The importance of being pivotal

By RICK HOROWITZ   Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
 

Once upon a time, I had a teacher. A law professor, to be precise about it. (And he’d want me to be precise about it—he was a law professor.) He was an excellent professor, even though—or should that be because?—he was known to wander away from the syllabus from time to time to indulge in the entertaining-if-only-mildly-pertinent anecdote.

This particular morning, he was telling us about his dealings with the stock market. They were minor, almost minuscule, dealings, he admitted. Still, there was something to be said for being involved. There was, for instance, his one share of AT&T.

Now, one share of AT&T was beyond minuscule; it was practically non-existent. But the professor didn’t see it that way. The professor was taking the longer view. One day, he said, there might be a crucial shareholders meeting, with a crucial vote, on a crucial issue.

And the vote might be tied.

He’d be sitting mighty pretty then, wouldn’t he?

So let’s talk about Olympia Snowe.

If it’s good to be on the winning side, and bad to be on the losing side, best of all may be being the one who decides which is the winning side and which is the losing side.

So let’s talk about Olympia Snowe and health-care reform. Tuesday’s Senate Finance Committee vote wasn’t tied, exactly. There were 13 Democrats on the committee and only 10 Republicans; assuming Chairman Max Baucus could keep his own troops in line, the bill was going to pass regardless of which way Sen. Snowe came down.

But her vote was the pivotal vote nonetheless; hers would be the vote that would allow the chairman—and the president—to claim that health-care reform had “bipartisan” support in Congress. Which would make reform more popular with the public. Which would also make reform more palatable (i.e. provide some political cover) to some of the Senate’s more conservative Democrats.

Olympia Snowe’s vote might not have been a tie-breaker, but it was a mood-shifter. A perception-alterer.

Which means the senator from Maine was sitting mighty pretty.

(Come to think of it, my law professor moved to Maine the year after I took his class. You don’t think he…?)

What we don’t yet know is Olympia Snowe’s price for being the lone Republican to vote in favor of any of the five different bills the various Senate and House committees crafted over all these months. What we can assume is that she didn’t jump the fence for nothing. A favored provision inserted here. A loophole closed there. A problem clause tweaked to her satisfaction.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s all in the great tradition of legislative deal-making. She’s got something they want, they’ve got something she wants. Let’s do some business.

At least she’s not the kind who gloats, who flaunts her influence and does a victory dance when the bargaining’s done. She keeps her head down, and her voice soft: reasonable people, having a reasonable conversation about matters of mutual interest. Who could object to that?

And anyway, who says the bargaining’s done? You heard her announce, even as she was voting to send the committee’s bill to the Senate floor, that “My vote today is my vote today. It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

Some people took that as indecision. Maybe so.

Or maybe she can count. She realizes that her one vote in the Senate might be the difference between getting to 60 and not getting to 60.

She’s still sitting mighty pretty.

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.




reader COMMENTS (4)
RetiredAirForce
Oct 16, 2009 at 11:50 p.m.
Suggest removal

What harry wants to do is attach this measure as an amendment to a budget bill. By doing so a filibuster is not allowed, a vote is required, and a simple majority of only 51 votes can pass it (bypassing cloture).

A new health care program not in law is not a budget item. If we really want to stick with the rules of the senate and the constitution this measure passed out of committee is questionable as the House of Representatives is the only body allowed to raise revenue.

The purpose of reconciliation (what harry is attempting) was to override the stupidity inherent in the two party system, much like this debacle, thus allowing needed budget bills a streamlined course through the bureaucracy and politics so the government was not shut down because of egos and one-upmanship.

By attaching this measure as an amendment to a budget bill limits debate to 20 hours before a vote is required and will ban the use of a filibuster. How stupid is this? The founding fathers put in place rules to keep the majority party from running an autocracy (by the party not person); part of this road block has always been the senate. Yes, using tricks and rules to get something added to a bill or stop a vote has been common place. But should America stand by allowing more tricks when it comes to controlling everyone’s health care; no matter what side of the argument you are on this should be carefully crafted and above reproach for something this LARGE and changing to everyone.

DiGriz
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal

I was right. Again.

Bubs
Oct 16, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal

That's because legislation only needs 51 votes to pass the Senate.
The 60 vote threshold that people refer to is the number of votes required to invoke cloture and end debate on bills that are not budget-related. There is no Constitutional nor Senatorial requirement that 60 Senators agree on the actual bill. I suspect, however, that you already know this.
It is perfectly conceivable that 60 Senators would vote to invoke cloture but only 51 (or 50 with a Vice President tie-breaking vote) Senators would vote for the actual bill.
I happen to support this piece of legislation passing with "only" 51 votes and I have seen plenty of legislation that I disagree with pass with "only" a majority (Bush's wartime tax cuts, for example). I disagree with the people (not necessarily you, retiredairforce) who think that the threshold should be 51 when their party is in power but 60 when they are the opposition party. The standards to which we hold one party should apply to all parties.

RetiredAirForce
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:44 a.m.
Suggest removal

Sad thing, harry is doing his best to only need 51 votes and not worry about 60.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT