McCain: Reconciliation would be “cataclysmic”

posted at 1:36 pm on February 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain made a pretty good appearance on Good Morning America while being challenged by George Stephanopoulos on policy. He warned of the “cataclysmic” consequences of pursuing ObamaCare through reconciliation, a very clear signal to Harry Reid that Republicans plan to fight it every step of the way. But even putting aside process, McCain reinforces the points made yesterday by himself and his colleagues about the fantasy mathematics employed by Democrats in pushing their bill, calling it “Bernie Madoff accounting” (via Instapundit):

President Obama’s health care summit was a good opportunity for Americans to consider the contentious issue, but passing a Senate bill with 51 votes in what’s called budget reconciliation would have “cataclysmic effects,” Arizona Sen. John McCain said.

“Here they are with a program that’s another $2.5 trillion cost to the taxpayers,” the former GOP presidential candidate told “Good Morning America’s” George Stephanopoulos today. “We are ready to work on a number of issues with the president but we want to do it step by step.”

“We don’t want the budget gimmickry that gives you six years of benefits for 10 years in taxes. I mean, that’s crazy. That’s Bernie Madoff accounting,” he said.

Obama’s bill, released Monday, is estimated by the White House to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, but Republicans say that number is a lowball and that costs over time will be considerably higher.

As he did in yesterday’s summit, McCain stressed the “unsavory” nature of the deals made by Obama and the Democrats in Congress. He missed the opportunity to hammer Obama on the backroom deal made with unions to exempt their benefit plans from the so-called “Cadillac plan” tax, perhaps because Obama defused that somewhat by exempting everyone from that tax untilk 2018. Otherwise, this is a solid performance by McCain.

The gleeful Senator says he’d love to have a series of these summits at the end of the interview. Somehow, I don’t think Obama is that foolish.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Does Obamacare cover EVERYONE?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Does Obama care cover MORE than the current system is the question most people will be asking.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Sure. But why invite it.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM

You either believe in something, or you don’t. If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Hand over as you need. Do what you need.

I’ll take up a fight when one is forced on me. If I die, so what?

Let there be war in my time, that my child have peace.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

No. Just added emphasis on my part. Questioning motivations doesn’t get you far. It just agitates a lot of people that don’t already agree with you. Not a minority position to take.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM

And yet your ‘added emphasis’ does exactly that – questioning motives (of ‘Rome’ in particular, and apparently countless politicians from all of time). Do we need to wait 2,000 years to question the motives of guys who openly break our laws (taxes, etc), advocate for new laws that they intend to exclude themselves from, etc?

I’m comfortable questioning their motives now, thanks. ;)

On a side note, what do you mean by ‘not a minority position to take’?

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Is there any real doubt that ObamaCare will do (2)?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Does Obamacare cover EVERYONE?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

–It doesn’t need to in order to “reduce” the un- or under-employed.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Does Obama care cover MORE than the current system is the question most people will be asking.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

That’s not what Obow offered. He said “everyone”. And he can’t deliver. Don’t even TRY that ploy with me.

12 million will NOT be covered under Obow. How do you want to reconcile that?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM

McCain’s new contract: I will not try to be a Democrat, I will not try to act like my wife and my daughter, I will not hang around Lindsey Graham, and I will support the views of the American people.

mobydutch on February 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM

–It doesn’t need to in order to “reduce” the un- or under-employed.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM

No, sorry. O’s plan was to cover EVERYONE, remember?

O’s plan is no better than what exists now, and you know it.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM

That’s not what Obow offered. He said “everyone”. And he can’t deliver. Don’t even TRY that ploy with me.

12 million will NOT be covered under Obow. How do you want to reconcile that?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I’m not attempting to reconcile that. I’m just saying what I think will be the common response. It’s that many many more people will be covered. And isn’t 12 million about the number of illegal immigrants in the country? People probably will be satisfied with it covering MORE rather than EVERYONE.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM

You either believe in something, or you don’t. If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Hand over as you need. Do what you need.

I’ll take up a fight when one is forced on me. If I die, so what?

Let there be war in my time, that my child have peace.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

That’s fine. But why bring the fight to the workplace? (Where it arguably doesn’t belong if people are actually busy doing their jobs instead of jawing about politics.) Is there to be no place that people are not pulled into political tug-of-war? And if so – do you really think that will benefit you in the long run?

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:05 PM

So sick of these propagandists always arguing the leftist position… I’m not even going to click anymore.

Where did Steffy go to journalism school?? Right the Clinton White House.

Buckeye Babe on February 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Obow said EVERYONE. His own words, his stated desire.

You can cut that among those who are like your mind, but I call O on his own words. He missed.

That’s the bottom line, when we all get down to it. O failed, royally. It’s the same Bush saying he’d keep the country safe, when later place crashed into the Empire State Building.

Except the Empire State Building is still standing.

Face it: your Obow failed on his initial promises. Why are you willing to accept a compromise of sorts, that has yet to happen?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM


It doesn’t need to in order to “reduce” the un- or under-employed.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM
No, sorry. O’s plan was to cover EVERYONE, remember?

O’s plan is no better than what exists now, and you know it.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM

–All I was doing was responding to the points raised by Mark.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

On a side note, what do you mean by ‘not a minority position to take’?

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM

I don’t believe it’s a minority position to take because it very very easily becomes an alienating position to take. Most individuals will drawn their own conclusions about motivations. Insinuations and accusations are usually not well received if they don’t already believe. Plus there is a very very small distance between questioning the motivations of the opposition and doing so in an obnoxious way that will simply lead people to switch you off. Minority opposition should concentrate on fundamental policy stands and definition of foundational principles.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Things happen, and you know it. Quit trying to hide. At your water-cooler, you’re speaking, too.

Hey–let’s ban ALL political talk at work. That work?

BS–libs like you will be first to attack that, especially if you’re union slags.

Who do you think you’re kidding?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Obow said EVERYONE. His own words, his stated desire.

You can cut that among those who are like your mind, but I call O on his own words. He missed.

That’s the bottom line, when we all get down to it. O failed, royally. It’s the same Bush saying he’d keep the country safe, when later place crashed into the Empire State Building.

Except the Empire State Building is still standing.

Face it: your Obow failed on his initial promises. Why are you willing to accept a compromise of sorts, that has yet to happen?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

I’m going to say this slowly. Obama is not “mine”. I’m not accepting his compromise. I’m not arguing for him or defending him. I’m saying what I think the likely reaction of many many voters is likely to be. “Well .. he tried to get coverage for everyone. He didn’t do that but he did get coverage for a LOT of people. Some of them people I know and care about.” Most people – being somewhat reasonable – will accept “good enough” in place of “perfect”. Portrayals of Obama as a messiah notwithstanding most people won’t expect him to reach 100% and many will believe that the less than 100% success was a result of compromise.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Things happen, and you know it. Quit trying to hide. At your water-cooler, you’re speaking, too.

Hey–let’s ban ALL political talk at work. That work?

BS–libs like you will be first to attack that, especially if you’re union slags.

Who do you think you’re kidding?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

I’m saying that there is no political debate club in my workplace and I usually break it up when I see it happening. It’s my business – it’s not a blog comment pool.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Things happen, and you know it. Quit trying to hide. At your water-cooler, you’re speaking, too.

Hey–let’s ban ALL political talk at work. That work?

BS–libs like you will be first to attack that, especially if you’re union slags.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

This debate will be awesome!

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Better things can be done without him. If you believe he’s a good thing, and with all you said, then back him.

See you on the bread line at the soup kitchen.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM

This debate will be awesome!

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM

I look forward to it!

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Better things can be done without him. If you believe he’s a good thing, and with all you said, then back him.

See you on the bread line at the soup kitchen.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM

You seem to be confusing me guessing what the reactions of others will be with my actual opinions. I’ll say it again – I’m guess the opinions of others and not stating my own whan I say thing like “I’m just saying what I think will be the common response” – That’s what I mean.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I’m going to say this slowly. Obama is not “mine”. I’m not accepting his compromise. I’m not arguing for him or defending him. I’m saying what I think the likely reaction of many many voters is likely to be. “Well .. he tried to get coverage for everyone. He didn’t do that but he did get coverage for a LOT of people. Some of them people I know and care about.” Most people – being somewhat reasonable – will accept “good enough” in place of “perfect”. Portrayals of Obama as a messiah notwithstanding most people won’t expect him to reach 100% and many will believe that the less than 100% success was a result of compromise.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Excuse me while I put in my 2 cents…. The well has been poisoned and Obama and the democrats have been exposed for what they are trying to do. Indys and Republicans are not buying what he’s selling and the “summit” exposed him to many. Including whatever is left of the open minded MSM.

Vince on February 26, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Things happen, and you know it. Quit trying to hide. At your water-cooler, you’re speaking, too.

Hey–let’s ban ALL political talk at work. That work?

BS–libs like you will be first to attack that, especially if you’re union slags.

Who do you think you’re kidding?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

–BTW, I think a company could legally ban all political debate at work if it wanted to do so.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM

–BTW, I think a company could legally ban all political debate at work if it wanted to do so.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Ban? Not exactly. But it IS my business and I will break it up if ever I see it happening. Banning things usually just breeds ill-will. Breaking it up occasionally usually means people practice self-restraint after a while.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Vince on February 26, 2010 at 4:26 PM

That is certainly a valid view. I think you place a lot more hope in it than I do though. :/

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM

–BTW, I think a company could legally ban all political debate at work if it wanted to do so.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM

And watch the lawsuits follow! Isn’t realistically going to happen, which you know.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM

This debate will be awesome!

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Just emailed HA for request we debate and they host. Back me up with email of your own?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:35 PM

And watch the lawsuits follow! Isn’t realistically going to happen, which you know.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Errrr… it certainly DOES happen. I’ve even seen it in employee handbooks for companies I’ve worked for. (Didn’t always own my own business.) It’s one of a number of things an employer can restrict in order to maintain “professional conduct in the work environment.”

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM

I don’t know how that works for you, but I think it’s BS. If there are 21 employees and 1 is liberal, I can’t get into that person being being shut off. What happens on personal time isn’t the boss’s business.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM

And watch the lawsuits follow! Isn’t realistically going to happen, which you know.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Hmm, not likely from a lawsuit standpoint. For the same reason that HA can ban folks for saying something HA doesn’t want to be said (and they have), an employer can ban as well, I’m sure.

An employer can tell you that ‘topic A’ is off-limits, and you can exercise your right to free speech and choose to still talk about ‘topic A’. Just don’t be surprised when the employer exercises *their* right to end your employment.

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM

If it’s in the workplace it’s not personal. And I don’t shut down the liberal person or the conservative person – I shut it all down. All are treated equally. I don’t need employees fighting amongst themselves and I have clients and buyers come in all the time – who knows what their political persuasion is and who might be offended? Better it be kept to private time out of the workplace.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

I can see your point.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:47 PM

So, is there a reason the Rs couldn’t invite The One and his stooges to a “discussion” of the R ideas?

edshepp on February 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I can see your point.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Believe it or not I see your point also. I don’t think it never happens. I just don’t INVITE it. If people talk quietly amongst themselves and it’s not out of control they probably aren’t causing a problem and I won’t go hunting for one.

I don’t care if they think I’m a censoring b@$!ard as long as I’m a censoring b@$!ard that makes sure they have a paycheck.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM

So, is there a reason the Rs couldn’t invite The One and his stooges to a “discussion” of the R ideas?

edshepp on February 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM

=D A great idea!

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Believe it or not I see your point also. I don’t think it never happens. I just don’t INVITE it. If people talk quietly amongst themselves and it’s not out of control they probably aren’t causing a problem and I won’t go hunting for one.

I don’t care if they think I’m a censoring b@$!ard as long as I’m a censoring b@$!ard that makes sure they have a paycheck.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Thanks!

Your point is reasonable, fair and balanced. There’s no logical debate against it. May you prosper!

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Again, Reconciliation is “cataclysmic” but filibustering is just a “routine Senate procedure”.

If you guys get to play dirty, we can too. Get over it.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I know you were still in junior high at the time, but the Republicans offered to end the bottling up of court nominees in 2005. Harry Reid laughed in their faces and told them to bug off.

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Wait till I get done Six. At last, my challenge to debate the Constitution is accepted. I emailed HA, asking they host in the Green Room to an ongoing debate.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 5:03 PM

McLame can’t help himself…..Cap and Trade Bandwagon as of this week he is on that bandwagon and he wants to take away our vitamins….Mr. Conservative is a Progressive, period the end…Ask Glenn, he will straighten your A out on Mr. McLame….

nondhimmie on February 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Better it be kept to private time out of the workplace.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

As a public school teacher, I totally agree with this sentiment.
If it’s during your lunch hour, well then go for it.
But otherwise, why invite trouble in the workplace?
My workplace sucks enough & is full of lazy whiners & shifty liars-there is no way I want to waste my life discussing anything I don’t have to with them.
(and I’m not talking about the students!)

Badger40 on February 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I’ll take up a fight when one is forced on me. If I die, so what?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

It is better to die with eagles than live with swine.

Tuco on February 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Now McGrab wants to regulate vitamins and food suplments ? Well I guess the latte liberals need regulation?

sonnyspats1 on February 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM

You know, walking corpse, you should have fought harder during the campaign. You should have stopped attacking your own party. You should have stopped criticizing your supporters that were trying to open poeple’s eyes, including your own, and show them what your opponent had in store for the country.
Instead, you bent over and allowed obama to criticize and embarrass you, and you allowed him to do it again, yesterday.
I blame you, walking corpse, for not fighting. We were out here fighting for our country.
Now, you want to fight, because your job is on the line.
Now, you want to go against obama.
It’s too late.
We will take the fight from here.
You need your rest, maverick.
Go back to Arizona and shut up.
You’re done.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 5:51 PM

“The likely reaction of many many voters is” stay the hell away from my health care. It works, I like it, don’t break it. Read the polls, that is the opinion of the majority of voters. Arguing otherwise is just lying to yourself.

ray on February 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM

If you guys get to play dirty, we can too. Get over it.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Go for it! If you do I suspect you only will because you know down deep that it is very likely the pubs are taking back both houses regardless.

Sweet dreams.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2010 at 7:51 PM

As a public school teacher, I totally agree with this sentiment.
If it’s during your lunch hour, well then go for it.
But otherwise, why invite trouble in the workplace?
My workplace sucks enough & is full of lazy whiners & shifty liars-there is no way I want to waste my life discussing anything I don’t have to with them.
(and I’m not talking about the students!)

Badger40 on February 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

–Hey. I hope your daughter’s doing fine, Badger.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Yes, well said.

rrpjr on February 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM

If you guys get to play dirty, we can too. Get over it.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

No dipstick . . . we won’t get over it, we’ll fight this battle until we get even and forever trash this socialist healthcare aberration.

rplat on February 26, 2010 at 11:23 PM

McCain did a good job at the Summit and later in making sure that this move to use reconciliation will cost the Dems. People apparently really did tune into the Summit, so they heard the discussion and will now know, without a doubt, that the Dems are not interested in GOP ideas.

If they don’t like the product, it will be truly devastating to the party.

AnninCA on February 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Yes but while he’s talking out of that side of his mouth, he’s talking out the other over cap and tax.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2010/02/27/cap-and-tax-may-be-gone-replaced-with-just-tax-baby/

Even after the science has been proven corrupt he STILL wants bigger government.

Now will you get off Beck’s back????

archer52 on February 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Meanwhile, this toad wants to spend millions of our dollars having the FDA regulate vitamins. I’ve had it up to beyond my eyeballs with anything having to do with this dolt, McCain. How about marginalizing him and keeping his ugly face off of your marvelous website?

kens on February 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM

You know, walking corpse, you should have fought harder during the campaign. You should have stopped attacking your own party. You should have stopped criticizing your supporters that were trying to open poeple’s eyes, including your own, and show them what your opponent had in store for the country.
Instead, you bent over and allowed obama to criticize and embarrass you, and you allowed him to do it again, yesterday.
I blame you, walking corpse, for not fighting. We were out here fighting for our country.
Now, you want to fight, because your job is on the line.
Now, you want to go against obama.
It’s too late.
We will take the fight from here.
You need your rest, maverick.
Go back to Arizona and shut up.
You’re done.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Such MDS is the product of a sick mind.

Boxy_Brown on February 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM

That’s not what Obow offered. He said “everyone”. And he can’t deliver. Don’t even TRY that ploy with me.

12 million will NOT be covered under Obow. How do you want to reconcile that?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I’m not attempting to reconcile that. I’m just saying what I think will be the common response. It’s that many many more people will be covered. And isn’t 12 million about the number of illegal immigrants in the country? People probably will be satisfied with it covering MORE rather than EVERYONE.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I would sort of think that the question of who it does or does not cover ends up being moot against the likelihood that it will either go spectacularly bankrupt, or be drastically cut from what is currently promised.

The current numbers use a large amount of double counting and deferred payments to make the 1st 10 year look break even, and it completely ignores the incentives for corruption, inefficiency and other gaming of the system that it invites. That’s without including the debate over how much remote decision making actually costs.

So what if it covers more people for the first five years it actually covers people, if it crashes and burn the five years after that? You don’t pay your rent with a credit card, do you? Then why propose to do exactly that with health care?

Voyager on February 28, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Unless there are massive civil demonstrations, this legislation shall pass and begin the systematic dismantling of our Republic.
It’s either massive demonstrations now, or civil war later.

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3