Public Option Senate Whip Count Update - 80%

I watched the Senate Finance and Health Committee markups (4.00 / 1)

live blogging most of it before that big check for Soros arrived I bought new pajamas and a case of Cheetos.

I watched the voting patters of West Virginia native Sen. Tom Carper D-DE, MR Ducks Sen. Blanche Lincoln D-AR, very serious Sen. Jeff Bingaman D-NM and budget scold Sen. Kent Conrad D-ND.

Did you watch all the HELP and all the Finance markups to come to this conclusion? Do you know what amendments were defeated? Rockefeller offered his, made his pitch, and then acknowled that it would be defeated. So did Sen. Wyden D-OR. Sen. Schumer D-NY did not have much luck either, and he may end up the next majority leader.

Would the general public know as much as we do about rescission without the Commerce Committee hearing Sen. Rockefeller held that took testimony from Wendell Potter, whistleblower? Around midnight that last night another thought this was a great Rockefeller quote:

Children from CHIP shouldn't have to go to the exchange, where "insurance companies would...have them for lunch."

Statements in the press are often directed to other members and are the best window we have on consensus building. How a bill gets cobbled together is ugly. Sen. Wyden certainly was not happy with the concessions given between 11:30PM and midnight to Sen. Rockefeller the last night. I know Conrad's legislative director. He got the concessions he wanted. You can't manufacture votes.

Public Option cannot be introduced into the sidecar. It will not stand a Byrd Rule and a point of order. Parliamentarian Emeritus Robert Dove cannot remember being overruled by the chair alone on one of these. This whip got to 51 last fall, John Tester D-MT last one counted. Waiving the Byrd Rule is a 60 vote lift. CBO score on the sidecar today. House vote next week.

States can setup single payer under the Senate bill, so some focus should shift. Congress is not doing this this term, but the long term effort is worth it. Intimating that Rockefeller benefited from stock trades during the markup by linking to Page Not Found Error 404 as a bludgeon, unwisely wielded at this time.

Go look at part of the shiny new CBO report:

reflecting subsidies provided through insurance exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers

That is what Rockefeller traded. Add that to Sen. Sanders I-CT community health clinics and I am not ready to cut off my nose to spite my aching toe.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:48:28 PM UTC

agreed (4.00 / 1)

Well said. I'm inclined to agree with you that Rocky got what he could.

I'd still like to see him more vocally support the public option as positioning for the future, but I'm not going to get too worked up about it if it really takes 60 votes anyway.

Personally, I don't think Rockefeller is a swayed by pressure from campaign donors. I think he's at a point in his life where there's pretty much no one that can move Sen. Rockefeller... he's going to do what he wants to do.

He's certaintly not one of those Congresspeople setting himself up for a big post-Congress payday. He's already got more money than he could spend in his lifetime. He's probably not going to run for office again and, even if he does, he's got nothing much to worry about when it comes to re-election.  

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 18:25:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clem, pehaps you don't recall how Rockefeller's overcame his first major political defeat. (0.00 / 0)

It had to do with flipping his stance on strip mining from being against it to being for it. I bring it up because your theory "too rich to sell out" doesn't cut it no matter which side of that debate you're on, my friend. Or are you suggesting that he's forgotten that very expensive lesson he learned back in '72 when Republican Arch Moore beat the crap out him?

By the way, despite Rockefeller supposedly being the Senate's "health care librul", I have yet to hear him adequately explain why he's fallen out with Senator Byrd over the EPA's regulation of the coal industry despite overwhelming evidence of the harm done to the state by surface mining since Bush stripped the agency. Perhaps that explains why they suddenly LOOOVE Rockefeller over at WVARED.

Mebbe I should just clam up and let them roll right over us. I heard that Jeb Bush is thinking about running against Obama using Rockefeller as his token veepee "lubrul".

---

by: One Citizen @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 20:47:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good reminder (4.00 / 1)

Oh, I haven't forgotten... I won't argue that Rockefeller owes that past election win to a flip-flop on looking the other way to coal damages, I'm saying that at this point in his career they don't have the same sway on him. (I'll grant you, though, it may be a distinction without much of a difference... once someone sells out, they'll try really hard to justify that decision.)

As to Rockefeller and Byrd diverging on EPA regulation, I think there are other ways to explain that. I'm working up to a longer piece on the topic, but the short hand on it is I think Rockefeller is afraid of a world with less oil and less energy. He's more afraid of that than he is of global climate change.

When I listened to him on his many campaign stops on the Eastern Panhandle in late '08, all he wanted to talk about was how big a threat Islamofascism is to the world. He was kind of vague about exactly why, but from what I could gather I think one of the main reasons is because of the potential for destabilizing oil producing regions. I think Rockefeller believes at this point that US coal supplies are needed as a backstop to deal with reductions in affordable world oil. He totally bought into those scary scenarios in the Bush intelligence era background briefings.

Byrd, on the other hand, has a very simple motivation. A climate change / energy bill will be the mother of all appropriations opportunities. He's wise enough to know "if you're not at the table you're going to be eaten." He can count votes--he knows that MTR is unpopular and CO2 regulation is a political necessity. He's taking a different negotiating stance.

When you look at the specifics of what they're touted as "solutions," Byrd and Rockefeller haven't been that far off from one another. It's the tactics they differ the most on. They're both still calling for WV to make even larger investments in coal-burning infrastructure.

If they were planning a good cop / bad cop routine in advance it's hard to see how they could work it out much better.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 23:45:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I appreciate the input, and value your opinion. (0.00 / 0)

I also have a few questions for you. First a rhetorical question (unles you care to shed some information to which most of us weren't privy).

Why did the public option fail in the Finance Committee after having passed through all other Senate committees? My guess is because the Finance Committee was loaded up with insurance shills. To begin with, the lead negotiators (called the "Gang of Six") wrestling for months prior to debates within the Finance Committee didn't reflect the fact that the Democrats in Senate held an overwhelming majority.

It was thus the spirit of "bipartisanship" that single payer was never even introduced. Which was also apparently the reason Rockefeller never got around to even having the effect that the Public Option scored by the CBO.

Despite his introduction of a whistleblower telling how insurance companies profit (which probably only helped his own health care stocks to jump when the Finance Committee killed his amendment), what would have been Rockefeller's most persuasive argument in the FINANCE COMMITTEE would be how it affects the FEDERAL FINANCES. Especially considering how Nancy Pelosi got the public option passed in the "lower chamber" after she demonstrated that a strong public option would reduce the federal deficit even more than not having one.

So that brings me to a not-so-rhetorical question for you, my friend. And that is, do you recall Rockefeller ever even bothering to bring up the positive effect that having a public option would have on reducing the deficit? Because I noticed that he sure as hell never mentioned it to the press. It was, after all, killed by bogus bipartisan bullshit in his FINANCE COMMITTEE.

Perhaps he knew of its effect on the deficit but was afraid to leak it to the media for fear of breaking "trust", in much the same manner that he shoved his doubts about the legality of Bush wiretapping deep into his desk?  Or maybe Rockefeller really didn't know the facts about the financing aspects, reminding me of his claim that Bush mislead him regarding the existence of WMD's when was on the senate intel oversight committee?

Which leaves me with the third and final question. You can consider this rhetorical if you like. If Rockefeller was really as passionate about the public option as he used to claim, then why isn't he now joining with fellow Finance Committee member Charles Schumer to pressure more Senators for it?

BTW, thanks for the input regarding the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling. But there's more than one way to skin that cat.

It may be of interest for you to note that unlike Rockefeller, on Tuesday Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) hasn't sold out on the prospect of offering Americans a public option. On Tuesday he introduced the four-page H.R. 4789 "Public Option Act," which would allow all legal American residents under 65 to enroll in Medicare by paying a fee. It's also being dubbed the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act."

Grayson made a passionate call for a vote on the floor of the House, saying,

"The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population," Grayson said. "That's like saying, 'Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.'  It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair.  This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote."

 

---

by: One Citizen @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 19:04:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

love Grayson's bill (4.00 / 1)

I love Grayson's bill and wish it could make it through this Senate.

From what I can tell, though, it definitely doesn't have the votes to make it past a filibuster and it isn't considered something that can be included into a budget reconciliation bill.

I am hopeful it'll get somewhere in another session--it is the kind of bill that could well pass the Senate by simple majority vote after filibuster reform.

In general, you're making a convincing case for why Jay Rockefeller earned the nickname "Jello Jay."

I don't think you'll find much argument that his many examples of strong rhetoric followed by weak follow-through are maddening to many of us. That's a pattern he thoroughly established providing "oversight" to Bush admin intelligence gathering.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 20:04:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grayson said last night that he was certain that it would make it through on reconciliation (4.00 / 1)

since Medicare already exists.  It would theoretically sail through exactly the same way they expanded medicare to include the G.O.P.'s "Part "D" scam.

---

by: One Citizen @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 20:49:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will try to address all three, but I may not (4.00 / 1)

Why did the public option fail in the Finance Committee after having passed through all other Senate committees?

HELP came out with a version. That is one committee. It is not the same as the House version of public option that was from their three committees. Coverage, delivery and finance--in the House the three chairmen stayed out of each other turf. Rangel was sitting in the back of one of Waxman's markups to make sure. So without digging into the way back machine I suspect that there was not three versions in the House.

Which was also apparently the reason Rockefeller never got around to even having the effect that the Public Option scored by the CBO.

CBO does not have to score something that would save money. Rockefeller C5 and C7 were versions. The Republicans had about 300 amendments and were gumming up the works with CBO scoring, or lack of CBO scoring for things that obviously cost money.

Demanding more CBO scoring in the end as a delaying tactic was tried by Kyl because what came out of the Finance Committee was not the final Senate bill. It had to be translated into legislative language by staff. Finance does not work the same way as HELP and never has. Then that had to be merged with HELP.

Final House Bill--CBO estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over ten years. (Medicare +5% in exchanges)

White House (Final Senate bill plus) estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over ten years.  Kaiser comparison tool

Nov 19 is still proposed territory for the Senate.

Some of this difference in the final bills is more subsidies for buying insurance in the exchanges for those currently not insured. That reduces savings of the state exchanges, whether they are public option or negotiated rates. Both bills have a sliding scale. The House bill has a family spending 12% of income and Senate/WH tops out at 9.5%. More help for people below 400% of poverty costs more.

. . . on Tuesday Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) . . . introduced the four-page H.R. 4789 "Public Option Act," which would allow all legal American residents under 65 to enroll in Medicare by paying a fee. It's also being dubbed the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act."

Meteor Blades wants to start a committee watch group and has invited me to help out. Grayson's bill has to get to a petition demanding discharge, 50%+1, or on the schedule before it gets to the floor. After what I hope is many, many terms, I suspect Grayson will have a better record than 4 of 97.

Way back machine. I am not saying give up. Know the rules. Embrace them.

You still have not made any headway with me either that Jay has some insider trading motivation here, or drawing a parallel to the origin and motivation of the handwritten note.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:15:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not fool ourselves. (0.00 / 0)

Rockefeller didn't need to "get" the CBO to score it, because Pelosi already had done it, using the numbers to help her pass a strong public option amendment in the House.

With all due respect, I don't give a rat's hind whether or not you believe he purposely tried to kill the public option. I only brought up that he hid the FISA letter instead of standing up and actually doing something about wiretapping because it's part of his overall pattern of 'slow-walking" and bullshit "bipartisanship" instead of providing true oversight and leadership. And whether you wish to remember it or not, Rockefeller admitted publicly that all the pre-Iraq invasion WMD doubts by the intel agencies were available for his inspection but that he was "just too busy" to go and look at it. So his "excuse" is that he relied on the now infamous White House Intel Group to vote for giving Bush permission to go into Iraq.

My point is that I happen to believe that Nancy Pelosi could have shoved the CBO report under his nose and he wouldn't have used it. Because the fact is that he flatly said right out that he was against using reconciliation to pass the public option in the Senate because it would be "too partisan". So please explain what YOU think he meant by "too partisan" after the health care reform bill had just passed in the Senate without a single Republican vote?

Just how could it have gotten any "more partisan" than that?

I'd like to continue the fruitful exchange by offering some info which might help get your head wrapped around Schlockefeller's subterfuge. There's a very revealing account of his political hijinks from back in 1972 at this link.

Now in the spirit of fair play, I'd like for you to please post a link to Rockefeller's "public option amendment" presentation before the senate finance committee so that I can perhaps better understand why you're so convinced that he still shouldn't be trying to push for it.

One last thing. If you've even half been following the dire economic woes of WV's Public Employees Insurance Agency particularly regarding the health benefits of retired employees, then you probably also realize that WV AFT is working in the statehouse to fix the problems they've been having. But nowhere can you find much discussion as to how this dilemma could have happened in the first place.

Although most automatically attribute the PEIA's financial woes to former governor Arch Moore's chicanery (and rightfully so), legally it was Jay Rockefeller who actually de-coupled the retirements benefits payments from employees paychecks.

And yet you're apparently still prepared to trust him implicitly not only that the public option is D.O.A., but that Single Payer was a non-starter.

Perhaps you should do a double-shot at your Drinking Liberally in Martinsburg event just to choke that one down.

---

by: One Citizen @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 20:22:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do not consume fermented or distilled spirits (0.00 / 0)

CBO score of a House bill may not hold any weight against a Senate bill that also has other differences. It is all together, all the moving parts.

And it certainly held absolutely no sway with Connecticut for Lieberman Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose vote was needed to overcome the obstruction for passing the bill under regular order first. The Connecticut Cop Out.

I mentioned the amendments that the pubic option advocates were pushing at the top of every diary over at CongressMatters, taking my cues from slinkerwink or nyceve or mcjoan on those, advocates all.

The diaries would contain links for the documents. As we commented the text of the amendments as published were repeated for everyone's edification. There is a link to Slate's google doc that I found as the days went on. I used it during the markup in Finance. I have a kid to pickup right now or the aftercare gets really expensive. I will look this up since the markups were almost six months ago.

For better or worse, the Congress is sort of proud that their Intel Committees do not leak.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 22:24:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a huge differece between a leak and leadership. (0.00 / 0)

As I stated before, Rockefeller could easily have talked with any of the FISA judges about what could have been done at the time. Instead, he virtually gave Cheney written assurance that he wouldn't do anything when he let him know he was going to put lock his little pink doily up in the back of his bureau.

Fact is, Rockefeller could also have at least threatened Cheney that he was going to seek the advice of any number of FBI lawyers who also had the same clearance that he did. I think that you'd agree that had he done that, things would likely have turned out a lot differently. Note that the FBI flatly refused to waterboard their suspects early on as well. So if Rockefeller also had been briefed of that (as Cheney has since claimed that he did), the FBI might have actually fired up a secret FISA court battle to put a stop to it.

Oh, and one more thing. If you think that Congress' intel committee members aren't actually proud of their leaks, then you haven't been paying attention.

   

[T]hree years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.

   On March 20, 2003, at the onset of military hostilities between U.S. and Iraqi forces, Roberts said in a speech to the National Newspaper Association that he had "been in touch with our intelligence community" and that the CIA had informed President Bush and the National Security Council "of intelligence information from what we call human intelligence that indicated the location of Saddam Hussein and his leadership in a bunker in the suburbs of Baghdad."

   The former intelligence officials said in interviews that Roberts was never held accountable for his comments, which bore directly on the issue of intelligence-gathering sources and methods, and revealed that Iraqis close to Hussein were probably talking to the United States. source

Just in case you weren't aware, CA Berkely, the "Roberts" to which the above quote refers is none other than the former Republican chairman of the Senate Intel Committee back when Rockefeller helped him to slow-walk us through the Iraq war.

Yeah, THAT Roberts.

So although you may wish to believe that Congress intel committees aren't leaking, unfortunately that really isn't close to being accurate at all, is it?

Thanks for the offer to find the links Rockefeller's impassioned plea for a public option later, but due to your guidance I've come up with it. So now, instead of me review what I think about his presentation, why don't YOU imagine using his type of impassioned crapola on the IRS the next time they do an audit on you, in place of shoving some real accounting at them.

Then you might get a little more balanced idea EXACTLY why Rockefeller's librul dogwhistle delivery didn't go anywhere in the Senate Finance Committee.

Now since that time, after seeing how well the senate's former Public Option Pope has really reeeallly advocated for the idea (NOT), one can certainly understand why Nancy Pelosi refuses to trust the Senate to pass it.

---

by: One Citizen @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 03:02:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One place for a presentation that caught others attention (0.00 / 0)

is emptywheel or others at FLD, believe it or not. Marcy usually writes about DOJ and FISA matters.

The first American generation of my mother's family settled in Lancaster, Penn, in 1739, the second generation farmed around Boonsboro, Md., and the third generation acquired land in Berkeley Co, Va. during the Presidency of George Washington. I will take it to heart your frustration with Rockefeller and his runs for governor in 1972 and 1976. I was at the University of California, Berkeley, at that time and had others things on my mind. I moved back East in 1976, staying with my mom in Maryland for a while, before coming here to Berkeley County.

I mention this only to say that I chose West Virginia for complicated and various reasons. And I accept your experience and reasons. Sen. Feinstein is the Chair in Intel now. Go after Sen. Leahy on Judiciary. Sen. Byrd worked to help out those who draw from the Black Lung Fund for health care. He will take some heat for that in the conservative-leaning main stream media.

Just don't ask me to advocate for Medicare plus public option in a Senate reconciliation bill. It was not generated from either Senate committee. The Budget Committee cannot now put it in not matter how hard you wish for it. That is what the Budget Act of 1974 says. If the House writes the reconciliation bill, then what is possible changes. Battling us here is counterproductive.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 21:57:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]