Alan Frumin, the Man Who May Decide Health Care
[Guest post by DRJ]
Alan Frumin is the Senate Parliamentarian. In that role, he decides which provisions of the health care bill are and are not allowed under reconciliation. Thus, in a sense, Alan Frumin may end up deciding health care:
“The central figure in Congress’s struggle to craft health-care legislation may be someone who’s neither a Democratic nor Republican lawmaker, or an elected official of any kind. He’s Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian.
It’s a role the obscure official could assume if the Senate fails to reach a bipartisan deal on a health-care bill. Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama say they would prefer such an accord. If they can’t get it, they have signaled they will turn to the so-called reconciliation procedure to short-circuit Republican opposition.
That move would enable Senate Democrats to pass a bill with 51 votes, rather than the 60 typically needed for contentious legislation. Under Senate rules, it also would give Frumin, 62, broad authority to decide which portions of the Democrats’ bill are relevant to the budget and empower him to delete provisions he considers unrelated.
“You’d end up with the parliamentarian of the United States Senate writing a health-care bill,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.”
Republicans aren’t enthusiastic about Frumin:
“I think clearly the majority leader has his ear, and I’ve got concerns,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “I think if he does not look at that very careful — reconciliation is supposed to be very narrowly defined, large legislative things don’t seem to fit in those parameters — I would think that reconciliation would make or break the perception of his objectivity.”
To back up their claims against Frumin, Republicans point to a decision he made last year when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment that would have created a single-payer health care system. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to force clerks to read the entire 767-page amendment on the floor, but Frumin allowed Sanders to withdraw the amendment without the extended reading.”
— DRJ
[…] the rest here: Alan Frumin, the Man Who May Decide Health Care […]
Alan Frumin, the Man Who May Decide Health Care | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:42 pmCan’t the President of the Senate (i.e., Joe Biden) overrule the rulings of the Senate Parliamentarian?
PatHMV (c0c73a) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:04 pmPatHMV, my understanding is that you are absolutely correct. Frumin advises, but the Vice President has the final say.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:08 pmWe are correct, Stashiu. Wikipedia has the explanation and relevant links to the Senate’s rules. The Parliamentarian is only an advisor to the Senate and the presiding officer. See also this CRS staff report on the House and Senate parliamentarians.
That said, it would be politically expedient for the Democrats if they can get the parliamentarian to rule they way they want, because it would look (slightly) less like a partisan railroading. But in the end, it’s Biden who will decide what is and is not allowed.
Next question: what is the vote required in the Senate to overrule the presiding officer’s rulings on points of order for a reconciliation bill.
PatHMV (c0c73a) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:17 pmSoetero trotted out a bunch of white-coated ‘doctors’ again, wonder if Dr. Roxana Meyer is one of them?
Houston Native (aa2dc4) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:37 pmwhat kind of doctor whould allow themselves to be used like Obama is using them and why? I know I wouldn’t want to go to a doctor that dumb.
nd hamby (af0796) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:02 pmWhy isn’t anyone in the lame stream media referring to this as Obama creating a Constitutional crisis to pass an unconstitutional bill
What next, force everybody to by a government motors car?
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:12 pmForce everyone to invest their retirement in government bonds.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:20 pmwhich would force people out in the streets to reclaim their country……
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:38 pmApologies for the threadjack, but Rangel was finally forced to step down today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35678683/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
The kicker to this story is Rangel’s replacement via Pelosi. Pete Stark. That is not a typo. Pete farking insane clown posse Stark.
The Dems have a death wish. No other way to explain this.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:43 pmI wish I could agree. I’m afraid there are too many sheep. They are already looking at this. Too many people see it as treasure they can loot who have nothing to lose by it.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:44 pmI think Rangel has only taken a leave of absence from the Chairman’s duties. Temporary until the heat blows over and the election passes.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:51 pm“…Next question: what is the vote required in the Senate to overrule the presiding officer’s rulings on points of order for a reconciliation bill.”
Comment by PatHMV — 3/3/2010 @ 2:17 pm
3/5’s …60 votes!
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:10 pmI think Stark is temporary. It’ll be John Lewis after a week. The CBC is demanding that they not lose the Chairman given the power the post has. Lewis, I think, is 3rd or 4th in line.
Pelosi cannot afford to alienate the CBC at this point, if she hopes to keep Hoyer from being Speaker should the Dems maintain control of the House.
Shipwreckedcrew (68fd1f) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:27 pmStark is the political genius who wrote the Catastrophic Insurance bill that was repealed after Medicare beneficiaries attacked Rostenkowski. Maybe he is in charge of really bad bills.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:57 pmThe democrats are like gamblers who are betting their last buck. They may pass this bill using this parliamentary trick but obviously they have thought this through. Has it occurred to them once they established this precedent a new republican congress can use this very same trick to to drastically reduce if not outright eliminate entitlement programs and government agencies and departments?
Eliminate tax exempt status for NGO’s and the like. Withhold federal funds and tax deductibility of state and local taxes for for states that won’t ban civil servants unions, who allow sanctuary cities and so on. And so much more. They are gambling everything they have now in return for a pyrrhic victory if it passes. If it doesn’t then they will have blown all their political capital. A perfect storm of stupidity on their part.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:32 pm“Has it occurred to them once they established this precedent a new republican congress can use this very same trick to to drastically reduce if not outright eliminate entitlement programs and government agencies and departments?”
In fact, it’s already been done! How do you think welfare reform came in? Now what i’m wondering is if Newt’s attempt to gut medicare — leading to the shutdown — was done with reconciliation. It was a budget measure…
imdw (fab3a5) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:54 pm“How do you think welfare reform came in?”
imdw – Because the word “reconciliation” is in the bill’s title because it reconciled the conference committee bill between the House and Senate versions or because the reconciliation process was actually used even though most Democrats actually voted for the bill?
daleyrocks (5710d7) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:18 pm“imdw – Because the word “reconciliation” is in the bill’s title because it reconciled the conference committee bill between the House and Senate versions or because the reconciliation process was actually used even though most Democrats actually voted for the bill?”
The reconciliation process was used.
imdw (e66d8d) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:37 pm““Has it occurred to them once they established this precedent a new republican congress can use this very same trick to to drastically reduce if not outright eliminate entitlement programs and government agencies and departments?”
In fact, it’s already been done! How do you think welfare reform came in? Now what i’m wondering is if Newt’s attempt to gut medicare — leading to the shutdown — was done with reconciliation. It was a budget measure…
Comment by imdw — 3/3/2010 @ 5:54 pm”
Reconciliation is a budgetary procedure to reconcile spending on an existing program or agency by either cutting the spending on the item or raising already existing taxes. It is not used in the welfare reform bill to pass new legislation or to pass new taxes.
It was used to modify spending on an already set programs.
This improper method of implementing new legislation because they could not pass using normal methods is why the democrats are taking this to another level altogether and are setting themselves for a massive push back. If the democrats are lucky (in the longer term sense) they should pray that the republicans will propose amendment after amendment after amendment that will drag this out in to the summer at which point they will all be in campaign mode and this unconstitutional monstrosity will fade away.
Obama needs this to pass to save his presidency. Without it he is a lame duck. The question is will enough democrats in marginal districts commit political suicide to save Obama? Who knows?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:09 pmHere’s some more information on reconciliation:
http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf
imdw (688568) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:23 pmAlthough the current prognosis is not good, the same trick will be applied by the majority once the Nation goes broke. Obama has tied himself to this, and so has the Democratic Party. Watch with amusement what minority Dems will say when Congress attempts to clear debt with an austerity program.
FatBaldnSassy (cc3778) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:36 pmPatHMV in no. 2 is right. Vice-president beats parliamentarian, to use paper-scissors-rock lingo.
Alternatively, the Dems can just fire the parliamentarian, as the GOP did.
So, either way, it’s unlikely the parliamentarian will stop the Dems’ No. 1 priority.
Myron (998393) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:00 pmIs it possible for Myron to be a bigger cheerleader?
JD (522121) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:10 pmIs it possible for Myron to be a bigger cheerleader?
JD: I suppose anything’s possible. 🙂
But I’ll own that. I’m a huge cheerleader for universal health care. Long overdue.
InTrade now has health care passage at 55 percent. I haven’t seen the numbers for when a “strong parliamentarian” is factored in.
Myron (998393) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:32 pmAnd just to clarify, I know that this bill is far from universal coverage. It’s a baby-step, but an important one.
Myron (998393) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:32 pmA better alternative….
“ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE COURTESY OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR:
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:48 pmFrom 200 in 2006, Retail Clinics Now Top 1,200 For First Time Ever…”
Posted at 11:26 pm by Glenn Reynolds
“Newt’s attempt to gut medicare”
Only in the Left’s fevered masturbation fantasies.
The 1995 showdown was about forcing a balanced budget and ending bureaucratic boondoggles like the execrable Department of Education. Yes, Medicare took a hit like everything else, but to say it was “an attempt to gut medicare” is a contemtable lie.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:08 pmMyron said:
I’m a huge cheerleader for universal health care. Long overdue.
This is a sincere question. I promise, no snark is involved. I may agree or disagree with your answer and may respond accordingly. I also take your clarification into consideration.
Why?
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:08 pmHmmm … doesn’t it bother anyone on the left that they have to rely on cooking the rules in order to win? Do they really think this will improve their chances in November?
I’m thinking there are 18 Democrat Senate seats up, and at least half look like ours now. Are you guys really willing to put all 18 up for play?
Just be sure to eliminate the filibuster before you lose.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:20 pmIt’s 19/19 and Sabato’s Crystal Ball (self-link where I talk about elections and other stuff) shows a Republican gain of 7.
But I am wondering whatever happened to that super-majority clause the Senate was trying to ram through, where it would take a super-majority vote to repeal it?
John Hitchcock (c218c1) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:39 pmOh, and Kevin, I believe many know they’ll be shown the door after their vote but they’re willing to do it for an irreversible government power-grab.
John Hitchcock (c218c1) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:41 pmRepublicans aren’t enthusiastic about Frumin
Senate GOP Leaders Select Parliamentarian
May 9, 2001 | From Times Wire Reports
Senate Republican leaders named Alan Frumin to be the chamber’s new parliamentarian, a day after they fired his predecessor because of rulings on budget legislation that had angered them. Frumin, 54, who had been the No. 2 parliamentarian in the office, began his new job immediately. He replaces Robert B. Dove, who was parliamentarian when Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987 and was reappointed when Republicans again took the majority in 1995.
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/alan-frumin
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:18 pm“The 1995 showdown was about forcing a balanced budget and ending bureaucratic boondoggles like the execrable Department of Education. Yes, Medicare took a hit like everything else, but to say it was “an attempt to gut medicare” is a contemtable lie.”
Oh yeah. It was an attempt to gut much more than that.
imdw (6b4e5c) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:30 am“The 1995 showdown was about forcing a balanced budget and ending bureaucratic boondoggles like the execrable Department of Education. Yes, Medicare took a hit like everything else, but to say it was “an attempt to gut medicare” is a contemtable lie.”
“Oh yeah. It was an attempt to gut much more than that.” – imdw
Exactly. It was an attempt to actually spend only what the Government could afford. It is the same type of craziness my wife and I try to live by. We budget our spending so that we don’t run a deficit.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:05 am“Exactly. It was an attempt to actually spend only what the Government could afford. It is the same type of craziness my wife and I try to live by. We budget our spending so that we don’t run a deficit.”
And yet, not much later, they still balanced the budget and didn’t fuck over medicare. Without simplistic and largely irrelevant analogies to family budgets.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
imdw (0172f3) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:16 amIs it possible for Myron to be a bigger cheerleader?
Is it possible for Myron to be a bigger partisan hack?
FYFY.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:18 amBut I’ll own that
Really? You didn’t own this one, not by a longshot:
He is up by 20 against Coats and 16 against a third Republican, according to Research 2000. That firm is contracted by Kos for nonpartisan polling.
If you have evidence that their polls are biased, please link to it.
Comment by Myron — 2/15/2010 @ 2:25 pm
Here’s the relevant research that Myron’s too lazy (or ignorant) to do himself:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Skeptics-Sniff-at-Daily-Kos-Poll-2428
Even the leftists think – tanks and pollsters are laughing at the Kos poll, Myron. D’oh! But I guess The Atlantic’s now a right – wing hate machine, right?
Here’s the immortal Kos’s past polling record, this one put Coakley’s race as a toss – up the night before the election (no partisanship or bias there, obviously):
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/17/MA/429
More past hilarity from Myron’s super – objective polling nutbags:
http://blogs.forward.com/campaign-confidential/14327/
That one had Kirk losing before his last election. Right again!
I can do this all night – like shooting fish in a barrel.
Comment by Dmac — 2/15/2010 @ 3:03 pm
You ran away from that one, Myron – like so many others. How come, little one?
Dmac (799abd) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:22 amIrreversible? Not hardly. As soon as 2011 the Congress has to fund the thing. Why should they?
And even if this putrid excuse for a bill contains some forward funding, there are plenty of other places to withhold funds from.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:37 am“And even if this putrid excuse for a bill contains some forward funding, there are plenty of other places to withhold funds from.”
The CBO scores bills out to 10 years.
imdw (e66d8d) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:47 amWTF has that got to do with anything, numbnutz?
Congress runs on two year cycles, and the CBO ain’t Congess.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:58 amMyron, #25..
Please, and for this discussion, please seriously, explain to me why I should pay for your health care.
This is not a request for an argument, but a question for theory. Under what purposes, rules, existance, do you think that I should go to work every day and have my income go to someone else’s health care???
reff (b996d9) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:07 am“WTF has that got to do with anything, numbnutz?”
Meaning that the he can see the ‘forward funding’ for the next 10 years.
imdw (2b5cca) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:14 amIt’s interesting to see the supporters of Obama pontificate on the CBO score (which is based on the numbers they are given, not reality) when, in fact, the trajectory of debt that is being set will lead to a crash in the dollar or insolvency or both. Take a look at what is going on in Greece this week and then tell me how this wonderful bill is going to work.
Some of us are building shelters for the storm and some are running around praising the rain. Do you understand where this sort of thing leads ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:33 amThe CBO score is based on 10 years of revenue and 6 years of costs – at least for the Senate Bill. Unless I am mistaken. So to say it is budget neutral is a farce.
“they still balanced the budget and didn’t @#$% over medicare”
When has there been a balanced budget?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:40 am“When has there been a balanced budget?”
Do you remember the 1990s ?
imdw (ed99af) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:45 am46, Yeah, imd-dumbass, 95, when the GOP was majority in Congress and forced cuts into the increases in spending on Clinton. I would have been happy with actual cuts starting with Union Demonstation Projects and cutting all Congressional travel.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:52 am“When has there been a balanced budget?”
“Do you remember the 1990s?” – imdw
You make my point. The Federal Government is out of control. I’m not just blaming the Democrats. Federal Government refers to ALL of them. You are blind to one side. Open both eyes. Neither party is really interested in fixing it – they are in it for the power.
For too long, we have sat back and pointed at one party for it’s failings. Maybe Alan Frumin… nah, he’s as much a part of it as the rest.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:01 amIn case it’s not clear at this point, arguing with knee – jerk, dogmatic reflexives like Myoron and imadouchebag only leads you to an intellectual dead end. You’d be much better served by banging your head against the wall.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:27 am“46, Yeah, imd-dumbass, 95, when the GOP was majority in Congress and forced cuts into the increases in spending on Clinton. ”
No I don’t believe 1995 had a balanced budget.
imdw (05d41e) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:30 amDmac, I’ve done some of that, too. It will be an interesting three years. I don’t know if anybody in politics is in touch with reality. They think about the next election.
I have a post up about Jim Bunning, who actually may get it but he is quitting and nobody pays any attention to him anyway.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:33 amClinton’s “balanced budget” (which was never balanced) came from his cuts in the military. The Army was cut in half. That’s why our troops are so stressed. Domestic spending under Clinton went up every year.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:35 am“Clinton’s “balanced budget” (which was never balanced) came from his cuts in the military.”
PCD tells me it is because of the GOP. You calling him a liar?
imdw (0aacd7) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:52 am“When has there been a balanced budget?”
Do you remember the 1990s ?
Only in Clinton’s last year could you say there was a balanced Federal budget, and that wasn’t in the 1990s, but in 2000.
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:04 amImadimwit likes himself some out-of-context trollery. And he likes himself some false dilemma rhetoric. Nothing honest coming from that thing. I’ll expect much more honesty from Joshua than I can ever expect from imadimwit.
John Hitchcock (e4c80d) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:31 amNote to Progressives and/or Leftists, and other apologists for Obowman & Co:
The National Debt INCREASED each and every year during the Nineties. Congress might have had a balanced budget ON PAPER, but when the rubber hit the road, the out-go was greater than the in-come.
And, those “balanced budgets” were only possible due to the explosion in income from Capital Gains Taxes – the tax-rate for which had been REDUCED by the Gingrich Congress to encourage economic growth and job creation.
The current Administration/Congress is in the process of increasing these rates of taxation which will further depress economic activity and job creation.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:39 amComment by Official Internet Data Office — 3/4/2010 @ 10:04 am
Even there (FY-2000), the debt increased. It might have been less than a Billion-Dollars, but it still increased.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:41 amIf this issue even gets to Frumin, we’ve lost! We’ve lost because the administration is pitching reconciliation merely to get the Senate bill passed through the House. Once that’s done you’ll see a big signing ceremony and live-for-TV celebration at the White House, and Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid giving endless press conferences proclaiming “Victory!”, but you’ll never see a serious effort made to get to reconciliation. No one will care on the Democrat side, except for some crazed liberals.
MTF (17058c) — 3/4/2010 @ 11:45 amNothing honest coming from that thing\
On behalf of actual things, I take offense to that insinuation.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:07 pm