RSS Feed MenuThe President’s approval ratings remain sky high. His opponents are disorganized and divided, while important Democratic leaders are working well together. Industry groups, once fiercely opposed to Democratic reforms, are keen to cut a deal. From a distance, everything seems to be going smoothly for passage of sweeping health-care legislation this year. Like with the stimulus package, the administration is steam-rolling over Republicans.
So why all the talk about reconciliation?
In recent weeks, Democrats have floated the idea of using this obscure parliamentary rule, employed just 29 times since 1980. Yesterday, House Democrats voted again to endorse it and the White House isn’t exactly distancing themselves from that effort. Reconciliation would allow Democrats to pass health-care legislation with 51 votes in the Senate, instead of 60 – effectively “bypassing” the GOP, to quote the New York Times. And while Senate Republicans would still have options to slow down health-care legislation if Democrats use it – see question 4 in this Politico piece – reconciliation is the nuclear option.
Perhaps the White House isn’t quite as confident as they might like us to believe they are. And no wonder. President Obama’s health-care agenda is bold: it includes mandates for employers, a Medicare option for the uninsured and small businesses, and massive new government spending. This agenda has already sparked sharp resistance from some Republicans. When specific legislation (along with a big price tag) comes forward, it’s likely that opposition will grow, not shrink. And the Democratic coalition itself may not be as strong as people assume.
Does that mean that 2009 is the new 1994? As I’ve argued before, there is great pressure for a deal this year.
But pressure doesn’t necessarily mean results. President Obama needs to accept that campaign rhetoric will not easily translate into legislative success. Democrats will need to compromise, abandon controversial ideas, and start working with Republicans.
The Obama White House doesn’t seem too keen for any of this. And thus, the talk of the seemingly perfect solution: avoid all the deal-making and go with reconciliation.
It’s April. Senate Democrats will not finish fashioning their proposed legislation for another couple of months. Things can change. But the prospects of sweeping health-care legislation passing this summer have weakened just slightly this month. It’s not that Republicans adopted a winning strategy, so much as the Obama administration appears to be making the tactical error made by so many past occupants of the White House: becoming arrogant.
Republitarian // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“The Presidents approval ratings remain sky high.” What?David, please do a little homework. Rasmussen has Obama at 53%, well below Clinton, even after impeachment – hardly “sky high”. Second, Obama also has the displeasure of enjoying some of the highest negatives for any modern-day president in his first 100 days.
Republitarian // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“The Presidents approval ratings remain sky high.” What?David, please do a little homework. Rasmussen has Obama at 53%, well below Clinton, even after impeachment – hardly “sky high”. Second, Obama also has the displeasure of enjoying some of the highest negatives for any modern-day president in his first 100 days.
ottovbvs // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Republitarian wrote 28 minutes agoThere are about six polls out this week including one from Fox. Every single one except Rasmussen has his appro ratings from the low to mid sixties and his disappros at 25-30%. Which is the outlier? And for hard evidence….. Tedisco has just conceded in one of the most Republican seats in the land. As for reconciliation, it’s hardly an “obscure” tactic since it was used by Reagan and Bush to pass much of their most contentious legislation. The Dems are going to use it to persuade the GOP to come to its senses and work with them. If they wont, they’ll have to pass a largely democratic bill. My personal guess is the healthcare industry will lean on the GOP to work with the Dems rather than pass a bill they totally dislike. Convince yourself otherwise David if you like but this is just a bit of congressional maneuvering not any major sign of problems.
Mike K // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“And for hard evidence….. Tedisco has just conceded in one of the most Republican seats in the land. “Which was won by the Democrat easily the past two elections and which went for Obama last November. I’m not saying the Republicans aren’t in trouble but this exaggeration suggests uneasiness on your part. Next year may be interesting. My guess is that it will be an anti-incumbent year and you know who they are.
ottovbvs // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Jeffryw 1:34 PM”but this exaggeration suggests uneasiness on your part.”….Yep this is upstate NY and a district where the GOP has a 70,000 registration ADVANTAGE…70,000 in a roughly 400,000 electorate…..this is not exaggeration…the Republicans should have taken this seat in a special election and they expected to until about a day before the election because they piled loads of resources into the campaign..Tedisco was a well known local boy who had held elective office in NYS for 25 years versus a total unknown who’d never run for office before….Michael get the blinders off.
sinz54 // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm
There is considerable pressure on the congressional GOP, coming from the Right, to not compromise with Obama at all on this issue, but to just say “NO.” Read, for example, Fred Barnes’ take in the Weekly Standard:”It’s up to Republicans to rally a well-financed army of relentless opposition–not for the good of the party, but for the good of the country. And who knows? Obamacare might suffer the fate of HillaryCare….”Thwarting this won’t make Republicans more popular. Their efforts might be in vain. But at least they’ll be heroes in the cause of defending private health care and preserving individual freedom. They’ll vindicate their existence as Republicans.”http://tinyurl.com/decje5Personally, I think for Republicans to attempt to “vindicate their existence” by defending the current status quo in health care would be politically disastrous. Unlike 1993, as even Barnes admits, traditional Republican allies like doctors, hospitals, and even the health insurers are all in favor of some kinds of reforms. If the GOP defends the current status quo, they truly stand alone. And standing alone may make for exciting reading (“Atlas Shrugged”), but it is no way for a major political party to win elections.
ottovbvs // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:35 pm
sinz54 “wrote 37 minutes agoThere is considerable pressure on the congressional GOP, coming from the Right, to not compromise with Obama at all on this issue,”……There’s also considerable pressure from the healthcare industry for them to participate and avoid a bill that is wholly Dem written…..Who do you think is going to win…..Fred Barnes or Blue Cross Blue Shield……of course they will have vindicated their existence as Republicans…..It’s hard to make peple like you up Sinz.
RLHotchkiss // Apr 24, 2009 at 10:00 pm
It is not arrogant to have reconciliation as an option. It would be arrogant not to. The Republicans had a chance to negotiate the terms of universal health care and instead they through it away. Republicans have shown little interest in meeting the administration half way. They could have had much more input on the stimulus bill if they had passed it during the lame duck session. But they chose to throw that opportunity away.Conservatives are lining of primary challengers against anyone who deals with administration. If Obama through away the reconciliation option there is little evidence that Republicans wouldn’t once again choose not to negotiate.By including the reconciliation and it actually gives Republicans the cover to negotiate if they choose. What would be truly arrogant would be to assume He could succeed where so many others had failed.
sinz54 // Apr 25, 2009 at 7:20 am
ottovbvs: Who do I think is going to win? I think that Obama will peel off the usual few moderate Repubs like Snowe and Lugar and so on. But the dominant conservative wing, especially in the House, is going to just say “NO” to any Obama health-care initiative, no matter what it looks like. Similar to what happened with Obama’s stimulus package–it will pass mostly on a party-line vote.The GOP conservatives, particularly the House conservatives, are representing the GOP base, which is unalterably opposed to Obama’s health care initiative as part of Obama’s “socialism.” The GOP can’t afford to lose its base, no matter what Blue Cross-Blue Shield thinks.
ottovbvs // Apr 25, 2009 at 7:36 am
sinz54 wrote 4 minutes ago”But the dominant conservative wing, especially in the House, is going to just say “NO” to any Obama health-care initiative, no matter what it looks like.”…..Well Obama hasn’t got much to worry about then has he since the Dems have a massive house majority and the conservative “base” is only about 25% of the electorate. It depends on the bill of course which might peel of a few Republicans, but the vast majority of them will probably vote against it in house and senate. It will thus be largely a democratic measure. The Republicans will thus be on record opposing universal healthcare which is going to be enormously popular and will never be reversed. The one thing that might change this is if they see passage as inevitable then Republicans who have to face the voters in 2010 and will will face a barrage of attacks might decide to get on board after all.
gibberish // Apr 25, 2009 at 9:35 am
Good to see Mr Gratzer using considered analysis on healthcare reform rather than picking up foreign hospital horror stories and pretending it constitutes a case against reform.I’d like to see his thoughts on what reforms should be made or what he thinks the GOP should advocate though rather congressional procedural issues.
ModerateGal // Apr 25, 2009 at 11:38 am
Also, Mr Gratzer writes: “In recent weeks, Democrats have floated the idea of using this obscure parliamentary rule, employed just 29 times since 1980.”Well, it’s been 29 years since 1980, and reconciliation has been used 29 times. Hmmm… that makes an average of once per year. Why does that make this an obscure parliamentary rule? The implication here is that Democrats have pulled it from the bottom of a bag of tricks. Use of it on average of once per year doesn’t make it seem rare to me.
kroner // Apr 25, 2009 at 9:57 pm
The reason the Democrats seem to be headed the reconciliation route has nothing to do with how popular, prudent or necessary the bill is or isn’t. It’s simply a matter of Senate math. If Republicans can whip up their 41 votes, as they’ve attempted on every major piece of legislation pushed by the white house so far and are almost sure to try in this case, then overhauling health care is a no go, regardless of the plan’s merits.
nealjking // Apr 26, 2009 at 1:30 am
I think that using this technique may actually INCREASE the number of Republicans that vote for and contribute ideas towards the bill. Why?If they know they can block it, there will be strong party pressure to “hold together” to block the bill.But if they know they CAN’T block it, there will not be much point in a symbolic battle to block something that people outside Washington basically want. In that case, some moderates may decide that they might as well try to get in a few ideas of their own.