Lincoln says "no" to Reconciliation; Bayh says his support unlikely

Lincoln...
“I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," she said in a statement. "I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/78089-lincoln-rejects-using-reconciliation-to-pass-health-bill

Bayh, "unlikely"
"I don't know at this point, there are nothing but difficult decisions to be made...," Bayh said of the current state of the healthcare debate, before repeating his support for the Senate Finance Committee bill.
"There was at least some Republican support for that approach. ... maybe we should take another look at that," he said. "If Sen. Snowe was willing to vote for it, perhaps there were other Republicans who were willing to."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/78073-bayh-unlikely-to-support-reconciliation-to-pass-healthcare

Not that that means "fightin' Obama" actually has the stomach for it, mind you...

I hope so!

And that's all they need. That's the point of reconciliation.

approval numbers tank.

could hold the entire damn caucus, Congress and Country hostage.

sorry, America

This weekend, I gave the DNC $50 dollars ... and told them that unless I see them grow a spine and demand some party loyalty ... then they can stop asking me for cash.

But ... if I see them start smacking these weak dems around ... I'll start donating every month.

been a dick?

Obama did the best thing in picking Joe as his VP.

It sounds like he would vote for it if he was the last vote needed.

Pretty sure he was on that list.
And maybe even Gore's (Gore picked Holy Joe over Edwards - albeit a long shot - and, I think, Bayh...).

I think the answer to your question is: both.

No more foot dragging.

Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu have already had their say. We burned through months for their sake. Enough already.

ENOUGH! :hi:

If we lose those five, we have five votes to spare. There are other Democrats who might balk (Baucus, Webb, Conrad, and Dorgan come to mind), but for most things there should be enough.

She's been trying to play the "moderate card" for a while now.

I suspect it will pass with 50 + Joe. They will draw straws to see who doesn't have to vote for reconciliation.

I just don't want it to be the turd that is the current Senate bill.

She doesn't have a position yet.

On the encouraging side, while McCaskill has been (annoyingly) saying things like "we're moving too fast," etc., on health care she really has been fairly constructive and not at all like Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu, etc. And she has correctly said that a "scaled-down" bill won't work.

So I'm hopeful that in the end she'd vote for a reconciliation bill. But you're right that she could decide the optics are bad and come up with some bullshit reason to vote no.

support.

Baucus, et al, could be problematic, though. How do we ensure their cooperation?

very major role getting us to this point. Without a passed bill, there is no way to get a comprehensive bill passed through reconciliation.

As annoying as he can be, this likely will be his (and others) legacy. The fact is that it was an incredible task to get those needed 60 votes. (he was also good today with his Social Security protecting bill - which would have been important if the bill would have passed.

to whom I should direct my current disdain. It's hard to keep up sometimes. :7 :hi:

On others like Dorgan and Conrad, I really couldn't figure out if any of the things likely to go are important to them. I would bet that Dorgan, angry as he might be on the re-importation bill, might be a yes. Conrad was in all the Baucus negotiations, but I have no real idea where he stands.

:hi:

By all accounts, email has virtually no effect on members of Congress.

They're most persuaded by in-person visitors and second by phone calls.

Just called about both the HCR bill and Clean energy. I felt like it was a long winded call.

He was a key part of getting a Senate bill that 50 could vote for.

Although the flip side is that since he opposes public option, etc., we may not be able to slip in a whole lot more progressive. It would likely be limited to budgetary fixes to the excise tax, subsidy levels, Medicaid funding, and MAYBE a national exchange rather than a state-based one (though that may not fit under reconciliation anyway).

Still, just last Wednesday, Kent Conrad said he would be willing to support reconciliation for a package of fixes to the Senate bill. So I think he'd be a yes.

The Senate Bill is poison. Could be fixed by Reconciliation, but the problem is, the House Democrats justifiably don't trust the Senate leadership and the White House to deliver the so-called side car. We could all be stuck with a deeply unpopular mandate that everyone was foolish enough to sign off on without reasonable guarantees of a defensible bill.

I've been trying to explain to folks why there should be no House passage of the Senate Bill until we have a binding agreement on the particulars of Reconciliation, including a very public White House vow to lead passage of a decent bill that restores the Public Option, lifts the anti-trust exemption, and puts back Rx drug re-importation. We need to know, and be assured, of exactly what's in the Instruction, including which lines of the budget, how budget items are defined, which committee does the reconciliation, and the date the reconciled bill has to be reported back for passage by the Senate.

Show us the Reconciliation Instruction, and we'll think about supporting this.

In the meantime, the Senate Bill continues to be poison.

and neither bill has re-importation, which rules it out. Now, it would be good if AFTER the bill passes, Obama asks for a stand alone re-importation bill.

You're right about Rx re-importation as a stand-alone amendment.

"a revenue item". Now, it is true that its inclusion would change the budget numbers, but it seems that is not sufficient to say it is a budget item. I hope that you are right, but I have seen many people (not here) say that it is not allowed.

Who knows.:shrug: While I never cease being appalled at its sheer insularity and opaqueness, nothing about the legislative process shocks me anymore.

It would be news if they said anything different.

The only question worth pondering is if there are 6 more equally-knuckleheaded Senators. (well, I know there's one more :eyes: )

So we'll see won't we.

to pass Boosh's tax cuts.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/nelsons-spokesman-makes-it-official-no-on-reconciliation/

We get down to 53 real quick before you get to the maybe types. The margin of error has to be pretty thin. 51 or 52 was probably doable before we lost one of those sure ones which started the run to the right.

Lincoln
Bayh
Nelson
Lieberman
Landrieu

Who else? Who is up for reelection?

I still think we come up with 50.

Although it might depend on what's being considered under reconciliation. If it's a minor package of fixes like getting rid of the Medicaid deal, I think he'd be okay with it. If it's something more ambitious, he might pull back.

As you should be.

until what's-his-name from Massachusetts is seated, of course.

Q3JR4.

the real enemy.

We don't need them.

Bayh's wife sits on the board of several health corporations.

nt

"McCaskill said she would not rule out supporting reconciliation. But, she said, she was “not open” to using the maneuver for a comprehensive fix to the Senate bill."

Mark Begich said he had “strong reservations.”

Sen. Ben Nelson said Democrats should pass a series of smaller health care bills

Lieberman said Democrats needed to reach out one last time to Republicans before moving ahead with reconciliation.

Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor said reconciliation is “certainly not my first choice. I’m not real wild about using that procedure that way.” If it came down to killing health care reform or using reconciliation, Pryor said he will “cross that bridge when I get to it.”

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said she was “leaning against supporting” reconciliation, unless it is used narrowly. “But it would have to be completely transparent and advertised well in advance what those changes are.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32056_Page2.html#ixzz0dmosyBSX

pretty much to make sure we got to 50 (with Biden as the tiebreaker).

Even Lieberman and Lincoln weren't ruling it out (though I doubt either will support it) and the rest, didn't rule it out completely. Moreover, that came out to eight. Of course, left unsaid was whether they canvassed the entire caucus or just asked some of the moderates and found them unsupportive. If they did canvas the whole caucus though, then assuming that at least of a few of the moderates ultimately vote yes, that gives us a bit of a cushion.

.... is that there are 50 votes pretty much locked in for recon. and so that leaves the other 9/10 free to do a little spin for their moderate constituents saying they aren't really in favor of it. The Dems can afford to let them because everyone else is in favor of it.

lol, sadly, that is NOT what's being reported instead it's "Harry doesn't know if he has the votes...." .... but I can dream right?

What's the difference?

Lincoln and Bayh are not real Democrats. I consider both Republicans. So if they both lost, at least we could then focus on trying to the Republican who would pretty much vote the same way they do.

"Dems lack workable plan and retreat on health care"

"Democrats retreated Tuesday from a quick push to pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, lacking a workable strategy to salvage the sweeping legislation that has consumed Congress for more than a year.

"There is no rush," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after a meeting of Senate Democrats. His comments came as two centrists said they would oppose the plan Democratic leaders were considering to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills and put comprehensive legislation on Obama's desk.

A week after the loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat — their 60th vote — cost Democrats undisputed control of the congressional agenda, leaders are still casting about for a way forward"

OMG, simply because Brown won in Massachusetts? I just don't buy any of this. Why is this one, inexperienced newly elected Senator being given so much power over our party and the path forward? This is embarrassing, if true. We don't deserve to be in power if we can not lead on the things we believe in.