Beginning about half way through this Meet the Press clip, WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne chews Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) a brand new one. Dionne underscores several key points about the use of reconciliation exceptionally-well. He points out that Republicans have used it on many occasions for what Hatch calls “sweeping social legislation.” He notes that reconciliation would only be used for a portion of HCR. Then he brings out the point he made in his last column (flagged here by TDS) that it’s wrong to let “a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.” Dionne’s response provides an excellent debate template for health care reform advocates.

In his OpenLeft post, “Yes, Congressional Progressives won major public option concessions in the health reform bill,” Chris Bowers has a potent antidote for a defeatist meme that has popped up here and there on the progressive blogosphere: that progressive activists got rolled, and consequently, the Democratic HCR package ain’t worth spit. To which Bowers responds:

…That entire line of “argument” is just demonstrably false, and either intellectually dishonest or blinded by egregious cynicism…Here are two huge public option concessions that ended up in the Senate bill as concessions to progressive activists and members of Congress:
1. Four million additional Americans covered by Medicaid
Back in July, the health reform proposal in the House (PDF, p. 17) expanded Medicaid coverage by 11 million compared to current law. In an attempt to win over the 60 House Progressives who demanded a public option tied to Medicare rates, Speaker Pelosi increased the Medicaid coverage in the health reform proposal to 15 million more than current law. This was done entirely as a sweetner to Progressives, most of whom come from districts with a disproportionately large number of constituents who would be eligible for Medicaid expansion. Furthermore, even though it was accomplished through a slightly different policy means, that expansion of Medicaid to 15 million more people than current law remained in the Senate bill (CBO report, PDF, page 20)
The House Progressives who signed the infamous July 31st letter demanding a public option tied to Medicare rates did not just fold and walk away with nothing. They got four million, uninsured, low-income Americans public health insurance. They were additionally given a chance by the leadership to whip the entire House caucus on a Medicare +5% public option in the insurance exchange. They came close, but failed to reach 218. That was also a concession they won from the July letter.
2. Twenty-five million additional Americans provided public health care
On December 16th, Senator Bernie Sanders was still threatening to vote against cloture on the Senate health reform bill. Three days later he was on board, but only after securing public health care (not health insurance, health care) for 25,000,000 million, largely low-income Americans:

To amplify the latter point, Bowers flags the following from Sanders’ website:

WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.
The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.
Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

Bowers adds that “This was won as a direct concession for Sanders’ vote on cloture,” and

…Given a chance to pass a bill that is the largest expansion of public health insurance and health care in 45 years, and when netroots progressive activism campaigns played vital roles in improving those portions of the bill, you’re damn right I want to it passed.
We were fighting to expand public health insurance. We got public health insurance for 15,000,000, uninsured low-income Americans, and we got public health care for 25,000,000 low-income million Americans. Much of what has won was directly the result of the public option campaign. And yes, we are still fighting for even more, no matter the odds. No matter the outcome of that campaign, however, if the health reform bill passes, then the public option campaign was a success.

Bowers expanded his argument with a 9-point rebuttal in his post yesterday, “The complete list of ways progressives strengthened health reform legislation,” also a tonic for checking cynicism and despair about HCR among progressives.

HCR supporters seeking a compelling rebuttal of the Republican meme that the budget reconciliation process is somehow undemocratic need look no farther than E. J. Dionne Jr.’s WaPo op-ed, “The Republicans’ big lie about reconciliation.” Dionne gives President Obama due credit for including some of the Republicans’ favored provisions in the HCR package, and then addresses President Obama’s commitment to pass the legislation in keeping with the democratic process, despite GOP myth-mongering:

…What he’s (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.
Republicans, however, don’t want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn “reconciliation” into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are “ramming through” a health bill.
It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie — or, if you’re sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.

Dionne then addresses Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch’s distortion of the use of the budget reconciliation process to “ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill.” Dionne points out that reconciliation would be used only for some amendments to the legislation. He then nails Hatch for saying that Democratic senators Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad oppose using reconciliation for health care reform:

What he didn’t say is that Byrd’s comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post’s Ezra Klein this week that it’s perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation “to improve or perfect the package,” which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.

Hatch, like many other Republicans strains to characterize the use of reconciliation as illegitimate in passing health reform measures. But Dionne isn’t having any of this particular brand of GOP hypocrisy:

Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation” unless the legislation has “significant bipartisan support.” But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were “substantive legislation.” The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about “ramming through.”
The underlying “principle” here seems to be that it’s fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

And then Dionne rolls out the moral imperative: “…It’s not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.”
And that’s really the heart of the issue.

In his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ posted today at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira shows clearly that President Obama was right in saying that the major elements of comprehensive health care reform legislation he is advocating are popular with the public and that the bills in Congress would fare better if the public actually knew what was in them. As Teixeira explains:

…It turns out the president’s claim is well founded. The latest evidence is in a recent Newsweek poll that first asked respondents whether they supported or opposed Obama’s health care reform plan, then gave them a list of key provisions in the plan, and then asked them again whether they supported Obama’s plan.
…Six of the eight provisions get majority support with the highest favorability for the health insurance exchanges (81 percent), requiring health insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions (76 percent), and requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees (75 percent). But the poll also asked about two provisions the public did not like: taxing “Cadillac” health plans and fining individuals who refuse to get health insurance. So Newsweek cannot be accused of cherry picking the plan for only those provisions the public would likely favor.
Before respondents heard the list of provisions, they opposed Obama’s health care plan 49-40. After respondents heard the list they switched to 48-43 support. Obama was right: If the public knew what was actually in the comprehensive health care plans being proposed, they would feel more favorably about them.

And, interestingly, those who keep saying that the public wants to abandon health care reform and move on to other legislation are dead wrong, as Teixeira explains:

…In an early February ABC/Washington Post poll, the public said, by an overwhelming 63-34 margin, that lawmakers in Washington should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan instead of giving up.

As Teixeira concludes, ” Amen to that.”

A new DCORPS study, “Turnout and the New American Majority” (PDF) sheds fresh light on the opportunity and challenge presented to progressives by three key groups of the ‘Rising American Electorate’ (RAE), unmarried women, people of color and youth. Subtitled “A Year-Long Project Tracking Voter Participation and Vote Preference Among the Rising American Electorate,” the study includes a survey commissioned by Women’s Voices. Women Vote, conducted between 1/7 and 1/12 designed to track engagement of RAE voters.
DCORPS notes that declining turnout among key segments of the U.S. electorate suggests “a looming problem heading into the 2010 elections” because “turnout collapsed” among RAE groups in the 2009 elections in NJ, VA and the 2010 MA special. In addition, “much of the polling in the summer and into the fall last year, as well as early polling in 2010, suggests a disproportionate problem among these specific voting blocs.”
RAE voters account for a majority of the voting-age population in the U.S. “Because they do not vote at the same levels as other voters, their voices are not always heard by policy-makers.” But the authors conclude that “popular assumptions about dismal turnout among these voters are wrong. It is not inevitable, and it is not tied primarily to the economy. It can change with the right programs and due attention.” Other key findings include:

· As others in the participation community have been warning, turnout among these groups is at risk; this comes after record turnout in the 2008 election.
· It is a mistake to assume that this is all about the economy and disappointment with the slow pace of recovery. Those in the Rising American Electorate least likely to vote are the most optimistic about economic turnaround. Moreover, regression analysis suggests little, if any, predictive value in economic perceptions on enthusiasm for voting.
· This is important because it suggests that turnout is not captive to economic performance. The programs that worked to increase turnout in 2008 and 2006 can still increase turnout among these voters in 2010.
· Democrats face another problem, too; declining levels of support, particularly among youth and unmarried women. The economy likely plays a more significant role in vote preference than in turnout.
· What is key for both parties is getting the economic narrative right. This means speaking to this issue in their terms and focusing on tangible relief efforts they can see and touch, like unemployment benefits and health care reform. But it also means speaking to their hope and desire for change, which has not died since the 2008 election cycle. If anything, these voters want more change, not less.

While the interests of the RAE groups clearly fit within the Democratic Party, the worst thing would be for Dems to assume they will show up in adequate numbers to prevent a rout in November. If we want to hold the House and Senate, motivating and turning out the RAE must be a top priority.

Despite recent conservative success in the politics of distraction, the American public remains strongly supportive of progressive policies in three key areas, according to TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira, who explains in his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot‘ at The Center for American Progress web pages. On taxes:

…The public remains enamored of a wide range of progressive policies, as polling data regularly document. Consider these findings from the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. In that poll the public was asked whether the 2001 tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more should be allowed to expire, explicitly pointing out that that would raise taxes on that group of people. The public deemed it a good idea to eliminate these Bush-era tax cuts for the rich by a 2-1 ratio (62-31).

On bank regulation:

In the same poll, the public was asked whether we should increase regulations on banks to help prevent future financial crises or not increase regulations because that would discourage private investors. The public endorsed increasing bank regulation by 56-36.

On the filibuster:

…Conservatives have been very proud of their use of the filibuster in the Senate to “protect” the people from progressive legislation. But apparently the public is not convinced they need this kind of protection. By 50-44 the public backed eliminating the filibuster option and allowing legislation to pass with a simple majority.

As Teixeira concludes:

Majority rule—now that’s a novel idea! Unfortunately, conservatives seem uninterested in promoting this concept, preferring to block progressive legislation by any means available, democratic or not. Perhaps it’s time for progressives to more forcefully remind the public of this conservative disregard for democracy. By these data the public is ready to listen.

Could opinion polls spell it out any better? The time for progressives to counter-attack has arrived.

The National Journal.com‘s Hotline Online has a short video interview with TDS Co-Editor Stan Greenberg on the topic of Democratic strategy toward the tea party movement. Greenberg urges Dems to show “respect for the voters” protesting their grievances, while supporting the President’s policies which, unlike the Republicans’ positions, actually address the concerns of many tea party supporters.

In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot‘ TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira presents compelling statistical evidence that the American public supports President Obama’s call to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and permit Lesbian and Gay people to serve openly in our armed forces. According to a new Quinnipiac poll, notes Teixeira:

…A strong 57-36 margin, said the federal law prohibiting openly gay men and women from serving in the military should be repealed…Moreover, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio—66 percent to 31 percent—the public agrees that not allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military is discriminatory.

As for the argument that allowing openly gay men and women in the armed forces would be divisive for the troops and impair their ability to fight, the public is not buying it by a 65-30 margin. “In the court of public opinion, this looks like an open-and-shut case,” concludes Teixeira. “Congress, take note.”

Well, OK, it’s not like major traction. But J.P. Green’s post title “G.O.P. = Gridlock, Obstruction & Paralysis” did win a coveted Upper Left Blogspot “Acronym of the Day” designation, which gives us enough of an excuse to re-post the equation. Green’s post title did get some other play, including fleeting mentions in a couple dozen web pages, including WSJ and USAToday search pages. The larger point is “gridlock,” “obstruction” and “paralysis” are three words that are being mentioned with increasing frequency in the same sentence with “G.O.P,” along with phrases like “The Party of No” and “The Party of Obstruction.” Worthy designations all. If anyone has a more apt short description for what the Republican Party of the 21st century stands for, we welcome your suggestions.

Chris Bowers has an OpenLeft post about the futility of seeking a dependable filibuster-proof Senate supermajority. While Dems may be only one vote away from achieving a filibuster-proof supermajority on health care reform, Bowers crunches some numbers and concludes that overall, Dems would need 72 Senators to have a reliable filibuster-proof majority. His reasoning:

A look at Senate voting habits shows that it takes only 54 Republican Senators to reach 60 votes for conservative legislation, while it takes 72 Democratic Senators to reach 60 votes for progressive legislation. While the last sentence sounds like snark, it isn’t). Democratic Senators vote with Republicans significantly more often than Republican Senators vote with Democrats, making it much easier for Republicans to pass the kind of legislation they want.
According to Progressive Punch, looking only at “crucial votes,” the average Democratic Senator has voted with the progressive position 82.4% of the time over the course of their entire career. By contrast, looking only at crucial votes, the average Republican Senator has voted with the progressive position 3.5% of the time throughout their entire career.
Voting habits like these mean that, in order to reach 60 progressive votes on crucial votes, Democrats actually need 72 Senators ((72 * 0.824) + (28 * 0.035) = 60.3 effective votes). By contrast, Republicans only need 54 Senators to break progressive filibusters of their agenda ((46 * 0.176) + (54 * 0.965) = 60.2 effective votes).

Of course, Bowers’ calculations have to do with averages, rather than specific situations, like health care reform legislation. But his point that a reliable filibuster-proof supermajority for a progressive agenda is not achievable under current rules is a good one. Further, under current rules,

The main choice is thus between:
1. Never having a progressive majority and usually being able to block anti-progressive legislation,
2. Occasionally having a progressive majority and rarely being able to block anti-progressive legislation.

Bowers concludes of the current filibuster rule that “A progressive majority in the Senate simply impossible as long as it exists” — a well-reasoned case for reducing the filibuster threshold or getting rid of it altogether.