The Hill is reporting that the controversial "deem-and-pass" tactic has been ruled out because of strong opposition within the Democratic caucus. The basic idea was to explicitly link House fixes to the unpopular Senate bill. Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear that the bill signed into law must be approved, in identical terms, from both the House and the Senate to become law under the President's signature; that's the process of passing law. Why not do the whole bill under budget reconciliation? In essence, the Byrd rule applies in the Senate; as a point of order, a provision can be struck if it's essentially considered incidental to budgetary considerations. This is likely be case for social policy items, e.g., abortion or immigration access provisions.
It should be noted that Speaker Pelosi only threatened the use of "deem and pass" as a possible tactic. Her willingness to take it off the table might reflect confidence that the Speaker is sure of attaining tomorrow's scheduled vote.
Thus, for instance, you might understand the dilemma of pro-life Rep. Stupak (D-MI); say, for instance, Speaker Pelosi bundled in a fix to reconciliation to get his vote for the Senate bill. But then it gets to the Senate and (say) pro-abortion choice Barbara Boxer (D-CA) files a point of order to the provision. So what Stupak really wants is to reconcile the bill outside of budget reconciliation.
Eve of Destruction
No, I certainly don't mean to suggest if the House tomorrow votes for the corrupt Senate bill, there will be blood on the streets. The odds are that Speaker Pelosi will get the votes she needs. According to the New York Times interactive blog as I write, the 'yes' votes are narrowly ahead 207-206. All but 3 of the undecided voted against the federal funding of abortion amendment; almost half of the holdouts claim to be Blue Dogs and/or came from McCain districts, four were no votes on the House bill, and three of them are freshman Congressmen (whom would almost certainly doom prospects for reelection with a yes vote). I seriously doubt that any fiscal conservative Blue Dog believes that the Medicare cuts are realistic and that this new entitlement is conservatively priced.
I would have to say under normal circumstances, Speaker Pelosi would get the votes, and almost every pundit, including those on Fox, believes that she'll get them. I think the odds are in her favor (she has been able to deliver the votes she needs on relatively unpopular measures like cap-and-trade). It's difficult to believe she would put the measure up to vote if she didn't think she had the votes; a loss would be politically devastating both to Pelosi and Obama. I expect at least 3 or 4 of the votes to break in favor. If the vote gets within 214 or so, the bill will likely carry, under intense political pressure. However, I think the easy votes in favor have already been cast. This may be more like an election with undecided voters; they typically break away from the incumbent, which in this case would be the Senate bill. There's a difference between voting for a climate change bill and an extraordinarily expensive bill transforming our health care sector, potentially affecting every American.
Passing the Senate bill and using the budget reconciliation process on health care reform constitute a partisan declaration of war and a clear rebuke of the American people whom have made up their mind on this corrupt bargain for months. This scenario basically signals a fundamental breakdown in bipartisan efforts in this session of Congress. There's no basis of trust between the Republicans and Obama. Since Obama has failed to bargain with the GOP members of Congress in good faith on key legislation, we may see the GOP playing out the clock in this session, with an eye on the mid-terms, which will likely force upon Obama something he had misleadingly promised the American people: bipartisan compromise.
The Democrats have a delusional perspective; they are convinced once they've won the vote (even if it now looks likely) that they'll get a bounce in the polls, that the general public has short-term memory in terms of the ugly nature of the sausage making in the legislative process. They would be sadly mistaken. They've been unable to make the case for the better part of a year; the front-end costs (the tax increases and Medicare cuts) come early (with potential adverse effects on jobs and provider availability) and the back-ended benefits are delayed (only some items, e.g., children with preexisting conditions, available during the first few years). It's likely we'll see constitutional challenges to the bill in terms of insurance mandates and state rights.
I don't want to presume to outline the GOP strategy if, in fact, the Democratic Party Health Care Bill passes, but I think the following are obvious points (besides repealing the measure, which Obama is likely to veto and be sustained, because the Democrats will have enough votes in either the House or Senate): independence or restrictions of any regulatory authority; striking any insurance mandate; reducing the tax mandates and projected costs; and full versions of Republican health care form ideas, including small business cooperatives, medical malpractice tort reform, insurance fraud detection, and interstate marketing of insurance.
Political Cartoon
Mike Lester warns that Obama's Napoleonic power grab on health care for the federal bureaucracy will be the Waterloo of his Presidency.
Quote of the Day
Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; our great hope lies in developing what is good.
Calvin Coolidge
Musical Interlude: Horse Songs
Michael Murphy, "Wildfire"
Dan Fogelberg, "Run For the Roses"
America, "A Horse With No Name"
The Rolling Stones, "Wild Horses"
