Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats should stop being clever and pass the bill.

PH2010011801911.jpgEvery time I write something like "health care has entered its end game," it turns out that there's another overtime just around the corner. So I'm going to stop writing that. But the expectation is that the House will pass the Senate bill within the next week or so. "Whoever sits here at this time next week, I think will not be talking about health care as a proposal, but as the law of the land," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Sunday.

But there are a number of ways health care could become the law of the land, some of them more absurd than others. The House has to pass the Senate bill, and then both chambers want to pass a package of tweaks and fixes through reconciliation. The House, as we've heard at length, is worried that the Senate won't manage to pass the reconciliation addendum. So they're getting a bit creative. Jon Cohn lays out the options:

The House has leeway for how it debates and votes on those two bills. And according to the sources--which include a senior House leadership aide--three options are on the table:

1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the Senate bill would be ready for the president's signature. The amendments, meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the "Schoolhouse Rock" option.

2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with that vote, the House would "deem" the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration there.

3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then--and only then--could the main bill go to the president for signature.

Oy. Options two and three are bad, bad, very bad ideas. Indeed, the fact that they're under consideration suggests the House has let its anger at the Senate drive it temporarily insane.

Option two is bad politics. No one cares whether the House passed the bill or "deemed" the bill passed. People don't pay attention to whether you voted using the passive voice or not. But by falling back on this bizarre locution, the House signals to voters that it thinks it's passing a bad bill. Some members of the House may indeed think that. I disagree with them. But for their own sake, if they're going to let this bill become law, they'd better pretend they agree to me.

Imagine the ads. "My opponent thought the health bill such a bad piece of legislation that he wouldn't even vote for it. But nor was he brave enough to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and say no! Vote for the guy who's not a wimp." And what's our hypothetical House members response? "No, you don't understand. I only refused to vote yes or no because I was hoping to pass a small package of amendments and was worried that the Senate wouldn't act on them fast enough?" You have to be kidding me.

Option three combines the bad politics of option two with bad legislative strategy. It signals to Republicans that this isn't over until the reconciliation amendments pass, which means that anything they can do to obstruct those amendments makes perfect sense because they are obstructing the whole of reform, not a small package of popular amendments.

If the Senate bill is passed and Democrats are just getting rid of the Nebraska deal and easing the bite of the excise tax, Republicans will have a lot of trouble standing in the way and becoming defenders of the Nebraska deal and the excise tax. At that point, they're not opposing health-care reform and instead opposing small, popular changes that make the bill better. They're literally obstructing good government that fits with their recent rhetoric. After all, having spent the last few months hammering the Nelson deal, it doesn't look very bipartisan to keep Democrats from taking your advice and reneging on it.

But if reform isn't passed until the amendments pass, then Republicans are battling the whole of reform rather than just the amendments, and the stakes are high and their procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate. The result is a gruesome Senate fight with Joe Biden potentially having to rule Republicans dilatory and all the rest of it. Delaying victory hasn't served the Democrats well thus far, and it's not likely to be a good idea now. It's time to stop being clever and pass this bill.

Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak.

By Ezra Klein  |  March 15, 2010; 7:10 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did the House just release its reconciliation package?
Next: Tom Toles is worth a thousand words

Comments

If the Dems don't do this quickly and easily, then they are more stupid than a bucket of rocks.

The House needs to pass the Senate bill and Obama needs to sign it. Only then will we be able to start believing this horrible and fruitless year is behind us.

Amendments should be done afterward, and indeed, it will take years to tweak this bill into something constitutional, beloved, and effective.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

It truly amazes me.

Were Obama to follow Warren Buffet's advice to scrap this legislation and start over with a whole new bill that focuses on reducing spiraling healthcare costs, the entire anti-democratic-party atmosphere would lose its steam.

Democrats would suddenly improve prospects for picking up seats in November, and even have renewed possiblilities for adding in the poison pills that are killing this legislation right now.

Instead they keep trolling forward, insisting on granting new federal control over the rates charged by insurance companies with no protections for solvency-----as if Americans who are currently protecting themselves with insurance policies are indifferent about giving Obama & Pelosi unstoppable power to bankrupt those policies by decree.

In other words, Obama wants his single-payer and he wants it now. To hell with democracy.

This reminds me of how Sean Penn has claimed its wrong to call Hugo Chavez a dictator because he was democratically elected. I guess by that measure, whacko progressives like Sean Penn don't consider Adolf Hitler a dictator either.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | March 15, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

It truly amazes me that FastEddieO007 thinks Warren Buffet is watching his back. No FastEddieO007, Warren Buffet is watching out for the backs of his shareholders from his seat on the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs.

You will see FastEddieO007. Time will tell.

Posted by: Terypat | March 15, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

No,Mr. Klein. I believe Obama was the last to use the "lipstick on a pig" reference in public.

If the Republicans refuse to vote in favor of these trash bills, it's because we, the People, do not want this kind of "reform." There is no way to turn any of the current versions of "reform" legislation into an acceptable compromise.

Read the data from recent polls. http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.5438343/k.924F/Susan_B_Anthony_List_Poll.htm It's not just Republican voters: Democrat Congressional District voters are against any form of this bill.

Posted by: hocndoc | March 15, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

"Obamacare" is at an all time high in the direction of passing on the InTrade political futures market: http://goo.gl/nDUn

I'm seriously considering taking the short side of this, latest rumors are that they need nine more votes which sounds like a lot to me after all this time.

Posted by: zeppelin003 | March 15, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The only poll that matters was the one taken in 2008 that got Obama elected. At that time, Obama promised to enact sweeping health care reform, and that's a big reason he was elected.

Current polls have been bastardized by the incoherent questions and the polarized political environment.

Leadership partly involves ignoring incoherent polls, and finally, Obama is showing leadership. We can only hope it is not too little too late.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Looking forward to seeing how Melissa Bean (D-Ill) votes on this piece of legislation. If she votes yes then I and my family will vote no on her reelection come this November!

Posted by: mwhoke | March 15, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

mwhoke

You will vote no to any Democrat anyway, so stop the melodrama.

You are putting your family at medical and financial risk by opposing health reform.

I have no insurance though I can afford it. I have been rejected due to pre-existing conditions. I have a several people in my family with children who have lost their jobs and no longer have insurance for their families.

Even if you have a million dollar policy, you can go bankrupt with the status quo if you or someone in your family gets seriously ill. Over 650,000 families go bankrupt each year due to medical issues, and about half of them had typical insurance policies.

Also, the CBO says this bill reduce the national debt and increase the number of insured. Anyone not wanting this reform is just playing politics or has been brainwashed by those who do, it's really that simple.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

FastEddie : "In other words, Obama wants his single-payer and he wants it now. To hell with democracy."

You must be living in an alternate reality and somehow your comment made it through a wormhole and showed up here.

First, the current bills have nothing to do with single-payer, and instead utilize free-market principles (private insurance companies and health exchanges) to provide insurance.

Secondly, the process being used to enact reform was legally put in place by Democratically elected people, and it has been used many times in the past, mostly by the GOP.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Lomillialor,

If the health care bill becomes law over the objections of the vast majority of the American people I hope that you utilize it to reverse the lobotomy that you previously subjected yourself too!

Posted by: mwhoke | March 15, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

mwhoke,

In Lomillalor's defense i would expect that he/she can't get coverage right now and wants the ability to do that. I assume that based upon his/her voracity in this debate. And if he/she gets subsidies then all the better for him/her.

I just wish everyone around here was honest as to their reasoning for pushing one agenda or another.

Posted by: visionbrkr | March 15, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

It's not so much the bill that people hate and are frustrated with, it's the process. There are some very popular provisions in the bill, but the fact that Congress has dwelled on this for the past year in the midst of a bad economy, combined with all the negativity and hyper-partisanship has really turned many people off. Democrats will be better off politically after this passes than if it doesn't pass at all (that's not to say they won't sustain losses in November, just not catastrophic losses). If this bill is really as politically poisonous for Democrats as Republicans suggest, they wouldn't be going above and beyond to try to block it at this point in the game. The longer Congress dwells on the bill, the better it is for the GOP. Likewise, the sooner it passes, the better it is for the Dems.

Posted by: ScottChalleezy | March 15, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

The fact that House Democrats are contimplating these various tricks to get Obamacare passed shows how desperate and afraid they are that this bill will cause the end of their political careers. They know that, despite all the Obama and Pelosi happy talk, if you represent a conservative or centrist district and you vote for this big government monstrosity you will get voted out this fall. Pelosi and Obama don't care because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs. Obamacare means massive tax increases, cuts to Medicare (which is already broke), massive new government regulations and bureacacy. It means the government will intrude into every aspect of your healthcare. It means massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see since Obamacare's tax increases and Medicare cuts are strictly to pay for the expenses of Obamacare not to reduce the budget. Also, Obamacare will cost vastly more than advertised as all government programs do because the government is noit good at running anything. All to provide insurance to the small portion of the population who truely can't afford it. Maybe the focus should be getting those people some help versus totaly upending one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world.

Posted by: RobT1 | March 15, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

"Imagine the ads." So long as they PTDB, who cares about the $#%@! politics. Let them do it how they want. (Though I agree with Ezra about option #3, because it might not PTDB.)

Besides, they already voted for the House bill, and I don't see the GOP being able to make a whole lot of hay with voters over their Congresscritter voting for the House bill, then only 'deeming' the Senate bill passed. It'll wind up being a 'he said, she said' deep in the weeds of procedure, and no actual voters will wind up giving a good goddamn.

Posted by: rt42 | March 15, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"If the health care bill becomes law over the objections of the vast majority of the American people"

That is a GOP view of the polling on the issue.

Opinions are roughly split down the middle. Ands that's only because many progressives and independants falsely believe if they can scuttle this current effort, that a public-option will be reborn.

Most Americans want reform. The question is whether they want this current bill.

Obama was elected to fix health care reform. That poll is more meaningful than the corporate driven polls that exist now.

Until recently, many polls indicated voters wanted reform and even wanted the public option.

Here's an example....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1

Ezra also posted some polling info that goes against your claim.

If you are opposed to reform, for the most part either you are anti-Democrat by nature or you are a public-option dreamer.

Those of you with insurance shouldn't be trying to murder those of use who don't have insurance (especially people like me who can afford to pay for it but are excluded because of predatory insurance practices).

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey FastEddie, what should Congress do to "reduc[e] spiraling healthcare costs" that the Senate bill doesn't already do?

Posted by: rt42 | March 15, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Rob

You are just a fear peddler. Your claims are decisively debunked by the CBO. Hitler used such fear tactics and lies when seizing control of Germany.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Hey FastEddie, what should Congress do to "reduc[e] spiraling healthcare costs" that the Senate bill doesn't already do?

Posted by: rt42 | March 15, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse


I'll gladly answer this for him.

How about getting rid of the Eshoo ammendment giving biologics a ridiculously long patent time frame.

How about capitating doctor payments like they did in the 90's.

How about holding insurers to all their market segments to at least an 85% MLR.

How about actually giving a crap about cost containment and not just some pet projects that can and will be abused.

Heck they have 4 years now to figure out HOW to abuse them. It really won't take them that long.

Posted by: visionbrkr | March 15, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Not all recent polls suggest Americans are against health reform....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233890

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

vision

Too bad the GOP was adamantly opposed to ANY reform, otherwise, some or many of your ideas probably would have ended up in the current bill. As it stood, reform advocates had to push through unsavory compromises with fringe elements of the Dem party to get a barely acceptable package that will undoubtedly be amended later on (if it gets passed).

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Lomillalor,

Eshoo's a democrat and she put that ammendment up there all by herself. Well her and the Pharma companies that represent her district.

You can try to blame the special deals on Republicans but again Dems don't need ANYTHING from Republicans to pass this reform. They have the overwhelming majorities and always have. Anything else is just excuses.

oh and add to my list the ability to negotiate pharma prices like other countries do. You want to bring down costs do all those things and you'll see our costs come in line with other countries.

Meanwhile insurers will continue to be the bogeyman of choice.

personally in order of obstruction it really should be:

1-Republicans
2-Chamber of Commerce
3-Pharma (the moment suggestion of taking away their deal Billy Tauzin hedged on his "help"
4-insurers

Insurers are only against this because they fear (correctly) that the mandate is too weak and too many people will opt out and costs will continue to rise. That's the moment they balked at the weakening of the mandate in the SFC bill.

Posted by: visionbrkr | March 15, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Wait...which was the most feckless and incompetent option? Cause that's the one the Democrats will choose.

Posted by: antontuffnell | March 15, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

visionbrkr:

My reasons are because I have one of those Cadillac heathcare insurance plans and think the entire costs are understated / unfair (I.e. Cornhusker kickback).

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 15, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The analysis in Klein's opinion is accurate: some of the available options might lead to a partisan victory, but not to longer-term success for party members, citizens at large, or the government as an institution.

When I read the original opinion and the [subset of civil] comments that follow, I see more agreement than I'd expect: "Delaying [...] hasn't served the Democrats well thus far, and it's not likely to be a good idea now." "Were Obama to [terminate] this legislation [...], the entire anti-democratic-party atmosphere would lose its steam." "It's time to stop being clever and [take an up-or-down vote on] this bill."

A down-vote is not the worst possible outcome, as it has the effect of forcing the ball into the hands of the other team ... forcing "them" into a quasi-leadership position which can then be scrutinized according to the same rules and public opinions used in opposition to the current health care reform bill.

Posted by: rmgregory | March 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

vision

The GOP had power for 8 years (full control from 2001 to 2007).

They never tried to reduce costs or enact meaningful health reform. The only thing they did was enact medicare part D, which only added significantly to the deficit.

The Dems, as incompetent as they are, at least are trying to reform things.

So yes, I do blame the GOP, as well as conservative Dems for watering down the bill.

Even with the watered down bill though, it is a step forward. The CBO says it will insure more Americans and reduce the debt.

Had the Dems recieved ONE GOP VOTE, special deals such as Nebraska's would not have happened.

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"Wait...which was the most feckless and incompetent option? Cause that's the one the Democrats will choose."

That would be to try to work with predatory private insurance companies. That's what the Dems chose, instead of such things as single-payer, or public-option, or universal care. So indeed, they chose an option that free enterprise advocates would like (though maybe not laissez faire advocates, which is what the status quo and the GOP embraces).

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 15, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Lomillalor,

You did see Republican's at the top of my list of "obstructionists" right? So we're not in disagreement then in that regard. I will say that in addition to Eshoo, Senator Kerry helped to kill the Free Choice amendment of Wyden's that would be preferential to all who understand the system. Kerry's benefactor was his local defense contractor, Raytheon.

So please don't try to convince me that the Dems special deals are because of Republican obstruction because nothing could be further from the truth. They'd have done them for THEIR special interests no matter what.

Do you think Republicans are likewise responsible for the weakening of the excise tax???

Posted by: visionbrkr | March 15, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Option 2 is so bad. You're right that if they're trying to avoid saying they voted for the Senate bill it's not going to work, but in terms of whipping support in the House, it's going to be easier for the leadership to assemble 216+ votes for the reconciliation fixes + college loan reform than for the Senate bill. If they only have to whip for the former package, then they can just have a single vote and be done with it.

Posted by: Isa8686 | March 15, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

@ezra: "'No, you don't understand. I only refused to vote yes or no because I was hoping to pass a small package of amendments and was worried that the Senate wouldn't act on them fast enough?' You have to be kidding me."

No, they aren't kidding. They are entirely serious. They thin that's a great argument. They think it's an unbeatable alibi, the perfect defense. You live in DC and you haven't noticed politicians have very peculiar takes on what make for a reasonable excuse?

That said, I don't think the price they'll pay for passing it that way is any higher (and is probably lower) than they'll pay for not passing it at all.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 15, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The Democrat's chief vote counter in the House says that right now there aren't enough votes to pass Obamacare. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "a comfort level" has been reached among the House, Senate and White House on details about the sweeping legislation, but he conceded that House supporters don't have the necessary votes right now.

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 15, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Pass the damn bill NOW !

Health Care Reform in America NOW !

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 15, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Option 3 doesn't exist, per Alan S. Frumin.

Posted by: StefW | March 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"It truly amazes me.

Were Obama to follow Warren Buffet's advice to scrap this legislation and start over with a whole new bill that focuses on reducing spiraling healthcare costs, the entire anti-democratic-party atmosphere would lose its steam."

It truly amazes me that some people can be so naive. It doesn't matter what the agenda is. The Party of No's tactic is to STONEWALL everything. EVERYTHING. I would run them over in every way possible - damned be the consequence - at least then America has gotten somewhere.

Health Care Reform in America NOW !

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 15, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

PTDB.

Posted by: adamiani | March 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

memo to Klein, firedoglake and other progressive bloggers: Some younger interns are bothered by our latest tactic, the outing of dissenting democrats who happen to be gay. Follow the CLinton example in treatment of minorities, says A: you can trash individual members of the group as long as you take the publicly correct stance toward it. We got some easy cases left (R. cracks himself up by referring to them as "low hanging fruit") and some harder cases. Should be all polished off by Wednesday. take good care. communications.

Posted by: truck1 | March 15, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I tend to disagree with Ezra that Option 2 is a bad one. It's Cake & Eat It:

* Obama signs Senate Bill

* Senate gets to work on passing the amendments

* There is no need to whip for a second time in the House

Who wants to run the risk of another sudden death like Murtha? Or someone else retiring, or a scandal hitting.

In addition, I don't see an issue with easing fence sitting House minds that they have to vote just once if it helps them get off the fence.

#3 *is* a problem. I think we all agree that it's warranted given how flakey the Senate Dems have been. But at this point, it's highly likely that even Ben Nelson will vote for Reconcilliation to get ride of his Cornhusker Kickback.

Go with #2 as striking a middle ground. If the Senate fails to pass reconcilliation, at least there is a law and the House can move forward with the knowledge that they can't trust the Senate on much of anything for most of the rest of the decade.

John

Posted by: toshiaki | March 15, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

This has become more about political victory, and getting a "win" for Obama (or, avoiding a "loss"), than about good policy.
Please pull back from the personality aspects, and don't worry about the image of Obama.
The President has had a very successful career, with many victories, and few defeats, so why is another "victory" so important that we change everybody's life to get it done?
If you criticize opponents of the bill for wanting to hurt Obama, you have to criticize supporters of the bill for wanting to help Obama!
It is the same thing. Both are bad.

Posted by: johnL1 | March 15, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

PTDB. It's not at all what we wanted but it's good enough. We'll all be doing the Happy Dance when it gets through.

Posted by: leoklein | March 15, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

http://goo.gl/lW6S

InTrade has moved up dramatically just this morning. Showing health care reform at nearly 75% toward passing. To the extent this keeps moving up I'll assume by Thursday or Friday there's insider trading going on, which is totally legal on this because its a tiny market.

The real money to be made betting on or against the bill passing is by going short or long Wellpoint, depending on how confident one is in predicting the whip count.

Posted by: zeppelin003 | March 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

What is incredibly surprising to me is that reps and dems both believe that the current health bill will be better for the U.S. - it is so overloaded with junk (pork if you will) and will cost taxpayers and small businesses much more than current payouts. You watch. When this whole thing turns bad, you won't find one responsible person left standing.

Posted by: kpomroy | March 15, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

What is incredibly surprising to me is that reps and dems both believe that this Senate health bill will be better for the U.S. - it is so overloaded with junk (pork if you will) and will cost taxpayers and small businesses much more than current payouts. You watch. When this whole thing turns bad, you won't find one responsible person left standing.

Posted by: kpomroy | March 15, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

No one paid any attention to the health bill proposed by President Bush: a set tax credit for individuals, double that for families, with subsidies for those who can't afford the care in the first place. There were provisions for those who had pre-existing conditions (as there are in Texas, now, for the employed who are high risk: no one may be turned down if part of an employer's plan and sign up when eligible, no penalties for preexisting conditions if insured over the past 12 months, maximum one year with limited coverage for those who were not insured over the last 12 months).

No, the Dems want to mandate school based clinics, community based clinics, taxes, taxes, taxes, behavior modification, business monitoring (in order to make sure that you boss makes good business decisions, so he'll stay in business to continue your benefits), and fines, taxes, and more taxes.

Republicans never had the majority that the Dems have. Remember "Jumpin' Jeffords?"

So, rather than allow individuals the same tax break that employers have and getting health insurance for those who don't have it,

Posted by: hocndoc | March 15, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Reconciliation is not a 'trick'. It is a budgetary procedure created in 1974. Some of the bills passed or reformed under reconciliation include welfare reform, SCHIP, COBRA, and both Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts only added to the deficit. America has been a creditor nation since Ronald Reagan. I guess the GOP is saying reconciliation is fine for them but not for Democrats. And if no one wants the bills, then why are the GOP and insurance companies fighting it?

Posted by: memccroden | March 16, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

We were a creditor nation until the election of Ronald Reagan. We have been a DEBTOR nation since the 1980s. Sorry for the mistake.

Posted by: memccroden | March 16, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

No on on the Left or the progressive side supports this bill. We think it is just a big giveway to private insurance companies and if the Dems pass the thing, it will cost them badly with their own base. There is virtually nothing in it that we wanted.

Posted by: mcmchugh99 | March 16, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

It is just a bad bill. Nothing will change that.

Posted by: billbrann | March 16, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Klein writes: It's time to stop being clever and pass this bill.

No.

It's time to stop being stupid and kill this bill.

Posted by: lambert_strether | March 16, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Ezra is right that using the Slaughter rule won't provide cover for Democrats, but he ignores one thing - Pelosi doesn't have the votes for option #1. The purpose of the Slaughter rule (#2 version) is to make it impossible to vote "no". Pelosi isn't trying to provide cover for her members. She's cornering them.

Posted by: jwalsworth | March 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company