Senate

“This City is the City of the Perishable”

By Kate Pickert | @katepickert | March 15, 2010 | +

Those are Nancy Pelosi’s words today on why she wants to get health reform done as quickly as possible.

But even among Hill reporters, there’s some confusion over what procedurally will happen this week. Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, are keeping quiet about their precise parliamentary strategy for three reasons. One, if they telegraph exactly what procedural steps they plan to take, Republicans will be able to tailor a more effective opposition strategy. Two, if Democrats lay out exactly what steps they want to take and can’t achieve those steps, this will look like failure. Three, there are a few different strategies Democrats can pursue procedurally and Pelosi may want to keep all options open so she can choose a path based on what her members want.

Over at the New Republic, health reform policy guru Jonathan Cohn has outlined what I agree are the three more likely scenarios for the week.

1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the
Senate bill would be ready for the president’s signature. The amendments,
meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the
“Schoolhouse Rock” option.

2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with
that vote, the House would “deem” the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do
that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his
signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration
there.

3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the
House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved
the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then–and only
then–could the main bill go to the president for signature.

Fellow pro-reform policy wonk Ezra Klein, at the Washington Post, hates options 2 and 3. His reasons here.

Related Topics: Ezra Klein, Health Care, health reform, Jonathan Cohn, Nancy Pelosi, parliamentary, reconciliation, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Republican Party, Senate

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images
    Closeup May 25, 2012

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA
    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • afguy

    Is she finally admitting the place is “rotten”?
    .
    I’d whole-heartedly agree with that observation…

  • Ivy_B

    Thanks for the link to Ezra. I think he has it right. 3 is terrible, 2 is bad politically and weak kneed, 1 is the right thing. Vote on the d@mn bill already.

  • carotexas1

    Ivy, I kind of like number two. I think it will be nerve wracking to have two votes.
    .
    I like Ezra but his comment on number two sounds like a Republican talking point. Voting to pass anyway is not weak kneed to me, and bad politically would depend on what view you have.

  • carotexas1

    Thank you Kate I hope they can keep this from being leaked until the last moment. I can imagine the pressure they are getting from reporters and the Republicans.

  • freeinpa

    “Fellow pro-reform policy wonk Ezra Klein, at the Washington Post”

    You forgot paid White House Political hack

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:
    .
    Ezra’s complaints essentially are that there is more risk involved in 2 or 3, because the Senate will then have to do what the House is being asked to believe they can expect it to do, i.e. pass the reconciliation amendments as they are, and not allow Republicans to gum up the works with procedural tricks.
    .
    From the perspective of a PAN (“Pass Anything Now”) supporter, that makes sense.
    .
    Literally anything that could threaten the passage of the bill should be avoided, according to this position.
    .
    It goes like this:
    .
    “So the House wants guarantees? F*ck the House. Pass the damn bill already.”
    .
    “So the House has to tell its members that the conditions upon which their votes were promised aren’t really promises once things get back to the Senate? F*ck those members. F*ck the leadership and their promises to those members. Pass the damn bill already.”
    .
    “So there’s a chance that Senate Republicans’ “procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate“? Never, ever, ever take a chance on seeming to oppose Senate Republicans. Take no chances whatsoever that might “Delay victory.” Pass the damn bill already.”
    .
    “Don’t have the votes in the House now, because the Senate took so long to get its version out of committee? Obviously we should be berating the House for its delays, even though they passed their own HCR bill months earlier. Now those dithering idiots in the House need to Pass the Damn Bill Already.”
    .
    From the terror-filled, Beltway Democrat perspective that any risk at all to passage –even items like Republicans being able to make “procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate“– are to be avoided at all costs, it makes sense that silly things like Democrats not knowingly breaking promises to other Democrats are trivialities at which to be sneered.
    .
    Hey, if “victory” is the most important thing at this point, by all means, do whatever it takes, screw whichever Democrats aren’t with the program, twist whatever arms need to be twisted. Never, ever just say that Republicans’ procedural gimmicks are gimmicks, let them offer nonsensical amendment after delay tactic after stupid pet trick until they run out of the guts to do so. Just Pass Anything Now. So goes that thinking.
    .
    Of course, the obvious question is “What is Ezra really afraid of?”
    .
    What does he mean by positing that the way forward that lessens the House leadership’s problems could make Senate Republicans’ “procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate“?
    .
    Is Ezra somehow anxious about the Republicans seeming principled in their obstruction?
    .
    Does he think that the GOP Senators can summon the spirit of Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff Smith, and have some advantage in the portrayal of “going down fighting” –especially in the face of liberal Democrats having laid down their principles so baldly in the service of “victory”?
    .
    These are the highly questionable tactics of PAN supporters at this point. Someone should probably ask them what risk they would be willing to take, what possibility isn’t too fraught with danger to be avoided, what promise they wouldn’t make knowing it could be broken, as long as “victory” might not be further “delayed”.
    .
    Come to think of it, Pass Anything Now supporters might have a real point here…
    .
    Maybe they do actually are capable of making the remnants of Delay-era Republicans look like principled do-gooders standing up to the powers that be, even if it’s a losing fight.
    .
    Do you think that might be the case, Kate Pickert?
    .
    Could Pass Anything Now supporters’ anxieties over “victory,” and line-crossing at any cost tactics really make the vile Mitch McConnell into the credible face of a principled underdog willing to fight the good fight, losing with dignity, having done all that could be done?
    .
    Would the Democrats’ ridiculous blather in 2006 about forcing a timetable on Iraq withdrawal on the President, and their ultimate shameful, hand-wringing acquiescence in defeat stand in that sharp of contrast?
    .
    Could the Republicans gain a reputation for fighting for what they (and their constituents) believe out of this process story?
    .
    Is that a decent possibility, Kate Pickert??

  • stuartzechman

    Sorry, that’s:
    .
    “Maybe they are actually capable of making the remnants of Delay-era Republicans look like principled do-gooders standing up to the powers that be, even if it’s a losing fight.“

  • freeinpa

    Pelosi must have seen this:

    DNC pollster Joel Benenson, in a new poll and memo prepared for the Service Employees International Union and provided to POLITICO
    ==
    Finally figured out the Demos are a wholly-owned subsidiary of unions

blog comments powered by Disqus