MyDD :: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans

Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans

by Josh Orton, Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:05:17 PM EST

Earlier I mentioned Schumer's messaging role in the Senate leadership's delegation of power. Now here's Reid, directing traffic:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday ordered Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill.

Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning's regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.

According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn't worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.

The health care fight provides a nice dissection of a Senate mechanism:

1. Initial policy responsibility gets delegated to committee chairmen (Baucus on Finance, for example)

2. Senators like Bernie Sanders build a center of gravity for progressive policy

3. Reid inventories the politics - both the White House's agenda and what his other Senators want. What can pass, and how?

4. Schumer (and sometimes Durbin) speak loudly

5. Reid reigns-in committee chairs as needed (see above)

It's why we celebrate Al Franken's arrival: the politics of the Senate are amorphous and fluid, but more progressive Senators puts force behind progressive policy.

Tags: Harry Reid, Max Baucus (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 2)

Chris Bowers has correctly been pointing out for quite some time that the issue is not whetehr we get 60 Senators, but whether there is a governing progressive majority. That does not require 60 or even 51. It requires 10 to 15 Senators who are unwilling to support legislation that is not progressive leaning. The same is true of the House. In this way, bills will be shaped, such as the climate bill should have been, to the left rather than right.

by bruh3 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:31:12 PM EST

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 1)

And they also have to deal with the house, which I hope gives us the bill we want.

by orestes on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

And Chris is right that we need more progressive Senators. But it's not one or the other. More AND better.

by Josh Orton on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Especially in the Senate (none / 0)

where the number of places where progressives can realistically get elected are limited. It's unlikely we can get an outright majority in the Senate with progressives IMO.

The House is a stretch, but certianly possible.

Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat

by DTOzone on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 1)

Good thing I drank the sip of my Coke I had in my mouth before I read that. Otherwise, I would have done a spittake. Harry Reid? Showing some spine/heart/balls/spine/brains?

Follow the 2010 election cycle in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

by TheUnknown285 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:58:03 PM EST

Coincidental this comes out (2.00 / 2)

the day Franken gets sworn in...maybe that "we're waiting for Franken" excuse wasn't really an excuse after all.

Does he know that he has all the Democrats for cloture at least? I don't know.

I sorta wonder if this is a bluff...10-15 Democrats voting against a bill with no public option frankly surprises me...against a tax on health benefits does not, no Republicans will vote for that either.

Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat

by DTOzone on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Coincidental this comes out (2.00 / 1)

Republicans WILL vote fro taxing health benefits... after all, it's their idea... they love middle class taxes!

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 2)

No spine... he's just counting the votes, and in this case, "We don't have the votes," actually works in our favor...

It's simple math... get a bad bill that attracts 4 republicans and 25 democrats, or a good bill that attracts 56 democrats and no repbulicans...

The good bill is short 4 votes, the bad bill is short 11...

Reid has no choice, really...

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 1)

The advantage, of course, of this is that it forces the right to compromise leftward rather thn the other way around. That's the hold point about drawing a line in the sand. it forces the other party as we are seeing to move in the direction that your direction rather than the reverse.

by bruh3 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

Not even short 4 votes if they pass in reconciliation.

by 30000Fine on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 2)

The trigger maybe officially dead as well:

"Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the 77-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, fired off a letter to President Barack Obama warning him against dropping a public insurance option from health care reform plans."

http://www.rollcall.com/news/36551-1.htm l

I would also add this seems to indicate that the honeymoon of allowing the administration to triangulate to right (a la Clinton in the 1990s) seems to be coming to an end.

I am happy to see this. 2009 is not 1994.

by bruh3 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:31:41 PM EST

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

I think the effects of pressure on Obama from the House, while good, won't be seen yet, and probably wasn't at work here.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 1)

Maybe, but in my opinion, I think that the administrations chief concern is to pass a bill- any bill to say they have done something. This gives liberals a lot of power with a WH that is more concerned with optics than substance. That's the flip side of WH's strategy thus far. They give power to someone else. The question is who takes it. The progressives are wising up that it can be us.

by bruh3 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

"More interested in optics than substance" aside, it's a different way of saying the same thing. White House states general goals of the bill, and gives it to Congress to write. The White House being lobbied by progressives AND progressives organizing for a better bill are the effects of the same thing.

But did you see the White House play a role in the stiffening of support for the public option? I didn't, any more than whatever support they were already giving it.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the opposite of what has been done (none / 0)

in the past.

Specifically during Clinton's first year, it was "White House writes bill, sends it to Congress, Congress says "f*ck you" to White House for doing their job for them"

A major reason Clinton's healthcare policy failed is that he didn't give Congress any leeway in creating the bill and the Senate, specifically, did not want to be told what to do by the "kid in the White House"

Nonetheless, Clinton's leadership was admirable at the time and was definitely the right thing to do...it backfired in this face because he underestimated his pull in Congress.

Obama appears to not want to make the same mistake...and some are critical of it...perhaps some have forgotten what happened to Clinton, or some think Clinton's way of doing this would work now, or some believe Obama has more pull in Congres than he thinks and that's all fine.

Personally, I think Obama is doing this the right way...laying out his goals and letting us do the work...some people don't like it and that's ok.

Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat

by DTOzone on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:40:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

High Time (2.00 / 2)

I was getting fed up with power being wielded by the senator from a state that has less population than Philadelphia (i.e. Max Baucus). Talk about disproportionate allocation of power and the abuse of it.

by tarheel74 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:57:18 PM EST

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (2.00 / 1)

The other day when news came out that a group of house progressives would not vote for any bill without a public option, I joked that perhaps Harry Reid could say to Max Baucus "sorry, we'd love to strip that out of the bill, but we just don't have the votes."

It was a JOKE. I never actually thought he'd do it. Or be compelled to do it - I'm not giving Reid exclusive credit here.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:20:53 PM EST

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

Well, he didn't do it willingly, I can assure you of that... The progressive bloc of senators forced him to do it... It's easier to get a couple votes for cloture for a good bill, then to wring the arms of 15 for a bad one...

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid Tells Baucus To Forget Republicans (none / 0)

Yes, but this is not news. The Senate isn't the House - you can't whip Senators like you whip Reps.

by Josh Orton on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can you write a diary (2.00 / 1)

on why that is? I've never worked on the Hill, and while I understand in theory why it's easier to whip a House Rep, I don't understand why the administration and Senate leadership don't have more leverage against senators. Surely there are also things senators need and want that leadership or the White House can make difficult for them to get, right?

I would like to see someone flesh out why senators can't have their arms twisted like House reps can.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you write a diary (1.00 / 0)

Senators have more power as individuals than House members do, the divide in the Senate gives potential dealbreakers greater power, Representatives are charged more with delivering goodies to their districts than Senators are so you don't have that carrot, there are way more House members than Senators thus exposing them more to "prisoners dilemna" type tactics, parliamentary rules give single Senators more power to delay and stall any bill they want so if anyone tries to twist their arms they can twist back, etc.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.