FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

1/5/2010
Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference

Breaking news today: Senate and House leaders will not take their various and sundry health care “reform” bills to a conference committee. Instead, they’ll negotiate informally. Unofficially. They’ll bypass normal Congressional procedure in an attempt to “allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations.”

Yeah, those horrible Republicans, planning to use public debate to “stall” the health care “reform” bill.

Quick aside: I know there are really only two versions of the bill. I just like using the phrase “various and sundry.”

Quick aside #2: if you regularly read FoxPolitics, you probably already know what a conference committee is. If not, click here.

Back to the story: Whether or not this move will, in fact, help the Democrats seems unclear. Yes, they’ll bypass a number of procedural motions that they’d normally have to vote on. But they’ll still have to win the final vote, and that’ll still require cloture – they’ll need 60 in the Senate to break a filibuster.

Both houses skated over millimeter-thick ice to pass their respective bills in the first place. Last-second compromises and deals not just recommended, but required. In the House, a mini-revolt of pro-life Democrats meant an amendment limiting federal funding for abortions. In the Senate, the “public option” was dropped. Without these deals, the bills wouldn’t have passed.

Whether or not Democrat leaders can craft a compromise to protect their already-shaky coalitions…well, that’s a question.

Another question: how far can they push their real liberal “progressive” members – not just with concessions and compromises, but with the smoke-filled back-roomishness the whole process is taking on?

To be sure, many expect House liberals to ultimately support the plan no matter how this process plays out. But House progressives are already infuriated by the multiple concessions they’ve been forced to make, and cutting them out of the process could only bruise feelings more and harden their resolve to hold the line against the eventual compromise.

That’s Greg Sargent, writing at The Plum Line. Like he said, many (most, all) liberals – not just House liberals – will likely support whatever bill comes out of their respective houses. To do otherwise would be handing themselves a major defeat.

But it wouldn’t take many liberal “progressive” members jumping ship to sink the whole thing. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

I and other progressives saw a conference as a means to improve the bill and have a real debate, and now with this behind-the-scenes approach, we’re concerned even more.

It also wouldn’t take much to knock Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) off the “yes” list. Nelson, you may recall, was the last Senate Democrat to say “yes,” but only after getting $100 million in pork – a “Cornhusker kickback” – for Nebraska.

Enter the magic of unintended consequences: Nelson's poll numbers immediately plummeted so far and fast that he bought commercial time during the Nebraska-Arizona bowl game. And he’s not up for re-election until 2012.

Any tiny change to the bill will give him the excuse he needs.

Am I confident? Nope. Optimistic? Not really. With such large majorities in both houses and a liberal Democrat president, Democrats can’t afford to pass nothing, health care-wise. And I’ve said before: I’m more worried about a slow, little-bit-at-a-time approach than about a great, big, everything-right-now approach.

Still: Conservatives and Republicans are united in opposition. If this bill has problems, it’s because liberals and Democrats can’t agree.

And liberals and Democrats can’t, it would appear, agree.

Lance Burri blogs regularly via his site, The TrogloPundit.

COMMENTS

This could very well be my shortest post ever ... anywhere.

What ever happened to everyone sitting down around a table on C-SPAN, totally transparent?

Just wondering.

Jeff Riedl (Tue Jan 05 07:56:58 2010)

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! There is no longer a moral high ground in congress due mostly to a complete and absolute polarization. Our elected officials have made the process so convoluted that any form of civil dialog or simple disagreement is impossible. Any legislation whether progressive or conservative cannot be passed without riders, amendments and blocking moves designed to add waste, fat and in the end self-serving opportunity. It is no longer possible to have the healthy debate you suggest. The rules have corupted that dream. Party line prevails and is clearly absolute on both sides of the aisle.

billie (Tue Jan 05 07:57:35 2010)

Lance, how you got through that entire article without mentioning the one and only driving force -- $125 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry -- is absolutely amazing. Here's some breaking news: Democrats are prostitutes too!

It matters not what is in the best interest of the public, it only matters what their campaign funders want. Insurance stocks have risen by 30% since October, because this "reform" is going to eclipse even the $780 billion Medicare Drug giveaway in 2003.

This is not a partisan issue. It is now and always has been an issue of political corruption.

Jack Lohman (Tue Jan 05 08:12:06 2010)

Three questions:
1. Why did the Democratic leadership make this (supposedly nefarious) decision? Because the Senate GOP won't allow a bathroom break without six days of debate. The republic has never seen such abuse of the filibuster. You should urge Mitch McConnell to behave like a reasonable human being and promise not to turn a conference committee into a month of delay. If he did so, you'd have one.

2. What's the real world impact of this decision? Aside from allowing various right-wingers to feign outrage, precious little. One inevitably party-line committee vote has been cut out of the process. The real negotiations are always done in private even with a formal conference committee.

3. What value do you add when you simply parrot back talking points written in DC post after post? You'll have to answer that one.

And a bonus question: why should I take anyone seriously who doesn't know and use the correct adjectival form for one of his country's two major political parties?

Don't be a hack (Tue Jan 05 10:45:27 2010)

$125 million? That's all they could come up with? I thought doctors were rich.

No wonder Congress is about to give the health care industry a giant suppository. They shoulda ponied up more.

Lance (Tue Jan 05 17:02:04 2010)

I love it Lance.
Hack, would folks take you more seriously if you didn't post anonymously?

Jo (Tue Jan 05 17:22:10 2010)

Hey Hack
It would be nice if I knew who I was addressing, but with your comments i understand your secrecy
1. "Abuse of the Filibuster" I guess you weren't around in 1964 during the civils rights debate, only it was the Dems back then !
Do you have any idea of what "debate" means in a Republic?
2 The "real impact" my friend, because you have no concept, is that we elect people to represent us, and this is completely thwarting our rights as citizens to have representation at ALL TIMES!
3. Thats Nonsense !
4. And your bonus answer is : ?
Resorting to critiquing rhetoric use is an alibi used by those not up to real debate on the issues and is just a simple subterfuge.

My-My no cupie doll here

Rich Carlstedt (Tue Jan 05 21:32:31 2010)

Yea, there are a lot of games being played to avoid the politician's damnable voter's ire, which simply gets in the way of their bending over for the industry. And THAT should upset both the D's and R's, but they both have their their sights on the wrong ball. Most are concerned with the effect but ignore the cause.

Jack Lohman (Wed Jan 06 10:06:26 2010)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend