On Tuesday Max first boasted that he "can count," which is, sure enough, a resplendent qualification for any Senate committee chairman. But he then revealed, with more than a touch of Beltwayitis, that his arithmetical skills only work in reverse.
"No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option," Sen. Baucus continued, having already smothered the poor thing in its cradle. He concluded, simply, "I want a bill that can become law."
But so did four other committee chairmen -- three of whom, admittedly, weren't quite as propelled to apoplexy over the realistic fate of their bills in the U.S. Senate, but all of whom started from the commendable point of writing a commonsensical bill. From there, as the inexorable dilutions of Congressional procedure would have it, the Gang of 535 would be welcome to whack away.
Yet Max, huddling imperiously with his privy council of six, had started where he should have left off. And this, after Max's boasting, was something that caught the critical attention of Sen. Jay Rockefeller: "I understand the chairman has a responsibility to count votes and all the rest," said the West Virginian. On the other hand, "I don't want to get to a point where process makes more difference than people."
Oh you poor thing, speaking only spiritually, of course. You were way past the point of gettin'. Max had already dragged you to the point of no return, condemning even the prospect of a public option before any particulars could be assailed. It bespoke of the undeniable supremacy of "process over people."
Consequently, it created a Capitol Hill atmosphere of broader condemnation; it permitted the anti-public-option senators to entrench, and those merely leaning against it to duck, cover, and point to the finance committee. We'll never know, it should go without saying, if Max's full-throated support of a public option -- which he claims to philosophically hold -- would have pumped more senatorial life into it; but we can know that Chairman Max, single-handedly, doomed its conception.
All of which has put President Obama in a nearly impossible place.
To avoid Bill Clinton's fate he granted the Congressional leadership's request to frolic unsupervised in legislative playland, but, Democrats being Democrats, someone was bound to get hurt. So now, with blood everywhere, those "squabbling Democrats," writes the Politico, "are looking to the president to be the final arbiter of whether they include the public option in the version of the bill that goes to the Senate floor -- and later, whether it will emerge in compromise legislation from a House-Senate conference."
Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that aides to Majority Leader Harry Reid said he "has not decided how to proceed," yet that conflicted with an earlier report from the NY Times that stated, rather unequivocally, that Reid had already consigned the public option to bill-merged oblivion. He would, instead, give it air on the floor, in amendment form.
Here, there may be but one narrow opening for Obama, his believable-change reputation, and his party at large: Dump this entire turkey of a bill on the Republicans. Which is to say, reverse course somewhat by insisting on the public option's inclusion in the Senate-merged bill -- projecting, after all, easier comportment with a House bill -- and force a filibuster. Just get right to it; skip the amendment stage.
Divert attention away from the bill's inherent flaws -- and Lord knows they're numerous, even with a public option -- and pounce instead on the Republican insanity of either a) doing nothing, or b) obstructing.
Such a strategy would be risky, but at this point only because no one seems to know, or is willing to admit, what the actual Democratic headcount is. Max Baucus blathers about being unable to reach 60 votes with a public option, which is absolutely true enough, yet there's an unmistakably suspicious element in, say, Tom Harkin or Sherrod Brown's repeated contention that there are indeed 51. (Previous reports had put the vote count in the low 40s.)
If there are not the baseline votes -- and, like Max, Republicans are pretty good at counting -- then a public option-included vote would be politically catastrophic for the Democrats, not to mention perfectly welcome to Republicans. Paradoxically if there are the votes, then the bill is still dead, but at least as a victim of filibuster madness.
Taking Senators Harkin and Brown at their word, however, then go for the filibuster. Obama would shore up his liberal base, attract not inconsiderable pro-public-option independent support, and most of all, peg Republicans -- rather than his own dyspeptic party -- as the fundamental problem.
All of which, if played creatively enough -- and, granted, for Democrats that's an enormous if -- could, in defiance of conventional wisdom, possibly help in 2010, and beyond. That's a stretch, yes, but perhaps worth the gamble.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Baucus taking the hit for corrupt Senate Dems
Who cares about Baucus? Obama retains most of his popularity and, if he were to stand firm on the public option and embrace the possibility of the reconciliation option, he would win or, at very least, suffer an honorable defeat. By waffling on the public option, he's throwing us all under the bus. Forcing everyone to buy health insurance from the criminals who currently suppy it, letting the criminals decide how much of our money they want and which claims they choose to pay is not reform, it's highway robbery. My fear is Obama has already embraced this outrage and is using surrogates like Baucus and Emanuel to rationalize it to the public. I'm still looking for some deviation from the Bush agenda in Obama's presidency and I ain't seeing it.
Another Presidential Player
For too long, the American people have had to endure juvenile personalities playing at being the president instead of actually being one.
Think of what an adult in the White House might have done differently during the terms of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II. Johnson and Bush I both used the White House as a weapon to advance personal goals, and are thus not covered by my definition. (Yes, I know Nixon did as well, but that came later when his paranoid juvenality took him over completely!)
Now we have Obama, who is increasingly demonstrating that the rockstar status he now holds is mesmerising him into inaction. He's become the Oval Office Michael Jackson. He wants everyone to love him, yet does nothing to earn it - and doesn't understand why the people aren't in awe like they once were. The only steps he takes are the safe ones, such as promoting the staging of the Last Olympics in Chicago. He's leaving the trench warfare he should be leading to others. He wants to play nice with the bullies who pummel him daily, but refuses to see that if he doesn't rock them back on their heels, he won't ever have their atention.
Obama staked his entire presidency on health care reform well before he had a clue what he was up against. When he turns over the keys to the White House over to Huckabee/Palin in 2012, he will have plenty of time living off that generous public option pension we give our ex-presidents to get a clue as he writes his memoirs.
"...absolutely true enough..."?
is NOT an oxymoron?
Prediction: Senate Dems Will Be Forced to Invoke 'Recociliation'
It's becoming increasingly clear that the only way that Senate Democrats will be able to pass a health-care reform bill is through the so-called "reconciliation" process and pass the measure with a simple majority of 51 votes.
Invoking "reconciliation" would cut off a sure-as-the-sun-rises-in-the-east-and-sets-in-the-west GOP filibuster before it starts and overcome the objections of the Democrats' conservative "Gang of Eight" that opposes a public option.
With opinion polls showing a majority of Americans strongly supporting a public option -- and House Democrats adamant that any health-care reform bill MUST include it OR ELSE IT WON'T PASS the House -- the Senate Democrats will have no choice but invoke "reconciliation" to get the measure passed.
How about counting voters' preferences?
If 50 votes + VP Cheney was good enough for the Bush administration to pass the cushy "It's our due" (Cheney) tax cuts to the great benefit of the rich, why won't the Democrats do the same to pass real health care reform, that will benefit almost everybody, except maybe the very rich?
I wonder if Baucus isn't just looking for yet another excuse to do the health care industry's bidding.
How about counting the votes of the citizens? Polls consistently show that 60-70% of us, even in Arkansas (pay attention Sen. Lincoln!), want at least a public option.
Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
C word vrs. C words, both 13 letters strong...
In the election of 2000 bush was selected pResident --helped along by his 13 letter description of himself as 'Compassionate'. Something he never was and continued to not be.
In the election of 2008 Obama was elected President--helped along by his 13 letter descrtiption of 'Change and Hope'. Was he ever? Will he ever be?
Like the old saying goes: "If not now, when?"
Poor, lil 'ol Obama
Okay, P.M.--I actually agree with most of your theory on this one. I wish like hell the dems would make the repugs filibuster--and that means standing in the well of the senate for a month reading cookbooks and the bible. I do believe this would shore up the base and expose the repugs for who they are--and it would have a reasonable chance of success. However, you got one thing wrong.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies with Obama.
By all accounts Baucus simply wrote the bill the White House tasked him to write--a bill which reflected the backroom deals Obama made with Big Healthcare before he had even completely moved in his new abode.
When the senate reconciles the bill, there will be Reid, Harkin, Baucus and Obama. Reid and Baucus reportedly will not favor a public option while Harkin does. If Obama really favored it, there would be a 2-2 tie, and with Obama being president and all, I would think that would give the PO the needed life it so richly deserves.
But no.
Obama will continue to tell the gullible he "favors" the PO while allowing Baucus and Reid to take the fall for him when the PO is not included in the senate bill. Maybe I have him all wrong, but that's what my gut and all the available evidence tell me is happening.
The only thing that can move Obama away from his backroom deals at this point is the threat of losing everything thru the loss of the House liberals if a PO is not included.
So please--do not blame Baucus for simply doing what Obama (and the insurance companies) asked him to do. He is a despicable enough character, but if the bill goes down, there will be only one person to blame.
And he sits in the Oval Office.
Rockefeller Amendment
I like the amendment Rockefeller proposed last night on Countdown last night. He will propose an amendment that requires the insurance companies to spend a minimum of 90% of the new federally supported health insurance on medical costs. I would like to see that concept expanded accross the board. Why not require all health insurance companies to spend a minimum of 90% of their resources on medical costs? That is a much more direct approach to reducing health costs and much easier to understand.
90%?, try 95%
Wendell Potter, the former Cigna director of communications, who has been all over the airwaves trying to educate us all about the nefarious practices of the health insurance companies, says that as recently as the 1990's the health insurance companies were paying out 95% of premium dollars for medical care. Now it's only 85% he says, although I've heard it's down to 80%.
In any case, why should Rockefeller's amendment not specify 95% instead of 90%? Were the insurance companies not solvent 15 years ago?
Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
Senator Can Count?
"No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option," Sen. Baucus continued,...
The implication is that he can count up to 60 votes for the plan reported out of his committee. Does anyone believe this?
P.M. Don't blame the Messenger of the Public Option
P. M. -- you make sense --- for about a paragraph.
This is not the fault of Jay Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller is the messenger for the 65% of the American people who want a srong public option to be a part of health care reform.
Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: Max Baucus (who can count -- he says). So can most of us. If Senator Baucus wouldn't vote for a public option -- (his being a Democrat and all --- ) of course it wouldn't get 60 votes; the possibility shrinks to just 59. When a committee chair would not vote for his own bill..... he isn't voting the interest of the constituents he's supposed to represent -- in this case he's voting the interests the health care lobby is paying him to vote for.
He's voting corporate interests. Interesting math, that.
If Harkin and Durbin can round up 51 -- that's all they need.
If the Republicans filibuster the bill, that's all the Democrats need to assure their return as a majority party in 2010.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Baucus couldn't be Baucus w/o Obama
"All of which has put President Obama in a nearly impossible place."
Poor, earnest, trusting Obama. Poor silent, irrelevant, neutered, President Cipher.
We elected him to lead, he clearly has no interest in doing the job.