TPM's Brian Beutler has got today's "most likely to piss you off" story with this one:
Conrad: Health Care 'Dead' Unless House Passes Senate Bill First
Brian Beutler | February 24, 2010, 11:01AM
The Senate Democrats' top budget guy says that the Senate can't pass a reconciliation package tweaking a comprehensive health care bill unless the House passes the Senate bill first. And if the House won't do that, he says health care reform is "dead."
"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). "That's the only way that works."
I pointed out that House leadership has repeatedly said they won't take a flier on a reconciliation package--that they will only pass the Senate bill after the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.
"Fine, then it's dead," Conrad said.
"That's the only way that works."
I'm going to put this as kindly as possible: I really wish Senator Conrad would state his objection specifically, because there are a lot of people who think there's another way this could work.
I have heard it said that there are some technical problems other than the "amending a bill that hasn't passed yet" objection that could arise from passing the reconciliation fix first, but of course Senator Conrad won't indulge us on that score. Specifically, I have seen it said that if a reconciliation package boosts subsidy levels over and above what the Senate bill provides but is passed first, the CBO may want to score the reconciliation bill by charging it the full freight, as it were. That is, by scoring the costs of the reconciliation bill on that point not just for the additional subsidy boost, but for the entire cost of the subsidies provided in the Senate bill as well. That could conceivably present political and/or procedural roadblocks.
But it continues to be a problem that Senators like Conrad won't take the time to state their objections clearly. Or maybe they're not being asked the right questions. Or whatever. But that's all we have now: "That's the only way this works."
Is it because he thinks (contrary to what House leaders think) that you can't juggle the enrollment process such that you don't create the legal paradox of attempting to enact amendments to a bill that itself hasn't been enacted yet? Is it just that he's refusing to commit to voting for a reconciliation bill he hasn't seen yet? Is it a scoring problem? What?
We don't know, and apparently we're not meant to. File this one under, "People who get the bum's rush from their Senators on stuff they care about and are dying to help with don't stay enthused for very long."