The Public Option Through Reconciliation

The list is growing. There are now 16 Senators who have signed on to ask Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass the public health insurance option through "reconciliation." Sen. Michael Bennet from Colorado is circulating a letter to Majority Leader Reid, calling for this strategy.

There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.

The following Democratic Senators have signed the letter to Sen Reid supporting reconciliation to pass a public option.

Sen. Michael Bennet, CO
Sen. Barbara Boxer, CA
Sen. Sherrod Brown, OH
Sen. Roland Burris, IL
Sen. Diane Feinstein, CA
Sen. Al Franken, MO
Sen. Kristin Gillibrand, NY
Sen. John Kerry, MA
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Sen. Patrick Leahy, VT
Sen.. Jeff Merkley OR
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, MD
Sen. Jack Reed, RI
Sen. Bernie Sanders, VT
Sen. Tom Udall, MN
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, RI

Has your Senator taken a stand? Click Here to see if your Senator needs to be called to support the public health insurance option through reconciliation.

Do the Bankers Own Congress?

Legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) recently failed to overcome a 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. This measure would have allowed bankruptcy judges "to modify troubled mortgages, lowering the interest rate or principal balance, a process known as a cramdown. Bankruptcy courts can already make those changes for a second home or investment property, but not a primary residence."

Durbin noted that estimated foreclosures during the housing crisis has ballooned from 2 million to 8 million since his campaign for the change to the bankruptcy code began. He said, "I'll be back. I'm not going to quit on this."

Supporters argued the measure would keep 1.7 million borrowers in their homes, but it ultimately foundered in the face of fierce financial industry and Republican opposition. The bankruptcy modification provision, which was offered an amendment to a broader housing bill, failed by a vote of 45 to 51.

Daily Kos is correct:

The concept by Durbin, Boxer, and Schumer was simple -- allow bankruptcy judges to change terms of peoples' mortgages so that they could make payments that they could afford.

This is a sad day for this country when we have so-called "Democrats" who cave into the Republicans as though George Bush were still in office and Tom DeLay, John Boehner, and Roy Blunt were stalking the floors of Congress bullying reluctant members to go along with the Bush administration's unconstitutional schemes.

The following so-called "Democrats" decided that they would favor the banking industry over the well-being over 2 million people whose homes are in danger of being foreclosed on:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)

An interesting point is that 5 of the 12 senators who voted NO [in bold] had previously joined with Evan Bayh's "conservadems." Bayh even voted YES on this bill.

Then of course Arlen Specter, who just switched to being a Democrat in name only, also voted with the Republicans.

Anyone Surprised? Maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be.

Sen. Reid believes that the Senate will agree to bipartisan legislation without the need for reconciliation. Reconciliation would insure that major bills would pass by a simple majority vote and avoid a Republican filibuster. He specifically sees this bipartisan legislation working on the issue of health care.

As evidence that he's hoping not to rely on reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes, Reid noted that with Sen. Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week, he would need just one Republican to cross over to get the 60 votes needed.

Sen. Reid needs to wake up to reality. The vote on the Durbin amendment was bipartisan only on the Republican side.

What about President Obama? According to Arianna Huffington, Obama needs to say 'enough' to the bankers.

Republicans are in a Tizzy over Reconciliation

New York Times:

Republicans are in a tizzy that Democrats are threatening to use the budgetary procedure known as reconciliation — it reconciles policy with fiscal guidelines — to overhaul the health-care system, possibly enact legislation on climate change and rewrite education policy.

They have good reason to fret. If Democrats successfully invoke reconciliation, such major bills could pass by a simple majority vote, denying Republicans the filibuster, their sole remaining weapon to influence federal policy given the Democratic grip on government.

Media Matters:

The Los Angeles Times reported Sen. Mitch McConnell's criticism of Democrats' potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health-care reform without noting that he repeatedly voted in favor of using reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.

Think Progress:

Santorum: What the Democrats have done is to try to short-circuit the process on a major piece of legislation. This has never been done before. We have never seen a major, long-term, policy prescription, whether it's Medicare, or go back throughout history and look at all the major pieces of legislation, none of them have ever been passed using this procedure. ... This is truly an abomination.

Of course, reconciliation has been used nearly 20 times since 1980, when it was first created.

Indeed, Santorum himself was the Senate Republicans' point man in trying to push welfare reform through budget reconciliation in 1995, including it in a budget then-President Clinton opposed.

Senator Judd Gregg (NH-R)

1. “We are using the rules of the Senate here,” Mr. Gregg said in 2005 as he fought off Democratic complaints that reconciliation was wrongly being employed to block filibusters against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.”

2. “It is not appropriate to use reconciliation, which cuts off the role of the Senate, on something as broad and extensive as rewriting the health care laws of this country,” said Mr. Gregg in one of his many attempts to explain why he is against reconciliation after he was for it.