WASHINGTON — Soon, he'll be only No. 59.
The Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race scrambles the health care picture in ways that could ultimately help or hurt Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Nelson, a Democrat, cast the crucial 60th vote last month to prevent a GOP filibuster and pass the Senate health care bill. Democratic leaders were working to merge that bill with the House-approved version in hopes of sending it soon to President Barack Obama.
But the win by Republican State Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts means that Nelson would no longer hold the required 60th vote.
Democrats now have various options:
The simplest approach might be for the House to pass the Senate version of the bill without any changes. That would send the bill straight to Obama's desk and would not require any further votes by the Senate.
Such a move would cut off liberal House members — who are trying to move the final bill in their direction — and could make Nelson happy.
But it also means that the final legislation still would include a special deal that exempts Nebraska from the added costs of the bill's Medicaid expansion that will hit other states starting in 2017. Known as the “Cornhusker kickback,” the exemption has been the subject of intense criticism.
Nelson requested last week that the exemption be dropped and that all states be treated equally. That change wouldn't happen if the House simply passed the Senate version.
Democrats also could try to rush through the final version before officially seating the new senator from Massachusetts. But that would play into GOP criticisms that the health care negotiations have been rushed and less than transparent.
John Hibbing, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said that might not make much difference at this point. “If people already believe they're rushing to judgment on this, that might just confirm it.”
A third option would be for Democrats to attempt to move the bill through a budget-related process, called reconciliation, that would require only 51 votes in the Senate. Because Democrats no longer would need to corral more conservative members such as Nelson, that process could produce a more liberal bill.
Even if Nelson voted against the bill at that point, however, he still would be linked to health care in the public's mind. That's because the Nebraska Medicaid deal has been such a focus for opponents, said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.
“He is probably more tied to (health care) than any other senator,” he said.
Sabato said Democrats could opt to go with a greatly scaled-back version of the bill, but they don't seem interested in that approach.
Perhaps the best possible option for Nelson politically would be if Democrats were able to win the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Pursuing her vote might drag out the process. But if she ultimately supported the bill, it would achieve one of Nelson's early goals: getting at least some GOP support.
Nelson said during a conference call today with reporters that the Massachusetts vote should serve as a "wake-up call" to Washington that people are frustrated with partisanship. The new split in the Senate means that Democrats must reach across the aisle to work with Republicans and Republicans have an obligation to work with the majority.
"Bipartisanship should be the word of the day," Nelson said.
He said Democrats should not try to rush the final bill through before the new Massachusetts senator is seated but that it's up to Senate leadership to plot a course forward on health care. "People who didn't want me to be the 60th vote can have their way," Nelson said.
Contact the writer:
202-662-7270, joe.morton@owh.com
