Update 3:00 p.m.: House will have three separate votes tomorrow: on the rules of debate, on the Senate bill, and on the fixes to the Senate bill in the reconciliation.
Two Democratic lawmakers tell the Huffington Post that the party will not use the controversial measure known as deem and pass to get health care into law.
Rep. Eliott Engel (D-NY) said the House will vote on the Senate bill first before it considered a separate package of reconciliation changes. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) confirmed.
"Deem and pass" was only being considered to make some Democrats more comfortable with voting for the Senate bill. The right-wing attacks against the procedure must have scared off a number of Dems, thus no longer making it a net positive for overall comfort level in the caucus.
Still, except for once again showing how many Democrats are scared of right-wing media, dropping "deem and pass" isn't really a big deal.
More importantly, negotiations with the Stupak bloc remain the largest obstacle to passage. The current discussion is focusing on President Obama signing some sort of executive order as a compromise. And by "some sort" I really mean "no one seems to know right now."
Apparently, both Diana DeGette's pro-choice bloc and House Progressives but the brakes on giving Stupak a separate vote. One way they did it was by threatening to force a separate vote on the public option if Stupak got a separate vote.
Still, it's not clear at all that Stupak will lose, or reach an acceptable compromise. The whip count remains close, and the outcome is far from clear.
Here's a rule of thumb I routinely use: If one person screws up, then they're very likely at fault. If hundreds of people screw up, then the system or situation they're a part of is very likely at fault.
Now, there are obviously plenty of situations that are genuinely ambiguous, or that are over-determined, where you can readily find both individual and systemic factors to blame. (And, of course, there are intermediate levels of analysis--the small group, the institution, etc. So the individual/system dichotomy I develop below needs to be taken as a deliberately simplified first-order approximation.) But even in such situations, it can save you a whole lot of grief to step back and try to see which broad explanation is likely to yield the biggest immediate payoff in terms of changing the direction of things.
That's why I can share a great deal of frustration with individual politicians--even including members of the Progressive Caucus, for example, without necessarily focusing my blame on them.
Now, here's the thing: It's my belief that the period of time in which the blogosphere formed was a period when both sorts of explanations/approaches were much more evenly balanced. This was true for a variety of reasons, but the best way to summarize was to say that things were in a massive state of flux and uncertainty, typified in the realm of physics by what happens with common forms of phase transition:
A phase transition is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one phase or state of matter to another.
A phase of a thermodynamic system and the states of matter have essentially uniform physical properties. During a phase transition of a given medium certain properties of the medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, and others. For example, a liquid may become gas upon heating to the boiling point, resulting in an abrupt change in volume. The measurement of the external conditions at which the transformation occurs, is termed as the phase transition point.
Phase transitions are common occurrences observed in nature and many engineering techniques exploit certain types of phase transition.
The term is most commonly used to describe transitions between solid, liquid and gaseous states of matter, in rare cases including plasma.
During a phase transition, what's most important is the change in the energy state of the entire system: keep the heat on, and the water will turn to water vapor: it will boil. But at the same time, it needs specific places where the boiling process concentrates, as anyone knows who's watched water boil in a glass container. Likewise, when water vapor condenses into water, as dew forms in the morning, it does so at specific points, rather than everywhere equally at once. Because we have individual agency, at times in which social/political systems are transitioning like this, the actions we take to help create the change both "generate the heat" to alter the entire system, and specifically direct it toward particular condensation or boiling points--we bring particular pressure to bear on individuals and specific situations.
[Note]: Stupak presser cancelled, so Chris posts when he posts. Meanwhile this from David. -- Paul
Per my post last night about major primary pressure on Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Firedoglake has an important petition I hope everyone will sign. All it asks is that Bennet, the supposed public option leader, offer the public option amendment in the Senate when the health care bill comes up for a vote:
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado led the effort to show that a majority in the Senate supports the public option. Was it all for show? Did Michael Bennet only champion the public option when he thought it didn't matter?
Because his Democratic primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, has a few things to say about that:
"I am deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill."
Well, that makes two of us. What member do you suppose he has in mind? Can you think of one?
Sign the petition here - and then please pass it on to anyone you know. Wherever you are on the underlying bill, if you support a public option, then you should be able to support the Senate simply taking a vote on the public option - which the Senate has so far refused to do.
Bart Stupak is supposed to be holding a press conference at 11 AM, and Chris will be blogging about it (afterwards, he said last night, but that could change, I suppose). Details are murky and confusing, but it now seems that Stupak is the only person in the world who can get a bill through the Senate with neither a fillibuster blocking him, nor recourse to reconciliation. Who knew?
This could, of course, blow everything up. If Stupak language really could become law, I don't think they'll be able to hold enough pro-choice votes in the House to pass the bill. And if they do, the damage to the party will make it one of the most costly "victories" in a very long time.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of this. To the contrary, I want to use this occassion to underscore a point I've made before, but haven't pounded on repeatedly the way I maybe should have: My problem with much of how people have related to health care reform is the way they've focused on it as if it were the be-all and end-all of progressive politics. To extend my metaphor of the last diary, they've not only assumed a can-opener with respect to health care reform, but they've also assumed it was part of a Swiss Army Knife for dealing with all our other ills as well.
Obviously not.
There are major demonstrations today marking the 7th Anniversary of invasion of Iraq (United for Peace and Justice, Cindy Sheehan/Peace of the Action, ANSWER March on Washington) and the immigration reform "March for America" tomorrow. These issues have been largely invisible here at Open Left, and we're not alone in that. Neither has figured prominently on progressive blogosphere's radar screen over the past several months, and that narrowing of focus is not a sign of health on our part. Whatever happens this weekend, let us hope that one thing comes out of this: an end to the period in which we have looked to Washington and taken our cues from what is happening there. That is not how the left blogosphere was born and built, and it is not how it can best serve the common good of our nation today. We need to be bigger than that... much, much bigger.
When I was an undergrad math TA, most of the students I dealt with were economics majors, so naturally I was at this node where a lot of economist jokes flowed through. (The mathematician jokes were better, but I digress.) There was only one that really stuck with me, though:
A Physicist, a Chemist and an Economist were shipwrecked on an island together. They were delighted to find that crate of canned goods had washed ashore not far from where they dragged themselves out of the water, but as luck would have it, none of them had a Swiss Army knife, or any other implement to open the cans with. And so they set out to explore the island, to see what other provisions they might find, or what they might use to open the cans with, agreeing to return after four hours.
Upon their return, the Physicist spoke first. "I found a very fortuitous rock formation, and I've made extensive calculations. We can easily construct a catapult and smash the cans against these particular rocks at just the right angle to split them open with a 50% success rate."
The Chemist snorted, "A typical brute force physicist's solution!"
"Well, what did you find?" The Physicist shot back.
"I found some rocks as well," the Chemist said. "But mine had lichen on them, and I can extract an acid from them that will eat through the cans quite nicely, with a 75% success rate."
"Oh my God!" exclaimed the Economist. "I can't believe how crude you two are. You don't just have rocks on your mind, you're got rocks in your brains. My solution is far more elegant, and civilized. What's more, it has a 100% success rate."
"Well, then," said the Physicist, barely containing his anger, "What's your solution?"
"Yes, spill the beans," the Chemist cracked.
"Well," said the Economist, drawing himself up as if he were about to launch into a lecture, "First, let's assume we have a can-opener..."
I've been thinking about that joke more and more of late, particularly when I hear a certain criticisms, the spirit of which I completely agree with, and yet...
The big news this afternoon was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) abandoning his previous promise to offer an amendment to the Senate health care bill adding a public option into the bill. This amendment would need only 51 votes, as the public option reduces the deficit (by a lot) and therefore is in order for reconciliation. Sanders announcement that he is backing down to the Senate Democratic leadership and White House aides who cut a deal with hospital/drug lobbyists to kill the public option seemed to suggest the public option is dead. That is, until Colorado Senate Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff tonight just issued a statement that will put significant pressure on his primary opponent, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), to offer the amendment instead:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Romanoff: Where's the 'Public Option' Champion?
After learning today that no member of the United States Senate would stand up for a "public option" in health care reform, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff issued the following statement:
"As Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, I led the fight against insurance companies that unreasonably delay or deny their customers' valid claims. I know first-hand the lengths that industry will go to resist reform.
"I am deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill.
"Millions of Americans cannot afford to keep up with the soaring costs of health insurance. That is why a majority of the American people support a public option. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a public option will reduce the deficit.
"I call on the leadership of the U.S. Senate to allow an up-or-down vote on the public option. We should not allow the insurance industry to kill the competition the American public wants."
###
Bennet has spent the last month and a half touting his letter demanding a public option - and getting a lot of press for that move (deservedly so, IMHO). But now, thanks to Romanoff's demand, he will have to put up or shut up. If he refuses to offer the amendment, he shows his past efforts to be kabuki theater - grandstanding for attention while refusing to actually take the steps necessary to do what he publicly claims he wants to do.
Bennet, as this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show proves, has shown a willingness to respond to primary pressure on the public option - and he may be even more willing to respond to that pressure considering he just lost the Colorado Democratic caucuses this week.
Oh, and how many other Senate Democratic primary challengers across the country are going to start issuing similar statements against Senate Democratic incumbents?
Stay tuned - this is going to get interesting. Romanoff will be on my AM760 radio show to discuss this on Monday. Tune in here from 7-10am every weekday.
There have been no new vote announcements in over an hour. At this point, anyone making an announcement will probably wait until tomorrow morning (such as Solomon Ortiz, a key "Stupak curious" member who will hold a press conference tomorrow morning). There appears to have been a Friday afternoon rush to make the news while people were still paying attention.
Eight or nine of "yes to no" votes are Stupak bloc: Cao, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Driehaus, Lipinski, Rahall, and Stupak. Lynch might even be in that group, too. Additionally, Berry, Dahlkemper, Kaptur and Ortiz are still "Stupak curious," potential members of the bloc.
At the same time, there are still enough undecided votes to pass the bill without the Stupak bloc. Further, some members of the Stupak bloc might be wavering, such as Rahall, Costello and Cao. Yet further, I agree with Nate Silver that "there's perhaps also a half-Stupak (face-saving BS to get 2-3 votes)." We don't have to break the whole Stupak bloc, just two or three of them. And it is possible that can be done with bullshit rather than caving.
One idea is that anyone who is a "no" on this bill, and who voted against the Stupak amendment, should receive the most pressure. This means Adler, Arcuri, Boucher, Herseth Sandlin, Kissell, Kratovil, McMahon, and Minnick. These eight could put an end to Stupak's influence, once and for all, but they choose not to do so.
Kosmas, one of 39 Democrats to oppose a similar bill in November, said in an exclusive interview with the Orlando Sentinel that she decided to change her mind because the latest version addressed some of her previous concerns about its effect on small businesses and the federal deficit.
"I'm going to vote for healthcare reform," she said. "I know this is not a perfect bill. But in the scheme of things, it provides the best options and the best opportunities for my constituents."
This is now seven confirmed "no to yes" votes, against ten solid-seeming "yes to no votes." If the leadership can actually pick up just two more "no to yes," and hold down the rest of the no's, then they could pass the bill 216-215.
This is a net of two three votes for "Yes to No." Without losing anymore yes votes, the Democratic leadership needs to pick up at least two more "no" vote from November to pass the bill
This is looking more positive than it was even just an hour ago. Getting Brian Baird would be huge for passing the bill without the Stupak bloc.
