Posted on 03/02/2010 7:42:02 PM PST by GilGil
All they need is 51 votes in the Senate and 51 percent in the House. Procedure wise, the GOP back in 2003/5 were ready to use the Nuclear Option but McCain’s Mutiny stopped them. So, it can be done.
Will the Blue Dogs bite the hand that feeds them?
I am thinking Pelosi sees this as her ticket to be on the ticket, your opinion?
No, the House has to pass the Senate version FIRST, and then fix any problems that the House had with the Bill with Reconciliation.
And the reason the Senate version can't get passed in the House is the abortion funding issue-which Reconciliation will not address.
No, they can actually pass them in which ever order they like, so long as Obama signs the original legislation first. In other words, they can work out all the problems - in theory - and then have the House pass the original Senate bill. Then, both the Original Senate bill, and the Reconciliation Bill would be sent to Obama for his signature. It's kind of a dirty legislative trick.
No, the Senate version has to be passed first and that is why the House is scheduling a vote on it.
If there are any changes made in the Senate Bill before the House votes on it, it would have to go back to the Senate and be redone.
The Reconciliation Bill would only be a promise to fix concerns House Democrats had with the Bill.
The Democrats plan to pass the Senate version in the House with the promise that it will be fixed in Reconciliation.
Sen. Kent Conrad, who is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (which is responsible for reconciliation if they go that route) said the following:
“…reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform.
All i can say is that you guys posting are the democrats’ best friend. You all know as the top experts why nothing is going to stop reconciliation, but none of your expertise can suggest how to succeed.
Who needs you!
Very true, but Obama doesn't care. Suppose the parliamentarian rules that the cadillac change busts the budget, but Biden overrules. Can a VP be impeached for such an act, which seems illegal?
No, they don't. So long as the President signs the original bill first, theirs no conditions about what legislation has to be passed first. They'll pass Reconciliation in both Houses of Congress and hold it from the President (they can hold a bill for a year before it expires), then they'll pass the original Senate bill in the House.
There are two pieces of legislation - the Original Senate Bill, which must be passed without alteration in the House. And, the Reconciliation Bill that will contain any number of provisions that modify the original Senate bill. This Reconciliation Bill does not have to be passed first, just signed first. So, in theory and if they have the votes anymore, both Houses of Congress will pass the Reconciliation Bill, then the House will pass the original Senate bill, and then both pieces of legislation would then be sent to the President for his signature. This is fine, so long as he signs the original Senate bill before he signs the Reconciliation Bill.
He did. Then, the very next day he completely walked back that statement....
Kent Conrad Rips Media: Yes, We Can Do Reform Via Reconciliation
To replace Biden, you mean? Obama is stupid, he's not that stupid. I don't think.
I read an interview with the parliamentarian that Trent Lott fired back in 2001. He said, essentially, that we're in uncharted waters. The reporter was trying to get him to answer a bunch of hypotheticals, but he said it's really impossible to predict with any certainty what will happen because this Obamacare is so far removed from what the intended purposes of Reconciliation were.
I've noticed that his words have been cherry-picked by both the left and the right, each saying that this guy supports their position. He really doesn't
With respect to Biden's impeachment, it's an interesting question. The Reconciliation process is codified in law as is the so-called Byrd Rule (2 U.S.C. § 644). Having said that, the law refers to Congressional rules, which can be changed at anytime, so it becomes confusing. Furthermore, you'd actually have to find enough votes to impeach in the House, and that unlikely even if the GOP takes back the House in the fall.
Thanks.
Here is another question.
The senate Obamacare bill has not yet passed the house, and therefore could theoretically go though the bicameral conference committee.
Question: So if a reconciliation bill went to the senate and Rs objected, how could the parliamentarian rule on changes to a law which could still change in conference?
So I would argue that ramming reconciliation through the senate first is completely irrational, but what do I know?
Make no mistake, I never said it was rational. In fact, I think that it clearly violates the spirit of the Reconciliation process, but given loopholes in the language, it's probably allowable.
Yeah, I guess it's not really illegal, but shamelessly overruling the parliamentarian seems to me far more despicable than the Lewinsky affair.
"...the bill the House would have to approve first would still include all of the egregious deals struck with individual Senators to buy their votes for passage in December. The special Medicaid arrangement for Nebraska. The exemption of Florida seniors from the Medicare Advantage cuts. The $300 million for Louisiana. Those, and many others, are all in the Senate-passed bill that Speaker Pelosi will be trying to sell in coming days.
Of course, the Speaker will tell these members, don’t worry, the reconciliation bill will fix all these problems. But will it?
If anything, what the president is now pushing, and will presumably push again tomorrow, would make the Senate bill even more expensive, by upping the premium subsidies, closing the Medicare “donut hole,” and giving all states the same deal as Nebraska. These added costs would be paid for with an entirely new Medicare payroll tax, applied toinvestment earnings. In other words, just days after voting for a highly controversial, trillion-dollar health-care bill, House Democrats would be asked to vote for a reconciliation bill that taxes and spends even more. And then that measure would go to the Senate, where there are never any guarantees that something will emerge unscathed."
IOW, nothing in the Senate bill can be changed by the House -- it's an up or down vote on the Senate bill, and they'll have to pray that the Senate makes acceptable changes through a hinky reconciliation process. It's already been decided that Stupak's abortion amendment can't be added through reconciliation, so instead the Dems simply say that the Senate bill doesn't fund abortions, and the media will pass along the lie.
That's absolutely right, the House can't change a single comma in the original Senate bill. But, there's a school of thought that says - despite what NRO explains - the House has to pass the original Senate bill first. There's the possibility that the House and the Senate could pass the Reconciliation bill, then the House passes the original Senate bill. From Roll Call, just yesterday...
"“We could pass the reconciliation first, have the reconciliation passed by the Senate and then pass the Senate bill,” Hoyer said. From there, he said, the president would have to sign the Senate bill first and then the reconciliation package."
My personal opinion is if they go off the cliff, this is the cliff that they'll choose.
And someone on Slate was reporting that the House would have to pass the Senate bill, then pass Obama's "reconciliation" fiasco, then it goes to the Senate, or something. (I stopped reading when the author called the Catholic Bishops "liars" for saying the Senate bills allows abortions.)
The fact that there's so many opinions on how this trainwreck will happen is a sure sign of just how out-of-control the radical left, in the WH and on Capitol Hill, is.
Opinions are plentiful, to be sure. It's tough to distinguish what's legitimate opinion, and who's "push-polling". I found an interesting, and upsetting clip on MSNBC that seems like it from the last several days. It's an interview with the former Senate Parliamentarian, a guy named Robert Dove, who was fired by Trent Lott about 10 years ago, and replaced with his assistant, the current Senate Parliamentarian.
Until this interview, I was under the impression - and I had spent considerable time reading the rules - that Biden, as President of the Senate could move to overrule the Parliamentarian. But, dove points out - and I suppose he'd know for sure - that Biden can overrule him unilaterally. And, if the GOP wants to overrule Biden, it then takes 60 votes.
This is bad. Essentially, whatever the Parliamentarian strips out, Biden can put back in with a simple ruling. Up until a week ago, I really thought Obamacare was dead. Now, I'm not so sure.
I've read that elsewhere. Most pundits are saying the Senate reconciliation is a done deal. It's the House vote on the Senate bill ("up or down" as Obama said), that's the key.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.