Senate aides say that they cannot pass the reconciliation bill unless the House passes the Senate bill. House Dems say well we sure as hell don't trust the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill if we've already passed your bill. So there is a lack of trust, one that leads to a classic trap in which everyone desires the same thing and would be collectively better off for it, but they all need to move in coordination and no one trusts the other to follow through on their side.
I'm glad to hear that House Democrats have started to come to their senses. As Rep. Miller, the Dem Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, notes
"The choreography gets a little complicated here, but the point is that the House will present a reconciliation bill that will be based on the principles the president put forth to correct some of the problems the House and others have had with the Senate bill... That may require us to pass the Senate bill first, and then send the reconciliation bill to the Senate for them to pass. I think Senator Reid believes that he can put together the votes for that, and then we can have a new, modern health care system in this country that can be signed by... President Obama."
I have no idea whether this is necessary or whether having the Senate pass the bill first would lead to a successful parliamentary challenge for trying to pass a reconciliation fix to a bill (the Senate health care bill) that is not yet law. More importantly, however, I think that the House needs to pass the bill first just to kill the discourse that passing the whole bill through reconciliation is unprecedented. This is something that Steve Benen has been highlighting repeatedly (see here, or here). But the discourse in the media seems to have taken off, with the Republican talking points about 'sure we did it too, but never for something as complicated as this.' Or the constant repeating of Democratic Senator Byrd's claim that it would be outrageous for the Senate to pass health care reform through majority rules.
But Byrd said this about the idea of passing the entire bill through reconciliation. And although I never supported this tactic, I think it would be no less outrageous than passing 1996 Welfare Reform, the Bush tax cuts, or COBRA through reconciliation. But even if it were unprecedented to pass the health care bill through reconciliation, that is not what is being proposed.
Rather, the Senate bill has already passed, and can be passed by the House and signed by the President today. No reconciliation. The House won't do that unless it gets a fix, for which you need reconciliation. But that just points to why you absolutely need the House to pass the bill first (although potentially the Senate can introduce the reconciliation bill on the floor to calm nervous House Dems)
As soon as the House passes the bill, it kills the GOP talking point, but only if that is the lede and not reconciliation. If the House passed the bill, that means that the only thing preventing comprehensive health care reform from becoming law would be the signature of President Obama. That would dominate the news cycle for a few days, and no one could make any claims that would get any traction about how this was an illegitimate process. What the hell is illegitimate about passing a bill through the normal rules in both chambers.
A few days later, when the dust is settling, you move forward on the reconciliation. The GOP would howl, but even the most novice reporter would have to figure out why there is another health care bill being passed, and would have to explain that what is being passed is a smaller set of amendments.
Best scenario moving forward: House passes the bill, Obama makes a huge fanfare, promises to sign the bill, talks about how it's such a step forward, soak press coverage on passing the bill through the regular channels, and then before the bill is signed (to make sure the Sen Dems hold up their end of the bargain) pass the fix through reconciliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment