February 26, 2010--The Democrats' Four Choices

Because in the past I contributed money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee I keep getting emails soliciting more. Almost every day. When something egregious happens in the House or Senate I get one, in effect saying “Can you believe what Senator Jim DeMint said about President Obama? In order to assure that the Democrats’ agenda passes, we need your support to elect more Democrats.”

Yesterday, I got the following from Jon Vogel, Executive Director of the DCCC:

This is our moment to finally make health care affordable for the American people.

The stakes are just too high for too many families for us to let up. Now is the time to let go of our frustration and complete the work we began. That is why Democrats proudly joined President Obama today for a historic bipartisan meeting and that is why I am asking for you to stand with me at this moment.

During the past couple of months when I received these I’ve written back to them in the following manner:

Get a health care bill passed by both houses and then I'll send you money. You had 60 votes in the Senate, you now have 59. Enough to get it done. How many Dems do you need? 70? Not another dime from me until I see that you can legislate.

So you can see I’m frustrated with my Democrats.

Here’s how I see things. Putting social justice and looming budgetary disaster aside, politically, health care reform is a very big deal. The president and the Congress are, to use a Texas hold ‘em term, all in with it. They either win with it or they get wiped out. Forget what the polls say about people’s skepticism about the Democrats’ plan. Politically, doing nothing is worse than doing something that is admittedly deeply flawed.

There are thus four possible scenarios. The Senate already passed its own version of health care reform. We tend to have forgotten this what with all the theatrics and the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. On the other hand they did pass it. The one that’s 2,400 pages long and contains the special deals for Nebraska (to buy Ben Nelson’s vote), the special deal for Louisiana (to buy Mary Landrieu’s vote), and the other egregious baggage that cluttered it up and turned it into a political piñata. But it differs markedly from the House bill.

Typically this would mean that the legislation would go to a House-Senate committee to work out the differences and when that is done would go back to both houses for final votes. A bill only becomes a law if both houses pass identical versions.

This will never happen. Putting aside the challenges they would face reconciling the conflicting approaches, with Democrats now holding “only” 59 seats in the Senate, with 60 votes normally required to pass a bill that the Republicans would for certain filibuster, any new version, actually any bill at all proposed by Democrats, would die for lack of 60 votes.

Scenario number two is also unlikely, but a bit less so. Since the Senate voted for a bill, Democrats in the House could hold their collective noses and pass it. It would become law with the president’s signature and then through the years both houses could work to change and amend it. This has been done with all major legislation. Notably with Medicare and Medicaid. They were passed in 1965 and ever since have been significantly modified. Perhaps most dramatically was the addition of Medicare Part D passed in 2003 to provide some help with the cost of prescription drugs. It’s not paid for, will add more than a trillion dollars to our national deficit, but still it was approved and is of some help to seniors.

The third scenario hinges on my phrase “normally required.” 60 votes are more than normally required to overcome a determined filibuster, they are always required. That is, unless a bill in passed via an arcane Senate rule called Reconciliation. It is anything but “reconciliation”—it has come to represent a way to, frankly, ram something through the Senate with 51 votes. Actually, 50 would be enough with the vice president, in his one constitutionally-defined role, voting to break the tie.

This could happen. Actually, after yesterday’s frustrating meeting at Blair House it is more likely. Forget for the moment the Republican whining that it would be a disaster to attempt to pass something of this consequence through the use of a tricky Senate rule. As Obama and others pointed out it has been done quite a few times by both parties. Most of Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy were passed this way. Many who voted for them were in that room with Obama yesterday. And though it is true that Obama when he was a senator and other current Democratic senators do not like it as a basic way of doing business (our Founders structured the Senate in order to limit the power of the majority), again holding some noses, dodging the criticism that they are hypocrites (which they are—at least situational hypocrites), they could get a bill passed in the Senate in this way. And it could then be passable by the House since it could take into consideration some of the House members’ concerns and could get rid of some of the pay-offs and earmarks.

This is the Democrats’ best political bet because if they do not follow scenario number three, scenario four is looming--the Near-Death Scenario.

Doing nothing, having wasted more than a year on health care, would result in so many of them (appropriately) being voted out of office in November that the Senate for sure and likely the House would tip back into Republican control. And if there is one thing to get the attention of folks in Congress, and this is the only thing that is fully bipartisan, it is the desire to be reelected and to remain in the majority. Because to be in the majority means committee chairmanships and the power to spend money. Both parties’ two favorite things.

Knowing this, I suspect that was Obama’s hoped for outcome from yesterday—to seek to unify the Democrats more than any serious attempt, or hope, to find a bipartisan consensus. Even before the meeting started the Republicans issues press releases declaring it a failure. Talk about chutzpah!

If he can manage to bring more unity to the Democrats by taking the political heat for them (which may be why yesterday he absorbed most of the criticism and led the battle), holding up before them the specter of what will happen in November if they continue to dither and spat with each other and thus wind up doing nothing, maybe, just maybe something will get done that is politically advantageous and will actually over time bring about some urgent change to our substantially broken and bloated health care system.

Then when Jon Vogel writes asking for money, I’ll reach for my checkbook.