D-Day for Obamacare

January 19th, 2010 at 5:50 pm | 4 Comments |

| Print

An upset in the Bay State? The polls give an edge to Scott Brown; well respected political analyst Charlie Cook now rates this safe Democratic seat as leaning Republican; the GOP has the momentum.

Of course, stuff tonight, generic we may not even know who has been elected the new senator from Massachusetts. It may take days — as military ballots, check and other mail-ins are counted.

But let’s assume that the polls are right and Scott Brown wins.

The big question is how this will affect health reform. To date, the President’s strategy has depended on passing legislation solely along partisan lines. In December, in the Senate, he did just that: eking out exactly the 60 votes necessary. Should Scott Brown join the Senate, that majority will be down to 59.

What are the options for the White House?

Option One: the Democrats could simply delay the seating of Brown. The senator-elect would remain just that — a senator-elect. With Brown cooling his heels in Boston, the current governor-appointed senator from Massachusetts would then cast the 60th and deciding vote for the health legislation. As David Frum notes, Sen. Harkin and others have already embraced that approach.

But it seems unlikely that the White House would go along with such a thuggish strategy. Essentially, it would be overriding the wishes of voters in Massachusetts – it wouldn’t be illegal, but it would be undemocratic. The public backlash would be extraordinary.

Option Two: find a way around the 60-vote requirement. The obvious choice then would be to attempt to pass the legislation with just a majority; reconciliation is the way to do that. Reconciliation, as you may recall, was much discussed last summer when Democrats feared that they couldn’t secure a full 60 in the Senate. The process is clunky: it’s subject to many points of order, legislation needs to be crafted in a specific way, and the time-line would have to be tight.

And reconciliation would be deeply problematic at this point in time. While I’m not an expert on obscure Senate procedures, my understanding it that the process needed to be invoked in the fall; Republicans could raise a point of order on this. The whole legislation would have to be re-crafted and sent back to the committees. And entire sections of ObamaCare — like the insurance regulations — would be omitted (as they are ineligible for reconciliation). For a White House eager to pass something now, the process would stretch on for weeks, possibly months, as the debates and deal-making would start anew.

Option Three: reach out for Republican support. If Democrats lose a senate vote from Massachusetts, they could find one by looking to, say, a senator from Maine. And Olympia Snowe did vote for an earlier version of ObamaCare.

That said, September is long over. She voted against the Reid bill – and it’s difficult to see how she could be persuaded to vote for health reforms without significant compromises.

Option Four: drop the conference. The Senate passed a bill in late December, and the House would ordinarily then conference – working out the differences between their version and the Senate’s and, once a compromise bill is crafted, voting on it. But nothing requires the conferencing, provided that the House passes the Senate bill as is.

Of all the scenarios, this one seems the most plausible and there is evidence that the White House is giving it serious consideration.  But it is also fraught with problems. It leaves House chairmen in the perfunctory role of simply rubberstamping the Senate bill, and let’s remember how unpopular some provisions of the Senate bill are to House members (like the tax on Cadillac health plans). It also requires solidarity among rank and file members at a time when doubt must be setting in. As Peter Wehner argues,

We will wake up to an entirely different political world on Wednesday if Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley… It is hard to overstate the panic (and recriminations) that will ensue among Democrats. It will be massive. The entire political and legislative dynamic will change. And the warning many of us have long been sending to Democrats will finally have broken through: passing ObamaCare is worse than passing nothing at all.

If Scott wins, does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have the votes?

With hours to go before polls close, and hours more before they’re counted, this much is clear: the people of Massachusetts are deciding more than simply who will represent them in Washington, they may well be deciding the fate of ObamaCare.

Recent Posts by David Gratzer

4 Comments so far ↓

  • sinz54

    Option One would be the end of Obama’s “change” promise, and it would be the end of Pelosi’s claim to run an ethical Congress. The public backlash would destroy Dem candidates in Red States this coming November. It might destroy Obama’s approval rating too. FAIL

    Option Two means that neither the House nor Senate bill can be passed as is under reconciliation, since there are too many line items that don’t meet the requirements for reconciliation. And those are some of the most contentious issues: The mandate that all Americans must purchase insurance, abortion, etc. Instead, the bill would need to be unbundled: The budgetary items could be passed under reconciliation. Then the House would have to swallow hard, grit its teeth, and accept the Senate version of the non-budgetary items (but see below). FEASIBLE

    Option Three is not feasible, given the limited time frame and the approaching November elections. And with the upset win by Brown in another New England state, Snowe is liable to dig in her heels and demand more than the Dems can deliver. FAIL

    Option Four is certainly possible–but the leftists in the House don’t like the Senate bill and it’s going to be tough to get them to vote for it. The vote for health care was fairly close in the House too–Pelosi can’t afford to lose the votes of the entire Progressive Caucus. FEASIBLE

    The best solution, IMHO, would be Option Two, as I modified it: Unbundle the Senate bill, pass what ever can be passed under reconciliation; then Pelosi has to force her House Dems to accept the remainder of the Senate bill. If they can’t, then at least Obama gets something called “HEALTH CARE” that he can sign. And those other things become campaign issues in November. Well and why not.

  • sdspringy

    Well finally Hope & Change is on the way, only took one year. ROFL.

  • sinz54

    Looking ahead,

    What would a Scott Brown victory mean for other legislation?

    I actually think this could be a good thing for the Dems in the long run. Bills that are passed with bipartisan support have more staying power–it’s harder for the opposition party to run against a bill that many of them voted for. (Case in point: Medicare in 1965.)

    Cap-and-trade is still doable–but only if the Dems accept a commitment to expanding nuclear power (which in turn means nuclear reprocessing of nuclear waste), and tell the loonies at GreenPeace to go piss up a rope. A bill that accepts that we need to cut greenhouse gases but also accepts that nuclear power is the only solution that is provably scalable today could get Brown, McCain, Snowe, Collins, etc., to vote for it.

    Immigration reform is likely dead. Neither party–each for its own reasons–accepts what the polls have been saying, which is that the voters will accept giving illegal aliens a humane path to citizenship only after border security is enforced to prevent any more from coming here. If Coakley wins, there is a very slim chance that the Dems could pass it on a strict party line vote (I give that less than a 20% chance). If Scott Brown wins, the chance of passage is absolute zero.

    Scott Brown will support Obama’s war policies in Afghanistan much more than Coakley would have. That came out in the Brown-Coakley debates. Afghanistan is one issue where Obama can get constructive criticism, and often support, from the congressional GOP for his policy.

  • kevin47

    “Cap-and-trade is still doable–but only if the Dems accept a commitment to expanding nuclear power (which in turn means nuclear reprocessing of nuclear waste),”

    They can’t do this until Harry Reid is out in Nevada, unless they are conceding his seat. I’m not sure Cap and Trade is politically viable right now. People may be somewhat predisposed to support a very modest increase in energy costs in exchange, but the current program is set up so that consumers essentially bail companies out. I can’t imagine that’s going to fly.

    Further, while Brown might be relatively moderate, it’s unlikely that his first order of business would be to help Democrats navigate their legislation to passage.