The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) has twenty-three members: 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans. If the Republicans remain united in opposition to the health care bill, the Democrats can afford no more than one vote against it. If Olympia Snowe (R-ME) votes for the bill, the Democrats can afford two defections. Both Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) are very unhappy with the bill and have threatened to vote ‘nay.’
According to reporting at The Hill, Democratic senators are walking on eggshells around Rockefeller.
“Rockefeller is so high on the food chain that there aren’t many people here that can talk to him about his vote. The president’s about the only one who can,” said a Democratic senator who requested anonymity because he felt uncomfortable discussing a fellow senator’s vote.
It doesn’t help that the debate over health care has Rockefeller in a downright ornery mood. He is technically the chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, but, despite that, Baucus took over the crafting of the legislation and shut him out of the Gang of Six negotiations. From Baucus’s point of view, he had to find a bill that had the support of the more conservative members of his committee (Conrad, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Carper, Snowe) and courting Rockefeller wasn’t going to facilitate that process. The problem now is that Rockefeller’s feelings are hurt. He probably correctly considers himself the foremost expect on health policy in the Senate, and his input has been largely discounted and discarded. Beyond that, he simply hates the Finance Bill, as most/all liberals do.
That’s the starting point, but the dimensional chess goes deeper. Setting aside Wyden’s displeasure for a moment, there is a careful dance going on between Rockefeller and Snowe.
One [Democratic] aide said that a no vote from Snowe would make it more difficult for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include provisions she favors in the bill he puts on the floor. One such provision would set up a government insurance program that would only go into effect if private insurance companies failed to meet certain benchmarks for providing affordable, quality care.
“The public option with a trigger would be a compelling thing to put in the merged bill if the Finance bill has the endorsement of Snowe,” said the aide. “When progressives howl, you can point to Snowe’s support.”
But…not so easily if Rockefeller votes no:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said a no vote from Rockefeller would send a strong signal that Democratic leaders cannot take liberal support for granted.
Baucus has gained leverage with Reid by arguing that certain policy proposals favored by liberals, such as the public option, would not have enough votes to pass the Senate. Rockefeller’s opposition could balance that argument by allowing liberal advocates to claim that a healthcare package closely resembling the Baucus bill could face significant opposition from Democratic liberals.
“It would send a signal to pay attention to the left,” said Whitehouse.
This tension between the center and the left has defined the whole SFC process from the beginning. But the strategy behind Rockefeller and Snowe’s votes is about positioning for the next steps in the process. I’ve said repeatedly that Republican senators cannot expect to maintain any relevance on policy if they vote no on everything that comes out of their committees. Baucus has courted Snowe all year, and the Finance bill contains many provisions aimed at winning her support. If she votes against it, it will not only make it harder for Reid to include those concessions in the final bill, but it will make it harder for Snowe to win concessions in the future. She has a strong incentive to vote for the SFC bill.
But Rockefeller has just as strong an incentive to vote against it. A ‘nay’ vote would not only send a message that liberals are opposed to the SFC bill, but it would send a message to Baucus not to shut him out of negotiations on future bills.
When the time comes for a vote, the Democrats will vote before the Republicans. Rockefeller, who is second in seniority, will vote first (because the chairman votes last), and will not have the benefit of knowing what Snowe or his colleagues are going to do.
I don’t think he wants to vote yes if Snowe is going to vote yes.
.
A Rockefeller amendment on child health care passed with an aye from Snowe and a “passed” vote from Wyden.
(FDL) Oct. 1, 2009 – The Senate Finance Committee vote won’t happen today. It has been pushed back until later this week or even next week, ostensibly so the CBO can come up with a final score. But it may have more to do with the fact that they don’t have the votes. Jay Rockefeller made an impassioned speech last week about the time he spent with VISTA and indicated he’s probably a “no” vote on the Baucus bill, despite arm twisting from the White House. (It will make you tear up if you haven’t seen it) And now it looks like Ron Wyden might be in that column too. Since Baucus can only lose one Democrat and still get something through a committee with 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans, he has to bring one of them back on the reservation.
I got a tip last week shortly after Wyden’s midnight outburst, when he was told that the CBO messed up and didn’t score his amendment and therefore there would be no vote.
The Senate Finance Committee continued its seventh day of debating amendments to the health care bill. Amendments focused on government financing, affordability, and restrictions on insurance companies. C-SPAN video – final session
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I watched that blow up. It was the CBO who screwed Wyden, not Baucus. They only scored part of his amendment, and that wound up making Wyden look like a dumbass, which he isn’t. Typical of FDL though to make it personal.
Nonetheless, Wyden’s unhappiness means that he is not likely to vote for the bill as it stands. And Wyden’s amendment blows open the public option in a way that both houses of Congress have been studiously avoiding. It is potentially the end of employer-based health insurance.
My guess on how it runs. Rockefeller passes. Wyden passes. If they can get a third Democrat to pass, the signal is that Snowe’s yes vote won’t change things. Unless conservative Democrats like Lincoln also pass or Snowe herself passes.
Could degenerate into an “After you, Alphonse” sort of vote.
Reid has already said that if the Senate Finance Committee isn’t done by October 15, he will move forward with the HELP committee bill. I’m not sure if he is still committed to that, but that statement gives him cover.
Well, Wyden’s bill would blow up employer-base health care, which is why it has very little support. I think Wyden will be there on the vote unless Rockefeller votes yes. One of the two of them is likely to vote no, I think, but not both.
.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Health care legislation drafted by a key Senate committee would expand coverage to 94 percent of all eligible Americans at a 10-year cost of $829 billion, congressional budget experts said Wednesday, a preliminary estimate likely to power the measure past a major hurdle within days.
The Congressional Budget Office added that the measure would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over a decade and probably lead to “continued reductions in federal budget deficits” in the years beyond.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."That’s right Booman – it wasn’t the case of Baucus looking for any excuse on behalf of his corporate employers to shut out Wyden’s amendment. It just happened the CBO thought (incorrectly) they hadn’t scored the amendment and in their haste to rectify the supposed mistake contacted Baucus … at 1:30 in the morning! Sure was lucky Baucus had
stalledmoved Wyden’s amendment to the very last wasn’t it?Once again you’re peddling misinformation which any reader of the article at FireDogLake can verify. The CBO did score Wyden’s amendment, it just didn’t score a proposed variant Wyden had submitted that might have brought in more support. Wyden tried to explain but was cut off by Baucus. This isn’t chess, this is somebody dumping the game over because they’re losing! No wonder we all despise politicians.
This has signaled a huge split in the Democratic Party as Baucus’ actions have brought out into the open the fact that Obama’s true objective is to ensure no real health care reform gets passed.
But that report by FDL is wrong is several respects. Wyden withdrew his amendment. Wyden repeatedly claimed only to have sent one amendment to the CBO. Baucus, Kerry, and Conrad all said they opposed the amendment regardless of CBO scoring. The amendment has no chance of passing. Wyden could have introduced the amendment earlier.
As for what exactly went down with CBO, I can’t say, but Baucus doesn’t control the CBO (they are completely non-partisan) and cannot use them to sandbag a fellow senator.
The dispute appeared to be over what elements of the original amendment had been scored. If there was confusion, it could have been that Wyden was right about the costs. But, I am far from certain about that. Wyden’s amendment would set up a system where employee’s could turn down their employer-provided health care plan and get something of equal or lesser cost on the open-market. To obtain that, they’d get a voucher. To score that, they have to do a very complicated analysis to figure out what would happen. Young workers would often be able to get cheaper insurance and would opt out of their company plan. But that would make company plans higher risk, thereby raising the cost of providing them.
I don’t see how their explanation for why they couldn’t score the second amendment would not also apply to the first.
I’m going to disagree with your assessment that FDL was wrong in its reporting. (Surprise)
Watching the video of the committee hearing that is provided at your FDL link will immediately prove to you that you are wrong about 1, 2, 5, and 6.
I can’t help but revisit this comment.
It’s irritating to be told that I am peddling disinformation by someone who is so credulous about what he reads from unreliable sources.
If I became known for peddling misinformation, I’d lost my best asset, which is the trust of my readers. The idea that I would do that intentionally is galling.
someone better tell MCJoan, because she’s front-paging it at dailykos.
for the record, i tend to believe FDL’s version of events. Together, jane, slinkerwink, nyceve, and a whole lot of others have been working full-time on this.
you may have some of the strategy stuff right -maybe- but from what a lot of people are saying(bob menendez and debbie stabenow for instance), the white house is looking for anything it can call a win.
i’m sorry, i just don’t trust the white house at its word anymore.
I don’t know how many times I have to tell you that they are not interested in providing you with an accurate depiction of the facts. This is a mirror image of what the other side does. That’s fine as activism. But it is totally unreliable as facts.
Why don’t watch the video:
Notice:
well, maybe you’re right.
and maybe you’re wrong.
a major reason i haven’t blogged much lately is I’m tired of sifting through every single statement to determine which is bullshit and which isn’t.
like i said, i have no reason to believe anything I’m reading is truth or fiction.
go to minute 76:25 in that video and start watching. You can skip over Kerry’s part.
I’m with Brendan on this one. You can twist things all you want to – it doesn’t change the reality (for example Wyden only “withdrew” his amendment as a matter of procedure in order to allow the committee to close rather than your implied disavowal of his own amendment). It doesn’t make any sense to try to argue with someone who refuses to agree on what even constitutes facts.
P.S. I forgot to mention one more misrepresentation of yours:
8) Wyden couldn’t introduce his amendment earlier because Baucus, as Committee Chairman, controls the agenda.
If you’ll simply watch the video, you’ll realize that you’re wrong.
I have no interest in arguing with someone who won’t watch the video.
As for when the amendment came up, there were days of mark-up where Baucus invited members to introduce any amendment they wanted. To my knowledge, the only amendments he specifically scheduled were the two public option amendments, and he did that to put them in the right order. It’s true that he wanted to get some easy stuff out of the way early, but I am unaware of any reason why Wyden was restricted from introducing that amendment until the end. It’s possible he was, but I have seen no proof of it. The bill was scored on Sept. 22 and the second amendment on Sept. 29, so he had (or thought he had) it scored early enough to have introduced it earlier.
What the video proves is that the following assertion in the FDL article are wrong.
Baucus did all the amendment to come up for a vote. Wyden withdrew it, and not for any procedural reasons. It had no support and the mark-up ended after his withdrawal, meaning he didn’t retain any right to bring it up again.
Baucus did not rule it out of order.
Again, Baucus did not rule it out of order, and he had allowed other amendments that had not been scored earlier in the evening.
You’ll also see at minute 114 that Wyden insists repeatedly that he only submitted one version to CBO and that it did include the vouchers. That calls into question their version of events, here:
They couldn’t score the second part because (emphasis mine):
Now, who is being dishonest?
At minute 114, Wyden explains that he sent only one version to CBO and that it included the voucher. So, since that completely contradicts the FDL story, you should treat the FDL story with extreme skepticism. At minute 118, Wyden withdraws the amendment, proving that another key element of the story is wrong.
I reviewed the video as you directed and yes, you are right to say that FDL has seriously misstated what happened. It does appear CBO only scored part of the single amendment Wyden sent in. There was no proposed variant. But this new information just makes it worse. The CBO doesn’t do partial scoring – it either scores the bill or it can’t and reports its finding. The CBO communicated to Wyden his amendment with vouchers had been scored and that it saved around a billion dollars. But when Wyden presented his amendment for some reason Conrad was in communication with an individual at the CBO (remember this is 1:30 in the morning) who informed him (not Wyden the amendment’s author) that only part of Wyden’s amendment had been scored. Huh?
This reeks of the Obama administration deliberately sabotaging Wyden by instructing the CBO to not properly score the amendment and then letting Conrad and Baucus ambush Wyden in committee. There’s no other way Wyden could be told by the CBO that it had been scored but Conrad having the knowledge the scoring was flawed without insider CBO connivance – and that would have to come from the Whitehouse. No wonder Wyden is spitting mad.
First, remember what I said in my first comment. I said the CBO screwed Wyden by only scoring part of his amendment.
I’m still not 100% clear on what the problem was with CBO, but their Sept. 29 letter to Wyden explains that their original score did not include a full scoring of the voucher portion. Conrad and Baucus were aware of that and Wyden appeared not to be. It shouldn’t surprise you that the CBO had someone on call to answer questions since they had no one in the conference room. If that had been the OMB then I would agree the WH might have been behind the confusion, but it wasn’t. The OMB is not open to manipulation from Obama, Reid, or McConnell. It’s non-partisan. They didn’t enter into any conspiracy to sandbag Wyden.
Face it, the FDL report is wrong in almost every particular.
OK, you appear right again about the White House not being involved. But I’m not going to concede that Baucus and Conrad didn’t sandbag Wyden. Conrad had to initiate contact with the CBO to get the details and he needed a reason to do that. It’s virtually certain the two were aware of the voucher question well in advance but chose not to raise it until the very last moment when Wyden didn’t have a chance to remedy the problem. It’s important to note the reason the vouchers weren’t scored was attributed to only lack of time – a technicality which should never interfere with passing the best possible bill. Baucus screwed him over. Wyden should be mad.
Why would they assume that Wyden can’t read? He instant messaged the dude from CBO and got a response.
And, please, for one moment consider the fact that his amendment didn’t even have more theoretical support than ten votes.
So, if they wanted to kill his amendment they could have just voted it down.
After conceding that the video of the Committee session shows Wyden stating he submitted only one amendment that had been scored and it included the vouchers I reread FDL’s analysis to discover how it could have made such an error. That FDL presents Wyden filing a second proposed variant when he didn’t is a huge discrepancy. I wonder if a simpler explanation is that Senator Wyden misspoke the actual facts. After all it was almost two in the morning and he was under a great deal of pressure with his amendment threatened by unanticipated difficulties. Until these two radically different versions are reconciled I don’t have the information needed to come to a reasoned decision. Consequently I’ll withdraw from this thread. But thanks for pointing all this out to me.
While I remain somewhat confused about the second amendment and its distinction from the one that was offered, I can help you out with why they made this error at FDL.
They don’t understand the process and they really don’t care. If they can make Baucus look like an a-hole, they’re going to do it.
They actually cited a letter to prove their case that totally disproved their case.
They just lied about Baucus not allowing the amendment.
They stated without any citation that Wyden’s bill has last because Baucus planned it that way.
And they even suckered Daily Kos into front-paging this garbage.
Why can’t Rockefeller be induced to vote for whatever comes out of the committee, with the understanding that (1) he will have a more prominent role at the table down the road; or (2) a more liberal bill will be produced later anyway?
In other words, since we all know that the process has to get through the SFC just to keep the ball rolling — and that the SFC hardly has the last say — how much does it really matter what’s in the SFC bill anyway?
He might be induced to vote for it.
But, remember, the SFC bill contains all the tax measures. It isn’t irrelevant what is in it. And, if Snowe votes for it, that gives it a boost in its competition with the HELP bill. Rockefeller or Wyden might want to counter that by voting no.
If the tax measures are what gives the SFC its particular significance, then perhaps that’s what members should focus on in determining whether to lend support.
Yes, but the Finance and HELP bills have competing versions of the Exchanges. There are a lot of other differences as well. The point is, assuming both pass, which one has more momentum to become the base bill?
it appears to me that rockefeller’s in the catbird seat in this situation, and that it would strength his advantage, particularly as he’s the first to vote, to vote no.
that would place the onus for failure squarely upon baucus, and by extention put even more pressure on wyden…who, imo, has a lot to atone for, specifically his vote on habeas corpus, and significantly less gravitas than rockefeller.
that frees up snowe, giving her the option to vote no if all the other dems line up, and it clearly sends the message to the administration and baucus to, as the Hill article says: “pay attention to the left”.
were l in his position, that’s how l’d play it.