I don't like Max Baucus.

I don't trust Max Baucus.

But my fellow Progressives, the rest of you are driving me friggin' crazy today.

The Republicans are the ones who are supposed to suck at Governance. Not us.

But listening to the debate today...you'd have to wonder.

But there's a reason why why we lost the Single Payer and/or maybe the Public Option. (At least that last one's obvious, there weren't the votes.)

There's a reason why bi-partisianship is a matter of Governance as opposed to Politics, which a lot of y'all seem to think it is. Now, my understanding is that the reason Max Baucus has as much power in the Health Care Debate, is that Health Care/Health Insurance Reform falls under the purview of the Senate Finance Committee, and not the Senate HELP Committee (believe it or not).

Yes, I know its called Health Care Reform, and the HELP Committee actually has the word "Health" in its title, but because this reform involves such a reworking of the Economy, it belongs to Senate Finance.

As much work as HELP has done, their bill really comes in as a suggestion. HELP will be a part of any merging of the bills, but the real work, thus the real bill, will have to come out of Senate Finance.

I wish this wasn't true. I got this from an actual expert, Lawrence O'Donnell, who...when he wasn't writing for the West Wing, acting on Big Love, or subbing for Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz, was the Chief of Staff for the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

In some respects, the Senate Finance Chair is more powerful (again...believe it or not) than the Senate Majority Leader since virtually all legislation has to pass through that Committee before it sees the floor. (Then again, Laurence may just have a thing for his old home team, because Harry Reid still controls the calendar, what gets to the floor after Committee, and what doesn't.)

Now, the choice of having the Gang of Six rework Health Care Reform into a state of near worthlessness is bad, don't get me wrong. It's also a matter of governance, rather than politics, despite what you may have read or heard.

First off, scumbag Republican Senator Michael B. Enzi...happens to be a member of both Senate Finance and is the ranking member of Senate HELP. This at least explains his presence in the so-called Gang of Six talks.

Now, a lot of my fellow Liberals are fond of saying "just ram Health Care Reform through reconciliation", but the problem with doing that is a little thing called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (I've heard it called the Byrd Rule, but he's been around so long, there are quite a number of Byrd Amendments out there, so...)

In short, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts any bill going through reconciliation strictly to budgetary matters only.

Thus, before our dream Health Care Bill hits the floor for a vote, it will pass into the hands of the unelected, non-partisan (but highly, highly trained) Parliamentarian of the Senate, who will...without hesitation or prejudice cut out anything from the bill that doesn't have to do with the budget, as per the Byrd rule.

Significant parts of Health Care Reform, good and ill alike, will be cut out, and instead of passing a watered down bill (as we now face) we will face the prospect of an ineffectual Swiss Cheese bill, which in a lot of cases won't do what we need it to do, and in some cases won't even make any sense.

I get where it may, in the end, be a good idea to do this. I also get where this is a valuable tool to threaten Republicans with...

...but don't go fooling yourself into believing that we won't incur serious losses (reformwise) if we resort to budget reconciliation.

Added to that, there's will be a sunset clause in anything coming out of reconciliation, a time limit. Much like Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich, Health Care Reform will wind up EXPIRING, and in ten years or so, we'll have to start this crap all over again.

This is why Obama and Senate Democrats are very interested in a "bi-partisan bill". Older than dirt Senate Tradition, 5-7 squishy Democrats, a solid block of Republican "NO!" have made this a necessity.

It has nothing to do with him being a wimp. It has nothing to do with him being too generous. These are the rules of the Senate, however idiotic they may be. These are rules that we have used against Republicans in the past, and when we're in the minority again in the future, we're going to want to see our Senators use them again.

As much as I loathe the Senate (in that they're a club, and they get too wrapped up in what the club needs, as opposed to what Country needs) at times, this is why they're the saucer than cools the drink, or whatever the hell that old saying is. This where the House is the passion and the emotion of the people, the Senate is supposed to be a calming influence. This is why House members are forced to turn to their public every two years, and the Senate gets a more reflective six. The six years is supposed to make them a little more immune to the passions of the people, and thus allegedly more statesman like.

Say what you will about being statesmen or not, they certainly have been immune to our demands.

This also how some of the more insane things that Bush and Rove wanted to do, even they couldn't do; because in the Senate you have to deal with the minority party.

I remain pissed off about losing Public Option. But it was the rules of the Senate that did us in way more than anything else.

Though Kent Conrad, his wuss-ass self...really helped.

If Progressives are are going to crack on the Senate, they better understand why they do what they do. Just screaming at them makes you sound like Republicans.

By which I mean total, and complete idiots.


Original published at Fort McHenry.