Breaking: Ultimately it really does not matter what the Baucus committee reports out

[Perky]

The real game is in the conference committee and that is where Obama puts the screws to the process. When the Conference work is done. it till only take 50 votes in the senate and 218 in the House.


THe real war is in the Conference and that is the Hous version with the Public Option will be included and at that point there will be noting the BlueDogs or Baucus will be able to do about it. Chances are that the surtax on the Millionaire will be the funding mechanism as well.

[tekisui]

1. It's good the public option is still alive. It is sad that Democrats

are working so hard to kill it. Now is when we must put the pressure on.

[annabanana]

2. God I hope you're right...

I have allowed the media to bum me out this week, and encouraging words are welcome.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

11. "no Obama" "Talking whore pupet"

Is there any limit to the insults you can throw at the DEMOCRATIC President of the US on a Democratic board? I am not saying you can't disagree or comment on the bill, but this has to cross a line.

I would bet, that even now, you would be offended if I called Edwards - a "Talking whore pupet", which I wouldn't.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

16. You're not alone. The media is killing me too. It's all negative 24/7...

Very, very little about the potential postitives. In the end I think that we'll end up with a decent public option along with some other solid stuff. I also think it'll be due in large part to Obama making it happen. Obama works behind the scenes. He's smart enough to not publicly antagonize and berate people. I continue to be optimistic.

[ProSense]

3. Wrong,

it doesn't matter cause the HELP bill is the primary Senate bill.

[Perky]

5. Yes it is...but the House Version contains the Public Option

ANd the House Senate Conference has to reconcile the two into a single bill, and present it for an up or down vote there is no return to committees and Pelosi and Reid stack the deck on the conference membership. There can be no amendments to the conference report.

[ProSense]

13. Here's the part you're missing

"The Senate Finance Committee will not write the health reform bill."

more

[Perky]

14. So you are saying it will never even get to the Senate Floor?

[DrToast]

4. What's breaking?

[Perky]

6. It was tongue in Cheed play on the other thread about what FInance is reporting out.

[vaberella]

12. Thanks Perky. n/t

[Thrill]

7. Thats true. But there is a serious problem, when the Finance Committee

is so fucking corrupt that they are omitting the one thing that brings down cost. Again this is the FINANCE Committee. Omitting the thing that brings down cost. HELLO. Do I need to repeat that again? The FINANCE Committee is omitting the thing that brings down cost???????????

[RC]

10. The FINANCE Committee? Kent Conrad (I) Insurance shill.

[NYC Democrat]

33. well its really 6 members of the finance committee Baucus shut out the majority of the Commitee.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Here is your analysis by Ezra Klein:

Does The White House Have a Secret Strategy for Health Reform?



As Paul Krugman writes today, it's a bit tricky to say exactly what the White House's bottom line is on health care -- or even if it has one. "The only thing that's non-negotiable is success," Rahm Emmanuel likes to say. And a lot of things can be defined as success.

Krugman is concerned about the watered-down bill being considered by the Senate FInance Committee, and Obama's unwillingness to draw bright lines on what an acceptable piece of legislation looks like. There is a side of Obama, Krugman says, that "searches for common ground where none exists, and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak." This may well be right. The problem is that we don't know what Barack Obama is thinking.

Health reform, remember, is a long game. The Senate Finance Committee will not write the health reform bill. They will just write their version of it. Then it will merge with the HELP Committee's version. Then it will be amended on the floor of the Senate. Then it will be merged with the House's health reform bill in a process called "conference committee." Then that bill will return for a final vote.

So here's a question that few have asked, and that virtually no one knows the answer to: How important is conference committee to the way the White House is looking at health care? I've heard it's pretty important. Heard the same thing about Harry Reid, actually. If that's true, then this is what the Democratic leadership is thinking: The overriding imperative right now is to keep health reform alive. That's all that matters. Get it out of the Finance Committee. Get it off the Senate floor. If it's cut down to half a loaf, fine. You don't fix it now. You fix it in conference. Or you let Henry Waxman do it for you.

That, incidentally, is not an unprecedented strategy. It's what the Bush administration did with Medicare Part D. The expansion the Senate wrote was genuinely bipartisan: Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle both voted for the legislation. But the version that came out of conference committee was significantly more conservative. Kennedy and Daschle abandoned the bill. Democrats began organizing against legislation they had previously supported. It passed anyway.

It passed because it's hard to filibuster bills emerging from conference. You can't change them, for one thing. No amendments are allowed. Nor is there time for debate. You vote for the bill, you vote against the bill, or you filibuster the bill. Those are your options. Democrats are likely to walk out of conference committee with 60 senators in their party. Ben Nelson will not be able to ask to change this bit he doesn't like, and Evan Bayh will not be allowed to offer an amendment weakening that piece. They stand with the White House or against it. And it is, in the estimation of most observers I've talked to, hard to imagine them literally filibustering the final vote on health reform. The White House would torture them until they lost reelection. And if no Democrats are willing to filibuster, then the White House could lose as many as 10 of them and still pass the bill.

At his press conference this week, Obama snapped back at a question from Chuck Todd. “I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle," he said. "I’m not.” He's also not on a partial legislative cycle. He wants to sign a bill in October. That's the goal. The bill the Senate Finance Committee writes in June matters only insofar as it affects the bill Obama gets in October. And there are scenarios in which it's very important for that final bill and scenarios in which it's not very important at all. The problem is we don't know which playbook the White House is working from.


Photo credit: Associated Press Photo.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/what_is_the_white_house_thinki.html

I posted this as an OP. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8556291

[rockymountaindem]

15. Great post. This means two things

First of all, we're going to probably get what the White House wants. On the other hand, that means that President Obama *owns* whatever reform passes. I hope he makes sure it's going to be good stuff.

[Odin2005]

26. +1

[Patchuli]

17. That is my wish, hope and dream

that finally Americans will win.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. I hope you're right. I give 60:40 odds. n/t

[nightrain]

19. it does show us more about how deeply Baucus and others have been bought. nt

[Vinca]

20. The Blue Cross Democrats need to realize they are writing their

political obituaries. If there is an election contest with a Blue Dog and a Republican, there's no need to side with either because they vote the same. It will be time for a third party.

[avaistheone1]

29. That has become a cold hard fact. I

[cleveramerican]

21. I think the senate version is dead

there will be a new resolution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Who do you think is going to be on that conference committee?

They usually appoint the chairmen of the committees which have jurisdiction over the bill.

[Perky]

28. Usually, but not always.

Baucuss is the only problem and he is only one vote. His problem in part is trying to get it out of the FInnace committe. He has to gave a mahority., so it is not completely his fault. thought it is is in large measure. In conference the dynamics are different. all they are trying to do is get the bile positioned to pass both houses by simple majority and that should not be too difficult even if Bausus objects.

Waxman and Dodd will bee on the conference as will Hoyer and Reid. There will be some Republican but the deck will be stacked.

[kjackson227]

23. Thanks so much for the info. This post and another one that I've...

read recently has really set my mind at ease. The progressive talk shows (two in particular) had me very upset also, so this is a welcome change. Hope you're right.

[Mass]

24. And Conrad and Baucus will be on the conference committee, as well as a few Blue Dogs.

I think you are too optimistic.

[avaistheone1]

30. Will they wield the same power there?

I sure the help hope not.

[Perky]

31. Nop the dynamic is diffeernt

Baucus is trying to get the bill out of committer and argues that the on only way to do that is to be bipartian.

I think he is song


If it gets out oc FInance and ultimately to conference. Basis has the ability to vote but the game is dfferent. they only need 50% of both houses. Ad he does not wield any more powere than any other conferee.. for those reason his power is considerably less.


Their might be a couple of Bluedogs anr Republicans but Pelosi and Reid essentially can stack the deck anyway they want

[Better Believe It]

25. The House/Senate "conference committee" gutted the House version of the stimulus plan

The final bill was written by three Senate Republicans and eliminated a few hundred billion dollars that was directed toward job creation!

The healthcare conference committee will only weaken any already weakened plan approved by the House.

[Perky]

27. That was a bout fillibuster-proofing when we had 58 senators

we now have sixty

[Better Believe It]

32. So why didn't the Democrats let the Republicans filibuster? What wrong with a GOP filibuster?

I mean a real filibuster, not a fake one where they can "phone it in".

Let them filibuster.

All filibusters end.

Why do Democrats seem to fold and surrender at the mere threat of a Republican filibuster yet in 2005 Democrats gave up the right to filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court nominations!

Remember that "deal"?