Since the Bennet letter began to pick up steam, I've argued that the effort could realistically produce 50 Senate votes for a public option. Now, for the first time since the Bennet letter surfaced, we have a clear path to 50 Senate votes.
Shortly after I re - started the "Going Public" series in mid - February, I broke Senate Democrats into three categories.
Every Reason To Join: Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Harkin, Kaufman, Klobuchar, Kohl, Murray, Rockefeller, Mark Udall, and Wyden.
Need Vocal Constituent Support To Join: Baucus, Begich, Carper, Conrad, Hagan, Johnson, McCaskill, Tester, Warner, and Webb.
Can't Imagine A Scenario In Which They Join: Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Pryor. I wrote that "Bill Nelson is most likely with them."
Since then, the efforts of grassroots Democrats have picked up everyone in the first group but Harkin, Kohl, and Rockefeller, two from the second group, and surprisingly, one from the third. We're at the tipping point.
To 45
CS = Constituent Support
PS = Previous Support
OS = Other Senator from their state is on board.
"Ideally, I think health reform should include some type of a public option."
Tom Carper (Delaware) - CS, OS
Faces overwhelming constituent support. He's a DLC champion who reversed himself on signing the Bennet letter in a bizarre way last month. But he's probably smart enough to know that this is not going away.
Tom Harkin (Iowa) - CS, PS
Leading proponent of a public option.
Harkin is one of my "political heroes," an authentic progressive populist, and a Medicare for All supporter. So I naturally have an extremely hard time believing that he would vote against the public option. Judging by his most recent statements, Harkin doesn't think the votes are there on the House side.
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) - CS, PS
Also a leading proponent of a public option.
The Final 5
We would need five of the following eight.
Max Baucus (Montana)
If Baucus is the deciding vote against the public option, he would face the an incredibly intense backlash from MT Dems. Thanks to the Gang of Six fiasco, Baucus is rightfully on very thin ice.
Mark Warner (Virginia)
Not a big fan of a public option. Politically though, he would have no coherent rationale for being the deciding vote against one.
"There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all American at an affordable price for taxpayers," Webb and 15 other senators wrote in an April letter urging that a public option be approved.
Note: I'm not including West Virginia's Robert Byrd because of his health difficulties, though Byrd did support a non - trigger public option in the past.
The problem may very well be the House. But first things first. Because basic accountability is so important, Senators should be straightforward about how they would vote on the merits. To clear this up, the remaining Dem Senators should be asked a simple question, in isolation from what is going on in the House.
"If there is a vote on a public choice, how would you vote on the merits?"
If they say that the votes in the Senate aren't there, they should be asked how they would vote if 49 other Dems were voting yes. This is not a far - fetched scenario. "We don't have the votes in the Senate" is no longer a very convincing argument.
Over to you Tom Carper, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Kent Conrad, Kay Hagan, Claire McCaskill, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb.
The Top Three Political Reasons Congressional Democrats Should Support Including A Public Option In Health Care Reform
- It's probably the only thing that can really close the enthuisasm gap. We're talking about the difference between a November that is rough, and a November that is a disaster.
- Without it, the individual mandate is politically indefensible.
- Many of those currently on the fence now have either already voted for a bill with a public option in it (on the floor or in committee), or voiced support for it. They're already going to get attacked for it by the right. Using reconciliation is going to make the Republican base freak out regardless of what is in the legislation. The public option has been consistently popular. If Dems are going to go this route, we might as well include important policy supported by a clear majority of the American people. Among voters who will or potentially would vote for Democrats, support for a public option is sky high. A significant number of the most active Dem voters consider it essential.
Whether it's a public option or a Medicare Expansion, including a public choice is the right thing to do... and the smart thing to do.
UPDATE: McJoan reports on Dick Durbin telling Senate Dems that they can't have a vote on the public option. Durbin is arguing that it will jeopardize the whole reconciliation process, and Tom Carper is backing him up. If this argument is revealed to be seriously flawed, this move will backfire big time.
It looks like the votes in the Senate are there, but for whatever reason, some leading Dems don't want the vote to take place. If they don't want a vote on a public choice, they should say why. But "we don't have the votes in the Senate" just isn't credible anymore.
UPDATE #2: Greg Sargent talks to Bernie Sanders, who says he is prepared to introduce a public option amendment.
Just now on Countdown: Rep. Dennis Kucinich is a solid no. Compares a bill without a robust public option to "building on sand."
Greg Sargent has a useful roundup of other swing House votes.
On the Senate side, I still do think the votes for a public option through reconciliation are within grasp. We have 37 right now. Akaka, Carper, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Rockefeller, Tester, Baucus, Conrad, Hagan, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Byrd, and Begich would give us 52. That's home with a little room to spare. Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Bill Nelson would be worth lobbying as well. I doubt any of them would back it unless the train were leaving the station. But Lincoln couldn't afford to be the one vote to kill it, unless she wants small donors to flock to Bill Halter like nothing ever seen before.
The grassroots is not urging elected Dems to do something that doesn't make sense. We're urging them to include a popular element that is good policy, makes the individual mandate politically defensible, and is probably the only thing that can really energize the Democratic base in time for November.
Drew Westen weighs in. The entire post is worth reading. Westen reinforces why a Medicare Choice Buy - In would be a winner.
Great coverage of all things reconciliation at Congress Matters.
Mitt Romney is apparently running for president on an "I Heart Insurance Companies" platform
President Obama at his best.
Some much - needed comic relief: Jonathan Chait mocks Mike Allen's reconciliation FAIL.
It's going to be difficult to get the Democratic coalition behind behind this bill unless a Medicare Choice Buy - In is included.
The stated problem at this point is the Senate. However, I would contend that the votes are there for the taking. We have 37 Senators on board with the public option through reconciliation, including Feingold and Dodd. 6 more have every reason to support a Medicare Choice Buy - In, especially one with the President's support behind it (Akaka, Carper, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, and Rockefeller). Tester, Baucus, Conrad, Hagan, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Byrd, and Begich would give us 52 Senate votes -- two more than we need.
If vulnerable House members are the problem, adding this element only strengthens their chances for re - election. No bill or an individual mandate without a public choice are both bad politically. It's time for some real pragmatism. The policy benefits of a public choice are obvious. Why is a Medicare Choice Buy - In so important politically?
- MCBI would enable the grassroots to feel comfortable rallying around what is on the table now.
- MCBI would help energize the base in time for November.
- MCBI would be very popular, especially with Dems and swing voters. "Medicare Choice Buy - In" is almost certain to poll somewhere between 65% and 75%.
- MCBI would put Republicans on the spot over their commitment to Medicare, because it would strengthen Medicare over the long - term.
UPDATE:
This version corrects the earlier post that failed to make it clear that an MCBI couldn't be done until next year if it isn't included in this effort.
Also, McJoan has a really good post on maximizing the popularity of the legislation that passes.
Rep. Eric Massa's resignation moves the number for passage in the House back to 216.
Rep. Anthony Weiner isn't giving up on an up or down vote for the public option.
If there isn't a vote on a meaningful public option / Medicare Buy - In, the spotlight is going to come back to the White House's deal with private hospitals.
Bottom line: I have a very hard time believing that there aren't at least 50 votes in the Senate for a Medicare Buy - In. And I know I'm not alone.
The final package, while improved in some very significant ways from what the Senate passed, will be deeply flawed both policy-wise and politically. At this final moment of decision, though, I think progressives need to say yes to getting the bill passed.
...
For all the disappointments, for all the flaws, this legislation does some critically important things, and I believe it sets the stage for doing better things down the road. If Democrats can't get this passed now, the lesson that Democrats will learn is to never try anything big or difficult again. If we get this legislation passed, it begins to change the psychology of Democrats just a little: that they can succeed at being ambitious and that they can make big changes if they persevere in the face of big money and political challenges.
...
To all my progressive friends who have been fighting this long, hard fight on health care: I know not all of you agree with me that this bill should be passed. But I think on balance that this is the right thing to do, not only in terms of health care but in terms of our broader progressive agenda. Because of you, not even the fight for the public option is over (although it's way uphill). Let's stay on the field, keep fighting, get this bill done, and then keep fighting for better things in the future.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, co - chair of the House progressive caucus, talks to Ed Shultz about yesterday's meeting with President Obama.
Key takeaway: The President thanked progressives for making the bill better, but doesn't think the Senate has the votes for a public option.
With Maria Cantwell on board, we're now at 37 (including Feingold and Dodd).
There are 6 more Senators who have every reason to join: Akaka, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Rockefeller, Carper. That puts us at 43. I do think the final 7 votes are there if the White House and the Dem coalition believed it was worth it. We would need 7 of these of these 8: Tester, Baucus, Conrad, Hagan, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, and Begich.
I would strongly argue that this is worth it. Without a public option, the individual mandate becomes extremely difficult to defend. And then there's the "insurance industry bailout charges." Congressional Republicans and conservatives will move so forcefully to these two lines of attack that it will shock a lot of people. There's also the matter of turnout in November.
If it's not included in the reconciliation package, there's now ample support in both chambers of Congress to give it an up or down vote as an amendment to that package.
Tom Harkin calls out Bart Stupak for being grossly misinformed.
Here is some useful info on wavering House members.
This edition of health care reform quick hits and commentary will be updated throughout the day,
The big news: Greg Sargent talks to a former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove who says that a single Senator can, in theory, force the rest of the Senate to vote on the public option.
FDL's Jon Walker was the first person, at least that I read, to bring this up. Credit to him.
It's not too hard to see how we get the remaining votes in the Senate: Akaka, Cantwell, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Rockefeller, Carper, Tester, Baucus, Conrad, Hagan, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Begich.
The House seems like it's more problematic at this point, but I don't know what the wavering House members are thinking. They already voted for the House bill that included the public option. They're already open to attacks (read: smears) on that vote. They're going to need an energized base to get re - elected. And passing reform that included PO is by far the best way to do that.
We're at an extremely frustrating point right now. A meaningful public option -- as has been said countless times before -- is clearly good policy and good (arguably essential even) politics. It's within grasp, yet it's being avoided by pivotal elected Dems.
(4:55 pm) Update
It's certainly true that the House has been much more productive than the Senate, and in the process, House members from marginal districts have stuck their neck out for legislation that the Senate has either gutted or punted on, often the latter.
But I hop vulnerable House members who are exhausted and understandably furious at the Roadblock Caucus in the Senate realize the impact this will have and why it's a clear winner of most House Dems from marginal districts: the PO as a cost cutter, the PO's popularity, and the enthusiasm gap. Being a vulnerable House member who supports the public option is going to earn a lot support from the local rank and file as well as donations from across the country. And that support could very well mean the difference between victory and defeat. Elected Dems are going to be attacked no matter what. Many of the attacks are going to be shameless lies. This is Sarah Palin's GOP we're talking about here. The Republican base is very energized and determined. There's a surefire way to get our base much closer matching them, and we all know what it is. Congressional Dems can either recognize this now, or kick themselves for letting counterproductive timidity posing as pragmatism crowd out the real thing when the results come in on election night.
With the addition of Bob Casey, Ron Wyden, and Mark Udall, we're at 34 (including Russ Feingold).
There are eight more Senate Democrats who have every reason to support this effort.
CS = Constituent support is high.
PS = Previously supported the public option.
OS = Other Senator from their state supports the public option through reconciliation.
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) - CS, PS, OS
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - CS, PS, OS
Chris Dodd, CS, PS Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) - CS, PS
Tom Harkin (Iowa) - CS, PS
Ted Kaufman (Delaware) - CS, PS Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) - CS, PS, OS
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) - CS, PS
Because of the possibility of a standalone vote, or another future effort -- not to mention basic accountability -- it's very important to get everyone on the record.
UPDATE: Just read the latest from Brian Beutler. Chris Dodd is also on board. He makes 35.
Beutler echoes what Tom Harkin told Ed Shultz yesterday.
Now, it's worth noting that, just last week, Hoyer himself said he still thinks a public option can pass in the House--so clearly it's a close call. But there does appear to be some doubt that the House can pass both a public option and the Senate health care bill. And perhaps that's why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (once again) took it off the table this Sunday on CNN.
So now our job is to get the final 15 votes in the Senate, and get to the bottom of what is going on in the House.
UPDATE #2: Lawrence O'Donnell just reported that Ted Kaufman of Delaware is in. That makes 36.
This was followed up by Kent Conrad touting himself and other self - proclaimed "centrists" for their ability to "get things done." Kent "Gang of Six" Conrad is a pragmatist legend in his own mind.
UPDATE #3: Here's the clip.
I'll post some thoughts on how we get to 51 in a few hours.
Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, and Ben Cardin put us at 31 (including Russ Feingold).
There are eleven more Senate Democrats who have every reason to support this effort.
CS = Constituent support is high.
PS = Previously supported the public option.
OS = Other Senator from their state supports the public option through reconciliation.
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) - CS, PS, OS
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - CS, PS, OS
Chris Dodd (Connecticut) - CS, PS
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) - CS, PS, OS
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) - CS, PS
Tom Harkin (Iowa) - CS, PS
Ted Kaufman (Delaware) - CS, PS
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) - CS, PS, OS
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) - CS, PS
Mark Udall (Colorado) - CS, PS, OS
Ron Wyden (Oregon) - CS, PS, OS
42
There are three more industry - friendly Senate Dems who may be reluctant to join but could face overwhelming constituent pressure.
Max Baucus (Montana)
Tom Carper (Delaware)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
45
There are two more purple or red state Democrats who have previously indicated support for the public option, and who I think it's fair to say want to do the right thing on this. With enough constituent support, they would likely do so again. The key selling point with them is the public option's ability to cut costs.
Mark Begich (Alaska)
Jon Tester (Montana)
47
There are four Senate Democrats who come from states that are either light blue, purple, or red, but not enough to justify their lack of support for the popular public option.
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Warner (Virginia)
Jim Webb (Virginia)
51
Game over.
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Bill Nelson (Florida) are still worth contacting. Support for the public option is strong in their state.
Tom Harkin just told Ed Shultz that he isn't signing on to the letter because he thinks the addition of the public option could derail the whole bill. He mentioned the potential "yes to "no" flips in the House we've heard a lot about recently. Campaign Diaries has a very useful breakdown of the state of play in the House.
If Congressional Dems think this through, they will realize that either not passing anything, or passing something that leaves out one of the most popular elements, would be very bad politics. It would depresses the base and turns off persuadables who like the public option.
Why does this count still matter, even though it's unlikely that we'll hit the magic number by Wednesday?
Jon Walker sees the potential for a standalone vote. (h/t Greg Sargent)
E.J. Dionne has a really good column about the recent Pew numbers on Millenials. Follow - up at Future Majority here and here.
Mobilizing this key part of the Democratic coalition really isn't very difficult. Three steps to energizing Millenials for 2010:
- An up or down Senate vote on the public option. It's popular across the board, but especially so with younger voters.
- A genuine push for student loan reform. The White House deserves a lot of credit on this. Even those who won't be dealing with this issue in the future have fresh memories and are well aware of the magnitude of the problem. Along with the environment, this is part of the winning contrast.
- Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and repeatedly condemning the underlying unfairness, and frankly stupidity, of keeping gay men and women from serving openly. President Obama added the line "it's the right thing to do" to his SOTU speech after advocating for the repeal, and that's exactly what we need to hear. Younger voters are "values voters" too. And our values tell us that DADT needs to go, as fast as possible.
Even Republican operatives recognize that their only chance with Millenials is to pretend that they share our goals, but have a better way to get to the same destination. We've seen this dynamic at work in the health care reform effort. Where the consensus is mostly an illusion, like on buying insurance across state lines (they want a race to the bottom), we shouldn't shy away from pointing out what the Cons are up to.
Conservatives are trying to polish the turd that is their agenda. We can and should speak up and say, "Yeah, that's still a turd." Far too much is on the line for us not to.
I'll wrap this up with a quote from Simon Tally at New Deal 2.0:
In the midst of debates on new financial regulations and economic reforms, it's important to keep in mind a need that every generation before this one has met: to hand over an economy with greater economic opportunities and greater economic stability to the next.
Reihan Salam, co - author of Grand New Party, appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher last night.
(The relevant segment is the first 40 seconds of the clip.)
First off, the AFL - CIO is "fighting tooth and nail" to defend their health plans because many of the union workers who would have been hit by the excise tax worked dangerous jobs (see: IAFF) and/or agreed to better plans instead of a pay increase. To assert that the AFL - CIO is in any way comparable to the K Street heroes trying to protect the status quo is ridiculous.
Salam then claims that Singapore has a "completely free market system."
Really, Reihan? You're going to say that the GOP is wrong for their blatant obstruction, then in the next breath hint that the unmitigated power of the Magical Free Market Unicorn can fix this problem?
Salam is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Two words: Price controls.
Milton Friedman would be deeply ashamed of Salam for trying to pass off price controls as in any way compatible with the MFMU.
Also, Salam might want to look up the word "compulsory." Or does Singapore somehow have a "free market compulsory" element... as opposed to what those darn "Socialist Fascists" want to set up. Hold on, I need to go take a sip of my size "large small" drink.
And from something I found at the Library of Economics and Liberty (obligatory RON PAUL! reference), there is this:
"The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
That sounds familiar.
UPDATE: Salam responds to criticism of his comment here.
Cenk Uygur is right. It's time for an up or down vote on the PO.
The Question: If there is an up or down vote on the public option, would you vote against it?
The First Senators To Ask: Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Cardin, Dodd, Casey, Dorgan, Durbin, Harkin, Kaufman, Klobuchar, Kohl, McCaskill, Murray, Rockefeller, Mark Udall, and Wyden.
You would think the House vote to repeal the insurance companies' anti - trust exemption would show more Dems the value of putting the GOP on the defensive. Progressive populism works.
Tom Harkin says the public option is "likely dead."
Harkin and Jay Rockefeller not signing on to the Bennet letter is difficult to understand. Some possible explanations:
- There are widespread concerns in the Senate about what the revival of the public option could mean for chances of getting any kind of legislation passed (as expressed by Jonathan Cohn).
- Harkin and Rockefeller don't see any realistic chance of getting 50 votes for the PO and believe time would be better spent on other elements of the legislation. This would make sense to me. Some influential Dems seem to be determined to learn the wrong lesson from Massachusetts, and the Senate isn't exactly Backbone Central to begin with. If there were 50 votes for the public option before, a number of them were very wobbly. Now getting them back strikes exhausted proponents in the Senate as either an extremely steep or impossible climb.
- The relevant committees are chaired by Senators unfriendly to the PO, and there is confusion about how that could play out. This was cited by Sherrod Brown, a public option stalwart, a while ago. Then again, Brown signed the PCCC letter.
Tom Harkin is a very strong Democrat. Jay Rockefeller has been emphatic about the public option. Something isn't right here. Whatever is going on, Senate Dems as a whole don't look good right now.
Getting to 40 or even 45 votes wouldn't be very difficult in theory. Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Cardin, Dodd, Casey, Dorgan, Durbin, Kaufman, Klobuchar, Kohl, Murray, Wyden, and others have every reason to sign on. It's the last 5 or so that will be difficult, but right now a handful of Senate Dems is able to obstruct the will of a majority of the majority, and a majority of the American people, without identifying themselves. This is why every Senate Dem needs to go on the record. Up or down. Yes or no.
Kent Conrad, who is right up there with Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman, on the Senate Dems Who Royally Screwed This Up List, continues to find ways to try to undermine reform. Conrad is a "deficit hawk"... except for when he's not.
