(Via Flickr.)

With all deference to D-Day’s whip count posts, I think Matt Yglesias has the underlying dynamic of the upcoming House vote on the healthcare reform bill right:

This is one of these situations where now that the vote has been called, the votes will be there to pass the thing. . . .

Now that the count is underway, you can’t change the bill. So there’s no point in holding out for changing. . . . You have a victory, or you have a humiliating defeat. And everyone’s in the same boat. At that point, the votes will materialize.

The New York Times made a similar point:

In the homestretch of the health care debate, one obvious question being asked across the capital is whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi will find 216 votes to pass the bill. For a group of particularly jittery Democrats, the better question may be this: Who will be allowed to slip away?

. . .as the week inches along, with momentum steadily building to a Sunday vote, the party leaders are . . . beginning to decide which politically endangered lawmakers will be given absolution to vote no.

. . . There are, of course, very few votes to spare. Yet there are some. And even most Republican leaders concede that the mystery is not so much whether Democrats will reach the magic number of 216, but rather whose names will be included as yes votes in the final count.

. . . On Wednesday, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the first Democrat to explain his No-to-Yes evolution. Mr. Kucinich represents a safe Democratic district, and party leaders made it clear that he was not eligible for a pardon.

I don’t think this is just Village conventional wisdom at work.   Arguably, what we’re seeing now is not genuine persuasion, or even genuine bribery, but rather the time-dishonored tradition of Congresspeople competing to have it both ways — nominally opposing the potentially perilous legislation while making sure that it passes. (Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts implied to Mother Jones today that he was one of the lucky winners, announcing his intended “no” vote while admitting that the bill will probably pass — and rather than support a threatened Republican repeal effort, he will work to improve the bill once it does become law.)

The actual process may not feel as glibly cynical as that to the participants, but it seems increasingly clear that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t have proceeded with the vote unless she knew that the logic of “if this goes down, we all go down” would scare up the necessary ayes, one way or another.  To schedule the vote in the first place, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic powers that be almost certainly had assurances from more than 217 members that “I’ll vote yes if you absolutely need my vote,” even if many of them would rather not be needed.

I could be wrong, of course; maybe the Democrats are headed for another crash-and-burn experience like when Scott Brown took over Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in January.   But that election blindsided them, and the date couldn’t be changed once the danger became apparent.  In this case, President Obama, Pelosi and company scheduled the vote after weeks of behind-the-scenes deliberations… and I think we can all agree that bravery in the face of uncertainty isn’t exactly one of their distinguishing characteristics.

And I have to admit it: I’m in favor of passing the bill at this point.  I’m not smart enough to know who’s right about the policy merits — whether public opinion will swing in favor of it once it’s passed, as Obama has predicted, or whether the more ominous forecasts we’ve seen here will prove correct.

But I do know that the Democratic leadership has committed itself thoroughly enough to this effort, and spent enough time on it, that the political logic seems irrefutable — if the current legislation fails, there is zero chance that anything more progressive will emerge.  Instead, voters across the political spectrum will (with substantial justification) conclude that Democrats are inherently incapable of getting anything done, the 2010 elections will move the Congress substantially to the right (perhaps even into outright Republican control), and it will be another decade or more before anyone dares another attempt to tame the corporate health insurance dragon.

As painful as seeing this bill pass may be, I would submit that even responding to the need to fix an unpopular insurance reform law is a better bet for progressives than letting it fail, because at least there will be evidence that Congress can do something to address the problem.  Don’t underestimate the sheer helplessness that will be felt by left-leaning voters at all levels of political commitment (not just the diehards who follow this stuff closely) if the current effort crumbles into dust.

In saying that, of course, I’ve committed anyone who agrees with me to a different sort of helplessness.  Just about anyone reading this site almost undoubtedly wants a better bill, and here my “optimistic” argument is that we should want it to pass, no matter how bad we think it is, because its failure would be an even bigger (political) disaster.

For better or worse, by committing themselves to the legislation that’s on the table now — to return to Yglesias’ “same boat” analogy — Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid have forced us to go along for the ride.  I’m just busy hoping at this point that the iceberg some of us are seeing up ahead is just a mirage.  And if it isn’t, I hope we’re mentally rehearsing how to help man the lifeboats instead of settling for saying, “See!  I told you so!” as the ship goes down.

To me, the idea is brilliant in that it solves several problems at one stroke. Instead of putting solar panels on thousands of square miles of wilderness or farmland or other land, why not take surfaces that are already paved and put them to work collecting solar energy, just in time for us to transition from oil to electric cars like the Chevy Volt? It also solves the issue of energy transmission loss rather nicely. One could use the roads to transmit energy from thousands of miles away, but why do that when the nearby roads, playgrounds and parking lots themselves can generate all the energy one needs without the losses inherent in long-distance transmission?

Some folks, thinking in terms of current (and fragile) glass solar panels, think it can’t be done. But other folks think the idea is worthy of an award. The US Department of Transportation is willing to give it a try, and has financed the building of the first prototype — pictures of which can be seen here as well as at the top of this post. (They didn’t have quite enough dough for the custom hardened glass they want to use, so the clear surface on the prototype is polycarbonate.)

So what do you think? Grab a cup of coffee and let’s discuss it.

Tags: solar power

Marcia Pappas, President of New York Now, released an open letter encouraging the women in Congress to oppose the deal:

March 19, 2010

An open letter to every woman in Congress:

Today, women in the United States are fighting for their lives. You must fight too! A woman’s right to have safe and legal abortion is about to be traded away.

We are asking all of you fight like you have never fought before. Tonight, It has become clear that the our Democratic President Obama, Democratic Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and Democratic Leader (Harry Reid) are trading away women’s lives.

Every woman in Congress should MAKE HISTORY AND WALK OUT ! This is your chance to stand up for what is right! Forget politics, forget saving your seat! You must take a chance!

If you sit back and allow the passage of the health care bill with “Stupak,” women in America will not vote for another Democrat…..myself included. Because there will essentially be no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

What will it be? Will you all go down in history following the boys, or will you finally stand up for what is right? It’s up to all of you. We elected you because we believed that having women at the table would make a difference. Don’t let us down.

Marcia A. Pappas
President
NOW NYS

According to The Hill, “were the resolution to pass the House, it would instruct the Senate clerk to change the healthcare bill to reflect Stupak’s more restrictive language to prohibit federal dollars from going toward abortion coverage.”

There were 41 members of Congress who signed Diana DeGette’s letter saying “we will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.” Although the language in the Senate bill most certainly goes way beyond current law, the members have thus far stayed silent and DeGette has not released the names on the letter.

Jan Schakowsky, Mike Capuano, Mike Quigley, Carolyn Maloney, Judy Chu and Louise Slaughter have publicly said that they signed the letter. Betsy Markey and Anne Kirkpatrick are also signatories.

As I mentioned this morning, abortion would not be an issue in the “Plan B” alternative that the White House was contemplating three weeks ago, which would evidently expand existing programs — Medicaid and SCHIP. It would cover half the people at a quarter of the price, but it would not include the politically toxic mandate that threatens to trigger nationwide opposition in the form of 2010 ballot amendments. Because it creates no new infrastructure for the purpose of funneling money to private insurance companies, there is no need for either Bart Stupak’s or Ben Nelson’s language dealing with abortion — which satisfies the concerns of both pro-choice and anti-choice members of Congress.

Both programs are already covered under existing law, the Hyde amendment.

Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, Harry Reid, marcia pappas, Nancy Pelosi, ny-now, pro-choice caucus, Stupak

Changes…

Good Morning Pups!

How has everyone been enjoying this weather?  It may have rained all weekend, last weekend, but it has been gorgeous all week.  This is my type of weather…I absolutely love it!  I’ve been working a lot this week, so I haven’t been able to really enjoy it like I wanted.  However, on Wednesday, I took a short road trip with the Mr. and Rashad to take them to see my grandmother.  That was great!

Rashad has started crawling now, so I really need to step up my game on my workouts.  I didn’t do too much this week.  My last workout was on Sunday.  That means, I need to do double duty this next coming week.

I have had something on my mind that I would love to have your input on.  The tables seem to be changing some.  I was looking at a show discussing how “acceptable” it is to have the woman to go to work and the man to stay at home.  Now we all know, back in the day, it was ALWAYS the exact opposite.  With both of my grandparents, my grandfathers were the main providers and my grandmothers may have done a little something on the side, but for the most part they stayed at home and took care of the family.

Have things changed that much?  How acceptable is this?  And if the man stays home, are the women still expected to respect them and treat them as the “head” of the household.  I need help on this one, for more reasons than one.  Help me out guys…

Pull Up A Chair…

What’s on your mind tonight?

Tags: David Byrne, Morrissey

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

On page 2, you can see clearly that it says “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or to allow the secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services,” and then later, “None of the funds appropriated by this Act… shall be expended for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed…. or unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.”

This is the Stupak amendment, right down to the language on Page 3 about a separate abortion rider (which is not currently offered in any state where private coverage is banned). And it’s added as a “concurring resolution” to this bill.

Now, can that work? What about reconciliation? Don’t the changes have to be budget-related? What’s the deal with this “enrollment corrections”?

A concurrent resolution doesn’t have to be signed by the President, just adopted by the House and Senate. Enrollment corrections are typically reserved for technical changes to a bill happening in between passage and signage – before “enrollment” of the bill.

The question here seems to come down to how this is presented. Does this enrollment correction get tucked into the reconciliation bill and then “deemed” (there’s that word again) passed by the Senate? Would it have to be a stand-alone measure? What about the Byrd rule?

I asked Sarah Binder, a parliamentary expert and a professor at George Washington University, about all this. She doesn’t quite think it’s possible. Specifically, she says that “any enrollment corrections resolution considered to be more than a technical correction would need unanimous consent (in the Senate) to be adopted.” Failing that, it could possibly run through a cloture vote, basically 60 votes in the Senate. But if it’s inside the reconciliation process, then one Senator merely can challenge the language of one line of the bill and get the concurrent resolution ordered out of the sidecar.

It seems it may come down to WHEN the vote happens. If it occurs before the final vote, Congress might be able to get away with having it included in the total bill. But that doesn’t seem like it would work, for reasons that David Waldman explains here:

It seems to me that if the Senate parliamentarian is indeed insisting that the reconciliation bill address “current law,” then that means the Senate bill must be not only enrolled, but signed by the President before reconciliation can be considered, at least in the Senate. I assume the House parliamentarian has no such objection to the House beginning its work (which is curious in itself), since he’s apparently allowing the House to consider and pass reconciliation before the Senate bill is enrolled.

Will the Senate parliamentarian insist that the bill be signed before permitting the Senate to begin its reconciliation work on the floor? He may have no say over what the House parliamentarian approves with respect to when the House passes reconciliation, but he can prevent the Senate from beginning until the Senate bill becomes “current law.”

Nobody really knows if Stupak can pull this off; there’s very little precedent.

If the vote occurs after the vote on the final bill, it would have to go through a very dicey reconciliation process. And as a concurrent resolution, it might have to exist as a standalone measure entirely, meaning it’s eligible for a filibuster.

Now, we don’t know what assurances are being made on the Senate side to keep this in. Remember, if anything from the House reconciliation sidecar gets changed, the sidecar has to go BACK to the House for another vote. At which point we’re in exactly the same boat that we’re in right now. Democratic Senate leaders have already said they would whip to make no changes whatsoever to the sidecar. So there could end up being a “conspiracy of silence,” where nobody says anything about the abortion language (though presumably a Republican might) and it passes through the Senate without incident. Or Joe Biden overrules the chair on the point of order, and Democrats are whipped to sustain it (though Republicans have said they would not agree to that and would vote en masse against it).

It’s about as clear as mud. But somehow, when something has to be done, the rules tend to melt away. It’s clear the House cannot pass the health care bill without Bart Stupak. That tends to concentrate the mind.

The Pro-Choice Caucus, incidentally, is talking about an open revolt on this.

The vote prompted an angry backlash from members of the Pro-Choice Caucus, who vowed to kill any future healthcare bill containing the Stupak language, which they say goes beyond current law and places more restrictions on abortion than already exist.

Leaders of the Pro-Choice Caucus, some 30 minutes after storming into Pelosi’s office, renewed that threat.

“This concurrent resolution which Congressman Stupak and several others have filed, from the position of the people who signed my letter back in November, is a non-starter,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a Pro-Choice Caucus co-chairwoman. “We compromised to the concept ‘no federal funding for abortion,’ which is current law — we don’t like that. And so if Mr. Stupak and a few members, along with the Republicans, decide to use this to take healthcare down, then that loss on healthcare coverage is going to be on their hands.”

DeGette said a move allowing the enrollment resolution to go forward would put “somewhere between 40 and 55” pro-abortion rights votes at stake.

That math was also leading to counter-rumors, including from aides of anti-abortion rights Democrats, that Pelosi could not realistically be putting even a dozen votes from the left at stake for the sake of Stupak and his allies.

But you know, they say a lot of things.

Tags: abortion, Bart Stupak, budget reconciliation, Diana DeGette, Health care, House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, parliamentary procedure, Senate

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a deal with Rep. Bart Stupak in order to secure his vote and that of other anti-choice Democrats for the health care bill, which is scheduled to be voted on this Sunday. According to a member of Congress who was briefed on the matter, Pelosi has agreed to let Stupak have a vote on his amendment, which instructs the Senate to substitute his language for the Senate language on abortion.

FDL has obtained a copy of the concurrent resolution (PDF1, PDF2, PDF3, PDF4), which includes cosponsors Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall. A second source confirms that with the exception of Cao, these are the members of Congress who are still on the fence. Cao is still considered a firm “no” vote.

The deal calls for Stupak to have a vote on his amendment either before or after the House votes to confirm the Senate bill on Sunday. Stupak is confident that he has the votes to pass the measure, and is happy to have the vote after the House passes the Senate bill. He believes that by using a “tie bar” approach, his amendment would be “tied” to the health care bill — which would require just 51 votes in the Senate.

Pro-choice members of the House, however, are demanding that the vote on the Concurrent Resolution happen before the House confirms the Senate bill. If in fact it passes, they plan to vote against confirming the Senate bill. They want Rep. Diana Degette to release the names of the 41 cosigners to her letter who pledged to vote against any bill that restricts a woman’s right to choose, and they are angry that the White House has been whipping to push through the Stupak deal.

“It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back women’s reproductive rights,” says one member of the group.

Alan Grayson, who voted against the Stupak Amendment when it went before the House last October, now has 80 cosponsors for his public option amendment, but has not been granted a floor vote.

“I wonder why we can have a vote to please the anti-choice clique, and we can’t have a vote on the public option,” he says.

Dave Dayen has an analysis of what’s included in the amendment.

Text of the Concurrent Resolution below the jump

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MR. STUPAK (for himself, MR. Berry, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Cao, Ms. Dahlkemper, Mr. Driehaus, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Mollohan, and Mr. Rahall) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the committee on ________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Correcting the enrollment of H.R. 3590

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3590, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections:

(1) In the section 1303 amended by section 10104(c) of the bill –

(A) in the section heading, insert “RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES” after “SPECIAL RULES”; AND

(B) strike subsection (a) and all of subsection (b) that precedes paragraph (4) and insert the following:

“(a) IN GENERAL — Nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or allow the Secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services.

“(b) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING –

“(1) IN GENERAL — None of the funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986, shall be expected for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from the physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

“(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN _- Subject to paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State orlocal government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that inclues such abortions, so long as such coverage or plan is not purchased using the non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a preminum payment required for the qualified health plan towards whith the credit described in paragraph (1) is applied or a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

“(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN — Subject to paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance insurer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that inclue3s such abortions, so long as any such insurer that offers a qualified health plan through any Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except it does not cover such abortions.”

(2) In subsection (a) of the section 1334 added by section 10104(q) of the bill, strike paragraph (6) and redesignate paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).

Tags: abortion, Alan Grayson, Alan Mollohan, Bart Stupak, Dan Lipinski, Health care, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Marcy Kaptur, Marion Berry, Nancy Pelosi, Nick Rahall, reproductive rights, Sanford Bishop, Steve Driehaus, Stupak Amendment

photo: Leo Reynolds via Flickr

We’ll certainly know in the morning, but Nancy Pelosi is fast running out of options without members of the ubiquitous Stupak bloc.

Harry Teague, one of the few remaining undecided votes, will vote No again as he did in November, blaming cost controls.

“I had hoped to have a chance to vote on a bill that provided affordable health care options to all American families, but after reviewing the final health care reform proposal, I do not believe that the bill does enough to contain costs and it definitely does not do enough to rein in the out of control insurance companies that are driving up healthcare costs in this country,” Teague said in a statement.

“In fact, I believe we are doing more for the insurance companies than we are for the people who need this coverage, and that is why, despite the positive steps it takes, I must vote against this bill,” Teague said.

If you look at the numbers below, you understand why this is consequential. Teague puts the definite No votes at 210, with five leaners, four of them part of the Stupak bloc. There are only 8 undecideds left, and 208 Yes votes with leaners. So Pelosi would have to get all 8, including Stupak bloc member Kathy Dahlkemper, and hold Marcy Kaptur (who probably shouldn’t be a lean Yes). Failing that, she could try to flip Glenn Nye, or go to one of her committee chairs voting No (Ike Skelton, Collin Peterson) and ask them to walk the plank.

But that’s a very tough road. And so Pelosi is talking to Bart Stupak. Because there doesn’t look to be another option for passage. That may result in an annual standalone vote on choice in the exchange. It may result in some “tie-bar” legislation (although that is procedurally unlikely). But it’s almost certainly going to result in something.

Tags: Harry Teague, health care reform, Reconciliation, whip count

How’d that work out for us?

Consider: Through the tireless work of Jane and many others, the progressive community got 60+ representatives to pledge to oppose any health care reform bill that did not contain a public option; a bloc that would make such a bill impossible to pass.  That sounds pretty “make me do it,” right?  (Sure, now the progressives are folding like they always do, but Obama could have easily pretended to take them seriously.)

And what happened?  First Obama made no attempt to pressure Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman to vote for cloture – and only cloture – on the public option, nor did he ever press Harry Reid to try to pass it through reconciliation.

Then, when Scott Brown took Teddy Kennedy’s seat and forced reconciliation back onto the table, Obama still made no effort to push for the once-again-attainable public option, and even excluded it from his own sidecar proposal, despite the high probability that it would pass, the progressive PO-Or-Bust pledge, and the new “Public Option Please” letter.

Only when the public option was safely removed from the conversation did Obama and all his supporting organizations unleash all the personal arm-twisting and full-court press that we crazy hippies were supposedly so unrealistic to expect from them last year.

Which makes me wonder what Obama really wanted to do and who he wanted to make him do it.  The progressives who formed a voting bloc that, if it held, would have made it impossible to pass health care reform without thepublic option?  The Liebercrats who threatened to vote against cloture unless the public option was eliminated?  Or the Republicans whose unrelenting obstructionism gave Obama the excuse he needed to cave in on the public option even though they were essentially irrelevant to a reconciliation vote?

When the “make me do it” bar is so much higher for progressives than it is for Republicans and Nelsons and Liebermans, it’s awfully hard to believe that we were the kindred spirits Obama was looking to for help.  In fact, it almost looks as though Obama made some kind of secret deal to ensure that the public option would never see the light of day, but surely that’s crazy talk.

(For a superfun extra-credit assignment, try asking the “Who does Obama want to ‘make me do it’?” question about other progressive policy issues, like financial industry reform, climate change, LGBT rights, immigration, EFCA, civilian trials, etc, and see what you come up with.)

Tags: Barack Obama, Ben Nelson, Congress, Democrats, health care reform, House, Joe Lieberman, public option, Republicans, Senate

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ 5)

Harry Mitchell (D-AZ 5) has told Channel 12 News in Arizona that he will vote “yes” on health care. Mitchell was a “yes” vote the first time around but had not committed.

Mitchell will face the winner of a hotly contested GOP primary in his district. One of the candidates is Dave Schweikert, the GOP nominee who lost to Mitchell in 2008, 54-44. Mitchell took the seat from J.D. Hayworth in 2006. The district has an R+5 PVI, and, all things being equal, Democratic leadership would probably rather Mitchell not walk the plank on this one.

Mitchell was previously in the “undecided” category. That puts the vote at 202-209 (208-214 with leaners).

The current breakdown after the jump. . . :

Tags: Arizona, Harry Mitchell, Health care, whip count