Obama Turns to Reconciliation
[Guest post by DRJ]
President Obama urged Congress to vote now on health care reform:
“I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform,” Mr. Obama said in a brief 15-minute speech in the East Room of the White House. He called on Democratic leaders of both chambers to schedule a vote in the next few weeks, adding, “From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.
***
“This has been a long and wrenching debate,” Mr. Obama said, adding that while health care “easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship,” that is no reason “for those of us who were sent here to lead to just walk away.”In the short 15-minute speech, the president avoided using the word “reconciliation,” the name for the parliamentary tactic that Democrats must now use to avoid a Republican filibuster of the bill. But senior advisers to the president made clear that is his plan.”
The New York Times says it could prove difficult to produce the legislative language and get a CBO analysis of how much it will cost in the short timetable Obama outlined. However, the article also notes reconciliation legislation may already be finalized:
“On Tuesday, in a letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Obama said he was open to pursuing four specific ideas raised by Republicans during the Blair House forum, including establishing “health courts” to resolve medical malpractice claims and encouraging the use by individuals of medical savings accounts that get favorable tax treatment.
But even as Mr. Obama sent the letter, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and top health policy adviser, Nancy Ann DeParle, went to Capitol Hill to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and prepare a final legislative package that they would be able to pass with simple majorities in each house. The leaders are still working on the details of that package. “We’re getting closer,” Jim Manley, Mr. Reid’s spokesman, said shortly before the president’s remarks. He did not elaborate.”
Reconciliation remains a three-step process with at least two drawbacks — GOP amendments in the Senate and problems rounding up votes in the House:
“Under their tentative plan, the House would first approve the bill that was adopted by the Senate on Christmas Eve. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would also draft a package of changes to be approved by both chambers in a separate reconciliation bill. The reconciliation package would effectively smooth out some of the differences between the House and Senate versions.
The whole bundle would be sent to Mr. Obama to sign into law.
But while that sounds feasible, carrying out the strategy could yet prove tricky. Senate Republicans could try offering countless amendments as a delaying tactic. And Ms. Pelosi could have difficulty rounding up the necessary votes to pass the reconciliation package in the House, because it will strip out anti-abortion language that some Democrats favor.”
— DRJ
The Democrats will rue the day they do this.
Not only will this be undone by Republicans, it will embolden them to jam through legislation in the most brutal fashion.
HeavenSent (c3c032) — 3/3/2010 @ 12:42 pmDo all those docs posing as photo ops today with Obama not realize they are helping sign their own death warrants??
bio mom (a1e126) — 3/3/2010 @ 12:52 pmAnd how do you reconcile a bill that does not exist. The U.S. Constitution says a bill becomes a bill once passed by both houses and signed by the president. Where am I going wrong here?
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:20 pmThe Republicans better every goddamn political trick and tactic available to them. No fucking around this time.
To kill the beast you cut off the head. Do it.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dopey (a812c5) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:21 pm“The U.S. Constitution says a bill becomes a bill once passed by both houses and signed by the president. ”
I think you mean “a bill becomes law.”
“And how do you reconcile a bill that does not exist.”
The senate bill exists and has passed with 60 votes.
imdw (2c1194) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:27 pmbill-tb: A bill doesn’t become a bill once passed by both houses and signed by the president; it becomes law.
jwarner (0a2a75) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:29 pm[…] more: Obama Turns to Reconciliation […]
Obama Turns to Reconciliation | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:40 pmIf I understand this correctly, the House would have to approve the Senate Bill (as is), but would do so with the understanding that the Reconciliation Bill would contain the necessary changes many would require before signing off.
That same Reconciliation Bill would be voted on in the Senate (as changing what they previously approved).
The question still stands, if the next step in the process is for The President to sign both bills: Senate Bill and then Reconciliation Bill, what’s to stop him from just signing the first and vetoing the second?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:45 pm“The question still stands, if the next step in the process is for The President to sign both bills: Senate Bill and then Reconciliation Bill, what’s to stop him from just signing the first and vetoing the second?”
Nothing. But why would he do that?
imdw (b62539) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:53 pm#9 Are you kidding? Wouldn’t he prefer the current Senate Bill with all the bells and whistles over the changes that the Reconciliation Bill would bring?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:56 pmimdw — A bill becomes a law once it passes both houses AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED IT … right. So until the president signs it, how can there be anything like reconciliation.
Admittedly it’s confusing, so we need some help.
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:57 pmYou’re not going to get any “help” from imadouchebag on this one, as if you needed any additional proof.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:25 pm“#9 Are you kidding? Wouldn’t he prefer the current Senate Bill with all the bells and whistles over the changes that the Reconciliation Bill would bring?”
What changes would he be opposed to?
Of course, this is all ignoring the political ridiculousness of him stabbing the house in the back like this.
“So until the president signs it, how can there be anything like reconciliation.”
What’s so hard about writing a bill that is conditioned on another bill becoming law? I’m not sure what you see as the limitation…
imdw (de7003) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:38 pmWell then I guess you could write one bill and then have a whole train of other bills that go along for the ride. why stop at government rationed heath care, can’t they then attach the crap and tax, AMNESTY and any other socialist crap they want to attach to the first seed.
And here I thought that for a budget to be reconciled it actually had to point to an existing program.
Sounds to me this is the road to total collapse of our republic, when there are no rules. Making it up as we go is not the way to remain stable. ..
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/3/2010 @ 3:09 pmDamn… I looked at a TV screen and saw Big Zero surrounded by the men in white coats and thought they’d finally come to take him away.
GeneralMalaise (2e0f70) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:21 pmWhat’s so hard about writing a bill that is conditioned on another bill becoming law?
The “conditions” have no legal force. It’s a private agreement among members of the Democratic party, one which any of them can renege upon at any time.
Subotai (e7189d) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:26 pmWell then I guess you could write one bill and then have a whole train of other bills that go along for the ride. why stop at government rationed heath care, can’t they then attach the crap and tax, AMNESTY and any other socialist crap they want to attach to the first seed.
That’s true. But mere logical consistency is not much of an impediment when the left is trying to get its way.
Subotai (e7189d) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:30 pmQuite a transparent maneuver by Obama to buy Rep. Matheson’s vote by nominating his brother to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
GeneralMalaise (2e0f70) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:33 pm“Sounds to me this is the road to total collapse of our republic, when there are no rules. Making it up as we go is not the way to remain stable. ..”
I mean, you could go find what the rules on reconciliation are…. But I suppose it is easier to predict the apocalypse.
“The “conditions” have no legal force. It’s a private agreement among members of the Democratic party, one which any of them can renege upon at any time.”
I think you and I are talking about two different things.
imdw (fab3a5) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:49 pmumm, isn’t there still the “pocket veto”? Which means that the POTUS doesn’t sign the bill and it becomes law anyway (unless the Congress goes out of session).
So Obammy doesn’t even have to sign the Senate bill after it is approved by the House. It will become law automatically after 10 days.
Time to shut the entire monster down. Throw out all Democrats onto the street (then run them down with trucks).
iconoclast (4a423f) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:40 pmI’m pretty sure a pocket veto means it doesn’t become law. That’s why it’s called a veto.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:43 pm@21 Stashiu3 — I thought the same thing, but not quite. Here is the def from wikipedia:
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Pons Asiorum (95faa4) — 3/3/2010 @ 11:01 pmbut can we run them down with trucks anyway???
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 11:38 pmHere’s how it goes down. The president gets a very reluctant House to vote on the 2,074 page Senate bill H.R.3590, “as is”, untouched, unmodified, with the promise (wink wink) that Senate-House differences will be worked out in reconciliation, i.e., backroom deals removed, abortion language removed or modified, etc.
House Dems go along with this. It’s close, a squeaker, and it passes by one or two votes.
Except the President, after “much contemplation and in the best interests of the country, wishing to avoid a contentious, amendment-laden reconciliation process,” simply signs the Senate bill into law!
The Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, abortion language, union health plan exemptions … the whole enchilada, filled with features unacceptable to majority of House members and reviled by a furious American public.
Suckas!
Boston Shepherd (02e8dc) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:21 amsounds like a plan…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:35 am“The Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, abortion language, union health plan exemptions … the whole enchilada, filled with features unacceptable to majority of House members and reviled by a furious American public.”
Yes but why does the president want that over the reconciliation bill?
imdw (6b4e5c) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:29 am#25 Hmmm… why did the Senate want it’s Bill over the one the House passed? Geez imdw, sometimes you have lucid thoughts. Picture Winnie-the-pooh, sitting outside Rabbit’s hole, tapping his finger against his head, saying, ‘think, think, think’. I’m sure even you can come up with an answer.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:51 am“#25 Hmmm… why did the Senate want it’s Bill over the one the House passed? ”
Because that’s what they could get 60 votes for. Like, let’s look at this:
““The Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, abortion language, union health plan exemptions … the whole enchilada, filled with features unacceptable to majority of House members and reviled by a furious American public.””
That’s the downside obama gets by signing just the senate bill. More than that right — he stabs in the back the whole house caucus. And what would be the upside?
imdw (688568) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:59 amWell, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Did I read that right??? imdw, you believe there’s a downside to passing:
“The Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, abortion language, union health plan exemptions… ”
You believe those are bad things for this country?
I stand corrected. Maybe I misread you. Perhaps I should not be so pessimistic. (and I am being serious)
“More than that right — he stabs in the back the whole house caucus. And what would be the upside?”
Well, before I toss off my doom-and-gloom robe, I would say the upside for the President would be that he does want all those things to pass. That he is a fervent believer in the Federal Government controlling as much as possible. (or he is attempting to follow the Cloward-Piven strategy).
With my doom-and-gloom robe off… dang, I still only see a downside if any Health Care reform is passed. Whether it is only the Senate’s version, or coupled with some sort of Reconciliation. If/when that happens, I only see a continued downward slide. No upside.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:17 am“Did I read that right???”
yes you read it right. There’s a downside to passing a bill “filled with features unacceptable to majority of House members.” In fact, I’ve previously expressed that most people would prefer a bill that passed with only 58 votes but did not have the sweetheart deals for Nelson and Landrieu. There are features of the senate bill I consider to be real problematic downsides — The tax on cadillac health plans, for example. I much preferred the house method of revenue — taxing high incomes. We should also see how much we can raise with an estate tax.
“I would say the upside for the President would be that he does want all those things to pass. That he is a fervent believer in the Federal Government controlling as much as possible. (or he is attempting to follow the Cloward-Piven strategy).”
But he gets that by signing the reconciliation bill too. Aren’t you following here — the discussion is whether he just signs the senate bill and vetoes the other one.
imdw (2b5cca) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:30 amOffering up amendments will not delay. Amendments would be on the reconciliation bill AFTER the main bill has already passed, been signed by the President, and is law.
RedDog (9fc690) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:36 amimdw, there are things we agree on (not having all that @#$% in the Bill). Things I don’t like are ideas like raising taxes to cover more spending instead of reducing spending. The Government rarely reduces costs or programs. It grows. And, accordingly, needs to raise revenue through taxes – that is not a sustainable solution. At some point, taxes are too high. For the past several decades, the Feds have keep taxes at an artificial level by printing more money, borrowing from foreign governments, and borrowing from Social Security (to name a few). This has skyrocketed in the past few years.
As for “Aren’t you following here… ” Yes. Thanks for asking.
If he is following Cloward-Piven, then not signing any Reconciliation Bill would further the strain, just as you mentioned. If he simply wants more Fed Government control, then either approach (signing one or both) will get that ball rolling.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:49 am“If he is following Cloward-Piven, then not signing any Reconciliation Bill would further the strain, just as you mentioned.”
Why would it further the strain? I mean, significantly? Enough to outweigh the downside?
As to this newfound wingnut meme of cloward piven (shall we place him along alinsky and ayers too?) is that what explains Medicare part D? Was bush an even more ardent follower of cloward piven than Obama has proved to be?
imdw (7ae49a) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:23 amnot ‘him’ i mean, ‘them’
imdw (7ae49a) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:23 amI love how the leftists bring up Part D, as though they can ignore the history that their opposition was that it did not go far enough. Or that we supported it.
JD (c26e0b) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:40 am“I love how the leftists bring up Part D, as though they can ignore the history that their opposition was that it did not go far enough.”
I’m just curious why all this intimate wingnut knowledge of a 1966 Nation article by Cloward and Piven didn’t come out as part of wingnut opposition to Part D.
imdw (603c39) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:43 amI stand corrected and thanks. I was being lazy and didn’t look it up before commenting. Dumb mistake, but not my first or last. 🙂
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:59 amCloward Piven is hardly something new or newly found. To some degree, what was happening before the current administration was leading down that path – whether on purpose or not.
Obama talked about fundementally changing America. You can weigh in on what he meant by that. I know not if he is purposefully trying to load down government to a breaking point on purpose or not. But there is no question that the rate of spending has increased significantly over the past few years. Health Care reform, Cap and Trade, etc. will not reduce it – it will increase debt even further.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:02 amCorwin – Features and bugs …
JD (c26e0b) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:07 amJD – scope creep…
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:12 amYup, the scope never decreases, never turns back.
JD (c26e0b) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:22 am“Cloward Piven is hardly something new or newly found.”
Right it’s from a 1966 article in the Nation. What’s new is that it is a wingnut blog-mantra. Anyone here actually read the article?
imdw (cb75ea) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:31 amYou don’t understand that a pocket veto isn’t a veto at all. It is more like Obama holding his nose and letting the Senate bill become law. Rather similar to voting “present”–something our pos POTUS has a lot of experience doing.
Why sell the House down the river? If he gets strong signals from the Senate that reconciliation will fail due to GOP obstruction and Democrat refusal to misuse reconciliation (I know, it does require Democrats with enough sense to know that the next party to feel this variation of a nuclear option will be the Democrat Party), then for his own good Obama will sign the Senate bill into law. Then, once it is law, the Democrat-infested Congress can make modifications.
After all, both bills will destroy private healthcare. One just panders a little more than the other, that’s all. And what Democrat cares about a bit of pandering graft? If they did, they wouldn’t be a Democrat.
iconoclast (4a423f) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:19 amIs this something being bandied on Rush or something? Why this latest fascination? There’s still no rhyme or reason to this strategy. What does Obama gain by signing the senate bill and then vetoing the bill that makes changes palatable to teh house dems? He gains nothing from this. But loses a lot.
imdw (05d41e) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:28 amOh, lookie! Imadimwit went fishing and caught a fish! I’m thinking the color of that fish was purposely chosen due to the political proclivities of those who display the fish the most.
John Hitchcock (e4c80d) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:36 am> “I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform,”
I agree.
Let me rephrase that query differently:
Who wants to get voted – *out* – the next time you run for office?
The answers should be pretty much one for one the same.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:42 am“Who wants to get voted – *out* – the next time you run for office?”
You’d think then the GOP strategy would be to allow a vote. But no.
imdw (0aacd7) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:50 amAre you being deliberately obtuse? Read up again on a pocket veto, then comment again. Of course Obama won’t veto any of these government takeover bills. A pocket veto isn’t a veto at all under normal circumstances.
I am uncertain about is the destination of the Senate bill after the House passes it. Does it go to Obama? Or can the Congress hold onto it for reconciliation? If it doesn’t go to the executive but must go back for reconciliation, then the point of allowing the Senate bill to be law (with or without POTUS signature) is wrong and just an interesting digression. But the news reports make me uncertain if that is the case–have to check what Tapper says about that.
As for asking what the point is, with that posse of insane clowns anything can happen. Obama might fool himself that a pocket veto would let him have the best of both worlds–a massive new government regulatory body with vast intrusive power over a huge piece of the economy (think of the opportunities for graft and power!) yet allow him to figuratively hold his nose because of things like the Cornhusker kickbacks and the taxes that offend his consiglieri and partner-in-crime, Andy Stern.
However, that would require a level of deceptiveness and intelligence that TheWon has yet to demonstrate.
iconoclast (4a423f) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:50 amObama and the democrats are fools for being rattled by the Scott Brown win. They are fools for not finding 50% of the house to pass this bill that got 60% in the Senate. They are fools for injecting abortion into this debate. (Who needs abortion insurance, anyway? Abortions are not expensive.) They are fools for turning this into a debate over reconciliation. They are fools for allowing this bill to be larded up by lobbyists to 2700 pages. They are fools for requiring healthy young people who don’t want to, to buy insurance.
Wesson (9fddaa) — 3/4/2010 @ 12:23 pmhe stabs in the back the whole house caucus. And what would be the upside?
Comment by imdw
Well, who cares about them ? They’ll all be gone next January 20th.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:14 pmThere are so many things wrong with this approach.
If the House cannot come up with 216 votes, then the Dems will have lost the ability to claim with a straight face that it is because the GOP is the “Party of No.” The fact will be that the Dems, with 40 seat majority, couldn’t get the votes to pass the Senate bill in their own caucus.
The truth is that the bill will fail based on BIPARTISAN opposition to it.
Making this effort and failing in the House is, without question, the worst possible scenario — and it appears to be the most likely.
Shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:20 pmGiven the amount of corruption required to pass this crap sandwich through the Senate one has to wonder just how much more graft and payola will be required to get it through reconciliation. Is there enough money in the country to satisfy Democrat greed?? (rhetorical question…the answer is no).
iconoclast (4a423f) — 3/4/2010 @ 1:36 pmBTW, you can only call it a “pocket veto” when the action of the President prevents a bill from becoming law – a veto of congressional legislation by inaction, while the Congress is in adjournment.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 2:16 pmBut, allowing it to become law by letting it sit in the in-box while Congress is in session is the President acceeding to a measure he disagrees with but knows that he doesn’t have the strength in the Congress to uphold a formal veto.
Article I, 7, (2).
His amazon profile (infoeng) locates him in Austin, TX. But the media are identifying him from Orange County, CA.
maverick muse (d5e71b) — 3/5/2010 @ 4:57 am