Skip to comments.Reconciliation Is a Deceptive Distraction from the True Intentions
Posted on 03/08/2010 9:31:20 AM PST by Nachum
Building on a previous post exposing that Harry Reid took the existing House-passed bill, H.R. 3590, entitled the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 and replaced the existing bill language, via an amendment, with the Senates version of the healthcare billcreating a new H.R. 3590the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate).
I stand by my assertion that Reid took H.R. 3590knowing that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House per the Constitutionas evidenced by the actual bill text dated December 24, 2009 seen here in a screen shot and his trick:
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
The list, ping
not saying she’s wrong, but since when does doing things in a Constitutional manner mean anything?
I agree with you totally. Health Care Reform is over once the House passes the Senate version. All the rest is a sideshow. Anyone think Obama would veto the Senate version of the bill if reconciliation somehow fails?
How stupid do you have to be to be a Democrat member of the House? Obama is purging the Democrat party of it’s moderate members and he’s going to do it with their own votes. Meanwhile the Senate sits there with a very low chance that they could lose their majority in November and expects House Democrats to commit suicide.
And interesting question is do House Democrats trust the White House and Sen. Harry Reid to “fix” the Senate health care bill if it passes the House?
So, the House passes the Senate bill, and they’ve gotten past that pesky Constitution thing about revenue bills originating in the House?
Here’s the thing about that reconciliation matter.
Beginning with...it ain’t going to happen.
If the House passes the senate version of Obamercare it will NEVER go before the senate for reconcilation, for minor “tune-ups” and corrections as the House might request.
Last count has it estimated at about 16 votes short to pass the senate bill. In a field of over 200 votes, they’re not going to hold a dog and pony show in the senate to appease 16 representatives. Now that 16 number could be many more, but there’s likely a buncha Dem reps hiding behind colleagues on the front lines, like the abortion guys, to have Pelosi like them while hoping that the NO guys stand firm to keep the thing from coming to a vote and making their constituents angry. They’re telling Pelosi they’ll vote yes hoping Stupak et al keep the thing from going to a vote.
Think about this reconcilation side show, should it come to pass. First, even the Lamestream Media would cover it...this is too juicy too ignore.
You’ll have the senate parliamentarian stopping a vote because you can’t include elimination of abortion funding in the health care bill in a bill authorizing funds for the troops overseas. Then you’d have Biden coming in to over-ride the senate Parliamentarian’s ruling. Come on, the saliva drips at the fun the media, et al, will have with this.
Then you’d have the pubs, should they suddenly find something besides air between their legs, all busy making procedural objections, adding endless ammendments that require votes....doing what they should do except, well that air between the legs thing and don’t forget the daunting possibility of mussed head hairs.
For sure we’d be watching every minute of the sideshow, toothpicks in eyeballs. The American public would get angrier and angrier what with the VP overriding Parlamentarian procedure and the public already mad cause the Obamercare bill passed the House already when the voters said no emphatically as Obamer gives voters the finger.
Anybody thinks this circus will be allowed to go on...come on, I got a bridge to sell...real cheap.
Only if the Republicans do not challenge it.
What Reid has (apparently) done is to use the amendment process to entirely recast an existing - but unrelated - revenue bill with a "new" health care bill, under the original bill number, which originated in the House. Now, the only thing left that might be said to have "originated" in the House is the bill number itself. Democrats will naturally argue that the Constitutional requirement has been met because it is silent on the extent to which a bill might be changed or amended prior to reconciliation and because the language of the (new) Senate bill is the same that the House will now be asked to vote on, no "reconciliation" is required. It is dirty, underhanded - and typical. Of Banana Republics, that is.
My point is more to the point that reconciliation is a distraction to the opposition. People should be gearing up to call, e-mail, show up at their congress person’s office for the House vote.
I see this talk about reconciliation as a ploy to keep as much pressure off House Democrats as possible because that’s where this is going to be won or loss.
In 220 years, this problem must have been adjudicated before. This Constitutional end-around is yet another issue to raise a stink over.
From Wikipedia : (go to Wikipedia for links that work)
Clause 1: Bills of revenue
|||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.|||
This establishes the method for making Acts of Congress. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may only originate in the House of Representatives. In practice, the Senate can simply circumvent this requirement by substituting the text of any bill previously passed by the House with the text of a revenue bill, as was done with H.R. 1424 or the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. When the Senate sends an appropriation bill to the House, the House may return it to the Senate with a blue slip, thereby settling the question in practice. Either House may amend any bill, including revenue and appropriation bills.
The Origination Clause stems from an English parliamentary requirement that all money bills start from the House of Commons; it was intended to ensure that the "power of the purse" lies with the legislative body closer to the people. The clause was also part of a compromise between small and large states: the latter were unhappy with equal representation in the Senate.