Earlier today, I wrote about “sidecar reconciliation” and the difficulty of passing it, and concluded, in light of Lawrence O’Donnell’s remarks on MSNBC about parliamentary maneuvers, encountered a number of times each day, still needing 60 votes to overcome them, that Republicans can block HCR through reconciliation if they want to. I said, further, that if they do that, the nuclear option would be the only way for the Democrats to pass a positive Main Street agenda that could save them from blood baths in 2010 and 2012.
I’ve thought a little bit more about this since the first post. I now think that reconciliation could still work, if Harry Reid is willing to warn Senators that if they bring reconciliation business to a halt to block an up or down vote, then he would introduce the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster altogether.
If he did this, I think Senators opposing the legislation would walk back from the brink and not risk losing the filibuster, even if the reconciliation bill contained a very strong public option. In other words I think a combination of a reconciliation and nuclear option strategy would work to pass a better health care reform than is being considered now.
Having said that, I also want to propose that progressives not support sidecar reconciliation, at all, but, instead go back further, and use the strategy I outlined in this earlier post, and push for passing HR 676, enhanced Medicare for All, under reconciliation. This will be met by extreme opposition, of course, and will be impossible to pass. Nevertheless, it is better to negotiate a compromise downgrading HR 676, as outlined in my earlier post, than it is to negotiate an upgrade to the Senate’s current terrible bill.
As long as reconciliation will be used anyway, Progressives, and even Harry Reid, keeping the coming electoral blood bath in mind, need to get tough and fight for legislation that the public will definitely like, and the health insurance and Pharma industries will hate. That is the way to begin to persuade people that real Democrats are back, and that Wall Street no longer controls them.
After health care reform, they will have to tackle a jobs program, financial system reform, and, I think revisit Credit Card reform by imposing a very quickly implemented ceiling on credit card interest rates, prohibiting card companies from charging more than 6 points above the interest rates that they themselves are subject to by the Federal Reserve. All these things need to happen before the election if Democrats expect to avert a Republican sweep. And they will have to be as politically ruthless as the Republican are, if they’re going to save themselves.
(Also posted at the Alllifeisproblem solving blog and Correntewire.comwhere there may be more comments)



33 Comments




lets,
You are great.
But working within the system is a losing proposition.
Please join me and a few other bomb throwers.
We need a revolution.
That sounds like a strategy that might actually win some votes…
Current strategy: multi-million dollar ad campaigns to convince people that shit sandwiches are tasty and nutritious.
New strategy: Ham and swiss on rye, salad, milk.
Viva la reconciliation! BTW, have you looked at Adam Green’s Research 2000 survey on the MA senate results? I think the DLCers, including Obama, may have a difficult decision ahead: How much can they piss off their benefactors, without loosing control of the government? In light of the MA results, if they don’t turn around big, I think we can stick a fork in them. Just how they use reconciliation will probably determine their fate. As usual, I enjoy your whimsical stroll through the carnage of Democratic legislative “strategy.”
Thanks Art45, but I’ll work in anyway that offers a chance to make things better. If it’s inside the system, I’ll do that. If it’s outside I’ll do that.
Absolutely: It’s not rocket science. Problem is a lot of people from Harvard seem to have forgotten how to do simple, direct, and effective.
Thanks cb, I appreciate your appreciation of “my whimsical strolls.”
Let’s, all your ruminations and proposals are good ones and would be viable if we were working with a body of earnest political scientists. But we are not. We have only this clot of short-sighted, self interested hacks who, generally speaking, haven’t got enough smarts to balance a checkbook.
Asking them to do all the handstands and plate spinning that reconciliation requires, all the while enduring an avalanche of Pharma and AHIP adverts, coming at the end of 1 whole year of HCR toil that has produced burnout in both legislators and the public, and now with the sharp siren of Massachusetts searing Democratic eardrums- is beyond the range of these secon-classers. They won’t do it.
And hoping that Harry Reid, the poster boy for erectile timidity, will un-silo the Nuclear Option in a high stakes game to obtain legislation that he, and his puppeteers, don’t want in the 1st place . . . well, how much money would you bet on that likelihood?
We will wake up one morning, soon, to find that health care reform has been rolled up, placed in a bottle, and sent to sea. 1994 Redux.
When I 1st came to FDL back in April I thought most of these things would play out pretty much as they have. But all the highly informed and energetic people gave me hope that this time my pessimism might be misplaced. Well, I’m tired of being right. I’m going to focus my energies on escaping this country. This nation held in bondage and hostage to a steadily decreasing number of economic Royalists who wield ever increasing power.
Thank God, because then it becomes possible to try again, and perhaps actually succeed.
Lgid,
Two things for you.
Watch Edster’s interview with Gibbs this evening (don’t have a link yet). The WH is in complete denial about the characteristics of their Health Care plan and they seem to be forging ahead with it.
Did you hear that Obama will do nothing on HCR until until Brown ascends to the Senate?
A third thing: What do these two pieces of information suggest about HCR legislation?
but even this is not so bad for Washington Democrats – on the one hand, they love the “innocent bystander” fable, and secondly, as your colleague lambert notes over on Corrente:
as a lobbyist, or some other lucrative Versailles courtier.
Good post…there’s one more likely alternative to get around the 60 votes than the nuclear option. You fire the Parliamentarian who defines what’s under the Byrd rule and get a more agreeable Parliamentarian. That’s exactly how Bush got his tax cuts and gave the current Parliamentarian his job. No reason not to do it again, except the Democrats have no balls. You wouldn’t even have to do it, just hold it over his head until he complies.
Brilliant, so naturally it is completely out of the range of things the Democrats would consider. They only entertain defensive strategies. Must be terrifying to be under fire all the time.
Thanks GDC707. If I were your age, I’d probably be going myself. But I’ve got family and Grandkids here in the Washington area so my only recourse is to keep fighting.
You may be right GDC707. I hope not> ireally did like this one”
Yes, the good thing about things getting worse, is that maybe it will become intolerable to people.
Hi cb, not sure what it all means. That Dems are shell-shocked, maybe. That the Whire House is in re-evaluation mode. Everyone’s fighting over the narrative now. Ezra had a new idea today. I almost agree with it, here.
Oh, I did see the Edster and Gibbs and also Chris and a number of people. Chris badgered Howard Dean about his interpretation. He couldn’t understand how Howard could contend that many progressives voted for Brown or stayed home when Coakley ran as a progressive in favor of a public option to the left of Obama. Howard would say, well I have survey data whoch shows that this is true, and Chris kept saying well why didn’t they vote for the person who ran as a progressive and a partisan of the PO.
Howard was either too slow or too polite to tell him that progressives might have stayed home or gone for Brown because given Coakley’s announced support for the Senate bill with a mandate and no PO, and also because of her recent raiser with health care industry and Pharma lobbyists and industry people, they may have believed that she was lying about her progressive commitments.
It ain’t rocket science, Chris.
Hi spork, I’m worried that the internship has become institutionalized. If it has our democracy is doomed, because we’ll never be able to trust that any of representatives are representing us rather than just anticipating employment by the corps.
On the innocent bystander thing, I’m not sure that’s going to work again given recent history. When the Democrats lose this time, they had better be very aggressive in opposition or no one will ever believe they are worth voting in again, and the Party will die.
Good point. That’s been the problem from the very beginning of this year and before however. Harry, as GDC707 says is
Couldn’t agree with you more. Well said. It’s a very sad state of affairs, and the fact that Rahmbama proposes to push ahead with HCR and continue seek “bipartisan” support… ??? I mean: seriously, WTF?
Good luck on your journey; I may be making my own soon. This just stinks.
Heh. Nowadays they’re ‘fair and balanced’. /s
Definitely too slow in not making the point that some stayed home. Not sure if it was slow or polite that prevented him from saying that Coakley’s support of the PO is meaningless because voters know it’s not really being considered. Matthews is so agenda-driven (deficit reduction) it’s not even funny.
it has become internalized within the ruling coalition duopoly. there are a very very few whose actions as legislators may have rendered them unemployable – Kuchinich, Ron Paul, maybe Feingold. Grayson, too early to tell but certainly promising, because he obviously does not give a damn who he pisses off.
but, nettlesome (I) or 3rd party, principled politicians would be less subject to the levers of power than any (D) Progs that somehow make it through the primary and general election gauntlets and into govt – and these (I) or 3rd party politicians would be way less employable on K street, right?
On the innocent bystander thing, we agree, it is not going to work. But, they will still try it, it served them well for 8 years under Bush, and serves as cover for their failures under Clinton as well.
really, if the Bush years taught us something it is how threadbare, discredited and false conventional wisdom narratives in the Beltway can be, while still serving their function, not being challenged or retired.
Have you noticed how Democratic Paty mainstream the MSNBC nightime lineup has been since the Holiday break? Tweety has always been feeding in the Veal Pen, but now I see that Edster, Rachel and Keith have lost their wheels, spinning stories of partisan distraction. It was humorous to see that even the Edster had to cringe when Gibbs filibustered and deflected so about the virtues of the president’s health care bill. Hopefully there will be some better coverage and analysis of the Research 2000 survey. Glenn Greenwald had a good post today on the subject of interpreting the significance of the MA vote.
BTW, I never miss one of your posts, knowingly.
Thaks MarkH, I’ll keep that in mind.
mikesong, yes, he is a real deficit hawk. learned it at the feet of Jimmy Carter, I think.
yes, spork, a very sad commentary on our present reality.
Hi cb, I have noticed that. Isn’t there an acquisition of MSNBC by a right-wing orgaization currently pending? Also, Dylan Ratigan was shifted to the 4 PM hour in the afternoon and the rightist veal team of Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie have been moved into his morning spot. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to have toned down his anti-Wall Street views any.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
Yeah, I think this is a purely Obama/DLC overture to the MSNBC personalities. I think their independence of thought has been compromised by their individual fears of Democratic Party losses in November. It is, however, a conspiracy at some level.
Stabenow said on Maddow that the nuclear option required 2/3 vote in the Senate to change the rules, as presumably would be compelling the GOP to actually filibuster.
Stabenow doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or alternatively she’s spreading mis-information so her constituents won’t blame her for doing nothing for them. The nuclear option only requires 50+1 votes and it can be invoked at any time. All a Senator has to do is to move for a vote and be told that cloture is needed to cut off debate. At that time the Senator can make a point of order initiating the nuclear option. Details are here.
Also, forcing Senators to actually filibuster is up to Harry Reid alone. No vote is necessary. All he has to do is to refuse to recognize the stated intention to filibuster as enough to trigger the requirement for a cloture vote. Then they would have to go to the floor and actually talk and hold the floor.