Whoohoo! "Clyburn: House Dems Will Pass Senate Bill If Fix Is Guaranteed."

[Clio the Leo]

Clyburn: House Dems Will Pass Senate Bill If Fix Is Guaranteed

An influential House Democrat is now predicting that House Dems will pass the Senate bill if they are persuaded they have a guarantee that it will be fixed in reconciliation — a declaration that could give a boost of momentum for the prospects of getting reform done via this route.

In an interview with me, House majority whip James Clyburn also urged the President to throw his weight behind this approach during tomorrow’s State of the Union Address, declaring that it would be “helpful.”

The comments from Clyburn — who’s been canvassing opinion from members in recent days — could contribute to a growing sense that this is course of action most likely to succeed, and could give ammo to to those pressing this case.

“I feel certain that the House Democrats will pass health care reform if the fixes that we feel need to be made to the Senate bill are guaranteed,” Clyburn said. Asked directly if the House votes would be there if this happened, Clyburn said: “Yes, sir.”

Clyburn’s comments suggest that if Dem leaders figure out a way of demonstrating to House Democrats that the reconciliation fix is iron-clad, they could support the Senate bill in large enough numbers to pass.

Clyburn cautioned, however, that House Dems would have to be convinced of the veracity of the fix, citing the “natural distrust between the two bodies.” He added that House Dems would want to see the fix address their opposition to the “Cadillac” tax, to state-based exchanges, and to various sweetheart deals for Senators.

Clyburn called on the President to use his clout and prestige to urge Congressional Dems to follow this course of action during tomorrow’s speech.

“I think that would be helpful,” Clyburn said. “I would like for him to say that we ought to do the fixes…and pass the rest of the Senate bill. I think it would be good for him to let everybody know.”

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/clyburn-house-dems-will-pass-senate-bill-if-fix-is-guaranteed-urges-obama-to-push-dems-harder/

[Chulanowa]

1. A guarantee is worth about as much as the spit that's going to end up in their eyes

Sort of like that guarantee that Joementum wouldn't fuck over the Dems he was caucusing with, remember? or the guarantee that we would have Republican votes on this thing, remember that?

Rep. Clyburn, and many others need to fucking realize that proven liars are going to keep lying to you.

[grytpype]

13. We don't need Holy Joe, we just need 50 votes plus Biden.

Much, much easier than 60.

[Jennicut]

2. If Clyburn was looking for votes and didn't have them, I doubt he

would say anything. This is good news.

[Q3JR4]

3. Hypothetical House Dems to Senate Dems:

Pass reconciliation just as we want it first, then we'll talk.

Q3JR4.

[jannyk]

4. Get that Guarantee in writing!!! With 59 sigs on it!!! nt

[Q3JR4]

6. Nope just make 'em pass YOUR reconciliation bill first.

Once the House has it in their hot little hands, THEN they can vote for the senate version.

Otherwise we're going to get screwed again.

Q3JR4.
Trusts politicians like he trusts an unchained rabid dog at his back.

[TheWraith]

11. Um, what does that mean?

A reconciliation bill would mean they don't have reason to pass the Senate bill anymore. Unless you're referring to a bill for the House's edits, in which case you can't change a law you haven't passed yet.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Only need 50.

[Skinner]

10. I think they would only need 50.

The fix would be part of reconciliation.

[mzmolly]

5. Good, do it tomorrow, before the SOTU address!

:toast:

[Pirate Smile]

7. Yeah!

:D

[quantass]

9. How would they guarantee this? Is it only by Handshake?

If it is a "i give you my word" guarantee then forget it. It is meaningless.
Unless there is a written, law abiding agreement for this guarantee then one thing is for certain it will NOT be fixed. We've played this game before.

Since i am guessing such a guarantee is not guarantee-able i am guessing you will get pretty much anyone to say ok with their fingers crossed behind their backs...and that includes the president.

If there in fact is a way to absolutely guarantee it in writing i will bet good money President Obama will NOT endorse it. Just calling it like i see it.

[gkhouston]

12. I'll whoohoo when I see what the fix actually is. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

14. Iron clad is the key...trusting the flim flam artists who have

taken over the dem party is like sticking your hand in a bear trap and pushing the trip to see if it works. If the progs are not very careful on this, we are looking at another Lucy and the football moment.

[flyarm]

15. question: WHAT IS THE FIX? eom

[Better Today]

16. This is bad. I liked much better the idea of finding better paths

to a better bill(s).

[Strawman]

17. I think the Senate could even pass the fix thru reconciliation before the House

passes the Senate bill. The House just has to pass the Senate bill first and the fixes second. Maybe I'm wrong but I recall reading that somewhere.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. This "fix" that keeps being mentioned

Clyburn mentioned this: "their opposition to the “Cadillac” tax, to state-based exchanges, and to various sweetheart deals for Senators." What happened to a Medicare buy in for those over 55? That was part of the fix that the Senate planned all by itself after they decided that there weren't 50 votes for a Public Option. Only Lieberman and maybe one or two other Democrats stood in the way of that one at the time. What happened to revoking the anti-trust provisions that the private insurance industry still enjoys? And what about that Public Option now that I mention it? It was in the original version of the Senate Bill that Reid prepared before he threw in the towel on getting to 60. But now we are talking 50, that's a big difference. So that should be part of "the fix" also.

I'm only mentioning things that either made it into the final draft version of the Senate Bill that Reid sent to the Congressional Budget Office to be scored, or in the next to last compromise that Lieberman torpedoed. Why were all those things seriously pursued by the Senate when the bar was set at 60 votes, but now are no longer being discussed with the bar lowered to 50?