Via FDL:

Cenk Uygur repeats the call first made by mcjoan and tweeted out by Kos - let's have an up or down vote on the public option. And for those concerned that it will gum up the works, I repeat my own suggestion:

[I]t can be done by allowing an amendment to the base reconciliation bill for those concerned it will gum up the works. What's wrong with this approach? Nothing of course, except that pols will have to go on the record against a proposal very popular with the Dem base.

Time for an up or down vote on the public option.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias on President Obama's broken campaign promises, including on the public option:

I’ve heard Obama talk about how for progressive policy to have a chance of getting support from the American people he needs to try to rebuild people’s faith in the ability of the government to do useful things and do them well. I agree with that. But he also needs to rebuild people’s faith that engagement with the political process can accomplish something. The unseemly wriggling away from campaign promises he’s engaged in is going to achieve the reverse.

The problem is not with Obama on this score. The problem is with anyone who puts their faith in pols, any pols. My old refrain, pols are pols and do what they do:

Via FDL:

Via Atrios, the Republican Party:

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension [of unemployment insurance benefits] Thursday night, [Sen. Jim] Bunning [R-KY] refused to go along. And when Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough sh[*]t."

I had a very busy day yesterday so I saw precisely none of the health care summit yesterday. DemfromCt has a roundup of reactions and I found some of them interesting. Ezra Klein wrote:

The big story out of the summit is not that Republicans and Democrats extended their hands in friendship, but that the White House has dug its heels into the dirt. The Democrats are not taking reconciliation off the table, they are not paring back the bill, and they are not extricating themselves from the issue. They think they're right on this one, and they're going to try and pass this legislation. Today was a boost for that effort.

I'm sure for the Democrats in that room, Ezra's descriptions may be correct. But does this really signal that the Dems can get it done? After all, the views of no one in the room were really at issue. But will Bart Stupak be swayed by what happened? More . . .

mcjoan addresses the Stupak Problem I wrote about yesterday. I think both mcjoan and her commenters misunderstand the reconciliation process and Stupak's position. First, it is important to remember that Stupak voted FOR the House health bill, once his amendment was adopted. So clearly Stupak's issue was a discrete one - public subsidies for private insurance policies that cover abortion services. Those subsidies are offered for individuals who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (in the House bill, that was 150% of FPL, in the Senate bill 133% of FPL) but no more than 80K/year for a family of 4 (with the subsidies reduced on a sliding scale.)

Since a new bill can not be passed through regular order, I proposed a fix of the Senate bill (Stupak has stated the Senate bill is unacceptable) that could address Stupak's concerns while still complying with the Byrd Rule for reconciliation. In essence, my proposal is an elimination of the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance and a transfer of those funds to expanding Medicaid eligibility as much as possible. I think the de facto effect of this is to render the state based exchanges meaningless (which they pretty much are anyway imo), but it does not require actually eliminating them. Keep them in place. No harm done. More . . .

24:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has signed Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-CO) letter calling on the leadership to pass a health care public option via reconciliation.

Reid says he is for it as well, but obviously since the letter is addressed to him, he is not signing it. Surely that is sufficient critical mass for offering an amendment including a public option to a reconciliation bill that must be enacted for passage of the health bills.

An up or down vote on the public option might produce a 75-25 loss (it also might produce passage), but at least then we'll know where we stand.

Speaking for me only

mcjoan writes:

We're going to be hearing a lot from the White House and Dem Senators that, to quote Dan Pfieffer, "the American people deserve and up or down vote" on healthcare reform. So here's the message to Harry Reid: "the American people deserve and up or down vote on the piece of reform they want," the public option.

Show us whether or not it can pass the Senate in a reconciliation vote, Senator Reid. Put it on the floor and see if it gets 50 votes. You'll at least get points from the base for making people go on the record. Give us an up or down vote on public option.

Indeed. And it can be done by allowing an amendment to the base reconciliation bill for those concerned it will gum up the works. What's wrong with this approach? Nothing of course, except that pols will have to go on the record against a proposal very popular with the Dem base.

Speaking for me only

The Village Dems are now furiously trying to recast the use of reconciliation for the health bills as a normal process. See, e.g., Kevin Drum, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein. The problem for them is they spent a year pooh poohing reconciliation and the Schumer Plan when public option advocates argued for splitting the health care bills in a regular order bill and a reconciliation bill. (Notable exception - David Waldman.) There disdain for this has come back to bite them. Here's Drum:

There's nothing wrong with the media reporting that Republicans oppose the use of reconciliation to amend the healthcare bill. Of course they do. But they owe it to their audience to explain that reconciliation does nothing more than allow a simple majority vote to pass budgetary issues and that it's been used routinely by both parties for decades. That's just the simple truth.

Indeed, it was always a simple truth. But for a year, the Village Dems did not like that simple truth. Now they reap what they sowed.

Speaking for me only

The "pragmatic" Kevin Drum writes:

If Democrats want to pass a healthcare bill, there's only one way to do it: the House needs to pass the existing Senate bill and then the two sides need to agree to a few limited changes. These changes would be passed through both House and Senate via "reconciliation," which allows budget-related measures to be passed with a simple majority.

(Emphasis supplied.) Kevin apparently has not been listening - the House Dems will not play the "and then" game. They do not trust the Senate, and with good reason. Exhibit A is Kent Conrad. here is the political reality Village Dems - the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate Bill "and then" wait for the Senate to agree to a reconciliation fix. They must happen at the same time. That's just the way it is. Deal with it.

Speaking for me only

Nothing demonstrates the cluelessness of the Village Dems more than their obsessiive love of the excise tax. Instead of recognizing that it is not worth the destruction of health care reform, they continue to tout it. Ezra Klein cites Jon Chait writing:

Democrats could have stiffed the unions if a few Republicans stepped forward to support the bill in exchange for tough cost control measures that Obama clearly wanted. But none would do that. It's impossible to pass health care reform without the support of labor unions or any Republican member of Congress.

Yep, that would make political sense for Democrats - "stiff the unions." Honestly, what is it with these Village Dems and their strange obsessive love for the excise tax? Are they really willing to let health care reform go down in flames over it? Apparently.

Speaking for me only