Complaining constituents at home, to the extent that they're willing to listen to anything at all, will be told that the Senator voted yes on stuff everyone says they want, and no on the final bill. Comfy! A yes vote on cloture is just as defensible, but more esoteric: "I voted to say, 'Let's vote.'" True. And defensible. But the teabaggers, of course, think we should not vote.
Now, the teabaggers may very well also think that eliminating the preexisting condition exclusion is wrong. But that's ground on which I think the requisite number of Senators would be willing to part ways with their state's teabaggers. So the closer we put them to that ground, the better.
But again, if you can get Senators to move far enough to compartmentalize their votes and give up what the most vocal opponents will surely equate with the filibuster, anyway, then let's give some consideration to just doing this the right way, adopting this thing under regular order, and avoiding the five year sunset that comes with passing health care under reconciliation.
Oh, did I mention that? Passing health care under reconciliation restricts its authorization to the limits of the budget window defined in the budget resolution that contained the reconciliation instructions in the first place -- in this case, fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Which basically means that the whole health care program will have to be renewed and reauthorized all over again at some point within the next five years, or it disappears.
That might matter.
1 | 2
