Whatever it takes
The Republicans whine about a tactic that they've often used in the past
Whatever it takes
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
What are the odds that today's health care reform summit will end with President Obama and the Republicans locking arms and singing "Kumbaya?" I'd sooner take odds that Lady Gaga will morph into Greta Garbo and become a recluse.
A bipartisan miracle will occur only if the Republicans say, "Hey, guess what, folks. We want to shelve all our philosophical objections to the Democratic plan, and we also think it'd be a great idea to hand the Democrats a political victory that will inspire their liberal base to turn out en masse in the November congressional elections." And the miracle will occur only if Obama and the Democrats say, "We won in 2008, decisively so, after campaigning for health care reform - but so what? We're now prepared to betray our voters and accept Republican ideas that will leave most uninsured Americans out in the cold. We want our voters to stay home in November."
But the summit - or, to be more precise, the "summit" - is not really designed to yield anything fruitful. Obama isn't really trying to find common ground with the Republicans. At this point, why bother? No, Obama's prime task is to stiffen the spines of the tremulous congressional Democrats whose support is essential if health care reform is to be shoved into the end zone on fourth and goal.
Indeed, the Democrats have floated a possible game plan to score on health reform without any Republican assistance at all, a plan that would circumvent the usual Republican roadblocks. (Obama clearly hopes to use today's event to put the Republican naysaying on national display.) The key feature of this plan is the Senate parliamentary tactic known as "reconciliation," which, if employed successfully, would allow the Democrats to do an end run around the usual Republican filibuster threat, and pass a final House-Senate health reform bill with only 51 Senate votes.
Reconciliation can be used to pass bills that have a budgetary impact. Health reform has a budgetary impact. Democrats have already passed health reform bills in both chambers; reconciliation can be used to resolve the differences, which are mainly fiscal in nature. In a reconciliation showdown vote, Senate Democrats can lose as many as nine of their caucus members, and still get the magic 51 if Joe Biden is called upon to cast the tie-breaker.
The reconciliation tactic has long been available, of course, but Senate Democratic leaders have been averse to using it - in part because, being typical Democrats, they were afraid that if they did use it, somebody somewhere might get mad. With the clock running out on health reform, however, they now seem to understand that there are times when it's important to do whatever it takes to win. (This is a credo that Republicans implicitly understand. More on that in a moment.) So we now have people like Evan Bayh, the lame-duck Indiana Democratic senator, grudgingly conceding that reconciliation at this point is the only way to go; in his words this week, "Obviously, if the minority is just frustrating the process, that argues for taking steps to get the public's business done."
What's priceless, of course, are the Republican complaints about how this "unprecedented" reconciliation strategy would destroy the Senate forever and ever. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson calls the potential Democratic game plan an "insult," and warns that "the minority would not only be defeated on health reform, but its rights would be permanently diminished." Senator Lindsey Graham says that using reconciliation to pass health reform would trigger "the end of the minority rights in the Senate as we know it...the loss of the United States Senate as a real viable institution." Senator Lamar Alexander calls reconciliation "the ultimate trick," and he claimed at the summit this morning that if reconciliation was used to pass health care reform ("jamming it through in a partisan way"), that would constitute "the tyranny of the majority."
OK, I'm just wondering: How come the Republicans consider this tactic to be such an outrage when Democrats contemplate using it...yet they thought this tactic was just dandy in the past when they used it? In fact, they used it repeatedly when they controlled the Senate. On all kinds of major legislation. Including health care.
On 22 occasions since 1974 (when the Senate tactic was first used), reconciliation bills have passed the chamber. Senate GOP majorities authored 16 of them. That puts the Republican slugging percentage at .727. They used reconciliation to pass George W. Bush's tax cuts, for instance. Senator Charles Grassley defended that move as necessary, given Democratic opposition in the chamber; in his words, the reconciliation tactic was "the way it will have to be done in order to get it done at all." That's also how the Senate Republicans passed Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981. The ruling Senate Republicans also used the tactic to pass welfare reform in 1996. They tried using the tactic in 2003, when they sought to open the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling (failing only because they couldn't muster the necessary 51 votes for passage.)
But, most germane to the current debate, the Republicans used the tactic during the '80s to open Medicare to the HMOs. They used it to create the COBRA program, which allows laid-off Americans to keep their health coverage. They used it to overhaul the doctor payment system for Medicare, and to increase the oversight of nursing homes that take Medicare and Medicaid patients.
That's just a sampling. All told, as Washington health policy expert Sara Rosenbaum told NPR the other day, "the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process...We've changed access to health care all across the United States all as a result of reconciliation." She should know, because she helped write some of those health provisions.
So why are the Republicans whining now? Because they know the tactic is legit, and they know that it works. They just don't like having it used against them. If the Democrats can use reconciliation to actually help most of the roughly 40 million uninsured, that messes with the GOP game plan.
But Republicans need not necessarily despair. There's no guarantee that swing-district House Democratic congressmen will cast final Yes votes in that chamber, nor that the Senate Democrats will muster even the bare majority. And at the summit this morning, we had Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid saying this: "No one has talked about reconciliation." Huh? What?
Bottom line: I think I speak for most Americans when I say that, at this point, after a long year of speeches and summits and confabs and hearings and votes on health care reform, regardless of which side wins or loses...Just. Wrap. It. Up.
-------
Al Haig is still dead, but if you want my short version, here it is.
Mike - You are a phony. You just decide not to answer a question because you are a shill for the GOP so will not engage intelligently just in soudbites. I ask you again - why the sudden switch by the GOP to oppose bills they proposed once the President endorses their proposal ??? We are paying alot right now for the health care delivery system. Figures by the NON PARTISAN congressional budgetary office shows healthcare delivery taking more and more of our GDP unless reforms are enacted. NOTHING put forth by the GOP adresses this - their proposals are just a big wet kiss to the insurance companies. What reason would a voter have to give the GOP another chance ???? None that I can see !!!— FormerGOPer- formerGOPer- Once again. You are attacking the messenger and not the content. To me this means you are empty vessel. So how would spending 950 billion be cheaper? You are going to save money by spending money? How silly. Time to be a grown up and realize we cannot afford this considering we have 13 trillion in debt. If and only if you could agree to eliminate most of the federal departments and the prescription drug plan then I might be in agreement. Keep in mind the American people are against this.
- swedes - info on S.S. and Medicare spend. The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report shows unfunded liability has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars. By 2050 Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will consume nearly the entire federal budget. The CBO found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance its budget in 2050 the lowest marginal income tax rate of 10% would have to rise to 26%. The 25% marginal tax rate would increase to 66%. The current highest marginal tax rate of 35% for individuals and businesses would rise to 92%. I doubt they will increase taxes that much so there will have to be drastic cuts in benefits. Thank goodness I'm old enough that I won't have to worry about it but MMorgan if you were born in 1983 good luck with that.— Mike Welbourn
- Mike Welbourn- Excellent post. That's why we shouldn't start these program to begin with. Our country is a house of cards waiting to collapse if this bill is not defeated and if we do not phase out Social Security and Medicare.
- Mike - With all due respect what does that story mean ??? We have other stories where the insurance companies decide to withhold treatments from OUR citizens even when they have health insurance. Most expensive health care delivery system in the world which does not get the BEST results.— FormerGOPer
- FormerGOper- And if we had competition in healthcare insurance that would not happen. But government will not allow for that.
- As a moderate and former supporter of Obama I must convey just how much of a disappointment Barack Obama is. I fell into the trap of believing he was going to be fiscally responsible and give the American people a tax break. This healthcare bill is such a debacle It is going to raise taxes, bankrupt us, and drive doctors out of business. What a waste of time the summit was. Obama looked like a deer in the headlights. As if he explains his positions 1 more time the public is suddenly going to like this piece of shi*t " healthcare bill.— ModerateMike
- One of my biggest problems with Reagan was The Social Security Reform of 1983. Which was not real reform but basically just an increase in taxes. If at that time they started the slow process of privatizing S.S. and Medicare we wouldn't be in the problem we are not. Or at least if they had not spent it all. Oh sorry I forgot all that money they spent is really in a "lock box" in Parkersburg WV.— Mike Welbourn
- Sorry that would be " problem we are in" not the not— Mike Welbourn
- Maybe a " Health Care Festival " would work?— Alvenada
- "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Sen. Harry Reid said. Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya, Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya.— Alvenada
- Mike - Still no answer on why the GOP are suddenly against THEIR proposals once and if President Obama endorses them. Wonder why ??? Moderate Mike - Any choice made on healthcare reform is going to cost $$. Doing NOTHING is perhaps the most costly. If the GOP refuses to engage HONESTLY (and until the top question is answered they look like games playing jacka**es) then reform ought to start either with their votes and ideas or through reconciliation. Elections have consequences and the GOP lost.— FormerGOPer
- FormerGOper- you said " Still no answer on why the GOP are suddenly against THEIR proposals once and if President Obama endorses them. Wonder why ??? Moderate Mike - Any choice made on healthcare reform is going to cost $$. Doing NOTHING is perhaps the most costly."..................... You really are not making any sense here. Has Obama put any ideas in the healthcare bill? None, nada. It was written by the ideologues in the Senate and the House. You have a fundamental problem with understanding the bill in the first place. How in the world would spending 950 billion of tax payer money be lowering costs. Again you are sounding about a silly as your username.
- Mike, I thank you for your atempt at an answer. Reread what you wrote and tell me why would ANYONE but a GOP shill vote GOP EVER AGAIN ????? The GOP lost the election - HAVE to work with the other party until the next elections. If you consider opposition to be well thouht out and moral to OPPOSE YOUR OWN PROPOSALS because the president supports it is frankly scary and shows a gigantic disregard for the nations business.— FormerGOPer
- FormerGOper- Now you are changing the argument. Is bankrupting the nation taking care of the nation's business? Time to be a grown up and realize we cannot afford 950 billion more in spending. And perhaps you should look at some polls. You are going to be trounced come the mid-terms.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
