Reconciliation Skepticism

‘Kill the bill’ advocates believe we should scrap the existing bills and begin anew with the reconciliation process (which requires only 51 votes in the senate).

I’m very skeptical about this process for a couple of reasons:

1) Congress is generally very risk averse, the closer we get into 2010, the greater this aversion becomes. Speaker Pelosi has already said that 2010 will be a quiet time, in terms of controversial legislation.

2) Killing the bill will take the wind out of the sails of legislators and give the momentum to the teabaggers and the ‘Party of No.’ Republicans are determined that health care be Obama’s ‘waterloo.’

3) Health care only passed in the House by 5 votes and that was with the Stupak Amendment. Will the Blue Dogs come along this time? Are there even 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?

4) A reconciliation bill could take a long time to hash out in both chambers. Does Congress, or America for that matter, have the stamina to begin again?

5) A reconciliation bill might not actually do what supporters think it will. Reconciliation only deals with budgetary issues, not regulatory issues. So, no banning rescission or policies that deny people with pre-existing conditions.

6) Even if Congress wants to scale back the number of controversial issues, big issues loom in 2010. Regulating the financial industry, passing worthwhile energy legislation, winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq, etc., are all potential 2010 or 2011 issues that Democrats will need 60 votes on. Don’t collapse the big tent out of spite.

Kill Bill?

"Kill the Bill," says DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

1) It's an over reaction to say this is the collapse of health care reform. Especially if this compromise can yield the 60-votes to break a filibuster.
2) It's true they only need 51 votes with reconciliation but don't forget reconciliation has problems of its own. The reconciliation process doesn't include regulatory issues, only budgetary ones. So if the votes exist to pass the regulations, and the regulations are good, why can't progressives come back with a reconciliation bill?
3) Starting back over is wrought with even more peril than going forward. Failure on this issue will be a huge blow to this administration and a feather in the cap to 'The Party of No.' This is unacceptable.

I will say it until I'm blue in the face: this bill does a tremendous amount of good. Start the reconciliation process if you're still not satisfied but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Via Greg Sargent

Joe vs. the Left

AAAHHHHH!!! (/head explode)

Effectively killing the senate compromise of last week, Lieberman says he will filibuster any bill containing the public option OR the medicare buy-in for people age 55-64.

“You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in,” Mr. Lieberman said. “You’ve got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act, which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit.”
Class Act refers to a federal insurance program for long-term care, known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act.

I shouldn't be surprised, Atrios predicted this a week ago: "any "compromise" which will make liberals sort of happy will just be a shiny object which will be pulled away at the last second."
What does Lieberman want? Is he actually opposed to a public option or Medicare buy-in based on policy analysis? No. The very same Medicare Buy-in Lieberman promises to filibuster was part of the Gore/Lieberman platform in 2000. Are his constituents opposed to reform? No. Connecticut voters support the public option. Is he bargaining for something unrelated to reform, like the ability to retain his committee chairmanship. Maybe, but other bills will require 60 votes in the future. He would probably have retained that seat if reform passed.

I think it is what it looks like. He trying to destroy the most progressive health care reform in 50 years just because he can? This is the glove that fits. Lieberman is doing this because he can. Because he has the power and he can finally get back at those who tried to destroy his career 3 years ago.
This is essentially Lieberman's revenge against liberal and progressive Democrats who opposed him in the 2006 primary and forced him to run as an independent. In a broken Senate that requires 60 votes to even go to the bathroom, this is a war Lieberman looks like he can win.
The only question now is what other cards does Reid have to play?