Author: David Dayen

The leadership says they have the votes, but projecting an aura of confidence has been a key to their pressure strategy. Bart Stupak says Democrats are 16 votes short, but pessimism has been, well, part of his strategy. So, I prefer to actually, you know, count the votes.

The last count had it at 204-208, if you include leaners. Where are we now?

• Gabrielle Giffords released a public statement saying “The legislation before us, while far from perfect, represents a needed step forward,” and saying that “when and if” her concerns are satisfied to her satisfaction, she’d be proud to support the bill. That’s as close as you’re going to get to a Yes in this atmosphere, so off the board she goes.

• Actually, you can get a bit closer to Yes – Dan Maffei said he’s voting for the bill, saying that “Doing nothing is no longer an option.”

• Riffing off of my whip count, Nate Silver gets some intelligence on Tim Bishop, who told constituents at a house party last week to write letters in support of reform. Combined with his votes and comments in the Budget Committee yesterday, I’ll move him to yes. (Interesting how the New Yorkers are coming off the board after the SEIU and the Working Families Party made their preference known.)

• I had Scott Murphy, a No vote last time around, listed as a yes, but his press secretary contacted me to say no, he’s truly undecided. Josh Schwerin, Murphy’s Communications Director, tells me, “he is literally reading through the Senate bill and making notes in the margins.” So I’ll put him back to a lean yes. I still think he’ll be there at the end, but this missive from the press aide sounded kind of anguished.

• I never put John Tanner, another retiring Dem and named by White House officials as a likely No-Yes flipper, in the lean Yes category. I’ll do so now.

• Glenn Nye, on the other hand, sounds like a lean No at best.

• Mike McIntyre’s a no, which is where I had him since I started these whip counts. The guy showed up at a right-wing “Prayercast” which was literally praying against the bill.

• There’s a third-hand report from the National Review about Tom Perriello being part of the Stupak bloc. I don’t really buy it. He’s been very tight-lipped about his vote, however, though leadership gave him the main sponsorship on repealing the industry’s anti-trust exemption. I’m thinking he’s a Yes, but I’ll put him in the lean Yes category for now.

• The Hispanic Caucus continues to make noises about voting no due to the immigration provisions, but they’re always leavened with talk of what a tremendous accomplishment this would be, and I just don’t see them not playing along on this.

• HCAN put some new pro-reform ads in rotation that have interesting targets. They include three members not on my board – Bill Foster (D-IL), Jim Costa (D-CA) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ). Targeting Costa also gets you Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), as they’re in the same media market. I don’t know why they’re doing this – I don’t see these votes in play – but you have to expect they have a bit more information. I’m confident on Costa and Cardoza, but I’ll put Foster and Mitchell into the undecided category.

UPDATE: I should maybe not take these targets so seriously. OFA just sent me a message telling me to call into the district of Republican Dave Reichert in Washington and get supporters of reform to call his office. Now, Dave Reichert is never, ever voting for this bill. Why in the world would any group target him when there are so many other votes out there to get? Probably because OFA is part of the DNC and they don’t want to pressure Democrats. Point being, I think I’ll de-emphasize targeting in my analysis. The advocacy groups appear to be flying blind.

Add all that up, and what do you get? Maffei, Bishop and Giffords are Yes votes; Murphy’s back to lean Yes, John Tanner moves to lean Yes, Glenn Nye moves to lean No, and Perriello, Foster and Mitchell go back onto the board (with Perriello as a lean Yes). So that means there are 190 Yes, 206 No, and there are 15 lean Yes along with 3 lean No votes. So pushing leaners, you’re at 205-209.

You can see why leadership is even looking at the hard No votes. They are still going to need to do a lot of work to get this done.

Raw totals (and one hot chart) on the flip. . . .:

Definite YES:
190 Democrats, including Jason Altmire (D-PA), who voted No last time, in November.

Definite NO:
178 Republicans, including Joseph Cao (R-LA), who voted Yes in November. He’s in the Stupak bloc.

Definite NO:
28 Democrats.

23 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler, Health Shuler, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Adler.

5 Democrats who voted Yes in November (confirmed Stupak bloc):
Bart Stupak, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Steve Driehaus.

13 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes:

7 lean Yes:
Bart Gordon, Brian Baird, John Boccieri (Clyburn Three), Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, Scott Murphy, John Tanner.

5 undecided:
Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow.

1 lean No:
Glenn Nye.

22 potential Yes-No flip votes:

5 additional Stupak bloc (Stupak-curious):
Brad Ellsworth, *Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, *Marion Berry.

8 lean Yes:
Paul Kanjorski, Dina Titus, Betty Sutton, Baron Hill, Allan Mollohan, Bill Owens, Marcy Kaptur, Tom Perriello.

9 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Ann Kirkpatrick, Nick Rahall, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Bill Foster, Harry Mitchell.

2 lean No:
Mike Arcuri, Marion Berry.

Democrats need 26 of a combination of the 13 potential No-Yes flip votes and the 22 potential Yes-No flip votes. So they need 26 out of the remaining uncommitted 35. If you’re counting leaners, Democrats need 11 of the last 17 uncommitted.

Tuesday, 3/16/2010		Voted		Retiring	Stupak	PVI	No	Leaning No	Unknown	Leaning Yes	Yes
		Aye	Nay
Definite No (28):
1	Boren, Dan		X			R+14	1
2	Boucher, Rick		X			R+11	1
3	Bright, Bobby		X			R+16	1
4	Chandler, Ben		X			R+9	1
5	Davis, Artur		X			D+18	1
6	Edwards, Chet		X			R+20	1
7	Herseth-Sandlin, Stephanie		X			R+9	1
8	Holden, Tim		X			R+6	1
9	Kucinich, Dennis		X			D+8	1
10	Kissell, Larry		X			R+2	1
11	Kratovil, Frank		X			R+13	1
12	Marshall, Jim		X			R+10	1
13	McMahon, Michael		X			R+4	1
14	Melancon, Charlie		X	R		R+12	1
15	Minnick, Walt		X			R+18	1
16	McIntyre, Mike		X			R+3	1
17	Peterson, Collin		X			R+6	1
18	Ross, Mike		X			R+7	1
19	Shuler, Heath		X			R+6	1
20	Skelton, Ike		X			R+14	1
21	Taylor, Gene		X			R+20	1
22	Adler, John		X			R+1	1
23	Boyd, Allen		X			R+6	1
24	Dahlkemper, Kathy	X			S	R+3	1
25	Donnelly, Joe	X			S	R+4	1
26	Driehaus, Steve	X			S	D+1	1
27	Lipinski, Dan	X			S	D+11	1
28	Stupak, Bart	X			S	R+3	1
Potential No-Yes Flips (13):
1	Baird, Brian		X	R		D+0				1
2	Barrow, John		X			D+2			1
3	Boccieri, John		X			R+4				1
4	Childers, Travis		X			R+14			1
5	Davis, Lincoln		X			R+14			1
6	Gordon, Bart		X	R		R+13				1
7	Kosmas, Suzanne		X			R+4				1
8	Markey, Betsy		X			R+9				1
9	Matheson, Jim		X			R+15			1
10	Murphy, Scott		X			D+2				1
11	Nye, Glenn		X			R+6		1
12	Tanner, John		X	R		R+6				1
13	Teague, Harry		X			R+6			1
Potential Yes-No Flips (22):
1	Arcuri, Mike	X				R+1		1
2	Berry, Marion	X			S	R+8		1
3	Carney, Chris	X				R+8			1
4	Costello, Jerry	X			S	D+3			1
5	Cuellar, Henry	X			S	D+0			1
6	Doyle, Mike	X				D+19			1
7	Ellsworth, Brad	X			S	R+9			1
8	Foster, Bill	X				D+1			1
9	Hill, Baron	X				R+6				1
10	Kaptur, Marcy	X			S	D+10				1
11	Kanjorski, Paul	X				D+4				1
12	Kirkpatrick, Ann	X				R+6			1
13	McNerney, Jerry	X				R+1			1
14	Mitchell, Harry	X				R+5			1
15	Mollohan, Alan	X				R+9				1
16	Ortiz, Solomon	X				R+2			1
17	Owens, Bill	X				R+1				1
18	Periello, Tom	X				R+5				1
19	Pomeroy, Earl	X				R+10			1
20	Space, Zack	X				R+7			1
21	Sutton, Betty	X				D+5				1
22	Titus, Dina	X				D+2				1
Committed Votes
	Democratic										190
	Republican						178
	TOTAL						206	3	17	15	191

Previous Whip Counts:

	Monday, March 15						206	2	19	13	191
	Sunday, March 14						203	2	28	7	191
	Friday, March 12						191				202
	Thursday, March 11						189				202
	Wednesday, March 10						191				195
	Tuesday, March 9						192				194

Tags: Democrats, Health care, House of Representatives, whip count

 

In what will probably become a major point of contention in the campaign, Lincoln claims that she voted against “giving more money to Wall Street,” which is technically true but not the entire story. Lincoln voted for the TARP bailout but voted No in early 2009 to deliver the second tranche of TARP money – $350 billion – to the Treasury Department for their use. That resolution of disapproval failed, and the money went to Treasury anyway. Also, interestingly all the numbers of her votes to “keep jobs in Arkansas” come from 2004 and 2005. Clearly, there’s been no need for job creation measures in the last 5 years. They come to your home to give you jobs these days.

I wonder how the votes on the lobbyist-written bankruptcy bill, or the opposition to ending bank subsidies in the student loan process, add up to “working for Arkansas.”

The spot prefigures what will be a contentious and nasty campaign, although hitting Halter for breaking his word about going negative because of an IE spot that he cannot control seems gratuitous. In fact, Halter’s campaign spots have been entirely positive. Here’s his latest one.

Tags: AR-Sen, Arkansas, Bill Halter, Bloanche Lincoln, jobs, Labor, primaries, TARP, unions

 

Expect two of these a day, if not more, until the final vote.

The last whip count is here. Since then:

• The outcomes in the House Budget Committee were somewhat revelatory. Allen Boyd voted against reporting out the reconciliation bill: he moves from a lean No to a No. Marcy Katpur, Marion Berry, Bob Etheridge and Tim Bishop voted Yes. In fact, Etheridge and Bishop took leadership positions on some of the motions to instruct; Etheridge’s words were absolutely enough for me to take him off the board; he’s a Yes. Bishop and Kaptur become lean Yes votes. Berry is harder to figure; he just put forward his own alternative health care bill, which signaled to me that he was giving up on this process. And he’s expressed support for the Stupak bloc. I’ll move him from a firm No to lean No, but no further.

• John Adler (D-NJ) tells his local paper, the Courier Post of Cherry Hill, that he’s a firm No vote, citing cost controls. That’s firm.

• Chris Carney (D-PA) told a local paper that he could not support a bill allowing public funding of abortions, but deemed himself undecided on the bill. I’m putting him into the Stupak-curious bloc.

• Jerry Costello (D-IL), another member of the Stupak-curious bloc, says he opposes the Senate bill in its current form, but that evades the question, since the Senate bill in its current form is not on offer. This is why Nancy Pelosi will resort to a procedural measure where the House can vote on the reconciliation amendments and “deem the Senate bill passed.” It allows House members to avoid this thing where they oppose the Senate bill “in its current form.” That said, Costello still could oppose the bill on final passage; I’ll keep him at undecided.

• The President traveled with Dennis Kucinich to his home district aboard Air Force One today, and got exposed to some citizen lobbying during Obama’s speech:

At the event, Obama began by thanking local dignitaries. When got to Kucinich, someone in the crowd yelled, “Vote yes!” The president stopped and said, “Did you hear that, Dennis?” And the person in the crowd yelled again, “Vote yes!”

I don’t think it really threw Rep. Kucinich; he’s staked out his reasons, and they’re pretty clear. I’m keeping him at No.

• White House officials listed Bart Gordon and John Tanner as possible No-Yes flippers, which I fully expected. Another likely candidate to flip, the retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), remains undecided. Nothing about Adam Smith (D-WA) in that article, who is not on my board, makes me think I should include him.

• Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) held a previously unreported one-on-one session with President Obama last week. She reportedly continued to bring the discussion back to NASA funding for her central Florida-area district. I’ll keep her at lean Yes, and don’t be surprised if she comes out soon as a supporter.

Where does that leave us? Adler and Boyd are No votes; Berry goes from No to lean No; Etheridge is a Yes; Bishop and Kaptur go to lean Yes. So we’re now at 191 Yes, 206 No. With leaners – there are now 13 Democrats in the lean Yes category, and 2 Republicans in lean No – you’re at 204-208.

The raw numbers on the flip:

Definite YES:
191 Democrats, including Scott Murphy (D-NY) and Jason Altmire (D-PA), who voted No last time, in November.

Definite NO:
178 Republicans, including Joseph Cao (R-LA), who voted Yes in November. He’s in the Stupak bloc.

Definite NO:
28 Democrats.

23 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler, Health Shuler, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Adler.

5 Democrats who voted Yes in November (confirmed Stupak bloc):
Bart Stupak, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Steve Driehaus.

12 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes:

5 lean Yes:
Bart Gordon, Brian Baird, John Boccieri (Clyburn Three), Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey

7 undecided:
Glenn Nye, John Tanner, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow.

22 potential Yes-No flip votes:

5 additional Stupak bloc (Stupak-curious):
Brad Ellsworth, *Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, *Marion Berry.

8 lean Yes:
Paul Kanjorski, Dina Titus, Betty Sutton, Tim Bishop, Baron Hill, Allan Mollohan, Bill Owens, Marcy Kaptur.

9 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Ann Kirkpatrick, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Solomon Ortiz, Gabrielle Giffords, Earl Pomeroy.

2 lean No:
Mike Arcuri, Marion Berry.

Democrats need 25 of a combination of the 12 potential No-Yes flip votes and the 22 potential Yes-No flip votes. So they need 25 out of the remaining uncommitted 34. If you’re counting leaners, Democrats need 12 of the last 19 uncommitted.

Tags: Bob Etheridge, Democrats, Health care, House of Representatives, whip count

 

[Update: See how Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, and others feel about the proposals.]

Noting that two years ago today, Bear Stearns collapsed, Chris Dodd released his financial regulatory reform bill at a press conference where he said confidently that the bill will pass this year.

Saying that there has been “no financial reform on the scale I’ve been proposing since the 1930s” and that the current laws are hopelessly inadequate, Dodd released a draft which includes proposals from both sides of the aisle, including Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Bob Corker (R-TN). He does not currently have a bipartisan co-sponsor for the legislation, but he said “we do need to act, and I will act.” Of the 11 titles in the act, Dodd said that 9 of them reflected a bipartisan consensus. The two where there are differences, he said, are in the consumer protection and corporate governance areas. “We’ll begin the markup next week and move forward,” Dodd said.

Saying that “legislating in anger” is not as advisable as getting the bill right, Dodd laid out three major goals for the legislation: to plug the gaps in regulation, to “look in the windshield” rather than the rear-view mirror and create an early-warning system, and to protect American consumers from predatory financial products.

Specifically, Dodd highlighted four major reforms:

1) End Too Big To Fail bailouts. “Taxpayers should not write a check because of an implicit guarantee,” Dodd said. The bill would discourage banks getting to this size through new capital requirements, he said. Banks which struggle would be shut down through bankruptcy or an orderly resolution. Senators Mark Warner and Bob Corker shaped this part of the bill.

2) Consumer Protection Agency. “A strong and INDEPENDENT consumer protection watchdog,” Dodd termed it, stressing the independent part of it. The CFPA would be housed in the Fed, but Dodd dismissed any concern with that, saying that the agency would have an independent director (nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate) and an independent budget, with autonomy to craft and enforce rules. The Fed would have “not one iota of authority over the budget,” Dodd said, adding that he housed the CFPA at the Fed because of the consideration of votes. The agency would not have specific rules over what nonbank entities it can regulate, because Dodd would rather have the regulators determine that process. But, he said, “we’re not regulating the butcher” with this agency. Where there are so-called “safety and soundness” conflicts between the rules and the needs of banks, there’s “an ability in these regulations to resolve those conflicts,” by a 2/3 vote of the systemic risk council.

3) Systemic Risk Council. Dodd termed this as an “early warning system” which would look out for the next crisis and make recommendations for how to proceed. The Treasury Secretary would head up the council.

4) Transparency and Accountability. This concerns what Dodd calls “exotic instruments” like hedge funds and derivatives. The legislation basically includes similar language in this area as Dodd’s original discussion draft. Senators Jack Reed and Judd Gregg are working on this section, and if they reach consensus, their deal would replace this part of the bill.

Dodd mentioned some other pieces of the legislation, including the “say on pay” effort to “rein in insane compensation packages” at big firms; a new program at the SEC to encourage whistleblowers; the crackdown on conflicts of interest at the Federal Reserve (the head of the NY Fed would be chosen by the President and not member banks, for example); and increased oversight of the credit ratings agencies.

There was a hint in Dodd’s speech of the effort to force Republicans to defend Wall Street banks. He stressed the urgency for new rules to cut off potential crises, and basically challenged Republicans to stand in the way. The labor movement is gearing up for a fight on that front as well, though their aims are a bit broader, seeking the “financial responsibility fee” outlined by the President a couple months ago.

Not all consumer advocates are happy with the Dodd draft, so he’ll have a battle from the left on this bill, in addition to the recalcitrance from the right.

Tags: CFPA, Chris Dodd, derivatives, Federal Reserve, financial industry, Hissy kabuki, Regulations, too big to fail

 

[Ed. Note: Be sure to listen for David tonight on NPR’s All Things Considered. As they say, check local listings.]

Since we’re getting down to the wire on the health care bill, I’m going to start pushing leaners more forcefully. So here’s where I’m at. A reminder that these are educated guesses, not rote affirmations of public statements. I’m trying to back up the statements with other corroborating information.

The last whip count showed 191 yes, 203 no, with a lot of leaners. I’m going to push a couple of those into the Yes category:

• Scott Murphy. He sounded like a Yes over the weekend, and that came on the heels of a one-on-one meeting with the President, where he cited certain elements he wanted to get him on the bill. In addition, there’s the pressure from the Working Families Party and other advocacy groups in New York. Finally, you have the NRCC no longer targeting his vote. That gets me to yes.

• Jason Altmire. The former hospital executive has gotten more face time by being publicly on the fence than practically anyone in the House. He’s played Hamlet in front of the media, unable to make a decision. But there seemed to be a come-to-Jesus moment recently, when he realized that the Tea Party activists pushing against him on the bill will never become his ally:

But the conversation ran aground when he asked a fundamental question: Shouldn’t the government help low-income people afford basic health insurance?

“No!” most of the visitors shouted.

“Some of you are never going to agree with me,” Altmire said.

That recognition gets me to put him in the Yes camp. The NRCC has also stopped targeting Altmire.

• Other Democrats in the Clyburn crosshairs, targeted to be No-Yes flippers, are not quite there. John Boccieri, a potential swing vote, will skip the President’s health care rally in his home state today, preferring to attend an infrastructure project announcement in his district. We’ll keep him as a lean Yes.

• The NRCC lists some other Democrats on the fence as Yes votes, so you have to at least lean them in that direction. Among them: Baron Hill, Suzanne Kosmas, Allan Mollohan and Bill Owens. They also have Luis Gutierrez and Mike Arcuri as firm No votes, which I’m still not buying (though I’ll make Arcuri a lean No). They have Rick Boucher as a firm No, and I had him as lean No, so I’ll tip him in that direction.

• On the flip side, here’s a NY Times graphic of the seats that Democrats will target this week, and some of them are members I thought were already nailed down. To wit: Dina Titus (D-NV), Betty Sutton (D-OH) and Bob Etheridge (D-NC). I think you have to take them off the board if Democrats are pouring money in there, though I believe all three will get on the bill at the end. We’ll make them lean Yes. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) is also on that list, but I have him as a firm No and I’ve seen nothing to indicate that has changed.

• Steve Driehaus has flipped back into the Stupak bloc, after appearing to flip out of it. He told the Cincinnati Enquirer that he would not budge on the issue of federal funding for abortion. “They are going to have to do it without me and without the other pro-life Democrats,” he said.

Where does that leave us? Make Murphy and Altmire Yes votes. Make Dreihaus and Boucher No votes. Add Titus, Sutton and Etheridge to the undecided category. That puts you at 190 Yes, 205 No. However, we now have 12 lean Yes votes, with only 2 lean No votes. If you push leaners, you’re at 202-207.

Details on the flip. We’re rolling out a graphic, should be ready later today.

Definite YES:
190 Democrats.

Definite NO:
178 Republicans, including Joseph Cao (R-LA), who voted Yes in November. He’s in the Stupak bloc.

Definite NO:
27 Democrats.

21 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler, Health Shuler, Boucher.

6 Democrats who voted Yes in November (confirmed Stupak bloc):
Bart Stupak, Marion Berry, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Steve Driehaus.

14 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes:

5 lean Yes:
Bart Gordon, Brian Baird, John Boccieri (Clyburn Three), Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey

8 undecided:
Glenn Nye, John Tanner, John Adler, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow.

1 lean No:
Allen Boyd.

22 potential Yes-No flip votes:

4 additional Stupak bloc (Stupak-curious):
Brad Ellsworth, Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar.

7 lean Yes:
Paul Kanjorski, Dina Titus, Betty Sutton, Bob Etheridge, Baron Hill, Allan Mollohan, Bill Owens.

10 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Ann Kirkpatrick, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Solomon Ortiz, Gabrielle Giffords, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Bishop.

1 lean No:
Mike Arcuri.

Democrats need 26 of a combination of the 14 potential No-Yes flip votes and the 22 potential Yes-No flip votes. So they need 26 out of the remaining uncommitted 36. If you’re counting leaners, Democrats need 14 of the last 22 uncommitted.

Monday, 3/15/2010

Voted

Retiring

Stupak

PVI

No

Leaning No

Unknown

Leaning Yes

Yes

Aye

Nay

Definite No (25):

1

Boren, Dan

X

R+14

1

2

Boucher, Rick

X

R+11

1

3

Bright, Bobby

X

R+16

1

4

Chandler, Ben

X

R+9

1

5

Davis, Artur

X

D+18

1

6

Edwards, Chet

X

R+20

1

7

Herseth-Sandlin, Stephanie

X

R+9

1

8

Holden, Tim

X

R+6

1

9

Kucinich, Dennis

X

D+8

1

10

Kissell, Larry

X

R+2

1

11

Kratovil, Frank

X

R+13

1

12

Marshall, Jim

X

R+10

1

13

McMahon, Michael

X

R+4

1

14

Melancon, Charlie

X

R

R+12

1

15

Minnick, Walt

X

R+18

1

16

McIntyre, Mike

X

R+3

1

17

Peterson, Collin

X

R+6

1

18

Ross, Mike

X

R+7

1

19

Shuler, Heath

X

R+6

1

20

Skelton, Ike

X

R+14

1

21

Taylor, Gene

X

R+20

1

22

Berry, Marion

X

S

R+8

1

23

Dahlkemper, Kathy

X

S

R+3

1

24

Donnelly, Joe

X

S

R+4

1

25

Driehaus, Steve

X

S

D+1

1

26

Lipinski, Dan

X

S

D+11

1

27

Stupak, Bart

X

S

R+3

1

Potential No-Yes Flips (14):

1

Baird, Brian

X

R

D+0

1

2

Boccieri, John

X

R+4

1

3

Gordon, Bart

X

R

R+13

1

4

Markey, Betsy

X

R+9

1

5

Adler, John

X

R+1

1

6

Davis, Lincoln

X

R+14

1

7

Kosmas, Suzanne

X

R+4

1

8

Matheson, Jim

X

R+15

1

9

Nye, Glenn

X

R+6

1

10

Tanner, John

X

R

R+6

1

11

Teague, Harry

X

R+6

1

12

Barrow, John

X

D+2

1

13

Boyd, Allen

X

R+6

1

14

Childers, Travis

X

R+14

1

Potential Yes-No Flips (22):

1

Costello, Jerry

X

S

D+3

1

2

Cuellar, Henry

X

S

D+0

1

3

Ellsworth, Brad

X

S

R+9

1

4

Ethridge, Bob

X

S

R+9

1

5

Kaptur, Marcy

X

S

D+10

1

6

Arcuri, Mike

X

R+1

1

7

Bishop, Tim

X

D+0

1

8

Carney, Chris

X

R+8

1

9

Doyle, Mike

X

D+19

1

10

Giffords, Gabrielle

X

R+4

1

11

Hill, Baron

X

R+6

1

12

Kanjorski, Paul

X

D+4

1

13

Kirkpatrick, Ann

X

R+6

1

14

Maffei, Dan

X

D+3

1

15

Rahall, Nick

X

R+6

1

16

Mollohan, Alan

X

R+9

1

17

Ortiz, Solomon

X

R+2

1

18

Owens, Bill

X

R+1

1

19

Pomeroy, Earl

X

R+10

1

20

Space, Zack

X

R+7

1

21

Sutton, Betty

X

D+5

1

22

Titus, Dina

X

D+2

1

Committed Votes

Democratic

190

Republican

178

TOTAL

205

2

22

12

190

Previous Whip Counts:

	Sunday, March 14						203	2	28	7	191
	Friday, March 12						191				202
	Thursday, March 11						189				202
	Wednesday, March 10						191				195
	Tuesday, March 9						192				194

Tags: Bart Stupak, health care reform, Reconciliation, Stupak bloc, whip count

 

The quiet confidence among Democratic leaders over the health care bill belies the hardball tactics going on behind the scenes. The millions of dollars which will be spent this week by the Chamber of Commerce and the like is transitory and temporary, although where they’re playing offers a clue into who needs whipping.

But the support that the President offers on those phone calls goes beyond this week:

Mr. Obama is making daily telephone calls to Democrats who supported the health care bill last year, but have yet to decide how they intend to vote this time […] The health care debate is unfolding against the backdrop of an already difficult political year for Democrats. The White House has signaled to lawmakers that assistance for midterm elections — for example, presidential visits and fund-raisers — will be prioritized for those who support the bill.

Playing bad cop to this good cop is MoveOn.org, promising to raise money for primary challengers for Democrats who vote against the bill.

The group is set to blast out an email to its five million member list Monday asking recipients to pledge anywhere from $25 to $200 (or more) for the purposes of defeating conservative Democrats who help defeat the legislation.

“Health care reform is in serious danger in the House of Representatives: with a handful of conservative Democrats wavering, we don’t yet have the votes to pass the final bill,” reads the email, which was sent in advance to the Huffington Post. “So we’re asking every MoveOn member: will you pledge to support progressive primary challengers to House Democrats who side with Republicans to kill health care reform?

Again, this runs into the problem of filing deadlines. For instance, one state with a lot of members in play is Ohio, which already finalized their primary ballot. But MoveOn dropped some names to Sam Stein who would face potential primary challengers – Scott Murphy (D-NY), Michael McMahon (D-NY), and Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL). McMahon has already been targeted by the local SEIU 1199 in New York.

MoveOn has raised over $1.2 million dollars for Bill Halter to challenge Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, so they have the ability to fundraise through their membership.

Clearly, House members on the fence face an array of unpalatable options no matter their vote this week.

Tags: Barack Obama, fundraising, Health care, House of Representatives, Mike McMahon, MoveOn, primaries, Scott Murphy, Suzanne Kosmas

 

You can see the last whip count here. Changes since Friday:

• House leaders have a firm target date for a vote, and have begun to whip the bill. But for the first time today, James Clyburn admitted that he doesn’t have the votes at the moment, although he claims he will in the near future. “No we don’t have them as of this morning but we’ve been working this thing all weekend,” Clyburn said on Meet The Press. Over the weekend Nancy Pelosi expressed similar confidence.

However, in a lesser-publicized McClatchy article, Clyburn for the first time gave some insight into who he is targeting, naming four Congressmen who previously voted No in November:

Clyburn took the unusual step of naming four former Democratic opponents who he’s hopeful are preparing to vote for the reform legislation: Reps. Brian Baird of Washington state, Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Boccieri of Ohio.

“That’s four people right there who voted no before,” Clyburn said. “Why don’t we talk about them? Everyone’s talking about who we might lose.”

You have to put the “Clyburn Four” into a bloc of no votes leaning yes. And I think you could add at least two more. A local paper in Cooperstown, NY, reports that Scott Murphy may vote for the bill. Murphy was a no last time, but he expresses in this article a desire to vote yes. I would also add Betsy Markey, who got some help when leadership had her sponsor the bill repealing the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. I think clearly that was given to her as a way to entice her into voting yes.

• CNN pegs Heath Shuler as a sure no. That sounds right to me.

• Among other former No votes, Rick Boucher says he won’t vote for anything that cuts Medicare heavily, and he tags the Senate bill as doing so. I wouldn’t count on his vote, but I’ll put him in the “lean no” category for now. Allen Boyd belongs there as well, especially because he voted against the student loan reform bill which will be folded into the reconciliation sidecar.

• The Stupak 6 looks pretty set. Marion Berry (D-AR) took the unusual step of introducing his own health care bill out of nowhere this week, a sign that he’s setting up some excuse of “I had my own bill.” He’s in the Stupak bloc. Kathy Dahlkemper sounds a bit more uncommitted in this local story, but her spokesman says “She was opposed to the Senate abortion language. Period,” and nothing’s being done to change that. Dahlkemper may be holding out for some promise of accompanying legislation, but she sure looks like a no to me.

• Then there’s the strange case of Henry Cuellar. The wacked-out Investor’s Business Daily put him in the Stupak bloc, and other media outlets followed, as well as Minority Whip Eric Cantor. But Cuellar’s office actually called that “An unauthorized statement” that had no “credible facts or consultation with Congressman Cuellar or his staff.” The statement ended with Cuellar’s office pronouncing him undecided on the bill, so I will add him to the undecided, Stupak-curious bloc.

• Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill remain undecided.

• Jim Oberstar, as I predicted in the last whip count, is a yes.

• Paul Kanjorski, in this interview with The Motley Fool, absolutely sounds like a yes, though this interview was made before Democratic leaders decided to add the student loan reform to the reconciliation bill. Kanjorski voted against the student loan bill straight-up the first time, so I’m moving him to lean-yes, not yes yet.

• Dennis Cardoza, on the other hand, sounds like a yes, along with his Central Valley colleague Jim Costa. They talk about the uninsured in their districts enough to probably not say no to the bill. There was a rider for hospital funding in the area that secured their support last time, which doesn’t appear in the Senate bill, but both of these members have been to the White House and presumably got assurances about such funding coming up later.

• As for Luis Gutierrez, a public “no” the past few days, I’m with Lynn Sweet. He’s using leverage right now but he’ll be on the bill in the end. David Axelrod addressed the immigration provisions at the heart of Gutierrez’ complaint today, saying that the health care bill will not address the issue of the undocumented, but a future bill could. Incidentally, Sweet pegs Jerry Costello (D-IL) in the Stupak-curious category.

Where does that leave us? Add Cardoza to the Yes side and subtract Cuellar and we’re back where we started: 191 Yes votes. Add Shuler to the No side and it’s 203 No votes. There are seven “lean-yes” in the undecided side, and two “lean-no”. So if you pushed leaners, I’d put it at 198-205.

Raw totals on the flip: (more…)

In a move that could bolster efforts to pass the health care bill, the Catholic Health Association, representing more than 600 Catholic hospitals, endorsed the measure today, rejecting the claims from anti-choice groups that it would publicly fund abortions.

The chief executive of the Catholic Health Association, Carol Keehan, wrote on the group’s Web site that although the legislation isn’t perfect, it represents a “major first step” toward covering all Americans and would make “great improvements” for millions of people. The more than 600 Catholic hospitals across the country do not provide abortions as a matter of conscience […]

Keehan said in an interview that she believes the approach now in the bill would work just as well to keep federal dollars from being used to pay for abortion.

“On the moral issue of abortion, there is no disagreement,” Keehan said. “On the technical issue of whether this bill prevents federal funding of abortions, we differ with Right to Life.”

There’s a good reason for Catholic hospitals to support the Senate language – they happen to be correct about it restricting abortion funding, and actually exptends beyond the Hyde Amendment in ways that could have a chilling effect on private coverage of abortion services. Bart Stupak’s language would clearly accelerate that process, but the Nelson compromise does offer an array of restrictions, including a state opt-out for abortion coverage on the exchange.

So the Catholic hospitals are apparently taking their win. So are these anti-choice pastors and evangelical leaders. And together they provide cover for members in the Stupak bloc to split off and support the bill. Stupak seems to have a core of a half-dozen holdouts. That may shrink even further with these developments.

Tags: Catholic Health Association, Catholic hospitals, health care reform, Hyde Amendment, Pitts-Stupak Amendment

 

I don’t know if this will derail Marco Rubio in the Republican primary – if I had to guess it won’t – but the biggest papers in Florida just looked back at his record and found a huge slush fund for both political and personal activities, maintained through special interest donations. Two newspapers did a joint investigation of his expense records:

About $600,000 in contributions was stowed in two inconspicuous political committees controlled by Rubio, now the Republican front-runner for the U.S. Senate, and his wife. A Miami Herald/St. Petersburg Times analysis of the expenses found:

• Rubio failed to disclose $34,000 in expenses — including $7,000 he paid himself — for one of the committees in 2003 and 2004, as required by state law.

• One committee paid relatives nearly $14,000 for what was incorrectly described to the IRS as “courier fees” and listed a nonexistent address for one of them. Another committee paid $5,700 to his wife, who was listed as the treasurer, much of it for “gas and meals.”

• Rubio billed more than $51,000 in unidentified “travel expenses” to three different credit cards — nearly one-quarter of the committee’s entire haul. Charges are not required to be itemized, but other lawmakers detailed almost all of their committee expenses.

The guy was Speaker of the Florida House, not some rube plucked out of a Tea Party rally. So the litany of expense accounts and lavish spending aren’t that surprising. We had a similar issue with a former House Speaker in California a few years back.

Some of this just recapitulates what was already out there – the GOP credit card, the unreported expense account. But a Republican House member in Florida basically synthesizes it in one soundbite:

“Having expenditures in the tens of thousands of dollars to pay off credit cards, it’s clear to me it was being used to live off of. The Rubios were living off it,” said state Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, a strong Crist supporter.

I mean, this isn’t a difficult analysis. Rubio started out in politics with student loans and a mortgage. He created a political action committee whose own reports show hundreds of thousands of dollars in “operating costs” and just a few thousand to actual candidates.

He’s a grifter. Just like a lot of grifters who have bilked taxpayers in the name of “conservative ideas.” Maybe his minions in the GOP primary won’t care. But Kendrick Meek certainly has some fodder for campaign commercials.

Tags: Florida, gubernatorial race, Marco Rubio, scandal, slush fund

 

Just a brief word on the church of the savvy smugly saying that whip counts efforts like this are misguided because of all the “wiggle room.” I’m building that into my analysis. I think I’m representing an accurate snapshot in time of where the House is at on this bill. People are going to guess about this anyway, so a whip count that takes into account other information has plenty of value, more than a simple info dump.

In other words, NBC, I’m way ahead of you.

Here’s the last one. Notable developments since then:

• As I wrote earlier today, the Stupak bloc seems to be eroding. Steve Dreihaus, formerly a No, is moving into the undecided camp, while Charlie Wilson and James Oberstar frankly sound like Yes votes. I’m sticking them there and taking them off the board. I’m keeping Marcy Kaptur in with the Stupak-curious camp.

• Ben Chandler is a firm no. Not a surprise – he voted against the bill last time.

• I know that Luis Gutierrez says he’s a no and confirmed it with a statement, but there are too many variables here. Constituents calling his office are hearing something very different. So I’m not taking him off the Yes board, for now. He’s on my watch list.

• Vic Snyder’s a yes, but I think we knew that.

• The Hill’s whip count shows Henry Cuellar telling the Investor’s Business Daily that he’s in the Stupak bloc. First of all, IBD is a crazy organization and not to be trusted. Second, I’ve heard contradictory information on Cuellar, who said he could live with the immigration language and you have to balance the good with the bad. So I’m keeping him at Yes.

• John Spratt saying that Obama’s done a magnificent job with health care makes me think he’ll be there at the end. Also, the reconciliation bill has to go through his Budget Committee. I know he has a real tough re-election fight this time around, but I’m moving him back to Yes.

• The two votes in the House that the leadership may lose specifically because of pairing the student loan bill in reconciliation are Paul Kanjorski and Allen Boyd. They both voted against SAFRA in the House last year. Kanjorski is more crucial, because he was a yes on health care in November. It’s speculative, so they’re still both in the undecided camp.

• Harry Teague’s getting a lot of pressure, but doesn’t yet seem like a firm no.

• CNN pegs Tim Bishop, a former yes vote, as an undecided. That sounds plausible.

If you put that all together, you get 191 Yes votes and 202 No votes, with the rest undecided. Actually, with the erosion of the Stupak coalition, I think that the leadership is in slightly better shape right now than before, although they really need the final language to start whipping in earnest. Then you’ll see some more Yes votes.

The raw totals, on the flip. . . :

Definite YES:
189 Democrats.

Definite NO:
177 Republicans.

Definite NO:
25 Democrats.

19 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler.

6 Democrats & Republicans who voted Yes in November (confirmed Stupak bloc):
Bart Stupak, Marion Berry, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Joseph Cao (R).

18 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes:

15 possible:
Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Scott Murphy, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague.

3 less possible:
Travis Childers, Heath Shuler (severe lean no), John Barrow.

20 potential Yes-No flip votes:

4 additional Stupak bloc (Stupak-curious):
Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello.

16 other wary Democrats:
Mike Arcuri, Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Paul Kanjorski, Ann Kirkpatrick, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Bill Owens, Dennis Cardoza, Baron Hill, Solomon Ortiz, Gabrielle Giffords, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Bishop.

Democrats need 25 of a combination of the 18 potential No-Yes flip votes and the 20 potential Yes-No flip votes. So they need 25 out of the remaining uncommitted 38.

Tags: Health care, Luis Gutierrez, Reconciliation, Senate bill, Vic Snyder, whip count

 

FDL News has obtained the first ad from Arkansas for Change, an independent expenditure group working against Blanche Lincoln. It will start running today.

Lincoln faces a May 18 primary challenge from the state’s Lieutenant Governor, Bill Halter. Halter is not mentioned in the spot.

The ad highlights multiple Lincoln votes that they see as on the side of corporate interests rather than Arkansas workers. Lincoln voted for multiple lobbyist-written trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA, supported the pro-credit card company bankruptcy bill in 2005, and voted for TARP in 2008.

The inclusion of that last one is notable because Lincoln, in her first ad, claimed to have voted against “more money for Wall Street.” Both this ad and Lincoln’s assertions are technically true. Lincoln voted for the initial $700 billion dollar TARP bill, but against the release of the second half of the TARP funds in early 2009. That vote, a “resolution of disapproval”, failed in the Senate, and the second half of the funds were distributed anyway. Lincoln was one of nine Democrats to vote against releasing the funds. The resolution of disapproval would have had to pass the House as well, but failure in the Senate made a House vote irrelevant.

The Arkansas for Change spot closes by saying Lincoln is “working for them. Not us,” and tells the incumbent Senator to stop protecting Wall Street at the expense of the middle class.

Several groups, including labor unions, have pledged over $4 million dollars in association with the Halter-Lincoln primary. But this is the first ad released to date.

UPDATE: Just to put specifics to this, four unions – the SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFSCME and CWA – pledged $1 million dollars a piece to this primary race. In addition, Halter’s campaign has raised $250,000 on Act Blue and $1.2 million through MoveOn.

Tags: AR-Sen, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, political advertising, primaries, TARP

 

That’s a picture of a co-sponsor request for 40 more House members, adding their names to Alan Grayson’s HR 4789. These 40 names, combined with the original 10 co-sponsors, add up to 50 co-sponsors within a couple of days for Grayson’s bill, which would allow every American to buy into Medicare at cost.

The complete list of co-sponsors is on Thomas and below:

50 CURRENT COSPONSORS : Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, and Rush Holt.

Three of these co-sponsors, it must be said, are non-voting members from American territories. But 47 voting members, including several freshmen and member of the Blue Dog caucus Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), isn’t bad for a couple days.

Chris Bowers writes:

Every indication has always been that there is overwhelming support for a Medicare buy-in among Congressional Democrats. This could very well pass as a stand alone bill, especially in 2011 once filibuster reform has taken place. This is definitely one of the ways that progressives can viably continue the fight for real health reform no matter what happens to the current bill.

I mentioned a couple weeks ago that the public option would continue as an enduring electoral issue. Grayson’s bill, which is slightly but really not all that different, would keep it going on a legislative track as well.

Tags: Alan Grayson, Health care, Medicare buy in, public option

 

Obviously it hasn’t run through the legislative wringer yet, but the Local Jobs For America Act proposed by House Education and Labor Secretary George Miller looks like an exceedingly good piece of policy. It would provides through the community development block grant program $100 billion dollars to create local jobs through state and municipal budgets. Miller claims he could create or save a million jobs with that money, and I have no reason to doubt him.

Specifically, the Local Jobs for America Act invests:

$75 billion over two years to local communities to hire vital staff
Funding for 50,000 on-the-job private-sector training positions

The bill also includes provisions already approved by the House:

$23 billion this year to help states support 250,000 education jobs
$1.18 billion to put 5,500 law enforcement officers on the beat
$500 million to retain, rehire, and hire firefighters

The money would go directly to local governments:

The House proposal also lacks specific infrastructure funding, but its structure reflects a shift that could hearten urban planners and other advocates for a more city-centric approach to federal transportation funding. Three-quarters of the bill’s estimated $100 billion in aid would go directly to cities and counties to help avert layoffs of firefighters, police, and other workers.

Mayors had pressed for more transportation stimulus spending to go directly to cities but lost the political battle, as the lion’s share of the $48 billion in road and transit aid in last year’s recovery package was diverted through state DOTs. Many urban governments anticipate budget shortfalls in 2010 that could exceed those at the height of the financial crisis, with transit cuts and delays in infrastructure projects looming as consequences of the cash crunch.

That makes this bill not necessarily a left-right issue. Local mayors are hard to ignore for members of Congress. They may represent your next opponent. They may represent a key GOTV group. And they’re all going to want this money, be they Democratic or Republican. Mayors will head to DC to lobby for this bill next week.

This would help close serious budget gaps and increase aggregate demand, particularly where it’s most strained right now, at the level of public services. And Miller would not fund this with offsets, although Blue Dogs may howl. The way to increase demand is to actually increase demand.

“I think this should be considered part of the recovery,” Miller said. “In this economic downturn, this should be funded out of the deficit.”

Miller argued that the deficit would be worse if Congress allows local governments to continue to lay off workers in order to balance their budgets — in addition to raising taxes.

“We are not going to cure this deficit if we continue to lay people off,” Miller said. “You cannot cure a deficit when you are running with 15 million people unemployed in the country, and you cannot cure it at the local level by laying people off and raising taxes.”

Between this, the job creation tax credit bill and the $140 billion in tax extenders and social-safety net spending, you’re talking about close to $300 billion, and that’s without the HomeStar program on energy retrofit rebates. That approaches the annual funding level of the stimulus package, which has worked, although it was a bit too small.

You can hear a conference call with Miller and Rep. Keith Ellison, talking about the Local Jobs For America Act, at this link.

Tags: employment, George Miller, jobs, Keith Ellison, local government, state spending, stimulus package

 

It’s interesting that they didn’t get it in writing and leaked it to the DC publication Roll Call instead of forcing a statement into the open.

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

This would disrupt the strategy to act on reconciliation before passing the full health care bill. The House simply does not trust the Senate to get the job done, and members also don’t want to have to take a vote on the Senate bill and its various distasteful deals. The idea before was to make a “self-executing” rule where the House would pass the reconciliation sidecar and “assume the Senate bill to have passed. According to these GOP sources, the Parliamentarian said they cannot do that.

There are still options to ensure the reconciliation changes. The President could wait on the signing of the bills until a reconciliation package is introduced, for example. And Harry Reid’s letter to Mitch McConnell would at least signal the Senate’s determination, reassuring House members. But they may still have to take a hard swallow on that Senate bill, although Republicans facing them in November would probably just lie and say they voted for all manner of nonsense regardless of what they do. Really that should not be a concern to any politician, what other people might put in a campaign ad.

Again, we have no way of knowing if this is true. You have unnamed GOP sources claiming that the Parliamentarian told them something verbally. A Senate Democratic leadership aide offered no comment on this. Nobody’s really talking publicly or on the record. So, until then, I’d view this with skepticism.

The road to passage actually got even tougher today.

Tags: budget reconciliation, parliamentarian

 

In an unexpected maneuver, Senate Democrats signaled that they would add the student loan reform bill to the reconciliation package being prepped for the health care bill. While the House may have to pass the Senate bill fully and have it signed by the President before moving to a reconciliation fix, this sweetener – providing college affordability for hundreds of thousands of students in their districts and ending subsidies for big banks – may make it worth their while to move forward.

The move would create a potential double victory for President Obama, who has championed both causes as among domestic priorities. And Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday, “There was a stronger feeling for including” the education proposal. Some senators disagreed with the strategy, Durbin said, adding that a final decision has yet to be reached.

Under the student loan proposal, subsidies that now support private lenders would be shifted to other student assistance programs, including Pell Grants for families struggling to afford college tuition. “Some of the things accomplished here are really going to help a lot of people across America,” Durbin said.

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) had been one of the chief opponents of the maneuver, for fear that it would provoke procedural challenges from Republicans. But he said the Senate parliamentarian had suggested in a preliminary ruling that combining the bills could work, provided Senate Democrats strike the right balance on cost.

“I’d say yes, we’re leaning toward it,” Conrad said.

There was a caveat, with Conrad saying that the bill “would have to be pared down” before moving forward. I don’t know quite what that means, but it could mean that the Sallie Mae counter-proposal would be included, not the original SAFRA bill. But the details would matter here; the Sallie Mae version might not even save the kind of money necessary for inclusion in reconciliation, while the SAFRA bill has already been scored. I’d call this a qualified victory for students at this point.

The House Budget Committee apparently will prep a reconciliation bill starting Monday, so things are moving forward pretty fast. The key element, of course: getting the votes.

UPDATE: Politico got a different sense of things, saying that the decision on student loans remained unsettled.

Tags: Dick Durbin, Health care, Kent Conrad, Reconciliation, SAFRA, sallie mae, student loans, Students Not Banks

 

Harry Reid sent a letter to Mitch McConnell today announcing what we’ve all known – that the Senate will move forward with a reconciliation sidecar bill to fix elements of the health care package already passed. The key quote:

Many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job. We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.

Judd Gregg, the obstructionist-in-chief, has outlined the Republican game plan: to try to throw out every single piece of the sidecar as a violation of the Byrd rule, offer up dilatory amendments on hot-button issues, and basically use multiple parliamentary tactics to stop the bill. Nobody should assume any of that will work.

Meanwhile, liberals are being urged not to make any changes to the deal on the sidecar rolled out by the leadership, presumably so the process wouldn’t have to go back to the House one more time for concurrence. That does mean that they are whipping against an up-or-down vote for the public option, among other things that won’t appear in the sidecar bill.

Whether or not this sidecar will include student loan reform, eligible for the reconciliation process, remains a matter of debate. The leaders in the relevant committees pushed strongly for its inclusion today.

After a bicameral Democratic leadership meeting Wednesday night, it seemed that that merging the two bills and proceeding to votes under the same budgetary order had hit serious roadblocks But Senate health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and his House counterpart George Miller (D-Calif.), said Thursday that “it’s critical we do both” and that Democrats could score “twin victories.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) left the door open to moving two packages together, but said he first wanted to hear from his caucus at an afternoon meeting.

“We’re going to talk about whether education will be part of reconciliation. Under the instructions that came out of the Budget Committee, we’re entitled to do both health care and education by reconciliation—that’s part of the instructions,” Reid said. “But the caucus, I want them to make the decision.”

Miller says that including the student loan bill would “help” whip count efforts in the House. If that’s the case, there should be no reason not to use it if it can still snag 50 votes in the Senate, which seems somewhat likely. Harkin stressed the urgency of ending the big bank subsidy now, saying that “we may never get around to it” again.

Presumably we’ll know more later.

Tags: budget reconciliation, Judd Gregg, obstructionism, public option, student loans

 

That looks like a major departure from my last whip count. That’s because there’s been a major development. House leaders have given up on trying to please Bart Stupak and will try to pass a bill without him and his bloc:

House leaders have concluded they cannot change a divisive abortion provision in President Barack Obama’s health care bill and will try to pass the sweeping legislation without the support of ardent anti-abortion Democrats […]

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the leadership will press ahead without reworking the abortion provision, which opponents say falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage. He predicted some of the anti-abortion lawmakers in the party will end up voting for the overhaul anyway.

House leaders had no choice, really. The reconciliation strategy made it basically impossible to change the abortion language in this go-round; Senate Republicans made it very clear that they would vote against any effort to waive the point of order with respect to abortion; and Stupak rejected a third bill because he didn’t trust the House or Senate to actually follow through.

Waxman may be right that many anti-choice Dems will vote for the bill anyway, and surely the tactic will move to persuading them that there’s little daylight between the House and Senate provisions. That’s what got Dale Kildee to flip, although an anti-choice site thinks they got him to flip back (note the language; sure Kildee has “not decided to vote” on anything, but he’s clearly disassociated himself, on the record, with the Stupak bloc). But there are seven confirmed members of the Stupak bloc, and given this strategy, you have to put them into the No column at this point.

That means that there are 202 seemingly firm no votes against the bill, at least in advance of any other data coming in. In addition:

• Tim Holden (D-PA), who voted against the bill last time, says he’s a no vote again.

• I’m going to offset this by moving Mike Arcuri (D-NY) back to undecided. He’s made some public statements to the contrary, but I have enough information to suggest that he could easily come back to the leadership’s position in the end.

• Republicans are really targeting Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), and their official positions are undecided, so I’m taking them off the “Yes” board and into the undecided column.

• Carl Cameron raises the spectre of Sanford Bishop, Richard Neal and Tim Ryan to vote against the bill because of the abortion language, but I’m extremely dubious that they would flip, so I’ll keep an eye out, but they’re not off the Yes board yet.

UPDATE: I see Michael Capuano (D-MA) is leaning no, according to TPMDC’s reading of a letter to constituents. While the letter is quite substantive, the word “no” doesn’t appear in it, and progressives have simply been far too accommodating throughout this process for me to suspect that they would vote now after voting yes throughout. Excepting Kucinich, I just don’t see it happening.

Add that up and you have 189 Yes and 202 No. Crucially, with the Stupak die cast, and the determination to go around him set, Nancy Pelosi and the leadership has a tremendous job ahead of them. They’re going to have to hold basically all the “Yes” votes from last time not associated with the Stupak bloc, and convert as many as 12 “No” votes. She says she has the votes, but I really don’t know if that can be done.

The raw totals, on the flip: (more…)

Looking to regain the high ground on ethics reform, House Democrats banned budget earmarks for private companies and dared their Republican counterparts to do the same.

Earmarks make up less than 1% of the total budget; they would have accounted for $1.7 billion in a $3 trillion dollar budget last year. Nonetheless, they have become synonymous with corruption and influence-peddling. So House Republicans may get baited into approving a total ban on earmarks for their entire caucus. They’ll hold a caucus-wide vote on the question today.

As we know, Republican rule is characterized by profit-taking; they’re really not interested in anything else. A caucus-wide earmark ban will get broken within the first five minutes of its enactment.

Of course, there’s a danger for Democrats here as well, especially as the Senate is not inclined to follow the lead of the House:

If the Senate does not follow the House’s lead, that would set up a confrontation between the two chambers, with the Senate including for-profit earmarks in its budget bills and the House excluding them. Negotiators from each body would then have to determine which earmarks, if any, would make it into a final bill sent to the White House for approval.

Senator Daniel K. Inouye, the Democrat of Hawaii who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that current restrictions were already working and that “it does not make sense to discriminate against for-profit organizations” by banning earmarks to them. He noted that many nonprofits had powerful lobbying operations to secure earmarks as well.

Transparency in the process, with full votes, probably works better than a ban with a work-around. And earmarks are, er, not really a problem in the large scheme of things. Corporate tax loopholes have robbed the American taxpayer far more than a spending request to fix a school.

Tags: corruption, Daniel Inouye, Democrats, earmarks, ethics, House of Representatives, Republicans

 

My last whip count can be found here. Since then, in the absence of language, we’ve had few changes:

• Charlie Melancon, a Blue Dog who is leaving the House for an ill-fated Senate run against David Vitter, is a no on the bill, according to my sources. He has criticized the comprehensive approach as recently as a week ago, and he voted against the House bill previously, so this is no surprise.

• As I mentioned earlier today, Dale Kildee left the Stupak bloc and flipped to yes on the bill.

• Joe Donnelly confirmed himself as a member of the Stupak bloc.

• I’m going to put Solomon Ortiz and Baron Hill in the “undecided” camp. They haven’t made any public statements, but they are being publicly targeted by both sides and are rumored to be part of the Stupak bloc.

Put that all together, and you’re at 191 yes, 195 no. I’ll break down the numbers on the flip. But first, there’s this important update, via Jon Walker.

Senate Republicans have basically signaled that they will not play ball on any attempt to use reconciliation to change the abortion language. That’s the meaning of their letter to Harry Reid, pledging to unite to block any effort to waive a point of order on the Byrd rule:

In that regard, to endeavor to ensure that the reconciliation process is not used to fast-track an unpopular bill through Congress, we wish to inform you that we will oppose efforts to waive the so-called Byrd Rule during Senate consideration of any reconciliation bill concerning health reform. The Byrd Rule, as you know, was created by Senator Byrd to ensure that reconciliation bills were not used to enact policy changes, the primary purpose of which is not specifically related to the federal budget. As it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, we can ensure that any provision that trips the Byrd Rule will be stripped from the bill, which will require that the bill be sent back to the House for further consideration and additional votes.

As you may know, the Catholic bishops floated a plan to waive points of order for changes to the abortion language. Senate GOPers are basically proclaiming that strategy dead. And Stupak himself has dismissed the idea a “third bill” after health care is completed, because he would lose all his leverage over the bill at that point.

This does effectively make the Stupak dilemma unsolvable. The language cannot change from the Senate language, essentially, and Stupak won’t go for that. The House will have to go around Stupak, because they can’t go through him. The path to passage just got a lot harder, because Democrats would basically have to retain every non-Stupak bloc Yes vote and pick up around 10-12 former No votes, a herculean task to say the least.

Details on the whip count on the flip. . . .

Definite YES:
191 Democrats.

Definite NO:
177 Republicans.

Definite NO:
18 Democrats.

17 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon.

1 Democrat who voted Yes in November:
Mike Arcuri.

21 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes

14 possible:
Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Scott Murphy, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson.

6 less possible:
Travis Childers, Harry Teague, Heath Shuler (severe lean no), John Barrow, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler.

25 potential Yes-No flip votes:

11 Stupak bloc:
Bart Stupak, Jerry Costello, Charlie Wilson, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Joseph Cao (R), Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Marion Berry, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski.

13 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Paul Kanjorski, Ann Kirkpatrick, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Bill Owens, John Spratt, Dennis Cardoza, James Oberstar, Baron Hill, Solomon Ortiz.

Tags: abortion, Bart Stupak, budget reconciliation, Democrats, Health care, House of Representatives, Republicans, whip count

 

Blanche Lincoln, threatened by a primary campaign in Arkansas, has decided that the best way to win over Arkansans is to make college less affordable for them and funnel money to the biggest banks in America.

Six Democrats signaled deep concerns with their chamber’s student lending reform bill on Tuesday, imploring party leaders to “consider potential alternative legislative proposals” in the coming days.

That could spell trouble for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and other Democratic leaders, who once hoped to advance the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act to the president’s desk using the chamber’s 50-vote reconciliation process.

In a brief letter dated Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (Fl.), Tom Carper (Del.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Jim Webb (Va.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) describe reform to the country’s “higher education funding” system as a “priority.”

But the group of centrist Democrats also express concerns the Senate’s lending bill could ultimately result in local job loss.

The job loss thing is a myth propagated by Sallie Mae lobbyists to preserve bank profits. No surprise that Lincoln would jump aboard that train, even though Sallie Mae and other student lenders don’t have any main offices in Arkansas, unlike Delaware, Nebraska and Virginia. She’s just jumping aboard because it sounds “centrist” and favors big money interests.

It’s not enough for Lincoln to want to stop reconciliation on the health care bill, she’s determined to stop it for the no-brainer prospect of directly lending to students, saving billions to make college more affordable.

I’ve reached out to Bill Halter’s campaign for a comment on all this, I’ll let you know when I get a response.

Tags: AR-Sen, Arkansas, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, Student lenders, student loans, Students Not Banks