Losing the House Over Health Care
[Guest post by DRJ]
It’s always harder for Presidents to accomplish big goals after the initial sweetheart period of the first year or two passes. Thus, if I were in the White House, I would be willing to risk losing the House in November over a signature issue like health care. Not only would it allow me to claim the mantle of a leader who accomplished big things, it would also relieve me of having to satisfy my liberal base as they claim failure isn’t an option when you control the Presidency and Congress.
Maybe the President and his advisers don’t think this way. Or maybe they do.
— DRJ
The man who set the previous record for losing the most support in the least amount of time is in a bemoaning mood…
“Jimmy Carter laments ‘unprecedented’ partisan divide…”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EGIDUO2&show_article=1
GeneralMalaise (d2bf14) — 3/17/2010 @ 3:57 pmWhat is rational for Republicans in Congress? Would they be willing to give up health care now for control next year?
Bipartisanship. The Democrats trade a health care bill for control of congress, and Republicans gladly accept.
Not that I am cynical or anything.
TomHynes (2e563b) — 3/17/2010 @ 4:06 pm[…] the article here: Losing the House Over Health Care […]
Losing the House Over Health Care | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 3/17/2010 @ 4:26 pm[…] abortion legislation Half-Baked Sourdough: Practicing To Do Evil Patterico’s Pontifications: Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
Upside-Down World: Pres. Obama Appears on FOX News to Push for His Health Care Monstrosity « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/17/2010 @ 5:54 pmHow did this partisan divide happen? What ended the robust bipartisan support for the new President? Why was the honeymoon so short?
Two words: “We won.”
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:52 pmIn addition to the other things you listed, which are true, DRJ: A GOP takeover of the house would also force the other party to help govern. You can’t just be about “no” when you run the house.
Clinton did pretty well with divided government — after a shutdown or two.
By the way, I don’t think the Dems voting against HCR reform at this stage changes the dynamic any. They already voted for reform (and cap and trade). It’s not like their opponents aren’t going to mention it. I think their view is that they might as well try to mop up all the base support they can get by passing an actual bill, since they’re going to get possibly zinged for the vote anyway.
I still think the Dems are going to hold the House, but some might say I’m not the most objective source. 🙂
Myron (a79d53) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:01 pmsome might say I’m not the most objective source …
Who could possibly question a leftist that is a cheerleader for BarckyCare and has noted that he is of the JournoList type?
JD (3399c0) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:41 pmGood thing this is not all about Obama.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:42 pm“Bipartisanship. The Democrats trade a health care bill for control of congress, and Republicans gladly accept. ”
The republicans don’t seem to be gladly accepting. If they did, we’d end up with a better bill.
imdw (b75942) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:58 pmFor all you Constitutional wizards, spare me an off topic question …
I read Article 1 Section 7: All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
Simple not complex sentence with an easy to understand meaning.
But the Senate Bill that the House is supposed to vote on contains billions in taxes, all of which originated in the Senate. So the first question is how is this Constitutional.
We all know how we got here, a Senate Bill passed that was meant for a conference committee, the plan to merge the House and Senate Bills was destroyed by the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, a conference committee Bill then became impossible. So the process got short circuited.
And now we are stuck with an unconstitutional Bill. Seems like the Senate Bill needs to either be tossed or sent to conference for a new merged Bill.
So where does this go wrong, isn’t it unconstitutional to send this Bill to the president for signature into law? Seems like a pretty cut and dried not going to work proposition. In all their fury to pass something, seems the Constitutional questions got left out.
What say you?
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:02 pm“But the Senate Bill that the House is supposed to vote on contains billions in taxes, all of which originated in the Senate. So the first question is how is this Constitutional.”
The senate was working on a version of a House bill. That’s why when you look it up, it has an HR number. So it “originated in the house.”
imdw (017d51) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:25 pmimdw, what do you mean by “a version”.
Did the house pass this actual bill before the Senate did? Is it just ‘kinda’ OK? Is this one of those joke things, like when you asked if Beck denied raping people or said Rush was antisemitic?
Not that it matters. This bill won’t pass, Obama just proved why he’s so afraid of Fox News, and there won’t be any legal challenges to this bill because it just ain’t gonna become law. Maybe in 10 years you guys can try again.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:37 pm“Did the house pass this actual bill before the Senate did? ”
No. And that’s not what the “originate” requirement means. I posted the THOMAS link in previous thread.
imdw (19cd35) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:42 pmDustin – It is pulling sh*te from its arse.
JD (3399c0) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:57 pm“it has an HR number”
That’s about all it has. The House and Senate were working independently all year. Are you suggesting that after the House passed their bill the Senate took their language and adapted it or merely took the Senate committee work product and slapped a House number on it?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:58 pmimdw, did it originate in the house? You seem to be saying this bill’s present form didn’t, but something sharing a number or something did. I realize you aren’t serious.
Anyway, keep on trying to accomplish whatever it is you’re working 12 hours a day here to accomplish. Don’t let me interrupt you!
Now, I’m invested in the insurance companies who will profit from this ridiculous ‘reform’, and will happily sell out if this bill passes. But it won’t pass, and I’ll probably take a bath. And I’ll be happy to do so, because this is bad for the country that can’t even contemplate how it will afford the existing entitlements.
I don’t see what the left gets that’s worth all the lines it is crossing to get here. Unless they are just trying to create such a mess that we have to clean it up with an additional emergency reform (single payer).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/17/2010 @ 10:59 pmdustin – the Senate-passed bill appears to be called “H.R.3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate)” – which arrived in the Seenate from the House called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar in Senate) HR 3590 PCS ” – see here for the history of it …
Seems it got to the Senate, had it’s innards removed and replaced by healthcare bill – which was then sent back to the House as “H.R.3590
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)” – sorta poetic that even the Senate language describes it as engrossed …
So, subject to correction by a real and informed lawyer, I suspect that the HR 3590 tag isn’t sufficient – the text of the Bill should have to originate in the House (which ain’t true for *this* piece of Obama/Pelosi/Reid) …
Alasdair (205079) — 3/18/2010 @ 12:02 amI think the troll is right in this case. The bill started in the House and was passed there. It goes to the Senate where they amend the bill. There is no limit to how much they can change, remove or add. They are amending a house bill so it originated in the house. If the Senate passes it it goes back to the House where they should vote on it or amend it again. If the House changes it before voting on it then the Senate has to vote again. This is the problem, they are trying to avoid another Senate vote but the changes made by the Senate are not acceptable to many House members. Let the games begin.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/18/2010 @ 12:41 amGood grief. Is there any meaning behind the requirement that spending bills originate in the House, or not?
This isn’t the bill that originated in the House. “There is no limit to how much they can change….”
Apparently not, because this is a totally different bill that simply didn’t originate in the House, aside from the number.
I’m sure the GOP does this crap too. Or would if they needed to. But the requirement exists for a reason and should be honored, and it’s pretty stupid to call this usage compliant with that requirement. This is too clever by half.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/18/2010 @ 1:44 amOh, and Machinist, I wasn’t trying to condemn your view or anything. Though apparently I called you stupid, that’s not really what I meant to do. It’s simply long past time we stopped accepting these games. We have a system for passing laws and it’s not complicated. The reason to resort to these strange procedures and explanations is that the legislation is a bad idea and it’s hard to get even this congress to go along with it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/18/2010 @ 3:11 amIt’s interesting that so many people are learning about the real sausage factory. We had Civics classes in 8th grade where we passed bills and had committee meetings and learned all this stuff. We were kids so we weren’t cynical enough to amend a bill by substituting an entire new bill for the language but we did know how it works.
A journalist at the Chicago Tribune showed his colleagues the iconic photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima and asked them what event it was.
“While some instantly recognized the image, others couldn’t quite place it.
“‘I know I ought to know it,” one co-worker said. ‘It was in the movie, Flags of Our Fathers.’ Some, seeing uniforms, realized it must be a war photo. Maybe Vietnam? One got the era right but the battlefield wrong. She guessed it was D-Day, not, as it was, the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima.”
Grossman excuses many of his younger fellow journalists for not remembering an iconic scene from World War II. Indeed, the ignorance of the people at the Chicago Tribune seems an indictment of a school system that seems more interested in teaching self esteem than history, especially history that places the United States in a favorable light.
But as Grossman also points out, a journalist needs to know a little bit about history in order to do their jobs, to put events they are reporting on in context. World War II was one of the seminal events in the history of civilization. Indeed, world history can be said to be bifurcated between before World War II and after World War II.
That is where we are now. The educational system has created a nation ignorant of their own history. A woman commented that her fourth grade son knew all the PC heroes like Harriet Tubman and MLK but didn’t know George Washington or even FDR.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/18/2010 @ 3:30 am“Are you suggesting that after the House passed their bill the Senate took their language and adapted it or merely took the Senate committee work product and slapped a House number on it?”
I’m saying that the senate took a bill that originated in the house and then modified it and passed it.
“So, subject to correction by a real and informed lawyer, I suspect that the HR 3590 tag isn’t sufficient – the text of the Bill should have to originate in the House”
That would mean that the senate can’t change what the house says. That’s not quite what “originate” means. See for example, how the next clause in the constitution is “but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” So the senate can take a house bill and change it as it wishes, then pass it. Once both houses pass the same bill, it can become law.
imdw (de7003) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:18 am““‘I know I ought to know it,” one co-worker said. ‘It was in the movie, Flags of Our Fathers.’”
Interesting that they mixed it up with a staged image.
imdw (de7003) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:19 amVisualize our future Congress…
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/18/2010 @ 5:54 amHouse passes bill requiring all government workers have 4-day work week 10 hours per day.
Senate takes up bill and changes language to Capital Gains tax increases to 25%.
House creates reconciliation bill that includes language to deem Senate bill as passed.
All legal, correct?
(sorry, I realize this is off-topic… I digressed.)
future? tax changes are clearly the subject of reconciliation.
imdw (842182) — 3/18/2010 @ 5:59 am[…] abortion legislation Half-Baked Sourdough: Practicing To Do Evil Patterico’s Pontifications: Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
Bret Baier Summarizes POTUS Interview… Prez Doesn’t Care About “Process” — OK to “Deem and Pass” Health Care Bill (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/18/2010 @ 6:32 amDustin,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:02 amThat is how the system works. If you are correct then the Senate could not amend any bill from the House and that is just not so. The bill must start in the House if it includes spending but the Senate can change it. I think they almost always do. This is how earmarks get added to essential bills, amendments by Reps or Senators. There is currently no limit to the changes so they can in fact jack up the name and roll a new bill under it. If you want this changed then get it changed but this is how it works and has worked in the past. I have been called much worse than stupid, I won’t even argue that. The fact remains that the system works this way.
Of course I will defer to a proper lawyer or scholar if they point out I am wrong.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:03 am[…] Pontifications: “Deem and Pass”: Will the Courts Allow an Unconstitutional Action to Stand? and Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
Negative 20… Obama’s Prez Approval Index Still Terrible & Wolverines’ “One-Term President OTP” Music Video « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:48 am[…] Pontifications: “Deem and Pass”: Will the Courts Allow an Unconstitutional Action to Stand? and Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
Trouble in Nancy’s Kingdom: Pelosi’s Floor Whip Rep. Stephen Lynch Won’t Condone “Deem and Pass” Nor Vote for ObamaCare « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/18/2010 @ 8:35 am[…] Pontifications: “Deem and Pass”: Will the Courts Allow an Unconstitutional Action to Stand? and Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
“DemonPass Lambs-to-the-Slaughter” Bill Passed, 222 – 203… Call Congress Today « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/18/2010 @ 12:06 pm[…] Billion and “Deem and Pass”: Will the Courts Allow an Unconstitutional Action to Stand? and Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
High Noon for Patriots: ObamaCare Tea Party Rally Saturday in DC « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:36 am[…] Billion and “Deem and Pass”: Will the Courts Allow an Unconstitutional Action to Stand? and Losing the House Over Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and ObamaCare: Lazy […]
High Noon for Patriots: ObamaCare Tea Party Rally Saturday in DC « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:36 am