“Poison pills,” errors could derail reconciliation process

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota said Monday that he is confident their bill could remain unscathed.

Odd that, because he was saying a week or so ago that he didn’t think the House reconciliation bill would make it through unchanged. Maybe he didn’t really didn’t want to defend his vote for Obamacare and was hoping the House would kill it?

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Why is everyone so down on Mitch McConnell. He kept his coalition together including the two from Maine. No small feat. I called the two ladies of Maine and thanked them for standing with us.

PrincipledPilgrim on March 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Agreed. He has convinced them that oppposing Dem measures is the way back to the majority. They can pick up seats i 2010 and maybe the Senate in 2012. The girls want their chairmanships back. Being ranking member is nor fun. not power. No attentionl.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

There were some issues that Frumin refused to advise them on ahead of time, as he wanted to hear the GOP’s side. Doesn’t mean he won’t rule for the Dems, but it wasn’t clear, and apparently was stuff the Dems wanted to keep in.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Outside of the upper chamber this afternoon, reconciliation is in the air. Republicans are fuming about the process and prepping for the fight ahead. Of course, most top GOP aides admit that there is little Republicans can do. “The skids have been greased,” one laments.

Nevertheless, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) tells NRO that she sees Democrats’ use of the procedure as an “abuse” that will have a “detrimental impact” on the Senate. To fight it, she plans to offer amendments this week, as will the other Maine lady, Sen. Olympia Snowe. Snow hints that hers will revolve around affordability and mandates.

NRO.

Wow. The Dems went out so far they ticked off the Maine Girls.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Sooooo, if the Senate changes the bill, the House has to vote on it again, and if not passed by the House, it goes away, and does not become law? Please clarify to me how Obama can sign something into law that has not been certified by the Senate.

Susanboo on March 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

The original Senate bill was a separate bill. That was signed by both houses and forwarded to Obama. This reconciliation is a new bill to clean up the mess in the Senate bill, such as the Cornhusker Kickback.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM

The parliamentarian has been there since 2001, when he was hired by Trent Lott. Apparently the parliamentarian has been fairly straight with both parties. I had my doubts when he ok’d the provision in the Senate bill that required 67 votes to ever eliminate the cost control panels (“death panel”). The bill only took 60 votes to pass.

A change in the rules needs 67 votes, but Frumin ruled this was a procedural change, not a rule change (difference is?). It would have required another amendment to change this.

It is doubtful that this provision could stand, anyway. I don’t think a senate can bind a future senate that way without changing the rules by 67 votes. Imagine if they put in “this can only be reversed with 100 votes” but passed it with 60 votes.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Will they strip out the LA Purchase too?

OmahaConservative on March 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM

No, it stays in. Why, I don’t recall.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 4:02 PM

petunia on March 23, 2010 at 4:01 PM

The provision that children cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions will be in effect by election.

Expect Dem ads with crippled children (minority likely) who were denied coverage by the eeeeevil insurance company.

Poor hard-working widow-woman mama standing behind wheelchair. She works a day job and then scrubs floors at night for “rich people” just to pay the poor kid’s medical bills.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 4:04 PM

I had a phoner with Sen. Mitch McConnell earlier this morning. He says, “‘Repeal and replace’ is likely to be the slogan for the fall elections,” and he expects it will be “a major, if not the major” issue in the fall. If Democrats thought they’d put health care behind them, “the way to guarantee it’s ahead of you is to pass it.”

He scoffs at the notion that Republicans could have forged a meaningful compromise with Democrats: “They would have given us 5 percent of the substance and we would have given them the patina of bi-partisanship. It would have been foolish in the extreme. It would not have been a substantially better product, and the politics” would have been a disaster. In general, he says, “This is the kind of thing that happens when liberals are given too many seats.”

He’s not sure exactly what Republicans could do to start rolling it back if they win the House, but they will begin to try to unwind it “as soon the American people” give them the leverage. In the meantime, he expects “a significant number of Democrats” to vote with Republicans during the reconciliation fight, to try to give themselves cover for having passed the underlying bill.

Going forward in the Senate, he expects “a lot of health-care exhaustion.” He says there’s “bipartisan interest in doing something about ‘too big to fail’” and hopes that Senators Dodd and Shelby can work something reasonable out on financial reform. But he doesn’t think immigration reform will happen: “It’s an explosive issue and I don’t see the Democrats bringing it up in an election year.” It might split Republicans, but it would split their side too. He believes cap-and-trade, in the form it passed the House, is still dead.

NRO

McConnell was “repeal and replace” this morning. He and Cornyn better get on the same page.

Wethal on March 23, 2010 at 4:24 PM