| Blogging the healthcare debate. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 25 2010, 12:43 PM (1,127 Views) | |
| Baldo | Feb 26 2010, 09:56 PM Post #46 |
|
Pelosi & reconciliation Pelosi flatly rejected Republican criticisms of Democratic plans to rely on a parliamentary procedure called "reconciliation" that requires a mere majority of 51 Senate votes, blunting Republicans' ability to kill the bill with delaying tactics that require 60 votes to overrun. "What you call a complicated process is called a simple majority. And that's what we're asking the Senate to act upon," she said, outlining a three-step process to get the bill through. Lawmakers would agree on the overall substance of the bill, then the Senate would determine what it can do with "reconciliation," and then the House would act, she said. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce7b18ff74d1dcc6be3181f05e48255b.151&show_article=1 Senator Mitch McConnell, said: “Using reconciliation would be an acknowledgment that there is bipartisan opposition to their bill, another in a series of backroom deals, and the clearest signal yet that they’ve decided to completely ignore the American people.” When Pelosi was picked as Speaker of the House in 2006 some of us in California knew it would be an fatal mistake for the Democratic Party. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 27 2010, 11:45 PM Post #47 |
|
I'll hold myself to 3 remarks on this article, one which invites many more. The first is that the passge of the health bill does not look likely or wise for most. Second, the NY Times doesn't even seem to promote it. Last, I've had the understanding that the "reconcilliation" approach requires "deficit reduction" when only the majority is required in the Senate. The net outcome of the proposed health care bill is a trillion plus in the red to reduce a few billion from the deficit. IIIRC about how it works, I'm lost on how it can be used. I supposed spending a dollar to save a dime is the government's way of reducing the deficit, but come on... Edited by kbp, Feb 27 2010, 11:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 28 2010, 01:52 PM Post #48 |
|
Good article that touches deeper on what is required to use the "reconcilliation" plan. It appears to support how I understood it to work. The Democrats evidently feel they can call overspending a "deficit reduction" and hope to tack on the rest of their health care plan a piece or two at a time later. |
![]() |
|
| longstop | Feb 28 2010, 02:20 PM Post #49 |
|
longstop
|
Article from Redstate. http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/02/27/health-care-reconciliation-is-an-exercise-in-futility/ Health care reconciliation is an exercise in futility. Ed Morrissey sums up his major counter-argument thusly to Andy McCarthy’s argument that progressive Democrats are ready to trade control of Congress in exchange for imposing health care rationing on the populace: Andy may be right that Democratic leadership has made the decision that political oblivion is an acceptable cost for a one-time remaking of America that Republicans will find difficult to reverse in the next session. However, I suspect that this strategy doesn’t account for the fact that the people who will actually have to end their careers may not appreciate getting forced into marching off a cliff while the leadership stays safely in their rear-echelon bastions of San Francisco and New York City. …and I’d like to add my two cents: it won’t work anyway. People like to talk about how government programs and agencies never die, once instituted, with the Great Society and the New Deal being the most used examples. What’s not mentioned is that both of those programs were popular. People wanted a Social Security program. They wanted Medicare. They do not notably want this monstrosity of a health care bill*. And if the Democrats decide to (and manage to) force it down our throats anyway, Republican legislators will find a way to shut it down in January 2011. The government has had over two and a quarter centuries to develop bylaws, operational procedures, codicils, and whatnot; there is always going to be a legislative fig leaf, suitable for framing and rationalization. I consider this bill dead. But if the Democrats are so determined to resurrect it, fine: we’ll just prune their internal power structure down to the roots in November and kill the bill again in January. In fact, that sounds kind of fun. Moe Lane Lots of comments. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Feb 28 2010, 02:39 PM Post #50 |
|
They first need to pass the Senate version in the House - Pelosi does not have the votes. I don not think there is enough arm twisting to bring that about. Is is no wonder that today on television she looked as if she had been sucking on an extremely sour lickle. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 28 2010, 02:44 PM Post #51 |
|
I think that is accurate. You can always tell when they don't have the votes - lots of chatter and hot air, yet no votes are scheduled. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 28 2010, 05:42 PM Post #52 |
|
Obama, Reid, Pelosi are about to commit politcial Suicide. They are also about to throw away the filibuster rules out of the senate and the violate the rules of the House. Let's see if any Blue Dog Democrats have any courage? White House: Simple up-or-down vote on health care WASHINGTON – The White House called for a "simple up-or-down" vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama's chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers. In voicing support for a simple majority vote, White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle signaled Obama's intention to push the Democratic-crafted bill under Senate rules that would overcome GOP stalling tactics. Republicans unanimously oppose the Democratic proposals. Without GOP support, Obama's only chance of emerging with a policy and political victory is to bypass the bipartisanship he promoted during his televised seven-hour health care summit Thursday. "We're not talking about changing any rules here," DeParle said. "All the president's talking about is: Do we need to address this problem and does it make sense to have a simple, up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems?" DeParle was optimistic that the president would have the votes to pass the massive bill. But none of legislation's advocates who spoke on Sunday indicated that those votes were in hand. "I think we will get to that point where we will have the votes," predicted Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. "I believe that we will pass health care reform this spring." In a sober call to arms, Pelosi said lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public. "We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul Edited by Baldo, Feb 28 2010, 05:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 28 2010, 05:54 PM Post #53 |
|
"Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes..." When asked to grade the past year, Pelosi said, "I think I get an A for effort." http://thehill.com/homenews/house/84089-pelosi-gop-has-had-its-day-217-healthcare-votes-in-sight She is nuts! |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 28 2010, 08:46 PM Post #54 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
"I think I get an A for effort." That's what you say when you fail... |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 28 2010, 10:32 PM Post #55 |
|
That RedState article takes it for granted that the Republicans would have 60 Senate votes after the coming election. I'm not seeing that and I doubt that enough would change so soon if something was moved through on a simple majority (though I am lost WTH that could legally include, or what exactly they'll try to classify as legal anyway). Edited by kbp, Feb 28 2010, 10:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







7:41 PM Jul 10