Monday, October 26, 2009
In order to stop Osama from bombing the public option, which he intend to do, and which Harry Reid's bill allows him to do, at the appropriate time.
Although the White House has tried to characterize “triggers” as a “compromise” that could bring everyone on board, the fact is that Rahm Emanuel has been pushing them since January. It’s isn’t a compromise — it’s what the White House has wanted all along.
Can’t get enough votes in the Senate? The answer is triggers. Blue Dogs won’t come around in the House? The answer is triggers. Committee is in stalemate? How about a trigger. Republicans won’t support it? Triggers. Need a better CBO score? Triggers.
The trigger keeps raising its ugly head. It dies down. Inevitably, Rahm brings it back again and again. And even if Reid does not insert triggers in the final Senate bill, they’ll resurface again. In an amendment. In conference. In some demand Melissa Bean makes on the floor of the House. Whenever there is an obstacle, triggers will be there to save the day.
The only reason the public option stayed alive after every DC pundit said it was dead was because 68 members of the House said “no public option, no bill.” It gave the Senate the nerve to go as far as they have.
But knowing how near and dear the trigger is to Rahm’s (and the President’s) heart, those same House members have been reluctant to define “robust public option” as “no triggers.” In fact, only 16 of them have said they’d vote against a bill that had a public option with triggers.
Regardless of what anyone says today or tomorrow, triggers will resurface. It’s incredibly important to let progressive members of Congress know that “triggers” are not acceptable.
Tomorrow we’ll start calling to determine whether Democrats in Congress will vote “no” on a bill that has triggers. Remember, we only need 39 members to commit to keep a bill with “triggers” from passing.