Breaking: WaPo Says House to Reject Slaughter Strategy
Via Hot Air. With the related news that the deal with Stupak has fallen apart, this all means that they’re either in big trouble, or sitting so pretty that they don’t need to resort to tricks and deals. I’m afraid it means the latter:
House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to “deem” the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Saturday that the House would take three votes Sunday: first, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate; second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members; and third, on the Senate bill itself.
Van Hollen, who has been working on the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House leaders concluded that that order — approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill — makes clear that the House intends to modify the Senate bill and not approve the Senate bill itself.
“Our objective all along was to make it clear that the House is amending the Senate bill, and we found another way of accomplishing that,” Van Hollen said in an interview.
Sorry, guys. You have to accept the Senate bill as is. Sure, you can propose some changes and hope they will be passed. Spin it any way you like. But you have to swallow the pill.
I fear that the House is ready to do just that.
The short-term political gain we’ll get from this isn’t worth it, folks. As I already said, this is a fundamental restructuring of the way the government relates to our economy. I have stood against this from Day One, and there is no silver lining in hopes of big gains in 2010 unless those gains will reverse this legislation. And we all know that huge government programs like this never get reversed.
It seems we’re screwed. All we can do is fight while there’s still time. If you have an undecided Congressman, now would be a good time to make a phone call.
i don’t see the Senate passing the changes….
and since they aren’t attached to the original Senate bill, they have zero effect.
however, to be a bit more optimistic than you, since the only thing that starts happens for the first four years is taxes and regulation, it might actually be possible to kill this turkey after its hatched.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/20/2010 @ 11:31 amWhat the jihadists could not accomplish on 9-11 (the destruction of the American republic) the Democrats will do.
This is a sad time for our nation.
May God have mercy on our souls for what the Congress is about to do.
retire05 (1e885c) — 3/20/2010 @ 11:46 amAll this means is that Pelosi believes she has the votes to pass the Senate bill through regular order.
Fox has it 217-214 already.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/20/2010 @ 11:47 amFox has been off all along…. amusingly enough, firedoglake likely has the most accurate count, but Gabe at AoSHQ has a detailed breakdown, along with a rationale for his numbers.
today is still a time for concern, not despair. keep making those phone calls!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/20/2010 @ 11:53 am“i don’t see the Senate passing the changes….”
Now the question will be whether senate republicans vote to keep the louisiana purchase and the cornhusker kickback.
imdw (2c1194) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:08 pmAw geez, another conservative blogger openly feeding the Pelosi momentum machine.
She doesn’t have the votes yet.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:41 pmIf they vote to amend the Senate Bill, that would mean it would have to go back to the Senate for concurance prior to sending it to the President for his signature, and that would be subject to extended debate.
AD - RtR/OS! (cdee11) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:42 pmThis seems to be an extraordinary exercise just to keep this out of a Conference Cmte, where it should have gone all along.
And, if the language of the amending resolution does not bind it to the Senate Bill, then the House is, in effect, endorsing the original Senate Bill, which many of the Dems had sworn they would oppose. And that bill, with the House’s concurrence, would go to the President for signing (absent any modifications).
Truly, Profiles in Courage!
AD - RtR/OS! (cdee11) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:46 pmMy congressperson is Lois Capps and my Senators are Boxer and Feinstein.
At least it isn’t Pete Stark, so I count myself fortunate there, but it’s unlikely these three geniuses want to do anything for me except raise my taxes
Steve G (7d4c78) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:47 pmComment by Steve G — 3/20/2010 @ 12:47 pm
What’s worse, Steve G, having a congressperson like Capps who you know will vote for any government power-grab, or having someone like my rep Jane Harman who styles herself a Blue Dog Democrat and “fiscally responsible” but still casts her vote however Aunt Nancy demands?
JVW (fd30ab) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:51 pmJane still wants that Cmte Chair, and will do anything to get back into Queen Nan’s good graces.
AD - RtR/OS! (cdee11) — 3/20/2010 @ 12:57 pmif you live in representative hell, as Steve G and i do, you can still call others.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/20/2010 @ 1:03 pmI have sent 2 emails, a fax and a phone call to my “rep”, Markey. Last yr she was against it, now she is for it. She is not listening to us here in CO. I sure hope she hears us in Nov. We are wondering what she got paid off with to change her vote.
LYNNDH (8d8b19) — 3/20/2010 @ 1:36 pmMichael Medved said earlier this week that the whole deem bill was a “head fake” so that people would not be voicing objection to the merits of the bill. I am afraid that we spent too much time on the process and not enough on the merits. I hope it didn’t work.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 3/20/2010 @ 1:43 pmHow can we object to the merits when no one’s even seen the damn thing yet? Which means it stinks to high heaven, of course.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/20/2010 @ 1:57 pmPrediction–Healthcare passes and on its heals a massive immigration package legalizing the current 20-30 million illegals who will vote in November for their savior party “the dems”. We may be soooo screwed.
bald01 (35bc9b) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:02 pmEast Coast Chris:
Maybe so. But this isn’t an RNC propaganda blog and I think we’re all trying to call things the way we see them.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:08 pmHead fake or not, what they proposed was unconstitutional and had to be opposed.
If they have the votes, all we can do is assign responsibility. If they don’t, all we can do is what I suggested in the post: call your Congresscritter, especially undecided ones.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:10 pm“Head fake or not, what they proposed was
unconstitutional and had to be opposed.”
If it got one rep to say to the leadership “I’ll vote yes, but not this way” then it was a smart move.
imdw (b40b74) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:23 pmI actually look forward to the de-legitimization of the leadership of our current “republic”.
I couldn’t think of a better demonstration of the complete abdication of public representation by those currently serving in elected office.
Every action produces a reaction of some sorts. Yes, its true that, in the past, giant government institutions have never been disbanded.
Of course, that implies that the financial stability of the US will continue as it has progressed since its founding, which has served to conceal the unsustainable nature of such institutions.
The government has a lot of people on its payroll. The problem for them is that every day, there’s an expanding list of citizens who don’t want those people on the payroll anymore, and the money to hide the racket is running out much faster than anyone would like to admit.
It’s entirely possible that the ‘success’ of this bill, and the ramifications of its ill effects – something that has been aptly warned about – could bring about the kind of monumental change to this country that the continuation of the status quo could never achieve.
History is littered with national leaders and groups that assumed that their scam would continue forever. One thing that we know for sure is that it never does.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:24 pmWell, now that they are going to have a regular vote, isn’t it time to filibuster, or can’t you do that in the House?
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:52 pmOnly the Senate.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/20/2010 @ 2:54 pmLOok, the reason its usually next to impossible to overturn an entitlement is that people get used to the benefits and don’t want to give them up. In this case, however, none of the benefits kick in until 2015, while the costs kick in immediately. Your taxes to pay for this will go up in January (along with the expiration of the 2000 cuts, 2011 is shaping up to be a WONDERFUL year for the economy). And how about all those promises Obama made about this bill lowering premiums? I’d say its pretty much a guarantee that insurance companies are going to jack up their rates as high as they can get away with in the short run, to get ahead of the massive regulation sure to follow. And Obama, but virtue of his massive overpromising, will own each and every bit of this mess, which will make him much more vunerable in 2012.
So long as the GOP takes congress and the whitehouse by then they can undo this without upsetting anyone. If they don’t win in 2012, however, then we are screwed.
Sean P (334463) — 3/20/2010 @ 3:49 pmI don’t know what the legislation provides regarding premiums — it may kick in as early as next year — but if insurance companies are allowed to increase premiums in the coming years, Obama will use that as proof we need this legislation to protect Americans from the evil insurance companies.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/20/2010 @ 4:10 pmDRJ: Of course he will. The problem (for Obama) is we have plenty of speeches of him promising that this bill will prevent rate hikes, recorded and ready to throw in his face the minute it happens. And since this is 100% Obama’s baby he will face the full wrath of the public for anything that goes wrong.
Sean P (334463) — 3/20/2010 @ 4:15 pmMedved was right on it being a head fake. I mentioned a similar thing a few days ago. The right-wing punches itself out on the diversions every time.
For instance, some people (AD above) still don’t understand that if the house goes for the Senate bill, the president can sign THAT bill if he chooses and it’s ballgame, whether the recon fixes go or not. Both chambers will have passed the same bill. The recon bill is a chance to move the bill left. (Thanks Scott Brown?)
But whatever. I’m not going to even comment until after tomorrow, not wanting to be either a sore winner or loser.
I’ll just sign off with a quote from your Karl, on March 15:
“If I was forced to bet, I would bet on Pelosi.”
Myron (102c5d) — 3/20/2010 @ 4:21 pmMerely a glimpse of what will be happening in the future, but on a nationwide basis:
When liberals (not to mention naive conservatives like Mitt Romney, or certainly squishy Repubs like Arnold Schwarzenneger) get behind the steering wheel, the phrase to remember about them is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Mark (411533) — 3/20/2010 @ 4:37 pm[…] here to see the original: Breaking: WaPo Says House to Reject Slaughter Strategy […]
Breaking: WaPo Says House to Reject Slaughter Strategy | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 3/20/2010 @ 5:03 pm