The irony of “reconciliation”
posted at 9:30 am on August 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the budget reconciliation process as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats will “go it alone,” the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous. And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
In fact, the article never mentions the word “reconciliation,” the process by which the Senate approves a budget for the federal government. Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget. Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws. First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary. No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy. They’re likely to get denied before they even get started.
However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year. Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent. Bill-reading is just one example. One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee. For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.
Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace. If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date. It won’t take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.
Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they’re breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation. It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we’ve seen in the townhalls thus far. They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House. They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade. Even budgeting will prove very difficult.
There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Absolutely. I’m pretty sure both versions of the bill work to decrease unnecessary tests as well as healthcare fraud which accounts for 200 billion dollars a year. Again, why weren’t these issues raised by townhall protestors. I don’t believe its because Americans aren’t smart enough to have a normal conversastion about the direction of healthcare. I appreciate the strong defense of people’s right to protest and I think there have been some unfair mischaracterizations of the protests, but there’s no question that the real targets of these protests are not the ineffeciencies in our healthcare system, it’s Obama. And it’s just people who want to have the 2008 election over again.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Oh! We’ve put 2 and 2 together and come to the correct conclusion that you are one of those slackers that got hired on by the filthy liar’s people to spew propaganda at $15.00 an hour. Your treason is what is harming America.
highhopes on August 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Oh Badger here’s the CBO report I mentioned
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Indeed….Social Security has been defacto part of the general fund since inception, it has been overtly part of the general fund since LBJ, it will eat the general fund in 2-15 years.
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Lol. Yeah, ‘un-break’ would be a better term, since government regulations are what require all the routine stuff to be covered.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Don’t worry, they’re not even close to that. They are currently at 3.3%.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
But moreover, a much larger point needs to be addressed. There does not exist a profit margin under any circumstance as being “too much.” It is precisely that altruistic collectivist crap that gets us into trouble in the first place.
And besides, who are we to anoint this arbiter of acceptable profit margins? What would/should that number be? Why?
anuts on August 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM
As far as I can tell Harry Reid has not once demonstrated in his life he has testicles. Whatever you think of reconcilliation, it’s a move that requires balls.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM
McCain would have been a mild disaster. President Obama is both a major disaster and the best thing to happen to grassroots activism in modern American history.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Is this politically feasible?
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM
sweet. If they are this suicidal and this in denial about what the public does and does not want, since the GOP surely has seen the writing on the wall and heard it in townhalls, we DO NOT WANT this dopey plan, so I hope to see strong GOP parliamentary tactics as Ed describes here..
It will IMO increase GOPs popularity, standing up to the steamroller of Team TOTUS who are ramming this down the public’s throat and palnning to ration our Senior care!!!
yummy,.
ginaswo on August 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I agree with nearly everyone else here: You’re whistling past the graveyard, Ed. Reid knows he has only another year in the Senate, and he’s a desperate fanatic.
regarding “crankyindependent”, remember that all Leftoids speak in code: “prgressive” means socialist; ‘independent’ means, “I don’t want you to know I’m a Leftoid”, ‘partisan’ means….. nothing, really, as they toss the word around as generic insult
a Thread Hijacker is a Thread Hijacker………
Janos Hunyadi on August 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You can be progressive and not vote for either political party [not ever?], making you a political independent.
Progressivism is socialism, and enjoyed party identification until the progressives tired of their self styled independence and hijacked the Democrat Party mid FDR with WWII. Ike had been a Democrat, but rejected that party’s ticket, assuming the GOP instead. (That explains a lot about Ike’s presidential legacy.)
You can’t be a progressive socialist and claim that is “independent” just because you claim to not vote.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Better than the CRM, the women’s movement, the labor movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the HIV-AIDS movement and the most recent anti-war, pro-immigration rights movements. If you’re position is “grassroots organizing good” then these protests are just the latest in a string of Americans organizing. If you’re position is “only conservative minded grassroots organizng good” well I guess you have a point.
My point though, remains. Instead of asking protestors what they DO want in terms of healthcare reform the MSM has either lionized them (FOX) demonized them (MSNBC) or been waffly and sort of “what does it all mean” (CNN). But don’t get me started on the ridiculousness of television “news.”
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Well he did try to strangle Jack Gordon.
Since then….no evidence of a package located.
Limerick on August 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM
crankyindependent-
I like the Wyden Bennett plan as the least of all evils with the zero budget deficit impact by 2014 and actually insure the uninsured…
here is an independent evaluation of Wyden-Bennett, it does allow individuals to purchase as a group and it addresses the differential in tax treatment also…
Every time a DEM talking head says the GOP has no plan they should shove Wyden Bennett at them…
ginaswo on August 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Call me crazy, but doesn’t every poll result include a catagory of voters who are “independent” indicating they are not formally affiliated with either party? Now sure, a lot of those votes end up voting for the Republicrats, but some (like myself) don’t. When I say “independent” I mean to signal that I think the two party system is the greatest threat to our countries future. I 100% do not support Democrats, not sure what else I can say about it.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Good news, sven. You coined a new word: Ogabenomics (at least according to Google)
I know – too much time on my hands.
VibrioCocci on August 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Sadly, I don’t believe so. McCain tried to propose something similar with his refundable tax credit and got roasted.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM
janos
I was actually hearing that Whistle a Happy Tune, when Im afraid song in my head thinking of Harry anf the DEMS trying to push this thru myself :)
ginaswo on August 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Every cloud has a silver lining, thanks for the optimism.
And with that, adieu.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM
To be fair, McCain was only able to sell his support for the military and his hatred of earmarks. His healthcare plan was decent and would have been a winner with a better spokesman.
myrenovations on August 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Yes! Nate Silver tipped me off to Wyden-Bennet this summer and it is by far my favorite version of healthcare reform. And it will never pass because, as Nate points out, its the least lobbyist driven option. Seriously people we have corporate governance not representatives.
Know who else never talks about Wyden-Bennet. The MSM and this incldues Fox.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
wow….had no idea….
Ogabe is named thus because he seems to ape Mugabe on “real owners”….
seemed natural…
feel free to run with it and spread it….
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
An independent does not assume identification with any particular political stance, particularly not socialism that destroys all independence.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM
From your fingers to God’s monitor, Ed.
JohnGalt23 on August 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I used it back in may to describe why China laughed at Timmy Turbotax….
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 11:49 AM
A Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario.
Please do!
PattyJ on August 19, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Like I said, I fear for our country. Seeimingly intelligent people are arguing that by having a core set of principles that you believe in so strongly that you won’t associate with one of the two national political parties, neither of which have adhered to a principle beyond their own self interest in their entire existing, means you can’t be an “independent.” Having a strongly held political ideology means you HAVE to be an independent as both parties have no such thing.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM
My mom’s a finance professor and thought McCain’s plan was great. But you’re right that he was terrible at articulating his plans and principles.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I maybe a moderate fits that description, but independents can be leftist but not consider themselves Democrats.
I lean right on almost every single issue, but have never registered as a Republican and likely never will. I don’t even donate to Republicans. That could make me an independant, thought I generally just call myself a conservative or libertarian.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:56 AM
All of the threads this morning have been hijacked by three trolls. Come on guys, ignore these idiots.
d1carter on August 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Latest info from Rasmussen, elduende: Just 34% of voters nationwide support the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if the so-called “public option” is removed. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn’t include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM
d1carter, we are not trolls.
Here’s what a troll is per Wikpedia: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You just disagree what we’re saying. That doesn’t make us trolls.
Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM
How did you know that I was referring to you?
d1carter on August 19, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Ironically, Obama is now worse at articulating his plans and “principles” than McCain was: tonsils, allergies, blue pill, red pill, doctors getting 30K for cutting off your foot. (!)
And I’m not sure Harry Reid isn’t stupid enough to try reconciliation. I can smell Democratic desperation from here, even through my shield of protective conservatism.
I say let the Dems try it. Let the “party of no” take that NO all the way.
Sometimes NO is the right and moral thing to say, and do.
Grace_is_sufficient on August 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM
These polling numbers are huge and confirm that the right wing characterization of the debate has been pretty far off base. For once, it seems, people are aware of the legislative process this time. They are watching Democrats not fulfill on campaign promises of transparency and lobbyist influence and saying “hold up.” They don’t support another corporate giveaway. They want REAL healthcare reform and quite a few want the public option. At the very least the public option is not the most unpopular aspect of the bill, it’s the MANDATE which is a industry giveaway. C’mon conservatives get it together and oppose corporate governance for once.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:06 PM
We oppose both. But the public ‘option’ is the bigger long term threat to the nation’s fiscal stability and individual freedom.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM
so the people who have a problem with Ogabecare are simultaneously idiots whipped into a frenzy by hate radio, and “well aware of the legislative process”….?
No whhat is being displayed in the polls is that….
roughly 60% think cost is a huge problem
roughly 50-55% favor doing “something”
the lunatic fringe on the left will walk away if they don’t get their government cheese/free aids care
roughly 70% are not in favor of increasing taxes to cover “EVERYONE!”
etc etc
at best for you nutters is the prospect that your lunatic fringe is bluffing
allow them to blacmail you into keep Government Cheese and you’ll wind up alienating the indys and lib GOPers who crossed over to make that 52.1%
“rope and chains”
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Stop hijacking threads troll.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Are those two choices the only ones? You seem to have left out the most obvious possibility, that the protesters are protesting proposed new laws on the grounds that they’re unconstitutional and ruinous. And they’re protesting against the legislators and executive who favor the proposed new laws, on grounds of bad judgment and worse. Your remark about the protesters wishing they could have the 2008 election over again is probably true, in a way, but also irrelevant. Do not bother to reply without acknowledging your obvious false alternative and red herring.
Kralizec on August 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM
If we don’t throw him the ball he can’t play in the game.
thomasaur on August 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I see your point but I think they would be content to load up the screen with talking points in any case.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Have you got that link regarding the “huge profits” yet…or are you still dodging that challenge?
For 3 hours we have been trying to get you to own up to your statement…or state that you were wrong.
It is part of being a responsible poster…to be as accurate as possible.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM
You and your strawmen. I never said they were idiots, I said they haven’t added anything to a discussion/debate about how to approach healthcare reform. They simply want to STOP! And that does put them in the minority even within Rassy polls.
Wouldn’t it be great if Rasmussen then polled various cost control options. He doesn’t of course.
I suspect even more than that favor reform.
70% oppose raising the top marginal tax rates? I doubt that, every other pollster shows that’s not an unpopular notion these days. Considering the downright frightening median income numbers we’re producing that shouldn’t surprise anyone. And no plan would actually cover “everyone.” Strawmen polls are not helpful.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM
You are correct, lets cut this guy loose…he is a liar.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM
So you’re an independent socialist ‘progressive’. I get it, I’m sure others do as well.
I’d love to invite you to spend some time with me in China so I can show you how they’re finally starting to dig their way out of the incredible damage ‘progressives’ did. Unfortunately some of the damage is unrepairable, but they’re finally moving forward by ditching as much of socialism as fast as they can.
DarkCurrent on August 19, 2009 at 12:17 PM
He owned up to being wrong on that already.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 12:17 PM
You can continue to ignore all my other points if you’d like, but I addressed this issue and I’ll say it again, I repeated a factoid I heard and hadn’t investigated. I was wrong.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM
They’re like the kid on the sidelines who keeps yelling “throw it to me”. If we throw it to those who contribute to the discussion then ‘sideline boy’ just gives hits to the site.
thomasaur on August 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I favor major reform, but in the complete opposite direction as President Obama (what I favor would actually preserve quality while lowering costs).
The polls aren’t really distinguishing that too well right now either.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Somebody have the orchestra play Götterdämmerung.
MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM
No they aren’t. But the polling agencies these days are essentially arms of the parties/media. Why won’t Scott Rasmussen go on any show outside of Fox? When will someone at Research 2000 appear on Fox? I appreciate Nate Silvers work in breaking down polls comparatively, as I think it’s the only way to really learn anything from them.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Furtwangler version!
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Indeed I was as vague as the pollsters are being….
I favor “doing something” like ending price controls and federal intrusion on my healthcare options….
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I’m not a revolutionary socialist…so any trip I take to Chiina would purely be about food (yum!) and history. Socialism exists in degrees. We have socialist aspects of this country that most Americans do not support dismantling, this does not mean they want a Maoist revolution. Again with the strawmen…..
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Boma is what the Great Nation needs to take back our government. We have finally been stuck with such a jerk even some lefties are un comfortable. Wally Hickle (former Gov of Alaska)was right,”it will be interesting to see what happens when the willing won’t”.
Go John Gault.
Col.John Wm. Reed on August 19, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Ragnarökkr version!
MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I disagree.
While the PO is indeed a threat to our fiscal stability, the individual mandate is a watershed in the declining relationship between government and free men. With the individual mandate, our government is now saying that in order to be a citizen/resident of this nation, you must participate in this program. Nothing we have done in our history, save for perhaps the draft, has made that requirement. You are not required to vote. You are only required to pay an income tax if you have a certain level of income; likewise with Social Security (although there the level of income is anything >0).
But with the individual mandate, everyone is required to participate, whether they want to or not. Taking the risk of going uninsured is simply not an option. That is, IMHO, an assault on freedom.
JohnGalt23 on August 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Your screen name tells me I would probably disagree with you on everything, but +100 on that post. It’s really, really not a good idea.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM
CrankyIndependent is making his case, and withstanding the blows. Just because he disagrees with most all of us here doesn’t make him a troll.
We all benefit from deeper discussion, and also from addressing his points. Sharpens the saw.
I’m not buying his point about “corporate governance” yet, but it’s worth considering. Mostly, I’m not convinced it’s a bad thing. Needs to be more open & transparent, but the business of America is business.
connertown on August 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM
LOL!
The Fabian socialists think that by obfuscating and lying they are convincing people to turn over their freedom.
Just heard new quinnipiac poll out today is showing 60% oppose Congressional “reform” effort. Waterloo.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM
So you trust Congress and Obama to give you the world.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Well put. I may need to limit my previous statement to fiscal stability only.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Another troll. Moby.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Dude….you are intense, chill out.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, haven’t had time to go through the four pages of threads, so someone has undoubtedly said this, but it bears repeating:
If Harry Reid is foolish enough to target an individual citizen from the Senate floor, and try to silence him (Rush, who turned it into a $4M charity donation to our military),
and if he is foolish enough to declare the war in Iraq was lost when our troops are still over there fighting,
and if he is foolish enough to call the tea partiers (individual Americans fighting for their lives) evil, hate-mongers,
then he is certainly foolish enough to try this.
Christian Conservative on August 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Stop hijacking threads. Or you’ll get banned.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:43 PM
He has never disappointed us before….
BobMbx on August 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM
We’re kind of off topic, so bringing up the actual post is probably good.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I don’t do escalating flamewars so I’m out for a bit after this. But one of us has been having a pretty rigorous debate about the shape healthcare reform should take. And one of us has been paranoidly as all hell, calling anyone who doesn’t fall lock-step with his views a troll. Who’s highjacking what now?
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM
You have been hijacking threads for 3 days. When you are challenged you either ignore or flee. I have been here for 3 years. People can judge for themselves. Troll.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Say, have the Congresscritters even passed the budget yet?
Because, if they don’t get that all squared away, then 01 OCT starts to come up reallllyyyyy fast. Hate to see the government shut down for weeks because of some asinine health care bill that is supposed to make everything so nice… and just what does happen if there was a health care bill and no budget passed? Just who shows up for work when there’s no pay coming? I know DoD does, but then it really has to. Did HHS show up during the last shutdown? The IRS? Dept. of Education? Somehow the idea of health care on minimum or zero staff just doesn’t work out too well…
So lets get the House and Senate gummed up with Obamacare and cap’n'tax and all the other Leftist goodies.
We don’t need a federal budget.
Really!
ajacksonian on August 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Well, aside from healthcare continuing its high-tech rise, which increases cost, you have to keep in mind where the “baby boomers” are. As the average age of the population increases, the average cost of healthcare increases, so the cost of health insurance increases. Its cheaper for me to add my four kids to my health insurance plan than my wife.
taznar on August 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Who the hell are you?
I’ve been following Ed since Captains Quarters.
So STFU.
connertown on August 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Sorry I thought you were one of the multiple trolls that came in here recently. I apologize.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Time for a Jefferson Smith (Mr Smith Goes to Washington).
coyoterex on August 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Your very soul will belong to us, vassal!
DasObamaReich on August 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every step you take
Obama wants to be controlling you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every night you stay
Obama wants to be controlling you
Oh, cant you see
He wants you to belong to the collective Obama sheeple we
To control all your life how his heart does ache
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every dollar you make
Every claim you stake
Obama wants to be controlling you
MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM
never underestimate the stupidity of harry reid. I doubt he’ll do this, but dont’ say he’s not that dumb. He very well could be. i wouldn’t take a bet on it.
WashingtonsWake on August 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM
what’s to keep the Democrats from changing unanimous consent and other parliamentary rules that get in their way?
jnelchef on August 19, 2009 at 1:10 PM
The far left believes that this is their moment and they are seizing it. We tend to think in terms of politics; they think in terms of ideology. They think they have a mandate from “the people” and they are going to run with it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Laura in Maryland on August 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Hijacking threads. Changing the subject. Marching orders since last Thursday.
Yoop on August 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I think we would have been worse off if McCain had been elected because not only would he have done many of the things that Obama wants, but then the Democrats could point to the Republicans when it failed and say “Your party did this.” We need to get an Honest Politician with Conservative principals into office, not another Democrat lite.
SGinNC on August 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM
yep. its classic agitation. very disruptive.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Andrea Mitchel – NBC – “55% still believe the myth that the government will take over healthcare”
1. LMAO – and they can claim with a straight face that they’re not biased!!!
2. Andrea – This is not a statement of fact – it happens to be a PREDICTION – perhaps you can’t tell the difference. You cannot DISPROVE a prediction until afterwards. What you can address is whether or not this is a reasonable prediction. Would you like to discuss whether or not govt programs are likely to grow way beyond their original intent?
happi on August 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish
Yes he is. They will do it, and then dare the Republicans to stop up the works. If the Repubs, do it, the Dems will then lash out and scream to the American public that the Repubs, are un-American for not letting the process of government work.
Trust me… they will ALWAYS use the blame game. It is their best weapon.
The Dead Terrorist on August 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I agree.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM
That’s only half important.
The other half is this: is Obama that crazy? That is: is he crazy enough to consider it.
Will Rahm Emmanuel be twisting Harry’s arm?
Chaz706 on August 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Not sure I see the problem in bringing the, or at least this, Congress to a halt.
You mean Harry “our tax system is voluntary,” evil mongering Reid? I think he probably is this foolish actually.
gonegaltinstl on August 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM
+1 and worth remembering in 2012.
gonegaltinstl on August 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I really believe he is crazy and deluded enough to use this to get this bill passed.
This whole bill is a threat to our financial future and freedom. By attempting to take over 1/6th of our economy, they are in violation of Article 4, section 4 of the US constitution.
Which basically states that the US government will remain and guarentee to the states a republican (not socialist or facist) form of government. There is no doubt that nationalizing 1/6th of the US economy is of socialistic/progressive intent and thus in violation of this guarentee to the states.
The individual mandate violates the the 10th amendment as the government can not mandate (they have no provision in the constitution giving them the authority) participation in an unconstitutional healthcare program.
The fact that abortions are not excluded (and considered supported by some democrats) is in violation of the 1st amendment
that protects churchs from governmental rule by violating the free practice clause (by forcing people to either choose to worship as they see fit or follow federal law by paying their taxes, which are used to fund abortions. This would be enough (IMO) to provoke the conscientious objector clause.
And where is the tort reform in the bill? Where is the analysis of costs? Where is the government showing the cost THEY’VE caused by unnecessary and expensive regulations? How about where they are even justified by the constitution the right to even bring this legislation to the floor (which we won’t see, because they do not have it, nor did they with medicare and social security for that matter)
This bill is not and never has been about health care reform (something I do support, btw) and is more about the direct and permanent control of the American people. That is something that I will not, nor will I ever support.
I’m sure i could get more things to write on with this particular piece of legislation if the dang bill didn’t keep crashing my computer everytime I try to open it. Plus, this wall of text is getting long as it is.
TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
No, but Rham is, in order to protect the fragile ego of THE ONE.
GarandFan on August 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Oh, I’m not so sure about that. It seems as if so many in control of Congress have lost their sense of reason. Consistently calling average american citizens extremists, mob members, un-american, crazy, stupid, etc…they have already shown a complete disconnect from reality. I truly believe that Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Shumer, Hoyer and the like believe they are on some crusade. They live 100% inside the echo chamber and have no idea that they are chasing windmills.
MississippiMom on August 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
The more they see the whole scheme collapsing, the more desperate they will be to get it done now. It’s now or never and they know it.
darwin-t on August 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Actually…it doesn’t state that at all. The protection of states rights in Article 4, Section 4 refers to the federal responsibility to protect states from foreign invasion or from cooption by foreign power. In terms of economics this was particularly important for southern/mid-atlantic states that exported staple goods internationally and could become overly subject to the will of foreign markets. But it’s not a “negative” right in that it does not restrict federal management of economic processes. There may be constitutional prohibitions on that, but not the section you quoted.
Yowza and they say that liberals are the revisionists. Barring the federal government from participating in abortion, a practice that is legal and only sinful in the minds of most (but not all) Christians WOULD be “establishing” a religion, because it would be setting a limit on what the state can do that’s rooted in one religious belief. Not what the founders wanted. If you recall, the problem many of the founders had with the Church of England is because the will of the Church and the King could not be seperated. All the King did was sanctified by the church, all the church did was sanctified by royal authority. Our founders, particularly those that hailed from Northern areas, were none too keen on the notion. They believed in the idea of “render unto Ceasaer” which is biblical justification for the seperation of church and state. The state CAN constitutionally, participate in activities that run counter to church dogma. That’s what the establishment clause is meant to protect.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »