Democrats' Deal With Blue Dogs on Healthcare is a Lose-Lose Situation

July 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's leadership over the U.S. House is in a rocky state.

Back in January, Pelosi backed an effort by fellow California Democrat Henry Waxman to oust Michigan's John Dingell from the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell, currently the House's most senior member, was thought by many on the party's left to be too close to the automakers located in his home state and would, therefore, be an impediment to what the Obama administration wanted to do to curb the production of greenhouse gases.

Waxman, a liberal's liberal from Los Angeles, is a well-known opponent of big business, a friend to the trial lawyers, and someone who was seen as far more sympathetic to the views of radical environmentalists who, like former Vice President Al Gore, regard the internal combustion engine as a threat "more deadly than that of any military enemy" to the continued survival of man.

Putting Waxman in the chair in place of Dingell was a big change—one that had a major impact on much of the important legislation the current Congress has taken up—including Obama's stimulus package, the "cap-and-trade" national energy tax, the Detroit bailout and, most recently, healthcare reform.

The problem for Pelosi is that unlike Dingell, who was and is an acknowledged master of the deal, Waxman, a lead sponsor of the healthcare reform package that has been stuck for days in his committee, just can't seem to get it done.

Originally it was a rebellion by the largely rural "blue dog" Democrats on Waxman's committee that held up the bill. Their complaint: The bill was too expensive and there wasn't enough money in it for their districts. And so they held things up, long enough to prevent a vote before the start of the August recess, wrecking President Obama's timetable.

Now, after days of negotiations with Waxman, the blue dogs have made a deal—or at least a deal to get a deal that, among other things, promises no vote on healthcare reform before Congress comes back in September. Which means members on both sides of the aisle get to spend the year's hottest month back home, getting heat from their constituents, either for the lack of progress on reform or because reform is moving forward at all.

In politics, that's called a "lose-lose" situation; and it's a politician's least favorite place to be.

Getting back to Waxman, the deal to get a deal he struck with the blue dogs, rather than clearing the way for the tri-committee bill to get out of his committee, is raising hackles inside the Democratic Caucus, especially among Pelosi's strongest supporters. As Politico reported Thursday, "Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members—(Speaker) Pelosi's most loyal base of support—are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost." 

"Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable," said New York liberal Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of about 10 progressives who met repeatedly with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, on Wednesday. "We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't include a robust public option, and this plan doesn't have a robust public option," he added. 

Whether the differences that remain between the leadership and the blue dogs can be resolved and whether that resolution will be acceptable to the House Democratic Caucus remains to be seen. One thing that seems clear is that Waxman appears to have made a mess of the whole business, probably not enough to cause him to lose his chairmanship but enough to give Speaker Pelosi a big headache and a few sleepless nights.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
healthcare,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

At least the fools aren't going to rush this one through like all the other "emergency" legislation that has been shoved down our throat since January.

It is NOT the Government's place to "provide" for it's citizens.

It IS the Government's JOB to allow oportunity for citizens to "provide" for themselves.

STOP the madness!

Join your TeaParties, call/write your Congressmen, be at the Sept.12th Protest in Washington and let THEM know they WILL BE FIRED.

Chris Petty of GA 12:00PM August 01, 2009

Dear Sirs, is there any way that someone could explain the history and consequences of all this deficit spending by our Federal Government to pay for things like all these bail outs of private mortgage and securities brokerages, banks, General Motors? How much did this cost us so far and exactly how is this financing set up? How is the Federal Government proposing to pay for this Healthcare / Insurance takeover? How are they going to institute cap and trade? I know that the Feds have sold 800 billion in U.S. Treasuries, which in my opinion represents stock in America. At what rate do we have to buy back our own stock? Was that enough to cover phase one, the Bail Out Packages? Who would be really taking responsibility for these failures? China? Who would be holding interest in this transaction and what exactly is the principle that is at stake? My understanding is that U.S. citizens would have to retire this obligation in the form of taxes on our earned income. Has the U.S. Dollar been leveraged over the years to compensate for past deficit spending? What exactly is a Federal Reserve Note? Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like the Federal Government is entrusting the citizens to believe that once all obligations, ($37,000.00 for each and every American), has been satisfied. Once we have paid off our promisary "notes", theoretically there would be in reserve some standard to make a dollar worth a dollar. It used to be a gold standard. How does it work now? A couple of relevant quotes, “Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen whic”, George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799). “Debt is the slavery of the free”,Publilius Syrus quotes (Roman author, 1st century B.C.). Sincerely, Art

Art of FL 5:55PM July 30, 2009

If the Democrats fail to implement REAL reform (like a single-payer system) this year, they will be voted out of office in their next election (the same thing that happened in the 1990's, when the Democrats failed to enact real health care reform then). Should real change not occur, then there is little reason to vote for the Democrats - they will have shown themselves to be little more than Republicans in drag.

Blue elephants, if you will.

AC of CA 5:38PM July 30, 2009

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement