The Importance of Rockefeller and Wyden
To put today's two interviews in a bit of context, both Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Ron Wyden are members of the Finance Committee. Both of them are unhappy. And both of them matter. They matter enough that on Wednesday, the day Baucus's bill was released, they were both invited for private, highly-publicized meetings with the president.
Rockefeller chairs the Finance Committee's Health Care Subcommittee. That gives him solid procedural power over the outcome. But his long history of work on this issue, and his long relationships with other Democrats on the committee, also gives him a certain amount of influence. His announcement that he couldn't vote for Baucus's bill in its initial form made changes a sure thing rather than a long shot, and opened the door for other angry Democrats to stand against the legislation.
Wyden's influence comes by virtue of the Healthy Americans Act, his universal health-care proposal that attracted, at various points, 11 Senate Republicans as co-sponsors, and received the best CBO score of any bill thus far. Wyden's bill is also a particular favorite among the chattering class. "When Ron Wyden balks at a Democratic health-care reform proposal," wrote Ruth Marcus on Wednesday, "people should definitely listen." Wyden thus has both bipartisan and elite credibility. His presence on the bill signals something positive about the quality and thoughtfulness of the proposal. His absence does much the same.
Rockefeller and Wyden, in other words, aren't being courted just for their votes. Rather, their votes are needed to ensure other votes for the bill. There's a certain subset of liberal Democrats who look to Rockefeller for cues, and a certain subset of Democrats who admired Wyden's Healthy Americans Act and take his opinion very seriously. As neither of them was included in the Gang of Six process, neither is inclined to give the bill a free pass. And Baucus and the administration are now working pretty hard to win their support, which means that there's a real chance their concerns will be fixed, and their priorities included.
By
Ezra Klein
|
September 18, 2009; 1:20 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: What's Wrong With the Finance Committee Bill? An Interview With Sen. Ron Wyden.
Next: Thank You, Science
Posted by: ostap666 | September 18, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse
Thanks for the interviews, which were both extremely illuminating; I feel mainstream Democratic Senators are now finding their voice on the issue. I hope your optimism is well-founded, Ezra. But I still remained concerned by Nelson, Landrieu, the Wal-Mart twins (especially Lincoln), Lieberman, Carper, even Feinstein. Really concerned.
Posted by: scarlota | September 18, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse
I'm from Oregon and I am a bit disgusted that Ron Wyden has given too much deference to the Gang of Six and not spoken out sooner. I do hope he prevails with his "Free Choice" amendment. I think the element of individual choice over employer choice, especially if that choice can include a public option, would be a real selling point for the final product.
Posted by: cmpnwtr | September 18, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse
I don't think either Wyden or Rockefeller was 'giving deference' to the Gang of Six. I think each realized that it represented Baucus's deliberate attempt to do an end-run on the four fairly solid Finance Libs: Rockefeller, Kerry, Wyden, Schumer
Baucus clearly made a calculation that his path to 12 votes in markup was to convince everybody of the 'logic of sixty' and so roll with a combination of 3 R's (out of 10) and 9 D's (out of thirteen) and so be able to lose all four Libs and get his version out of Committee and as the base for floor action.
I am a long way from DC but for a few weeks it has been clear through the Magic of the Intertubes that Rockefeller at least was seething.
IN my view the reason that Rockefeller and Wyden didn't speak up is because Reid and Obama were tolerating what was going on and rather than fight with either of those simply bided their time while Baucus lost one Republican after another.
Most people forget that the Gang of Six was originally a Gang of Seven with the only four Republicans even vaguely open for a deal invited to convene with Baucus and Conrad (neither of whom are even on the Health Care Sub-Committee) in an effort to knee-cap Rockefeller. In this scenario Bingaman served more or less to preserve some bi-partisan cover for what was a naked deal between the Finance Dem centrists and moderate to rational conservatives. By rational I mean that both Grassley and Hatch have historically been willing to deal (I don't know about Enzi).
Baucus lost his gamble and now has to turn over the bill to the full committee and the very different political dynamic that represents.
Posted by: BruceWebb | September 18, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse
Ezra,
Your description makes it sound like Rockefeller is stepping into Kennedy's role as the Liberals' leading light on health care. If he's for a bill, then they are. Is that accurate?
Posted by: TXAndy | September 18, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
For the 1st 623 political twists and turns of the consideration of health care reform, I found it pretty interesting, but now I'M SICK OF IT. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANY MORE ABOUT WHAT SEN. A THINKS ABOUT SEN. B'S IDEAS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM. I'll pay attention again when they're done.