Progress Pond

Why Senate Vote On Ryan Means Nothing

At some point, but probably not this week, Harry Reid is going to force the Senate Republicans to vote on Paul Ryan’s budget plan. In my parlance, Majority Leader Reid will offer every Republican senator the opportunity to experience the wonders of gonorrhea. How many senators will willingly infect themselves with this nasty disease? It’s a question that many commentators, e.g., Nate Silver, are asking.

One can also take a more post-modern view toward special elections, like the one advocated by The Washington Post’s Jonathan Bernstein: special elections matter to the extent that people think they matter. We may get a better indication of how much Republicans think this one matters based on the way they vote when Mr. Ryan’s budget comes to a vote in the Senate, possibly later this week.

Republicans could try to toe the party line — there are solid reasons, both from a strategic standpoint, and from a morale standpoint, for them to do so. But that doesn’t necessarily make the problem go away: Democrats are all but certain to make a major issue of Medicare and Mr. Ryan’s budget in every competitive Congressional election next year.

I don’t think the Senate roll call vote on Ryan’s Budget Plan is really going to be all that meaningful, and I will tell you why because it is related to the reason why the president cannot apply any pressure on the Senate to do any damn thing at all.

As of right now, there are only ten Republican seats up for reelection next year. Two of those seats are held by senators who are retiring: Jon Kyl of Arizona and Kay Bailey Hutichison of Texas. Obviously, they have no fear of losing their seats over the voucherization of Medicare. Here’s the list of the eight Republican senators who will seek reelection.

Exit mobile version