Why It's Bad News That the Health Care Conference Committee Will Be Held In Secret

[bigtree]

from David Sirota at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-its-bad-news-that-the_b_411463.html


{snip} . . . if there is any hope of making a bill better in conference committee, that hope relies on the conference committee negotiations actually being open to the public. But that's not guaranteed - not even close.

Sure, there is always a final conference committee vote - but the real, most pivotal work of ironing out the different bills can be done behind closed doors. On many conference bills, the one party in control holds secret meetings, and then all the public gets to see is one two-minute vote for final-passage and that's it.

This doesn't have to be the way it's done - and in many cases it isn't. But on health care, it looks like the closed-door approach is now the way forward, according to some stenography by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/exclusive-dems-almost-certain-bypass-conference)

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are "almost certain" to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate.

Cohn, regurgitating his Democratic sources' spin without so much as a question, couches this turn of events as wonderful news because it will disenfranchise congressional Republicans and expedite the process. It's a classic authoritarian argument . . .

You see, if there was even a tiny chance this bill was going to get better in conference committee, that chance was, in part, reliant on progressive pressure on an open process. Ya know, pressuring individual conferees on specific amendments, etc. But if the conference negotiations take place in secret, that progressive public pressure is far harder to muster and to appropriately target. This is probably why Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is none too pleased about the news.

I still remember the good ole days when President Obama promised to make sure that all the health care negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. I didn't think that would happen (although I was hoping he'd try), but I did think there would be at least a modicum of transparency in this process. That we've gone from promising all negotiations would be televised for everyone to see to potentially a situation where the final, most important negotiations are locked behind closed doors is sad - not just from an objective transparency/democracy perspective, but, as you can see, from a progressive final-legislative-product perspective.


statement from Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Raul Grijalva:

“I am disappointed that there will be no formal conference process by which various constituencies can impact the discussion. I have not been approached about my concerns with the Senate bill, and I will be raising those at the Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday. I and other progressives saw a conference as a means to improve the bill and have a real debate, and now with this behind-the-scenes approach, we’re concerned even more.”


from TPM: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/grijalva-were-counting-on-a-conference-committee-for-health-care-bill.php

"Our biggest concern is we won't have the opportunity to go face to face with the Senate," Grijalva (D-AZ) said on the ABC News show Top Line.

He said Speaker Nancy Pelosi has assured them she will insist on a conference committee and "we're counting on that." He said his caucus has told the White House and House leadership there must be a conference committee.

Grijalva also said Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) threat over the weekend is a big deal that he sees as pulling the "guts" out of any form of "what pretends to be" a public option.

If the bill isn't up to par, they will have a "difficult if not impossible time getting through the House," he said.

[Jamastiene]

1. They are doing it as a CYA move to get the heat off their asses.

They want to make it hard for the public to know exactly who to resent the most for this sham they call "reform."

[shadowknows69]

2. So I think we can safely declare the "transparency" promise DOA.

[boston bean]

8. Congress never promised transparency! Only Obama did! nt

[el_bryanto]

3. It kind of works both ways.

To be clear I think you are right - the house bill will be gutted and the senate bill will be the final bill to a great extent.

But if it were going the other way they'd need to keep it private as well. Because Conservatives Constituants would be just as angry at their senators/representatives for passing a decent bill.

Bryant

[Vincardog]

6. I am perfectly happy to let the Conservatives Constituents would be just as angry at their senators

Why don't we try that once and see what happens?

[chimpymustgo]

5. The final act of this Kabuki dance. I'm baffled that more people aren't INCENSED not only at this

bullshit sham giveaway to the insurance industry, but also how they have treated the American people in the process.

Fucking shameful.

Sign a petition for the public option here:


"YesWeStillCan.org will air this TV ad in DC: a version will also air in Wisconsin, to encourage Sen. Russ Feingold to be a public-option hero. I don't know how to post video, but you can see it here, and sign the petition:

http://yeswestillcan.org /
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk&feature=play...

PETITION TO CONGRESS & THE PRESIDENT:
"Any health care bill without a public option is not change we can believe in."

-edit-

The YesWeStillCan.org petition has been signed by over 600 Obama campaign staffers, 40,000 Obama volunteers, and 60,000 Obama donors.

Obama promised a public option (July 17, 2009)

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange -- a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans -- including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest."

Obama said mandates weren't the answer (February 5, 2008)

"I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7397383

[rudy23]

10. I bet the Dems can't WAIT to lose seats in 2010 so they never have to go through all this again.

It's so much work to defeat yourself without a viable opponent. If we made gains in 2010, they'd have to invent a 65 vote ceiling. All that kabuki is exhausting.

[chimpymustgo]

18. "It's so much work to defeat yourself without a viable opponent". Exhausting. Would make a great OP

[KharmaTrain]

4. More Sausage...

It's how things get done inside the legislative. And there's really no way to get around it...both parties not only do it, but protect this process as a necessary evil. It's where the vote trading is down ouside the glare of the cameras. This has become more the case in the C-SPAN/YouTube age where cameras are everywhere and so is the spin. It's driven a lot of the dealing back into the cloakroom as "open hearings" tend to become teevee spectacles of grandstanding. Politicians face too many landmines if they do their dealing in the open...sure to ruffle someone's feathers that will be used against them. A good example is Ben Nelson...his dealmaking has put him in the crosshairs of attacks from all sides.

The bottom line is this administration wants a bill and the political stakes are too high to fail. Many House Democrats realize this as well and thus any remaining arm twisting will be done behind closed doors. This train is too far down the tracks for outsiders to have much impact any longer.

[bigtree]

7. your analysis

. . . points up the expediency to the politics of the president and the Democratic leadership and the fact that progressive initiatives and concerns will be pushed aside to make room for conservative legislators on the dance card and their insistence on a weak, industry-friendly bill. The dynamic which won't go unnoticed by our party's liberal supporters is that, all along the way, conservatives and republicans have been courted and accommodated in this process at their expense.

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Golden Rules...

Ye who has the gold, make the rules. The problem with liberals and progressives are they don't throw around the big ooin. This year it's going to cost an average of $1 million per house seat and over $10 per Senate. The votes don't mean a thing if a candidate doesn't have the cash, thus those who write the checks get their phone calls answered while those who helped get the votes are ignored. The conservatives have their financial shit together...as do the lobbyists. For all their altruistic talk, the bottom line is these politicians are in it for the money and the power....no matter what party. The day progressives and liberals can match the money then their voices will have greater weight. Sad to say, but this is how the game is played.

[bigtree]

20. republicans and Democrats have won with less cash before

Cash may be determinate, but it's not always the case. This year republicans are down in cash, but still threaten. There's more to this politics than just raising and spending money.

[phantom power]

9. I, myself, think they have all been abusing this privilege.

I'm getting very weary of crappy legislation that nobody has to take responsibility for.

I don't get to conduct my work for my employer "in secret." They are our employees.

[Greyhound]

13. There is a way to "get around it", Raygun was the most recent example.

Threaten them with their jobs, just like they do to us every day.

Bypass the circle of power by taking the debate directly to the people, but if they did that, there would be no excuses for their corruption.

[bigtree]

11. kick

[WeDidIt]

12. I'm always interested in what Lord Privy Douchenozzle Sirota has to say on any subject

:eyes:

[bigtree]

14. under the bus

. . . with him then.

[WeDidIt]

15. He doesn';t Lord his Douchenozzlery over everybody as much as

Lord HIGH Douchenozzle Greenwald.

[bigtree]

16. off with his head

. . . then.

[chimpymustgo]

19. I see the douche in this thread.