Senate can't be trusted to pass healthcare reconciliation fixes so here's what the House needs to do

[Better Believe It]

Before the House votes for the Senate bill they should demand that the Senate:

1. Prepare and release the exact legislative language of all the "fixes" that will be proposed in a Senate reconciliation bill.

2. Ask for a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian of what, if any, "fixes" of a proposed Senate reconciliation bill would not be in compliance with Senate budget reconciliation rules.

3. Have at least 51 Senators publicly sign a pledge to vote in favor of the complete reconciliation package.

I would think those should be the minimum demands of the House leadership.

Will the House make those and perhaps other demands on the Senate before they bring the Senate bill before the House for a vote or will they just "trust" the Senate to possibly pass unspecified House proposals via reconciliation at some time in the future?

[onenote]

1. while that's a nice idea in theory, its never going to happen

the Senate as an institution will not allow itself to be dictated to by the House. Rightly or wrongly that is the way it is and I suspect that all 100 Senators would take that position

[Better Believe It]

2. When did the House become the inferior congressional body?

Do you think the House will or should allow itself to be dictated to by the Senate?

The House is under no requirement that it rubber stamp Senate bills.

If it is, why do they have House/Senate conferences and reconciliation procedures?

[onenote]

3. In the tradition of the Senate? Over 200 years ago.

I'm not defending the way the senate regards the house, just stating how it is. Having worked on both sides on capitol hill, I can assure you that while the House thinks the Senate is a do-nothing body, the Senate views the House as the "inferior" or "lower" house of a bicameral legislature in which the senate is the upper house. It doesn't matter whether that is right or wrong, it simply means that there is no way the Senate, as an institution, is going to allow itself to be seen as capitulating to demands made on it by the House.

[Better Believe It]

4. So you think the House should roll over, and accept the Senate bill without conditions or changes.

Fair enough.

But I don't think the House should blindly accept the horrible Senate bill without a guarantee that a strong public option, no tax on health insurance benefits and other reforms will be included in a Senate reconciliation bill.

I take it you're also opposed to the House even demanding a Senate guarantee that a reconciliation bill will be passed by that body.

Just let the Senate take care of everything, they've done such a fantastic and wonderful job so far in surrending to the insurance industry, big Pharma and Wall Street so let them continue on that path.

No thanks.

Let's hope the House shows more independence and courage. And I obviously hope that you're not currently working that "side of the hill" in light of your comments!

[onenote]

5. wow. I didn't say anything about what I think the house should do

I simply expressed my view, based on experience, as to how unlikely it was that the Senate would agree to meet preconditions imposed on it by the House. How you get from that to my being opposed to anything is beyond me.

[Better Believe It]

6. So what do you think the House should do since you rejected my suggestions?

I'm listening.

Just be careful, you don't wanna get those Senators you use to work for angry now, do ya?

:)

[onenote]

7. I think the House and Senate leadership should work behind the scenes, not publicly

Is that as good as having 51 Senators publicly proclaim their support for the complete reconciliation package or as getting the procedural issues relating to reconciliation worked out in advance? No. But since neither of those things are going to happen, particularly not in response to some sort of public demand, the best that can be hoped for is that the leadership of the two houses do their best to work out a game plan and that they stick to it. Back room deals? Yep. But that is the way things get done and wishing it to be otherwise isn't going to change it.

[Better Believe It]

8. I believe your "back room deal" approach will result in failure and a kick in the teeth to

real progressives in the House.

1. Under your approach there is not even a credible guarantee that a reconciliation bill will pass the Senate.

2. With your "behind the scenes" trust the Senate approach it is highly unlikely that the Senate will pass under reconciliation a strong public option, allow the importation of cheaper Canadian drugs, stop a government tax on decent health insurance benefits, impose a tax on the wealthy to pay for universal health insurance or any other major reforms supported by progressives.

Based on a years experience with this weak and capitulating Senate, I can find no reason to trust them. And yet, you place an incredible amount of faith in their intentions and what great things can be accomplished by working with them behind the scenes and out of the public light. I take it you prefer that method of governing over public transparency.

But so far the Senate hasn't really accomplished much for the people. Unless you think the insurance industry, big Pharma, corporate America and Wall Street are the people! They have done a tremendous job for those folks. Well, the Supreme Court says they are people too!

[onenote]

10. i didn't say i preferred it. I said it was the best alternative since the approach

you are suggesting hasn't got a chance of succeeding (or even being tried). Would it be nice if the Senate and House were different types of institutions than they are? Sure. But if we're talking about reality rather than fantasy, what I'd like to see happen is better than the alternative of the House and Senate NOT trying to work something out in advance.

[Better Believe It]

11. So the problem is the institutions and not the people elected to these institutions.

Well, if you're right I suppose it really doesn't make much difference who is elected to Congress. But, I don't agree with that.

It may be also be a fantasy to think the House/Senate can accomplish much or that Wall Street and corporate control of Congress can be broken.

But, do you really think we should adopt your version of reality, accept and be grateful for whatever back door, behind the scenes deal is struck regarding health care in the hopes that we won't be hurt too badly? So much for openness and transparency in government!

A political liberal might describe your approach and political perspective as "surrender" to conservative Democrats and Republicans.

So what do you expect the outcome of such "realistic" deliberations to be?

Well, you assure us that "what I'd like to see happen is better".

Better?

Better than what?

Better than the current Senate bill, better than soup, better than apple pie?

Could one be anymore vague?

What progressive changes do you think will be made if House liberals follow your advice and behave themselves, don't make any waves or demands and throw roses at the good Senators rather than apply public pressure on them? Senators don't take kindly to pressure and demands!

I'm sure a lot. Senators always respond best to a lack of pressure. But do you think that is also true when the pressure comes from conservatives and the right? The quieter they are the more like Senators will respond to the right and the left.

That is political nonsense which anyone who has actually worked "on the hill" knows!

Now let me pause for a moment so I can shed a tear for the poor and sensitive babies in the Senate who just hate being told what to do by the public and liberal members of the House.

[onenote]

12. its not my "version" of reality. It is what it is.

You can't just wish away what is. Any student of the history of the Senate and the House will tell you that these are institutions where tradition and self-perception regularly control. I suggest you take the time to read the Congressional Record for the debate last Thursday night when Durbin and other Democrats were tearing out their hair (figuratively) because Bunning was being a one-man wrecking crew. The debate, like virtually all Senate debates, was formal, polite, filled with compliments to the very people that were driving each other nuts.

And I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the reasoning underlying the course of action you suggested was to get something accomplished. But if the reality is that the course you suggest has no chance of succeeding then I see little to be gained in trying a strategy doomed to failure and instead would prefer that an effort be made to do something that might work, which historically means private agreements, not demands lobbed by one house of Congress at the other as a precondition for action.

As for what I hope to come out of such discussions? Exactly the same outcome you want out of your demand strategy.

[Better Believe It]

13. I just can't go along with a losing strategy, the strategy of capitulation and surrender.

That's what your "realistic" polite political strategy has meant. Capitulation to Wall Street and corporate America and their conservative political whores in Congress is not a winning strategy

Your "realistic" political strategy has been tested for over a year now in Congress.

The results are in.

It gets an F.

I've seen enough along with tens of millions of people.

Ff that strategy continues, the Republicans shall easily regain control of Congress and the White House.

Perhaps liberals in Congress should try the more aggressive "fantasy" strategy of actually fighting for the people.

Can't do that, that's way to fricken radical!

But it's time to test something else that might actually work!

[ThomWV]

9. Absolutly, except for the 51 Senators, 50 +Biden will do nicely.