JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 20, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ever since Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley, conservatives, with very few exceptions, have been convinced that health care reform is dead. Friday's Charles Krauthammer column offers a good example of the prevailing sentiment: "Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health-care reform -- lie in ruins."
Some of us realized all along that there was no rational reason that the Massachusetts election had to kill health care reform. Fundamentally, the main barrier -- getting sixty votes in the Senate -- had already been crossed. The remaining obstacles are puny. All the Democrats needed to do was have the House pass the Senate bill. If they insisted on changes, most of those could easily be made through reconciliation, which only requires a majority vote in the Senate. Most conservatives paid no attention to this basic reality, though they did indulge in some gloating mockery of those of us who pointed it out. (I've "gone off the deep end." "It is all rather pathetic." Etc.)
But the mustache-twirling bonhomie has started to give way to the realization that the legislative door to health care reform is wide open, and Democrats simply need to walk through it. By no means is it clear that they'll succeed. But I've been waiting for conservatives, filled with hubris at having swept liberalism into the dustbin of history, to wake up to the fact that health care reform is very far from dead, and start to freak out.
Friday's New York Times report that Obama plans to propose a bill on Monday signaled the start of the freakout. Former Bush administration aide Yuval Levin writes:
The apparent decision to push Obamacare through reconciliation gives new meaning to the term political suicide. It will almost certainly fail, for one thing. And it will persuade rank and file Democrats in Congress that their leaders have lost their minds, and so will badly divide the Democratic caucus and make for a very difficult year to come for them.
Brian Darling at Red State speculates that the Democrats will fire or overrule the parliamentarian in order to pass their plan through reconciliation. Republicans actually did fire the parliamentarian in 2001, after he complicated their plans to push tax cuts through reconciliation, but this caused virtually no outcry. But Democrats aren't going to need to do so. The paranoia stems in part from a failure to understand the technicalities of what's going on here -- liberal policy wonks have been following this closely for the last month, but hardly anybody else has. There was some discussion last year of using reconciliation to pass the entire health care bill and avoid the filibuster. This ran into technical difficulties -- reconciliation can only be used for measures that principally effect revenues or outlays. So instead the Democrats passed a health care bill through the Senate using regular order.
Now, of course, the problem is that they can't mesh the Senate bill with the House bill using regular order, because Republicans will filibuster it. But most of the points of negotiation between House and Senate concern taxes and spending -- exactly the kinds of things that reconciliation is designed for. So it's fairly easy to just have the House pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation to eliminate the Nebraska Medicaid subsidy and change the mix of taxes that pay for new coverage. Indeed, this process is probably easier than getting another 60 votes in the Senate would have been even if Martha Coakley had won.
You can imagine how this feels to conservatives. They've already run off the field, sprayed themselves with champagne and taunted the losing team's fans. And now the other team is saying the game is still on and they have a good chance to win. There may be nothing wrong at all with the process, but it's certainly going to feel like some kind of crime to the right-wing. The Democrats may not win, but I'm pretty sure they're going to try. The conservative freakout is going to be something to behold.
15 comments
Kind of like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjYxBx2Z7-8
- rhubarbs
February 20, 2010 at 2:31pm
I am praying that the Democrats just gather themselves and walk through that door that is just standing there open. As the Republicans and conservatives freak, all the Democrats need to do is figure out every popular "job creation" scheme they can thing of, with the emphasis on "popular," regardless of what they think of it as policy either in the short-term or the long-term, and make the Republicans filibuster it by actively debating until they are blue. Either the bill will pass, or the Democrats can lambaste the Republicans from here to November for stabbing the American people in the back (historical analogy intended). For god's sake, there can be no policy without effective politics. It is time for the Dems to get over their policy wonkishness and just concentrate on doing whatever is popular for the next eight months. Then they can go back to policy.
- roidubouloi
February 20, 2010 at 3:07pm
rhubarbs, I would be very interested in your thoughts over on the "Republicans Run from Ideas" thread about how an "ordinary" party can cope with an ideological movement such as you describe having captured the Republican party.
- roidubouloi
February 20, 2010 at 3:09pm
Jon: why is it that we keep using the esoteric term "reconciliation" instead of calling it something like "majority vote"? Since the Republicans are going to yell about the alleged subervion of the democratic process, shouldn't we be taking every opportunity to point out that all we want is for the will of the majority to prevail?
- hsny
February 20, 2010 at 3:24pm
"Wide open" seems a bit of a stretch. I'm not so sure that "it's fairly easy to just have the House pass the Senate bill." The House passed its own bill 220-215 and has since lost 3 votes. That bill only squeezed through because the Stupak Amendment brought a few blue dogs aboard. Passing the Senate bill means abjuring the Stupak Amendment. Perhaps the more conservative nature of the Senate bill will add a few more blue dogs -- if the public option boom doesn't gather too much steam. I hope, I pray...but isn't this a camel through th eye of a needle?
- adsprung
February 21, 2010 at 10:35am
I hope the Dems do screw themselves up to try to pass it. But I am seriously concerned about the possible backlash if it passes with teabaggers screaming about the Government forcing people to buy insurance. I fear their ability to stir up mischief and for this to be something that energizes their (looney) base.
- jayfram
February 21, 2010 at 5:22pm
Liberals are parasites who, instead of paying their own way, rob Peter to pay Paul and skim a lot for themselves along the way. They have earned the contempt of the majority of Americans who have the self-respect to want to pay their own way.
- bulbman1066
February 22, 2010 at 2:28am
Bulbman, if you're going to troll, at least come up with new metaphors. You might also want to consider taking your medication again.
- bcbaird
February 22, 2010 at 7:47am
What's wrong with robbing Peter to pay Paul? I like Paul. Paul was a friend of mine. And, bulbman, you're no Paul.
- roidubouloi
February 22, 2010 at 8:11am
For all those out-of-work, underemployed or retired, red-meat, red state conservative 'Merikans that are getting social security, disability, medicare and unemployment benefits that rue the day about how big gubmint and taxes are ruining America, I suggest they forfeit all aspects of government that they benefit from. No more calling 911 for any emergencies, no using the interstate highways for you, no flying (FAA controls the air paths), no buying gasoline or using electricity (those are gubmint subsidized industries), no buying any food product that includes corn or high-fructose corn syrup (all heavily government subsidized), don't buy California lettuce (it uses Federally subsidized water to grow it), don't go to a state university that accepts Federal grant dollars for science and medical research, stop using that Social Security check to pay for your rent, don't use Medicare to cover your hospital stay or for substance abuse counseling due to being depressed about how much your life sucks in the socialist-infected, pinko-commie, PC-gay-agenda run America. Give up all that stuff and we can talk about how you're doing as a self-supported individual paragon of freedom, loving America.
- singlspeed
February 22, 2010 at 12:12pm
"Liberals are parasites who, instead of paying their own way, rob Peter to pay Paul and skim a lot for themselves along the way." Sounds like a wonderful description of Wall Street in the Bush years.
- ironyroad
February 22, 2010 at 12:36pm
Conservatives want to enslave red blooded hard working Americans by eliminating every protection they have. Every Conservative is anti-minority, anti-women, anti-child bloodsucker. There bulbman, I can talk just as stupidly as you.
- blackton
February 22, 2010 at 2:44pm
Why, blackton. I thought that was quite eloquent.
- roidubouloi
February 22, 2010 at 3:20pm
You mean kind of like this guy, singlespeed? http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm FYI, he lost his lawsuit against the FAA in 2006 and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in 2007.
- wildboy
February 22, 2010 at 3:59pm
Wildboy, That's a funny story. I have had the misfortune of having to go through extra check-in procedures flying out of Denver the last few times. Specifically on United. It ends up resulting in them calling TSA to read my ID information to some yahoo that confirms I'm a red-blooded American. I can agree with the guy about not having to have an ID for everything. Hell, I think it's pretty useless in confirming a person's real identity. It's one of psychological restraint in that the general public "thinks" they're being protected if everyone gets ID'd. I find it quite ironic that the guy would prefer a more thorough personal search of his person than show an ID because of privacy issues. I'd say 90% of people would prefer the opposite. Would I consent to a full-body cavity search or show my ID? I'd prefer to show my ID. Hell, I'm sure the person checking my boarding pass would rather see my ID than give me the full-monty pat down. As the saying goes..."Locks don't stop a thief, locks just keep honest people honest."
- singlspeed
February 22, 2010 at 5:50pm