Posted on 02/08/2011 9:14:14 AM PST by MissesBush
A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama’s health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections.
They haven’t decided whether to propose legislation, but any effort by moderate Democrats that takes aim at the individual mandate could embarrass Obama and embolden Republicans who are still maneuvering to take down the health care law.
And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules. The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana — all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008.
The goal is to lay down a record of bipartisan compromises with Republicans, but it could also put Obama at odds with key centrists, right at the moment the president himself is looking to forge a more centrist path.
And their efforts could put Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) at a potential disadvantage on key votes. The Senate leader has to protect 23 Democratic seats next year, giving moderates and swing-state Democrats plenty of leeway to prove their independence, but he also has to worry about keeping a unified front for the party ahead of the presidential election. With only 53 Democrats leading the thin Senate majority, if three or four break away on any key issue, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could in some cases claim a simple majority.
The Democratic moderates said they’re not concerned about how their positioning will affect their party’s overarching political strategy.
“I’m not worried about the politics of this; I’m worried about the substance of it,” McCaskill said. “My goal has always been pretty simple: affordable, accessible, private-market insurance for people in America who want insurance. The politics of this are hard; it’s just easier to stay focused on the substance because that’s what matters.”
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats face a “dilemma.”
But there’s a political complication for Republican leaders as well. Some in GOP circles fear that by teaming up with Democratic moderates, they could give these Democrats bipartisan cover that would help them in 2012.
Some Republicans are quietly warning colleagues not to work with vulnerable Democrats in the first place. This comes after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) teamed up with McCaskill to back a proposal that would dramatically cut spending over the next decade and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) worked with Manchin to repeal a small-business reporting provision in the health care law.
“It would be one thing if they were collaborating with Democrats on issues [for] which they’ve long shared an alliance,” a senior GOP aide said. “But there needs to be a recognition that this is not about principle for these vulnerable Senate Democrats. It’s all about election cycle gamesmanship, and our side shouldn’t be handing them political cover.”
The Democratic moderates strongly refuted suggestions that their positioning is being influenced by electoral politics.
“I truly believe all bills need to be bipartisan,” said Manchin, a freshman who won the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat in a special election last year.
The individual mandate and efforts to overhaul it would certainly gain the most attention, especially if moderate Democrats teamed up with Republicans, something that would be a clear rebuke of the core of Obama’s health care law. For now, it’s unclear whether they’ll even offer a bill, but moderates are certainly open to it.
Democrats justify the provision by arguing that it’s meant to ensure that individuals don’t drain the health care system by waiting until they are sick to purchase coverage — particularly now that the new law prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.
The provision has become one of the most controversial of an already-controversial law, especially in red states, where Republicans have seized on recent court rulings to characterize it as an unconstitutional federal power grab.
Nelson, who faces a tough road to win a third term next year, asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to outline alternatives to the mandate, potentially by bringing large numbers of people into insurance coverage through open and closed enrollment periods. He may offer legislation once the congressional scorekeepers report back to him.
“This is about making it better,” Nelson said. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it.”
Nelson fired back at GOP critics who said he’s trying to distance himself from the law. “What’s their plan? Is their plan, 'hope you don’t get sick'?”
Last year in Missouri, voters approved a ballot measure to nullify the federal health care law — and McCaskill is well-aware of the unpopularity of the individual mandate in her state.
In an interview, McCaskill said she’d “love to” modify the mandate and is “looking at different ways to try to” extend coverage without a mandate.
“We’re running numbers to see how many new people we can get into the pool with something less than a mandate, something that would be more limited enrollment periods with severe financial penalties for not signing up.”
McCaskill added that an alternative “may not be workable; it may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it. But I think we should explore it.”
Tester said his Western rural state of Montana is “libertarian in nature,” which he said explains the unpopularity of the individual mandate. The first-term Democrat said he’d be “open” to overhauling that provision if there’s an alternative that makes access to health care more affordable.
Unlike the other three senators, Manchin wasn’t in Congress to cast a vote on the legislation, though he voted last week with the rest of his Democratic colleagues against GOP efforts to repeal the entire law. But he’s looking to make other changes to the law, including paring back the state Medicaid expansion that covers insurance costs for lower-income families.
Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.
With federal spending issues expected to dominate the early battles between the GOP House and the Democratic Senate, a number of senators up for reelection are staking out hawkish stances on the debt. In early December, Democrats wrote to Obama and congressional leaders and called for tougher steps to reduce the budget deficit, including several who are facing reelection next year, like McCaskill, Tester, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper.
With bipartisan discussions led by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) now under way, endangered Democrats could very well jump on board whatever proposal eventually emerges to slash the debt.
In the meantime, some Democrats — like Colorado Sen. Mark Udall — aren’t waiting for an upcoming election to get in front of the spending issue.
In recent weeks, Udall has co-sponsored a GOP constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance its budget, has taken a hawkish stand against earmarks, signed onto Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s plan to give the president line-item veto authority and is pushing for an up-or-down vote on the presidential deficit commission’s proposals. And he was the driving force behind the push for Democrats and Republicans to sit next to one another at last month’s State of the Union address.
Udall said his recent push has nothing to do with moderating his image ahead of his 2014 reelection effort.
“What I heard from the voters is to focus on jobs, get the debt [under] control and work together,” Udall said. “And what I’ve been doing the last month reflects what the voters said.”
This article is BS. These mythical moderate Democrats had their chance to make their views known when the repeal vote for 0bamacare came up. Of course, no Democrat voted for the repeal.
Hogwash. Every last Democrat and the two fake “Independents” voted AGAINST bringing up the GOP’s repeal of ObamaCare last week. McCaskell, Mansion and others from red states will have that vote hanged around their necks from now on. They had their chance to show that they wanted repeal and they proved themselves liars to the surprise of no one.
Pure politics! If they hadn’t voted for this UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW in the first place, it wouldn’t have passed. The Republicans would be really dang stupid to help them cover their azzes now!
Self preservation.
It’s a game.
A.) Dems team up with Repubs to repeal individual mandate.
B.) Obama vetoes.
C.) Dems get cover for 2012.
D.) Law still in place.
E.) Dems hold Senate.
Don’t do it.
“Moderate” is how they talk when they are trying to assure their reelection. It has nothing to do with how they act.
Here’s what I am worried is going to happen:
The Republicans have been harping on the individual mandate, and rightly so, as being unconstitutional. Of course we all know that most of the bill is unconstitutional, but that seems to be the one piece that judges agree is problematic. Rather than sit back and allow the courts to have their say, the Republicans have instead begun these symbolic votes to attempt to repeal the law, which of course failed due to the Senate and would have failed anyway because Obama would have vetoed any bill that passed.
Now, what’s next for the Republicans? Well, they keep talking about striking down the provisions that are so heinous. They’ve already given the Democrats cover by allowing them to vote on removing the 1099 provision. Suppose some Democrat introduces a bill that proposes to strike down the individual mandate portion of the law? What happens then? I think there are a large number of Republicans who would sign on, even though it would be very poor strategy to do so. It would probably pass, and Obama would sign it. Then, it would put the courts in a bit of a quandary, because they’d be trying to decide if the mandate is constitutional when a new law striking down the mandate has already been passed. I think that would give the courts an easy out - they could then say that the rest of the law stands on its own now that the mandate is gone. Game, set, match, Obama.
Of course, I think there are constitutional issues with the very concept. Anything that the Congress and President do now that changes any part of Obamacare should be inconsequential. If the bill as it was originally passed doesn’t pass constitutional muster, then any new bill that passes that seeks to change the invalid law should also be invalid, and they should be required to go back and pass a clean bill to start with that doesn’t contain the mandate. I’m not sure if the courts would see it that way, though. What do you think?
“Moderate RAT” is just as much a myth as “Moderate Muslim”.
A.) Dems team up with Repubs to repeal individual mandate.
B.) Obama vetoes.
C.) Dems get cover for 2012.
D.) Law still in place.
E.) Dems hold Senate.
Don’t do it.”
I agree. These dems couldn't bring themselves to vote for repeal, so how serious are they? Never trust democrats to actually care what the public thinks or wants.
The Reps already have by passing the elimination of the 1099 requirement in the Senate. Instead of repeal and replace, the Reps have started down the road of fixing the bill, not replacing it.
When is someone going to challenge any congress critter who still implements (i.e., keeps spending taxpayers’ money) on a bill that’s been declared unconstitutional? Aren’t they in contempt of court if any further implementation of the bill occurs? Where are the checks and balances?
47(R) + 4(D) = 51 majority.
I’m liking the math.
Correct. And the vote was 81-17 to remove the 1099. Of the 17 opposed, all were Dems. The Reps got snookered as they no doubt traded this removal in order to have the Dems be recorded on total repeal. And in the process, they handed Obama a victory since he requested the removal of the 1099 in the SOTU address. The GOP is not called the Stupid party for nothing.
You need 60 votes to get anything done.
Easiest thing to do is congress refunds obamacare and when Reid brings up the changes, republicans tell hm he had his chance. Then they wait until 2012 and hammer the rats.
Here’s another game:
1) Pass full repeal out of the House, make the Senate vote it down. (Done.)
2) Pass repeal of the 1099 provision, Senate Passes, 0bama signs.
3) Pass repeal of Medicare Cuts. Senate Passes, 0bama vetoes (killing him with Seniors in 2012).
4) Next most hated provision
5) Next most hated provision
6) Etc., until
7) Pass repeal of the Individual Mandate
I think there is usefulness in the “Death by a Thousand Cuts”. And I agree, we don’t want to make this easy for Democrats. So let’s hold the trump card (Repeal of the Individual Mandate), until the very end after they’ve taken every other hard vote we can send their way.
By the time the House and Senate pass the evisceration of 0bamaCare’s Individual Mandate, it will show the American people it is time to throw 0bama out for the obstructor that he is.... in about mid-September of 2012. Then, our Presidential Candidate can use this club on him for two months.
Typical Politico Complete BS.
These are mostly hard core lefist pigs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.