After Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated in July, the Democrats were optimistic about the possibilities of the 111th Congress. Since taking control of Congress in 2006, the Democrats have struggled with a Republican president and filibusters in the Senate. Whenever questioned about their failure to legislate campaign policies, Democrats lectured about their need for 60 Senate seats in order to enact any sort of legislative agenda. In July, the time finally arrived with the all-powerful supermajority. The opportunities seemed endless for drastic shifts in foreign, environmental and health care policy.
The country was in awe of the Democrats' newfound power. Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez remarked, "I think it gives us a tremendous opportunity to move a progressive agenda ahead. It obviously changes the dynamics in the Senate." Republican Sen. John Ensign added that with a supermajority Democrats "can take this country radically to the left. That means higher taxes [and] it means more spending."
However, three months have passed and most Americans are perplexed by the Democrats' legislative record on key issues. The most obvious issue of Democratic inaction is health care. Despite widespread support from the American public and President Obama for some sort of a public option, Democrats proved incapable of advancing it out of a Senate Committee. Recently, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance resoundingly rejected two amendments for a public option. As a result of Democratic inaction, support for the Democratic Congress, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, has fallen to 21 percent.
The problem for Democrats may not lie with the blue donkey, but rather with the Blue Dog Coalition. While political commentators and pundits have been fixated on the divides of the GOP, the real civil war may be going on in the Democratic caucus. The Blue Dogs define themselves as a coalition dedicated to what they say is a "core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States." There is nothing new about this moderate faction in American politics; Reagan Democrats made up a solid portion of the Republican Revolution of 1994. However, the fact that these Blue Dog congressmen are members of a party associated with spending is bound to lead to conflict.
Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a proponent of a public option and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, recently admitted his frustration with the whole legislative process, stating, "No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option. I want a bill that can become law." Blue Dog Democrats have voiced considerable objection to a public option for fears of massive costs and deficit increases.
Why are these Blue Dogs so uncompromising? The majority of Blue Dog Democrats in both the House and the Senate serve moderate districts or states and face a conservative constituent base. It would be nothing short of political suicide for some of these congressmen to support the public option. In the House, 49 Democrats carried a district won by Republican Sen. John McCain in the last presidential election. In the Senate, numerous Democratic senators in the Midwest are facing difficult reelections as a result of support for a public option.
Even former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean acknowledged the difficulty for moderate Democrats to support the proposed public option. The former governor claimed, "If the Democrats want to hold on to their majority, you're going to have a problem. That's because the public option wouldn't be up and running until 2013, long after the 2010 elections, meaning voters won't really see any benefits until long after the election." Blue Dog Democrats have heeded Dean's warning and are engaging in health care reform, but have drawn the line in the sand with the public option.
Despite Pelosi's insistence that health care reform and a public option are inextricably linked, the Democrats need to take a more pragmatic view on the issue of health care. Baucus understands that the best bill is one that can be passed. His bill, which was recently passed by the Senate Committee on Finance, does not contain any public option. However, the bill succeeds in many other areas. The bill creates a requirement for all Americans to have health care coverage and creates a market exchange for the purchase of it. The reforms would extend health care coverage to 94 percent of Americans, and at $829 billion over 10 years, it is well within Obama's limit of $900 billion. This is a piece of legislation that all Democrats, including Blue Dogs, can really rally around.
Although the Baucus bill would leave approximately 17 million Americans uninsured, it is a crucial step in ensuring universal health care in the United States. While both House and Senate committees have proposed bills with a public option, the costs are simply too high for Blue Dog support. Democratic leadership need not worry about courting Republican support, but rather ensuring Blue Dog support. These conservative Democrats will make or break health care reform. Pelosi's all-or-nothing approach with the public option is not what the Democrats or the country need. The Baucus bill, though far from perfect, can provide immediate relief to the millions of Americans who need it.
--
Michael Bendetson is a sophomore majoring in political science.
