Posted on 03/03/2010 3:55:41 PM PST by Neoavatara
Obama clearly announced today plans on using the nuclear option, and will attempt to pass health care via reconciliation.
This is a complicated and archaic process. It was never really intended for legislation of this scope. Senator Judd Gregg compared the current Democratic effort to those undertaken in the past “is like comparing using a firecracker with a nuclear weapon...[the Democrats’ health-care bill is] an exercise in changing 16 percent of the American economy.” Gregg called Obamacare “the most complex policy we’ve ever dealt with in my time in Congress.” However, technically it isn't against the rules to use reconciliation for such purposes, it does come with great risks and hurdles.
(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com ...
I think it is ok to discuss the meaning of the ‘nuclear option’, but that said...I think we all know what I intended by my post. No offense...but we have bigger issues to worry about than semantics.
No problem. I just like to point out the difference just so people know that there are indeed two different options. Even if - for whatever reason - the Budget Reconciliation process falls through, the Dems could still try to pass the original House bill using the "real" nuclear option in the Senate.
I don't think that would happen, but I really didn't think it would get this far, either.
No offense... but you're joking, right?
After eight years of Bill Clinton's parsing of what the meaning of "is" is, you learn that these people live and breathe the semantics.
The whole strategy of the nuclear option is a semantic reading of the parliamentarian rules of order.
Obama's wordcrafting is nothing but semantics. That's why he stutters so much while speaking -- he's grappling with finding the "just right" word to use in the situation that he can't converse fast enough for normal conversation.
You can't ignore the semantics, or you will be blindsided by these people.
-PJ
[With less than 60 votes, if my understanding is correct, then they will never get to vote on the bill because they will not have the votes for “cloture” or to end the debate on the floor.]
According to the rules, correct.
But it seems the Democrats are planning to break the Senate rules. Since they know they can’t get the Senate bill passed in The House, as is, they are going to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a different House bill and then modify the Senate bill to merge the two together. According to the rules, they would then need to pass the new bill again in the Senate with 60 votes, but since budget bills only need 51 votes they plan to pass it as if it were a budget bill. ILLEGAL - but this is their plan.
They won't go through reconciliation until they get the promise of future corrective action from the Senate. Why anyone would accept a Democratic Senate promise is beyond me.
-PJ
According to post 7, there is no cloture or 60 vote requirement, only 20 hours of debate followed by amendments to the bill where at that time the Republicans can inundate the measure with numerous amendments requiring a vote on each one.. Michele Malkin is calling it a “vote-a-rama”.
It depends. Considering the Senate bill has already been passed all it needs to do is pass the house in identical form. Then it goes to the President to sign into law.
However, the Dems don’t have anywhere near enough votes to pass the House because too many House Dems want to be re-elected in November.
Since the Democrat leadership knows this, they are trying to get a different bill passed in the House and then “reconcile” them afterward. Following this plan, they would then need to bring the new bill back up in the Senate where it would again need 60 votes. But the Dems want to bypass Senate rules and claim that it would only need 51 (because they are calling it a “budget” bill.
I am slowly getting better at this “tracking”, which is BS. The newest talking point is that Republicans have used this procedure (I won’t call it a rule since sticking it in your keester is also a procedure) saying both Bush tax cuts and Medicare part D were done this way (and I don’t know that for sure). I saw a tea party sign that said “Save a trillion dollars....lay Congress off now!”
[In order to make it “legal,” they are planning to pass what thay can get away with under reconciliation, with the promise from the Senate Democrats to fix what they couldn’t do under reconciliation at a later date.
They won’t go through reconciliation until they get the promise of future corrective action from the Senate. Why anyone would accept a Democratic Senate promise is beyond me.]
I see that one theory is the Democrat leadership will try to get the Senate bill passed in the House by promising the recalcitrant moderate House Dems that they will modify the Bill in reconciliation in order to come in line with their demands.
But if the House does pass the Senate bill then there is nothing to stop the leadership from sending it right to Obama’s desk for him to sign into law. Of course, that will double cross the House Dems and they will likely be kicked out of office in droves in November - but why should the Democrat leadership care as long as they get to take over the health care industry? They’ll gladly give up the House and the Senate (temporarily) in exchange for that.
[The newest talking point is that Republicans have used this procedure (I won’t call it a rule since sticking it in your keester is also a procedure) saying both Bush tax cuts and Medicare part D were done this way (and I don’t know that for sure).]
They’re just lying. The only time the Republicans have used the budget reconciliation process is for budget bills.
Here is an earlier post of mine showing Harry Reid's history of reneging on deals.
-PJ
Senator Judd Gregg compared the current Democratic effort to those undertaken in the past "is like comparing using a firecracker with a nuclear weapon...[the Democrats' health-care bill is] an exercise in changing 16 percent of the American economy."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.