Posted on 02/26/2010 3:37:19 AM PST by tobyhill
That prospect has infuriated Republicans
and the American people
But, never for this.
The Washington Post conveniently leaves out all the important details.
I just wonder if they have the votes to pull it off. Maybe they do in the Senate. Most liberal senators don't seem to like the House bill.
In the House, they are all up for reelection. I suspect even the Democrats there like this overpaid and underworked life style. I wonder if Hoyer might be telling the granny, "If we change our bill, we no longer have the votes. If we had to pass the existing bill today we no longer have the votes."
I heard Bret Baier say this the other day on his broadcast, and posted the video. But here's a second source confirming that first the House must first approve the Christmas Eve Senate bill.
“That’s what elections are for” (President Obama”
The President has made the case, give us power and screw you, if you don’t like it, throw us out. Until then Obama could care less what Americans think, he is not one of us.
without canging a word.
If the Senate parlimentarian does not go along, watch him retire quietly a few months later.
I don’t think that this is the end of the world as has been suggested. I see the process like this:
1). Dems pass this plan.
2). America hates this plan.
3). Voters throw the Dems out and put GOP in.
4). GOP ends the plan.
5). GOP retains control and begins conservative reign.
Its all good. Unless the voters really like the plan, but polls say otherwise.
I keep seeing the new talking point: that Republicans have used it far more than democrats since 1980.
This is a perfect example of cherry picking the data (something these communists do with global warming too). Since Reagan took office in 1981, we’ve had 29 years. 9 of those years have been under democrat presidents, and 20 of them under Republican presidents. By my count the Republicans also had a slim majority in the senate for 18.5 (about 10.5 under Republican presidents) of those years, the democrats having the other 10.5 (most of it under Republican presidents, only three of those years were under democrat presidents).
Now how often do you think a party that has a slight majority is going to use this tactic when it won’t be signed by the president because he’s of a different party?
If we are to take this article as truth that 16 reconciliation bills were passed under Republican majorities (the other 6 presumably under democrat majorities), then democrats actually use the procedure more often as a proportion of how often it will likely be used:
3 years (democrats have had to use it) divided by 13.5 (total time that both parties have really had to use it) means they’ve had roughly 22% of the time to use it, but 6 (the number of times they’ve used it) divided by 22 (the total number of times it’s been used) means they’ve used it 27% of the time it’s been used.
It’s simple statistics - democrats use it more often than Republicans when they have the chance.
If Dems use reconciliation to pass this, the GOP should use it for repeal in January!
It will setup Obama's defeat in 2012.
See post 15
They cant pass the mandates and such with recon can they? Just the taxes?
I had a long talk yesterday with a very well-informed staffer in my Congressional rep’s Washington office. I was told me that reconciliation cannot be used for anything except budget issues. The staffer also said that James Clyburn, the Democratic vote counter in the House, has flatly admitted that there are not the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill.
Not for this type of comprehensive legislation, they haven't.
The filibuster was put into place to stop just this type of Bill that would radically alter America based on a single election.
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.