The Rise "n" Shine Thread For 12/22/09: House Progressives Will Fold On Key Sticking Points, Just Not Immediately
Despite their endless months of working on a health care bill, and the proclamation of requesting the Senate to make incremental changes to its very flawed bill in conference, it appears that the House will play little brother to its "big brother" chamber in the end.
The date at which a conference bill will be released isn't set in definite stone. But what appears to be likely (surprise!) is that it will truly resemble the "Joe Lieberman Ben Nelson Health Insurance Lobbyist Giveaway."
When John Conyers said yesterday that quote yesterday (via the great TomP, dude, your awesome man) that "The Constitution established a bicameral legislature so that neither body would dominate the other" many including myself took that as just hollowed talk coming from him.
Conyers is a great guy obviously, but there appears to be no way in my mind that House Progressives are (or were) going to stand up in this situation and damn that important pieces of the House bill be placed in the crap coming out of the "cooling center for democracy."
The overall momentum and painful reality of the situation is truly against all of those House members who pledged not to vote for a final bill without a public option. And their anger is felt clearly within:
This truly represents how this whole process has gone far south (no pun intended at all)
And for future times, it will provide further evidence for not getting too excited at seeing House Progressives stand up for the goods of the nation, only to back down in the all important final stages.
The date at which a conference bill will be released isn't set in definite stone. But what appears to be likely (surprise!) is that it will truly resemble the "Joe Lieberman Ben Nelson Health Insurance Lobbyist Giveaway."
Leadership aides say progressives are prepared to take it on the chin and will vote for a final bill without a public option. But they say pro-life Democrats will seek direction from the U.S. Conference of Bishops as to whether they can support an amendment weaker than Rep. Bart Stupak's, thus setting up what will likely be the most difficult negotiation before a final vote.Now let's be full realist with ourselves here.
Senate Democrats have repeatedly warned that any substantive changes to the bill they will pass tomorrow night will lose the fragile 60-vote coalition they've built, and it looks like they will get their way.
"I don't see how we don't largely accede to the Senate," a House leadership aide said.
The House bill raises taxes on people earning more than $500,000 per year and the Senate's does not. House aides point out the idea actually polls well and suggested they could meet in the middle and increase the income threshold for the new tax so it affects fewer people. Also, unions are not happy with the Senate's plan to tax high-end insurance plans so the House will argue that point.
When John Conyers said yesterday that quote yesterday (via the great TomP, dude, your awesome man) that "The Constitution established a bicameral legislature so that neither body would dominate the other" many including myself took that as just hollowed talk coming from him.
Conyers is a great guy obviously, but there appears to be no way in my mind that House Progressives are (or were) going to stand up in this situation and damn that important pieces of the House bill be placed in the crap coming out of the "cooling center for democracy."
The overall momentum and painful reality of the situation is truly against all of those House members who pledged not to vote for a final bill without a public option. And their anger is felt clearly within:
Another Democratic aide told TPMDC that rank-and-file members are irritated Obama has shown more deference to his former colleagues in the Senate throughout the entire process. Still, the aide conceded that members are going to have to accept the Senate version because they are ready to be done with the fight.But they will roll over on this at the end. The optics of casting asperity at those who didn't want real reform cannot replace the bottom line of not getting the job done.
"I don't think you'll see that much that's left up to chance, the negotiations will likely play out much farther in advance," the aide said.
Progressives will demand a good explanation from Senate colleagues on how choice and competition can be accomplished through their bill, another aide said.
"It would serve the House well to go another round on this, it's important to send a message to our base and some of our progressive allies that we're not just going to roll over on this," the aide said.
This truly represents how this whole process has gone far south (no pun intended at all)
Leadership believes these issues can all be dealt with, noting weary staffers and members want to clear the decks.If the Senate bill in its current version becomes the ultimate final bill without major changes, then the Joe Lieberman Ben Nelson Health Insurance Lobby Unpopular Act will be put on the throats of the public.
"It's time to pass a good bill and move on" so members can start campaigning on its benefits for the 2010 midterm elections, an aide said.
And for future times, it will provide further evidence for not getting too excited at seeing House Progressives stand up for the goods of the nation, only to back down in the all important final stages.
Comments