Banner ad

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sweet payback for Nancy Pelosi

It turns out that many House Democrats, particularly the Blue Dogs, don't like having to vote for poorly crafted bills in a big rush and then having to go defend their votes to their constituents. They've heard a boatload from their voters and now they're telling Nancy Pelosi that she has to slow things down and stop cramming huge, expensive bills through the House if she wants their votes. Apparently, their constituents didn't like the cap and trade bill and these Blue Dogs are balking about falling in line for health care.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is paying a price on healthcare reform for the arm-twisting she did on the climate change bill last month.

Democratic House members were rankled by how the climate bill passed — and stunned by the criticism they got at home.

Those memories are fueling a revolt among conservative Blue Dogs and a drive among freshman lawmakers to drop plans for a surtax on the wealthy in healthcare reform.

An aide to one conservative Democratic lawmaker said the climate bill was “really rammed down our throats.”

And there’s a general sense of unease among others members of the caucus.

“I think the well’s a bit poisoned,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). “A lot of people went home and got beaten up on climate. Now they want to make sure they understand it before they vote on it. People still want to do it. It’s just going to be a little bit harder.”

Many centrist Democrats pushed Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to put off the climate change debate and pass a healthcare overhaul first, giving members more time to work through the issues and get comfortable with the complex issue.

And what still rubs many members raw is that if the climate bill ever comes back from the Senate, it’s likely to be significantly weaker. So they voted for tough and expensive regulations that will likely never become law.
It seems that Madame Speaker made a tactical error by allowing cap and trade to come up first before the health care proposal. It was always doubtful whether such a stringent bill would ever get through the Senate where a lot of senators are skittish about voting for a bill that will raise energy prices for everyone. But she went her merry way and rammed it through, twisting arms to get the votes she needed. And now the Senate has put off consideration of cap and trade until at least September. So these worried House Democrats have the worst of both worlds. They cast a tough vote that is already coming back to haunt them, the Democrats won't get what they wanted on the bill, and they're determined not to make the same mistake again on health care. But there are already signs that Pelosi didn't learn that lesson and is still determined to go with the more liberal bill without taking into consideration the concerns of the Blue Dogs. And they're not happy about being sidelined once again.
The fresh memory of the difficult vote has hit the Democrats’ plan to pass a healthcare bill before August like a Mack truck.

“People walked the plank and didn’t get protected,” said a senior Democratic aide. “Now they want them to walk the plank again.”

Despite a massive listening campaign organized by Pelosi and other leaders, the objections to the healthcare bill are coming from diverse parts of the caucus.

Freshmen are circulating a letter calling for the surtax to be eliminated because they believe it will unfairly hit small businesses.

“Republicans called the last one a tax increase and it wasn’t. But this one really is,” said an aide to one Democratic freshman lawmaker.

Blue Dogs have a host of complaints, starting with irritation that the bill doesn’t wring enough cost savings out of the healthcare system and leaves Medicare reimbursement unfairly low in their rural districts. They launched a formal protest last week that delayed the rollout of the House bill.

But after Pelosi introduced it with great fanfare Tuesday, Blue Dogs complained that few, if any, of their concerns were fixed.
We heard the House Blue Dogs bark before - about the stimulus and about cap and trade. Then most of them rolled over for the bills that the leadership put up for a vote. We'll see if health reform accompanied by tax increases will be the one bone they won't go for.

7 comments:

Pat Patterson said...

Maybe the Blue Dogs should be reminded, constantly, of the fate of the ex-congresswoman from PA, Barbara Margolis-Mezvinsky. she was elected to the 103rd Congress in 1992 as a Democrat who had campaigned with a promise that she would not vote for any tax increase. Her vote, after much arm twisting, helped pass the 1993 Federal Budget with those tax increases. Needless to say she was trounced at the next election and that district has been Republican since then.

Even popular Democratic freshman such as Bret Shuler are feeling the pressure to not support any more tax increases or any bill likely to raise the need for more tax monies.

Pat Patterson said...

Barbara? It's Marjorie Margolis-Mezvinsky or 3M as she was known during her 24 months in office. Plus I also remember her appearing on C-SPAN after the vote and looking decidedly more ill after each call came in from PA criticizing her vote.

Norm N. Conquest said...

From the TV show Scrubs, a song Nancy will hear a lot this fall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGaFPJmMNbw .

Also, it's Marjorie Margolies with an e. She was a WCAU-TV news reporter before marrying Ed Mezvinsky.

Bill B. said...

Can you point out the lines in that proposed bill that say you have to drop your current health coverage?

To no one's surprise, that supposed clause is proving very hard to locate. (Hint: it doesn't exist).

Pat Patterson said...

The HELP Bill, section (g) PORTALS TO STATE GATEWAY states that, "A qualified employer may select to provide support for coverage of employess under a qualified health plan at any tier of cost sharing described 2 in section 3111 (a)(1)." Which means at three different points you could either lose your current coverage because your employer is not "qualifie," your plan is not qualified or your employer choses not to offer a plan. It all hinges on how the government will define qualified employer or health plan. If one or the either don't meet the requirements then you are taken out of them and must chose or be assigned one of the other plans. And as an added bonus if your plan is currently rated as qualified then in five years, after passage, they will all be reviewed again.

The joke is that supposedly your freedom to chose your coverage is protected but then again how am I protected when being forced to chose among things I have no desire to have. It's like Henry Ford promising Americans that they could have a Model T in any color they wanted as long as it was black.

tfhr said...

Biddle,

Since the bill isn't written I'm not sure what you mean by "...that supposed clause is proving very hard to locate. (Hint: it doesn't exist)".

But what does exist is a promise the President has made but cannot keep and that is to say that we can all keep our current coverage. Stop and consider that many people have coverage through their employers and if their employers switch then the coverage changes. What if the employer drops their coverage entirely? What then?

Consider this paragraph from an AP article:

"Earlier this week, a preliminary analysis by Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance under a Democratic plan that a Senate committee is working on, because their employers would no longer offer coverage. Those workers and their families would shop for a plan through new insurance purchasing pools called exchanges. About 160 million to 170 million people now get employer coverage".
http://tinyurl.com/nbdz36

A former Medicare director and senior fellow with the Project Hope health care philanthropy said, "They may not force you to leave in any direct sense, but they could put rules and procedures in place that make it impossible to continue what you have now."

It's this simple Biddle: Neither you nor the President can say with certainty what is in the plan because it is not yet written and as such the unintended consequences are unknown because it has not been implemented. However you could use some common sense and see that such a promise is beyond the power of the President to keep because he has no idea how many employers will drop their current plans and whether or not their employees will be satisfied with the alternatives.

You may want to believe that employers will not drop coverage but if they can reduce their operating costs they will. I believe that the President would prefer that as many people as possible would stay with their current plans but the reality is not on his side. When Hawaii offered universal health care for children so many people dropped their private coverage in favor of the state's program that it forced Hawaii to cancel the program just seven months into its existence.
http://tinyurl.com/lq47n8

If the plan is truly cheaper for the consumer then it will be overwhelmed and if it is not cheaper then what's the point? I can tell you there is no point in making or listening to promises beyond the Administration's ability to keep.

equitus said...

Can you point out the lines in that proposed bill that say you have to drop your current health coverage?

Classic liberal trope, and a clear indicator that BB shares their inability to understand unintended consequences.