The Democrats and the Nuclear Option :: U4Prez, Social Networking For Politics

With the health care debate still at a fever pitch, the Democrats are swaying every which way in order to save a health care reform bill that has seen a drop in public support.

According to a summation of the latest NBC/WSJ poll: A plurality believes Obama’s health plan would worsen the quality of health care, a result that is virtually unchanged from last month’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. What’s more, only four in 10 approve of the president’s handling of the issue, which also is unchanged from July.

And a majority — 54 percent — is more concerned that the government will go too far in reforming the nation’s health care system, while 41 percent is more worried that the reform will not do enough to lower costs and cover the uninsured.

With public discourse at town hall meetings making some Democrats weary of passing the legislation in the face of a re-election bid, the White House threw out the idea of dropping the public option in favor of more voter friendly 'insurance reform'. Though a bit more popular with the American public, talk of dropping the public option has fueled anger from the far left progressive base, many of whom voted for the President on the basis of his activist roots. This has led to talk of a 'nuclear option' in the Senate, which admits it doesn't have the 60 votes to block a almost certain filibuster.

This 'nuclear option', known as reconciliation, allows certain legislation to pass the Senate with a 51 member vote. Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation.

In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the key decision-maker on whether to use the tactic, but several congressional aides said White House officials are being kept abreast of the talks.

"We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary."

So despite falling support amongst the American public could the Democrat leadership be willing to ignore the voice of the majority of Americans and force unpopular legislation through using a parliamentary tactic? It appears they are at least leaving that option open.

As Democrats continue to use the word bi-partisanship in passing legislation it begs one simple question. If they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, why would they need to use Reconciliation to pass a bill? The answer is they wouldn't if they had full support from members of their OWN party. Does it really have to do with bi-partisanship if you are willing to force it through anyway? You can decide that for yourself.

But will using Reconciliation reconcile with the American public in 2010? That is the big question and one the Senate Majority Leader may be willing to risk, along with some seats in blue dog states.

Comments

Well now its up to the Dems in the House do they vote first and accept the Senate version of the bill? This really was spelled out by Dick Morris today that Obama is asking them to make a "picket's charge"

I wrote this more than 6 moths ago and in light of certain events decided to pull it back out for debate as the thread back then is even more telling now.

They might just put all their eggs into 1 basket. After all how many seats will the GOP really pick u next year? I have alot more confidance in the House then I do in the Senate and they know they will have the White House so it could be very hard for the GOP to undo any damage that the White House does.

Agreed. They are putting all of their political eggs in one basket however. In the end will they want to risk the possible fallout of what has been proven to be flawed legislation?

If the anger does not fade, then they are screwed either way. So, I believe most would prefer to push it through and fight that it was the right choice than fold and have no ground to stand on at all.

"Dirty Harry" Reid has already said this bill will be passed by any means necessary...

All good points MD but with the fever the American people have been paying attention to the health care debate, i'm unsure if they will forget. Especially when the failings of the legislation kick in. Not to mention when the funding comes due. I believe reconciliation will happen. I am unsure if it will turn out to be the best option for those in office.

Reconciliation is, unfortunately, the best option for the Democrats. While it limits what they can do to a small degree (as the executive branch can expand through administrative policies and codes whatever the pass in general terms), it allows the blue dogs to vote against it and be able to campaign in 2010 saying that they "voted against parliamentary tricks and deficit spending", all the while the program goes through. By accomplishing something, the Democrats can claim credit and they can blame Republicans when the reforms fail saying that it was the Republicans that blocked their ability to pass a comprehensive plan that would have done better. Passing something in September even through reconciliation would allow them over a month to to spin it with the willing aid of the mainstream media and potentially rescue the governorship campaigns of Democrats. So, reconciliation allows them to pass something, prevent a humiliating public defeat at the hands of members of their own party, allows blue dogs to remain re-electable, gives them an issue to play to the base and leaves a year for the tempers of average Americans to cool before the midterm elections (usually more than enough time for the public to forget a political issue).

Since no one is talking about this I thought i'd bring it up. Even thinking about passing something through, using parliamentary procedures, as expensive and important as health care reform should be alarming to the American public. Especially when every poll on the planet has support for said legislation in the minority. I think our legisators need a reminder that they are supposed to work for us. They seem to have forgotten that aspect over the last 20 years or so.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Democrats and the "Nuclear Option"

Comments