Blue Dog Coalition « Healthcare Horserace

DRUDGE: Whip Count Proves Dems Don’t Have Enough Votes to Pass ANY Current Health Care Proposal

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

The following whip count and background is courtesy of the Drudge Report, as reported Wednesday, September 9, 2009:

WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES

Wed Sep 09 2009 17:03:37 ET

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.

Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

WHIP COUNT

44 Democrats Opposed

1. Rep. Altmire

2. Rep. Adler

3. Rep. Barrow

4. Rep. Boren

5. Rep. Boucher

6. Rep. Boyd

7. Rep. Bright

8. Rep. Carney

9. Rep. Childers

11. Rep. Cleaver

12. Rep. Cooper

13. Rep. Costello

14. Rep. Cuellar

15. Rep. Dahlkamper

16. Rep. Davis

17. Rep. Driehaus

18. Rep. Ellsworth

19. Rep. Gordon

20. Rep. Griffith

21. Rep. Halvorson

22. Rep. Hill

23. Rep. Holden

24. Rep. Kanjorski

25. Rep. Kaptur

26. Rep. F Kratovil

27. Rep. Marshall

28. Rep. Massa

29. Rep. Melancon

30. Rep. McIntyre

31. Rep. Minnick

32. Rep. Murtha

33. Rep. Oberstar

34. Rep. Ortiz

35. Rep. Perriello

36. Rep. Peterson

37. Rep. Polis

38. Rep. Pomeroy

39. Rep. Ross

40. Rep. Shuler

41. Rep. Stupak

42. Rep. Tanner

43. Rep. Taylor

44. Rep. Titus

57 Liberal Democrats to vote no on a bill without a strong public option

On July 31, 2009, the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi expressing their opposition to a weakening of the public option. The letter on behalf of 57 Progressive Democrats concludes, “In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies. We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.” The text can be read here: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/57%20member%20letter%20to%20PelosiWaxman%207%2030%2009.pdf

1) Rep. Woolsey

2) Rep. Grijalva

3) Rep. Kilpatrick

4) Rep. Nadler

5) Rep. Hare

6) Rep. Roybal-Allard

7) Rep. Ellison

8) Rep. Blumenauer

9) Rep. Watts

10) Rep. Edwards

11) Rep. Olver

12) Rep. Kucinich

13) Rep. Richardson

14) Rep. Waters

15) Rep. Conyers

16) Rep. Chu

17) Rep. Hinchey

18) Rep. Johnson

19) Rep. Watson

20) Rep. Spier

21) Rep. Pascrell

22) Rep. Doggett

23) Rep. Kaptur

24) Rep. Hirono

25) Rep. Filner

26) Rep. Sanchez

27) Rep. Fudge

28) Rep. Lee

29) Rep. Carson

30) Rep. Jackson Lee

31) Rep. Honda

32) Rep. McDermott

33) Rep. Clay

34) Rep. McGovern

35) Rep. Clarke

36) Rep. Massa

37) Rep. Pingree

38) Rep. Jackson, Jr.

39) Rep. Cummings

40) Rep. Thompson

41) Rep. Moore

42) Rep. Payne

43) Rep. Stark

44) Rep. Towns

45) Rep. Brown

46) Rep. Hastings

47) Rep. Valezquez

48) Rep. Gutierrez

49) Rep. Napolitano

50) Rep. Sires

51) Rep. Tierney

52) Rep. Capuano

53) Rep. Fattah

54) Rep. Serrano

55) Rep. Farr

56) Rep. Delahunt

57) Rep. Johnson

BACKGROUND:

Rep. John Adler (D-NJ): “Isn’t good for America.” But dissatisfaction extends beyond Blue Dogs. Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a conservative Democrat but not a Blue Dog, says he doesn’t like the public option. Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.) told an audience, “The bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America.” (Mike Soraghan and A.B. Stoddard, “Dem Split On The Public Option Casts Doubt On Reform Of Healthcare,” The Hill, 8/31/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. John Barrow (D-GA): “I still voted against the bill.” Barrow said he does not believe that the changes they made are permanent or adequate.“I still voted against the bill, even after we had gotten these amendments passed, not because I didn’t think they made it better, but because I didn’t think they made the bill good enough,” he said. (Sandi Van Orden, “Barrow Offers Why He Voted Against Health Care Bill,” The Effingham Herald, 9/3/09)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “The House Bill That’s Out There, I Can’t Support.” “Second District Congressman Dan Boren said Monday that health care reform rests largely on President Barack Obama’s willingness to accept bipartisan compromise on the issue. ‘If health care reform is going to happen it will have to happen in a bipartisan way,’ Boren told the Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. ‘It’s really up to the president.’ Boren, a Democrat, said he is trying to keep an open mind but said, ‘The House bill that’s out there, I can’t support.’” (Tom Gilbert, “Boren: Bipartisanship Key To Health Care,” Tulsa World, 7/20/09)

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): I have a problem with this government option plan,” Boucher said. “I’m troubled that the government option plan could become very popular and if it became sufficiently popular it could begin to crowd out the other” private insurance companies. Furthermore, he said, the public option could “financially destabilize” rural hospitals. (Sarah Bruyn Jones, “Boucher Unconvinced On ‘Government Option’ For Health Care,” The Roanoke Times, 8/19/09)

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), who belongs to the moderate Blue Dogs group, said at a town hall meeting yesterday that “the public option is off the table.” When asked whether it would be a good idea to “scrap everything” and start the process of reforming health care over, Boyd reportedly said, “I think that is an excellent idea … we may end up there.”

Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): U.S. Congressman Bobby Bright announced recently he opposes the current draft of United States House of Representatives health care legislation. “I am hopeful that when Congress returns in September, the process will be more bipartisan and we will be able to produce something that works for the American people,” Bright said. “I continue to believe that the current direction of health care reform relies too heavily on taxes on individuals and small businesses, and the overall cost of health care legislation remains too high. Moreover, though changes have been made to how the public option will work, the overall bill does not represent my belief in a free-market approach to health care reform.” (“Bright Questions Health Care Reform,” The Southeast Sun, 8/26/09)

Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA): “I Would Not Vote In Favor Of It At This Point.” “Carney said he could not support a plan crafted by House Democrats because of the way the plan would impact small- to medium-sized businesses, rural areas and small hospitals. ‘There is a 1,000-page template out of the House, but it’s very fluid and being negotiated as we speak,’ Carney said. ‘There is not unanimous agreement on the initial version. Guys like me - the blue dog Democrats - are firm on our disagreement with certain aspects of the bill.’ ‘As it is now, and realizing it is extremely fluid and changes daily, I would not vote in favor of it at this point,’ he said.” (David Thompson, “Carney: More Time Needed For Proper Health Care Reform,” Sun Gazette, 7/24/09)

Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS): Would Not Vote for a House Health Care Reform Bill. During a town hall teleconference Tuesday night, Rep. Travis Childers, D-Miss., said “he would not vote for a House health care reform bill in its current form,” a Memphis TV station reports. http://www.wreg.com/sns-ap-ms–childers-townhall,0,6705422.story

Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO): “I’m willing to Push the Reset Button.” “Cleaver willing to start over on health care bill. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver told reporters this morning he’s willing to start from scratch on a health care reform bill, as many Republicans have suggested. “I’m willing to push the reset button,” Cleaver said, although he appeared skeptical about the prospects for any new legislation from a restart of the process. The Missouri Democrat also said health care reform is “too important” to be passed with only Democratic votes, as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has recently suggested. Cleaver also said if health reform isn’t passed by year’s end, it won’t happen. That, he agreed, effectively gives the GOP veto power over any legislation for the next 90 days or so, once Congress returns after Labor Day. (Dave Helling, “Cleaver Willing To Start Over On Health Care Bill,” The Kansas City Star, 8/19/09)

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): “Is Not Good Enough to Earn the Support of Nashville-Area Voters.” I want to vote for health-care reform. Every American deserves comprehensive health care. It is a moral imperative. But the House bill, at least as I have closely reviewed the June 19th and later drafts, is not good enough to earn the support of Nashville-area voters. http://www.cooper.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=73

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX): “Am I In Favor Of This Bill As It Is Written? I Am Not.” “‘We have the more conservative folks and the more liberal folks pushing me both ways,’ Cuellar noted. ‘Do I believe in health care reform? Yes I do. But I also believe in insurance reform. Am I in favor of this bill as it is written? I am not.’” (Ron Maloney, “Somewhat Rowdy Crowd For Cuellar Visit,” The Gazette-Enterprise, 7/26/09)

Rep. Kathleen Dahlkamper (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN): “I Was Not Prepared, Nor Would I Have Voted For, the Proposed Bill on August 6th.” “I’m really glad we were able to postpone the legislation,” Ellsworth said. “I was not prepared, nor would I have voted for, the proposed bill on August 6th” when the summer recess began, he said. http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_247222034.html

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN): “I Cannot Support The Bill.” “On Thursday, Gordon and the other six Blue Dogs on the committee demonstrated their concerns about the bill by reading nearly identical opening statements. ‘I am thoroughly reviewing the bill. However, as currently written, I cannot support the bill,’ Gordon said after the hearing.” (Bill Theobald, “Health Bill Faces Fight From Tennessee Blue Dogs,”Tennessean, 7/19/09)

Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Al): Rep. Parker Griffith, D-Al., who opposes the public health care option, says he needs more details before he can sign off on the co-op notion being floated by the Senate. “It depends on how it’s worded and how it’s structured,” Griffith said Monday, according to the Huntsville Times. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/back-in-home-districts-muchwooed-blue-dogs-not-barking-for-health-care-reform-legislation.html

Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) “My message right now is we don’t have a bill”: While health care proposals are changing by the minute, Halvorson said her primary concern is cost. If the final draft increases the federal deficit, she’ll vote against it, even though President Barack Obama’s administration repeatedly has said he is “not open to deficit spending. Health reform will be paid for and it will be deficit neutral over 10 years,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote in submitted testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “My message right now is we don’t have a bill,” Halvorson said. “In fact, the moderate Democrats are the ones holding off so we wouldn’t have to vote on this before we left. Health care is a big issue, but just because I ran on health care doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for a bill that doesn’t work and costs too much money. True reform brings costs down. True reform is not what this bill is yet.” (Kristen McQueary, “Dodge In, Halvorson On The Defensive,” The Southtown Star, 8/20/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Said This Morning He Would Not Vote For The Health Care Reform Bill In Its Present Form.” “Congressman Baron Hill said this morning he would not vote for the health care reform bill in its present form, primarily because he believes it lacks effective health care cost controls. … ‘There are seven of us blue dogs on the committee opposed to the bill in its present form,’ Hill said. ‘We met the last two days drafting amendments to the bill that address the issue of accountability and cost controls.’ Hill said he wants the bill to control costs by shifting the system away from the fee-for-service model, which he says financially rewards doctors and hospitals in direct proportion to the number of procedures they perform. ‘We need to create a medical system that makes sure the patient comes first instead of a system that rewards doctors for overutilizing services,’ he said. ‘That means getting rid of fee-for-service.’” (Dann Denny, “Baron Hill Wants Health Care Bill Modifications,”Herald-Times, 7/16/09)

Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-MD): Opposes current legislation in the House, but remains open to public option. He opposes the measure currently under consideration in the House and will vote against it unless there are significant changes. Among his objections: the price, which would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He’s also concerned, he says, that the measure is too generous to the poor, at the expense of the middle class, and potentially harmful to rural areas of Maryland, like the Eastern Shore, which already have trouble attracting and keeping doctors. At the same time, Kratovil speaks with evident passion about the need for change. He said in an interview that he “absolutely” would support a more “reasonable” plan, though he acknowledges that he doesn’t know how to close the cost gap. Unlike many of his fellow Blue Dogs, he’s not against including a public insurance option. He said he would favor one that creates an “equal playing field” and legitimate competition with private insurance companies. “I don’t follow the fear that having a public option means the beginning of a single-payer system,” he said, sitting in a windowless conference room at his Salisbury district office. (Paul West, “A Blue Dog Democrat’s View From The Middle,” The Baltimore Sun, 8/23/09)

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): “As the Bill Stands Right Now, I Would Have to Vote ‘No.’” “As the bill stands right now, I would have to vote ‘no’ until we get a better handle on the costs. I am adamantly opposed to throwing more money at the current system.” http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?SectionID=17&SubSectionID=116&ArticleID=63041&TM=231.214

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY): “But I Will Not Vote For A Bill That Gets It Wrong, And If I Had To Vote Today For The Current Piece Of Legislation In Front Of Congress, I Would Not Be Able To Support It.”“U.S. Rep. Eric Massa said if he had to vote today on America’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act, he would probably vote against it. ‘We all know that one in six don’t have health insurance. We all know that we pay more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world. These things need to be addressed, and doing nothing, which is what so many want to do, is simply not an option,’ said Massa, D-Corning. ‘But I will not vote for a bill that gets it wrong, and if I had to vote today for the current piece of legislation in front of Congress, I would not be able to support it,’ he said Tuesday during his weekly teleconference with the media.” (Ray Finger, “Massa Wary Of Health Care Reform Bill,” Star-Gazette, 7/22/09)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC): I am not convinced that we should have the public option. I know there’s been a lot of debate about that, but I’m not convinced that we should do that, so as it stands now, I would be a no on the public option. With regard to the coops, I think there’s room for debate there on how that’s done, and I’m not in favor of just dumping federal money into it, I think that’s the essence of his question. http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/17942

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09) Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID): Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Id., is described in the Idaho Mountain Express as flatly opposing the Democrats’ health care reform bill. “The government should set the rules of the road and then let private business do the work,” he said. http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005127388

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Salomon Ortiz (D-TX): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA): Perriello said he does not currently support any of the three proposals in congress. He said he won’t support a program that funds abortions, but he said it’s starting to sink in with people that the feds aren’t trying to do away with private insurance. “You still hear concerns about it being a public mandate rather than a public option. People are going to be given a wide range of choice between private insurance and maybe, or maybe not, a public option. I think people are starting to understand that,” Perriello said. (Brian Damewood, “Locals Sound Off Over Health Care,” wset.com, 8/18/09)

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): I have not found a bill I can support yet. “I’m not here to sell you anything,” he said. “I have not found a bill yet that I can support” — interrupted by applause — “I am here to listen and to learn. I believe we have problems in our health care system. We are not spending our money wisely, so I believe we have to do something.” (Bob von Sternberg, A Kinder, Gentler Town Hall Meeting. The Minnesota Star Tribune 8/15/09) Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The House Ways And Means Committee. “The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early Friday to overhaul the health care system and expand insurance coverage after a marathon session in which Democrats easily turned back Republican efforts to amend the bill. … In the Ways and Means vote, three Democrats — Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and John Tanner of Tennessee — joined Republicans in voting against the bill.” (Robert Pear, “House Committee Approves Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 7/17/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AL): “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” he wrote in a statement his office released publicly. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option, and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/blue_dog_ross_comes_out_agains.html

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC): In the Tarheel State, Rep. Heath Shuler, D-NC, said during a telephone town hall meeting, per the Citizen-Times, “that he opposes the House health care reform legislation because it would increase the deficit, doesn’t reduce the overall cost of health care and doesn’t do enough to promote people living healthier lives… ‘I do not support HR3200 at the present time,’ Shuler said…emphasizing that the current legislation does not do enough to promote wellness, prevention and disease management. Nor is enough being done to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, he said.” http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090814/NEWS01/908140330/1200

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): “I Cannot Support This Bill In Its Current Form.” “‘I cannot support this bill in its current form,’ Democrat Bart Stupak said, adding it did not provide real competition for the insurance industry and could hike costs for consumers.” (Kim Dixon, “Obama Looks For Republican Healthcare Backing,” Reuters, 7/16/09)

Rep. Stupak (D-MI): “You’ve Got A Broken System. We Are Perpetuating A Broken System.” “Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) cast himself as one of eight opponents of the bill as written on Energy and Commerce. ‘You’ve got a broken system. We are perpetuating a broken system,’ Stupak said. ‘They’ve got to address our concerns, or the other option is a “no” vote.’ He also said opponents might try to block a bill by defeating the House rule on the floor.” (Jeffrey Young, “House Leaders Cheer Healthcare Progress Amid Infighting,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. Stupak (D-MI): “Why Would We Give You More Money For A System That’s Broken?” “Stupak’s concerns are varied, but they include his desire for a prohibition on federal funding for abortions as part of the public insurance option under consideration, as well as a demand for deeper cost cuts and dealing with regional disparities under Medicare. Fundamentally, the bill does not fix the broken health care system, he said. ‘Why would we give you more money for a system that’s broken?’ he asked.” (Steven T. Dennis, “Stupak Warns Of Democratic Defections On Health Bill,” Roll Call, 7/17/09)

Rep. John Tanner (D-TN): Said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., according to the Commercial Appeal, “most reasonable, sensible people realize that we’ve got some holes in the current delivery system that are resulting in inefficiency, duplication, nonproductive … provider-to-patient expenditures, and what I’ve been telling people is we need to figure that out before we start overturning the entire system…I think we need to take a deep breath and go at this thing incrementally.” http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/19/tanner-listens-to-care-concern/

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS): Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., at a town hall meeting in Moss Point Monday night, said, per the Associated Press, “I would hope that everyone in this room knows by now that I am not going to vote for the health care plan.” http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090819/NEWS/908190330/1002/news01/Taylor-rejects-Obama-plan

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO): Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, is among the unwavering on the public option. In a statement to Political Fix, Clay asserted today that a public insurance plan “is the only way to force insurance companies to control costs, treat their customers fairly and spur competition. (Bill Lambrecht, “Clay: Public Option “Only Way” To Control Costs, Spur Competition,” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/18/09)

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): It is clear that real reform means injecting real competition into the insurance market to improve affordability and drive down health-care costs. “The centerpiece of this reform is a robust Medicare-like public health insurance plan tied to the Medicare provider system. Like many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, I will oppose any health-care reform bill that lacks such a plan. (Rep. John Conyers, “Conyers: Public Option Is A Necessary Component Of Health-Care Reform,” Press Release 9/9/09)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): Sixty members of the Progressive Caucus have “drawn a line in the sand,” saying they will NOT support anything short of reform that includes a public-option health insurance program. The concept of co-ops supplanting the public option plan is not good enough, those signing the letter have said. Ellison, a passionate Obama supporter, admitted following the news conference that he believes it’s necessary for the president to again make it clear that the public option plan is the only acceptable solution. “There are a lot of people who think that Obama and [Secretary of Health Kathleen] Sebelius made a tactical mistake by seeming to back off. … He can’t hand it [the public option] away without a political price to pay. That’s not a bad thing. He might think he can walk away and say, ‘I brought more reform than we’ve had in 60 years.’ But we [in the progressive caucus] are saying, ‘That’s not enough.’ ” (Doug Grow, “Congressional Progressive Caucus ‘Pep Rally’ Is Still Pushing Public-Option Health Care Reform,” Minnpost.Com 8/20/09)

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY): “I’d have to think long and hard, I’d have to see if it moved health care forward,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “…I think it would be a terrible miscalculation if we didn’t have a public option.” Engel called nonprofit health cooperatives, or “co-ops” — which are being proposed as an alternative — “untested,” and said that he needs proof that they would help to lower costs. (Lauren Kornreich, “House Democrat: ‘Terrible Miscalculation’ To Skip Public Option,” CNN.com, 8/18/09)

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA): “There is no option when it comes to reforming America’s ailing healthcare system. We must do it. And there is no option for inclusion of a public plan. We must have it. Real reform requires real choice. A public option provides consumers a critical alternative to private plan. (Rep. Chaka Fattah, “Healthcare: Public Option Mirrors Other Government Insurance Plans,” Press Release, 8/21/09)

Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL): “….in recent days there have been some reports that the President may reconsider requiring a strong, robust public option that competes directly with private insurance companies. That would be a mistake. Health care reform without a public option is a like a car without a motor. It may look nice, but it isn’t going anywhere.” (Ed Tibbetts, “Hare To Biden: Don’t Drop Public Option,” The Quad City Times, 8/20/09)

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL): Jackson held a town hall meeting last night - with CNN cameras present - that he described to King as civil before laying down a marker for his friend, the president. “A hundred and sixty members of Congress have already signed a letter indicating that without a strong public option, from their perspective, including my signature, that this bill is a non-starter,” Jackson said. (Steve Rhodes, “Prescription For Debate,” NBC Chicago.com, 8/20/09)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): Liberal Democrats are terrified that he will jettison their Holy Grail, while conservatives fear that a vote for a public option - characterized by opponents as leading to government-run health care - could doom them in tough re-election fights. “This is not a sliver of health care reform, this is essential,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, an Oakland Democrat, one of 60-plus House liberals who vow to vote against any plan without a public option. Lee said she hopes Obama will clearly state his support. “This is really a moral imperative,” she said. “This is a huge issue.” (Carolyn Lochhead, “Dems Pin Health Reform Hopes On Obama’s Speech, The San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/09)

Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY): “We are making clear to the leadership that we insist on a robust public option and our votes won’t be there if there isn’t a public option,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), a senior member of the House Progressive Caucus. Whether they would actually vote no is unclear. Some working to pass the measure find the threat unpersuasive. The Progressive Caucus has 82 members, enough to defeat a health bill, since virtually all 178 House Republicans are likely to vote no. (Laura Meckler and Naftali Bendavid, “Liberals Fear Losing Public-Plan Option,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/29/09)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Meanwhile, Jan Schakowsky, a leading progressive Democratic lawmaker, said liberals were not prepared to climb down. “I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation – no triggers,” she said. “I believe Congress will pass and the president will sign such a bill.” (Edward Luce, “Obama Seeks To Quell Healthcare Revolt,” The Financial Times, 9/3/09)

Rep. Peter Stark (D-CA): “Well, the only co-op I know about is when I used to milk cows and we sold the milk to Golden Guernsey. And I think there’s only one co-op left,” said Stark, who considers the co-op idea a non-starter. “There aren’t many of you listening who remember the co-ops of the ’30s, which was a - just kind of a Roosevelt outgrowth of rural electric co-ops, phone co-ops.” (David Lightman and William Douglas, “Health Care Debate Exposes Regional Rift For Democrats,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/3/09)

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) agreed with Conyers’s ominous analysis and warned that House liberals will not settle for the kind of compromise that might be necessary in the Senate. “You’re asking whether or not we will support some other alterative to public option, and I want to be very, very clear,” she told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “We’ve got to have a public option. I will not vote for anything that doesn’t have a public option.” (Eric Zimmermann, ”Black Caucus Members: It’s Public Option Or Nothing,” The Hill 9/9/09)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY): Reform proponents like Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) say he won’t have the votes for one that doesn’t. “Having a plan that doesn’t have a public option is worse than having doing nothing at all,” he said. “Leaving the insurance companies in charge of this is kind of like leaving a pyromaniac in charge of the fire department. (Don Dahler, “No Public Option Is A Mistake,” wcbstv.com, 8/17/09)

Rep. Lynn Woosley (D-CA): Woolsey said she will vote against any measure that lacks a “robust public option” based on the Medicare model and intended to compete with private insurance. Without it, health care remains “business as usual,” Woolsey said by phone from an education conference in Banff, Alberta. “It’s not reform without the public option.” (Mike Coit, “Woolsey, House Liberals Demand ‘Public Option’ Health Plan,” The Press Democrat, 8/18/09)

Tags: Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Democrats, Drudge Report, public-option
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

23 Congressional Dems Publicly Commit to Voting Against Obamacare

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

The Hill reported today that there have already been 23 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who have publicly proclaimed that they will not support a government overhaul of the health care industry as proposed by President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress.

In the article “Already, 23 Dems Have Said They Will Vote ‘No’ on Healthcare Reform,” Mike Soraghan and Michael M. Gleeson outline the opposition of these Democrats, explaining that they justify their “nay” vote by pointing out the imposition of new taxes on individuals, the creation of fines on businesses who fail to provide insurance for their employees and the staggering price tag of the proposals. For some, these concerns are only exacerbated by the legislation’s provision for a mandatory abortion subsidy.

The Hill lists the following Democrats as those who have indicated they would vote against Obamacare:

John Adler (N.J.)
Jason Altmire (Pa.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Allen Boyd (Fla.)
Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Travis Childers (Miss.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Parker Griffith (Ala.)
Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Betsy Markey (Colo.)
Eric Massa (N.Y.)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Charlie Melancon (La.)
Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Tom Perriello (Va.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Bart Stupak (Mich.)
John Tanner (Tenn.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)

A few Congressional Democrats have become especially outspoken critics of the proposals, including Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS) and Congressman John Adler (D-NJ).

Some are definitive. There’s Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), a Blue Dog who is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Caucus. He told a town hall meeting last month, “I would hope by now that everyone in this room knows that I am not going to vote for the healthcare plan.”

Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.), a vulnerable Democrat, was equally blunt. He told a group of constituents last month, “The bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America.”

Still, there are some Democratic lawmakers who remain undecided on their stance, weighing the consequences of scathing public sentiment and partisan solidarity.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who unseated an incumbent in 2008 by a scant 745 votes, said at a town hall meeting, “I am a ‘no’ now, but I really want to get to a ‘yes.’ ”

And plenty of others aren’t ready to take a position.

“I’ll do the best I can, but I don’t know what’s the right thing to do yet,” Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) told the Los Angeles Times after a town hall meeting. “I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t even know what we’re going to be voting on.”

Moreover, there are some Democrats who reject the bill “in its current form” but do not appear to rule out other reform initiatives. It seems that they perceive the public option as a widely unpopular proposal and have voiced their disapproval of this particular bill as a means to shield themselves from unhappy constituents as they work towards passage of alternative legislation.

Others, such as Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), say they can’t support the bill “in its current form.” The bill is widely expected to change before it goes to the House floor, but if Pelosi keeps the public option in the bill, many centrists will see it as a left-leaning bill.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who unseated an incumbent in 2008 by a scant 745 votes, said at a town hall meeting, “I am a ‘no’ now, but I really want to get to a ‘yes.’ ”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed that she is unconcerned with these dissenters within her party, arguing that their votes would not be necessary to pass the sweeping forms that progressives desire.

The Pelosi camp, for its part, sees no reason to be discouraged.

“The Congress will pass and the president will sign this year health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Pelosi has vowed to include in the bill a government-run insurance plan, commonly called a “public option,” to compete with private insurers.

It is apparent that this hardline approach to health care reform is meant to appease far-Left lawmakers, special interests and media. With members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), pro-Obamacare special interests and liberals in the blogosphere demanding a public option, Speaker Pelosi must answer to their call for single-payer philosophy to dictate the legislation produced.

But deleting the public option won’t make life easier for Pelosi.

At least 60 liberal Democrats have pledged to vote against a healthcare bill with no public option, which they view as watered-down reform.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has said dropping the public option completely would lose 100 Democratic votes.

If moderate Democrats hold out on the public option and liberal Democrats block a “compromise” measure, such as a co-operatives system or “trigger” phase-in, what choices remain for Congress? Certainly, Speaker Pelosi, despite being far more liberal than nearly all of her colleagues in the House, has achieved enormous success in agenda-setting and ensuring the passage of progressive legislation since she assumed her leadership role in 2007.

Even Pelosi’s critics and skeptics have to concede that she has almost never lost in the House since becoming Speaker. The main exception is the first vote on the $700 billion bailout package requested by the Bush administration, which later passed.

She twisted arms one by one in July to pass a climate change bill despite deep skepticism among centrists and Democrats from manufacturing states. But some of the public backlash from that has frightened and angered centrist and vulnerable members.

Health care reform might be the exception. The Hill asserts that if all Republicans vote against the proposals, Speaker Pelosi “can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.” The Blue Dog Coalition, made up of 2 members, has already issued several statements that indicate their group opposes health care reform legislation as it is currently presented by their liberal colleagues and the Obama Administration.

President Obama will address Congress in a prime-time television broadcast Wednesday evening to offer his Administration’s vision for health care reform, as lawmakers return from August Recess to debate the legislation after meeting with interest groups and their constituents at town halls in their home districts.

Tags: Allen Boyd, Barack Obama, bart stupak, Betsy Markey, Blue Dog Coalition, bobby bright, charlie melancon, co-operatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus, dan boren, Earl Pomeroy, Ellen Carmichael, Eric Massa, Frank Kratovil, gene taylor, health care reform, heath shuler, Henry Cuellar, Jason Altmire, Jim Costa, Jim Matheson, John Adler, John Barrow, John Tanner, Nancy Pelosi, Parker Griffith, public-option, Rick Boucher, The Hill, Tom Perriello, travis childers, trigger, Walt Minnick, white house
Posted in The Players | 2 Comments »

BREAKING NEWS: OBAMA RETREATS FROM PUBLIC OPTION BATTLE

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2009, 11:30 PM EDT:

According to a late breaking report from Politico, President Barack Obama has abandoned his goal to reform health care through a government overhaul of the industry through his proposed public option plan, a program that would establish a federal government alternative to private insurance.

This announcement reflects HCHR’s own Warner Todd Huston’s earlier assessment that indicated President Obama would offer his own roadmap for health care reform in the next few days. Politico confirmed this finding by explaining that the President would give a speech to the American public within the week.

The White House has often refused to take a stand on their preference for health care reform legislation, citing the failed attempts of the Clinton Administration to pass similar proposals crafted behind closed doors in the mid-1990s. The public vehemently opposed this approach, resenting the secrecy and partisan nature surrounding its creation.

President Obama endured plummeting poll numbers each time he became a vocal proponent of the public option. To make matters worse, general public opinion data proves health care reform efforts from the Democrats in Congress have elevated their GOP adversaries and catalyzed a widespread distrust of their party.

According to Rasmussen Reports:

43 percent of Americans would rather vote for a Republican candidate than a Democrat (36 percent) in the next election.
President Obama’s daily tracking numbers are spiraling downward, with only 30 percent of voters “strongly approving” of his job performance and 41 percent strongly disapproving, a Presidential Approal Rating of -11.
The American people still oppose liberal health care reform, with 53 percent against the Democrats’ proposals and only 43 percent supporting them.

With the public option no longer the primary goal for the White House, President Obama and liberals in Congress must answer to America’s progressives who empowered the far-Left Illinois center to become the Democratic Party nominee, and ultimately, the president. To these leftists, a public option was already too watered down from their goal of a single-payer, universal health care system and a co-operatives program, supported by a few Blue Dog Democrats and some moderate Republicans, is unacceptable to them.

Rasmussen Reports illustrates this point in a recent survey of registered Democrat voters, the majority of whom rejected the idea of health care reform without a government overhaul offered by a public option. Rasmussen discovered that 57 percent of Democrats oppose any legislation that does not include provisions for a public option system.

Now, President Obama, criticized for a lackadaisical role in the legislative process, must formulate his own methods of achieving success with his administration’s hallmark platform issue, a daunting task for his colleagues, as they have spent several months trying to persuade American voters to stand behind him on the public option. If another measure were introduced, it could take months for it to make its way through all the committees and onto the floor of Congress, even if the Democratic majority were to employ the budget reconciliation procedure.

“I’m not going to put a date on any of this,” Axelrod said. “But I think it’s fairly obvious that we’re not in the second inning. We’re not in the fourth inning. We’re in the eighth or ninth inning here, and so there’s not a lot of time to waste.”

Additionally, a co-operatives bill would not satisfy the requirements of the liberal Congressional leadership and would face strong opposition from conservatives who already stirred up enough public anxiety to defeat the public option. Co-operatives would strictly rely upon the aforementioned Blue Dog Democrats and the moderate Republicans to pass, but these groups simply do not have the numbers to usher the bill all the way to President Obama’s desk.

However, public option provisions still exist in all four Congressional health care bills. Some Democrats, indignant over the President’s sudden forsaking of liberal autonomy, pledge to continue to fight for the public option, with or without his help.

Is this the end of President Obama’s dream to pass sweeping health care reform legislation by the close of the 111th Congress? If so, Sen. Jim DeMint could be right. It just might be his Waterloo.

Tags: Blue Dog Coalition, co-operatives, Congress, Ellen Carmichael, liberal, Politico, progressive, public-option, Rasmussen
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Americans for Tax Reform: It’s All “Public” in the End

Friday, August 21st, 2009

With recent chatter indicating that the Obama Administration appears willing to drop their “public option” proposal and instead settle for a “co-operatives” system, some Americans might think that Democrats are abandoning their hopes of socializing medicine. According to Ryan Ellis, tax policy analyst for Americans for Tax Reform, that is simply not the case.

“It is important to remember that, truthfully, the public option is still in play,” Ellis explained in an interview with healthcarehorserace.com. “It’s really too early to tell what’s going to happen with the issue and we can’t be too quick to assume they’re ditching it all-together.”

Ellis refers to several reports that claimed the White House and liberals in Congress decided to respond to the unpopularity of their public option plan, and transition to a co-operative system, offering a bit of false hope for the President’s adversaries on the Right.

As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out, President Obama faces a significant challenge ahead. Because the White House has treated the issue of health care reform with such irremediable urgency and elevated it to such importance on the liberal policy agenda, President Obama realizes he must pass something to stick to his word and hopefully, remain in the good graces of a skeptical public.

With that in mind, Ellis knows that the White House and Democrats in Congress will continue to push for sweeping health care reform. The problem now, he says, is that what they are claiming to support and what the legislation actually says are two entirely different things.

“Basically, co-operatives are the exact same as a public option, just called by a different name,” Ellis said. “A system of co-operatives would be just as big, just as damaging as the public option.”

But what about reports that maintain the Wyden-Bennett bill, a “bi-partisan” measure that would institute a co-operative plan, enjoys a “deficit-neutral” rating from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)?

“Just because they claim it is deficit-neutral doesn’t mean it is responsible,” Ellis warned. “All that rating means is that Wyden-Bennett is going to raise taxes just as much as it raises spending.”

“It is important to understand that the co-operatives bill is going to create hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases, force an individual mandate and in the end, create a government-run system.”

“On top of that, they [Democrats] are telling everyone how it’s only going to cost $3 or $4 billion to keep up the program, but what they’re not telling everyone is that that $3 or $4 billion is only for start-up costs,” he continued.

Wallace Forman of Americans for Tax Reform published a piece Tuesday, August 18, 2009 that echoed Ellis’s very sentiment. The article, entitled “A Public Option Co-op is still a Public Option: And Probably Not a Co-Op,” points out that if health care co-operatives were so wonderful, they would exist, when similar systems, such as credit unions, already do.

Americans for Tax Reform argues that a co-operative system of health care reform would infringe upon patient choice, cost more than supporters are willing to admit and ultimately open the floodgates for perpetual government interference in care. To make matters worse, a co-operative plan would further empower bureaucrats and political beneficiaries to determine just how health care is handled in the U.S., consistently bypassing the needs of each individual patient.

In particular, Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the key Finance Committee negotiators, has proposed a co-op that would be subsidized by a $10 billion start up fund and controlled by presidential appointees. Schumer has made it clear that he wants a government-run national alternative to the private market.

If a “co-op” is controlled by presidential appointees, it’s unclear in what sense it would actually be a co-op. It would be meaningless to claim that an insurance option was owned by its policy holders if it were in fact controlled by the government. Importantly, HHS Secretary Sebelius seems to have been endorsing Schumer’s version of the co-op instead of the less obviously statist version favored by Senator Kent Conrad. Co-ops are ok, she explained, as long as they are not private insurance companies. She even goes so far as to say that some sort of government-control is in fact the only part of “competition” that is non-negotiable:

“That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”

An astute observer should notice some familiar rhetoric in that quote. In their crusade to convince Americans to stand behind a public option, Obamacare supporters attempted to turn conservative principles against the Right. They mocked Republicans for leaning on free market principles, blaming these fundamentals for causing the inevitable (though arguably nonexistent) downfall of society and the plight of the poor.

Suddenly, the Democrats began to cheer on the public option as a method of creating the same competition they condemned just weeks before. If the Right is so in favor of competition, they would whine, why do they oppose letting the government compete with the private sector?

As Forman proves in his piece, it is intellectually dishonest to accept that government is truly competing with the private sector when it is the only competitor allowed in the market. A public option would impose debilitating regulations and obscene tax hikes that would eventually make private sector coverage a mere memory.

Ryan Ellis hopes that the American people can sift through clever naming and framing tactics of the Left to realize that in the end, a co-operatives system is “just as public” as the liberal reform proposals of past.

“If it were to pass, this bill is going to create a government board that will determine benefits and set premiums,” he said. “What’s the difference between this and the public option they wanted? It is all really public.”

Meanwhile, Democrats bicker over how they will tackle health care reform. On the one hand, they must answer to the progressive Democrats who voted America’s most liberal U.S. Senator to be their party’s nominee and ultimately, president. These progressives lament that even a public option is too watered down from the single-payer system for which they pine, and now, they want to hold President Obama accountable for his promises of universal health care. These progressives find leadership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and champions in extreme leftists like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NV) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

On the other hand, the self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative” Blue Dog Democrats in Congress have consistently resisted submitting to the progressives’ wishes. The Blue Dog Coalition (BDC) is comprised largely by lawmakers whose presence guarantees a solid majority for the Democrats in Congress. When they were a part of the minority in Congress until January 2007, these Blue Dog Democrats cooperated with their progressive counterparts to unite in legislative battles against the GOP. Thanks to sensible campaigning that ran moderate Democrats to appeal to the center-right nature of the country, the Democrats picked up enough seats to take over Congress.

Now, the Democrats control Congress, and therefore, control the direction of the country, and the two factions of the party must decide which philosophy will prevail, and which resulting legislation will be utilized to reform health care. While the progressives still cling tightly to the prospects of state-sponsored health care, the Blue Dog Democrats know their constituents back home are far more conservative than the liberal leadership in Congress that guides them, and voting lockstep with their colleagues could destroy their re-election hopes in 2010. Still, the Blue Dogs know that long after the current health care debate ends, they must work with progressives next year as they push their own legislation forward. So, they stall.

But they can only stall for so long. With an antsy White House and hollering progressives banging at their door, the Blue Dogs yearn for some sort of compromise that satisfies their colleagues and constituents. And many of them seem to think they have found it in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which would ultimately lead to a government takeover of health care but on the surface appears far less frightening than the public option to their constituents.

To obtain “back up,” these Blue Dog Democrats have tried to lure moderate Republicans to support co-operatives as an alternative to the progressives’ proposals and too many seem open to discussing it. But according to Ryan Ellis, Republicans and Blue Dogs should be mindful that no matter the title, any sort of government plan would end up being the public option.

“All they have done is rename the bill. I don’t know why the progressives are complaining about this. It’s exactly what they want, only with a different name,” he concluded. “There’s no consolation in Wyden-Bennett to those who oppose a single-payer because this is still it.”

Tags: Americans for Tax Reform, Blue Dog Coalition, co-operatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Democrats, Ellen Carmichael, health care reform, President Obama, public-option, Ryan Ellis
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

White House Considers Abandoning “Public Option”

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

According to a report published today by the Associated Press, the White House seems prepared to drop the “public option,” the pride and joy of their administration’s policy proposals, from health care reform legislation up for debate in Congress.

Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama’s administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

The Obama Administration appears at least somewhat willing to ditch the public option and sign on to a plan that would create health insurance cooperatives as a means of increasing health care coverage. Many liberals have already indicated that a public option would be too much of a compromise and instead push for a single-payer, government-run health care system.

The President and Democrats in Congress must decide if they will accept the will of the majority, potentially angering bleeding heart liberals, or if they will reward die-hard leftist supporters by promoting a more sweeping measure of reform. Certainly, health care has been a top priority for President Obama, and the failure of his administration to deliver any results could, indeed, become his “Waterloo” (via Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]).

With public support for a government overhaul of health care plummeting daily, the Obama Administration is forced to seek more moderate alternatives to reform the industry.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

One such proposal comes from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), where “consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives” would offer insurance to compete with private providers. This procedure would mimic that of electric and agriculture co-ops found in rural states in the U.S.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Apparently, the White House is getting the message from the American people: a public option would not compete with private insurers, but instead, simply squash competition all-together, thanks to increased regulations, profit caps and tax hikes.

In typical incoherent fashion, America’s Oracle at Delphi, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to indicate whether or not the President would view the public option as a “make-or-break choice” for his plans for reform.

“What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

“All I’m saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety ofhealth care reform,” Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

Right, but didn’t the American people (and economists, and pretty much everyone) already explain that a public option would ensure that couldn’t happen? If the President wants to guarantee competition, why would he create a system that would hinder it?

The idea of co-ops is not new. Many lawmakers have considered cooperatives for some time now, asserting that it would expand coverage while maintaining private insurance already in place.

Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a “wasted effort.” He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

“It’s not government-run and government-controlled,” he said. “It’s membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that’s why it has appeal on both sides.”

As public opinion turns on the President and Democrats in Congress, it is obvious they are buckling under pressure, not having a change of heart. However, the absence of a public option does not make it any easier for conservatives in Congress to block legislation that would ultimately reject free market-based, patient-centered reforms.

A shift to a cooperative plan would certainly give some cover to fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are hardly cheering for the government-run plan.

“The reality is that it takes 60 percent to get this done in the Senate. It’s probably going to have to be bipartisan in the Senate, which I think it should be,” said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who added that the proposals still need changes before he can support them.

A public option, though certainly dangerous if passed, brings together opponents with varying interests. Social conservatives disapprove of the current health care proposals because they do not protect the sanctity of life and do not allow for doctors to opt out of performing abortions based on their own religious or moral beliefs. Fiscal conservatives fight the bill because of tax hikes. Small business owners dislike it because of the enormous strain a public option would place through excess regulation and increased financial burdens.

If a public option is removed from the legislation, it would be significantly easier for Congressional liberals to push their proposals through in pieces. Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans might be willing to accept an employer mandate, individual mandate or expansion of government-run programs, allowing Democrats to chip away at the opposition little by little. They will also be able to shield themselves from public scrutiny, as each component, though notable by itself, seems less detrimental to the American public as the massive overhaul they once feared.

The GOP is in a quandary. Should they rejoice in a victory of destroying the White House’s hopes of socializing medicine through state-run health care or must they scramble to assimilate the votes to block further disastrous health care legislation from the Left as it is proposed piece by piece?

Tags: Barack Obama, Blue Dog Coalition, cooperatives, Ellen Carmichael, headline, health care reform, Kathleen Sebelius, public-option, Robert Gibbs
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

For Some Leftists, Phone Numbers are Hard.

Monday, August 10th, 2009

It was on March 10, 1876 that the first successful telephone conversation occurred. Alexander Graham Bell placed a call to his colleague and the recipient clearly understood each word spoken. Just three years later, a system of numbers to identify unique telephone transmission recipients began. More than 130 years and thousands upon thousands of innovations later, some people still haven’t caught on.

This club of telephone illiterate Americans is no longer restricted to kindergartners and the senile. They can now welcome three new members to their ranks: the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America and a miniscule group of leftists in the state of Nebraska.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, backed by the folks at moveon.org, collaborated with Democracy for America to launch a television advertising campaign targeting specific Blue Dog Democrats for, in their view, stalling on President Obama’s plans to create a government overhaul of the health care industry and resisting efforts from liberal colleagues to swiftly push his sweeping legislation through Congress.

Some of their Congressional adversaries include Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). They planned to attack Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Nelson, along with a few other Blue Dogs, in the same commercial that depicted a man unable to acquire health care. The commercial then blames “Sen. X” (insert Blue Dog victim here) for “leading the charge to delay health care this summer,” as though health care itself would not be possible at all without the passage of these reforms this summer.

Then, the story-boarding became just a little too difficult for these creative geniuses. At the end of the commercial, the district phone number of the respective targeted Blue Dog Senator would flash on the screen, urging constituents to call their elected official to demand they vote lockstep with their progressive colleagues on health care reform.

Ignoring the fact that the constituencies of most, if not all, of their targets strongly oppose this legislation was not the only faux pas of Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. When it was time to insert the office number for Sen. Nelson of Nebraska, the ad’s astute developers instead published the number for Sen. Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana district office.

Likely panicked due to plummeting poll numbers and growing, vocal public resistance to Obamacare, the teams at PCCC and Democracy for America were simply too flustered to edit the clips and proofread for specifics to ensure that the performance clip, targeted attack and media markets corresponded correctly. Without a second thought, the commercials hit the airwaves in Sen. Nelson’s home state of Nebraska, instructing his constituents to call the number on their screens to voice their concerns.

This might have been effective if Sen. Nelson decided to spend his August recess reveling in the French Quarter, as the number assigned to his Nebraska commercial belonged to the New Orleans, La., office of Sen. Landrieu.

What is more astonishing than the editorial incompetence of the groups creating and then airing the botched ad is the fact that Sen. Landrieu’s office did, indeed, receive at least a handful of calls that could cause one to wonder just how dense the far-Left in Nebraska might be. It is important to note that the North American Numbering Plan, the entity that assigns phone numbers, only allocated two area codes to the Cornhusker state- 308 and 402- with the majority of the state using the 308 distinction and the two largest cities, Omaha and Lincoln, sharing 402. Sen. Landrieu’s office is located in Louisiana’s 504 area code, which is neither of the two possible choices for any district office located in Nebraska. Or anything in Nebraska, really.

In a statement to Politico’s Anne Schroeder Mullins, Sen. Landrieu’s spokesman Aaron Saunders quipped:

Look, I’m no ad expert, but I find their attack on Ben Nelson to be pretty ineffective. Their whole strategy of encouraging Nebraskans to call Ben Nelson at Senator Landrieu’s office is ill-conceived at best.

We’re not aware of a single instance when Senator Nelson has worked out of our New Orleans office. We assume the best way to contact Senator Nelson is by calling one of his offices or another Nebraska phone number- perhaps any Nebraska phone number.

But like I said, I’m no ad expert. From what I’ve read, Senator Nelson is committed to reforming health care, just like Senator Landrieu.If the Democracy for America wants to convince folks otherwise, they might want to start knowing which state each senator represents.

No big surprise here, but our New Orleans office has received only a handful of calls for upset Nebraskans.

While the uber-Left attempts to paint the Center-Right movement in America as being made up of either money-grubbing sadists or backwoods, inbred ignoramuses, their own prospective supporters didn’t even know their home state’s two possible area codes and called a U.S. senator thousands of miles away.

Here are a few suggestions for the masterminds at PCCC, Democracy for America and the rest of the Left:

Please, we implore you, continue to drain your bank accounts by purchasing more air time for these clever television spots, even despite your monopoly on “earned, free coverage through the mainstream media. Heck, you can go ahead and even fix them to show the correct phone numbers! It is a recession, after all, so pumping some money into local media markets around the U.S. could perform that economic stimulus the Left is so fond of. Your message is really resonating in Red states like Louisiana and Nebraska, so keep it up!
The Left has really paved the way in mobilizing citizens to get involved in government, regardless of their motivation-strong-arming, fear-mongering or same-day cash payment. It would be great to incorporate some of your new supporters in Nebraska during upcoming activities, whether they are your events, a private organization’s program you plan to crash or an elected official’s August Recess town hall. They were so excited about Obamacare that they even called another state’s U.S. senator, so you know they’ll be fired up and ready to get to work for the liberal agenda! Put that energy to good use and let these informed citizens have a crack at the microphone. They seem like the perfect spokespeople (grassroots, not Astroturf, of course) to ensure victory for your cause.
Lastly, and probably most importantly, it such a solid strategy to run progressive, pro-universal health care ads in Red states where Blue Dog Democrats snuck in a U.S. Senate seat. These Blue Dogs are caught between a rock and a hard place, and the progressives noticed it first! On the one hand, they want political expediency with their leadership in Congress and fear that voting out of line on health care could jeopardize the standing of their future legislative proposals. On the other hand, they know their constituents are very much against socializing medicine and have the power to fire them come re-election time. Take advantage of this turmoil! You have the perfect opportunity to shape public policy in such a meaningful way by promoting the circumvention of the will of the people. Don’t let the “feelings” and “opinions” of the local simpletons deter you from trying to influence their elected officials. They just don’t know what’s good for them (Obamacare!) yet, but they’ll thank you later.

Tags: Aaron Saunders, Alexander Graham Bell, Anne Schroeder Mullins, Ben Nelson, Blue Dog Coalition, Center-Right, commercial, Democracy for America, Ellen Carmichael, Mary Landrieu, Nebraska, North American Numbering Plan, Obamacare, Politico, Progressive Campaign Committee
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Have Blue Dog Democrats Sold Out on Health Care?

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

It never ceases to amaze those in the realm of political discourse how things can change so quickly in so little time. Less than a day after a memo from David L. Cavicke, Republican Chief of Staff for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, was leaked and obtained by Politico in which it was revealed that “Democratic Leadership” had “told Mr. Boehner’s staff that there will be no vote on Health on the Floor before recess and we will leave Friday,” an apparent breakthrough has been made on the Blue Dog Democrat front of the health care reform battle. What this last-minute deal means – a victory for ObamaCare and the Democratic leadership or simple a face-saving rouse – has yet to be seen.

Fox News is reporting that a deal was reached early this morning. The compromise, according to one member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, “would cut the cost of the $1 trillion-plus package by $100 billion” and would “ensure that the proposed government-run insurance program would not be forced on anyone.” In exchange, the floor vote in the House will be put off until after Labor Day when legislators reconvene. Seven Blue Dog Democrats held up passage of the bill within the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the only panel within the House not to pass some form of the president’s health care reform legislation, over growing concerns for the high-cost of the program and the speed at which Democratic leadership was trying to force a vote. Four of those seven Blue Dogs on the committee – Representatives Mike Ross of Arkansas, Baron Hill of Indiana, Zack Space of Ohio, and Bart Gordon of Tennessee – relented and agreed on passage of the bill this morning. This gives Chairman Henry Waxman, representative from California, just enough votes to pass the bill through the committee. It is expected that the committee will meet up this afternoon for mark-up, or finalization, of the bill.

What will happen to President Obama’s health care reform legislation hereafter is anyone’s guess at this point. This is hardly a victory for the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress, however. There is no physical bill for the president to sign – undoubtedly though he will go out among the masses at his town-hall revivals and proclaim, quite prematurely, “Mission: Accomplished” on ‘meeting’ his August deadline – and there will not be a floor vote on the bill until after Labor Day. At most this ‘deal’ was simply a face-saving maneuver for Obama and Nancy Pelosi going into recess. Still, the choice for the Democrats to take the fight over health care reform in this direction is a double-edged sword for them. Going into recess with nothing would have been hugely embarrassing for the Democrats. Congressional Republicans would have touted this as a victory for their cause and rightfully so. At least with this, they can proclaim that they accomplished something, even if what they eventually did produce lacked any real teeth. No doubt their friends in the mainstream media will gleefully help mask this rouse as a victory for the White House.

But, at the same time, opponents of the president’s legislation have gained a vital opportunity as well. They now have a fixed target date and, quite possibly by the time both houses of Congress break for recess, will have actual legislation to cite. This basically allots them weeks of free-range target practice in which to take pot shots at moderate ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats for not reading the bill. They’ll have plenty of ammo to use. For example, the fact that the $100 billion ‘cut’ from the program is a mere spit in the bucket compared to the overall $900 billion cost.

One has to also take note that while this not be a solid victory for the Democrats, neither is it defeat. The fight is just beginning. Nancy Pelosi still only needs thirteen or fourteen of the fifty-two Blue Dog Democrats to pass the bill on the floor on a razor-thin majority vote.

Tags: Arkansas, Baron Hill, Bart Gordon, Blue Dog, Blue Dog Coalition, Blue Dog Democrats, California, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congress, David L. Cavicke, Fox News, health care, health care reform, healthcare, healthcare reform, Henry Waxman, Indiana, Mainstream Media, Mike Ross, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Ohio, Politico, Tennessee, Waterloo, Zack Space
Posted in Horserace, feature | Start the Discussion

House Democrats Vow to Continue Attempts to Overhaul Health Care, Republicans Promise to Resist

Monday, July 27th, 2009

In an Associated Press article published Sunday, Democrats vow to continue their attempt at a massive overhaul of America’s health care systems and Republicans promise to resist it.

Both sides agree that there is a need for serious reform to our current system. Democrats seek a “public option” that would allow for the government to act as a competitor with private sector insurance companies. Republicans reject this measure, and instead, offer free market solutions, alleviation of tax burdens and tort reform.

But, since the Democrats have the votes in Congress, it appears as though the only health care legislation that will reach the floor, at least until midterm elections in 2010, will be those authored by leading Democrats and the Republicans will be forced to continue playing defense.

While they are certainly outnumbered, the GOP is not alone. Fiscally conservative Democrats in Congress make up what is called the Blue Dog Coalition, a group that has already harshly criticized their liberal colleagues’ proposals as neglecting the need for competitiveness and putting bureaucrats before patients and their physicians.

Still, the Congressional Left wants to persuade the American public that despite Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) calling off the health care debate in the Senate until after the August recess, they maintain the votes on the House side to do something, and do something now. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) bragged on CNN’S “State of the Union” that she had secured the votes to pass the bill in the House.

“When I take this bill to the floor, it will win. We will move forward, it will happen,” Pelosi said.

Even if she is right, her Democratic colleagues in the Senate don’t seem so sure. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chairman of the powerful budgetary committee, admitted that the Democrats just haven’t locked up the support on the Senate side to pass it.

“Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle,” Conrad said.

Conrad’s statements signal that moderate Democrats in the Senate haven’t signed onto the Affordable Health Choices Act, a bill from the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that would attempt to offer universal coverage through a public option.

Pelosi neglected to acknowledge that it just might not be that easy on her side, either. 40 members of the Blue Dog Coalition expressed in a letter to her earlier this month that they would not sign the bill in its current form. 62 total Democrats in the House have indicated that they oppose at least one major component in the bill in its current form.

No matter what happens in the House, nothing will be heard on the Senate side until at least September. Therefore, President Obama’s goal of signing sweeping health care reform legislation by August recess cannot and will not be met.

Tags: Affordable Health Choices Act, Blue Dog Coalition, Congress, Democrats, Ellen Carmichael, Harry Reid, health care reform, healthcare reform, Kent Conrad, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Pelosi, public-option, Reid, Republicans, socialized medicine, Ted Kennedy
Posted in Horserace | 1 Comment »

These Dogs Won’t Roll Over: Blue Dog Dems Issue Demands to Pelosi, Hoyer

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

Talking Points Memo obtained a letter dated July 9, 2009 sent from the Blue Dog Coalition to the leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD). The letter, signed by 40 moderate Democrats hailing mainly from the South and the West, outlines the changes they demand before signing onto a health care reform bill.

These self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative Democrats” wrote the leader of the House and the leader of their party in Congress to express “strong reservations” about the “process and direction” of the current legislation up for debate surrounding health care reform. The Blue Dog Democrats believe that the legislation lacks deficit neutrality, delivery system reform, small business protection, rural health equity and bipartisanship.

The Coalition also reminded Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer that their group already explained their requirements for a “yes” vote on any health care bill brought to the floor. They also echoed the sentiments of those calling for adequate time for both elected officials and the general public to examine and discuss any proposed legislation, including amendments or changes to the bill. ”Too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress’ ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans,” the letter said.

The group indicated that despite assumed party loyalties, they would not simply vote lockstep with their colleagues on the Left. Without “significant progress” from current tri-committee health care legislation, the Blue Dog Coalition does not feel the reform measures would adequately meet their demands and as a result, they would not stand behind a bill that does not satisfy their requirements. ”We cannot support a final product that fails to do so,” they explained.

Tags: Blue Dog, Blue Dog Coalition, conservative Democrats, Ellen Carmichael, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Pelosi, public-option, socialized medicine, Stenny Hoyer, universal healthcare
Posted in The Players | 4 Comments »

Budget Reconciliation: A Red October or a Defeat of Socialized Medicine?

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

While every mainstream media Obamaniac, I mean commentator, seems to revel in their assumption of the passage of socialized medicine, it might be beneficial for the President’s adoring public to evaluate the likelihood of his success.

Like many things that the Obama Administration has accomplished, his war room is busy trying to push Sen. Kennedy’s “American Health Choices Act.” Aside from the typical “pulling the wool” over the eyes of the taxpayers, there is something else to consider: a GOP checkmate.

Given their numbers in Congress, one might be confused as to how this egregious form of socialism can be stopped. Two words: budget reconciliation. Policy wonk speak aside, here’s what it really means for Congress, the President and America.

Currently, the Democrats technically have the number of votes, solely based on party lines, if they wanted to pass this thing. As mentioned in previous posts, the Blue Dog Coalition, made of moderate Congressional Democrats who intend to lean right on fiscal issues, has publicly opposed Sen. Kennedy’s bill, as it limits free market solutions and empowers bureaucrats, not patients and their physicians. Furthermore, a few moderate Democrats on the Senate side, including Landrieu, Conrad and Lieberman, have also vowed to vote against the bill. While this is a beautiful showing of some independence in Congress, it is not a guarantee. At the end of the day, these Democrats have to push their own bills forward, and with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) controlling the floor, it would be difficult for these Blue Dogs to win the favor of those uber-left leaders of their party.

That being said, there are still enough Congressional Democrats who fear the compromise of their incumbencies. They worry that if they vote with the liberals in their party, they would alienate their home districts and states, many of whom are more conservative than they are. Each day, more and more business and medical communities come out against nationalizing health care, and the grassroots movement has empowered constituents to call and write their elected representatives to fight this thing.

So, if President Obama and Sen. Ted Kennedy don’t have enough votes now, what happens? In October, the process of “budget reconciliation” means. This means that any bills that have not been previously decided earlier in session are heard. They are typically budget bills. One of the most famous examples of a budget reconciliation measure is President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts.

Legislation heard during the budget reconciliation process need only a “50+1″ margin of victory in the Senate. That means that the Democrats only need 50 solid votes, plus Vice President Biden, to win. So, they want to wait to October, right?

Wrong. It seems as though it would make a great deal of sense to wait until October, where they would surely be able to get a majority plus Vice President Biden. There are two catches to budget reconciliation bills that are not as appealing to the Dems.

1. Length of the measure’s application
2. Fiscal implications of the measure on the budget

A budget reconciliation measure only lasts 10 years. That’s why the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2011 if they are not renewed. This means that passing Sen. Kennedy’s bill, which is undoubtedly intended to ensure extreme and lasting institutional changes, would only amount to 10 years of socialism through state-sponsored health insurance. A GOP Congress or president could certainly happen within the next 10 years, undoing their “progress.” President Obama’s, and really, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s, legacy would be vulnerable.

A budget reconciliation measure cannot run a deficit. Ryan Ellis from Americans for Tax Reform explains that since we are already running a budget deficit, the Democrats would have to find the money somewhere: taxes. “They have to pay for this thing upfront and the only way they can do that is if they raise taxes,” he said.

This makes President Obama’s pledge to cut taxes for middle class Americans seem a little less feasible, as if anyone believed him in the first place. While Vice President Biden claims that the Obama Administration does not want to tax employer-provided health care benefits, he never said that they wouldn’t. You see, if they were serious about not taxing the benefits, they would have just come out and said so. But they didn’t. Too bad for them they might not have the option.

Taxing health benefits is extremely unpopular, even amongst Democrats. This includes the very vulnerable Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd, who faces a tough re-election bid next year. Dodd even went so far as to indicate that many of his colleagues share his sentiment. “This is is unnecessary, in my view,” Mr. Dodd said. “And I feel very strongly about this, as many do as well.”

We might also add that Sen. Dodd, the No. 2 member of the health care committee, is acting on behalf of the ailing Sen. Kennedy who authored the bill.

This is an admission even by the liberals that the tax isn’t popular and won’t work for their careers.

So, to break it down, if they can’t get this thing passed soon, budget reconciliation could mean a victory if they can sway enough votes. If not, they will be forced to except a 10-year measure and not the institutional change they desire and they will forced to be raise taxes and risk their own political careers.

And bottom line is, ABC doesn’t have enough money to give free air time to all of the liberals to persuade their home districts not to kick them out for voting for this thing. Besides, they have already given up enough of it to their fearless leader, President Obama.

Tags: Americans for Tax Reform, Biden, Blue Dog Coalition, budget reconciliation, Dodd, Grover Norquist, health care, Kennedy, Obama, Ryan Ellis, socialism
Posted in The Players, mainstory | Start the Discussion

Articles Tagged ‘Blue Dog Coalition’