As people have seen in the front page, there are two apparently conflicting reports coming out of the two chambers today.
First, Pelosi has announced that the Public Option is dead:
"We had it; we wanted it," she told reporters. "It's not in reconciliation ... We're talking about something that's not going to be part of the legislation."
"I'm quite sad that a public option isn't in there." Pelosi added. "But it isn't a case of it's not in there because the Senate is whipping against it. It's not in there because they don't have the votes to have it in there."
But wait! Durbin says that he'll whip for it if it's included:
Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over.
So what is going on here?
There are several variables at play here which explain what is going on:
- The House doesn't trust the Senate,
- The Senate wants to pass the reconciliation bill without amendment, and
- No one wants to take the blame for the death of the public option, if it in fact isn't included or doesn't pass.
Durbin is just expanding on what he said yesterday, along with trying to take some heat off himself by clarifying that he will whip for whatever the House sends them, public option or not. If it doesn't have a public option, then they'll whip against it. If it does have a public option, then they'll whip for it.
And indeed, Durbin is probably entirely correct, except he is neglecting to mention an important fact: the House doesn't trust the Senate to be able to whip up 50 votes for the public option, and Pelosi isn't going to put the public option into the bill unless the Senate can assure her that they have the votes. So while Durbin is trying to put the blame and pressure over to the House by saying that it's the House's responsibility to put the PO into the bill (which is true), Pelosi is switching it back to the Senate by saying that the Senate hasn't demonstrated that it can actually pass the public option (also true).
So we're in a situation where each house can blame the other. The Senate can say "well, don't blame us for not having a public option! The House didn't include it in their bill!" and the House can blame the Senate by saying "hey, we weren't going to include anything that we didn't know could be passed, and you never showed that it could be passed?"
So where does that put us? Who is currently responsible for doing what? Here is the situation:
- The current responsibility is on Senator Durbin and the Senate to actively demonstrate that they have 50 votes for the public option. Which means that Durbin should be whipping for it now, not after the House votes on their bill.
- If Durbin can go to Pelosi and say "we have 50 votes," then it will be Pelosi's responsibility to put the public option into the bill and to pass the bill.
- Finally, If we get this far, it will then be Durbin and the Senate leadership's responsibility to actually pass the bill with the public option in it.
So from my point of view, despite what Durbin is saying, and despite the fact that what Durbin is saying is technically correct, the responsibility still lies with the Senate to show that they can actually come up with 50 votes for the public option.
Update: There are several people wanting to push Pelosi to "call Durbin's bluff" and include a public option anyway. I don't think such an option would be seriously considered for one reason: There is no strategic or political upside to it.
Let's say Pelosi decides to call Durbin's bluff. What are the possible results of this action:
Possibility A: The Senate passes the bill with the public option.
Possibility B: The Senate fails to pass the bill, or amends the bill. The House goes to work on a bill without the Public Option
Possibility C: The Senate fails to pass the bill, reconciliation dies.
There are the issues with all this:
Some people have argued that if a bill with a public option fails in the Senate, then the House can just pass another bill without the public option. The problem with this is that it eliminates the pressure on Senators to "pass this or else." If they know that they can kill the public option, and the House will just send them another bill, then what's the point?
The only way to create the "pass this bill or else" pressure is for the House to straight out and say that this is it: this is the last time they're working on it. The Senate can either take it, or kill reconciliation altogether. The problem with this option is this: what if Durbin just can't get 50 votes for the public option? Then the whole thing comes crashing down. Pelosi isn't going to risk doing that.
And what if the Senate can get 50 votes for the public option? Can't Durbin whip for that now and find out if that's the case? Why does he need to wait until the House passes their bill to whip for the PO? The easy answer is: he doesn't.
This doesn't even get into the problem of, if the House has to vote on another bill, or has to vote on an amended Senate bill, that, well, it means another vote in the House, which may or may not be certain.
Update 2: Here is a link for Senators who have not given a position on the public option yet:
http://action.progressivecongress.or...