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

Skip to comments.

Congressís Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
Human Events ^ | September 29, 2009 | Brian Darling

Posted on 09/29/2009 8:19:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.

The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:

Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.

During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”

Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.

Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.

Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.

******

Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; congress; corruption; democrats; healthcare; obama; obamacare; socializedmedicine; uscongress
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last
To: politicket
I agree so heartily I am re-posting your comments:

People don't understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, per se. The Federal government used to steal money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but those wells are running dry - especially with recent unemployment figures.

What does this mean? It means that the government needs to create a new GIGANTIC trust fund that they can steal your health care payments from. Please realize, we're talking around 18% of our entire economy.

It the Federal government fails to create this, then they will be in imminent danger of financial collapse. They will need to cut expenses like nobody's business.

Will the government cut expenses? Probably not. If the health care trust fund fails then they will have little choice but to go after our 401K retirement funds - moving them into a Federal government controlled entity for "our protection".

Prepare folks...it's going to happen.

51 posted on 09/30/2009 5:41:57 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: politicket

“People don’t understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, per se....”

BINGO!!!BINGO!!BINGO!!!

the Feds NEED cash to play with. IMHO...before all this is said and done...most of us will be writing our mortgage checks directly to the FEDS each month...THATS whats up with the banking sector...


52 posted on 09/30/2009 5:45:32 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Aren't you the blue-bird of happiness and forward-thinking.

Does sound that way, doesn't it? I sure hope it's just my pessimism and I am wrong. Maybe there are finally enough of us that understand the tipping point has been reached.

It is either/or now if they pass this unconstitutional legislation. Either we refuse to accept it and fight back, or we submit and become serfs forever.

53 posted on 09/30/2009 6:36:37 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: politicket
Politickit:

Thanks for that.
But I'm still not seeing it:

When you get a paycheck, your employer is simply transferring a certain amount of claims on future labor (money) that it owes you - ...claims on future labor. This is vaguely Marxian (or Ricardian?): equation of money to labor. But what about "use value?" A guy can labor for years and receive nothing unless society deems the result valuable. (As an artist I know about this.)

Debt is also claims on future labor. Money is just what we use to trade those claims around with, because it is convenient.
Debt is a claim on the borrower's future labor, or on the lenders?: I guy gets a loan to buy a house, now he has a claim on the carpenter's labor. But the bank has an IOU, a claim on the borrower's future labor. But the only thing gained is the interest paid for the temporary assignment of this claim to borrower.

In other words, debt = money and money = debt.

This seems too abstract to me. I think of one as the opposite of the other

We've heard about the huge contraction in debt that our economy is experiencing from enormous numbers of loans going into default.

But wouldn't that mean there are more claims on future labor than there is labor? In other words, that now a unit of actual labor > a unit of claim on labor (money)? It now takes more of these claim tickets to purchase labor? Isn't this the very definition of inflation?

This squares better with the idea that inflation redistributes money (capital, wealth) from the owner of those credits to the debtor.

54 posted on 09/30/2009 6:47:39 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes ...

And therein lies the hubris, what has Pelosi thinking she will garner the 218 necessary to pass it? Have the Blue Dogs gotten over her use of them, reneging on the deal she made prior to the August recess in order to get their votes then?? Has the Hyde language been added (or will it be added) to the Senate bill to keep Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his pro-life contingency from defeating a health care bill as promised?? I am still dubious at this point.

55 posted on 09/30/2009 9:14:00 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I thought all spending and tax bills have to ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives.

They do, and this will, by virtue of procedure, from the article:

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill.

This has been done any number of times over the course of our history, the Senate strikes the language of a House bill and inserts its own text, it requires the bill going back to the House to get the 218 for passage. But as I just wrote, this is not a guarantee, especially if the Senate does not include the Hyde language re: no federal funding for abortion but the exceptions, if this is not in the Senate bill, Stupak has promised Pelosi that he does have the votes and will kill the bill. I do not know at this point if any member of the Senate offered the amendment, as the language was not included in the Baucus deal presented.

56 posted on 09/30/2009 9:25:19 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FreeStateYank
So I take it you think the dollar will strengthen?

Not right away, but yes. Look what happened to the dollar index in September, 2008. That's nothing compared to what's coming.

57 posted on 09/30/2009 9:45:59 AM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mo
the Feds NEED cash to play with. IMHO...before all this is said and done...most of us will be writing our mortgage checks directly to the FEDS each month...THATS whats up with the banking sector...

Close, but no.

The Federal government needs cash to play with. The Fed is a completely separate institution that controls and implements ALL of our country's economic policies.

58 posted on 09/30/2009 9:48:59 AM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I doubt very much that this silly trickery is going to pass.


59 posted on 09/30/2009 9:55:40 AM PDT by jveritas (God Bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Since this plan is revealed in public then it is not a secret anymore and have not been a secret at all if the plan has ever existed to begine with. It is impossible to keep a secret when dealing with Congress and hundreds of people involved. I doubt very much that this will pass and I doubt very much that they are going to do as the author is saying. This plan is utterly stupid. In fact I doubt very much that this plan even exists.


60 posted on 09/30/2009 10:01:27 AM PDT by jveritas (God Bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
Has the Hyde language been added (or will it be added) to the Senate bill ...

Okay, my top-of-the-hour news just reported that the language to prevent taxpayer funds from providing for abortions has been defeated -- if Stupak and the pro-life folks in the House stand by their principles (and I've got to believe they will on this), the bill has no chance of passage back through the House.

61 posted on 09/30/2009 10:05:28 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tsomer
A guy can labor for years and receive nothing unless society deems the result valuable. (As an artist I know about this.)

Exactly. Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Debt is a claim on the borrower's future labor, or on the lenders?: I guy gets a loan to buy a house, now he has a claim on the carpenter's labor. But the bank has an IOU, a claim on the borrower's future labor. But the only thing gained is the interest paid for the temporary assignment of this claim to borrower.

The bank gave the loan borrower a certain number of "claims on future labor". In turn, the bank owns claims on future labor of the borrower.

The difference is that the bank didn't have to do any work itself in order to obtain the claims on future labor of the borrower. The borrower does have to do work to pay off its claims.

This seems too abstract to me. I think of one as the opposite of the other

We're taught to do that. We think just in terms of numbers, but we don't think in terms of "vectors" - what those numbers really mean. We just accept their "scalar" value.

It's like the difference between speed and velocity. Speed tells you how fast you're going. Velocity tells you how fast, and in what direction.

Money is never created without the same amount of debt having been created first. Never.

But wouldn't that mean there are more claims on future labor than there is labor? In other words, that now a unit of actual labor > a unit of claim on labor (money)? It now takes more of these claim tickets to purchase labor? Isn't this the very definition of inflation?

Yes! You get it! And yes, that is EXACTLY what inflation is. That's why the international bankers have to crash credit every so many decades in order to steal the underlying capital, while at the same time greatly reducing the claims on future labor. It's the only way to keep the scheme going. Otherwise, we would eventually enter hyper-inflation and the gig would be up.

This squares better with the idea that inflation redistributes money (capital, wealth) from the owner of those credits to the debtor.

It does. That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level. Understand, inflation is an inherent part of the cycle - and it's what our Federal government feeds on (not the Fed, the Federal government).

It is through inflation that us workerbees are encouraged to "make our money work for us" by creating new wealth. The bankers then pull the "credit rug" out from under the consumer every 80 years or so and steal a big chunk of the wealth that was created.

It sounds like you understand this pretty well. Keep pondering on it.

62 posted on 09/30/2009 10:08:37 AM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
the Senate strikes the language of a House bill and inserts its own text, it requires the bill going back to the House

Then it originated in the Senate. I see your point, but if only the number is the same, or if the same tax and spend portions were not in the house bill, this method would seem to severely violate the intent of the constitution.

63 posted on 09/30/2009 10:35:00 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: politicket

Yes...and by the time its all said and done the Federal Reserve’s policies will have tanked most of the banks holding mortgage notes. Those of us American’s left able to pay a mortgage will be writing a monthly check to the Federal Government. And THAT is what its all about!!


64 posted on 09/30/2009 10:46:39 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: politicket
Thanks again: As usual, answers provoke more questions:

That's why the international bankers have to crash credit every so many decades in order to steal the underlying capital, while at the same time greatly reducing the claims on future labor.

How is that done? Can you do it without crashing debt at the same time? Isn't the upshot that other debtors have much of their debt erased? A jubilee of this sort can't be exclusive, can it?

That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level...

I can see that, keeping the erosion of the value (of work) to a steady stream. But this is a geyser. But didn't you say the deflation, not inflation was imminent? (Or did I misread?)

workerbees are encouraged to "make our money work for us" by creating new wealth. The bankers then pull the "credit rug" out from under the consumer every 80 years or so and steal...

And they'll do this by calling in loans, devaluing stocks, and screwing bond holders? And that's why some fear the collapse of IRA's and the like?
You're saying that the banks are doing this, not the government. But I don't see banks getting into real estate or industry--too much work I would think.
I was thinking of a another scenario: Inflation and attendant devaluation of dollar is expected. Banks trade dollars for foreign currency, then hold that currency until inflation is full tilt. Then, they convert foreign currency back into more dollars and payoff a chunk of debt, default loans, bad investments, etc. An economist friend assured me that this would be nigh impossible, given Fed oversight and legal constraints. But I'm not so sure; what did they do with stim money? He also told me they were concerned about deflation, not inflation.

Still paradoxical, to my mind.

65 posted on 09/30/2009 11:02:37 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: politicket

Aw, hell.

Why did the hubster and I work are tails off, save, etc., etc? Starting to feel really foolish. Seems the Chicago way is to have someone else pay your freight, cheat on everything, then chow down on wagyo beef. Boy, have we been stupid.


66 posted on 09/30/2009 11:03:57 AM PDT by FreeStateYank (I want my country and constitution back, now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: politicket

Whoops read your response incorrectly. Glad to know you think it will strengthen.

The latter part of my previous response still applies. I am REALLY tired of crooks, cheats, and con-men/women.

What do you think are the factors which will contribute to its growing strength?


67 posted on 09/30/2009 11:06:26 AM PDT by FreeStateYank (I want my country and constitution back, now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: FreeStateYank
What do you think are the factors which will contribute to its growing strength?

The U.S. dollar is still the reserve currency of the developed world.

2/3rds of our physical dollars already reside overseas, since people in other countries trust them.

The dollar always rises in relation to other world currencies in times of economic trouble - and we will be seeing a whole lot more economic trouble coming down the pipe.

68 posted on 09/30/2009 11:57:23 AM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
... this method would seem to severely violate the intent of the constitution.

I would tend to agree with you, especially on the intent, but Congress has been doing this with legislation for decades, I doubt it would make it past the first gate in any kind of challenge, due to the fact that the Constitution specifically allows Senate amendment, even if that amendment strikes the initial language. The parliamentarian does not block it or object to the procedure.

69 posted on 09/30/2009 12:07:41 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tsomer
How is that done? Can you do it without crashing debt at the same time? Isn't the upshot that other debtors have much of their debt erased? A jubilee of this sort can't be exclusive, can it?

Crashing "credit", and crashing "debt" are one and the same. So is crashing "money".

Debtors have their underlying debt (claims on their future labor) erased - but at the expense of giving up their wealth (land and home) to the banker. The bank did absolutely nothing to deserve holding claims against that future labor - so they get wealth (land and home) for free - minus the costs of pushing a few papers around their desk.

I can see that, keeping the erosion of the value (of work) to a steady stream. But this is a geyser. But didn't you say the deflation, not inflation was imminent? (Or did I misread?)

There is NO inflation geyser (even though the gold company commercials would like you to believe otherwise).

Yes, the Federal government is issuing new debt like a drunken sailor - BUT the amount of credit ("money") destruction going on in our economy is far greater. This means there is LESS money, not more like you're being led to believe. Less money for approximately the same level of goods/services = deflation. Major deflation = depression.

And they'll do this by calling in loans, devaluing stocks, and screwing bond holders? And that's why some fear the collapse of IRA's and the like? You're saying that the banks are doing this, not the government. But I don't see banks getting into real estate or industry--too much work I would think.

That's my point. The banks don't want to do the physical work. They have a system set up where they can create credit out of thin air and have you pay for it, with interest. If you default, then the bank gets the wealth you've worked so hard for. The banks are using the backs of hard-working people to do their labor for them.

The Federal government is just along for the ride. They depend on inflation to obtain their power structure. That's why they're freaked out right now - their power structure is about to implode due to deflation. To compensate for this, they are shoving through the health care bill - not because they care about health, but because it creates a huge new government trust fund from 18% of our economy that they can steal money from (and replace the money with Treasury security IOU's).

I was thinking of a another scenario: Inflation and attendant devaluation of dollar is expected. Banks trade dollars for foreign currency, then hold that currency until inflation is full tilt. Then, they convert foreign currency back into more dollars and payoff a chunk of debt, default loans, bad investments, etc. An economist friend assured me that this would be nigh impossible, given Fed oversight and legal constraints. But I'm not so sure; what did they do with stim money? He also told me they were concerned about deflation, not inflation.

Banks will play whatever games make them the most money. They run our entire econony - not the Federal government.

70 posted on 09/30/2009 12:10:37 PM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious


Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care daily digest PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this daily digest ping list (one ping per day of links to pertinent articles).




71 posted on 09/30/2009 12:33:40 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg

I appreciate your knowledge and replies.


72 posted on 09/30/2009 1:13:25 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: politicket

Sorry about other countries, but sure am happy to hear your optimistic view.


73 posted on 09/30/2009 6:13:34 PM PDT by FreeStateYank (I want my country and constitution back, now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: politicket

What you say is true today. That money=debt.

But that is only because we use FRNs which are a debt based currency. It was not always so. We used to have currency that was backed (not 100% though) by gold and silver. This currency was redeemable in silver and gold

FRN = Federal Reserve Note

Beyond our paper currency our other money exists as computer blips. Does this money=debt? If you want to show me go right ahead


74 posted on 09/30/2009 6:45:34 PM PDT by dennisw (Free Republic is an island in a sea of zombies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
We used to have currency that was backed (not 100% though) by gold and silver. This currency was redeemable in silver and gold

This is true.

Beyond our paper currency our other money exists as computer blips. Does this money=debt? If you want to show me go right ahead

Yes, computer blips are debt, and computer blips are money - just electronic money.

Money is simply a representation of the way that we trade debt. More specifically, money is the way that we trade claims on future labor.

If you take out a $1,000 loan from your bank, then that is a $1,000 electronic debt to you and $1,000 of electronic money in your bank account. You can exchange your $1,000 of electronic money for $1,000 of physical money if you wish - but the principle still holds: money is debt, and debt is money.

75 posted on 09/30/2009 7:14:09 PM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: politicket
Politcket, here's an article that may catch your fancy:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KJ06Dj04.html

And here's an excerpt:

Keynesian spending creates a deficit that sucks all the available capital out of the grassroots economy and transfers it to the Treasury market. Easy funding terms from the Federal Reserve allow financial institutions to make money in government bonds while shutting off credit to the rest of the economy. It's classic crowding out, in which the government's misguided effort to spend its way out of recession pushes the productive economy deeper into the hole.
76 posted on 10/07/2009 5:12:43 AM PDT by Right_Wing_Madman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Right_Wing_Madman
Politcket, here's an article that may catch your fancy:

Thanks for the link!

The author writes a good piece - but reaches the wrong conclusion.

We are not like Japan was during 1989. The Japanese went through "stagflation" during their lost decade. Stagflation is high inflation with high unemployment.

We are in deflation mode - negative inflation with high unemployment.

77 posted on 10/07/2009 11:42:26 AM PDT by politicket (1 1/2 million attended Obama's coronation - only 14 missed work!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: politicket
Politicket, you're incorrect. Japan was caught in a deflationary spiral from 1990 to 1998. See the links below.

I agree with the author's conclusion: our economy in 2009 looks much like Japan's in 1989. In 1990, The Bank of Japan and the government tried to eliminate deflation by reducing interest rates, but this was unsuccessful during the decade.

What Japan Can Teach Us About Deflation

Deflation in Japan

Japan's Deflation and Policy Response


78 posted on 10/07/2009 4:01:57 PM PDT by Right_Wing_Madman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 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