Deem and Pass — Addio?
Whoever watched the “PBS New Hour” last evening, knows that David Brooks was almost apoplectic regarding the possible use of the deem and pass tactic; and even genial Mark Shields deemed it less than desirable.
Well, it seems someone was listening:
With the ground shifting by the hour, House Democratic leaders said they would drop a plan to approve the Senate health care bill without taking a direct vote on it. That proposed maneuver had outraged Republicans and caused consternation among some Democrats.
Instead, Democrats said they would vote Sunday first on revisions to the Senate bill — included in a budget reconciliation measure — and then directly on the Senate bill itself. Many House Democrats had said they would oppose the Senate bill without the revisions.
Democrats said the outcome would be the same: the Senate bill would be sent to Mr. Obama, who would sign it into law, and the reconciliation bill would go to the Senate, which could take it up within days.
Can it be that Speaker Pelosi also dips into dotCommonweal on the sly?
The story is here.
Ross Douthat, interestingly enough, takes a somewhat different position on his NYT weblog (which is distinct from his column and well-worth reading). Douthat defends both the filibuster AND the use of techniques like reconciliation and deem and pass.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/the-system-sort-of-works/
Here’s an excerpt:
I think it’s a good thing that the countermajoritarian customs of the Senate, as adapted by the minority for a more ideological age, have made it very difficult to pass a sweeping overhaul of America’s de facto constitution. But I also think it’s appropriate that there exists, for an extremely determined but not-quite-super majority, mechanisms that allow legislators to overcome these hurdles and push a controversial piece of legislation through. “Hard but not absolutely impossible” seems like the right bar to set for a bill of this nature. I wish the Democrats had chosen a different path, but in the end, we live in a republic, not a direct democracy: If our elected representatives can really muster enough votes, within the rules, to pass health care legislation even after everything that’s happened — if they believe that strongly, in other words, that this is absolutely and without question the right policy for America — then they have every right to go for it. It may be their funeral, but it’s certainly their prerogative.
I don’t know if Nancy Pelosi ever checks out dotCommonweal, but I hope she doesn’t read The Anchoress over on First Things, who calls Pelosi a “glammed-up guttersnipe,” an “abominable woman,” “a power-mad, ruthless, mendacious grotesque” and a “sad she-clown/useful idiot.”
This is the way The Anchoress describes herself over at her blog: “I have no illusions that I am holy, but as a shy sort of person who prefers to hang in the background, the persona {anchoress] suits.:
Hmmm. Sure fooled me.
One of the profound misunderstandings of this health care imbroglio is that many americans oppose the House and Senate bill. I believe there is a very strong sentiment in the country that a bill covering everybody must be passed. The bishops are wrong again. And so are many others.
Peter,
it’s that old Catholic both/and.
Shall I presume that by both/and you mean that, from the beginning, it was always possible to create a universal Health Care Plan that would provide quality and affordable health care AND protect the fundamental, unalienable, Right to Life that is endowed to every Human Individual from our Creator from the moment each Human Individual is brought into being at Conception?
If this bill passes, and it looks like it will, Nancy Pelosi will have done it. Both Obama and Emanuel chickened out and offered to pare down the bill. Pelosi called it “kiddicare” and let the president know it. How fitting. They made fun of Hilary who might have been out of her league when she first proposed a needed health care bill. Now Pelosi beating them all at their own game has the smarts and the guts to push this through. She has shown the incompetent bishops how to be Catholic. In high heels no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html?ref=todayspaper
Bill, when all this is over, I suspect someone will write a book on it. I just hope they discover and use your line:
“She (Pelosi) has shown the incompetent bishops how to be Catholic. In high heels no less.
It is a gem!
The Anchores’s description shows the continued downward spiral in discourse .Her critics when scorned will cry “civility” when what continues to be lacking across the blog world and the world of politics is that very thing.
And it continues to get worse as we saw yesterday with the crowds trying to intimidate reps and shouting ugly epithets.
No matter whether health care passes or not, our political (and often enough ecclesial) scene continues to degenerate into inane rants.
The big money campaign allowed by the SC will be met by new technology “leveling the playing field” mockeries.
But folks have really litle idea of how to compromise and dialogue though we use those words with facility today – just like civility.
For myself, I hope the imperfect bill passes and I respect the speaker; (and J. Peter’s post is germane to the congrssiuonal technique issue.
But the dividers will argue, the talking head will go on and on. and the spinmeisters earn their pay at their masters’ behest in churning out propaganda.
And our Country (and our Church) about which we say we’re so patriotic (so faithful) about will continue to become more stridently divided.
Michael Winters on America blog says Stupak to vote yes..by taking Obama pledge for handling abortion language by executive order ..If so Nuns 10… bishops 0
And Sunday afternoon not a great day for episcopal back pedaling. Just like a lot of Big East and Big West roundball teams they lost in round one.
Ed,
From what I have heard so far today, Stupak is essentially writing the executive order that Obama will issue. The nuns were happy to have the bill passed as is. Stupak, although not getting a change in the language of the bill, is nevertheless getting a guarantee that the nuns would have foregone. So I don’t see why this should be read as a victory for the nuns. It seems more like a victory for Stupak, and I doubt that he would be doing this without the support of the USCCB.
I think the USCCB was reading the bill incorrectly, so I think the nuns were right in being comfortable with passing the bill as is. But it seems to me to be no small thing for Stupak to succeed in getting Obama himself to be the one to give the assurances on abortion that he and the USCCB consider necessary. I am betting the Catholic pro-life movement will be on board by the end of the day, but the rest of the pro-life movement (basically those who would have opposed the bill no matter what its impact on abortion) will consider this a defeat.
David,
The nuns supported health care as written by the Senate. Bishops did not support health care as written by Senate. Stupak and pro-life allies will support the Senate langusge with an executive order add-on. I still say Nuns won ..bishops lost. Maybe tomorrow or next week some bishops will weasel word their way into saying they can accept the health care bill as is. but I bet you lunch they will add in something about hoping Obama doesn’t welsh on the deal.. They are NOT gracious losers. This is the best pro-life victory in 35 years..The Democratic party is now a big tent party and Republican mid-term election victory chances will be history. Tip…[Republican owned stock market will be down Monday... buy on this dip]
“This is the best pro-life victory in 35 years.”
I’m sorry, Ed, but this may be overstating things a bit. At best, this is preservation of the status quo. Bishops and other pessimistic voices within the pro-life community doubt it’s even that good.