President Obama's Thinking On Sen. Reid's Threat Of Using The Nuclear Option

[NCVol]

Hey JW, do you agree with this guy?

"The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win," Sen. ___ told his Senate colleagues on the floor.

He added, "Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate (that) has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions... Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so." Responding to the argument that it's wrong to use reconciliation on a domestic ... measure, Sen. ___concluded, "We are using the rules of the Senate as they are set up to be used, and that happens to be the rule of the Senate."

I think he makes a great point!  

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Hey JW, do you agree with this guy?

I think he makes a great point!  

Where oh where is JW, the man who wishes he had 1/10 the IQ of George Will?

18,

NC Vol asked you a simple question. Why won't you respond?

[ben stein fan]

The Leftist are correct that the nuclear option is different than reconciliation but they are wrong about what the Senate would have to do in order to pass health care.  Reconciliation will not work because of the difference between the House and Senate bills.  There are non-spending items in the bill that cannot be passed by reconciliation unless they totally abused the process and lied to the American people.  If they do that they will not be using reconciliation but a version of the nuclear option.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11373

[NCVol]

As the article points out, using reconciliation requires consent of the parliamentarian, you know, Ben, the person the GOP FIRED, TWICE, for doing his damn job when they had control, since at that time reconciliation to get around the socialists and libruls was a virtuous process!

I do love the last part of the CATO article.  

"And would the Senate be willing to defy public sentiment by blatantly abusing the reconciliation procedure?"

Yeah, that's a real concern.  You mean the public sentiment that supports, for example, the public option in every poll, or that overwhelmingly supports Medicare expansion, or that supports virtually every actually useful element of health care reform, like doing away with rescission, negotiating drug prices, etc.  Seriously, the CATO folks are being very disingenuous.  The only legitimate way to write that sentence is this:

"And would the Senate be willing to defy the health care lobbyists who have funded both sides' campaign to the tune of BILLIONS of direct and indirect dollars by abusing the reconciliation procedure."

That's the ONLY group that in polls doesn't favor, for example, Medicare for all....    

[ben stein fan]

And from today's "Slay the Nation"

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/28/conrad-reconciliation-wont-work-for-obamacare/

From Senator Conrad (D. N.D.)
“…reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won’t work. It won’t work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction… The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work… It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn’t score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care.”

Face it guys...Health Care as currently drafted by the Senate and House are dead.

[NCVol]

Both the House and the Senate have passed major reform.  The Senate got their SIXTY votes and beat the filibuster late in 2009.  What is left is the House voting on and passing the Senate version, and a smaller bill that would simply revise parts of that already passed legislation. 

The only problem is the democratic senators whose pay depends on them killing the good parts of the bill.  Baucus did his part earlier by hiring industry VPs to write the "liberal' legislation, and then a rotating number of "liberal" democratic Senators have taken turns killing popular parts of the reform bill.  I suppose Conrad is doing his turn now. 

[Just Win]

Link to Obama to go the Nuclear Option on Health Care Legislation = http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-democrats-will-use-reconciliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html

The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various “fixes.”

The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won't use the word "reconciliation," he'll make it clear that if they're not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past.

White House officials will make the argument these rules are perfectly appropriate because the procedure is not being used for the whole bill, just for some fixes; because reconciliation rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform will reduce the deficit; and because the reconciliation process has been used many times by Republicans for larger legislation such as the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush.

[NCVol]

THANKS.  THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY THE GOP OPPOSITION TO RECONCILIATION IS RIDICULOUS.  EVERY OBJECTION THEY HAVE IS EITHER BASED ON A LIE, OR EXPRESSES OPPOSITION TO WHAT THEIR OWN PARTY HAS USED RECONCILIATION FOR OVER A DOZEN TIMES - PASS CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION THAT CANNOT GET A 60 VOTE SUPER MAJORITY.  

[Just Win]

THANKS.  THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY THE GOP OPPOSITION TO RECONCILIATION IS RIDICULOUS.  EVERY OBJECTION THEY HAVE IS EITHER BASED ON A LIE, OR EXPRESSES OPPOSITION TO WHAT THEIR OWN PARTY HAS USED RECONCILIATION FOR OVER A DOZEN TIMES - PASS CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION THAT CANNOT GET A 60 VOTE SUPER MAJORITY.  

Video Link = http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

[NCVol]

Follow along. 

1) Nuclear option.
2) Reconciliation.

If you notice, I typed two different lines of text.  In the first line is two words, nuclear option.  In the second line is one word, reconciliation.  The second line is DIFFERENT than the first line.  It has a word that does not appear in the first line.  The single word in line 2 has a DIFFERENT MEANING than the two words in line 1.

Different words, different meaning. 

I realize it's tough to follow these advanced concepts, but really, try hard. It might help you make some sense with your next post on the subject. 

[Sasquatch]

One question:

When Obama said he would not use the 50 plus 1 method to pass healthcare reform, and then does, would this be considered a lie by the left-of-centers?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

[NCVol]

Again, let's review the facts.

Health care reform passed the House with a majority, the relevant standard in that body.
Health care reform also passed the SENATE with a 60 - 40 vote margin, which the constitution loving republicans now claim is the constitutional standard to pass ANY legislation despite such a super majority being totally absent from the constitution.  There is no mention of the "minority rules" standard as it relates to the Senate in the constitution, but we diverge....  

The House has already passed a bill.  The Senate has ALREADY passed a bill.  If it moves forward, the House will pass the version voted on by SIXTY members of the Senate.  Any additional FIXES might be passed through reconciliation, if it passes muster using existing Senate rules and if the parliamentarian approves.  I.e. the EXACT method that the republicans have repeatedly used to pass "fixes" in health care, tax cuts (with 50 votes) and many other "controversial" pieces of legislation.