Replies

I don't see the legal reason why Obama can't simply sign the Senate bill, as written, after the House approves it.

You are correct: once both houses pass the same bill, the president can sign it and it becomes law.

That's why many in the House insist that the Senate go first. It is doubtful that there are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill as written, without iron-clad guarantees that certain changes will be made by the Senate afterward. The proposal is to use reconciliation to pass the changes, but there are two reasons that can't be done. First, one of the big changes involves the Stupak amendments guaranteeing that the legislation does not cover abortion. That's not in the Senate bill. Nor is it a "budget" issue, meaning it can't be the subject of reconciliation. So Stupak and his allies have no reason to believe that their concerns will be addressed. They are therefore likely to vote 'no' unless the Senate goes first and adopts serious anti-abortion language.

Secondly, although reconciliation only requires 51 votes to pass the bill, the process allows for an infinite number of amendments. Each of those also requires 51 votes. By throwing one amendment after another into the gears, the Republicans can tie the Senate in knots through November. The only way to halt the amendments is with — wait for it — 60 votes.

This article, and others like it, are a circus act designed to pacify the Donks' base. They can't pass this thing and they know it. But they're gonna 'try' a whole bunch, and then blame the Republicans when it doesn't pass.

It's over, folks. We dodged the bullet again. No president will try this again for another 20 years.

By throwing one amendment after another into the gears, the Republicans can tie the Senate in knots through November. The only way to halt the amendments is with — wait for it — 60 votes....This article, and others like it, are a circus act designed to pacify the Donks' base. They can't pass this thing and they know it. But they're gonna 'try' a whole bunch, and then blame the Republicans when it doesn't pass.... It's over, folks. We dodged the bullet again. No president will try this again for another 20 years.

Well that does clear things up doesn't it....thanks..will ponder this as the dems. take their fall.

It's over, folks. We dodged the bullet again. No president will try this again for another 20 years.

I hope you are right. This assumes that the Republicans will use the parliamentary tactics that are available to them.

If the Republicans actually do stop it, then they should beat the Dems to the punch and take credit for stopping this monstrosity. Trumpet it at every opportunity. Run ads claiming they saved us from a socialist takeover. And run like hell with it in the fall campaigns. Even if it doesn't pass, we can still beat the Dems over the head with it; it is still a winning campaign topic.

I would like to believe you, and you make a convincing argument, but for two things:

1) Pelousi is clearly offering after-election lifetime appointments in the 250k+ region to bribe some people to go ahead and ‘die’. That’s the Congress.

2) The procedure on the Nuclear Reconciliation Option is as follows: The parlimentarian rules that the rule may not be used for this thing or that thing, and he will, since he is non-partisan. The Vice President can overrule, and he will. Then it takes a 51 vote to overrule the VP, and they won’t. And that’s the Senate.

So at that point, ALL bets are off.

Including Cap-And-Trade, and Amnesty.

So Stupak and his allies have no reason to believe that their concerns will be addressed. They are therefore likely to vote 'no' unless the Senate goes first and adopts serious anti-abortion language.

My fear is that Nancy and Rahm will give Stupak & Co. the plata y plomo ('silver or lead') choice ... they either take the bribe to sign on, or 'something' will happen to them or their families.

That is precisely why I think this is a massive bait and switch. They are spending so much time speaking about Reconciliation and some new and improved White House plan (which, incidentially, in only meaningful once the Senate bill is approved in the House as is) - no one is thinking about the risk of the President simply signing the existing legislation. Think about it - the Dems in the Senate will be happy (its their bill). Liberal Dems in the House will be happy. Only a few moderates and Stupak types will be unhappy, but get over it (after all, they are all out of jobs by January anyways).

The whole focus of Polosi and the White House (IMHO) is to convince the few holdouts to vote for the Senate version in the House and that it will be fixed to their liking in the Senate via Reconciliation. Oh, they will make a good show to try to cobble something together acceptable for Reconciliation, but when time runs out, the White House will say its back is against the wall and it either signs the Senate bill or nothing. He will sign it.

I further think this talk about tort reform and buying insurance across state lines is also a fake - again, only relevant in Reconciliation - which isn’t going to happen. Introducing these very amendments might be just the thing to make sure Reconciliation becomes impossible.

They’ll promise to fix the abortion issue and a few other Blue Dog issues, but never get around to it.

Reconciliation is a red herring. Focus on the fact two bills have been passed and only need a Presidential signature to become law.

God help us all.