Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-Passing Health Care with a Majority in the Senate Isn
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:33:57 EST
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Passing Health Care with a Majority in the Senate Isn’t  “Jamming” It 
Through—It’s Democracy 
A new 3-D version of Alice In  Wonderland will soon be released into the 
nation’s theaters.  But you don’t have to wait to enter a  world where up is 
down and, as Alice says: “Nothing would be what it is, because everything 
would be  what it isn't. And contrary-wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what 
it wouldn't  be, it would. You see?”  
All you need to do is to enter the world of Washington Conventional  Wisdom 
where we have become so used to the notion that 60 votes are needed to  
pass something in the 100-person Senate,  that we are now told that passing a  
health care bill with a simple majority involves “jamming it through.”   
Since the Massachusetts special election deprived Democrats of a nominal  
60 votes in the Senate, Democratic leaders have pondered how best to enact 
the  health care bill that –until Tuesday night – seemed to command the 
support of a  majority of the House and 60% of the Senate.  
One option under consideration involves the House passing the Senate  
version of the bill as well as a second bill that includes the agreements  
negotiated in the conference between the Senate and House.  The second bill would 
then be considered  under the “budget reconciliation” rules that would not 
be subject to a Senate  filibuster and could therefore become law with the 
support of a majority  vote.    
But to hear some the Republicans, a few conservative Democrats, and  
portions of the media, you’d think that the idea of passing something with a  
majority in the Senate is a grave perversion of the Rule of Law – and would  
involve “jamming” the legislation through Congress.  That formulation could 
well have come  from the Mad Hatter. In democracies, the majorities get to 
make laws. In a  democracy the Minority tail should not be allowed to wag the 
Majority dog.  
What is undemocratic is  the idea that a minority – that also happens to 
represent the insurance industry  and other wealthy, vested interests – can 
block the will of the majority.  
During the last few years we’ve gotten so used to the idea that all major  
legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate that it now sounds  “
natural.”  Some people even believe  it is in the Constitution.  But of  course 
that’s not true.  The  Constitution assumes that both the House and Senate 
require a majority to  conduct business and pass laws.   
Scott Brown was not elected to be  the 51st Republican in the Senate.  He 
was elected to be the 41st  Republican.  That should not entitle  Republicans 
to block every significant piece of legislation – to block  fundamental 
change.   
If we allow them to, shame on us.  
In the short term, unless a Republican agrees to join with Democrats to  
cut off debate and bring the health care compromise to a vote in the Senate, 
the  bill negotiated between the House and Senate leadership should be passed 
using  the budget reconciliation rules.  
The use of this procedure is not at all unprecedented.  The States’ Children
’s Health Insurance  program (SCHIP) was originally passed using 
reconciliation rules.  The Bush tax cuts were all passed with a  simple majority vote 
using budget reconciliation rules. Nobody argued these  measures were being “
jammed through” because they did not require 60 votes.  
And at some point soon, it is absolutely clear that the Senate rules must  
be changed to assure that if a bill has a majority, it can pass.  Senator 
Tom Harkin has proposed that the  filibuster rules be changed so that that 
first time there is an attempt to cut  off debate 60 votes are required, two 
days later 57 votes are required, two days  after that 55 votes, two days 
later 53 votes, and two days after that 51  votes.  That way the minority would  
get to demand real debate, but couldn’t stop a measure that had majority  
support. That’s democracy. 
And as we consider major legislation over the next year, we need to  
remember history.  Voters don’t  remember the procedures used to pass major pieces 
of legislation.  How many everyday Americans know – or  care – that the 
Bush tax cuts, or SCHIP were passed using reconciliation  procedures.  Does 
anyone remember  the procedure used to pass Social Security or Medicare? How 
many remember that  the House Republicans kept the roll call open for an 
unprecedented three hours  to round up the votes necessary to pass their 
prescription drug plan, Medicare  Part D? Talk about jamming something through!   
A month after something is passed, no one remembers or cares about the  
procedure used to pass major legislation.  Major programs are judged by the  
voters based on their actual effect – not the procedure that was used to pass  
them.  
The message of the Masssachusetts election was not to go slow. Voters are  
frustrated, angry and anxious.  They  are not frustrated by too much 
governmental action.  They are frustrated at too little.  They want jobs, they want 
solutions to  the health care crisis, they want an end of the Bush era 
economic stagnation --  they want action.  They want government to get it  done. 
Democrats will succeed if we can deliver health care reform, jobs,  
economic revitalization, immigration reform, clean energy jobs and an end to the  
stranglehold of Wall Street over our economy.  The operative word here is 
deliver.  
If we propose sound policies, we  do not have to worry that voters will 
punish us for the procedures we use to  pass them – especially if those 
procedures simply involve getting a majority  vote in both houses of Congress.  
They will punish us if we fail  to pass them.  
Members of  Congress must not be lured by the siren song of those who claim 
that passing  legislation with majority vote involves “jamming” them 
through – or that  inaction is somehow safer.  Frustration is boiling over in  
America.  For the sake of their own political  futures, members of Congress 
need to work with Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader  Reid and President Obama – 
to get things done. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and  strategist, and 
author of the recent book:  “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-
1)  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.