Reconciliation Hits A Snag

The process by which Congress wants to ram the health care takeover through has hit a bit of a snag. The House and Senate have not convened a conference committee to reconcile their respective bills and they do not intend to because that would require the Senate to go through its established voting procedures.

The scheme that has been devised is to use reconciliation, a process reserved for budget matters only, to pass a bill. Under the scheme, the House would have to vote for the Senate bill and then the Senate would use reconciliation to tweak the bill to please the members of the House. The problem is that once the bill is voted on by the House then there is a single, identical bill. It could be sent to Barack Obama and signed into law. This is one reason that many members of the House are not willing to vote for the Senate bill.

The House does not trust the Senate (and by extension, it does not trust Obama).

There were other schemes introduced to help ease the mistrust. The original plan to pass the bill and then tweak it is not popular because there is no guarantee the Senate would hold it until the tweaks are completed. That is now a non issue because the Senate parliamentarian has determined that reconciliation can only be used for an existing law. In other words, the Senate bill would have to be voted on by the House, signed into law by Obama and then reconciled with a simple majority of the Senate.

The House will not go for this because it does not want to take the chance that the Senate bill will become law without the changes the House wants.

So the Democrats are continuing to use convoluted logic to concoct new schemes. The House is considering enacting a rule saying that once they vote on the changes to the Senate bill the Senate bill will be deemed to have passed. In other words, they will vote for a rule change and if that rule change passes they will vote for the fixes to the bill and if that passes the Senate bill will be deemed to have passed. This would allow them to vote for what they want before they have a law to vote on.

It is likely that this is unconstitutional. And do they think Americans are so stupid that we cannot see what they are doing?

Just like Democrats though, change the rules during the game to get the outcome they want.

I have a feeling that this is going to take quite some time to work out because the Democrats are making up the rules as they go along and are doing everything, legal or not, to pass this albatross. This will likely not be voted on prior to the Easter break and if it makes it that far without getting a vote then it might not make it this year. Republicans have already indicated they will follow the reconciliation rules to the letter to keep any item that is not a budget item from passing. This means many of the fixes that the House wants will not make it through. The House Democrats, who are already uneasy, must be even more so after this latest news. They want to get this done soon because they have things to do.

Democrats have to get home to campaign for reelection. They have a lot of lies to tell and a lot of explaining to do.

Sources:
New York Post
Bloomberg
Washington Examiner

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Reconciliation Hits A Snag”

  1. Blake says:

    The Dems remind me of the old story about the scorpion and the frog.
    A scorpion and a frog were on the banks of a river, and both needed to get across- the scorpion says to the frog, ” Would you be so kind as to carry me across on your back? I would be sooooo grateful.”
    The frog said, ” No you would not- you would repay me by stinging me and kill me.”
    The scorpion replied that he would not, begging the frog until the frog agreed, and the scorpion climbed on the frog’s back and they set off.
    Halfway across, the scorpion suddenly stung the frog, and the frog gasped, ” Now you have killed us both- why did you do this?”
    And the scorpion replied, “I could not help myself- I am , after all, a scorpion.”
    The progressives in the Democratic party are very like the scorpion, in that it doesn’t matter to them if they perish, as long as others perish with them.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “it doesn’t matter to them if they perish, as long as others perish with them.”>>

      DAR
      Actually, the analogy works perfectly the other way.

  2. At this stage in Obama’s progressive self-revelation, anyone who does trust Obama had better keep it to himself. Otherwise, he’s liable to be packed off to some institution with soft walls.

    No other high official in recent history has been caught in so many different lies, on so many subjects, in so brief a term in office. Obama’s “legacy” might be in question, but his grip on the mendacity record is secure.

    • Darrel says:

      FRAN: “No other high official in recent history has been caught in so many different lies, [Obama’s] grip on the mendacity record is secure.”>>

      DAR
      Oh goody, Porretto has an example of Obama lying. Since I just the other day taught him what the word “lie” actually means he should have no excuse for not getting it right this time.

      Remember to show something Obama said that is factually untrue (not just contrary to your mere opinion) and at the same time something that he knew was not true.

      It’s a straightforward and simple request. Maybe you can succeed where everyone else around here has failed? I hope so.

      And then you pretend to have “so many!”

      Sweet.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Funny though Darrel, lie has a definition and you expect it to be applied when we discuss Obama but when you and Adam discuss me or Bush or any conservative you throw that word around and think it is OK. Here is a clue for you, pick a definition and stick to it and then apply it to everyone.

        If we use your standard for lying then no one lied and it was all mind changing blah blah. If we use the standard you apply to conservatives then Obama is a liar as well.

        So pick one and stick to it.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “So pick one [definition of lying] and stick to it.”>>

          DAR
          I have. The reason you do not, and cannot, give an example of me using a different definition is because I HAVEN’T.

          Where’s Porretto now?

          Come on Francis, I’ll give you until 9:35pm tonight. Get on the stick.

          No excuses!

          D.

  3. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “The process… has hit a bit of a snag.”>>

    DAR
    Guess we’ll see eh?

    D.
    —————–
    “Congressional Democrats are confident that reports of a largely damaging ruling by the Senate parliamentarian with respect to passing health care reform were either overplayed by the press or misrepresented by Republicans.”

    The Rest…

    • Big Dog says:

      Darrel, you link to HuffPo as if you think I will go there to read anything. That whore Huffington is not getting the clicks from me. But I think that the ruling would be right. I am pretty sure you need to have a law before you can add changes to the law.

      But I agree, we will see. Democrats have been breaking the rules and changing them thus far so there is no reason to expect that they will not continue.

      Maybe we will get lucky and all Democrats will come down with Swine Flu.

  4. IlovetheUSA says:

    Haha the truth hurts when Obama supporters are told about their hope and change.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Well Darrel, you have used the word lie and accused people of doing it and have failed to show how they intended to deceive.

    That is a fact.

    So you either need to show their intentions or stop using the word.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Darrel, you have used the word lie and accused people of doing it and have failed to show how they intended to deceive.”>>

      DAR
      Well you do be sure and point out when I ever do this, past, present or future.

      I think you will find I am rather careful in this regard.

      If I had said something like this regarding Bush…

      “No other high official in recent history has been caught in so many different lies, [his] grip on the mendacity record is secure.” (Francis claim)

      I would feel a strong personal responsibility to either back it up with multiple concrete examples, or if I couldn’t, I would withdraw the charge. Does Porretto have the balls to do either? Or does he run like a bunny? He runs.

      He knows I’m allergic to cowards. That’s why we’re not going to get along very well.

      D.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Don’t deflect Darrel, You have called people liars or said they lied and did nto back it up.

    Under the intent to deceive concept you can never prove intent.

    If you are allergic to cowards why do you support the left, nothing but cowards.

    I think you are allergic to reality and the truth. You are allergic to common sense but cowards, not so. And how do you determine one is a coward over the net?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “You have called people liars or said they lied and did [not] back it up.>>

      DAR
      I look forward to you providing an example. If you can’t, watch for something in the future. I am usually very careful about making the charge of “liar.” It’s very rare. Again, if I make a charge I can’t back up, I’ll with draw it. No exceptions.

      There are instances where someone says something so egregiously false and they are so without excuse that I think we are okay to surmise they are dishonest. For instance, Sean Hannity claiming repeatedly that “2009 was the coldest year on record” when in reality it is arguably the hottest year on record. That is a howler of such proportions, from a pseudo news person who should know better. This shows such disdain for truth and honesty, I would put it in the lie box. While the case is circumstantial, at some point I think you have to say that he couldn’t possibly be that stupid or incompetent, he’s just being dishonest.

      Bigd: Under the intent to deceive concept you can never prove intent.>>

      DAR
      Of course you can. If minutes from a meeting are leaked that Bush said to military leaders “we are going to war, it has been decided” and the next day he says he to the public “will only go to war as a last resort” and “it depends on whether Saddam does x, y and z” then we know he said something false and intended to deceive. There are no end of examples.

      Bigd: “how do you determine one is a coward over the net?”>>

      DAR
      They run from backing up their claims and they use censorship to stifle dissent and to hide. Cowardice does not only apply to physical interactions, this is an intellectual battlefield and I am speaking of intellectual cowardice. You’re aren’t a coward, Francis W. Porretto is.

      D.
      —————
      cow·ard

      a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “If you are allergic to cowards why do you support the left, nothing but cowards.”>>

      DAR
      It’s a little late in the day for sure but… this doesn’t strike me as cowardly:

      ***
      Asked by Tom Brokaw on “Meet The Press” whether Republicans would be able to run against health care in the 2010 elections, Axelrod told Republicans to bring it on:

      “If the Republican Party wants to go out and say to that child who now has insurance or say to that small business that will get tax credits this year if he signs the bill to help their employees get health care. If they want to say to them, “You know what? We’re actually gonna take that away from you. We don’t think that’s such a good idea.” I say, let’s have that fight. Make my day. I’m ready to have that. And every member of Congress ought to be willing to have that debate as well.”

      Link.

      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, Axelrod is willing to have that fight because he does not have to run for reelection. This is what is keeping some Dems from jumping on board.

        Those evil insurance companies:

        “‘We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country,’ President Obama declared [last] Monday. ‘We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people.’ Yet Obama’s plan to tame health insurers would boost their business, protect them from competition and guarantee their profits, all at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. It is therefore not surprising that the insurance companies, while they object to the president’s rhetoric and quibble over some of the details, are happy to be domesticated. … As he himself notes, ‘They’re going to have 30 million new customers,’ thanks to the government’s mandates and subsidies. To distract us from the favor he is doing for insurers, Obama claims to be getting tough with them by demanding that they take all comers and charge them all the same rates, without regard to health. While abolishing risk-based pricing contradicts a basic principle of the insurance business, the industry has to weigh the loss of that freedom against the gain of government-guaranteed revenue. Despite his talk about reining in ‘excessive’ premium hikes, Obama’s plan commits him to keeping insurers financially sound so they can provide the coverage he is promising. … In essence, then, Obama’s plan would use money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and policyholders to keep insurers healthy.” –columnist Jacob Sullum