LLS
It's not a "fast-track approach", it's an abuse of process to circumvent the rules. Nice attempt at spin though.
As has been mentioned previously, this Senate turd doesn’t have the votes in the house. Also, on Foxnews last night (a reporter for the Hill who I can’t remember her name) said very emphatically that there is no way for the Democrats to do this vis a vis reconcilliation.
This was discussed in November and they concluded back then it was impossible. She is not an idealogue or opinion columnist but a pretty fair reporter so I take her word for it. She is perplexed why they keep bringing it up other than a ploy to try to get Republican support for the current bills.
You know, just this morning I was thinking that the Rats, maybe even Obambi himself, really, really hope this “bipartisan” summit -— Obamacare: The Unreality Show -— never airs.
They may act like they can’t wait to kick Republican butt on TeeVee, but I’d wager the real story is that they know there’s a huge risk for them in this strategy.
I can’t say I’d be surprised if the Republicans aren’t attending because they do know how to crash this party.
If the Democrats can convince the “brilliant independents” that the Constitution stands in the way of “progress”, you can kiss any sort of change in the 2010 mid-term elections good-bye.
IMHO
It ain’t a “healthcare” bill...its a tax bill....and if they keep trying to “talk” about “passing” this sucker....you have to wonder exactly how ugly the creature they perceive as an alternative. Think about it.
“
Democrats could bypass GOP on health care bill (Rats to do it.
No point in a “bipartisan” meeting)
“
Despite the claims that Dems will not use the “reconciliation”
(aka, “nuclear”) option for ObamaCare...
My view of the current situation is “be shocked at nothing”.
There is no limit to what political wh-res like Obama, Sen. Reid, Speaker
Pelosi and their crime syndicate associates will do.
If they have the votes, I wish they’d just STFU and git er done, then face the bloodbath come November.
“More often than not Republicans have used reconciliation to try to affect their agenda, so what’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander,” he said.
Does anyone know if it was used by the repubs for budget issues, or for jamming their own agenda through? There’s a BIG difference.
They cant use recon on the forced purchase of insurance etc. THEY WANT THE TAXES. If proposed for recon Biden has to ask for a parlimentarian vote (which takes 60 votes) to accept amendment. All the obummer wants is the money folks. He doesnt give a shit about the other stuff.
Illegal options are always available, but even Harry and Nancy know there is insufficient support for their crime, no matter how willing they are to commit it.
But Obama was supposed to be post-racial and post-partisan. How could this happen? He’s having a “bipartisan health summit” and then forcing through his socialist heant care takeover agenda regardless of what RINOs and real Americans want.
“Bipartisan” - Somehow, I don’t think that word means what Obama’s supporters think it means.
If they do it, the outrage will only intensify against the Democrats, and November may go from a disaster to a bloodbath for them. They seemed determined to continue on the path of political suicide.
CNN: “Resistance is futile”
I will love to see Harry Reid try reconciliation...and fail.
I will call his office and say, “This war is lost.”
The Dems could have done this last year; could have done it early this year, yet they are still threatening to use it now?
Do it! What the frak are you waiting for, idiots?!
The funny thing will be that they passed the original bill with 60 votes, and rejected many amendments to that bill, some of which got more than 50 votes but less than 60. And now they are going to “amend” that same bill, sometimes in the same way, but with 50 votes.
The link is to a fascinating news story, explaining how it took 4 extra days to pass the tax bill because the democrats kept introducing amendment after amendment, forcing vote on waiving the budget act. They said they were fighting the "process", because they thought more debate was necessary for something so "important" as passing a tax cut.
This line was interesting:
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, acknowledged the rules of the Senate would allow the Democrats to keep up the tactic for as long as they wanted, but as the chamber's chief scheduler he was not going to make their lives easy if they insisted on keeping it up.That seems to confirm that the rules would allow the republicans to force votes indefinitely."We're going to get it through the Senate as soon as we can. We're going to make our dead-level best to get a conference agreement," he said.
Lott said legislators would continue to work into the evening and that dinner had been canceled because "every time you take a break these amendments marry and multiply."
Of course, in the end, some democrats voted for the tax cuts, while Reid's problem here is that some democrats WON'T vote for the health care bill.
In another article, they note Bush tax bill got 240 votes in the house, and 58-33 in the senate (a lot of people didn't vote). McCain voted no.
Also, Democrats said they were fully involved in the process, unlike with health care:
Several Democrats argued that the bill was irresponsible and shortsighted, but Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana -- who represented Democrats in the conference committee meetings along with Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana -- said before the votes that "Democrats fully participated in this process."