Not so fast there, Ayn Rand fan. That graphic comes from a January 22 post called “It’s dead”, written by former Bush White House economist Keith Hennessey, a few days after a Republican had vanquished the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s would-be Democratic successor in Massachussetts, becoming the 41st, filibuster-enabling vote in the Senate against health care reform. At the time, Hennessey wrote this:

Yesterday I compared the comprehensive bill to Schrödinger’s cat: it was both alive and dead, and this uncertainty would be resolved only when we could see inside the box of the House Democratic Caucus. Speaker Pelosi opened the box for us yesterday:

“In its present form without any change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House.”

But the House folding and passing the Senate bill was the highest probability path to a signed comprehensive law. The path the Speaker is pursuing instead, of getting the Senate to act on a separate second bill, is too hard to execute logistically, substantively, and politically…

I wrote yesterday that the bill is not dead until the Speaker says it’s dead. I think she in effect did so yesterday. Based on this development I have increased my prediction of collapse to 90%, and I believe the comprehensive bill is dead.

However, Hennessey also wrote that one possible option for Democrats was a parliamentary maneuver called “reconciliation,” but that “neither the White House nor Congressional Democrats appear to have seriously considered using reconciliation as a substitute for the work already done.” But that has changed, and reconciliation is now at the heart of the Democratic game plan. The current proposed path to passage involves the complicated two-step of the House passing the Senate’s health care bill — substantially different than the House bill and anathema to some Democratic representatives — then bringing the bill into line with President Obama’s compromise legislation via reconciliation.

So what is reconciliation? As explained by Hennessey it’s a

Two days ago, Hennessey wrote a post called Health care reform CPR, upping the probability of passage to 40%.

Can Speaker Pelosi bring health care reform back from the dead? Did it ever really die?

• Focus all your attention on Speaker Pelosi’s attempts to get 216 votes. If she can lock them down I think there’s a four in five chance there will be a law (or two).

• The Stupak/abortion issue appears to be the biggest substantive hurdle. Chatter about a possible three bill strategy (!?) to address this is stunning. Two bills isn’t hard enough?

• The sequencing/trust problem still appears hard. How does the Speaker get her members to vote for Bill #1 based only on a promise that Bill #2 will make it to the finish line?

• Occasionally a Congressional leader calls a vote without having the votes locked up, in the hope that the pressure of a floor vote will help close those last few remaining holdouts. This is incredibly risky. Sometimes there is no better option.

Probabilities

• Public signs of optimism from the President, his team, and Democratic Congressional leaders tell us little. We don’t know if they actually think they will have the votes, or if they are asserting that to try to make it true. Imagine the impact if Speaker Pelosi were to tell the press “We might not succeed.” Doing so would further embolden those marginal Members she is trying to convince to vote aye. They are telling us they think they will succeed, but they have to say this whether or not it’s true.

• The President’s chance of legislative success is way above the 10% I projected shortly after the Brown election when I declared a comprehensive bill dead. Was I wrong, or have things changed dramatically? A little of both, I think.

• I underestimated the willingness of the President and Democratic Congressional Leaders to press forward against extremely long odds. They appear to be doing serious medium-term political damage to their party. They appear to be placing in jeopardy a fairly large number of their Members, which could damage the rest of the President’s policy agenda. They are directly contradicting their stated strategy of focusing on the economy. You decide whether this is principled persistence, a confident smart strategy based on superior information, a different assessment of the voters and the polls, or a pathological obsession with killing the White Whale at any cost. Call me Ishmael.

• I also underestimated the Democratic party cohesion under tremendous political pressure. Assuming they think they are doing the right thing, they are doing so at tremendous cost to themselves. I can’t figure out if most rank-and-file Democrats agree with their leaders’ strategy or are just afraid to buck it.

• As of this posting, Intrade estimates about a 50% chance of success. That seems a little high. I’ll guess it’s a coin toss as to whether the Speaker can round up 216 votes for two bills, multiplied by an 80% chance that if she does they can overcome other hurdles to get two signed laws. That puts me at a 40% chance President Obama gets to declare victory, but with lots of uncertainty.

• To those who think the probability is higher, remember that they have been trying to rally these votes for six weeks and have not yet succeeded. Each time I hear rumblings of a new strategy, I conclude only that Congressional leaders have decided that the last new strategy won’t work. Even if the Speaker and her team are maximally effective they may fail. Sometimes the votes just aren’t there, and you don’t know that until you have tried every path and failed, or you have decided the clock has run out.

• If there is a path to 216 votes, I am confident the Speaker will find it. She has a remarkable ability to bend her colleagues to her will.

So there you have it, health care reform watchers. An opponent of the bill has upped his estimate of its passage from 10% to 40%, and that’s because he thinks some politicians are putting their own careers in jeopardy to do what they think is right.

A man bites dog moment, if it’s true…

Sen. Jim Bunning

However, if you are one of the couple of hundred thousand who is being immediately denied these funds, you are not one of them.

A comment left on EconomyBeat:

While I certainly agree with the statements about him standing his ground and there are several issues that this should be done on. But I am one of the many still unemployed (almost 2 yrs now), my EUI benefits just ran out. I was barely making it on my UE, have had no insurance, have a 7yr old–what am I going to do now??? There are many more out there like me as well.

And an angry and profane rant on Craigslist Detroit:

BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR A F**** SO CALLED “WAR” IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ? HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HOUSE CRIMINALS? HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HAITI? BILLIONS TO AFRICA AND ISRAEL? BUT NO UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSIONS? F*** JIM BUNNING!

Do you really think I like not having a job? I get about $250 f*** dollars after my bastard government taxes my unemployment check. Wow, that really goes far. I didn’t create this mess. We’re not making this mess up, it’s really happening and this country is so f*** up and has been it’s not even funny anymore. I NEED unemployment benefits and I need them until I can find a job that will help me pay my bills, make my house payment and put food on my table and clothes on my back.
This isn’t funny. There ARE NO JOBS here in Michigan, and very few anywhere else in the country.

Lets give BILLIONS to f**** MILLIONAIRES, bailing out the auto industry, banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies….but lets just f*** the middle class and lower class citizens…

WHAT A F**** BUNCH OF BULLSHIT……THIS COUNTRY AND THE GOVERNMENT SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE OVERTHROWN. A REVOLT IS ON THE WAY, A REVOLUTION MUST BE UNDERTAKEN…..

THROW THESE M*****F**** BLOOD SUCKING BASTARDS OUT OF OFFICE! ESPECIALLY BUNNING…..

he wants to make sure we find a way to pay for unemployment? PLEASE, GIVE ME A F**** BREAK…..why doesn’t Congress and the Senate and our f*** up President figure out a way how my daughters’ kids are going to pay for EVERYTHING THEY’VE DONE TO RUIN THIS COUNTRY OVER THE LAST YEAR!

EVERY POLITICIAN F**** SUCKS!

And from a personal blog:

Here is my letter to (Jim Bunning’s) office:

Mr. Bunning,

I have been working ever since I was fourteen years old paying into a system that I knew that would never pay me a dime. I am responsible with my money, pay my bills on time, and have been able to survive a massive stroke so that I can live like a normal person.

Living like a normal person became a pipe dream three years ago when the first of three lay-offs happened to me. There hasn’t been a year that I have not been unemployed since 2007. I have worked really hard to survive. I have lucked out with occasional contract work here and there.

Sadly, all my hard work and struggles have been ignored by you. My unemployment benefits have run out. I’m in danger of being evicted. I cannot live the healthy independent lifestyle that I aspired to once I was released from the hospital thanks to you.

Please open your eyes to the suffering that your political stance has caused millions.

Anyone else?

While this type of obstruction is anathema to the Democratic Party, at least some of its constituents wish their own side would engage in such hardball tactics.

From blogger Taylor Marsh:

Jim Bunning Shows Democrats How It’s Done

(A)fter the Democrats’ milquetoast performance on health care leadership over the last year and counting, who doesn’t appreciate Sen. Bunning’s bluntness?

In a colloquy with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from Oregon, was pleading for Bunning to drop his objection, when the Kentucky Republican got fed up.

“Tough s—t,” Bunning said as he was seated in the back row, overheard by the floor staff and others in attendance.

Everyone understands the importance of unemployment benefits extensions, but can you imagine any Democrat standing up to say: Tough sh–, I want the public option, because it’s the only thing that keeps down health care costs for Americans, and I won’t stop until we vote on it?

I know it’s very impolitic and counter-intuitive for me to say this given the legislation Bunning’s blocking, but I have a begrudging respect for someone who won’t take any crap from weaker politicians on the Democratic side who won’t stand and fight for anything. That’s just how sick of this sh– I am.

The moral of this story: Republicans are mean; Democrats are patsies.

Some responses to her post:

This is how Democrats should have fought on health care.
————————————————————————————————————————–
The democrats have majority in the house and senate and they have the whitehouse and they still couldn’t get a healthcare bill passed. This is becoming a comedy show !! They might get one passed now but who knows whats going to happen. The democrats are probably never going to get this majority again. It might be years before that happens. I can’t believe how the two parties are acting today. No wonder why more people are leaving the two parties and going independent.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I can certainly appreciate and admire leaders that take a principled stand on a position no matter how unpopular. I hope this is indeed what Jim Bunning is doing because I certainly don’t agree with him on this. I did not admire George Bush’s positions and disagreed with almost every decision he made, but I did recognize and admire that he took stands and held fast. No matter how wrong. Same with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Saying this, I think I’d rather be known as mean than be known as a patsie. I’d rather be respected than liked. Obama and his Dems are patsies. And not only in the healthcare arena. They seem afraid to do anything. They are paralyzed. The country is not moving forward for their leadership. This is becoming increasingly clear to most Americans.
————————————————————————————————————————–
It’s about conviction and standing up for what you believe in. So, Republicans may be crazy and evil; but Democrats have absolutely no conviction. There is nothing under the sun they will not compromise on.

Time magazine has a good summary of a possible path to passage of the health care bill, which stalled after the Massachussetts special election last month resulted in the loss of the 60th vote for Senate Democrats to block a Republican filibuster.

Now that it is clear that yesterday’s big inter-party health summit won’t yield any breakthrough in the logjam, it looks like the Dems will have to go it alone, if they go at all. And any attempt at passing a bill will have to involve the parliamentary tactic called “reconciliation.”

From Time:

So what, exactly, is reconciliation?

Economist Keith Hennessey posted a comprehensive explanation of the process on his blog last year.

Reconciliation is a fast-track legislative process that allows a bill to pass the Senate in a limited time period, and with the support of only 51 Senators. A “normal” Senate bill can be slowed down by a single Senator, and blocked by 41 Senators. This is not true for a reconciliation bill.

The downside is that reconciliation “protections” apply only to a very narrow set of policy matters, all relating to changes in taxes, spending, or debt.

In the particular case of health care reform, some Senate Democrats are attracted to the reconciliation process because it would allow them to pass a bill even if there is unified Republican opposition, and even if as many as 9 Senate Democrats oppose the bill. It is, however, nowhere nearly as easy as these advocates might hope. They may be able to enact some parts of health care reform but not others…

A reconciliation bill is a special type of bill. The full name is a “budget reconciliation” bill. It’s purpose is to combine into one bill the work of multiple committees that are changing federal spending and tax laws. It is an incredibly powerful tool that bypasses (1) and (2) above, but only for very limited purposes…

To oversimplify, you can use a reconciliation bill only to change spending, taxes, or the debt limit. The process was used initially to facilitate deficit reduction — various Senate committees are each given a deficit reduction target, and are “instructed” by the budget resolution to produce bills that reduce the deficit by those amounts. The Senate Budget Committee then packages all those deficit reduction bills into a single bill, and reports it to the Senate floor for debate, amendments, and voting, all under a fast-track process that limits the minority’s ability to filibuster or kill the bill by amendment…

When the Senate Majority Leader starts debate on (a) reconciliation bill, there are strict limits, unlike for a normal bill:

* Debate and voting time is limited to 20 hours. There is a fixed back-end that guarantees a vote on final passage.
* Amendments must be “germane” to the bill. No going wildly off-topic.
* Amendments must not violate the Byrd Rule.

The first point means that a reconciliation bill cannot be endlessly debated (filibustered) or endlessly amended. This means there is never a need to invoke cloture to shut off debate or amendments, so the majority needs only 51 votes to complete and pass the reconciliation bill. In practical legislating, the difference between needing 51 votes and needing 60 votes is enormous….

The Byrd Rule

Now suppose the Senate (bill) also contains a section to create a new Green Hair Mandate, requiring that all Americans dye their hair green. This provision is in the reconciliation bill that comes to the Senate floor.

Senator Tompkins opposes the Green Hair Mandate. Or maybe she just thinks that it has nothing to do with the budget (she’s right), and that it therefore doesn’t belong in a reconciliation bill (also right). During the floor debate on the reconciliation bill, she raises a “Byrd rule point of order” against this provision: “Mr. President [of the Senate], I raise a point of order that section 542 of the bill violates Section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.”

The Byrd Rule was created by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV). Sen. Byrd is one of the strongest defenders of individual legislative rights for Senators, and he wanted to make sure the reconciliation process would not be abused to slip non-budgetary legislation past the normal Senate debate and amendment process. The Byrd rule consists of six tests. If a provision violates any one of these tests, it must be removed from the bill (upon the challenge of a single Senator).

In this case, Senator Tompkins asserts that the Green Hair Mandate provision does not affect federal spending or taxes, and is therefore “extraneous” to the bill and violates the Byrd Rule. In practice, the presiding officer of the Senate (whichever Democratic Senator happens to be in the chair) asks the Senate Parliamentarian for a ruling on this point of order. In this case, the Parliamentarian would agree, and would advise the chair that the Green Hair Mandate does not affect federal spending, taxes, or the debt limit, is therefore extraneous, and therefore violates one of the prongs of the Byrd Rule. The Chair would then rule to uphold the point of order, and section 542 containing the Green Hair Mandate provision would be removed from the bill without a vote.

Now suppose that Senator Sprague, who authored the Green Hair Mandate provision, wants to try to keep that provision in the bill. She could, before the chair rules on Senator Tompkins’ point of order, move to “waive” the Byrd rule: “Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order.” If 60 (!) Senators vote to waive the Byrd rule, then the provision stays in the reconciliation bill. In this context, waiving a point of order means that a super-majority of the Senate is saying, “We don’t care whether it violates the Byrd Rule, and don’t bother ruling on that question. We’re OK leaving it in the bill.”

This balances out rather well. If there are 60 Senators who vote to keep it in the bill, there would in all likelihood be 60 Senators who would vote to shut off a filibuster if the Green Hair Mandate provision were moved as its own freestanding bill through the normal legislative process. If the provision has nothing to do with the budget and more than 50 but fewer than 60 Senators support it, it will come out.

More explanations of reconciliation at Daily Kos, Wikipedia, and MSNBC.