Tag Archives: U.S. Senate

Democrats, Please Use Your Power

One continuing source of frustration for many of us was the difficulty in passing good legislation. There were endless negotiations and compromises that kept weakening good bills. Part of this was because of the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans. However, this was only possible because Democrats wanted to get things done and Republicans were perfectly happy if nothing got done (economy is way less important than handing defeats to Democrats). This creates an imbalance of power because our system makes it so easy to do nothing instead of something. The Senate has things like secret holds and unanimous consent which really allows one Senator to disrupt the whole process. Despite their minority status Republicans used this power effectively to block legislation.

The lame duck session is about to start and finally, finally Democrats have something that Republicans want. Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Now Democrats are already talking compromises like extending them temporarily (despite all evidence that these tax cuts hurt the economy) so they can get the tax cuts for the rest of us. Last I heard, the Democrats are going to cut the tax cuts into two bills – the tax cuts for most of us and the expiring cuts for high earners. Good. That’s what we told them to do before the election (yeah, how did that work out Blue Dogs?). What’s to stop a Democratic Senator (how about you, Russ Feingold?) from blocking the high earners bill from coming to the floor unless they get their wants addressed? What if someone refused to let the Bush tax cut bill come to the floor unless we got a non-filibustered vote on the Public Option? Or DADT repeal? Or judge confirmations?

Another thing I learned from the election is that even though the term “bipartisan” makes the press happy, voters don’t care. In my opinion, bipartisan means “get stuff done.” The lazy way of thinking is that if government is divided both sides will have to work together to do business. That’s true if both sides are committed to governing. One side isn’t so it won’t work. I already see Republicans falling into a big mistake – their first priority will be repealing health care reform. For one, it won’t happen because Democrats still control the Senate and even if it got through Obama would veto it. Whatever. People’s main concern is the economy. Republicans playing around with health care and launching nuisance investigations will not go over well if they aren’t doing anything to address the economy.

I’ve also learned from this election is that their is absolutely no reward for Democrats for helping out big business. Republicans pulled a nifty trick of bailing out banks and making Democrats take the blame for it. Republicans, in fact, ran against bailouts and were supported by the very business who were bailed out. So, why would Democrats even try to help big business? They will only use their money to run against you, because big business doesn’t care about middle class Americans, their CEOs only care about their own wallets (more tax cuts! weeee!). The New York Times has even recognized this disconnect:

“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

I see one thing Democrats can do – stop cooperating with big business. It’s unpopular. The Republicans are supported by big business, let them do their bidding. It sure would be nice if someone was questioning if what business wants is what is best for the rest of America.

So, will Democrats do any of this? I’m not holding my breath but a gal can dream can’t she?

We Will Miss Ted Kaufman

This week the U.S. Senate went into recess until after the elections. It was the end of Ted Kaufman’s time in the U.S. Senate. The election in November is a special election and the winner will take over the Senate seat. Ted Kaufman turned out to be a great asset to the U.S. Senate and he will be missed. He was able to talk eloquently about the failures of our banking sytem and became a voice for people who have suffered from them. Senator Kaufman did an interview with the Huffington Post and reminded us of why we love him:

But, Kaufman said in an interview with the Huffington Post, there’s a paradox at work: If he’d been running for reelection, he wouldn’t have those rabid backers, because he never would have waged his campaign against the banks – not because he would have worried it would hurt him politically, but simply because he would have had to spend more than half his time raising money and organizing his campaign.

“It is a perfect Catch-22,” said Kaufman, explaining that his campaign against the banks “wouldn’t have existed, no, because I’m not on the banking committee. I would have stuck to my bidding on judiciary and foreign relations.”

And without the campaign against the banks, he wouldn’t have the supporters he now does. “I wouldn’t have this rabid” following, he said. “That’s the whole thing. It was a Catch-22. There’s no way I could have — my race, if I ran, would be totally, you know, standard, cookie-cutter campaign. I wouldn’t have had anything to show. I never would have been able to do any of the things that would really be the major things in my campaign, because the whole stuff I’d done on financial reform–we never would have been part of the debate.”

…

Kaufman said that the only way out of the paradox he experienced is to create a system of public financing for campaigns, but the Supreme Court is making that increasingly less attainable. “If I’m czar, not president of the United States of America, I’d institute public financing of campaigns. But that cat’s long out,” he said. “So I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t know what to say about the system. The system is so awful.”

Amen to that, Senator Kaufman. Ted Kaufman may be leaving the Senate but he isn’t leaving public service all together. He’s been tapped to take over the Bailout Oversight Committee, replacing Elizabeth Warren.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, the outgoing Delaware senator who battled to break up major banks the past year, will replace Elizabeth Warren as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told HuffPost.

Reid initially appointed Warren to run the panel, launching her as a national champion of the middle class. The committee oversees the federal government’s bailout of Wall Street.

The TARP program is actually ending soon but we’ll be shareholders in banks and AIG for many more years. It’s good to know that we have a champion like Ted Kaufman there to try to keep these banks honest.

Here’s Why We Need Senate Reform

Who died and made Jim DeMint the King of America?

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint warned Monday evening that he would block all legislation that has not been cleared by his office in the final days of the pre-election session.

Bret Bernhardt, DeMint’s chief of staff, said in an e-mail to GOP aides that his boss would place a hold on all legislation that has not been cleared by both parties by the end of the day Tuesday.

Any senator can place a hold to block legislation – and overcoming that would require the Senate to take time-consuming steps to invoke cloture, which would require 60 votes.

With the Senate slated to adjourn Thursday untiil after the elections, DeMint’s stance could mean trouble for Democrats if the two parties don’t quickly agree on a stopgap spending measure to keep the government operating past Sept. 30. And that could mean the demise of a slew of other stalled and largely non-controversial bills that both parties are looking to clear before Election Day.

Because our Senate is so ridiculous, one Senator could actually shut down the government. All it takes is the will to do it. The Senate could get the bills moving by invoking cloture but that takes a lot of time – they have to wait 30 hours for a vote after cloture passes to vote on the bill. Our country can not continue to operate this way – we have real issues that need to be addressed but instead politics has turned into a football game.

Filibuster Reform Gaining Momentum

One of the best panels I attended at Netroots Nation was the panel called The Filibuster and Senate Reform. The first panelist to speak was NYU Professor Mimi Marziani, who discussed the history of the filibuster and the founder’s intentions (hint: filibuster is not in the Constitution and the founder’s intended majority rule).

The second panelist was Congress Matters‘s David Waldman (KagroX) who discussed how the Senate rules work. He explained that a “hold” is actually an intent to filibuster, just a nice, polite way of making your intentions know. A hold can be overcome but it takes the same amount of time as overcoming a filibuster (which has certain time requirements). One thing that Waldman also explained is why we can’t just make them read the phone book. The way the rules currently work, the burden is actually on the majority to muster its 60 votes (totally backasswards).

Senator Tom Udall explained his plan for “the Constitutional option” which he plans to introduce at the beginning of the next session.

If you have time and are interested in the subject, I highly recommend you watch the session. It’s extremely informative.

In the session David Waldman explained the minimum reform that is needed: 1) remove the requirement of unanimous consent to open debate (getting rid of the one-man filibuster like Jim Bunning did) and 2) change the filibuster burden from the majority to the minority (make ’em read the phone book). During Harry Reid’s Q&A he expressed support for filibuster reform. It must be gaining momentum because The Hill wrote about the filibuster reform proposal:

Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are pushing for filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress next year.
Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation.

Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it.

A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.

The 10 wavering Democratic senators named in the article: Carl Levin (D-MI), Ben Nelson (D?-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Jon Tester (D-MT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Notice how many of them make up the obstructionist Senate asshole caucus? I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

There was some pushback by leaders of the reform caucus after The Hill article was published.

Taken alone, the above statements seem like customary pushback to a politically uncomfortable story. But there was important context to Wednesday’s debate over filibuster reform. Shortly after the Hill piece went online, the Senate Rules Committee held its fourth hearing into reforming the rules of the Senate. Later in the day, Reid’s office added a bill to the Senate calendar that would eliminate the practice of secret holds on nominees — a smaller bite at the institutional reform apple but still a major cause for reformers.

One top Democratic aide speaking on the condition of anonymity predicted that the party would ultimately pursue more incremental gains in reforming Senate practices as opposed to fully changing the 60-vote threshold for cloture votes on legislation. But lowering the threshold, the aide cautioned, is “not impossible.”

“We have come to this breaking point and it is not only the freshmen and sophomores who think we need change,” the aide said. “There are institutionalists as well. When you have the majority leader making comments like that, that creates a type of pressure.”

After reading both The Hill article and the HuffPo response, I’m pretty hopeful that at least David Waldman’s description of minimum reform may come to pass. I hope that means that important legislation dying in the Senate right now can pass in the next Congress, despite the expected Senate seat losses.

Also, not to sound bitter, but if the Senate had adopted some of these changes in 2008, we’d probably have a Public Option and an energy bill by now.

Senator Robert Byrd Dies

Sad news – West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd has died.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who served in the Senate longer than anyone in the nation’s history, has died.

The senator’s office announced that he passed away at 3 a.m. Monday at a suburban Washington hospital.

The West Virginia Democrat was 92, and was serving in an unprecedented ninth term in the U.S. Senate.

Condolences to his friends and family.

Financial Reform Passes The Senate

President Obama scored another big legislative victory in the Senate tonight.

The Senate approved a far-reaching financial regulation bill Thursday evening, paving the way for enactment of the most extensive reworking of financial oversight in generations and a second major legislative victory of the year for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

…

The Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of the legislation. It came just hours after 60 senators voted to end the debate on the measure — the minimum required. Two discontented Democrats broke party ranks to vote against the measure but Republican Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Scott Brown of Massachusetts, voted to proceed.

Some good things remained in the bill, like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (although a weakened version of Carper’s amendment did pass) and Bernie Sanders’s Fed audit amendment. Other good ideas failed to make the bill such as banning of naked credit default swaps, reinstitution of Glass Steagel or breaking up the “too big to fail” banks. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

The GOP Is Now Officially Guilty of Petulance

I think it was noted here somewhere the other day that on Tuesday, Senate Republicans used a little-known rule to prevent hearings from proceeding past 2:00 PM. In fact, our own beloved Sen. Carper was forced to halt a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on transparency due to Republicans’ refusal to give unanimous consent to waiving the rule. (It goes without saying that they lack the self-awareness to realize they pivoted from crowing about government transparency, to stopping a hearing about transparency.)

Well, yesterday they were at it again at an even higher level of childishness. Within the same Senate rule that prohibits hearings from proceeding past 2:00 PM is another provision that prevents committees from meeting more than two hours after the Senate convenes. Again, this is a rule that is routinely waived every day without a second thought. Not now, though. Since the minority party refused to give consent to waive the rule, and the Senate convened for the day at 9:00 AM, all Senate committees were forced to end their meetings at 11:00. Among the committee hearings that were forced to end prematurely or be canceled were:

  • A Senate Homeland Security subcommittee session on “Contracts for Afghan National Police Training”
  • A Senate Armed Services Committee hearing regarding Korea, for which several high-ranking military commanders had traveled to DC from as far away as Japan.
  • A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing dealing with judicial nominations, and
  • A Veteran’s Affairs Committee hearing regarding helping homeless veterans.

Just close your eyes for a minute and imagine the outrage from the right if Democrats so much as showed up late for hearings about dealing with rogue nations or helping homeless vets. Liz Cheney and Marc Thiessen would have strokes trying to unleash their outrage. The word is that Republicans will continue to play these games all week.

I think there are two important lessons we can learn from these episodes (although we really should know this already): 1) the Republican Party has no interest in actual governing the country, and behaves like a bunch of children who were told they can’t have the candy from the checkout lane, and 2) it’s a disgrace that the United States Senate is so structured that a group such as 1) can bring it to a halt. If nothing else, I hope this add fire to the “Reform the Senate” movement. And also the “Don’t let the GOP back in charge” movement as well. What are the chances that the national media sufficiently calls out the GOP for their unbelievably childish and unprofessional behavior?

Filibuster Reform on the Horizon?

This sounds like welcome news to me. Via Ezra Klein and Sam Stein of HuffPo, there is starting to be some serious talk about filibuster reform. Yesterday at a reporters’ briefing, Harry Reid had some interesting comments about the present and future of Senate procedure. From The Huffington Post:

“The filibuster has been abused. I believe that the Senate should be different than the House and will continue to be different than the House,” Reid said. “But we’re going to take a look at the filibuster. Next Congress, we’re going to take a look at it. We are likely to have to make some changes in it…”

Reid’s embrace of filibuster reform comes after he previously threw cold water on the likelihood of getting the rules changed. His reference to the “next Congress” stands out. To change Senate rules in the middle of the session requires 67 votes, which Democrats clearly don’t have. But changing the rules at the beginning of the 112th Congress will require the chair to declare the Senate is in a new session and can legally draft new rules. That ruling would be made by Vice President Joe Biden, who has spoken out against the current abuse of the filibuster. The ruling can be appealed, but that appeal can be defeated with a simple majority vote.

Granted, this would have no impact on the health care debate, but the Senate’s problems are far greater than the passing of one piece of legislation. The thing basically doesn’t work very well. What we have is a previously rarely-used tactic that used to be invoked only when Senators had a strong objection to the matter at hand. Now, as everyone knows, it takes 60 votes to do anything. If you think this is an exageration, look at how many votes got filibustered, delayed, then ultimately passed with overwhelming, sometimes almost unanimous, majorities. 

As Stein points out, the likeliest way to reform Senate procedure and restore majority rule is to change the body’s rules at the beginning of the next session. Unlike the filibuster, the Senate and House’s ability to make their own  rules actually is in the Constitution. When Congress reconvenes in January of odd years, it is considered to be a new Congress, and each house is able to make its own rules by majority consent. This seems to be what Reid is implying.

There was no mention of how the rules might be changed, but my favorite is the idea proposed several times by Tom Harkin of Iowa. Basically, the first vote would require 60 votes, but then three days later the threshold would drop to 57, then three days later to 54, then finally after another three days, a simple majority of 51 would be sufficient for passage. This still allows the minority to extend debate, just not indefinitely.

The other big thing that needs to be addressed is the number of executive branch positions that require Senate approval. Cabinet heads and senior officials — fine. But there’s no need for the Senate to approve the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of some department that 15 people outside of DC have ever even heard of. If you want to stem the “Czarist tide”, this is the way. Whatever ends up happening, just the fact that this stuff is being talked about openly, and seriously, is encouraging to me.

The New “Super Majority” Problem

Despite all our differences on Health Care, the real problem is the new 60 vote or nothing framework.  This new Super Majority or nothing dilemma must be addressed if we ever want to govern.  Needing 60 votes to do anything is impossible mainly because it results in only two outcomes:

1. It stops legislation.
2. It only allows weakened legislation to pass.

Basically, it gives us two choice – Dead or neutered.  Krugman lays it out, complete with history lesson.

After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes. But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.

Talk about power in the hands of the few.  Power that’s being abused by both sides of the aisle.

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

70 percent.  That’s incredible.  It’s also what the Republicans now call governing, and, given their agenda, it’s highly effective.  Then again, Republicans have always loved the word “no.”  Just say no – to drugs, to sex… to any and all things proposed by the Democrats.  And this tactic serves them well by raising the bar to the fictional “must have” number of 60.  And it’s frustrating how every talking head drones on for hours about the need for 60 votes while ignoring the reason for that need.

I have mixed emotions when it comes to the filibuster, but something needs to change.  70 percent of threatened or actual filibusters is abusive.  It’s also a highly effective tool for the minority party to turn losing into winning – no matter what the majority of Amercans voted for.  Basically, it overturns an election.

Senate Bill Passes First Cloture Vote

Early this morning the Senate health care reform bill passed its first cloture vote.

Moments ago, the Senate voted 60-40 to end the Republican filibuster of the manager’s amendment to the Senate health care bill, clearing an important hurdle to passing health care reform before the end of the year.

The Senators voted from their desks — a customary practice reserved for the most significant votes. Once the presiding president read the final tally, Democrats rushed over to congratulate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

This bill “acknowledges finally that health care is a fundamental right,” Reid said before the vote. It’s “a human right, not just a privilege for the most fortunate.” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) insisted that “this is not the end of health care reform. It’s the beginning. But we must make this beginning in order to fulfill that dream and really make health care a right, not a privilege.”

Olympia Snowe voted no along with all the other Republicans. I guess history wasn’t calling this time? The bill passed despite Senator Coburn’s call to God.

Speaking against the health care bill on the Senate floor just moments ago, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) expressed his hope that a Senator of the majority caucus would not be able to make the vote:

What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray.

You stay classy there Senator Coburn!

Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) gave an excellent smackdown of the GOP lying tactics:

“All to break the momentum of our new young president. They are desparate to break the president. The birthers, the militias, the lifers— it is unbearable to them for the presidency of Barack Obama to exist.”

The bill is on track to pass on Christmas Eve. The remaining schedule:

The Senate will vote on Tuesday, December 22nd at 7am to adopt the amendment and will hold another cloture vote on the Reid substitute — the Senate’s version of the health care bill. On Wednesday December 23 at 1pm, the Senate will vote to adopt the substitute and to invoke cloture on the underlining bill. A final vote on the Senate bill is scheduled for Thursday, December 24th at 7pm. It requires a simple majority.

So there are two more cloture votes (needing 60 votes) and one final vote (needing 51 votes). After the bill passes the Senate it goes to the House-Senate conference. There will be changes in the bill, hopefully the Senate bill will adopt some of the better subsidies and then both the House and the Senate will vote again. The conference report can be filibustered so the Senate needs 60 votes to pass the final bill.

A Modest Healthcare Proposal

I would love to see an interim law get passed for heathcare reform that drops all elected legislators from their government healthcare as of January 1st.  This will give legislators a few weeks to find their free-market healthcare options and sign up.  I wonder how many of them would be unable to get insurance due to a pre-existing condition.  How many would have to sign up in their home state, only to find that there are no providers in their network in DC.

This might light a fire under a few asses.

Senate Health Care Reform Debate Starts Today

The debate on the health care reform deal starts today in the U.S. Senate at 3 p.m. There is still one major sticking point in the negotiations: the fate of the public option. Don’t worry though, Compromisin’ Carper is on the case:

There is one idea that supporters hope could rally the centrists: Call it the nonpublic “public option.” It’s an idea from Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) for a national insurance program that is neither run nor financed by the government. It could win over moderates because it wouldn’t be a direct government expansion, but it would also satisfy liberals because it would be a national health insurance program designed to compete with private insurers from Day One.

It’s possible that the public option will be dealt with through a manager’s amendment, offered near the end of the debate, that ties up loose ends on the bill. It could include tweaks to the public option, ways to toughen up abortion restrictions in the bill (another concern of Nelson) and any other targeted attempts to secure a single senator’s vote.

Reid will get backing from war rooms on Capitol Hill and in the White House, where operatives with a coordinated strategy stand ready to amplify the floor debate. “Our focus is to get the bill off the floor as soon as possible in a form that is most consistent with the president,” said a senior administration official. Crafting a public option compromise “is largely what is taking up the time.”

Wherever there’s an attempt to weaken the public option, we see Carper. Coincidence? I don’t see how creating a private middleman will help. The point of the public option was to get rid of the layers of bureaucracy and cut down expense for people.

Something else to chew on: a report from the Urban Institute concludes that a trigger for a strong public option may be better than the current weak version of the public option.

We argue that a strong version is necessary because there is little else in health reform that can be counted on to contribute
significantly to cost containment in the short term. Capping tax-exempt employer contributions to health insurance has great
support among many analysts (including us), but it faces considerable political opposition. Proposals such as comparative effectiveness research, new payment approaches, medical homes and accountable care organizations, all offer promise but could take years to provide savings. Thus, the use of a strong public option to reduce government subsidy costs and as a cost containment device should be an essential part of the health reform debate.

[…]

The Senate has proposed a public option with an opt-out provision. This has the advantage of recognizing regional diversity in political philosophy by allowing states to pass legislation to keep it from being offered in their states. A disadvantage of this proposal is that it would exclude many who would potentially benefit from a public option. The states likely to opt out are likely to be those with high shares of low-income people and many uninsured.

The other alternative is to establish a strong public option but not implement it unless a triggering event occurred. The goal would be to allow the private insurance system to prove that it can control costs with a new set of insurance rules and state exchanges. The triggering events could be the level of premiums exceeding a certain percentage of family incomes or the growth in health care spending exceeding certain benchmarks. Since the public option would only be triggered because of excessive costs, however measured, we assume that a relatively strong version of a public option would come into play.

We recognize that taking a strong public option off the table may be necessary to enact reform legislation. But this will mean, at a minimum, higher government subsidy costs by not permitting a payer with substantial market power to bring cost containment pressure on the system. The outcome is likely to be that costs will continue to spiral upward. In effect, the nation would be relying on the range of promising pilot approaches to cost containment that would take some time to be successful. If they are not, we may be left with increasingly regulatory approaches, such as rate setting or utilization controls that apply to all payers. This would mean much more government involvement than giving people a choice of a low-cost public option that would be required to compete with private insurers.

What do you think? Would you be willing to accept a triggered P.O. if it triggered a strong public option? I’m intrigued by the idea but the opponents of the public option don’t want any kind of public option and they say they’re willing to blow up reform if they don’t get their way. Do you really think they would agree to a real trigger and a strong public option?

One last thing to think about, the CBO says that premiums will decrease for most people but increase for some:

A new CBO report, requested by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) contains some helpful, though not unexpected information about the impact of Senate health care legislation on insurance premiums, particularly in the individual market.

According to CBO, average premiums in the individual market would increase 10 to 13 percent because of provisions in the Senate health care bill, but, crucially, most people (about 57 percent) would actually find themselves paying significantly less money for insurance, thanks to federal subsidies for low- and middle-class consumers.

Like all changes, there will be winners and losers. We have to make the decision that benefits the greatest number of Americans.

Senate Health Care Reform Bill Unveiled

Last night the Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care reform bill, called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The whole bill can be read here (warning PDF) and a 2-page summary can be read at this link (PDF).

The CBO score for the bill was released yesterday, the bill costs $850M and covers 31M uninsured people:

The health care bill–which includes an opt-out public option–will require $849 billion over 10 years in new spending, to be paid for with cuts to Medicare, while reducing the deficit by $127 billion.

In that time it will extend coverage to 31 million Americans–94 percent of citizens will be covered by 2019.

Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings–up to $650 billion, with the caveat that after 10 years, their analyses become highly uncertain.

That price tag should reassure the faux fiscal hawks (who never voted no on war funding which is apparently free) – if the price tag was really what they’re worried about. It still contains the opt-out public option so that means that Reid will have to deal with in some way the Senate a#%hole caucus: Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blance Lincoln. Reconciliation is still on the table:

In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid “talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort.”

“Nobody’s really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation,” Nelson said, “he’s not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don’t move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities.”

Nelson said he has still not committed to vote for even the first procedural vote, but in a sign that he’s leaning toward bringing a bill to the floor, he emphasized his view that the floor debate is a chance to improve the legislation. “I wanted to make it clear that that is, unlike some are suggesting, is not the vote…it’s a motion to enter into the debate and possible amendments and improvements of the legislation” Nelson said. “The vote is the second cloture vote, and that is the cloture on a motion to cease debate, and I wanted that clear, because I’ve already begun to see people out there say, ‘oh no, no, if you vote [to take it up] you’ve voted for health care.”

At this point I don’t really see the difference between having the Senate Democratic a#%hole caucus in those Senate seats and having Republicans in those seats and I’ll bet that the voters in their home states think the same thing. IMO, if they vote to kill health care reform I think they’re also killing their careers.