November 24, 2009

11/24: It's Reconciliation Time!

In case it's not already clear to readers of The Blogometer, liberal bloggers have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the public option. Not only do they consider the public option to be a crucial part of health care reform, but they believe that it would actually be counter-productive from both a policy standpoint and a political standpoint to pass health care reform without a public option. As one blogger writes: "Without [a public option], health insurance reform will be just a very bad, very foolish, and very expensive experiment -- and clearly not the platform Democrats should want in 2010."

So, now that Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) appear determined to filibuster any bill that includes a public option, are the netroots urging Senate Dems to blow the whole thing up? Not yet. They believe that one solution remains: "break the bill up into two, pass the insurance reforms through regular procedure and the public option and other financial pieces through reconciliation." Liberal bloggers believe that passing health care reform in this way is far preferable to removing the opt-out public option provision in order to appease Lieberman and the three moderate Dems. Consequently, Firedoglake is circulating a petition urging Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid to "use the reconciliation process to allow a simple majority vote on a public option."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Klein, Lange, Black, Dayen) are pleased that senior House Dems are proposing a "war surtax" on high-income individuals and corporations to help pay for any troop escalation in Afghanistan.
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Benen, Lemos, Kleefeld) are mocking the RNC for considering a "purity" resolution that would compel the organization to withhold funds from GOP candidates who deviate from at least 3 of the party's 10 "conservative principles."
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Malkin, Loris, Murray, Goldberg, Repair_Man_Jack) are still buzzing about the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which they perceive as evidence that climate scientists manipulate data in order to fabricate evidence for global warming. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Drum) are pleased about reports that the Obama admin. "will announce a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions before next month's UN climate summit," although they wish that the target were less modest.
• In FL SEN news, RedState editor Erick Erickson is accusing Gov. Charlie Crist (R) of attacking supporters of his primary rival, ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R), during an interview with the St. Petersburg Times. Meanwhile, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas tells Crist: "[A]ttacking your base won't bring you closer to victory. Stop pretending and switch parties already."
• In CA SEN news, Michelle Malkin is accusing ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) of "wield[ing the] race/gender card against [her] conservative rival," Assemb. Chuck DeVore (R).

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Never Gonna Give You Up

Liberal bloggers continue to argue that a public option is an essential part of health care reform:

• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The public option is at the heart of insurance reform, the core piece in a transition that must take place. It's not a bargaining chip for rounding up four clueless Senators. It would be unconcionable for the Senate leadership to cut out the heart to accommodate the know-nothings of their party. [Ex-DNC Chair] Howard Dean is right; Arianna Huffington is right; Jane Hamsher is right. The public option is essential to reform. It must be retained, protected and strengthened. Without it, health insurance reform will be just a very bad, very foolish, and very expensive experiment -- and clearly not the platform Democrats should want in 2010."
• Jay Ackroyd: "Making taxpayers help pay for people forced to buy crappy health insurance because four senators want to preserve their [ex-SD Sen. Tom] Daschle retirement option is not good policy or good politics."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Progressive observers of the healthcare reform effort aren't too heartened after the continuing recalcitrance of three ConservaDems and Joe Lieberman on healthcare reform, and the newfound willingness in leadership, as expressed by [IL Sen.] Dick Durbin to find a way to mollify them. The problem is, anything that works to make these guys happy isn't going to be real reform. [...Y]ou give up on [the public option] and what do Democrats have to exclaim about doing for healthcare reform in 2010? Individual mandates? Making people buy crappy insurance from the same old insurers that will continue to find ways to exclude their claims and jack up their premiums? Giveaways to the insurance industry of upwards of $600 billion in the form of the subsidies and credits given to the people who are forced to buy the crappy insurance?"

That said, liberal bloggers aren't suggesting that Dems should give up on health care reform; they're simply arguing that reconciliation is the best option at this point:

• mcjoan: "The most obvious solution is to break the bill up into two, pass the insurance reforms through regular procedure and the public option and other financial pieces through reconciliation. [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer was all for it as recently as September. It's ridiculous to take it off the table now, both because of how critical it is to do this bill right, and because if the ConservaDems get their way on this, they will hold the leadership hostage on every damned bill down the line. That includes a potential second stimulus, a strong jobs package, any kind of meaningful financial reform. It would also mean a Democratic party that's no better than the Republicans when it comes to prioritizing Main Street over Wall Street, and grim prospects for 2010 and 2012."
• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "As the majority leader of the Senate, the power to pass a public option is squarely in Harry Reid's hands. Will he let three or four corrupt Senators owned by the insurance industry hold the public option hostage? Or will he use the reconciliation process to allow a simple, democratic majority rule?"

While most liberal bloggers have a "public option or bust" attitude, TPM's Josh Marshall feels differently: "[T]here are many people who look at this and say that the bill(s) under discussion are so anemic that they're maybe not worth fighting for at all. And that's certainly a legitimate opinion. But I think there's another question. Considering how down to the wire this is, is it really worth holding up everything else contained in the bill when the point of contention, the public option, is as measly as it is?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why The Filibuster Must Go

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"'Are progressives really willing to take their chances with a future GOP-controlled Senate empowered to pass whatever they have 51 votes for?' asks Scott Winship. 'With the Supreme Court nominees who could be seated (to say nothing of other judgeships)? With the restrictions on abortion and LGBQT rights? With welfare reforms?'

Let me say this once, and slowly: Yeeeeeeesssssssss. [...]

In a system without the filibuster, the threat of repeal, as opposed to the impossibility of action, becomes the dominant player in legislative design, and it's much to be preferred. The clear accountability of passing laws and being judged on their success is far superior to the confusing campaigns that result from promising the passage of laws and then failing to surmount a filibuster. Strengthening that crucial relationship between cause (one party got elected) and effect (they passed bills) is not only better from the perspective of assuring action on problems. It's also a road to a better-informed citizenry that knows who to blame, and who to reward, for the condition of the country and the performance of the most recent Congress."

LEST WE FORGET: Bengals' Uniforms No Longer Look Stupid Now That Team Is Good

From The Onion:

"BRISTOL, CT -- By wearing their brightly colored orange-and-black tiger-print uniforms during a victory over the Steelers, the division-leading 7-2 Cincinnati Bengals made their team gear appear far less stupid Sunday. 'The Bengals uniforms during the '90s, and the ones from their 11-loss season in 2008, looked really stupid, like they were wearing carpet ripped straight out of a discount strip club,' analyst Chris Mortenson said during an ESPN radio broadcast Monday. 'But now that they're on top of the AFC North, you might even go so far as to say that their uniforms are classic. I'm even starting to think that the one dumb striped panel going down the leg isn't so godawful anymore.' When discussing the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' current red-and-pewter jerseys versus their old orange-and-white uniforms, however, Mortenson concluded that, in either version, the team 'has always looked like shit.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 24, 2009 12:34 PM