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.
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!
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.
Flashback: Obama, Reid Blasted Idea of Majority Rule in the Senate
Obama: "What I worry would be that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but that you simply have majoritarian absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the founders intended.”
Harry Reid: "The right to extend debate is never more important then when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."
Chris Dodd talked about bipartisanship: “We need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.”
Dianne Feinstein: "If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option, the Senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives, where the majority rules supreme, and the party in power can dominate, and control the agenda with absolute power."
Hillary Clinton: "You’ve got majority rule, and then you’ve got this Senate over here where people can slow things down, where they can debate, where they have something called the filibuster. You know, it seems like it’s a little less than efficient. Well, that’s right. It is. And deliberately designed to be so."
And Joe Biden: "I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE! Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.
Sen Scott Brown's number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED)
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Snip
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
And I'm sure had it been the other way around the WAPO would have duly pointed that out as well. [/sarcasm]