Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Health care: Dems just don't have the votes
Washington Examiner ^ | 02/23/10 | Byron York

Posted on 02/23/2010 1:20:08 PM PST by OldDeckHand

Now that the White House and Democrats are making a last push to pass their so-far-unpassable national health care bills, the only thing that matters is whether they can get 217 votes for victory in the House and 50 votes (plus the vice-president's tie-breaker) for reconciliation in the Senate. Good policy doesn't matter. Bad policy doesn't matter. All that matters is votes.

The White House and Democrats have lost sight of the essential insanity of the process -- desperately searching for corners to cut so they can pass an enormous re-ordering of the American economy that Americans don't want -- because all they can think about now is passing something. It could be anything, as long as it is "comprehensive."

So where are the votes? Start in the House. House Democrats have to do two things. First, they have to pass the health care bill that Senate Democrats passed on December 24 -- Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase and all. They could stop there and send the bill to the president's desk, but that, of course, is not going to happen. So they then have to pass a set of agreed-upon "fixes" to the Senate bill that the Senate would then pass by using the reconciliation process. (The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House.)

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; 2010; bhohealthcare; byronyork; gophealthcare; healthcare; obamacare; pelosi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
He makes a logical, cogent argument. Let's hope he's right.
1 posted on 02/23/2010 1:20:09 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“essential insanity of the process”

That’s true.

We need to keep up the pressure. Phones, faxes, emails.


2 posted on 02/23/2010 1:25:44 PM PST by RedMDer (Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

THATS OK...WHATEVER THEY CANT PASS OBAMA WILL PASS BY EXECUTIVE ORDER...


3 posted on 02/23/2010 1:26:32 PM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

217 votes in the House. Let’s thank idiot RINOs Newt and Dede for effing up NY-23.


4 posted on 02/23/2010 1:27:01 PM PST by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“Dems just don’t have the votes”

from your weblink to God’s inbox!


5 posted on 02/23/2010 1:27:24 PM PST by TruthHound ("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Doesn’t ZERO have to sign the House passed Senate bill before it can be reconciled?


6 posted on 02/23/2010 1:27:52 PM PST by Tarpon ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
OBAMANOMICS--TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

Sen. Scot Brown's number is 202-224-5443

Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke.

Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS

Friday, February 19, 2010

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security

http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan

http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

Socialized Med Thread

TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm

Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09

Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.

Snip

The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Snip

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.

Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.

7 posted on 02/23/2010 1:28:11 PM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

I have been saying since June it would be the House that killed Obamacare. Finally the mSM pundits are atarting to realize the same thing. Back when the House voted for their version, the Rats were terrified of Speaker Pelosi and what she would do to them if they voted no. Now they are terrified of their ultimate bosses, the voters, and what they will do to them if they vote yes this time.


8 posted on 02/23/2010 1:28:36 PM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
"Doesn’t ZERO have to sign the House passed Senate bill before it can be reconciled?"

No. While he does have to sigh the original bill first, they can actually pass the Budget Reconciliation bill - hold onto it - then pass the original bill. It's legislative sleight of hand, but it's allowable under the rules of Congress.

9 posted on 02/23/2010 1:29:40 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

With Obamacare, the only thing better than a quick silent death would be a spectacular crash-and-burn death. We very well may get the best possible outcome here ... wherein Democrats will both ignore the electorate, and prove themselves too incompetent to get it done.

SnakeDoc


10 posted on 02/23/2010 1:29:40 PM PST by SnakeDoctor (Do you know if the hotel is pager friendly? [...] I'm not getting a sig on my beeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I don't think they have the votes either but, nevertheless, I'm worried about the process itself. So I have a question. It is based on the following statement from the article that I believe to be true:

"The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House"

The question: Doesn't the House have to pass the Senate Bill (the one they don't like and won't vote for without a 'reconciliation fix') before they can take up the reconciliation bill itself?

The reason this is important relates to the one weapon the Republicans have left in their arsenal: the ability to stall the reconciliation bill in the Senate indefinitely. That power is not of much use if the House has already passed the Senate version since that would leave us with the Senate version of ObaminationCare sitting on Obama's desk ready for signature. Under those circumstances the Republicans would have to do the best they could to carve the bill back down by implementing some of the House changes, e.g. no abortion funding.

Tell me if this is or isn't the way it could go.

11 posted on 02/23/2010 1:31:45 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
He makes a logical, cogent argument. Let's hope he's right.

According to the article, the House still has to pass the existing Senate bill and then pass 'fixes' with reconciliations. This point is not clear as other news sources don't go into that detail. Experts?

12 posted on 02/23/2010 1:32:09 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

How do you budget reconcile for a non-existent program?

That seems more like outright lies than anything else.

Explain more please ...


13 posted on 02/23/2010 1:32:44 PM PST by Tarpon ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

One thing that is not clear, and is key to all this, is whether what Obama has put out there is merely the “White House version” of Obamacare, or whether it is the result of the Senate-House Democrat negotiation that has been reported as going on behind closed doors these past weeks and as having been completed or near completed.

If the latter, one has to suspect that the Rat leaders believe they have the votes. The public posturing by Pelosi and Hoyer in the last day or two may be simply a hope to get a final bite at the apple on a couple of specific points they are still negotiating with the Senate.

I have been of the view that the House would be easier for the Rats to pass than the Senate, because of the greater extent to which individual Rat House members are beholden to, and subject to discipline by, the Rat party machine, than senators. With the Chicago way of doing things, the party machine will threaten or bribe individual members, and the price would be a lot lower than for a senator.


14 posted on 02/23/2010 1:33:44 PM PST by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So if the House RATS vote through the Senate bill and (after putting up fixes) the Senate cannot pass the House fixes, then the Reps have to campaign on having put through the Senate version.

Sweet for the RAT Senators. But the REPs can kiss their careers goodbye.

Got to wonder what Ben Nelson is wishing for at this point?


15 posted on 02/23/2010 1:34:16 PM PST by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
"How do you budget reconcile for a non-existent program?"

You're apply logic to a political process. Mistake number one.

So long as the President doesn't sign the Reconciliation Bill first, they (the Congress, to include both Houses) can pass legislation in whatever order they choose. While it's not frequently talked about, it's within the Speaker's authority to hold bills before being sent to the WH for signature. The only time such maneuvers are attempted, is usually when the majority is engaging in some Parliamentary shenanigans.

16 posted on 02/23/2010 1:37:44 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I’m emailing and calling but I’m also praying that G-d tkes care of a few more of those votes for us! Let’s say 2 in the house and atleast one more in the Senate.


17 posted on 02/23/2010 1:38:57 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775
THATS OK...WHATEVER THEY CANT PASS OBAMA WILL PASS BY EXECUTIVE ORDER...

What's the difference between that and the actions of a dictator?.......................NONE.

18 posted on 02/23/2010 1:39:45 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (When 0bama Fails, Freedom Prevails - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rod1
"So if the House RATS vote through the Senate bill and (after putting up fixes) the Senate cannot pass the House fixes, then the Reps have to campaign on having put through the Senate versio"

It's a little confusing. We're talking about two separate bills - The original Senate bill and the Reconciliation Bill, which would need to be passed by both House & Senate, but would need to originate in the Senate.

So, the House wouldn't vote on the Senate bill until after the Reconciliation bill passed both House & Senate (but held from the President for signature until after the original Senate bill passes the House). Follow me?

19 posted on 02/23/2010 1:40:54 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
They don't have the votes in the House to pass the Senate version-period!

And they just keep digging a deeper hole for themselves!

20 posted on 02/23/2010 1:40:57 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
"One thing that is not clear, and is key to all this, is whether what Obama has put out there is merely the “White House version” of Obamacare, or whether it is the result of the Senate-House Democrat negotiation that has been reported as going on behind closed doors these past weeks and as having been completed or near completed."

That's the $64K question. It's also possible that Obama's version is just a stalking horse or sacrificial lamb, to be intended to be disposed in favor of the original Senate bill married to a Reconciliation Bill passed by both Houses.

It's anyone's guess as to what their real strategy is here, and it might be presumptive to believe that they actually have a strategy.

21 posted on 02/23/2010 1:43:29 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

No. He signs a bill only after it passes both houses of Congress in identical form.


22 posted on 02/23/2010 1:44:07 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
The stumbling block is the Senate version needs to be passed without any changes.

It doesn't contain the strong anti-abortion language and therefore won't pass.

Reconcilation bills only deals with the budget.

What Obama needs is the money from the taxes he has already put into his budget.

So, they may pass the reconcilation bill without passing the health care bill.

23 posted on 02/23/2010 1:44:37 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I believe that Pelosi is just trying to cover up the fact that she can't get the Senate version passed by telling Reid that she could with a reconciliation bill first.

Adding money into the Senate Bill won't get it passed.

24 posted on 02/23/2010 1:46:39 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rod1

thehill.com

President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform proposal released Monday eliminates controversial funds given to Nebraska as part of a deal to win the support of centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered the $100 million in Medicaid funding, also known as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” to Nelson to help win him over* as the 60th vote on the Senate’s healthcare reform bill last December.

But the deal eventually backfired. During merger negotiations with the Senate, House leaders said the “kickback” was an unfair deal struck for Nebraska that was not available to other states and was given only to attract Nelson’s support.


25 posted on 02/23/2010 1:47:29 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Byron York just about always makes good, cogent arguments. I’d go out of my way to read his stuff.


26 posted on 02/23/2010 1:50:25 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If they have the votes, they’d call for the floor vote.


27 posted on 02/23/2010 1:50:36 PM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

it is not making any sense unless it is a misdirection play (suck all of the oxygen out of the room and keep us fixated on health care while Obamba slides in a bunch of other stuff behind the scenes)


28 posted on 02/23/2010 1:50:47 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
What Obama needs is the money from the taxes he has already put into his budget.

So, they may pass the reconcilation bill without passing the health care bill.

Barry doesnt give a crap about people and insurance. He wants the money. If he can just get that.

29 posted on 02/23/2010 1:51:53 PM PST by GUNGAGALUNGA (Democratus Suckus Teatus is the Latin root for Democrat and it means to tax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"I believe that Pelosi is just trying to cover up the fact that she can't get the Senate version passed by telling Reid that she could with a reconciliation bill first."

Remember, the original Senate bill becomes nothing more than window dressing after the Reconciliation Bill passes. IOWs, forget about the original Senate bill, and whatever problems that original Senate bill contains, for anyone. - the abortion language, the Cadillac Tax etc, all become moot with the passage of the Reconciliation Bill.

The fight will be over the Reconciliation Bill. If Pelosi/Reid can get the Reconciliation Bill passed first, then the passing of the original Senate bill becomes inevitable, as a practical matter.

30 posted on 02/23/2010 1:52:12 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775

An Executive Order only applies to the Executive Branch. It is not a general law.


31 posted on 02/23/2010 1:53:24 PM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
because all they can think about now is passing something. It could be anything, as long as it is "comprehensive."

Let us remember that without this government take over of 20% of our economy, all of nobama's other Marxist schemes will never happen.

For nobama, this is "must pass" legislation. I suspect if he can't get it through Congress that he will try something through an Exceutive Order. And that's where things will get real interesting.

32 posted on 02/23/2010 1:53:35 PM PST by upchuck (The horse is in the pasture. The barn door is wide-open. Obama wants to know who made the hinges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; Tarpon
"No. He signs a bill only after it passes both houses of Congress in identical form."

I don't believe that's the question he was asking. He was asking, in which order must Obama pass these two pieces of legislation - the original Senate bill (passed by the House) and the Reconciliation Bill (passed by both Houses).

33 posted on 02/23/2010 1:54:23 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
The question: Doesn't the House have to pass the Senate Bill (the one they don't like and won't vote for without a 'reconciliation fix') before they can take up the reconciliation bill itself?

Short answer: No. No need for "reconciliation" if the House rubber-stamps the bill and sends it straight to the President's desk.

There will be no "reconciliation bill" because it will be piecemeal. The dodge will be when they try to make serious policy using a maneuver that's designed for strictly fiscal matters, which is what they're trying to do. The Parliamentarian of the Senate will have to rule if that's what's going on (which is improper and against the rules). It is Biden's option, as President of the Senate, to overrule the Parliamentarian.

34 posted on 02/23/2010 1:57:17 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster; lexington minuteman 1775
"An Executive Order only applies to the Executive Branch. It is not a general law."

Not exactly accurate. Some Executive Orders do have full force of law. IOW, they become US law. Others, do not.

Remember, in one of the most famous and controversial application of an Executive Order, Truman tried to nationalize the Steel industry in 1952. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled such a order unconstitutional, it would have been US law.

Also, Congress can undo Executive Orders with bills they pass in both Houses. If the President were to Veto such a bill, the Congress would have to override the Veto with a 2/3rds vote.

35 posted on 02/23/2010 1:59:18 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
But the ‘new program’ cannot become real until it's signed by the Pres. I am aware of bills being held by either the Senate or the House for any reason, but to be real and final they must be signed by the Pres.. It is only then that reconciliation, budgeting can take place, because they have to reference the programs the budgets will be applied to.

So in essence, the Speaker is holding the passed unsigned not real bill hostage until the Senate signs off on the reconciliation of a non-existent program.

Lies are easy to understand ...

Article 1 Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

So as I see it, since the Senate passed the bill first, the taxes contained within are un-Constitutional. Followed by the un-Constitutional procedure of not allowing the bill to be signed by the Pres, but held hostage to insure the Senate acts.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

And so who in the Senate is going to stop this un-Constitutional procedure? And what can we do ... we should not allow this clearly un-Constitutional procedure to take place. We should squawk most loudly against this clear Constitutional violation.

Yes, no ??

36 posted on 02/23/2010 2:00:17 PM PST by Tarpon ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Remember, the original Senate bill becomes nothing more than window dressing after the Reconciliation Bill passes. IOWs, forget about the original Senate bill, and whatever problems that original Senate bill contains, for anyone. - the abortion language, the Cadillac Tax etc, all become moot with the passage of the Reconciliation Bill.

No, it isn't that simple.

The Reconciliation Bill only deals with budget issues.

For comprehensive care to exist, it must be voted on a major Bill, not just a reconciliation Bill.

The fight will be over the Reconciliation Bill. If Pelosi/Reid can get the Reconciliation Bill passed first, then the passing of the original Senate bill becomes inevitable, as a practical matter.

No, the passing of the Senate version would not be inevitable.

The Reconciliation bill is not going to contain most of the provisions of the Senate version and that Bill would be defeated.

37 posted on 02/23/2010 2:01:01 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I don't believe that's the question he was asking. He was asking, in which order must Obama pass these two pieces of legislation - the original Senate bill (passed by the House) and the Reconciliation Bill (passed by both Houses).

I realized after I posted that's what he was asking. Sorry for the confusion.

38 posted on 02/23/2010 2:01:11 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
"It is Biden's option, as President of the Senate, to overrule the Parliamentarian. "

No, it's Biden's prerogative to call for a vote to override the Parliamentarian. It still takes 60 votes (or, it could be 2/3rd - I can't remember which) in the Senate to overrule the Parliamentarian.

39 posted on 02/23/2010 2:01:49 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GUNGAGALUNGA
Barry doesnt give a crap about people and insurance. He wants the money. If he can just get that.

I agree!

He knows the major provisions of the Health Care Bill are dead, but he still wants to get that money he was counting on for collecting the first 3 years before the health care 'benefits' kicked in!

What a scam!

40 posted on 02/23/2010 2:02:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Still Thinking

See #36 tell me where I went wrong ...


41 posted on 02/23/2010 2:03:27 PM PST by Tarpon ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
"It is only then that reconciliation, budgeting can take place, because they have to reference the programs the budgets will be applied to."

Yeah, that's the part that's not accurate. It is a Parliamentary loophole, so to speak. They can pass legislation to reconcile Bills or perspective bills, and not just laws.

"So in essence, the Speaker is holding the passed unsigned not real bill hostage until the Senate signs off on the reconciliation of a non-existent program."

Again, not exactly. The Speaker (in theory) would hold the passed Reconciliation Bill from the President until the House passes the original Senate bill, which the President - by law - must sign first.

"So as I see it, since the Senate passed the bill first, the taxes contained within are un-Constitutional. Followed by the un-Constitutional procedure of not allowing the bill to be signed by the Pres, but held hostage to insure the Senate acts."

Again, according to Judicial precedent, only the Reconciliation Bills - as it's purely a revenue bill must originate in the Congress. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is "And so who in the Senate is going to stop this un-Constitutional procedure? "

Absolutely no one. However, a sitting Senator (amongst other people and other states) certainly would have standing to sue. Such a suit would be heard on the merits, in my estimation.

42 posted on 02/23/2010 2:09:06 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"The Reconciliation bill is not going to contain most of the provisions of the Senate version and that Bill would be defeated. "

That's exactly the point. The Senate - because of the filibuster - was limited by Nelson, Lieberman and a couple others. But, because of the Budget Reconciliation process, they only need 50 votes (plus Biden).

Maybe the Senate or House Parliamentarian objects to some of the provisions in the Reconciliation Bill, maybe they don't. It's not an exact science, and the Parliamentarians do have some latitude in making their decisions. Also, rulings of Congressional Parliamentarians are not subject to judicial review, or so has been the tradition.

43 posted on 02/23/2010 2:13:28 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

OK, I accept your view — You seem to know a lot about this Constitutional stuff, is it hobby or ...

Is there anyway to stop this hoaxing of the American people?


44 posted on 02/23/2010 2:16:09 PM PST by Tarpon ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Hmmm. That’s interesting. I am not an expert in the rules...I had just read that. What I read was that Biden could do it unilaterally. The SHTF if the Dems pull that.

On the other hand, I can’t see the Parliamentarian ruling against the ruling class in the first place. But, could be a non-partisan office?


45 posted on 02/23/2010 2:19:02 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
"On the other hand, I can’t see the Parliamentarian ruling against the ruling class in the first place. But, could be a non-partisan office?"

Yes, they are both FIERCELY independent, by tradition. As a coincidence, this current Senate Parliamentarian found gainful employment only after the last, long standing Parliamentarian, was fired by Trent Lott about 10 or so years ago when he ruled counter to Lott's wishes.

I think it's likely that at least some of the provisions would be struck by the Parliamentarian. How many remains to be seen.

46 posted on 02/23/2010 2:22:23 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GailA
Sen. Scot Brown's number is 202-224-5443

The number above is for Dept of Homeland Security number.

Scott Brown's number is 202-224-4543

Just fyi....
.

47 posted on 02/23/2010 2:40:35 PM PST by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Short answer: No. No need for "reconciliation" if the House rubber-stamps the bill and sends it straight to the President's desk.

But my understanding of this reconciliation scheme is that it can only be used on a bill that has passed the House and the Senate. That means the House MUST PASS THE SENATE BILL AT SOME POINT.

Isn't that true?

48 posted on 02/23/2010 2:55:30 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

If the House and Senate pass the exact same bill, then it’s game over and on to the President. No further Legislative action. That’s not rules, that’s in the Constitution.


49 posted on 02/23/2010 2:59:19 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
If the House and Senate pass the exact same bill, then it’s game over and on to the President. No further Legislative action. That’s not rules, that’s in the Constitution.

I know that.

But I believe the reconciliation process requires it. They are not reconciling the House Bill vs. the Senate Bill. They are reconciling the Senate Bill. I'm pretty sure that right.

50 posted on 02/23/2010 3:06:11 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson