It’s nice to have a—what’s the word?—a mensch in your corner.
To get to the 60 votes needed to pass the health-care obamination the Democrats are desperate to pass with such unseemly haste, they’re going to have to deal with the man they spurned in his last election, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
Lieberman has been outspoken about his refusal to consider a health-care reform package that includes a public option—that’s the key provision for Democrats, who know that it will inevitably lead to complete government control of the entire health-care industry. (Private insurers cannot sustain trillion-dollar deficits. Of course, neither can the federal government, but that’s the next Congress’s problem.)
Now we all know how politicians speak. Refusing to consider a public option could very well mean willingness to include a “triggered” option, which would have the same effect but provide political cover for those who vote for its inclusion.
Lieberman, however, is not a typical politician. Insofar as it is possible in the US Senate, he is beholden to no one except the voters who put him in office—he enjoys broad support among Connecticut’s registered Republicans and Independents, and he’s plenty liberal enough for all but the most leftist of our lunatic Democrats.
In the Wall Street Journal, he explains exactly what he means by “no public option:”
When Mr. Lieberman says no public option, he means no public option—not an “opt-in” or an “opt out” or a “trigger” (a public option only comes into effect if private insurers fail to spread enough coverage). “We are at the point now where this has become the classic legislative process of trying to get a fig leaf that everyone can hide behind. And I don’t want to do that.”
Why is he adamant? Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not “a conspiratorial person,” he believes the public option is intended as a way for the government to take over health care.
Mr. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that it is necessary to keep insurers honest. “Sometimes the private sector does things that are wrong, and when they do, you regulate—sometimes you litigate,” he says. “But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one industry honest by having government go into that business to compete with the industry.”
He is also “really fixed on the national debt.” Several provisions in the Reid bill, he says, will result in “the government accepting unlimited liability for debts incurred by this government-run public option.” And those debts will come. “If we create this, it’s going to run deficits. Not for evil reasons. Congress just likes to say ‘yes’ when people ask for additional services to be covered.”
[Obamacare front-man Harry Reid's] problem is that liberals are threatening to bolt if the bill doesn’t include a public option. Mr. Lieberman is unsympathetic. “Some people say to me, ‘You would stop health-care reform because of the public option? I mean, you support a lot of this stuff!’ So I say, I’ll ask it another way: ‘You mean the people who are supporting the public option, which is new to this debate, would stop all these reforms because they are stubborn?’”
Give ‘em hell, Joe. And explain some of this stuff to Olympia Snowe (?-ME) if you get the chance, okay?
Word has it that he is a very nice man to. Besides being all stubborn and unwilling to follow Reid over the cliff with the other Lemmings.
I know two things about Lieberman:
1. He’s a lousy driver. I had to honk at him once, and not in a “Hey, that’s Joe Lieberman!” way. In a “C’mon, c’mon let’s go!” way. (Ironically, he was hesitating over making a left turn.)
2. He knows someone in my apartment building well enough to stay over one night last winter during a horrible snow storm. It was weird running into him at midnight in my lobby. Given his driving skills, he showed good judgment by not being on the roads.
Do they even need 60 now ?
The 60 is needed for cloture, to debate the bill.
Now all that is needed is 50 yea votes from sitting Senators.
The earlier vote was a procedural matter, to bring the bill to the Senate floor. Now it’s time for debate and to offer amendments. When this period comes to an end, there will need to be another vote which will only take place if those in favor can override a filibuster, so they’ll need 60 votes again.
What happened to Stephanie’s avatar? She’s all sulky, and stuff.
I can’t think of any better description of how the Legislative Branch is supposed to act. Go Joe, GO!!
New avatar. It’s supposed to be the Norse goddess Sif.
And unless Reid uses reconcilliation he needs 60 votes so there
is the civicsesson for today.
Steph,
What is “reconcilliation”?
Bills which pass the House and the Senate can be very different from each other, Kit. “Reconciliation” is the process of ironing out those differences so that there is one unified bill to send to the President. It’s also a way to sneak things into a bill at the last minute and hope no one makes too big a stink about it.
Nope thats not reconcilliation. Reconcillation is a budget rule that allows the Senate to pass a bill strictly on a bare majority. Normally bills cannot pass the senate unless there are 60 votes for it. Its only used for the budget not for anything else. But Reid has made it plain he “could” use it. However it would have to be discussed with the Senate Parlimentarian and the GOP would have a lot to say on that issue. Lets just say if Reid uses that AKA the nuclear option he will earn a lot of hate from his own party. I know he has been told don’t go there.
Huh. I wonder what I was thinking of. Could be that the process of shuttling a bill back and forth between House and Senate was once described as “reconciling” the differences between the versions and I thought that was “reconciliation.”
Never listen to me, Kit.
I’m sure Mr. Leiberman’s vote is for sale, just like all the others. Reid hasn’t met Joe’s asking price, yet, that’s all.
How do I get an avatar? Will I even use one if I get one?
I guess that’s possible, Magnus. But you could say the same about any politician on any issue so if that isn’t an invitation to despair and apathy, I’m not sure what would be. I’m gonna believe him until he gives me a reason not to.
Go to gravatar.com and register with the same e-mail you use to comment here. Upload the picture you want, and Bob’s your uncle.
Mike, you hit the nail on the head. Such cynicism, aside from being no way to live, is completely irrational, by nature. In fact, you can apply the same attitude to any person alive, extending a possibility to a certainty without evidence. But manifestly, this is not so. The world doesn’t work that way. It never has. For good or bad, things change. It’s as irrational to be a blind optimist as it is to be a blind pessimist.
Magnus, Leiberman was kicked out of his own party for refusing to back down on Iraq. That builds a certain cachet of trust.
Lieberman was pretty solid on Iraq when like that idiot Specter he could have just folded for the scratch behind the ears from his party. He didn’t. He stayed solid. I admire that.
Yes, he was kicked out. Just the same, he didn’t leave on his own. I think he still fancies himself a democrat, even if he supported the Iraq war. Perhaps, in this case, he can make the “Reagan” claim: that he didn’t leave the party, the party left him (with emphasis on the word “left”)
The stakes for the Democrats are much higher with Obamacare. If one congressman can be bought for $300,000,000.00, what might Joe’s price be? TARP money abounds, and the Dems are not afraid to spend it, if they think it will keep them in office. And, David, you’re right, too: The world doesn’t work this way, at least, not the one I live in. I don’t live in the political world, though, and that seems to be the way it works.
Conversely, I’m pleased that Joe does seem to be a “spoiler” for the Dems. They’ve certainly needed one for quite a while, and about 60 of them would be great. Still, he’s way too liberal for my future, as is/was McCain.
Joe Lieberman caucuses (that doesn’t look right, but my spellcheck isn’t flagging it [although it just flagged the word "spellcheck" so what does it know?]) with the Democrats, and he’s a complete liberal. I’d oppose him if I lived in a state where a conservative was a viable option. I don’t. I’ve voted for him two of the three times he’s run for Senator. (I voted for the Republican in 2000, because Lieberman was running for Vice President and I didn’t like the fact that he could run for two offices at the same time.)
If I and those who think like me had voted for the Republican last time around, we’d be dealing with Senator Ned Lamont, who’d be completely in favor of whatever crazy health plan Harry Reid and Barack Obama put forward.
In other words, by praising Joe I’m praising my own judgment. Do you really want to take that way from me?