After Brown: what happens now to health care reform?
Is this a complete game-changer? Will the Obama administration now be divided into two eras: BB and AB—Before Brown and After Brown?
There was a lot of trash talk on the part of Democrats and their supporters before yesterday’s election. For example, Speaker Pelosi said, whatever the outcome, ““Let’s remove all doubt. We will have health care one way or another.” And there are simpatico pundits who are still advising passage of that despised and rejected leviathan known as the Senate health care reform bill (see this, for example).
But no less a liberal than Barney Frank is saying “whoa!”—or at least, “whoa for now.” Here’s his statement:
I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
Although Frank is from Massachusetts, he is not in a threatened district. His constituents voted overwhelmingly for Coakley and for health care reform. But something is driving him, and if I’m any judge of Barney Frank it’s not a sudden concern for doing what’s right.
My guess is that, despite what Frank says, a Senate/House compromise was already a very iffy proposition before the Brown election, and that many House Democrats were balking. Now, with the Brown victory, Frank is getting word from others in the House that they refuse to go the only route possible to avoid a Brown vote against cloture, which would be for the House to pass the Senate bill as is. The only other option that would remain would be reconciliation in the Senate, which would be almost impossible to effect as well.
So Barney is sounding as though he’s taking the high road and refusing to ram health care reform down America’s throat. But is he? Reread his last sentence, and I think you’ll see that a strategic withdrawal is what is going on here. Frank would very much like to change the rules about the filibuster while Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate. That way, the rights of the minority would no longer be protected, and—as in the House—only a bare majority would be enough to pass legislation. If that had occurred, Brown’s election would have been far less influential in terms of its affect on the health care reform bill.
Is Barney Frank dreaming (not to mention the fact that, if Democrats lose a majority in the Senate, this would come back to bite them)? Perhaps, but if so he’s not alone. Abolishing the filibuster has been a rallying cry for the left for quite some time, and it remains so (see this, this, and this, among others). Just a few days ago, on January 16, Frank went on record as asking for a “crusade” to amend the rules to abolish the filibuster. So his post-election remark was not an idle one; it seems to be part of some sort of plan.
Could it succeed? I think not. But it’s hard to get clarity on how it would have to be done (see this and this). As best I can determine, it would appear that the standard approach would be the one used to amend a Senate rule, requiring a super-majority of 67 votes for the cloture vote rule to change. It is very hard to see how the Democrats could muster that number, if they can’t even gather sixty to call for cloture on health care reform.
But do they have some unknown tricks up their sleeves? To attempt to answer that question, take a look at this document. Written in November of 2003, it outlines a number of proposals under consideration at that time to change the cloture rules.
You may note the somewhat ironic point that, back then, with a Senate equally divided between the two parties, it was the Republicans who were trying to make the cloture rules more liberal (at least for judicial nominations) and the Democrats who were eloquently holding forth on the need to protect minority rights and keep things as is. It all came to naught, because Republicans lacked enough votes for it, and were loath to invoke what is known as the “nuclear option,” a proposal to get around the need for 67 votes, but one that might have destroyed the functioning of the Senate itself.
Do the Democrats have the stomach for a nuclear option now? It doesn’t appear that way, although these things are impossible to predict in the current climate (who would have predicted the events of the last year, for example?) But Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (and probably some others like him) seems more than willing to pull back from a fight.
Bayh has always positioned himself as a moderate Democrat, but when push came to shove he refused to be the forty-first vote against cloture on the health care bill, and now he knows he may pay the price by forfeiting his lengthy political career. So Bayh is backtracking rather frantically now:
“There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”
Many other Democrats in Congress are afraid that the bell that tolled yesterday for Martha Coakley will be tolling for them soon. But even if enough of them hear the voice of the people and respond by dropping this particular health care reform bill, will that bell be silenced? Will voters forgive them for what they have already done by letting such legislation get this far? My prediction is that a sizable number of the American people have taken their measure during the last traumatic year, and will not forget when voting time comes around.
Problems remain for the Democrats whatever they do. The trouble with retreating from the bill now (and perhaps even proposing some reasonable, bipartisan reforms) is that it would make them—and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi—look like fools for having stuck with the present bill so long. And the trouble with failing to retreat from the bill now is the same thing.
neo, yes, this election is a complete game-changer.
Obie cannot tack to the center as Bill Clinton did after the ’94 elections. Bill had been a governor in a more conservative sate, and at least had the experience of governing in that environment, Governing successfully enough, I might add, to win one term as Attorney General a few terms as Governor. Obie has no such experience, only knowing the Chicago Way of Politics (get your opponent thrown off the ballot). Obie is an ideologue, and knows no other way. He is what he is, a progressive communist who ran as a moderate centrist. His whole administration has been a lie, from the campaign straight through to now. People have noticed, as the Massachusett[e]s election shows. Obie is toast. After throwing away his political capital, like with the Porkulous Bill with the urgent cries of ‘we need it now or else unemployment will go over 8%’, he’s crippled his Presidency after one year. A good thing for the Republic, IMHO.
I predict that the response of Obama and Democrats on health care reform will be serial incoherence. They’ve lost the plot and it’s all unraveling on them.
They face not only an aroused citizenry opposed to their high-handed, stratospherically expensive, and corrupt legislation, but they are also beset by their base’s rage that they have accomplished nothing even with huge majorities and have betrayed promises of transparency and throwing the lobbyists out.
The Obami played their hand badly even in the most favorable conditions. I doubt they will do better now that they have lost their Senate supermajority, high poll numbers, and the confidence of their previously loyal followers.
I had heard this morning that B. Frank’s district went for Brown. Which is correct?
i will let jon stewart lay it out quite well.. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards
opn another note..
after danny glover confirmed my predictive abilities by blaming haiti on global warming…
the new line is that:
State-Run Venezuelan Media: US Used Earthquake Weapon on Haiti
remember, our leader and their leader have the same ideas as to how to run a state.
Both a Venezuelan state-owned radio and television properties zeroed in on a secret U.S. “weapon of earthquakes” as the cause of the earthquake that struck Haiti last week…
if this was true, you would htink that they would be worried that we would use it on them. or do they have a great soviet anti earth quake machine that they spent the peoples money on?
heh heh…
reminds me of the stories from the old country
Michael: here is Barney’s district. And here are yesterday’s results. I don’t have time at the moment for an in-depth analysis, but Newton, Brookline, Fall River, and New Bedford all were strongly for Coakley. These are the main population centers of his district (Brookline, for example, went 74% Coakley). Taunton seems to be the only place that didn’t go strongly Coakley.
Michael,
Fwank’s dithtwict went fow Bwown.
Do you have links to where it says Frank’s district went for Brown? As I wrote above, that’s not what I see. But I’m hardly an expert on the exact dimensions of his district. See the maps I’ve linked above, however.
What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence. Time to get a new fence. Obama says its time to work together:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Frank’s District:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Massachusetts%27s_4th_congressional_district.gif
The Senate Race Votes:
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9906.0;attach=2092
Pretty solid red. Now the more populated areas you would know, but the large red showing in his district must give Frank some pause. I believe he realizes no one is safe this year.
In order to move to Plan B you have to have a Plan B. So far, this administration has had only a Plan A, have Tonedef give a speech, no matter the topic. Plan A+ is apparently nothing more than to have Tonedef give an angry speech. So far, this administraton has scapegoated banks, Bush, the auto industry, doctors, Bush, the pharmaceutical industry, the CIA, Bush, Republicans, conservatiives, Tea Partiers (as Tea Baggers), Bush, Wall Street (although that is where he got a lot of his campaign contributions), Israel, Bush, Poland and Czeckoslavakia, Honduras, the Iranian People, Bush, and so on and so on. This time, he will do the same scapegoating but it will be much more effective as he will add some righteous anger. Now he wants the banks to give back money that they don’t owe. If the rest of us sit by, he will next pull this on the insurance industry, and then any other industry (such as oil) who might have some cash to be stolen in broad daylight. If we sit by and let Tonedef go after the banks now then we will deserve whatever comes later.
And, doesn’t Tonedef just look so Mussolini like with that fake angry look on his punim.
Here are the results for the major population centers in Barney’s district:
Brookline: 5,217 Brown, 15,264 Coakley
Newton: 11,352 Brown, 23,456 Coakley
Fall River: 7,489 Brown, 10,341 Coakley
New Bedford: 7,828 Brwon, 11,754 Coakley
Taunton (only one that went for Brown): 8,925 Brown, 6,586 Coakley
It does not appear that Frank is at all threatened, as far as I can see. Newton and Brooline had huge turnouts, by the way. The lower cities—Fall River, New Bedord, Taunton—had considerably smaller turnouts. But you can see how influential Newton and Brookline are in terms of Frank’s numbers. Also note how gerrymandered his district is.
If the Dems are not in total and complete freak out mode when 22% of registered Democrats crossed party lines to vote Republican in one of the most liberal states in the country, then they are clueless.
Thankfully, the Stuart Smalley/Coleman dispute prevented the Dems from having 60 votes for most of the first year. Think how much damage they could have done had they been more effective in their effort to steal the election.
Also note how gerrymandered his district is.
Yesterday, Beck showed an Illinois district in or near Chicago that looked like a horseshoe, which is just ridiculous. Gerrymander reform is right up there with term limits, voter id, no automatic voter registration and closed primaries.
Beck made a great point about gerrymandering: It hurts the Republic because moderating influences are deliberately ignored. How else could a Sheila Jackson Lee win a House seat?
Am I the only person who thinks that Martha Coakley looks a little too much like Geraldine Ferraro? I kept thinking it was Gerry with a face lift. Spooky.
No—Sheila Jackson Lee could not win unless the district was crafted the way it is. But her constituents adore her because she lavishes them with love and money, and solves all their problems—except of course for their ignorance and poverty, which is what keeps her in office.
But gerrymandering is here to stay because to end it is to be accused of violating the voting rights act.
Barney Fudd is temporarily safe because, more than the votes Coakley received, there appears to be no viable opposition candidate. In the aftermath of this race, we may see one emerge, which could change the calculus a bit.
He is an incumbent who is popular in his district. Therefore, it would be an enormous uphill climb for anyone who chose to take him on. That does not make it impossible, as Brown made up ground on Coakley’s 20 pt lead, but it would be difficult.
Another difficulty is that Fudd is popular with the press. As we have seen with the water-carrying the press did for Barry, that may be the most daunting hurdle to clear.
Geez. Michael Barone says that health care is done.
That’s the way it seems to me, but Barone is a god when it comes to polls and politics.
Barone goes on to say that the Brown’s acceptance speech is close to a State of the Union and sets the parameters for Obama’s upcoming SOTU.
In this pjtv video of Glenn Reynolds interviewing Michael Barone has Barone saying that someone added the numbers in Franks’ district and came with Coakley winning by only 200 votes!
http://www.pjtv.com/video/InstaVision_With_Glenn_Reynolds/InstaVision_READY/2972/
This is in the first few minutes — I recommend all 14 minutes. Especially like Barone’s comment about the “town folks” and the “gown folks”.
effess: I find it very hard to reconcile that with the stats I saw on the maps. But I think it may be solved soon, because I heard today that the Boston Herald is supposedly going to be publishing district by district results, so that that sort of question can be answered more easily.
Although they weren’t Barone’s numbers I thought it was interesting to pass them on, despite clear numbers to the contrary you posted above.
As for Franks proposing that the Senate change its voting rules, I think most Senators would resent it and respond “don’t meddle in our rules”.
They look foolish if they retreat and try to do a bipartisan bill with the Repubs. They look foolish if the bill just disappears like Hillary Care did.
My guess is that they are still going to try to pass the Senate bill out of the House unchanged, so it can go direct to Obama’s desk. They may not succeed, but I think they will give it the old college try. These people (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) do not believe the voters know what is good for them.
Wasn’t there some freshman Democrat representative who publicly announced, some months ago, that he considered passage of health care reform as so important that, if he lost his seat because of it, “it would be worth it”?
I’m betting he is reconsidering that statement (assuming he even remembers it), now that losing that seat is a genuine possibility instead of just empty rhetoric.
–
whether the health care reform bill will reach Obama’s table, i think they are still going gumble passing it to the congress. i also agree with you formerly jj. lets see later what manipulative techniques the democrats will use for that health care reform to be push through.
Just a thought.
I say this with caution in case I’m wrong…but . . .
Isn’t the 60 vote requirement to end a filibuster the same rule Republicans were trying to get rid of a few years ago , during a conflict over judicial confirmations? The same rule which was saved from abolition by the “Gang of 14” compromise ? The same compromise which John McCain caught hell over?
If this is correct, then in retrospect, the “Gang of 14” compromise seems rather astute. It allowed the confirmation of several judges which were being blocked by the Dems, but it kept a rule which seems to have succesfully prevented the socialization fo health care.
Don’t worry a-hole McShame will jump up and save the day for Bobo. The Insurance Industry is already handing out what they see as a “just” punishment. My BCBS monthly premiums are going up from $354 a month to $600 for three months and then they go up again to $750. How dare us stupid little ‘worker ants’ try to stop their laws!