Why the MTP Shouldn't Pass
Rand Paul has announced that he will vote for the "motion to proceed" (MTP) because the first bill (or amendment or whatever) would be the 2015 "full repeal" bill that he favors. (My understanding is that it is not a true "full repeal" bill, but that is a detail we can ignore for now.) John McCain has also announced that he will vote for the MTP.
People are now worried that McConnell will have enough votes for the MTP. I'm worried, but I also think it would be a big mistake for senators like Murkowski, Heller, Moran, Capito, et al. to vote for the MTP. In fact I think it would be a mistake for almost any senator to vote for the MTP unless it is necessary to fend off a primary challenge. So in my mind the question is just how smart or stupid the Republican Senate caucus is.
First, my understanding is that while a reconciliation vote only requires 50 votes to pass (with Pence's tie-breaking vote), the process allows for unlimited amendments. Possibly "unlimited" is an exaggeration, but certainly the Democrats will have the opportunity to propose several amendments, all of which will be designed to force Republicans to take hard votes. So the cost of passing the MTP is baked into the cake.
Second, the benefits of the MTP are far from obvious. It appears that Rand Paul's preferred 2015 bill is dead on arrival. So are all of the other known bills. Discussion has turned to "skinny" repeal, that is, getting rid of the mandate but leaving Medicaid untouched. However, Lindsey Graham has already announced he opposes such a bill, and I suspect he's not the only one.
Of course there is another benefit. Trump has made the vote on the MTP his focal point, insisting that anyone who opposes the MTP is allied with Obamacare. Senators are feeling intense pressure to avoid Trump's ire, since one of the few things Trump presumably still has is the ability to rile up his base.
And Rand Paul is probably hoping to get a lot of senators on the record opposing the 2015 "full repeal" bill for his own purposes. Other senators may also be hoping to embarrass their colleagues for various idiosyncratic reasons.
But the point is that it would be the height of stupidity to open that Pandora's box—which at best will lead to a bunch of embarrassing votes and then a sharply negative change in public policy—unless it serves some identifiable goal. So I get why some, even many Republicans would vote for it. (In fact, for most Republicans the best thing is to vote for it while it fails.) But I don't see how it gets the votes of the Republicans with safe seats who do not prefer the outcome that it entails.
And so I am now wondering about the intelligence of the Republican senators. We'll find out soon enough.
People are now worried that McConnell will have enough votes for the MTP. I'm worried, but I also think it would be a big mistake for senators like Murkowski, Heller, Moran, Capito, et al. to vote for the MTP. In fact I think it would be a mistake for almost any senator to vote for the MTP unless it is necessary to fend off a primary challenge. So in my mind the question is just how smart or stupid the Republican Senate caucus is.
First, my understanding is that while a reconciliation vote only requires 50 votes to pass (with Pence's tie-breaking vote), the process allows for unlimited amendments. Possibly "unlimited" is an exaggeration, but certainly the Democrats will have the opportunity to propose several amendments, all of which will be designed to force Republicans to take hard votes. So the cost of passing the MTP is baked into the cake.
Second, the benefits of the MTP are far from obvious. It appears that Rand Paul's preferred 2015 bill is dead on arrival. So are all of the other known bills. Discussion has turned to "skinny" repeal, that is, getting rid of the mandate but leaving Medicaid untouched. However, Lindsey Graham has already announced he opposes such a bill, and I suspect he's not the only one.
Of course there is another benefit. Trump has made the vote on the MTP his focal point, insisting that anyone who opposes the MTP is allied with Obamacare. Senators are feeling intense pressure to avoid Trump's ire, since one of the few things Trump presumably still has is the ability to rile up his base.
And Rand Paul is probably hoping to get a lot of senators on the record opposing the 2015 "full repeal" bill for his own purposes. Other senators may also be hoping to embarrass their colleagues for various idiosyncratic reasons.
But the point is that it would be the height of stupidity to open that Pandora's box—which at best will lead to a bunch of embarrassing votes and then a sharply negative change in public policy—unless it serves some identifiable goal. So I get why some, even many Republicans would vote for it. (In fact, for most Republicans the best thing is to vote for it while it fails.) But I don't see how it gets the votes of the Republicans with safe seats who do not prefer the outcome that it entails.
And so I am now wondering about the intelligence of the Republican senators. We'll find out soon enough.
posted by James | 11:37 AM
1 Comments:
The major flaw in this analysis is your assumption that you are as knowledgeable and skilled as the politicians involved---perhaps even more knowledgeable. This particular assumption is common to many lay analyses of political strategy and it is almost universally wrong. These are people who won statewide elections. Even in one-party seats, they successfully navigated internal party politics, usually over the course of a decade or more. They did all of this in an industry that is so competitive and zero-sum that it makes 1L look like an ecstasy-fueled love cult. The presumption should be competence.
I could say more, but I won't. Suffice to say that the Clinton campaign bet hard on their ability to exploit the political-strategic hubris of the educated ignorant. What they failed to account for is the deep resentment that Americans---including people of color---have towards people who state opinions as though they are facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home