Mass. loss costs Obama votes to propel health care
WASHINGTON
Now what? It's miles of bad road in any direction.
Democrats splintered on how to salvage the president's top
domestic initiative even before the results were official.
Republicans said don't bother: The election of state senator Scott
Brown sent a message that the health care bill should be scrapped.
Obama and party leaders anxiously worked through fallback
options -- none good.
After a year of improbable twists and turns, the unthinkable
happened Tuesday. Democrats lost Edward M. Kennedy's seat to a
Republican upstart, and with it faced the prospect of not being
able to pass the legislation that was Kennedy's dream.
Democrats don't appear to have enough time to resolve
differences between the House and Senate bills -- and get cost and
coverage estimates back from the Congressional Budget Office --
before Brown is sworn in. That leaves House Democrats with the
unpalatable option of passing a Senate bill that many of them
profoundly disagree with.
"How do we do it with 59?" lamented liberal Rep. Anthony
Weiner, D-N.Y.
Independents turned against the sweeping health care legislation
and the Democratic base lost its enthusiasm, Weiner continued.
Democratic lawmakers must show they got the message by regrouping,
considering a time-out on health care and perhaps passing a more
modest bill, he argued.
Others said they feel the need to act even more urgently.
"There is only one guarantee -- that if we don't pass something
the notion of trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again is a real
long shot," said Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late
senator. "If you understand the legislative process, it's a lot
easier to pass something and fix it later."
The defeat of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
leaves Obama and Democratic leaders facing a series of wrenching
decisions fraught with escalating political risk. Significant
disputes between the House and Senate would have to be settled by
presidential fiat, and Democratic lawmakers would have to move in
virtual lockstep to enact the bill, even as Republican opposition
intensifies.
That could be too much to ask from rank-and-file Democrats
demoralized by losing a seat held in an almost unbroken line by a
Kennedy since 1953. Efforts to woo a Republican convert could
increase. But with polls showing voters souring on health care
overhaul the president could be abandoned by lawmakers of his own
party.
The cleanest option calls for the House to quickly pass the
Senate bill and send it to Obama for his signature. But that
ignores at least two significant problems.
Labor unions are adamantly opposed to an insurance tax in the
Senate bill, and they successfully negotiated with Obama last week
to weaken it in key respects. Second, a core group of anti-abortion
Democrats says the Senate bill's provisions on restricting taxpayer
funding for abortion are too weak.
On top of that, many House Democrats do not believe the Senate
bill provides enough aid to make health insurance affordable.
"The Senate bill clearly is better than nothing," said House
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. He refused to speculate on
whether House Democrats could be cajoled into voting for it without
changes.
Before Tuesday's election results were in, rank-and-file
Democrats were sending mixed signals on whether the House should
try to pass the Senate bill, but only a handful rejected the idea
outright.
"I think it's important for us to pass legislation. I haven't
completely analyzed it myself, but if that's the only option in
town, then maybe that's what we ought to do," said Rep. Baron
Hill, D-Ind., who represents a swing state district.
But Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sponsor of a House-passed
provision restricting taxpayer funding for abortion, said he could
not back the Senate bill.
House objections have led to a second fallback option: getting
the Senate to accept changes to its bill as a condition for House
passage. It involves a complicated legislative choreography that
could take several weeks to play out.
Without 60 votes needed to overcome Republican delaying tactics,
that strategy would require Senate Democratic leaders to use a
special budget-related procedure to pass the changes with only 51
votes. It's guaranteed to enrage Republicans, and it's not clear
that Senate Democratic leaders have political support to pull it
off.
To complicate matters, additional legislation may be required to
resolve disputes about abortion funding and illegal immigrants. In
the meantime, the drumbeat from opponents of the legislation could
be deafening.
Even more uncertain are the chances for persuading Maine
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to come along, since she opposed the
Senate version.
Snowe, who supported a version of the Senate bill in committee,
remains an intriguing figure in the endgame.
Obama called Snowe on Friday to discuss health care. They have
spoken regularly and Gibbs said Obama continues trying to win her
over.
Democratic congressional leaders put on a show of resolve. In
1994, Democrats failed to act on President Bill Clinton's health
care package and lost control of Congress.
"Our goals remain the same," Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., said.
"Our strategy may vary but our goals remain the same."