. … What the president and others have suggested is that, after the House acts, reconciliation could then be used to pass a much smaller ‘fixer’ bill to allow for modifications to the comprehensive bill that will have passed under regular order. … If the Senate bill can be further improved with changes made through a small ‘fixer’ reconciliation package, we should do so.”
Allen merely said it was part of the recipe. Isn't it part of the recipe? Well yes, but they don't want us to focus on that remember? In truth Chait is angry that Allen used the words confusing, obtuse and spin when talking about part of the recipe. He wanted to drive home the point this is all very simple when in fact it is not. The Democrats and their liberal cheerleading friends in the media (Chait included) want us to believe this is all perfectly normal. Lately they've come to talk of it as inevitable once again. I guess it must be inevitable because it passed on Christmas Eve without reconciliation. I would suggest they might still need to convince a few of those vulnerable "Blue Dogs" to take a bullet for ObamaCare first. If they do, however, none of the other cheerleaders better call the rest of the recipe confusing or obtuse and they had better not speak its' name.
Note: I will be at a health care rally this morning and have tickets to see Obama give speech number 36 for this "inevitable" health care bill. I will have a full post when I return.
Fox News put together a good two minute primer on reconciliation. It ends on a positive note, suggesting voters have the final say through their wrath or approval in November. This doesn't necessarily mean that anything done between now and then is easily undone however. It should be noted, the possibility remains the House could pass the Senate bill at any point this year including in a lame duck session between the midterms and the opening of a new Congress. The Senate bill remains live until this session closes in December so the possibility exists that the Senate bill could be signed into law at any point this year.
For now the battle is in the House of Representatives and the goal is for the House to pass the Senate bill. Is reconciliation a ruse or a requirement to achieve that goal? Senator Judd Gregg says it's a ruse:
"If you're in the House and you're saying, 'Well, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to get a reconcilation bill,' I would think twice about that," Gregg said. "First because, procedurally, it's going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people."
"In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don't need it," he said.
Senator Lindsey Graham agrees. I believe there is genuine apprehension and distrust in the House they will take another walk off a cliff for ObamaCare only to find the Senate failing to pass the fixes or leaving them stuck with a bill that members of the House truly dislike. Worse still, the House is far more likely to switch hands in this election than the Senate and it will be the House that must stick its neck out first - yet again. While the Fox piece on reconciliation is correct the voters final say in November may be what influences separate members of the House to think twice before voting again for this bill, we don't have to wait until November to make our displeasure known. Reconciliation may be a ruse, only time will tell. The real threat here is the legislation that Obama will surely sign if only he can convince enough of the vulnerable in Congress to take another walk on the plank for his presidential legacy.
Politico reports Senator Tom Harkin has said that reconciliation is a go after emerging from a meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senators Baucus, Dodd, Durbin, Shumer, and Murray also attended the meeting. It seems there are a few big *ifs* attached, however:
The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.
Over to you Nancy Pelosi:
"The first step is with Speaker Pelosi and so I will let her decide what it takes in the House," Durbin said.
Reconciliation "has always been an option. But she has to make her own decision on what it takes to enact this in the House," he added.
Expect Obama to attempt to paint his last ditch effort to pass health care as "bipartisan" as he puts on a show lauding all the terrific new Republican ideas he wants to include. Republicans think Obama's offer has a substance problem a la Snookie from the Jersey shore.
There is only one solution to this "situation," man your battle stations and respond to the Code Red alert. Michelle Malkin has more including this little trip down memory lane courtesy of Naked Emperor News:
Memeorandum bumped this to the top of the page, more to follow
Kent Conrad clarified his comments on the use of reconciliation for passing comprehensive health care which were interpreted to mean reconciliation could play no role in the Democrats' effort to pass legislation by any and all means. Conrad explains how reconciliation could be used to pass health care in an interview with Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:
But Conrad patiently explained that the media interpretation of his comments is wrong. He was merely saying reconciliation would not be used to pass a comprehensive bill, and would only be used to pass the sidecar fix, which he said is workable, depending on what’s in it.
“Reporters don’t seem to be able to get this straight,” Conrad said, hitting the “misreporting” he said is widespread. “Comprehensive health care reform will not work through reconciliation. But if the House passes the Senate bill, and wants certain things improved on, like affordability, the Medicaid provisions, how much of Medicaid expenses are paid for by the Federal government, that is something that could be done through reconciliation.”
“A sidecar would be a good candidate for reconciliation depending on what’s in it,” Conrad said, adding that he didn’t think fixes to abortion or immigration provions would likely work, something that could create obstacles to passing the Senate bill in the House.
Conrad also explained in new detail why he believes that the House must pass the Senate bill first, a view that has been denounced by some critics who want the Senate to pass its fix before the House acts.
The fact that abortion can't be addressed in the sidecar poses problems for Pelsoi. She may find a number of pro-life Democrats who voted for the bill because of the addition of the Stupak amendment switching from yes to no. Consequently, all eyes turn to those who might flip their former no vote to a yes. AP interviewed 10 of the 39 who previously voted no and found the responses noncommittal:
In interviews with the AP, at least 10 of the 39 Democrats [who voted no] — or their spokesmen — either declined to state their positions or said they were undecided about the revised legislation, making them likely targets for intense wooing by Pelosi and Obama. Three of them — Brian Baird of Washington, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Tanner of Tennessee — are not seeking re-election this fall.
The others are Rick Boucher of Virginia, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Frank Kratovil of Maryland, Michael McMahon of New York, Walt Minnick of Idaho, Scott Murphy of New York and Glenn Nye of Virginia. Several lawmakers’ offices did not reply to the AP queries…
Democratic leaders have asked colleagues not to use the term “reconciliation” but instead to refer to the process as “majority vote,” said Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa. They also are frequently using the term “up or down vote.”
I love how Democrats want to pass this all off as a simple up or down vote. There is nothing simple about the process as Conrad's explanation of the path ahead should make clear:
Conrad said that under Congressional rules, for a reconciliation fix to be “scored,” it’s not necessary that it become law, but it is necessary for it to have passed both houses of Congress before getting fixed. “For the scoring to change it has to have passed Congress, and that means both houses,” he said.
“The only thing that works here is the House has to pass the Senate bill,” Conrad continued. “Then the House can initiate a reconciliation measure that would deal with a limited number of issues that score for budget purposes.” After that, the Senate would pass the same reconciliation fix, Conrad explained, because even on the fix itself the House must go first because the lower chamber must initiate “revenue bills.”
Got all that? That's Democratspeak for a simple up or down vote.
H/T: Memeorandum
Senator Lamar Alexander made an appearance on "This Week" with Elizabeth Vargas to discuss the political ramifications of Democrats passing health care via reconciliation. Alexander declared it a Kamikaze mission and explains in the following clip:
I am still astounded, though I shouldn't be I guess, the Democrats are so willing to even consider taking this to reconciliation. Kamikaze is a great word for such a move. Democrats would likely lose power for many many years. It seems they are increasingly desperate to do this though. The big question is how many of the vulnerable Democrats who are sure to be sacrificed to the health care gods before Obama are willing to offer themselves up as human sacrifice. We've seen them do it before though I wouldn't be surprised if they would do it again.
The White House obsession with health care borders on the pathological at this point. A month after Scott Brown won his earthquake victory in Massachusetts, the Obama administration is reportedly writing its' own bill which is then to be passed through reconciliation. Are we to believe they think the American people will suddenly adore this bill if it is passed by what is commonly referred to as "the nuclear option?" They can not let it go. It's nearly impossible to believe they can be so staggeringly ignorant they would pass this bill by the most divisive means possible. Still they persist.
Political analyst Charlie Cook likened this administration's obsession with health care to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Whether you agree or disagree with the analogy, it is stunning to hear a decidely left-leaning but fair analyst discuss the magnitude of the health care failure and its implications for this White House and the Democratic Congress. Cook makes some grim statements on the fate of Democrats in the following clip. Full transcript available at National Journal
I rarely, if ever agree with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell but when he says health care is dead, I am somewhat inclined to believe him.
But since Election Night, he said, Democrats have moved into “full bluff mode.”
“We’re absolutely in full fake cheerleading mode. I think Nancy Pelosi has absolutely no moves left. I think she knows that now. I think Harry Reid knows that. And that’s why they don’t bring it up,” he said. “They had a Senate leadership press conference (Thursday) and it was as if (reporters) were asking about World War I” when they asked about reform.
O’Donnell attributes the theatrics to the need to deal with a liberal base that will go bonkers if Democrats quit on reform. And the cue cards are nothing new. He pointed to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer’s statements during the fall that the Senate would pass the public option even though “he’s smart enough to know they were never going to get it.”
“No one who went on television was free to say anything realistic,” he said.
O'Donnell goes on to point out how "lost" the current group in Congress appears to be compared to those he served with in 1994 when health care reform first crashed and burned. His argument that reconciliation is not an option is completely consistent with everything I have read on the right and a few who have passed through the denial stage on the left:
A reconciliation bill won’t work, O’Donnell said. When people talk about its 51-vote threshold they’re forgetting that is just the final vote. Every day the bill is on the floor it will face 60-vote procedural hurdles. For instance, should Republicans challenge a provision’s inclusion and get a favorable ruling from the parliamentarian, without 60 votes, Democrats will be unable to overturn it – leading to a bill that looks more like Swiss cheese than health reform.
This was just too bizarre a statement, even from Pelosi, to pass up the opportunity to post it. The video is a clip from a Fox News report featuring Carl Cameron discussing the Democrats desperate efforts to keep the hope alive they might pass health care this year. Changes to the bill Pelosi believes she needs to pass the bill in the House while the Senate takes the nuclear reconciliation option would cost an additional $300 billion dollars. As Allahpundit points out, this would take the cost of the bill over the trillion dollar mark using Democrat math which would mean it really costs over $2.5 trillion by any realistic mathematical assessment.
Passing a bill with this price tag in this political environment would require greater courage than a pole vaulter or parachutist could muster. Still, Pelosi and a few others persist with the notion they can make this work, it's either stunningly arrogant or stupid or both. My inclination is not to believe any more of these reports yet reliable sources insist Democrats intend to proceed down this path. Hugh Hewitt sums up the arrogance of such a move in his intro to the transcript of his interview with Jon Kyl:
Prior to Massachusetts Obamacare was just a terrible bill with disastrous consequences for the American health care system, especially for seniors.
If passed after Massachusetts, Obamacare would become the single most contemptuous act by a Congress towards voters in American history.
Republicans could make passage of such a bill a nightmare by adding endless amendments Democrats would be forced to vote on in this perilous political year. Perhaps that is the Democrats purpose here. Knowing that Republicans would make passage so difficult, Democrats would then blame Republicans for being obstructionists while playing up the amount of time spent on amendments when they could have been working on jobs. Democrats, of course ignore the message voters want the current bill dropped and prefer Congress to focus on jobs and the economy instead.
Democrats seem desperate to commit political suicide with health care. Now they are going to parachute and pole vault their way over the hurdles before them. Good luck with that strategy:
Unless Blanche Lincoln has more up her sleeve, I guess we can assume this is her big announcement:
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) will oppose Dem efforts to move health care legislation through Congress using budget reconciliation, hurting Dems' chances for using the controversial parliamentary maneuver to pass a reform bill.
"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," Lincoln said in a statement on Tuesday. "I have successfully fought for transparency throughout Senate deliberations on health care, and I will continue to do so."
"I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans. We have worked too long and too hard on this reform effort - we need to get it right," she said.
I have to have a little chuckle at her claim she successfully fought for transparency, did she do that on CSPAN? I might have missed that. Lincoln's vote for the Senate health care bill has her in trouble with her fellow Arkansans, a point not lost on the powers that be in the DSCC who have been rumored to be pressuring her to retire. Earlier today she announced she had over $5 million on hand in her campaign coffers. Lincoln appears to be posturing here hoping to convince her constituents she gets the message while sending a message to Democrats they won't be getting rid of her that easily.
Lincoln's announcement confirms rumors Democrats continue to pursue alternate paths to health care legislation despite a clear message from voters in Massachusetts to put the brakes on. If Democrats were to attempt reconciliation the bill would either need to be pared down to strictly budgets items such as tax increases or medicaid cuts in order to bypass the need for 60 votes. This would leave the bill finally passed full of holes that would fail to meet the intended purpose of the legislation. There is no budgetary effect to a health insurance mandate, for example, which would be challenged endlessly as inappropriate for inclusion in a budgetary procedure.
If Democrats were able to trim down the bill only to its budgetary elements, Lincoln's vote would not be necessary since the procedure requires only 51 votes. Perhaps she is signaling the abandonment of the reform by other key moderates such as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson. Still, voters in their home states are already well aware their Senators voted for the unpopular reform. Much of this appears to be political theater though we should give some kudos for the transparency of their efforts. Exit stage right...
Daniel Foster at The Corner of NRO online reports Pelosi may have yet another trick up her sleeves for health care; color me shocked. While many, including me, declared health care DOA after Speaker Pelosi said she didn't have the votes, it appears we may have underestimated the sheer determination of Democrats to commit hara kiri by health care. Desperate Democrats are working the votes to drum up support for passage of the Senate bill in total in the House with agreements to undo portions House members find distasteful:
Democratic staffers are telling Newsweek that though Pelosi is still “way short” of the 218 votes it would take to pass the Senate bill—with issues such as the Cadillac Tax and Cornhusker Kickback serving as sticking points—that equation could soon change. Democrats are “working the phones furiously to talk up the idea of the Senate promising to retroactively unravel several distasteful components.”
I am pretty sure the voters in Massachusetts hadn't intended to send a man to Washington who campaigned on his being the 41st vote against dishonest efforts to ram health care through at all costs only to sit back and nod in approval once Madame Speaker finds an alternate strategy to ram it through anyway. Obviously this makes absolutely no difference as Pelosi is arguing this can be done in the House with passage in the Senate requiring 51 votes via reconciliation:
If House Democrats make the good-faith deal, Pelosi is arguing that the Senate promise would be easy to keep. Reconciliation votes require only a 51-vote majority. Or even 50, in which case Vice President Biden could break the tie.
This aide says that leadership considers reconciliation, with the House conditioning its support on promised fixes in the Senate, as the much more strategic route than breaking the package into parts, which isn’t ideal because all of the parts are interlocking. Asked what the timetable would be for that, this aide says weeks, not months.
This would explain the Easter miracle strategy highlighted in my last post. Foster suggests this is a viable strategy though it ignores the politics. It also ignores the promise of Obama and the Democrats they wouldn't attempt the possibility of ramming a bill through before Scott Brown was seated. Then again, we should all know the value of an Obama promise at this point.
I have absolutely no doubt that Pelosi et al, will examine each and every possibility by which they can put this disastrous bill through against the will of the people. They have shown utter contempt and disregard for the people they purport to serve every day they have met since Obama took office and then some. If Pelosi can whip the votes after the clear message sent by voters last week no seat is safe, anyone who votes for her bill should update their resume immediately.
In my own district, Representative Patrick Murphy (D, PA8) has nine, yes nine, Republicans hoping to get the nomination to oppose him. On Saturday Mike Fitzpatrick announced he would seek a rematch against the man who won the seat in 2006 when the tide of populist anger turned against Republicans. Though I have no doubt Murphy would vote exactly as Pelosi told him to, as he has in nearly every other vote since he took office, he would cast this vote with the certain knowledge one of the nine would take his seat after November. Who would come to save him, Obama? This is only one district, a relatively safe one for what that is worth, and there are nine qualified opponents waiting to challenge him for it. Surely those nine smell something in the air even if Murphy and Pelosi can not.
Pelosi and the desperate Democrats should stop to consider the longer they drag this health care debacle out, the greater uncertainty grows. Uncertainty is killing any potential for job growth. This is a message sent repeatedly to an administration that chooses to hear only what it wants. Democrats pursue this path at their peril, which would be fine, if only politics were at issue. There are families who are hurting, people who are desperate to get back to work, yet Democrats see only their opportunity to pass their hated health care agenda slipping through their fingers. These are people not worthy to lead this country, November can't come soon enough.
When jamming it through with 60 votes didn't work out, Democrats consider jamming it through with 50 via Reconciliation. Were they listening at all this week? It doesn't seem like it. Naked Emperor has a composite of Democrats opining on the reconciliation path to universal health care destruction. Reconciliation will leave Democrats with a bill that is more swiss cheese than anything and invites the argument that voters need to make sure Republicans have 50 votes in the Senate come November so they can undo it. Is that what they want? It sure seems like it.
