President Obama has recently announced a health reform summit, to take place across the street from the White House, with the C-SPAN cameras rolling. He's invited Democratic and Republican leaders from Congress to this summit. Many cynics have dismissed the effort already, either pronouncing it less than worthless legislatively, or calling it some form of political Kabuki theater which will do no good even politically. I think these pronunciations (especially the latter one) are a bit premature, to say the least. Because either on a substantive level or a political level, I think there actually is a chance for some limited success for Obama in this exercise.
Now, I'm as weary as everyone else over the length of the battle on how to reform our nation's health system, and sympathize with those who say that so much has already been traded away that it's pointless to even pass what is currently on the table. But, as Obama keeps reminding us in the whole debate, if you consider the alternative -- passing nothing -- it's easy to see that this remains an even worse option for Democrats this year.
But let's concentrate on the summit itself. There are two yardsticks for success, here. The first is to actually get something done, and actually get something passed. The second is to position the Democrats politically for the midterm elections, no matter whether anything gets passed or not. The first one likely won't be achieved in a single day, although the summit could certainly be seen as Obama jumpstarting the process, if it does ultimately happen. The second one is easier to achieve, but may ultimately be rather worthless if Congress doesn't put anything on Obama's desk for him to sign.
To begin the discussion, here is President Obama himself, talking about the summit (which is scheduled for February 25th) during yesterday's visit to the White House press room.
To your question about the 25th, my hope is that this doesn't end up being political theater, as I think some of you have phrased it. I want a substantive discussion. We haven't refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. We want to talk with both the Democratic and Republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. I do want to make sure that there's some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions.
In this whole health care debate I'm reminded of the story that was told about Senator Moynihan, who was I guess in an argument with one of his colleagues, and his colleague was losing the argument so he got a little flustered and said to Senator Moynihan, "Well, I'm entitled to my own opinion." And Senator Moynihan said, "Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." I think that's the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th or on health care.
Let's establish some common facts. Let's establish what the issues are, what the problems are, and let's test out in front of the American people what ideas work and what ideas don't. And if we can establish that factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then I think we can make some progress. And it may be that some of the facts that come up are ones that make my party a little bit uncomfortable. So if it's established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that. On the other hand, if I'm told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then I'm also going to insist, okay, let's look at that as one aspect of it, but what else are we willing to do?
And this is where it gets back to the point I was making earlier. Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life. That's certainly not how it works in my marriage with Michelle, although I usually do give in most of the time. (Laughter.) But the -- there's got to be some give and take, and that's what I'm hoping can be accomplished. And I'm confident that's what the American people are looking for.
Now, allow me to translate (or paraphrase) what message the president is sending to the Republicans by all of this, because Obama puts it so politely that you may have missed what he is really signaling here.
This is not going to be just a forum for political speeches and ideology, by either side. Because, mark my words, we are not going to put up with demagoguery from the Republicans. I have called for Republicans to bring their ideas to the table, but this time we're going to demand they put some numbers on their proposals. We're going to have the C.B.O. sitting in as a referee, to let us know what the facts are when it comes to saving money. Because I am sick and tired of Republicans grandstanding, while at the same time refusing to put their ideas to the same test Democrats have -- getting them scored by the C.B.O. If the Republicans truly believe their ideas will work, then they will have to prove it by putting some real budgetary numbers to their plans, instead of just talking about them. Because I think we've had enough hot air on the issue, and I'd like to talk real, factual numbers with Republicans -- on live television, so the American public can see what is fact and what is fiction.
Obama also stated that he's not going to just "start over" on the whole process -- that what has already been accomplished by the House and Senate is going to be the starting point. This is good, because of where we currently are, legislatively.
Democrats in the House and Senate are currently playing the old Washington game of "You first..." / "No, no... after you." Both houses have passed a bill. These bills are different. But with 41 Republicans in the Senate, no bill which requires 60 votes to pass is going to have a chance, realistically. So the Senate bill has to be the foundation to build upon, if anything is going to pass. The House could pass the Senate bill unchanged, and it would go straight to the president's desk for his signature. But the House is balking at doing so, since the Senate bill is so flawed.
The obvious answer is to link this bill with what has been described as a "sidecar" bill -- one which fixes the most egregious problems with the Senate bill. The House and the Senate would have to pass this, but the Senate could do so using "reconciliation" rules, which only require 50 Democratic Senators (and Joe Biden) to vote for it. The impasse revolves around who goes first.
The House doesn't want to vote for the Senate bill without assurances that a sidecar will also pass (because once the House passes the Senate bill and the president signs it, it will become law). The Senate doesn't want to pass the sidecar without assurances that the House will pass both bills. So "who goes first" is the game they're currently playing. This -- the scheduling -- is one of the issues it would be fascinating to see resolved in the health summit, although I have to admit I have no idea what the chances are of this happening.
But the Democrats should present a unified front to the Republicans -- if Republicans don't join in honest negotiations, then Democrats should be resolved to passing both the Senate bill (in the House) and the sidecar bill (by reconciliation, in the Senate) -- with no input from Republicans whatsoever. The choice needs to be presented to the Republican leaders: you can either help us "fix" the Senate bill, and any worthwhile ideas you have that can be proven to save money will be included in the sidecar bill... or we are going to go ahead and do it without you.
Republicans should be given the political choice of going back to the voters and saying either: "The Democrats were going to ram this through, so we did the best we could to make it better with good Republican ideas," or to honestly make the case: "We're against doing anything, and the Democrats are the ones who refuse to be bipartisan by letting us write the bill."
That second one may sound like what Republicans want, but Republican leaders (as opposed to the rank and file) know that the "Party of No" label is a dangerous thing to have around their political necks all year. Moderate voters don't want to see total obstructionism, even if it delights the Republican base. And moderate voters are where a lot of elections are won and lost.
Of course, Republicans could gamble that obstructionism is a winning strategy for them this November, in which case they likely won't even show up to the summit in the first place -- because nothing could be gained by them doing so. But Obama should make it clear (as he did repeatedly in his answers to the press) that "bipartisanship" is simply not going to mean "Republicans write the bills," as it has so often in the past. And even if they don't show up, Obama should hold the meeting anyway -- with empty chairs where the Republicans should be, for the television cameras to see.
Republicans already know the danger of them showing up to the meeting is having their ideas proven to be minor reforms, at best. They must know that the numbers aren't going to show that their reform ideas will save more money than what Democrats have already proposed. This is why they're so scared to face the C.B.O. in the first place. And they know that if they propose ideas, and then vote against them when it comes time, that they are going to be seen as playing politics, instead of trying to make things better for the American public.
But no matter whether they show up or not, Obama -- just by proposing the meeting -- has successfully pulled the rug out from three major slogans the Republicans were planning on campaigning on this year -- (1) "Obama keeps saying we have no ideas, or tells us to shut up about them," (2) "Everything the Democrats do is behind closed doors, when Obama said he'd put it on C-SPAN," and (3) "We're the true deficit hawks and our ideas would save billions, if Democrats would only listen to us."
Obama is, in essence, saying to the Republicans: "Put up or shut up," which is quite a different thing. To put it another way, it's a game of "chicken." And Obama has actually shown a recent willingness (post-Massachusetts) to take this fight to the Republicans, and pin them with the obstructionist label. This worries Republicans, since it's always easier to fight against a caricature than someone who is actually fighting back.
So while seeing real results from the summit may take a while longer than one day, and while actual results are contingent upon Democrats at this point; it's certainly a worthwhile use of Obama's time to try. If Democrats in the House can agree to pass the Senate bill, and if Democrats in the Senate (only 50 of them, meaning the Liebermans and Nelsons would be irrelevant) can agree to fix their bill using reconciliation, then that is a path forward to success in the whole prolonged legislative battle. If Obama lets House members know he won't sign anything without a sidecar to accompany it, and if Obama lets Senate members know that he'll have their political back in defending the use of reconciliation, then he could actually move the process to the finish line.
It's certainly nothing to bet the farm on at this point -- but it's also better than nothing at all, which is now the only alternative. But while the chances for actual legislative success are impossible to predict at this point, the chances for Obama to position both himself and Democrats in a much better place for this year's midterms against the Republicans remains high. If health reform does not pass, the only way Democrats have a shot at avoiding massive losses in this year's congressional elections (short of, that is, the unemployment rate suddenly falling to 6.0 percent) is to paint Republicans as even more despicable then Democrats are to the electorate right now. That's not a very optimistic note to end on (it's actually pretty ugly, I must admit), but it's pretty close to being true. At this point, in other words, there's not a lot for Obama or the Democrats to lose by holding the health summit. Politically -- especially if the Republicans don't even show up -- they may even have something to gain by making the effort.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Chris: No way!
Your posts make me think. This time, I draw also on Cenk Uygur's latest, likening Rahm Emanuel to Gen. McClellan. The answer to, "Can Obama's health summit succeed?" is, IMHO, "Yes: The same way Munich succeeded for Chamberlain."
The GOP leadership isn't going to let Obama succeed--or govern. Their base is the White majority in the Old South and West. That majority, sadly, believes that only someone as White, Evangelical and anti-intellectual as they can possibly be a "real" American. Their leaders fear if Obama succeeds, it heralds the end of the GOP. For them, this is war--and so, all's fair.
Obama is evidently as divorced from harsh realities as Neville Chamberlain was in his day. What saved Britain was waking up and replacing Chamberlain with Churchill--who rallied the Empire and the U.S. What Democrats must do is opt at once for reality and victory and arrange to replace Obama and his policy of appeasement ("bipartisanship") with the best possible leader on our bench to get the job done: Howard Dean. (That means starting the 2012 primaries now.)
There's PLENTY for Obama and the Democrats to lose by holding a "health summit": time, tactical advantage, and the entire war. Obama is evidently by nature, as Chamberlain was, a diplomat. Americans are in danger, and that's not remotely what we need!
unfortunately, the past year they have been far too powerful -- and I am not sure who they represent. Oh, I just remembered --- the insurance companies.
They all got voted out of office. The only two left are (not so) coincidentally the only Northeastern Republican senators left, the ladies from Maine.
-CW
In general Chris is correct, in the last decade (since the '94 midterms, really) the Congressional political "pardigm has shifted" (an overused phrase that actually applies in this case)....this time, noticeably to the right.
This shift is what has brought us to the current stalemate whereby ALL Republican candidates must pass several "litmus tests" and adopt the farthest right-wing positions in order to appease the most rabid elements of the Republican base in order to be nominated.
Even relatively safe Republican incumbants are not immune to the right wing hysteria.
Thus...the specter of Republican Senators once considered quite moderate gleefully fanning the flames at the latest witch-burning. (Witness Chuck Grassley's promulgation of the "death-panels" canard last year).
This "red tide" has also given us a fair number of legislators with big fat "D"'s next to their names who might as well be Republicans (and none too "moderate, either)
The upshot feeds directly into the natural tendencies of EVERY Congress. If nothing can possibly be done, then NOTHING is what most emphatically WILL be done.
An example will be on display on C-Span Feb. 25th for the "Summit" .......
At the close of the half-day affair (why waste a whole day of bribe-taking..er.. fund raising?)...both sides will congratulate themselves on "a frank exchange of views" and then hustle off in time for a working lunch with their favorite lobbyist.
Regards
tm
Healthcare cost reform may be more effective than insurance reform, or ideally reform of both.
While I kind of agree with your first sentence (see the last paragraph of my article), I wonder what you think Obama should actually do at this point, to make the situation better?
-CW
at a podium. Then televise it.
Um, I don't think the Blair House actually has a pit. Or a pendulum, now that I think about it...
:-)
-CW
Lucky for O they're not holding the event at the American Enterprise Institute..
I think they actually have both
tm
You are right as usual. The problem is that the Democratic leadership should grow a pair and show some backbone and use this opportunity that Obama has given them. Where is the anger of the democrats at Senator Shelby holding 70 nominees? They need to get loud like Bob Cesca just said in another post. Get loud and frame the debate.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/02/paul_ryans_shocking_budget_proposal.php
Why aren't senior citizens storming the halls of Congress and flooding the streets of Washington over this dismantling of their entitlements?
The republicans have dreamed of ending Social Security and Medicare all these many years and here's their plan to do so in bl@ck and white. Hello? Anyone?
Maybe, but why should I care? Yes, the Dems are a bit better than the Repubs, but just a bit. I think it far better for the Democrats to be severely trounced in November. As an independent progressive, I plan to stay home for the fall ceremony. I write "ceremony" because that is what it is. It is certainly not democracy when Democrats like Barney Frank, for example, presides over the House Financial Services committee. He is the man who helped de-regulate the banks and still does their bidding.
Best of all, a pummeling of the Democrats will be a rebuke to our hypocritical President and will encourage another Democrat to challenge Barack Obama in November of 2012. We need to send him back to Chicago, or maybe to Oslo where they seem to love him as a great man of peace.
No, Mr Weigant, I see no reason to be concerned about the fate of the Democrats. Better that the Party be dismembered and new parties formed that represent voters not corporations.
The Democratic Party needs to change (as difficult as it may be), not die.