Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.
People consider me rather relaxed, an easy person to get along with (with some exceptions, of course). The plain fact is, if you have that reputation, people will try to take advantage of you. And they will succeed sometimes, because willingness to compromise tends to lose to unwillingness to compromise.
I’m usually aware that the forceful person is getting their way. So the compromise becomes one with myself — do I stomp my feet and insist I’m right, or is the easier path the greater good?
Sometimes the relationship improves. People can and do change, and who knows, maybe they just needed someone else to negotiate a bit to trust them. In other cases, the relationship deteriorates. It can’t be improved, it has to be reset, or ended.
So do I show this person I have teeth too? Do I escalate every dispute, as they tend to do, until it seems like a battle for civilization itself? The answer is almost always no. I am who I am for many reasons, but some of those reasons are deliberate choices. I pick my battles, and trying to convince a jerk I am a worthy opponent is almost never a battle worth fighting. I do not need more opponents, the world provides plenty of them. I need more friends — trustworthy, rational people.
Which brings me to our US Congress.
Today’s Washington Post:
Reid told reporters Tuesday that he might be willing to compromise on points of policy if it meant getting the 60 votes needed to turn back GOP procedural objections. The Senate Democratic caucus now stands at 60 members, but two members — Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) — have battled serious illness, requiring Reid to win support from at least two Republicans to make up for their absence.
“I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes,” Reid said. “That’s my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and I think the country.”
Ted Kennedy, whose condition might be worse than we’ve heard, would crawl on broken glass to vote for this — if it’s a good bill.
As House negotiators continued to work late Tuesday evening on breaking an impasse on their version of the bill, the bipartisan Finance Committee negotiators emerged from another meeting insisting that no final decisions had been made about the contents of the legislation. But as details trickled out, none of the components appeared ready-made for GOP opposition. Negotiators are scrubbing every provision for unintended consequences that could negatively affect small businesses or middle-class families, both of which Republicans say could be harmed by the other bills moving through Congress.
“What we do obviously would be important to our Republican conference,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a member of the GOP team, along with Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the health committee. Snowe said the primary goal of the negotiations is a bill that can draw Republican votes.
“I think it might resonate, frankly, with our colleagues,” Snowe said of the emerging compromise measure. “We want the basis for a bipartisan agreement, and I think that could be the launching pad for that resolution.”
Does Snowe believe what she’s saying? Let’s assume she is for the moment, despite the obvious red flags.
Senate Republican leaders are taking a wary approach to the bipartisan negotiations, and unless pressed by reporters, rarely note they are taking place. They continue to lambaste the two Democratic bills as job-killers that would inflate health-care costs.
At a news conference Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took pains to note that GOP negotiators brief him daily. But he sidestepped questions about whether he embraces their work. “There’s not a plan that I’ve seen that people can support on a bipartisan basis,” he said.
What’s the result of all this? Not all bad, but not great:
The finance panel’s legislation is expected to include incentives for employers to provide health insurance for their workers, rather than a more punitive coverage mandate. The committee is also likely to endorse narrowly targeted tax increases, rejecting a controversial tax surcharge on wealthy households that the House adopted and limits on deductions for upper-income taxpayers that Obama is seeking.
GOP negotiators rejected from the outset the kind of government-run insurance plan that Obama and most Democrats are pushing for in an attempt to inject the health-insurance market with pricing competition. Instead, the committee would create coverage cooperatives modeled after rural electricity providers.
Mr. President?
Obama has encouraged the finance panel’s effort, praising it as the potential foundation for the bipartisan outcome he is seeking. But he flashed his discontent with the process during a question-and-answer session sponsored by AARP. “Sometimes I get a little frustrated, because this is one of those situations where it’s so obvious that the system we have isn’t working well for too many people, and that we could be doing better,” Obama said Tuesday.
Let’s recap:
– Democratic negotiators began by compromising with themselves. They decided not to fight for a public option.
– Rather than hold this as a hole card, they didn’t make the GOP fight for it. They came into the meeting with the goal of getting GOP votes because they are unwilling to take responsibility for the bill.
– Democratic leaders outside the negotiations talk about a “foundation.”
– Republican leaders outside the negotiations are perfectly willing to throw the negotiators under a bus.
This relationship is dysfunctional. The Democratic spirit of cooperation, opportunity for all, etc. simply cannot accommodate itself to dealing with people who are not willing to compromise. And our so-called tough guys, like Rahm Emanuel — as others have noted — fight out of fear. They don’t want to hand the GOP an issue.
Net result? The GOP wins. The country gets a watered-down bill, and the GOP has stopped a public option. Enter thousands of stories saying, “The Democrats couldn’t win with both Houses, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency.” The GOP sees its poll numbers rise. There’s no change, why vote Democratic?
Sometimes we deserve the pain. We have inflicted it on ourselves.
and thank you for a very thoughtful and insightful post. Negotiating against ourselves seems very Monty Pythonesque, does it not?
<
p>This is probably what’s going on as we speak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
(apologies – I wish I knew how to upload)
<
p>Personally, this is the test I think we should administer before letting any congresspeople into the negotiating room:
<
p>
Screw bipartisan. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they won’t vote for anything remotely worth doing. Forget the 60 votes; go for reconciliation and pass a good bill. Then turn to the Republicans and say “Bipartisan? I got your bipartisan right here!”
yet, Congress is limiting themselves to the figurative bucket, teaspoon and teacup response to healthcare legislation. It’s too bad. Instead of a good working bill, we’re going to wind up with another “compromise” piece of crap that we will regret almost as soon as it passes. I haven’t forgotten Medicare Part D yet.
A once in a century chance. The Republican party, by their unanimous refusal to contribute to real health-care reform, have handed the Democrats the means to eliminate them completely. The public overwhelmingly wants a new system. Using reconciliation, the Democrats can deliver that, with no Republican votes. If they do create a good system, they will be the Good Guys, and the Republicans will be the guys who wanted to keep the insurance companies fat while ordinary people sickened and died and went bankrupt. The GOP will be seen as the enemy of the people. On top of being the ones responsible for the Bush legacy, that will finish them.
<
p>If the Dems don’t do it, it really will look like they’re trying to lose this fight.
<
p>As for what we should do about health care, here’s my proposal: eliminate the income cap on medicare taxes, and extend Medicare to everyone. No thousand-page complexity, just treat everyone the same. Everyone knows what Medicare is. Most people’s taxes won’t go up. Costs will be controlled.
eliminate the income cap on medicare taxes and/or use a VAT national sales tax and extend Medicare to everyone. People aren’t comfortable with these thousand page pieces of legislation (that nobody, including lawmakers, reads). Keep it simple and treat everyone, including members of Congress, the same. Because of trying to please so many interest groups we end up with a “compromise” solution which people like Rush used to scare the average person because of the legislation’s complexities and obscurities. Also, I think that we should support a national program because of economic reasons: GM should not be a health insurance company which just happens to manufacture automobiles on the side. How can we compete in the world market when our companies are saddled with these extra costs? Where is it written in the Consitution that businesses must provide health insurance to their employees?
why the “burden on corporations” argument doesn’t carry more weight. I suspect it’s another consequence of the interlocking of Boards of Directors. If Cigna Group’s CEO sat on the board of GM (he doesn’t), it would make GM management less likely to champion a government option.
Insist his people vote for cloture; after that he can spare a few votes on final passage if necessary.
<
p>Actually make the GOP really filibuster. He’s making a huge mistake in assuming 60 votes has to be the goal at the outset.
To filibuster, all Republicans need to do is station somebody in the Senate chamber to withhold unanimous consent to move forward with process. The spectacle of standing up and giving long speeches about recipe indices is not strictly speaking necessary to avoid cloture.
I love the image of, say, John Cornyn having to talk and talk and talk ..
I realize the Senate doesn’t use Robert’s Rules, but if somebody calls for unanimous consent or acclamation it only takes one person to yell “objection!” That doesn’t prevent moving forward it just means that an actual vote must be taken. I hope and assume Senate rules provide for overcoming a single person objecting.
There is always a give and take in any negotiations. But you have to draw your lines. There is a point where you just say this is as far as I’m willing to go. You are either on board or your not. I’m all for compromise too, it’s so important, our government is suppose to represent everyone. But you can compromise something all the way into the gutter, which seems to be happening here.
<
p>The Democratic leaders know what we need to do to improve the healthcare system in our country. In their need to bow down to the republicans and ultra conservative dems, they are giving it all away. By the time we are done with this, healthcare premiums will cost more than they do now (thus protecting the insurance industry, a conservative ideal). These higher rates will land primarily on the backs of the middle class. The rates will hurt the middle class the most, because we are the ones who are already struggling with the high cost of everything.
<
p>If the Dems give in to too many conservative compromises, and put in place an inadequate system that protects the government and the special interests instead of the people,
then the repubs will have some amazing talking points in the next elections. If the Dems introduce and approve reform that eases the burden of the American people, and provides affordable health care benefits that so many have hoped for, then it will be a success, which will give the Dems the talking points in the next elections. The half-assed healthcare reform that I fear is on it’s way is going to make life harder for the working middle class. I just know it.
<
p>Obama and the Dem congress will be blamed, and we will pay for it in so many ways. It’s almost as if it’s a set up.
It assumes that ALL Democrats are on board with single option, etc.
<
p>ARE they?
<
p>Blue dogs, et al, are not.
<
p>It’s easier to blame the Dreat Bid Wepublicans instead of your own members quietly shaking their heads ‘no’ – but the Dems DO have some GOP’s on board, but I think not all of their own.
But too many concessions were made too early. From the outset, Congressional leadership decided to negotiate with Republicans and Blue Dogs, leftist Democrats be damned. Where would we go?
<
p>Can you even imagine the reverse, Peter? Would Tom DeLay have ever said, “I want Democratic votes on this bill.” Hell, Hastert used to round up GOP votes by insisting on “a majority of the majority.” He literally would not allow bipartisanism.
<
p>Why should we? When it’s this important, and when so many of our candidates ran on it, why should we worry about a single GOP vote?
<
p>Because we (they) are gutless. That’s why.
<
p>
…but to many of us that is precisely the problem. Remember this blog is not only Democratic, but generally liberal, so the diarist may well be reading his targeted audience correctly. It was the Blue Dogs I refered to in my above comment about Harry Reid when I said they should vote for cloture, but can go their own way on the merits.