The Kabuki Dance: Why some people need to learn how our bicameral system works

[scheming daemons]

Here's what's going to happen, for all you panicked masses spitting up your cheerios this morning:

1. The House, where only 50.1% is needed, will pass a bill that has a public option.

2. The Senate, where 60 votes are needed to get past the filibuster, will pass a bill that does not have a public option.

3. Because the two bills are not identical, they must go to a congressional committee made up of members of both houses of congress to be merged. This committee will produce a bill that has a public option.

4. At this point the House and Senate will have to vote again... on this new final bill. At this point, via the reconciliation process, only 50 votes are needed in the Senate. (It is 50, not 51, because Joe Biden is the tie-breaker).


Got that, you nattering nabobs?


The taking out of the public option in the Senate version is part of the "Kabuki Dance" to get the bill out of the Senate with 60 votes. In the final version, up to 10 blue dog dickheads like Kent Conrad can vote AGAINST the final bill (which includes the Public Option) and still have the bill pass.

But the blue dog dickheads can tell their constituencies...which are generally against the Public Option... that they voted AGAINST the Public Option twice.


get it yet?


Howard Dean does. He basically said the exact same thing this morning on Morning Joe.

[BzaDem]

1. Howard Dean is absolutely wrong.

The public option will not survive the Byrd rule. It will be stripped out of the reconciliation bill because it is not sufficiently germane to the budget. Other parts of healthcare reform can get through on reconciliation (such as tax increases to pay for it), but not a public option and not regulation/mandates.

[scheming daemons]

2. Wanna bet?

[WeDidIt]

4. Yep, the fuckers are going to screw us all

and hand a welfare for insurance comapny bills to the president for signing.

[LaydeeBug]

7. Why? Why won't it get passed the Byrd rule? nt

[WeDidIt]

11. To get past the Byrd Rule, the legislation must be germaine to the budget

A public option is not.

[BzaDem]

13. It is extraneous to spending/taxes.

Tax increase and subsidies for the poor would probably not violate the Byrd rule. But the public option has neither -- it is designed to survive on premiums, not federal outlays. Now, they could design it so it depends more directly on taxes or spending. But the Byrd rule will strip provisions whose budget impact is merely incidental to its non-budget impact. So it will need to significantly be redesigned. And finally, the entire bill must be deficit neutral over 5 years (as measured by the CBO) to even qualify for reconciliation. That is going to be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible. Right now they are having a hard enough time making it deficit neutral over 10 years.

[HamdenRice]

15. Question

I think you could be right, could be wrong.

But there's another scenario. The Conference Committee bill has the public option and the Congressional leadership does not try to use reconciliation to pass the bill.

Do you think the Blue Dogs will vote against a bill with public option at that point -- considering all the bad things that could happen to them if they do? In other words, they might decide they put up a good show for their insurance industry sugar daddies, but can't go against the entire party at that point and face primary challenges.

I think that if the Conference Committee passes a bill with public option, the bill will pass the Senate even on a 60-40 vote.

Even if not, there's always the "nuclear option" of forcing the fillibusterers to fillibuster. At that point, I think they can get cloture on such an important bill and pass the Senate on a 51-49 vote.

[BzaDem]

17. I actually don't think the problem will be with the blue dogs in the house.

The bill they voted out of committee actually contained a public option (though it was weaker).

I think the main problem will be in the Senate. It would be a miracle if all 60 Democrats remained unified on a public option. So far, several have come out against a public option. Ben Nelson in particular is very much against it (both personally and politically), and I don't think he would have any qualms about killing the bill if it completely changed from the original Senate version. His constituents voted against Obama by a large margin, so Nelson wouldn't be afraid of any primary challenge.

As for letting the fillibuster go on, it wouldn't be like it is in the movies. The Republicans would just need one Senator in the chamber to say "I see the abscence of a quorum" every 30 minutes or so. Here's a good article on the fillibuster:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[Raven]

3. Exactly. Obama is playing chess again.

[Richardo]

5. Rec

:thumbsup:

[DefenseLawyer]

6. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up with something they call "the public option"

in the final bill, even without reconciliation. I also won't be surprised that the "public option" in the final bill has no funding and covers about 5 people.

[hughee99]

8. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it does have funding and covers no one...

The money somehow actually ends up in the hands of someone in the districts where votes are needed, while not actually covering anyone. This way they can say there's a "fully funded public option" but since no one's actually covered by it, they can never call it underfunded.

[kath]

18. Or at best, 9 or 10 million people by 20-frickin'NINETEEN.

2019! Is that the piece of crap "public option" that we're talking about here? Or has it been watered down even more?

That would NOT be significant reform. :banghead:

[DefenseLawyer]

19. No, but the PR machine would be able to say

"We tried that public option, socialized medicine Obamacare thing back in 2009, remember? It just couldn't compete with the good ol free market and apple pie. (cue Lee Greenwood here.)" And the band plays on.

[nitpicker]

9. Almost all major legislation goes through the reconciliation process.

Renaming a post office for a former governor, no sweat.

Expressing outrage over the actions of certain foreign governments, OK.

But if it involves dollars, or the potential for inserting markups during the reconcilliation process....
smile

[endarkenment]

10. I sincerely hope you are right.

[wolfgirl]

12. I generally agree with you -

however, WE (the voters) need to hold our Congress's feet to the fire (Rep & Dem. WE need to be contacting them each & every day reminding them that the MAJORITY put Obama in office due to the policies he supported. Policies including a reformed healthcare system (including a public option).

Obama can't do it alone and he's basically told us that WE need to get busy - calling & writing our Congress, educating our friends & neighbors, and letting the media know that we will not let the wackos get away with their bully tactics.

[qazplm]

14. who are the 50 votes?

Because we simply dont have it right now.

[HamdenRice]

16. Rec'ing a rare information filled, not hysterical post about health reform! nt

[yowzayowzayowza]

22. And another K&R for sanity. n/t

[Berry Cool]

20. Ohhhhh....please be right. Please be right. Please be right.

If you are right, I give you license to run all over DU for at least one day posting "I TOLD YOU SO, YOU NIMRODS" threads.

You will have earned it.

[scheming daemons]

21. Don't give me credit, give it to Howard Dean

[Posteritatis]

23. Can you explain #4 to this Canadian?

Why does the Senate need to worry about filibusters beforehand but not then?

[scheming daemons]

24. Because of the reconciliation process. You can bypass the filibuster for budget-related bills.

...and the final health care reform bill will definitely be "budget-related".


Forget the folks above who are talking about the public option not being budget related. Doesn't matter. It's the WHOLE BILL that is considered for the Byrd Rule.

[Posteritatis]

25. Ah! Okay.

So you can't filibuster money bills in the US? Or is there some more specific incanation that puts them outside of that?

[scheming daemons]

26. More info for you (link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(U.S._Congress)