What If Scott Brown Wins?
[Guest post by DRJ]
ABC’s Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl look at how a Scott Brown win in the Massachusetts’ Senate race would impact health care reform. I recommend the entire post but here’s their bottom line if Brown wins:
“Bottom line is, under the current plan, Unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed; or, 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.”
At that point, the Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill in the House so the Senate doesn’t have to vote any more. As Tapper and Karl point out, Pelosi is reluctant but “Senate Democrats and White House officials would push hard the notion that the bills are 90 percent similar and not doing so would be allowing the insurance companies to win.”
On the Senate side, the Democrats could bypass normal Senate rules and pass the legislation through reconciliation, a process that only requires 50 votes. I could see that happening but the political fallout would be even greater than Democrats already face.
That leaves delaying Brown’s certification. Thus, if Brown wins, and that’s a big if, I think delay will still be on the Democrats’ menu.
— DRJ
If the Dems try to unreasonably delay Brown’s certification, the Republicans will use every parliamentary trick in the book to delay the healthcare bill. And it’ll be a huge issue in the 2010 election.
I think that would be political suicide.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:20 pmSo you are expecting them to try it too, Steven?
hehe.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:21 pmBrown’s election won’t change any votes?
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:25 pmI think that the Tsongas situation—sent up to override a veto, what, three days after the election—can be used, nationally, to beat the Democrats silly with the Partisan Hypocrisy Stick.
And if anyone thinks that wouldn’t matter in subsequent elections, they should probably speak a number of congresscritters under fire right now. Paging Ben Nelson!
Here I thought POTUS was going to put partisanship behind us? And I guess that all the Democratic tricks are because the Republicans are being partisan?
Riiiiggghhht, as Dr. Evil says.
That kind of approach doesn’t impress me as a father, and it won’t impress voters, either.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:29 pmSo no mention of changing filibuster rules?
imdw (017d51) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:34 pmThere’s a point in every battle when the tide turns: when the losing side realizes it’s going to lose, and individual soldiers start becoming more interested in their own personal survival than in the outcome of the battle.
First a few run away, and then more, and more. Ironically, in most battles, this is when the most severe casualties usually occur.
If Brown wins, we probably won’t be at that point. But, we should be able to see it from here.
JayC (46ff20) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:34 pmAt least we finally got Barry to go to Mass on Sunday…
Gazzer (e940fc) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:36 pmCheating and lying – that’s been the Democrats main tools throughout this year. They’ve had controlling majorities of both houses and yet, cheating and lying.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:36 pmhappyfeet:
It might but I think the Obama Administration will put a lot of pressure on House members to stay onboard or face a well-financed opponent in their next primary race. My guess is most fear a primary opponent with deep pockets more than the election itself.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:37 pmGood sweet God, but trolls are annoying. Somewhere, a bong is missing its user.
Back to the point, DRJ. Tapper writes:
Um. Did that happen with Niki Tsongas in 2007? I think she was sent up VERY quickly after the election, to override a veto, right?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/10/after_taking_oa.html
Sure looks like less than ten days, DRJ.
Or is that…well, different?
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:37 pmEric Blair, Ben Nelson couldn’t even eat pizza in peace in their hometown this week without customers booing him and demanding he get the hell out, as one customer put it. You bet voters will remember the Dems behavior in the next election.
If Brown wins, the Dems will find themselves in a no-win position as their options are limited, and those options will bring rather unintended consequences that will not help the party in the next round of elections. They’ll have their bill, but it will come at a very high cost.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:37 pm“As Tapper and Karl point out, Pelosi is reluctant but “Senate Democrats and White House officials would push hard the notion that the bills are 90 percent similar and not doing so would be allowing the insurance companies to win.””
So a GOP win leaves us with a shittier bill. Why not also then see what can be fixed in another bill that moves with reconciliation? That should have been the strategy from the beginning. 2 bills, and things could move between them as needed.
imdw (688568) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:44 pmimdw,
Thomas Geoghegan thinks Democrats won’t end the filibuster because the threat of a Republican filibuster is at the heart of their fundraising. I think Democrats will think twice because someday they will want to use the filibuster, too. And why change the rule if reconciliation does the same thing?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:48 pmThe Democrats established a whole new precedent by using the filibuster to block Bush judicial nominations, like Miguel Estrada for an appeals court position. That was to block the possibility that he could be the first Hispanic nominee for the USSC. Of course, he is eminently qualified and is an immigrant. The filibuster was established 200 years ago for legislation, not nominees. There was a threat, referred to as the “nuclear option,” to end the filibuster and the Republicans backed off. If the Democrats go for a rules change, they may regret it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:54 pmReid already knows he is personally done. Why on earth would he do something noble at this point? There is going to be a disastrous bill jammed through, either through “ping pong” or through reconciliation. To be honest, the ping pong option is the better one at this point, If the Dems are forced to go through a conference committee, they will go for the gusto since they will all know they are done as the majority anyway. This will be their one last chance to change the ground rules in our republic. A wounded animal is far more dangerous, eh?
Again…..Reid has nothing to lose now, regardless the MA special on Tuesday.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:56 pmI don’t believe that Lieberman will vote for a bill until Brown is seated…..I could be wrong, but there is no downside for him if he holds out and a lot of upside.
rls (e58293) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:56 pmThe Dems won’t change the filibuster rule. The Republicans didn’t when the Dems were using it during the Bush years.
Why? Because the Dems know that someday they’ll be in the minority again, and they’ll want the filibuster in place when that time comes. If they eliminate it now, it won’t be there for them when they need it later.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:16 pm“And why change the rule if reconciliation does the same thing?”
My understanding is that reconciliation is only for budget things — so things like medicare part D, the public option, and the subsidies/taxes could go in through that. But other important policy questions such as the pre-existing condition coverage, the exchanges (national vs. state based) and the mandate can’t. I think the shitty things in the senate bill aren’t just of the first type but also include the second.
“The filibuster was established 200 years ago for legislation, not nominees.”
Actually what is the history here? I know civil rights bills faced a filibuster. What else before that? The Federalist papers do warn us against supermajority requirements — when describing the few things that the constitution requires a supermajority for. But otherwise the constitution doesn’t include it — but does give each house of congress the power to set its own rules.
imdw (c70387) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:23 pmYes but it’s not a filibuster-filibuster, when’s the last time they had a real one, 1986?
ian cormac (dfb136) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:24 pmthe dems won’t change the filibuster rule but it’s always in their interest to paint it as illegitimate cause their media knows when to underscore that and when not to…
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:27 pmDRJ
When was the last time the Democrats used reconciliation or the Republicans – or does anyone know?
EricPWJohnson (2a84ab) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:34 pmMy guess is they will – since they know its the last time to pass this evah as they probably will not reach 60 votes again for two or three decades
This is about history books, ego’s and unfortunately not about America and its people
EricPWJohnson (2a84ab) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:37 pmSo DRJ, if the Dems just try to pass the Senate version in the House then that means that the Cornhusker Kickback stays in, the Senate abortion languate (which Stupak has called “unacceptable”) stays in, and the tax on Cadillac health care plans stays in, right? The only way they can do this is to take the Senate bill exactly as it passed on the 60-40 vote. If they make any modifications, then it would have to go back to the Senate for a re-vote, right? That would be an AWESOME can of worms to watch them try to open.
Tell me if I am wrong here.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:38 pmGiven how little the big media is willing to call them on their procedural actions, I could easily see the Democrats voting to eliminate the filibuster rule in the spring, only to vote to put it back again between the November 2010 midterms (or the Nov. 2012 election) and the end of the year, if they know the Republicans are going to regain control of the Senate during the next legislative session (recall, if you will, the anti-lobbying rules Bill Clinton put in when elected and the GHWB people were leaving office, only to rescind the rules on how long you had to wait before becoming a lobbyist as one of his final acts in office in 2001).
As long as the Democratic leadership — mostly people in safe seats or deep Blue states — has nothing to fear personally from the big media for their actions, they’re going to keep pulling these maneuvers to maintain their power, even if it does cost lower-seniority pols in less safe seats their positions.
John (620750) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:40 pmAgain, the Tsongas “quick turnaround” time is in direct contradiction to what Tapper and company were claiming.
I think/hope the RNC can set up an interview with Representative Tsongas to ask her opinion of that particular “Massachusetts State Law” about “at least” a ten day waiting period.
I sense a national advertising campaign about the most honest and ethical Congress in history. Don’t you?
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:55 pmOnce the filibuster is gone, it is gone forever. No rational party would ever reinstate it.
Techie (43d092) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:22 pmEric, for what it’s worth, the Mass Secretary of State claims that the difference between the Tsongas quick swearing-in and the potential wait for the winner of the Senate race is due to different procedural rules in the House and Senate. He may just be blowing smoke up our you-know-whats, but that is his story and he’s sticking to it.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:28 pmThe precedent is pretty clear in each house. A person with credentials certified by a secretary of state shows up to claim a seat, they are seated forthwith, absent significant, and I mean significant irregularity.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:52 pmJohn, if they delete the filibuster when it’s inconvenient and put it back later, they’ve established the precedent that it can be gotten rid of by the majority whenever the majority wants to.
Techie is right: as a practical matter, if the Dems get rid of the filibuster now, it’s gone forever.
As to certification delay, it may not matter. Someone else posted an interesting analysis: the quickie Massachusetts law passed last fall that allowed that senate seat to be filled is worded such that his appointment ends when the election takes place, NOT when his replacement is sworn in. If that’s really how that law gets interpreted by the courts, then the Democratic majority drops from 60 to 59 next Wednesday even if Coakley gets elected, and stays that way until she’s sworn in.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:54 pmJVW, I am sure that that weasel in MA actually did say that. And I want him interviewed, on tape, explaining it…and more particularly, his feelings about the “fairness and equity” of the procedure.
It’ll make great fodder for the RNC. And I am thinking that the Democrats are acting too dim or drunk to know it.
I think that more and more Americans are getting interested in tar and feathers!
Eric Blair (70639b) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:10 pmSteve, you’re right about the precedent it would set. But you also have the actions of the past 16 years to consider. It’s been established that the Democrats are perfectly willing to justify with no shame or embarrassment differing sets of rules when they are in and when they are out of power — a tactic they can do, thanks to the big media outlets for the most part not only balking at calling the party out on it, but eagerly serving as the Democrats’ inquisitors when challenging Republicans if they attempt the same actions.
Push the story line enough that the Republicans are playing unfairly, and you can get a significant group of moderates who aren’t closely attuned to politics to assume, based on media repetition, that it really is the Republicans who are the ones flaunting the rules. And while that wouldn’t be an issue if the elected GOP senators were to stand firm on their position, there are always those like the Collins and Snowe in Maine or former Republican Arlen Specter who were perfectly willing to go along with the media and Democratic spin in hopes of keeping those moderates on their side.
So as much as it would seem today that the Democrats could never get away with:
1.) Eliminating the filibuster to pass ObamaCare, cap & trade and/or immigration reform, then;
2.) Restoring it just before they lose power and then;
3.) Successfully complaining that the Republicans were trying to silence dissent by eliminating it again when the GOP regains control of the Senate, it’s possible.
All it would take is a whitewashing of the recent past successful enough to sway moderates and the moderate GOP senators that court them (or even a mea culpa by surviving Dems in the Senate, saying they were wrong to eliminate the filibuster in the first place and are truly, truely sorry), and you’d end up with the rule back in place … until, of course, the next time the Democrats took over the Senate.
John (d4490d) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:50 pmComment by Eric Blair — 1/16/2010 @ 11:10 pm
Tar & Feathers, Hell!
AD - RtR/OS! (98852f) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:30 amSome of these clowns need to have a Tramp Stamp applied with a 12g.
Here’s the thing with the “delay seating Brown” option — the big dogs don’t have to take the blame for it.
Local clerks have 15 days to forward their town/city tallies to the Secretary of State. They CAN get them all in on the first night, but they don’t HAVE to.
Galvin (the Massachusetts Secretary of State) can throw up his hands and say “I have nothing to do with it.” Hell, he can even be theatrically opposed to the delay, pound on his desk and scream at the Worcester clerk and the Waltham clerk and the Gloucester clerk to hurry up … but if those lower-level election bureaucrats decide to wait 15 days, then it will be 15 days.
Does anyone believe that there aren’t a few local Democrat public officials who will happily risk their careers to hold up Brown — especially knowing they’ll probably get plum appointments to better jobs later, after the outrage dies down?
If Brown wins, it could be February 3rd before his victory is certified in Massachusetts, even if Galvin and Patrick don’t delay at all. And after state certification, there’s the matter of the Democrat-controlled Senate being constitutionally empowered to judge the qualifications and elections of its members.
Meanwhile the Democrats said on 14th that they expected to have the bill to CBO for scoring within a few days and that a vote could take place in as little as two weeks — which would be January 28th. You do the math.
Personally, I think they’d be making a mistake by delaying Brown — they’ll be better off in November if they lose on CannibalCare and have most of the year to whip up their base by blaming those mean old Republicans for tanking it than they will be if they pass it — but they’re Democrats and right now a Democrat is like a hungry pit bull with a big meaty bone in its jaws that it just can’t let go of. They will do whatever they have to to pass ObamaCare, even if costs them beaucoup seats in November.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:02 amIf they delay the certification and Paul Kirk casts the 60th vote, there will be no way to spin that as a purely Mass. act — it will be seen and interpreted as a D.C./W.H/Dem. Party act.
They will get crucified for it across the country for 10 months, and they will lose both the house and Senate in Nov.
That said, they might think that is a chance they are willing to take and a price they are willing to pay. Once this passes, with Obama in the WH, even if the GOP takes back both houses of Congress, they aren’t going to get his signature on anything that amounts to a rollback of the reform.
Even if Obama is defeated in 2012, Senate Dems will use to filibuster to block any legislation that amounts to a rollback of the reform.
The best the GOP could do if it gained control of the WH and Legis. is attempt to use reconciliation on the parts of the reform that involve funding and budget. They could do a lot in that regard, but not everything.
WLS Shipwrecked (3d3fb8) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:45 amMembers from safe districts won’t have to pay a price, others will. The question may be, Do they have the courage of their convictions? I really haven’t seen a lot of courageous politicians willing to take a hit for principles recently.
There has to be a lot of second guessing going on right now with more than a few rats wanting to flee a sinking ship. The spin coming out of dc is just static. I think it’s still a crapshoot until it’s over.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:34 amIf the vote is delayed until Brown is certified, and the Dems don’t get the needed 60 votes, then truly: dying will have been the greatest accomplishment of the liberal lion.
Still to come: Reid and ‘KKK’ Byrd’s greatest accomplishments.
[I wonder if Mary Jo is waterboarding him right now]
Icy Texan (fb1d52) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:04 amA lot depends on the margin by which Brown is elected. If he wins by 15 points, the Democrats will have a hard time making anything stick in a delay. They will then have to deal with individual members trying to save their own skins. A massive blowout next November may have a catastrophic effect on lobbyist jobs in DC, for example. Nobody wants to go back to Searchlight, NV, or ots equivalent.
Actually what is the history here?
The Senate has always had, by its own rules, no limit to debate. In the beginning, both houses had the filibuster in terms of no limits on debate. House rules changed in the 1830s or so.
The first cloture rule was in 1917 and was 2/3. Byrd got it changed to 60 votes 25 years ago.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:24 amScott Brown isnt going to win. If he manages to win the Dems will somehow steal it.
Dopey (a812c5) — 1/17/2010 @ 5:14 amWell we have to count all the military ballots!
imdw (8f8ead) — 1/17/2010 @ 5:53 amIt may be easy to ignore the cries of the “Tea Bag” bunch, but when “true blue” MA goes for a Republican to replace old Teddy, ignoring them will not be an option.
Neo (7830e6) — 1/17/2010 @ 6:28 amThe only mistake that the Democrats have not made that would make this pending defeat even more complete is if they had name the ObamaCare bill after Teddy.
So far though, the ObamaCare bill and the Senate special election have acted as a near perfect stand in for a Ted Kennedy memorial in the proportions and flavor of that given to Paul WellStone.
Comment by WLS Shipwrecked — 1/17/2010 @ 2:45 am
Astute as always, WLS Shipwrecked, but bear in mind the point Mark Steyn has been making for the last few months: the Dems are willing to lose Congress over this issue because they know that passing a government health care takeover is a way of permanently codifying the welfare state in America and spreading it as widely as possible across the citizenry. Look at nations that have nationalized health care and you will notice that even the conservative parties there have accepted it as a fact of life that can never be altered. Once it passes here, the Dems will lose elections for a few years but from here to the end of time we will be playing on their side of the field, so in the end they will have won.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/17/2010 @ 8:21 amThey wouldn’t dare. Refusing to seat a duly-elected representative until after a piece of legislation is voted on would be a Earth-shaking Constitutional Crisis. It would imply that the majority party has the right and ability to deny minority party members their vote.
Techie (43d092) — 1/17/2010 @ 8:33 amThere are restrictions to reconciliation, do any of these apply to the healthcare bill?
Audacity (2fd5ad) — 1/17/2010 @ 11:09 am“There are restrictions to reconciliation, do any of these apply to the healthcare bill?”
The main one is that it is only for budget items. So straight up policy — no denial of preexisting conditions, the mandate, the exchange — can’t come in reconciliation.
imdw (d077dd) — 1/17/2010 @ 11:21 amComment by WLS Shipwrecked — 1/17/2010 @ 2:45 am
The point has been brought up by others that Mr. Kirk’s appointment ends with the closure of the polls on Tuesday
AD - RtR/OS! (b27208) — 1/17/2010 @ 11:25 am(language in the legislation changing the method – again – to fill a vacant Senate seat);
therefore, it seems there are not 60 votes for this bill if it is brought up for a vote prior to the swearing-in of his replacement – ATBE.
I DARE the Dems to try it.
The march on DC to follow will make the Tea Party march look like a stroll in the park.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:08 pmIf Brown wins, I think it will cap Obama’s first year as the worst managed first year of a Presidential administration in at least a century if not longer.
Clinton’s first year was full of gaffes but I think Obama will push memory of that well down.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:33 pmI agree, SPQR. Obama threw the dice on his whole program, as opposed to Clinton, and the dems will pay the price. Thank goodness!
Living under the Taliban proved to be the best cure for Talibanism; same is true for Dem liberalism.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 1/17/2010 @ 5:15 pm