Health Care “Tricks” (Updated x2)
[Guest post by DRJ]
In a Washington Examiner article yesterday, Editorial Page Editor Mark Tapscott quotes a Life News report that Democrats have already agreed to the use of legislative “tricks” to pass health care with reconciliation and other maneuvers.
If that’s true, Tapscott’s contemporaneous article on recall provisions takes on added significance:
“Did you know that nine states have provisions in their constitutions for recalling elected officials, possibly including the senators and congressmen representing them in Washington?
The states include Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. RecallCongress.org points out that Article 1, Section 2b of the New Jersey constitution says: “The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections.”
There are a dozen incumbent senators from these nine states who are not up for re-election in 2010, but who could be if successful petition drives were mounted in their states.”
Furthermore, if the Democrats follow through on this “trick,” President Obama’s upcoming health care summit is essentially a distraction or a stunt. How many Democrats are willing to go along with the charade?
— DRJ
UPDATE: The Instapundit has doubts but if this report is true, he has an answer.
*** Thanks to the Instapundit for his link. ***
UPDATE 2: The “trick” isn’t just reconciliation. The House has to pass and the President must sign the Senate bill on the health care legislation. Then the House and the Senate (via reconciliation) must pass superseding legislation. Thus, the House may be modifying legislation that it hasn’t even been passed yet. [EDIT: One possible scenario is here.] From Life News:
“The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,” Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.
“There’s a certain skill, there’s a trick, but I think we’ll get it done,” he said.”
This ‘trick’ doesn’t apply to what party a representative or senator belongs to. Why couldn’t conservatives use the same law?
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:12 amI don’t think Democrats have the votes to cram this through. To do so would blatantly violate Senate rules and, while Dems are in the majority, a combination of Senators who want this bill to die out of a need to preserve their re-election chances (Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Webb, probably more), Senators who would likely balk at this kind of power grab on principle (Feingold), some combination of the two (Lieberman) and Senators who fear a blatant violation of the rules would undermine their ability to use the Senate rules in the future to deliver pork to their constituents (Byrd) probably adds up to enough Senators to defeat this bill in a 51-49 floor vote.
At worst, the Dems are keeping their options open while trying to nail down enough votes to pull this off. More likely, though, this is simply comfort food for the base (see, WE aren’t discouraged by this setback, you shouldn’t be either, so keep on manning those phone banks, giving us $$, etc.) and nothing will come of this at all.
Sean P (334463) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:58 amI certainly hope we don’t come to the conclusion that passing a bill with reconciliation is a ‘trick.’
imdw (f7b257) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:16 amVirginia is very close to passing a bill that would prohibit mandating healthcare on it’s citizens. I believe other states have already done so or planning to do so. Therefore, no matter the process by which it happens, if the Dems manage to pass their bill, it will immediately face a gauntlet of constitutional challenges. No doubt these challenges will culminate at the Supreme Court, where the current conservative majority will strike the bill down.
Steve (c9e28f) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:26 am“Virginia is very close to passing a bill that would prohibit mandating healthcare on it’s citizens. I believe other states have already done so or planning to do so. Therefore, no matter the process by which it happens, if the Dems manage to pass their bill, it will immediately face a gauntlet of constitutional challenges.”
If the federal government can override state laws and order that insurance be “bought across state lines” like the conservatives want, then the federal government can override state laws against mandates too. It’s really a simple application of a long standing and uncontroversial constitutional provision.
imdw (017d51) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:31 amBy current Senate rules, reconciliation can only be used for budget bills. The ‘trick’ is to convince enough people that the healthcare bill is actually a budget bill.
kaf (16e0b5) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:39 am“By current Senate rules, reconciliation can only be used for budget bills. The ‘trick’ is to convince enough people that the healthcare bill is actually a budget bill.”
Only the budget parts can go in. Not much of a trick there.
imdw (017d51) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:41 amkaf – save your breath. imdw is not interesting in discussion.
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:53 amIs there any subject under the sun that imadimwit will not deliberately misstate and obfuscate according to it’s own dogmatic worldview?
Dmac (799abd) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:59 amNo. No there is not.
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:01 amWhat’s got you confused here, d? Reconciliation or the supremacy clause?
imdw (e66d8d) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:01 amOnly the budget parts can go in. Not much of a trick there.
Are you actually trying to say they are just trying to pass a budget for a health care bill that doesn’t exist?
Why do you continually try to make these kinds of idiotic claims? Does it give you some kind of weird satisfaction? Is it your job? What exactly is going on? I want to know.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:46 am“Are you actually trying to say they are just trying to pass a budget for a health care bill that doesn’t exist?”
No. I’m saying that reconciliation will can only be used to pass the parts of health care reform that have budget effect. So tax credits, taxes on plans, subsidies, etc… can go in. But things like the mandate, tort reform, buying plans across state lines, requiring that plans cover pre-existing conditions, that cant come with reconciliation.
imdw (89ba95) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:54 amIn what legislation has tort reform been passed?
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:57 ambuying across state lines has been a part of “healthcare reform” ?
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:59 amIt hasn’t been part of any bills that passed. But aren’t they part of the GOP proposals?
imdw (2d0308) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:03 amYou are such a disingenuous pr*ck
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:10 amThat’s what I get for trying to include right wing ideas in a discussion on health reform.
imdw (842182) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:19 amToo bad Barcky and the Dems have/had no interest in doing so.
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:32 amimd-dumbass, you aren’t discussing, you are dictating. YOu know what happens to dictators? They lose their heads, bunky.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:41 amLook at how dismissive max baucus was! I think they’d be willing to add in things in exchange for votes. But I don’t think the GOP wants to talk votes.
imdw (78ece3) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:42 am“imd-dumbass, you aren’t discussing, you are dictating.”
I’m dictating. By posting comments on a blog.
imdw (78ece3) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:43 amThe idea that Democrats have to subvert the legislative process to get their rapidly-sinking bill passed will only further discredit them in the minds of the electorate.
It is little short of truly astonishing how much the Democrats have already discredited themselves in the last year. They’ve shown the electorate that their rhetoric is meaningless, that they cannot be entrusted with the nation’s finances, and that they can’t even pass legislation with total control of both Houses and the White House.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:47 amI think the most hilarious part is where imdw claims that the interstate commerce clause is “uncontroversial”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:49 amLOL, as much as I disagree with imdw, all he stated was how Reconciliation can be used and can’t be used. As far as my knowledge on that goes, I think what he stated is correct.
I thought the ‘trick’ or at least a trick described in this blog was about a possible attempt by some states to recall or vote in a new Representative or Senator under provisions in those nine states’ constitutions. This ‘trick’ or loophole could be applied to any Sen or Rep regardless of their party affiliation.
Given the high level of scrutiny going on, I highly doubt any state will do this against a sitting GOP member.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:52 am“I think the most hilarious part is where imdw claims that the interstate commerce clause is “uncontroversial””
Together with the supremacy clause too. But yeah. Seriously.
“The idea that Democrats have to subvert the legislative process to get their rapidly-sinking bill passed will only further discredit them in the minds of the electorate.”
Subvert the process? What?
imdw (603c39) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:01 amI believe “uncontroversial” was describing the Federal Government overriding State laws. I would not describe that as “uncontroversial” either. Not in these times.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:03 amIf a state were to recall a duly elected representative; assign a temporary representative until a new election could be held; and this was done with the sole purpose of passing extremely controversial legislation… yes, that would be subverting the legislative process.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:09 amnow iamdimwit is going to tell us about how reconciliation is a routine practice when trying to implement a program that will take over 1/6 of the economy.
JD (1500d2) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:09 am[…] HEALTH CARE SHENANIGANS TRIGGER recall elections in some […]
Instapundit » Blog Archive » COULD HEALTH CARE SHENANIGANS TRIGGER recall elections in some states?… (fe8e62) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:32 amThe website is:
http://www.RecallCongressNow.org/
NOT RecallCongress.org as is stated in the text
Louie (335ccb) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:40 amimdw — not that you care — the “trick” isn’t reconciliation — it’s the changing of the bill that will be signed in spite of the limits and rules of reconciliation.
While claimimg “reconciliation” the plan is to jigger two bills so the House gets what they want, the “Senate bill” is reconciled bu then they pass the revamped House bill literally minutes behind the new “law.”
There would be two bills.
It’s called a shell game and if they try it, not only are these failures out, they will be out on a rail. (Hopefuly figurative, for their sakes.)
JAL (9f4bce) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:51 amI think there are still enough sane Democrats who see this as doom for their party for years. There is some interesting speculation that Obama now sees that the House is lost and is talking more to Republicans in anticipation. I don’t think the Democrats have figured out that this guy cares about one thing; his own career. If the GOP takes over the House and he has divided government, then he doesn’t have to placate the looney left anymore. They will come back to him (he thinks) because he is all they have. Now he can can play the role that the Republicans pushed Clinton into with impeachment. Savior of the left against those mean Republicans.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:51 am“I believe “uncontroversial” was describing the Federal Government overriding State laws. I would not describe that as “uncontroversial” either. Not in these times.”
Oh it’s completely uncontroversial in a few ways. Constitutionally it’s simply a straightforward application of the supremacy clause. Politically, both parties have advanced positions of having hte feds override state laws. The democrats would put in the mandate, while the GOP would override state laws regulating what insurance can be sold in that state, as well as override state tort law with tort reform.
“now iamdimwit is going to tell us about how reconciliation is a routine practice when trying to implement a program that will take over 1/6 of the economy.”
The reconciliation can only be used for the budget part of this. And then only to change what’s already passed in the senate bill. Reconciliation’s been used before to pass both Bush tax cuts as well as the medicare part D expansion. The reconciliation change now would certainly not be for 1/6 of GDP.
imdw (e66d8d) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:53 am“While claimimg “reconciliation” the plan is to jigger two bills so the House gets what they want, the “Senate bill” is reconciled bu then they pass the revamped House bill literally minutes behind the new “law.”
There would be two bills.”
In order to become law a bill has to pass both the senate and the house and be signed by the president. Here two bills are passing both and being signed. What’s the trick?
imdw (e66d8d) — 2/11/2010 @ 9:57 amimdw, the Supremacy Clause must be coupled with the Commerce Clause because the Supremacy Clause does not mean that the Federal government can order the states. It means that Federal law supercedes state law where the Federal government has the enumerated power to act/regulate.
SPQR (8475fc) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:00 amCan someone please enlighten me as to the constitutional provision that would obviously allow the government to force the purchase of a product on a consumer? This would be the first time in our country’s existence that this would happen. And no, car insurance is not the same thing since nobody HAS to have car insurance yet someone could find themselves in jail for tax evasion if they choose not to purchase health insurance and then not to pay their penalty.
Alex (99f33c) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:00 am“If the federal government can override state laws and order that insurance be “bought across state lines” like the conservatives want, then the federal government can override state laws against mandates too.”
imdw, IANAL, but this makes little Constitutional sense to me. Congress’ authority to “regulate Commerce … among the several States” is specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. The Supremacy Clause, however, applies to “Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution].” In other words, if Congress has no Constitutional authority to enact such legislation, any power to do so shall be, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Your argument that the federal government can override any State law it finds objectionable is completely baseless in light of this.
submandave (9ae3af) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:12 amYou can scratch Oregon off the list. There is no way either Senator will be recalled in this now hard left state. I couple Representaives will be vulnerable this year, but not the Senators. This state just two weeks ago voted itself the highest personal income tax rates in the nation, to save unsustainably high rates of government growth. That should tell you a lot.
Victor Erimita (e9b6b2) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:16 amOf course you realize that bill #2, the non-reconciliation one, would be subject to a filibuster? And the R’s would go all-in on that?
So…the House is going to amend the Senate bill to strip out all of the non-budgetary items, and pass it. Then it goes back to the Senate under reconciliation rules (51 votes, no filibuster). But this budget only bill would NOT have any of the things in it that the liberal members of the House want, nor the things that the House Blue Dogs want (Stupack Amendment). But, in this fantasy, the House members would suck it up and pass it anyway — because the Senate Dems *promise* to also pass a follow-on, non-budgetary bill that DOES include all those things.
1) These “things” are the stuff that didn’t pass the Senate the first time. That’s why the Senate bill differs from the House bill in the first place. So, why would they pass it now? Sure, they’ll *promise* to pass it. But why would they follow thru? Do you think the rank-and-file House members have any more respect for Senators’ worthless promises than you or I do?
2) Assuming the Senate Dems are actually sincere about passing bill #2 (ha!) do they actually have the ability to carry out that promise? After bill #1 passes the Senate via reconciliation, the Republicans will go into Scorched Earth mode. Not only will bill #2 be filibustered, but EVERY unanimous consent request will be objected. The Senate will grind to a screeching halt, and the Health Care Cram Down will be THE news story for ANOTHER 10 solid months.
Do you think there are any House or Senate Dems who want to still be talking about Health Care — since it’s done such wonders for their popularity so far — when November rolls around?
BobFL (7d6d7e) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:21 am“imdw, the Supremacy Clause must be coupled with the Commerce Clause because the Supremacy Clause does not mean that the Federal government can order the states. It means that Federal law supercedes state law where the Federal government has the enumerated power to act/regulate.”
So then it doesn’t matter what the state does.
“Can someone please enlighten me as to the constitutional provision that would obviously allow the government to force the purchase of a product on a consumer? ”
IIRC, The different bills do it in different ways. The house bill simply imposed an income tax and allowed people to avoid it by purchasing insurance. Perfectly constitutional per the 16th amendment. The senate bill does something different, and thus would use the commerce clause.
“Your argument that the federal government can override any State law it finds objectionable is completely baseless in light of this.”
The federal government can override state law in any area that the federal government can regulate.
imdw (4fe3dc) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:25 am“Of course you realize that bill #2, the non-reconciliation one, would be subject to a filibuster? And the R’s would go all-in on that?”
The non-reconciliation bill has already passed the senate. If the identical bill is passed in the house — where there is no filibuster — then the president can sign it. Then you have another bill with reconciliation that passes. It is more palatable to the house and only needs 50 votes in the senate. But the point is it can only make budget changes.
imdw (4fe3dc) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:30 am3.I certainly hope we don’t come to the conclusion that passing a bill with reconciliation is a ‘trick.’
Comment by imdw
Of course it is. This bill is not a revenue bill which is what reconciliation is supposed to be all about.
I’m from Colorado so it is interesting to see that we can recall Udall and Bennett.
goodspkr (fd29e0) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:37 amOur Democratic Congress is comprised of Criminals and Kleptocrats of all persuasions, Socialists, Progressives, Marxists and just plain ignorant dopes.
Nancy Pelosi and Her House of Thugs are capable of just about doing anything if they think they can get away with it. But November is closer than they think. This is just the beginning of House and Senate CLEANING.
The Socialists, Progressives and Marxists in the White House will receive their November Surprise in 2012.
This is the beginning of a New American Revolution.
jgreene (82e98b) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:40 am“Of course it is. This bill is not a revenue bill which is what reconciliation is supposed to be all about. ”
We’ve used it pass bills that lowered revenue, as well as pass bills that included NO revenue, but new spending.
imdw (c5488f) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:42 amThanks for shedding the light of truth submandave.
Rignerd (c7329a) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:48 amThe power to “regulate interstate commerce” very specifically allows the congress to regulate interstate trade of insurance policies.
As for the uncontroversial nature of congress overriding state laws, look at the number of states that have adopted “10th Amendment clauses” to stop federal abuses of power.
states cannot recall senators or house members, regardless of what the state constitution says. http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDUyZTk5OGJhMTgwMmZiODQ2ODk3YmYzMWEwOTM2MDE=
Real American (01485f) — 2/11/2010 @ 11:38 amDo it. All 9 States. Start now.
Mike M. (00bbdd) — 2/11/2010 @ 11:48 amColorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin
There are 17 incumbent Democratic Senators in those 9 states:
Bennet
Udall (of CO)
Landrieu
Stabenow
Levin
Menendez
Lautenberg
Dorgan
Conrad
Wyden
Merkley
Baucus
Tester
Murray
Cantwell
Feingold
Kohl
And only 1 Republican:
Vitter
The Democratic seats being contested in 2010 are those of Bennet, Dorgan, Wyden, Murray and Feingold.
Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1) — 2/11/2010 @ 12:00 pmThe US constitution does not provide for the recall of members of Congress.
It doesn’t matter if some state Constitutions say they can recall members of Congress,the US Constitution is the one that matters here.
Now I happen to think it would be a good idea [1] to let sates decide if they want to have recall as part of their process. That would require a Constitutional amendment…and that will never make it out of Congress.
[1] http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2006/06/20/suggested-26-us-constitution-amendments-part-1-of-8-legislative-branch/
Purpleslog (282825) — 2/11/2010 @ 2:20 pmI’ve added Updated 2 to explain my understanding of the “trick.”
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 2:30 pmIf they think people are mad now just wait and see what happens if they try this sort of chicanery.
I truly think these guys aren’t going to be happy until there is blood in the streets. Everything they have proposed involves setting one group against another and involves massive confiscation of wealth at a level fitting only for banana republics. It is a power grab. There is no calumny they will not engage in, lie they will not tell, no rule they will not break and no fraud or extortion they will not engage in. All for something that no one in their right mind believes will help anyone.
If this goes through we will see states try everything in their power to opt out or limit its effect up to and including secession. We will see a massive division in the country of the sort that has not been seen since at least Vietnam and probably the Civil War. We will see challenges at every level including recall initiatives and elections and civil disobedience will be the order of the day. And frankly, people like me will never see the government as legitimate again. We will have crossed the Rubicon and the legions will be at the gate.
Then, after the bloodbath in the fall it will all be repealed or de-funded… if the Republic is left intact that is. My bet is that the Dems will try to import more foreigners to vote for them by trying to get amnesty through before the election as it will be their only hope and is part of their long term plan anyway.
So the only thing the Dems are doing is deciding whether to provoke a crisis and break the Republic. Health care is beside the point. This is blood sport now.
Voluble (1e2a18) — 2/11/2010 @ 2:31 pm“I’ve added Updated 2 to explain my understanding of the “trick.””
so like I said earlier:
“In order to become law a bill has to pass both the senate and the house and be signed by the president. Here two bills are passing both and being signed. What’s the trick?”
imdw (de7003) — 2/11/2010 @ 3:06 pmimdw,
Supremacy Clause is inapplicable if the Feds have passed a law the power for which they do not have. Your 16th amendment argument does not hold water under case law, particularly if the penalty for not picking the feds’ preferred “choice” is punitive. The fines for not having health insurance are easily punitive. The states will win this one. In the courts of law and public opinion at least.
Pro Cynic (b9a7f1) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:03 pm“Your 16th amendment argument does not hold water under case law, particularly if the penalty for not picking the feds’ preferred “choice” is punitive. The fines for not having health insurance are easily punitive.”
It depends on the size of the tax. But like I said there’s the 16th amendment argument and there’s also the commerce clause argument. People going uninsured in a world were insurance companies are required to cover preexisting conditions certainly affects interstate commerce in a way that congress can regulate.
imdw (50eb29) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:13 pmIn my view, that Congress would be amending and the President would be signing a bill before it’s even passed.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:15 pmWell, I guess under imadimwit’s understanding of “regulate commerce”, congress could also reqire everyone to buy mink coats and government motors autos also, since that would affect interstate commerce also.
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:25 pm” In my view, that Congress would be amending and the President would be signing a bill before it’s even passed.”
Your link describes the president signing one bill, then the senate passing a second bill, then the president signing that. The only blanks in there is when the house passes it — which for each bill has to happen before the president signs it.
“Well, I guess under imadimwit’s understanding of “regulate commerce”, congress could also reqire everyone to buy mink coats and government motors autos also, since that would affect interstate commerce also.”
Or they could just tax us, buy mink coats, and then give them to us.
imdw (00bfab) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:32 pmOr they could just tax us, buy mink coats, and then give them to us.
Comment by imdw — 2/11/2010 @ 4:32 pm
By his answer he exhibits exactly zero level of understanding of the constitution.
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:39 pmComment by peedoffamerican — 2/11/2010 @ 4:39 pm
I disagree. I think his comment shows perfect knowledge of the Constitution (only communists leave that word uncapitalized), and your comments clearly show you are a patronizing jerk.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:45 pmimdw,
It’s not just reconciliation, although that alone will irritate a lot of people, it’s also the maneuvering. This link has more from Primus’ statement that highlights the maneuvers [bold added]:
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:49 pmComment by Introlliology — 2/11/2010 @ 4:45 pm
I don’t give a shit what you do or do not think you ignorant little shit.
DUMBASS
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:55 pm“It’s not just reconciliation, although that alone will irritate a lot of people, it’s also the maneuvering.”
Ultimately, two bills pass each house and then are signed by the president, the latter one amending the first. If it could happen with a year between them, it could happen with an instant.
If you find it difficult, imagine that the second bill contain a provision that it is only valid if the first bill comes into law.
imdw (688568) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:56 pmI disagree. I think his comment shows perfect knowledge of the Constitution (only communists leave that word uncapitalized), and your comments clearly show you are a patronizing jerk.
…said by a Troll who called another commenter a variation of a Tampon earlier. Hilarious!
Dmac (799abd) — 2/11/2010 @ 4:59 pmYeah, really Dmac. Like anyone here gives a shit what the snot-nosed little troll thinks. He lies, obfuscates, and lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever, and also claims to be a Sooper Genius.
I really am concerned what a piss ant like him says.
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:06 pmimdw,
Is it really as simple as you make it sound? Look at that quote again:
It sounds like this says Congress will pass the legislation in a specific order so as to make reconciliation possible, but then the President will sign the legislation in a different order to make sure the reconciliation version trumps the other version. Right?
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:13 pmDRJ,
Sounds like the old con of a shellgame to me. Whcih one is the pea under now?
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:15 pmIntrolliology’s shift as pivot man in a circle jerk must have just ended.
peedoffamerican (44a207) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:18 pm” It sounds like this says Congress will pass the legislation in a specific order so as to make reconciliation possible, ”
Bills that involve spending have to start in the house. The house also doesn’t want to just pass the senate bill as is without guarantee that the senate will also pass the reconciliation bill. So the order is:
Senate passes bill 1 (already happened)
imdw (de7003) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:25 pmTo happen:
House passes bill 2
Senate passes bill 2 (with reconciliation)
House passes bill 1
House passes bill 2 (if the senate changed it, otherwise this is not needed)
President signs bill 1
President signs bill 2.
Intelliology….imdw….
AD - RtR/OS! (011035) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:26 pmThey shall be known by the company that they keep.
imdw,
And that’s not maneuvering? Congress is supposed to pass laws both chambers agree on, but it’s clear they don’t agree on the details of these bills or it wouldn’t be necessary to engage in such a convoluted procedure.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 5:52 pm“Congress is supposed to pass laws both chambers agree on, but it’s clear they don’t agree on the details of these bills or it wouldn’t be necessary to engage in such a convoluted procedure.”
Uhhh. They’ll have to agree to the details in order to pass this. This is an effort to achieve that agreement.
imdw (de7003) — 2/11/2010 @ 6:28 pmThe mandate is, in fact, structured as taxes for failure to purchase a policy.
Aristotle (31d6ee) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:11 pmimdw,
I don’t think the process will be what you’ve outlined above. I don’t know what order they will follow but I believe the Democrats plan to:
Don’t you see the irony and hypocrisy here? The original Senate bill was passed based on the Senate’s expectation that it would become law as passed. The House, however, is voting based on the knowledge a deal will supersede the original Senate bill. Thus, there isn’t a consensus on this bill beyond 51 votes in the Senate, and that isn’t supposed to be enough for non-budgetary legislation.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:12 pm“The mandate is, in fact, structured as taxes for failure to purchase a policy.”
In the house bill it was. I think the senate bill may not be. But that is a good point.
“I believe the Democrats plan to:”
Yes that’s what I outlined. The only difference is whether the house passes the senate bill (bill 1 in my example) first or waits till after the senate passes the reconciliation bill (bill 2 in my example).
“The original Senate bill was passed based on the Senate’s expectation that it would become law as passed.”
Actually it was passed in expectation that it would go to conference committee, since the house had passed a different version before. So they were expecting that there would be changes made that the house and senate would agree to. But conference requires 60 votes, so that can’t happen since no GOPer will vote for it.
“Thus, there isn’t a consensus on this bill beyond 51 votes in the Senate, and that isn’t supposed to be enough for non-budgetary legislation.”
So the non-budgetary parts, and some of the budgetary parts will pass with 60 votes (they already have) and some of the budgetary parts will pass with 51. And only if both houses agree.
Although, its high BS that 51 votes “isn’t supposed to be enough.” This idea of the senate being a supermajority institution is a relatively new invention. Arguably against the founders wishes, but probably not justiciably unconstitutional.
imdw (603c39) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:25 pmThat “relatively new invention” of cloture dates back to 1917 and the filibuster is even older than that. Contrast that to Roe v Wade that was decided in 1973. Why is cloture “relatively new” and easily cast aside while Roe v Wade is cast in stone?
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:43 pmDRJ – your patience must be infinite.
JD (a79cd7) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:44 pm“…Arguably against the founders wishes…”
Except, in the early days of the Republic (the first 50-years +/-), both Houses of Congress utilyzed the filibuster, and required a 2/3’rds vote to invoke cloture.
AD - RtR/OS! (011035) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:48 pmThis while several of the signers of the Constitution were either members, or still politically active.
imdw:
We don’t know what the amendments are yet. How can you be so sure they are all budget issues?
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:48 pmHe can’t be wrong, he’s a
AD - RtR/OS! (011035) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:50 pmLiberalLeftist.imdw:
Like it not, the current Senate rules make it a supermajority institution for the purposes of non-budgetary legislation. The rules are the rules, not things to be ignored when they are inconvenient (like when Obama loses Massachusetts for the Democrats).
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:52 pmWell, DRJ, they can reinvent history at a whim … why not rules?
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:56 pmJD: DRJ – your patience must be infinite.
That’s flattering but I’m not patient so much as plodding, and talking about complex things helps me understand them better. However, it is frustrating to think I understand something and not be able to articulate it well.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 7:58 pm” We don’t know what the amendments are yet. How can you be so sure they are all budget issues?”
Because it is going to be a reconciliation bill. Those are only for budget issues, per current rules.
“That “relatively new invention” of cloture dates back to 1917 and the filibuster is even older than that. Contrast that to Roe v Wade that was decided in 1973”
The relatively new part is that it be required for everything. See the numbers of cloture votes over time.
[Found in filter. — DRJ]
imdw (19cd35) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:17 pmThis is really quite simple. If there are “tricks,” there will be blood running down the Congressional aisle.
PD Quig (969457) — 2/11/2010 @ 8:39 pmHowever, it is frustrating to think I understand something and not be able to articulate it well.
DRJ, your understanding is flawless and your articulation is impeccable. At some point, it is incumbent upon your listener to sink or swim.
PS: You would make an outstanding professor.
Pons Asinorum (f6829b) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:32 pmimdw:
It depends on how the CBO evaluates the deficit impact and how the Senate Parliamentarian defines “the tight budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Act, the budget resolution and the Byrd Rule.”
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/11/2010 @ 10:36 pmimdw,
Here’s an example of why this “trick” process could result in health care reform legislation that does not represent the will of both chambers following normal rules — The return of the Public Option:
In its original health care legislation, the Senate refused to include the public option. If Congress adds that through reconciliation (where only 51 Senate votes are needed instead of 60), then reconciliation will enable Congress to pass health care legislation that it couldn’t pass following normal rules.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/12/2010 @ 1:36 am“This is really quite simple. If there are “tricks,” there will be blood running down the Congressional aisle.”
Say what?
“Here’s an example of why this “trick” process could result in health care reform legislation that does not represent the will of both chambers following normal rules — The return of the Public Option:”
We’ve used reconciliation to create a new entitlement program without any funding whatsoever — Medicare part D. Clearly it could also be used to create a public option. Or maybe a medicare expansion / buy in. At least under the same rules that were used to create Medicare part D — I think since that excess, we’ve tightened up reconciliation so it can’t be used to expand deficits. So now it would be required to be fully funded. But I’m not so sure. In either case, not so much of a trick there.
But I doubt it will happen. Not this round.
“If Congress adds that through reconciliation (where only 51 Senate votes are needed instead of 60), then reconciliation will enable Congress to pass health care legislation that it couldn’t pass following normal rules.”
And all of that perfectly according to the rules. So what’s the trick? Reconciliation was always an option to get around obstructionist rules. One that has been used before to enact health care entitlements. So now it is being used again.
imdw (f7b257) — 2/12/2010 @ 5:37 amBy the way, your link here is fantastic:
“Remember the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003? They were creations of the reconciliation process. It’s supposed to be a tool Congress uses to balance the budget.”
That was a great 3 sentences.
imdw (f7b257) — 2/12/2010 @ 5:40 amimdw:
The trick is that the Congress may stagger the timing of how it offers and passes legislation and the President may sign the bills out-of-order. Instead of a process to reach a consensus between the House and the Senate operating under normal rules, this has become a game where the 51 votes of reconciliation and other maneuvers are used to do something Congress was unable to do even when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.
I’m not convinced Congress will succeed but Democratic leaders are thinking about using trickery as evidenced by the words of Pelosi’s own aide:
As for the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts, the economy improved and tax receipts increased following the cuts, so it was a law that had a positive impact on balancing the budget. Notably, this occurred after Bush’s earlier effort at Keynesian stimulus failed. Too bad President Obama and his economic team didn’t learn from that — although my guess is they know and don’t care.
Now please respond directly to my point that reconciliation could be used to add non-budgetary policy issues back into health care — issues that couldn’t pass the Senate (operating under normal rules requiring 60 votes to get cloture).
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/12/2010 @ 1:00 pm“Instead of a process to reach a consensus between the House and the Senate operating under normal rules, this has become a game where the 51 votes of reconciliation and other maneuvers are used to do something Congress was unable to do even when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.”
So? Is there some rule that if you have 60 votes you can only advance legislation that requires 60 votes? If not, what’s the problem? Reconciliation is available under the rules, the same that are holy-writ when it is time to require 60 votes, so what’s the problem? Don’t you remember when this whole process started people talked about reconciliation?
I think you’re getting caught up in the word “trick” and thinking it implies people are getting fooled or tricked. When it could just mean clever or skillful use of the proper procedures.
“As for the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts, the economy improved and tax receipts increased following the cuts, so it was a law that had a positive impact on balancing the budget”
Indeed the economic cycle improved. But the CBO projections were for lowered revenue and increased deficits. You can’t say reconciliation is for balancing budgets and then pass a bill that is expected to expand the deficit. Well, you can under the rules the republicans used. Now you cant.
“Now please respond directly to my point that reconciliation could be used to add non-budgetary policy issues back into health care — issues that couldn’t pass the Senate (operating under normal rules requiring 60 votes to get cloture).”
I said up in #7: “only the budget parts can go in.” That’s not direct enough?
imdw (017d51) — 2/12/2010 @ 2:24 pmWhat imadimwit is saying is this; As long as it’s demoncraps doing it, it’s just hunky-dory. But when the republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option”, he went absolutley ape-shit about it.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
peedoffamerican (5acf59) — 2/12/2010 @ 4:20 pmUnfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that the states cannot recall senators or reps.
amr (4e0dda) — 2/12/2010 @ 7:51 pm“But when the republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option”, he went absolutley ape-shit about it.”
No no. You’re not following. The democrats are planning on using reconciliation under more restrictions than when the GOP used it. For example, when the GOP used it, they could increase the deficit. I don’t think that can be done any more.
Though I have said that at the time I was concerned about the filibuster, and that looking back on it, I’m not kind of wishing they had done away with it. That it it would have been worth the price.
imdw (688568) — 2/12/2010 @ 8:17 pmReal American and amr,
You may be correct that States cannot recall Senators or Representatives but there is a contrary argument (also posted at this website). Also, I think the Supreme Court case involved term limits, not recalls.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/12/2010 @ 8:22 pm“contrary argument ”
A cute argument. He even points to parts of the constitution — including the ever favorite 10th amendment. But he forgets to point to the parts that say that senators sit for six years and representatives for 2.
imdw (d6bd12) — 2/12/2010 @ 8:38 pmimdw:
No, it isn’t. I gave you the example of the public option, a clear policy provision, that might be adopted through reconciliation when it couldn’t get passed through the normal process. Do you think that would be a proper use of reconciliation?
Because the rules allowed it at the time but now the rule has changed. I think the Democrats are having buyers’ remorse when it comes to the deficit restriction, don’t you?
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/12/2010 @ 8:48 pm“No, it isn’t. I gave you the example of the public option, a clear policy provision, that might be adopted through reconciliation when it couldn’t get passed through the normal process. Do you think that would be a proper use of reconciliation?”
Sure. It’s budget. Medicare part D is a brand new policy. That came in with reconciliation. Problem there?
“I think the Democrats are having buyers’ remorse when it comes to the deficit restriction, don’t you?”
No I don’t thinks so. I think they’re fine doing this in a way that improves, rather than increases, our deficit.
imdw (6eb217) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:02 pmOnly an idiot, or a piece of fungus, would believe that “healthcare reform” will decrease deficits.
JD (f2435b) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:06 pmJD
🙂
Reform = spend
reconciliation = debt limit
EricPWJohnson (fef99c) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:07 pm“Only an idiot, or a piece of fungus, would believe that “healthcare reform” will decrease deficits.”
I think the current bills both do. But the rule is only for the reconciliation part.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:10 pmIf you think that then you are far more dense than any of us have ever given you credit for.
JD (f2435b) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:15 pmAint people been whining about the taxes in this? A while ago I said they should pay for this like Medicare part D. But you know those dems, they can’t help but be goody two shoes.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:18 pmThere’s also the whole point of going the scott brown supported romney care mandate route: no deficit impact from that. Other than the subsidies you offer people.
imdw (017d51) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:20 pmIntentionally and willfully obtuse is the only possible explanation.
JD (f2435b) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:28 pmYou’re not familiar with the CBO score on these things, are you? Or that just don’t matter? I think that’s what reconciliation needs. the CBO.
imdw (842182) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:31 pmI was about to ask how can a law expanding the role of government into an already heavily regulated section of the economy possibly reduce the deficit.
Then, I realized exactly what imdw is saying and it makes perfect sense. Forget the Constitutional arguments. Federalism is the rule of law and if it says the deficit is reduced, it is so.
Wealth is created by fiat and only by expanding fiat can wealth be created.
Fiat is pristine.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:38 pm“Federalism is the rule of law and if it says the deficit is reduced, it is so.”
This makes a lot of sense.
imdw (017d51) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:43 pmYou’re not familiar with the CBO score on these things, are you? Or that just don’t matter? I think that’s what reconciliation needs. the CBO.
You said it, not me.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 2/12/2010 @ 9:56 pmThe CBO only makes projections based on the ASSumptions given to them by the congresscritters, none of which are based in reality. Not to mention that nifty little trick of counting a decade of “revenue” but only 6-7 years of expenses.
But that does not really matter, as you have shown that good faith discussion, facts, and honesty are not part of your repetoire.
JD (250dc0) — 2/12/2010 @ 10:02 pmimdw – What were the budget implications of Romneycare when Scott Brown supported it? How far off have they turned out to be?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/12/2010 @ 10:35 pm“But that does not really matter, as you have shown that good faith discussion, facts, and honesty are not part of your repetoire.”
I am comparing apples to apples though. CBO score of this vs. the CBO score of previous tax bills. As we have it, this is projected to reduce deficits.
“imdw – What were the budget implications of Romneycare when Scott Brown supported it? How far off have they turned out to be?”
Scott Brown knows more bout this than me. He doesn’t seem to have changed his mind on Romneycare. Has he?
imdw (017d51) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:39 am“Scott Brown knows more bout this than me. He doesn’t seem to have changed his mind on Romneycare. Has he?”
imdw – You think you would know more about this than me since you keep raising it as a talking point. Brown is against ObamaCare. People keep making the case that it is similar to RomneyCare. RomneyCare is ridiculously overbudget and people have trouble finding doctors and find it too expensive. Why would Scott Brown be against one but not the other?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:06 pm“Why would Scott Brown be against one but not the other?”
Because he voted for RomneyCare.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:28 pm