The Reconciliation Process
[Guest post by DRJ]
WHO — Democrats only:
“Obama To GOP: It’s Over. Obama listened politely for six hours, with occasional flashes of temper, but in the end, the message was clear: It’s over. We’re moving forward without Republicans.”
WHAT — A health care plan with the one issue President Obama apparently won’t compromise … abortion:
“The President’s proposal was a pro-abortion health care plan before today’s meeting and after six hours of political posturing, it’s still a pro-abortion health care plan.”
WHEN — By Easter? We may know more next week:
“In Friday’s White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs skirted a question about whether the White House wants to use reconciliation in the Senate to advance a health care bill.
“Those questions are better left for when we have an announcement from the president on the way forward,” he said, referring to an announcement to come next week.”
Dick Durbin and Politico [below] say it will probably happen by Easter.
HOW — The Democratic Three-Step:
“Democrats will likely need to embark on three-step process, with a target to finish it before the Easter recess.
Step one, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Congress must first pass a reconciliation bill with major, but limited, fixes to the original Senate bill.
Step two, the House would then agree to pass the Senate bill.
Step three, both chambers would have to pass a third bill with policy changes that would not pass muster under reconciliation, which requires every element to have a direct impact on the federal budget. For example, the third bill would be needed to make any changes to abortion and immigration provisions in the Senate bill. … House Democrats may well withhold their votes on the first two bills until they are assured their concerns will be addressed in a third bill.”
The hard part is “How.”
— DRJ
Bring it, bitches…
the bhead (a31060) — 2/26/2010 @ 8:02 pmMore Keystone Kops behavior from the Democrats.
They use dishonest trickery to pass this bill, they’ll pay for it in November. I suspect that enough Democrats know it to bail out of this process. The Democrats don’t seem to realize that they’ve lost the center because of their fraudulent arguments, inept process and the perception that they don’t care what the public thinks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/26/2010 @ 8:08 pmHow do you fix/amend a bill that has not been passed yet?
JD (fe870f) — 2/26/2010 @ 8:13 pmThere are lots of reasons to hate this plan without bringing up “abortion.” If the Republicans bring that front-and-center, making this about tiresome social issues rather than fiscal issues and individual choice they will lose.
Again.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 2/26/2010 @ 8:43 pm“How do you fix/amend a bill that has not been passed yet?”
A bill that doesn’t even exist yet. It’s a 13 page bullet list of a Democrat wet dream power grab.
That “conference” was nothing but a dog ‘n pony show and don’t think for a minute that people don’t recognize it for what it was.
GeneralMalaise (c58b20) — 2/26/2010 @ 8:50 pmKevin Murphy,
I’m not making this about abortion and I don’t know whether the Republicans will, but abortion is one of the few parts of the health care plan the White House doesn’t seem willing to give on. My theory is Obama is keeping it for two reasons: Because it’s something he really believes in and because it gives him an issue that’s important to his base he can use to blame the GOP if reconciliation fails. Obama needs to find a way to make Republican opposition look unreasonable and I suspect abortion is one of the few things left in the liberal agenda the American public generally agrees with him on.
DRJ (daa62a) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:00 pmObama must believe Allah grants the virgins for political suicide that hurts us, as well.
Matador (176445) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:05 pmJD:
That’s been the legal and practical problem all along as discussed in this post and also in this comment.
Set aside the issue of whether there are enough votes in the House and Senate, there is also the problem of timing. How do you convince Democrats in the House to vote for Deal #1 when they really want Deal #2 or Deal #3, and that happens only if there are 51 Senate votes? It’s like herding cats, only in this situation there are two big groups of cats to herd. Everything could fall apart at any stage and then many Democrats will be left with a recorded vote for something they didn’t want but will have to defend with their constituents between now and November.
DRJ (daa62a) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:11 pmKevin Murphy and DRJ, two Quinnipiac polls in Dec and Jan suggest BHO is very much on the wrong side of the abortion-funding issue. A Nov FOX News poll said the same thing but the spread was much tighter. The Nov CBS News poll said the same thing, with a larger spread than FOX News. The Nov CNN poll had a larger spread than the CBS poll.
They all are saying the American public DOES NOT WANT the government paying for abortions.
info from PollingReport.com
So, the Republicans should definitely use this point, but not exclusively. The public is against Obama and the far-left in Congress on this, as much as 3-1, depending on the poll (and FOX was much tighter, 52-39).
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:18 pmI think there’s a difference between Americans’ views on abortion (most Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances) and their position on abortion funding. I expect Congress will muddy the abortion funding issue in Step Three of the Reconciliation Process (if it gets that far), and that will open the door for Obama to characterize those who oppose the final bill as opposing choice.
DRJ (daa62a) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:25 pm1. JD is right. This was Kent Conrad’s point in saying “it’s dead” unless the House passes the Senate bill. Pelosi’s comments today suggest she still thinks the Senate has to somehow reconcile an unpassed bill first. Obama’s 11-pg proposal was a pure prop — the issue is whether the House will bite the bullet and pass the Senate bill (or more improbably, the Senate figures out how to reconcile its own unpassed bill).
2. In NO sense has the GOP made abortion the issue. To the contrary, it’s the House Dems who made abortion the sole amendment to their bill, because they had to to get enough votes. And the GOP (contrary to my suggestion at the time) supported the Stupak amendment that enabled the bill to get enough votes to pass. It’s pro-life Dems who are among those who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill (the House GOP has plenty of reasons, abortion only being one of them). That’s why they are now talking about having to have a THIRD bill — because abortion is likely not germaine in a reconciliation bill.
The question is whether the Senate will support the Stupak language now. It was the Dems who voted it down when Nelson offered it in December. The GOP supported Nelson’s language, which (again) would have made final passage easier. But Dems like Boxer wouldn’t stand for it, and Reid caved to them by not putting the Stupak language in the merged bill (which would have then required 60 votes to remove). As with the public option, Reid tripped up the bill with his own pandering to the Left. It’s intransigent pro-choice Dems making abortion a sticking point, not the GOP.
Karl (45e11e) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:28 pmThe link I gave has all sorts of polling data from all sorts of places. I was curious of the “stricter limits/harder to get” aspect. And those numbers seem to be all over the map. When combining “stricter limits” with “illegal” sometimes it’s a clear majority and sometimes it’s a minority.
But you’re right in that most Americans think abortion should be legal in some circumstances. And this is a significant grey area that can be politicked well or poorly depending on how it’s played. In this specific circumstance, if Republicans and “conservative” Democrats (do they exist?) state in some form “we are not voting to end abortion; we are voting to prevent tax-payers to have to pay for that choice” I think they can still use it well as one of those “and another thing” points.
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:37 pmWhat about this:
You wanted bipartisanship? We are showing you bipartisanship. A large group of Democrats are siding with all the Republicans in saying “no” to government funding of the elective choice of abortion.
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:44 pmOne thing about a reconciliation bill is that there is no limit on amendments. The GOP is going to load up and offer dozens — if not hundreds — of amendments and make the Senate take votes on all of them. Those can go pretty fast — in fact the Dem leader can combine amendments and not have individual votes — but the process will be ugly.
And, if the GOP believes they are being treated unfairly, they can bring the rest of the Senate to a crawl, and focus the attention of the country entirely on this bill. That magnifying glass is going to make the squishy house votes even more unhappy in the end.
I don’t think they ever get to 217 in the House. And as a result, a lot of Senate Dems will be hung out to dry.
I wonder what Ambassadorship has been promised to Harry Reid. He will never survive this come Nov.
shipwreckedcrew (3dde12) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:45 pmShip, if I understand things right, each amendment will be given “debate” time (where nobody is there to hear the other side). I’m wondering how fast “hundreds” of amendments to the bill can go. Would it be a “committee as a whole” thing and Reid says “okay, these 260 amendments are combined into one amendment and each side has 30 minutes of debate” or would each amendment go through a smaller committee before getting to the full Senate or would each amendment get its own air time and then after debating 260 of them get combined for a single vote?
After watching hundreds of hours of C-SPAN and maybe 80 hours of C-SPAN2, I really don’t know the process here.
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/26/2010 @ 9:55 pmTwo things. First, nothing prevents the Senate Dems from crafting an acceptable conference bill “offline” before the actual need for a conference bill. If they manage this, Pelosi will then allow the vote on the current bill before the House, which was passed by the Senate. If it becomes obvious that the Senate won;t be able to cobble together some sort of conference bill, it’s over.
Second, the huge unknown is hoe the Senate Parlimentarian will rule on the specifics of any conference bill up for consideration on the floor. What, exactly, will be germane to the budget, and what would be considered out of order?
Now, here’s where it gets super fun……guess who has the final word on allowing things in, or ruling them out? The President of the Senate, Joe Biden!
Ed from SFV (f6a87d) — 2/26/2010 @ 10:47 pmI disagree with regards to abortion. Abortion is the key to killing this bill. Pelosi had to compromise with pro life Democrats to get their version of the bill passed, any attempt to reconcile abortion funding into the final bill will flip enough votes (I believe they only need 3) to kill it. Stupak will not vote for the bill the Senate passed.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 2/26/2010 @ 11:09 pmEast Coast Chris, don’t read too much into the final vote. There were enough Democrats permitted to vote “no” to save their skins come election. Some of the Dem “no” votes were specifically cover and conceal moves. This must be taken into account in reading the vote.
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/26/2010 @ 11:25 pmJohn – Given the events that have transpired since the House vote, the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, and the increasing unpopularity of the bills, realistically how many “No” votes do you see flipping into the “Yes” category even if they were cover votes and how many “Yes” votes are now vulnerable to slipping into the “No” category?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/26/2010 @ 11:51 pmDaley, it depends on how many Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Conyers/Rangle/Boxer legislators are out there who voted “no” to keep their seats. Obviously, none on the Senate side. But how many on the House side?
I gotta say, if I were in either branch of the legislature (and I am solidly in support of term-limits), I would vote my conscience on every issue and allow myself to be defeated next general or primary. I’m sure there were some who chickened out and voted no since the bill was passing anyway. They didn’t need to die for the cause that time. This time, they’ll have to die for the cause or continue their “key to the golden toilet” voting or change their minds.
As Madison said, and I paraphrase only because I cannot remember the exact quote, “A man with power should be mistrusted.” It’s those without an integral ideological backbone that is the worrisome aspect of this. They can hide their ideology when their votes don’t count. Can they betray their ideology when it means their political suicide?
(And that’s part of why I support a constitutional amendment term-limiting all in congress, ideology will win out over a need to butt-pucker (trucker lingo) that seat.)
John Hitchcock (f63277) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:36 amI’m with John, here. It seems that upwards of 50 districts are just about gone for the Dems. All of these include those who were given a pass on the last House vote. Those Dems are most all goners anyway. This isn’t gonna be a make or break vote. They are already broke. So, they have nothing but free votes remaining in this Congress. The House will not be the stumbling block for this fiasco.
Ed from SFV (f6a87d) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:02 amEd, your theory assumes that hope does not spring eternal in a politician’s heart. They are already thinking that the economy might start to turn around by June, or July, or August, etc.
It is certainly an amazing year in American history.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/27/2010 @ 4:21 amNov CBS News poll said the same thing
But one of most honest, objecttve and non – partisan pollsters at the Daily Kos painted a very different story.
Comment by Moron
Dmac (799abd) — 2/27/2010 @ 7:23 am> with major, but limited,
“Major, but limited…”? Is that kind of like “dead, but not exactly…”?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 2/27/2010 @ 7:44 amThat old adage, always follow the money, applies to the abortion industry. A lot of money is made by that industry and donated to the dems. It is also a great control over women.
J (2946f2) — 2/27/2010 @ 7:45 amIn the history of the world, wasn’t there a Bloody Easter that went down as a travesty of justice?
> I gotta say, if I were in either branch of the legislature (and I am solidly in support of term-limits), I would vote my conscience on every issue and allow myself to be defeated next general or primary.
John, you have principles, which is something rarely found in modern politicians (possibly you don’t need the “modern” but it’s what I know to be true).
Offhand, the only person in either house of Congress at this point who can lay a clear claim to that quality is Joe Lieberman. There may be some others — and, indeed, we may well find out who they are for once — who have principles, but I would not consider “for principles” to be a good-odds bet in particular.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 2/27/2010 @ 7:58 amThe Feds should make abortion mandatory, unless you have a “birthing certificate”, which will be issued after passing a competency course and a back-ground check.
AD - RtR/OS! (13c1a1) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:00 amWell, I must say – totalitarism sure is interesting to watch. Hope these Democrats enjoy their November….
DaveinPhoenix (91be24) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:16 am“That old adage, always follow the money, applies to the abortion industry. A lot of money is made by that industry and donated to the dems.”
How much?
imdw (490521) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:23 am“A bill that doesn’t even exist yet. It’s a 13 page bullet list of a Democrat wet dream power grab.”
The idea is to have fixes to the senate bill, that already passed by 60 votes, come in via reconciliation.
imdw (0172f3) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:27 am“They are already thinking that the economy might start to turn around by June, or July, or August, etc.”
Double-digit unemployment coupled with 20% “underemployment” will not support the impression that the foundering economy is righting itself.
GeneralMalaise (c58b20) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:34 amI’m not talking about logic and economic sense, I’m talking about politicians !
The other strategy might be called “The last sting of the dying adder” where the Dems stick it to us anyway since they have lost. Andy McCarthy agrees with this.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/27/2010 @ 9:08 ambut abortion is one of the few parts of the health care plan the White House doesn’t seem willing to give on. My theory is Obama is keeping it for two reasons: Because it’s something he really believes in
The guy is so philosophically twisted and screwed-up — ie, his instincts tend to be ultra-liberal — that I don’t believe it’s an exaggeration to say he’s not just merely “pro-choice,” but that he’s, in fact, “pro-abortion.”
His extremism deserves no more than the sarcasm of musing that if mandated, socialized healthcare is going to guarantee access — fully paid access — to abortion for women, then men should receive what? Guaranteed, fully paid access to Viagra?
BTW, a lot of ultra-liberals like Obama are the exact same ones who get all teary-eyed over the way animals are treated, believing compassion for Fido or Tinky is so humane, so wonderful, so loving. Meanwhile, such people are rather unmoved by the idea that young single girls in parts of America (eg, California) can have an abortion without parental consent. Much less the following…
Mark (411533) — 2/27/2010 @ 9:53 am
There are lots of reasons to hate this plan without bringing up “abortion.” If the Republicans bring that front-and-center, making this about tiresome social issues rather than fiscal issues and individual choice they will lose.
Thanks for that imdw-quality political analysis. Here in the real world abortion is one of the big stumbling blocks to this bill getting passed, so I’d advise you to put your bigoted hatred of social cons on ice for a month or so.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 9:56 amThe idea is to have fixes to the senate bill, that already passed by 60 votes, come in via reconciliation.
I see. And what is to stop the Republican majority Congress which the Dems are creating from undoing all of this via reconciliation, after passing some random bill?
This is standard leftist thinking on disply – “we’ll abuse the process in some fashion to get what we want, but It’s just unthinkable that they might do the same to us“.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:02 amThey have 51 votes, so there’s no reason not to pass it via reconciliation.
Comment by imadouchebag
Dmac (799abd) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:07 amI’ll say this for the Dems – I wish the Republican Party leadership was even a small fraction as committed to conservatism as the Democratic party leadership is to socialism. I detest what they want to do, but I admire their dedication and committment to doing it come what may.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:15 amlistened politely?displaying arrogance,decietfully announcing time limits but not telling the gop beforehand,acepting all anecdotle evidence and rejecting the bill under discussion,taking a cheap shot at mccain, and finally dismissing the whole excercise with the announcement that they were going to ignore all the townhalls, the retirements, the falling polls and ram it up americas butt.
clyde (b9834b) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:17 am“I detest what they want to do, but I admire their dedication and commitment to doing it come what may.”
Even if they have to do it one “itsy, bitsy spider” at a time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Vxj39djM0
GeneralMalaise (c58b20) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:32 amBHO said incrimentalization is out. He said it in that summit where he and his fellow Democrats got totally trashed. (And Rasmussen has his negatives at the strongest, without the 3rd day, equal to when the Senate was busily passing the thing.)
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:37 amRead Andy’s post on NRO this morning, Mike K… you’re right, I think he’s onto something there. I remember a few months ago, someone (can’t remember who… Steyn, maybe?) had said that the Dems were looking beyond November, 2010. They realize that their short term prospects are less than ideal, so they want to enact as much of their leftwing agenda as they can conceivably get away with. They believe that once it’s in place, it will be next to impossible to remove.
That’s their long-term strategy… grab as much power (over the economy, health-care, corporations, etc.) as they can, with the knowledge that this will lead to ever-increasing dependency on bigger and bigger government.
Fiendishly clever, but debilitating to the nation’s founding principles and long-term viability… IMHO.
GeneralMalaise (c58b20) — 2/27/2010 @ 10:48 amThey believe that once it’s in place, it will be next to impossible to remove.
I don’t see why, unless they also believe that there will never be a Republican President with a Republican Congress again.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 11:28 amBecause they know the National GOP is spineless, and is more interested in getting re-elected and/or settling for the scraps that the Left gives them, than they are in doing what is correct for the country.
AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017) — 2/27/2010 @ 11:38 amThat is why the symbol of the GOP should be changed from an elephant to a pander-bear.
Can’t get rid of everything through reconciliation and I doubt the GOP will ever have 60+ in the Senate, let alone both houses and the Presidency with enough non-RINOs and non-DIABLOs to undo things. History shows what becomes government doesn’t revert to private sector.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 11:49 amThe only way I see to undo what the far-left is set to do is through SCOTUS scuttling so much of it to make the rest wholly unacceptable. And that, sorry to say, is a pipe-dream.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 11:52 am—-I suspect abortion is one of the few things left in the liberal agenda the American public generally agrees with him on.—
You self-focused liberals are just so out of date with the public on this issue. The pro-life side has been quietly changing hearts and minds.
———————————————
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
red (7b5f67) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:05 pmCan’t get rid of everything through reconciliation
If the Dems can pass everything through reconcilliation, there’s no technical reason the GOP can’t do the same.
History shows what becomes government doesn’t revert to private sector
That’s left-wing thinking. History has squat to do with it, there’s no inevitable tide of history running towards the left. If we end up with government run health-care it will be because the people pulling the strings in the GOP are content for that to happen.
AD
Because they know the National GOP is spineless, and is more interested in getting re-elected and/or settling for the scraps that the Left gives them, than they are in doing what is correct for the country.
They may be right in that. But that’s a different matter. Technically, there is no reason why a GOP majority Congress and Presdident cannot follow the path being blazed here by the Democrats in ignoring the filibuster, the difference being that the GOP would have the voters behind them.
It may well be that the GOP is run by basically the same people who call the shots in the Democratic party, people who privately support what the Dems do while publically saying otherwise. But the blame there lies with the American voter. If they are dumb enough to vote for people who are clearly lying to them, then perhaps they don’t deserve freedom in the first place.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:05 pmYes, because of all those government programs and spending plans that were rescinded during the Bush administration, when there was a Republican President and Congress.
Some chump (050674) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:07 pmTHere is also the fact that 40% of the population does not pay income tax and the number is rising. What do they care if taxes go up ? Plus, I doubt if 10% of them know what VAT is.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:13 pmWhat a fool-hardy thing to say. In fact, what an intellectually dishonest thing to say.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:18 pmbecause of all those government programs and spending plans that were rescinded during the Bush administration, when there was a Republican President and Congress.
That’s up to the voters. Nobody is putting a gun to anyones head and saying “Vote for John McCain, or else!”.
If the chains of slavery are being forged, the American people are forging them for themselves. I get tired of people complaining about what government does at the exact same time as they elect politicians who do it. At least the left is smart enough to vote for left-wing politicians. The right votes for the Bushes, McCains, and Romneys and then wonders why things keep ratcheting to the left.
There is no technical or inevitable reason why things must be any certain way. If the left wins it will be because they were smarter and more determined. If the right loses it will be because they fumbled away a winning position, one with broad public support. So stop with the self-defeating resignation already. This is a game we can win, if we bother to try.
That’s a big “if” in the sleepy and apathetic GOP.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:25 pmWhat a fool-hardy thing to say. In fact, what an intellectually dishonest thing to say.
Bullshit. Your resorting to history is exactly the same argument that the left uses. We’d never have accomplished welfare reform if everyone had your attitude. “History shows what becomes government doesn’t revert to private sector”, we’d have said, “so what’s the point in even attempting this?”.
History has sweet fuck all to do with it. I give credit to the left for understanding that history can be shaped by their actions. The future is what we make it, Marty.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:31 pmTHere is also the fact that 40% of the population does not pay income tax and the number is rising.
Yeah, and that fact was the consequence of GOP actions. Each tax cut the party passes removes more and more people from having to pay federal income tax.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:35 pmWOW! That was nutty, Subotai.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:48 pmEach tax cut the party passes removes more and more people from having to pay federal income tax.
WTF?
Dmac (799abd) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:55 pmYou grow more inane with each comment, Hitchcock.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:56 pmWTF?
What the fuck, indeed. Do you know how we reached the stage where 40% of the population does not pay federal income tax? If not, maybe you should find out.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 12:58 pmI take it, Subotai, that you think everyone involved in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties, every one of those millions of citizens, is inane. Your commentary has fallen off a cliff, at least in this thread.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:06 pmI take it, Subotai, that you think everyone involved in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties, every one of those millions of citizens, is inane.
That’s a non sequitur of imdw proportions. If I object to the crappy quality of your comments, making even crappier comments is not likely to make me stop.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:10 pmNah, Subotai, you’re getting what you earned out of me, and so far, I’ve been charitable. I could’ve given Dmac’s response, but it’s not in me to do so.
John Hitchcock (6186ea) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:16 pmMcCarthy writes:
“Today’s Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles.”
There is an implicit assmuption behind this line of thinking, an assumption about what the Republicans will do in response. The Democratic assumption is that this will be – nothing much.
That’s not a completely invalid assumption on their part. The Republican party can fairly be described as being passive and inert. It has a history of putting up some opposition to whatever it is the Democrats are trying to do at any given time, but of accepting whatever the Demcorats actually get done as inviolable. So the Dems assessment of Republican psychology has a big grain of truth to it.
It’s curious that the socialists (and the Dems are socialists) have so more more drive and can-do spirit than the conservatives and libertarians. The GOP is “conservative” in the negative sense of the word: it tries to preserve the status quo even if that status quo was made by the Democrats.
That’s a psychological problem and it can only be changed by changing the way Republicans think.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:25 pmJohn is correct, in that each attempt at “comprehensive” tax reform, moves the minimum income bar higher for tax liability ATBE; which is why we see the top 10% of the income scale paying a higher percentage of the tax-take to the Federal Govt after each “reform”.
AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:28 pmso far, I’ve been charitable
Then please stop being charitable and start writing logical and coherent responses to what I’m saying.
Hint: “that was nutty” is neither logical nor coherent.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:29 pm…The only argument that the Left has with the Right over these revisions is that – generally – the Right reduces the tax liability of all income earners, whereas the Left wants lower-income earners to be exempt from taxation, and high-income earners to be socked with even higher rates.
AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:31 pmthe Right reduces the tax liability of all income earners
Yes, but reducing the tax liability of people at the bottom of the scale, who already pay little tax, means that they end up paying even less tax. Or in some cases, no tax.
Subotai (f393e7) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:36 pmAnd, with the Earned Income Tax Credit (Thank You, R.M.Nixon), they get a refund of the taxes they didn’t pay.
AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017) — 2/27/2010 @ 1:44 pmred:
I’m conservative and pro-life. And despite polls that show Americans are becoming more pro-life, I suspect most of them want laws that let people choose.
DRJ (daa62a) — 2/27/2010 @ 2:44 pmAD,
If I could change one thing about tax laws, it would be to get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit. And make everyone pay some tax. And have a flat tax.
Okay, three things.
DRJ (daa62a) — 2/27/2010 @ 2:45 pmGeez, why don’t you just ask to be Queen-for-a-Day?
But, you are right about everyone having to pay some level of income-tax; or, they should repeal the 16th-A!
AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017) — 2/27/2010 @ 2:49 pm“If the Dems can pass everything through reconcilliation, there’s no technical reason the GOP can’t do the same”
They’re not passing everything through reconciliation. Most of hte reform has already passed with 60 votes. The stuff from reconciliation is the minor changes needed to make the reform conform to what the House democrats want.
imdw (6b4e5c) — 2/27/2010 @ 3:02 pmCan’t wait till the Republicans use this maneuver to undo major entitlement programs or undo Democratic gerrymandered districts.
HeavenSent (c3c032) — 2/27/2010 @ 3:23 pm“Can’t wait till the Republicans use this maneuver to undo major entitlement programs or undo Democratic gerrymandered districts.”
Districts are a state decision. Last time the GOP tried gutting medicare the government shut down. But now they’re the party that wants to save medicare.
imdw (6eb217) — 2/27/2010 @ 8:56 pm