« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Pushes Health Care Nuclear Option

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  March 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

President Obama is advocating the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass ObamaCare through the House and Senate.  This procedure also referred to as the ObamaCare Nuclear Option and the Health Care Nuclear Option because the liberals are using this procedure as a means to get around the filibuster in the Senate.  This same President Obama who opposed the Nuclear Option in 2005 as a back bench Senator. 

Jake Tapper of ABC News wrote yesterday about the President’s announcement:

White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial “reconciliation” rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the “fix” to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill.

What is this the Nuclear Option?  It is a tactic to get around a Senate filibuster.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) could not get ObamaCare to the President’s desk with a huge majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate.  Then Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) won in the Massachusetts Special Election and ended the Democrats 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  What is a liberal to do?  Change the rules.

There are three reasons why this perversion of reconciliation is unprecedented and wrong.  First, the liberals failed to pass ObamaCare through the regular order when they had huge majorities, therefore they need to change the rules of the game to pass ObamaCare.  Also, the leadership in Congress is attempting to use a reconciliation measure to amend a bill that has yet to be signed into law.  The plan is for the House to pass the Senate passed version of ObamaCare, then to pass the reconciliation measure to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.  Finally, the bill is unpopular, yet the majority party needs to restrict the rights of the minority party to make sure the minority party does not use procedural rights to uphold the will of a majority of Americans who hate ObamaCare.

Some Senate Republicans in 2005 considered the a Nuclear Option strong arm tactic to pass some of President Bush’s judicial nominees.  What they advocated was to set a Senate precedent that the filibuster does not apply to judges.  This would have negated the filibuster rule for judges.  What the liberals are doing today is to use reconciliation as a means to make the filibuster rule not apply to ObamaCare.  This would negate the filibuster for ObamaCare.  These two actions are very similar.

Back in 2005, the far left called that tactic the nuclear option and they fought against any attempt to rid the Senate rules of the filibuster.  In 2005, the liberals were right.  In April of 2005, Senator Barack Obama complained that the Nuclear Option would “change the character of the Senate forever.”  Obama complained that having “majoritarian absolute power on either side and that is not what our Founders intended.”  Senator Barack Obama fought a brave and heroic fight against the attempted abolition of the filibuster. It is too bad that this same man has been consumed by power and an unyielding will to pass ObamaCare through any means necessary.

One of the liberal groups on the side of the filibuster in2005 was the Center for American Progress (CAP):

As early as this week, a “nuclear option” could be invoked to remove the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power. The filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate. The nuclear option is currently being considered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and being pushed by the Religious Right, who would like to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. American Progress has put together this resource guide to help you understand the issues.

I would advocate that you use the guide and excellent resources of the Center for American Progress for two purposes.  They have compiled some excellent arguments about why the filibuster is constitutional and promotes bipartisanship in the Senate.  As I wrote on The Foundry a few months ago:

The Center for American Progress (CAP) set up a page titled The Nuclear Option were they wrote “the filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate.”  CAP hosted a conference titled, Going Nuclear – The Threat to our System of Checks and Balances on April 25, 2005.  John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress spoke at the event where he said  “by removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since the its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect.  Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right.  It is a matter of right and wrong.  It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation progress or diminishing it.”

I refer Red State readers to the following CAP resources on the filibuster and the Nuclear Option:

  • Statement on Diffusing Nuclear Option, by John Podesta, May 24, 2005
    It should never have come to this. But we commend the 14 senators whose eleventh-hour agreement has ended a reckless exercise in nuclear brinkmanship.
  • Back from the Brink: A Conventional Alternative to the Nuclear Option, by John D. Podesta and Mark D. Agrast, May 12, 2005
    There is yet time for thoughtful people on both sides to avert a confrontation that would impair the ability of the Senate to act as an effective counterweight to presidential power.
  • On the Brink of ‘Theocracy’, by Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, May 5, 2005
    Progressives who think warnings about “theocracy” are an exaggeration should take a closer look at “Justice Sunday: Filibustering People of Faith,” the Christian Right telethon headlined by Senate Majority Leader William Frist.
  • Going Nuclear: The Threat to Our System of Checks and Balances, A Center for American Progress Event, April 25, 2005
    The Center for American Progress brought together distinguished scholars and public figures to discuss the role of the filibuster in protecting minority rights and providing an effective counterweight to presidential power.

The Wall Street Journal says it much better than I and I shall close with the following nugget from the Op Ed “Abuse of Power”

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • notoverthere

    I find the lack of understanding of what is taking place on the right about this is either deliberate misrepresentation and bad over all strategy, or just a downright hilarious lack of any real idea of what is going on, just say no!

    If we get to reconciliation, “Obamacare” has already passed and along all normal senate procedures that allow for a filibuster. The only thing that is being considered for reconciliation is the “fix” bill that mainly takes out the give-aways and deals, budget issues, and deals with some of the house’s issues with the senate bill.

    Repeat, the democrats are not ramming “obamacare” through with reconciliation. If we get to reconciliation “Obamacare” has already passed and along all the normal Congressional rules and stipulations. Remember, it made it through the house and senate and now only has to be passed by the house.

    Reconciliation is for a separate bill altogether.

    The only thing being considered for “ramming” through is a SEPARATE BILL, the “fix” if you will.

    So by all means, gather your followers up and get them looking at the reconciliation bill while the REAL Health Bill goes through on normal procedures. Not sure why i say this, you know the old adage if you enemy is making a mistake. But still, your misunderstanding or misrepresentation from the right is pretty blatant to anyone with an actual understanding of whats taking place.

    • WarEagle01

      “Also, the leadership in Congress is attempting to use a reconciliation measure to amend a bill that has yet to be signed into law. The plan is for the House to pass the Senate passed version of ObamaCare, then to pass the reconciliation measure to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.”

      • gman2008

        Read this here: http://tinyurl.com/yjmfxem

        Also read Rule By Tyranny. Senator Byrd?s (D-WV) Thoughts on Reconciliation: http://tinyurl.com/yjv67cy

        • gman2008

          for healthcare.

          http://tinyurl.com/y8fpa33

          This is a little know fact and tied in with the Budget Resolution last year. The fact that Senator Kent Conrad ignored the will of the Senate during the Budget Conference does not erase the fact those votes were taken. This can and will be used against those Senators who show themselves to be hypocrites.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

            If the House passes the Senate bill, we have ObamaCare. Don’t forget that. Whether the Senate acts or not, ObamaCare is law. The only reason we should be talking about Reconciliation is in the context of painting the entire process as one of a bunch of obsessive-compulsive neurotics (at least those Dems in the House foolish enough to vote for this POS). In the end, a House vote is a vote for reconciliation in the Senate as it will be the Senate’s job to “fix” the bill using this budgetary tactic. The more we expose reconciliation as trampling on minority rights it the Senate and the will of the American people, the more Dems in the House we peel away.

    • yoyo

      Obamacare hasn’t passed. There is no reconciled bill. House passed hers, Senate passed his. They do not have a bill that both agree (or can agree) on.

      So yes, “Reconciliation” is for ObamaCare.

      • Spartan4Life

        Complete with the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, and Gator Aid on Medicare Advantage, as well as, taxpayer funding of abortion.

        The new back room deal is that the Senate will attempt to strip the parts of the bill that the House finds particularly objectionable such as the tax on Union, er, I mean, Cadillac health plans, etc. through Budget Reconciliation.

        It’s really complicated but they will be saying they passed the bill with 60 votes in the Senate and technically that will be correct.

    • writeblock

      The House has not yet passed the Senate bill. What it intends to do apparently is fix the Senate bill before it has even passed the House. This is to give reassurance to House members that the Senate would indeed fix the bill and not leave them high and dry with an already-passed Senate bill. So the bill to fix to the law precedes the bill containing the law itself. That’s a complete perversion of Congressional rules and the Dems deserve to be called on it.

    • Menlo

      If the house will pass the senate bill ON THE CONDITION that the senate FIRST pass a reconciled “trigger” bill to amend it, then you are wrong in the sense that you are merely using loopholes and technicalities to gloss over what is really happening.

      If on the other hand, the house passes the senate bill WITH THE HOPE OR EXPECTATION that the senate pass a measure to amend it, then you would have a fair point. And quite frankly, I expect some Republicans might even vote for the changes seeing that the permanent damage will already be done.

    • Brian Darling

      “If we get to reconciliation, ‘Obamacare’ has already passed and along all normal senate procedures that allow for a filibuster.” – I call BS
      How is it a normal procedure to pass ObamaCare through the regular order while at the same time using reconcilation to amend it? That is unprecedented.
      “The only thing that is being considered for reconciliation is the ?fix? bill that mainly takes out the give-aways and deals, budget issues, and deals with some of the house?s issues with the senate bill.” – I call BS on this.
      The only reason why the earmarks are being removed, is because the pressure on Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback et al was too high. Reconcilation is being used to pass amendments to an existing bill that you can’t get passed through the regular order.
      In typical fashion, you liberals play fast and loose with the facts. I do have an “actual understanding of whats (sp?) taking place.” Yes I do. I am a former Senate staffer and have a better understanding of the rules and procedures of the Senate than some guy who posts under a pseudonym. As you well know, the “REAL” ObamaCare bill could not pass but for the reconcilation side car bill that is scheduled to be considered in the House and Senate maybe as early as next week. You need to update your Center for American Progress talking points.

      • redneck_hippie

        their plans close to the chest. There are so many holes to work on against the D plans, our side must be running a virtual war college on gaming the strategy. Or one would hope. The order of events alone is mind boggling, then the probabilities on votes, public opinion, political psychology. If they want war, well…

    • EDGIBBON

      If you bring the actual healthcare bill to the healthcare summit, that is a “stunt”…however, standing in front of the cameras touting the bill, against a backdrop of doctors in white lab coats is not.

  • crosley

    There will be even more backlash, Democrats will get slaughtered even worse in November, and Republicans will have a blank check to make serious reforms once they’re back in power (including repealing ObamaCare)

    Also, I see the Senate being an institution that will be firmly controlled by Republicans for future generations, for no other reason than the fact that conservative Red States far outnumber liberal blue ones. It’s only a matter of time before these residents in states like Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, etc, figure out that they shouldn’t be sending Ted Kennedy-esque liberal Senators to Washington to represent them. So to no longer require the filibuster, and have a Senate that will mostly be ruled by a Republican majority is probably a good thing for our long term interests.

    At the end of the day though, I don’t think Pelosi has the votes to first pass the Senate bill, but we’ll see.

    Democrats should be careful what they wish for.

    • yoyo

      In this case, it applies to “BlueDogs” too.

    • writeblock

      Is she going to pass the amendments bill first? –i.e., before the Senate bill has even been passed? That was my understanding. I hope I’m wrong.

    • Xasteius
      • JustLeaveMeAlone

        n/t

  • josh_kahn

    The only reason the takeover would pass is because of the promise to ram through the reconciliation fix. Reconciliation is the key to passing the bill.

    • cal1178

      My sentiments exactly. Recon is being used in a dastardly manner and is key to the whole plan. Essentially is a committee between the bills. If this is what they want, sharpen the pitchforks, because this will give Repubs license to do whatever they want when they are in power.

  • cal1178

    True separate bills have passed the Senate and House. The Dems now want to essentially have a committee conference through reconciliation. This is decidedly not what “BUDGET RECONCILIATION” was meant for. Sorry dude, you are reaching.

  • stigmo

    I’m feeling sick again. Somebody please convince me the Wicked Witch of the West Coast doesn’t have the votes.

    • writeblock

      Not right now. She needs to change previous no votes to yes–and she needs Stupak and friends. She can change maybe nine votes–though it’ll be hard to do in this political environment. Granted if anybody can twist arms, Pelosi can. But right now she needs some pro-lifers to make her tally.

      Her big problem is the abortion issue can’t be fixed through reconciliation since it doesn’t impact the budget in any way. Had she not needed the pro-lifers in the first place, the Stupak concession would never have been given. She needed them to pass the House bill in the first place–and now she’ll need them again unless she can get enough no votes changed to yes.

      I don’t think she can do it. Nobody is more pro-abortion than Pelosi. She would hardly have bowed to Stupak if it were possible to pass her bill without the pro-lifers. She couldn’t do it then–and it’s even more unlikely she can do it now. So I think this is all bluster–an attempt to create a false sense of inevitability and momentum. I don’t think it’ll work.

      • JSobieski

        until then, its all false bravado.

      • tdpwells

        what kind of dirt she has on the pro-life dems that will be used to turn their vote.

        I think that the majority of what has happened since the intial vote going through the House has been anticipated by them (Pelosi, Reid, Rahm, etc), and that’s why she caved knowing that it would eventually make its way back to her, but she could then say SEE, WE WORKED WITH THEM (and I think she considers the blue dogs more a ‘them’ and not ‘us’ from a lefty perspective). She’s got her ties in the Senate, she knew it would pass through there even in a bastardized form and make its way back to her – they all knew it, and now we’re at endgame.

        I don’t think they care so much about the details, once they get the shell passed, they can fill it with whatever they want up until November under the guise of fixes and tweaking once the biggest hurdle has been passed. I think they truly believe the right will be so defeated and downtrodden after this passes that, regardless of any fears about November, it’ll be like a giant shot of heroin in their decrepit veins. They’ll be empowered by this until we take them out of power.

        • writeblock

          …if she had the votes, it would be law right now. Instead they are looking to do it within weeks–or months–and that makes it highly doubtful. I think they’re moving toward reconciliation in order to get a win under their belts and to keep the momentum going. But there’s a solid wall of political anger out there that they are defying–and House members know this. So it’ll be a tough sell.

          One thing that is clear in all this is that the left is willing to subvert Congressional processes in order to gain its will. It dismisses the whole notion of comity–and it does this because it believes the msm will cover for it, that the old ways will work as usual. But it can’t control the new media–and that’s what it doesn’t seem to realize. The people have been awakened because this is an issue it cares deeply about. The left’s trying its damnedest to demonize the tea party movement–but how do you demonize a grass-roots movement? The American people are the very same people they’re trying to persuade. It’s sheer madness. They can’t win on this. If ever the bill passes, the SC will block its enactment.

          • tdpwells

            “But there?s a solid wall of political anger out there that they are defying?and House members know this. So it?ll be a tough sell.”

            How pathetic is it that the lifeblood of our Nation rests on who is willing to NOT stab it in the jugular, because those that are have become the majority? I long for the days when “commie’ was a veritable insult, and a harsh one at that. Now it’s a badge of honor and intelligence.

            Subverting Congressional processes is, to me, practically a minor point at this stage in the game simply because I expect no less from them – nay, I bank on it. I’d be shocked if they didn’t. I literally look at those in the upper echelon of power now as Marx reincarnated – that they would subvert such processes is a given, should be our default assumption where they’re concerned, and why anyone on the right would express even a modicum of surprise or shock at the idea of that kind of makes me laugh.

          • writeblock

            …the left subverted the culture. It undermined education, science, entertainment, the media.

          • writeblock

            …Obama seems to be pushing reconciliation in order to give reassurance to House members who are skittish about passing a Senate bill without first fixing it.

      • Menlo

        The only person who ever cared about that was Stupak himself, and I suspect she can do without his vote. You may have heard and read otherwise, but no other Democrat has explicitly ruled out voting for a bill containing the senate’s language unless that Democrat was a no vote regardless.

        Make no mistake; the House has the votes. Not enough Democrats have explicitly ruled anything out. The only reason they waited is to get the legislative language for the changes to done via reconciliation. It will pass, and there is no chance it can be stopped.

        • writeblock

          How has it got the votes? It needs 217. The House bill passed with 220. It lost around three votes since then through death, etc. Stupak has around 12 votes that will switch to no. That leaves them 12 votes shy. Right now there are probably at most 9 potential switches from no to yes among blue dogs. Not all 9 would go with Pelosi, given the present political climate. But even granted they would, that still leaves her shy of the number she needs. And there have been many defections since Massachusetts that she must contend with. Many safe districts are now threatened. It’s going to be a heavy lift–and she knows it.

          • redneck_hippie
          • Menlo

            I don’t buy that Stupak has any votes that aren’t already against it. I also don’t buy that there are at best 9. They are probably just the first few Pelosi and Obama’s thugs have attempted to “persuade.” And of course, no one cares about reelection. Unless there are explicit public statements from a Democrat that he or she will not, under any circumstances, vote for the bill, then that Democrat is a likely yes.

  • earlgrey

    I too miss Dan, but we can only expect so much from him. I owe several good nights of sleep to Dan. No matter what happens or how it happens I’d like to thank Dan for that.

    Do you think tea partiers will slink back and give up of this passes?

    • yoyo

      You can probably expect to see the Torches and Pitchforks come out – for real!

    • redneck_hippie

      that Obama is gleefully counting the minutes until the conservative movement becomes demoralized at their failure to stop HCR.

      Among the tactics, don’t lose sight of the strategy of Obama. He isn’t looking at electoral loss for Ds. He’s “hoping” to defuse the fight on our side. Won’t work, though.

      • gman2008

        Watch for a serious nullification movement by the Tea Parties. The Tenth Amendment Center (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com) will become very popular if this POS passes.

        And NO, I am not talking about succession.

      • cal1178

        Obama will never bee able to slink to the middle like Clinton. Recon is tantamount to declaring war.

      • writeblock

        The conservatives will be mobilized. I don’t understand the passive attitude of some on this site. Where’s your fight? If this passes, it’ll only be the beginning of a longer struggle. It’ll next go to the Supreme Court even as wel continue to fight in November at the polls. And many states are even now lining up to challenge any potential federal bill in court. We need to leave off the hand-wringing and gear up for war. This has been a cold civil war for decades–and conservative America has just now begun to realize this. It’s not going to let this stand now that it has awakened to the threat from the left. Not without a huge fight. This is going to end badly for Democrats as long as we don’t get discouraged.

        • tdpwells

          but I think that the left believes we will, and that’s in the back of their mind.

          They’re counting on us being beaten up and throwing in the towel if this albatross is finally seated around our necks. I’m not saying that’s what *will* happen, but I think that’s how the left is operating right now.

          • redneck_hippie

            “Obama is gleefully counting the minutes until the conservative movement becomes demoralized at their failure to stop HCR.”

            Obama actually thinks we would go silent. I am in the “won’t fly” camp. Obama is wishing for the conservative movement to go away. He believes that the best way to make it go away is to override the will of we the people.

            Obama thinks that his every wish is perfect and will prevail. Repair Man Jack analogizes the mindset in his once more into the breach diary. Obama wills it. Therefore it must be, peons or no peons.

            To reiterate, I have been saying it won’t fly. What Obama’s delusions are prompting him to do are another thing.

          • cal1178

            Us to their peril. They have gravely underestimated Conservatives

          • writeblock

            That’s what’s so ridiculous about all this. We have a governing class that is at odds with its own citizenry. How can this not end badly for them in a system like ours? They are totally delusional if they think otherwise–which is probably the case. Liberals are pretty much out of touch with everyday reality.

          • cal1178

            One of the largest steps toward Communitarianism is so close the Libs can smell it. They can’t stop now.

        • Menlo

          The courts are no better than the current Congress, and there won’t be any help from elected officials.

          You have to REFUSE TO BUY ANYTHING CALLED “HEALTH INSURANCE” OR PAY THE PENALTY! We need to start a whole movement with HUGE numbers of people willing to do so. Otherwise, people have shown they don’t care and they support this measure.

          • gman2008

            Nullification

          • writeblock

            …or haven’t you noticed? They’re called tea partiers–and they aren’t going away, no matter what happens. There’s no way these federal mandates can withstand court scrutiny, should this thing pass.

          • Menlo

            And the vast majority will consider more than this bill in voting, especially in later elections. Polling clearly reflects it, as does reality. I think many here are not looking at reality.

            Regardless, the movement still needs to be in place targeted at refusing to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Any “tea partier” who will not make that commitment does not serious enough to belong there.

      • writeblock

        …He wants the House to pass the Senate bill–which it won’t do without amendments. It can’t get those amendments without going through a process that’s very iffy. Obama made his speech today to send a message to the House: that he is serious about fixing the Senate bill. The trouble is–he’s not credible. House members know he couldn’t care less whether the amendments ever passed or not–as long as he got the Senate bill passed by the House. Ditto the Senate. So the House is being asked to trust in a process that it has no control over, without the President or the Senate giving a damn whether those fixes ever passed or not. Not going to happen.

    • JustLeaveMeAlone

      The President of the United States not only just declared war on the people, he promised to use his nuclear arsenal on us.

      But the anger of the people is boiling over. All it will take, IMO, is a leader with an idea on where to direct it. Failing that, Congress and the White House might want to keep an eye out for approaching torches.

      • izoneguy

        AND Pitchforks

  • Mayhem

    Code Red! We need an update! Or at least give us a sedative to numb the pain.

    • IJB

      THE DEMS STILL DON’T HAVE THE VOTES IN THE HOUSE TO PASS THE SENATE BILL.

      There – wasn’t hard, was it?! ;)

      (And, FTR, I don’t think they’ll ever have the votes – that AP article on the 10 “No Votes” was vaporware of the highest order.)

      • gman2008

        All joking aside, you’re right. It just ain’t gonna happen.

        • tdpwells

          to God’s ear…

          • Ausonius

            If the votes in the House are not there, why sabotage the Dems future by going nuclear in the Senate?

            Possible Answers:

            A.
            The House votes are there, despite protestations to the contrary. Disinformation on recalcitrant Dems has been published to put us off guard.

            Or: B.

            MAObama believes the House votes will be/can be bought later without a problem.

            Or: C.
            MAObama has pictures of various Representatives visiting cheap motels, and that will guarantee passage.

            Or: D.

            MAObama believes that after the Senate falls on the nuclear sword, the House will be peer-pressured to do likewise.

            My answer: D.

          • redneck_hippie

            in congress. Obama’s concern is Obama. He needs to short-circuit the conservative ascendancy before the ’12 elections. As I just typed on another thread, he is suffering under the delusion that we will give up if he gets HCR passed. Means don’t matter.I still think that is why Obama had that deer in the headlights look on his face at the summit while Paul Ryan was eviscerating his plan. He was only thinking about his re-election and paying for more votes.

          • Ausonius

            The ultimate narcissist obviously only cares about himself and his socialist agenda: everything else is expendable.

            Answers B and D above depend on a narcissistic belief in his influence.

            People have wondered whether or not MAObama suffers from adult ADHD, not to mention suffering from his various addictions. It is quite possible he cannot focus much any more on health care, or at least is becoming tired of focusing on it, and wants it passed ASAP regardless of parliamentary niceties, or the consequences for Dems in November.

            Ultimate question: after the Hell-th-Care Bill passes, what does he attack next?

            Watch out energy companies! Something will happen to “force” the government to interfere with and try to nationalize utilities, limit coal companies, etc.

          • Ausonius

            The ultimate narcissist obviously only cares about himself and his socialist agenda: everything else is expendable.

            Answers B and D above depend on a narcissistic belief in his influence.

            People have wondered whether or not MAObama suffers from adult ADHD, not to mention suffering from his various addictions. It is quite possible he cannot focus much any more on health care, or at least is becoming tired of focusing on it, and wants it passed ASAP regardless of parliamentary niceties, or the consequences for Dems in November.

            Ultimate question: after the Hell-th-Care Bill passes, what does he attack next?

            Watch out energy companies! Something will happen to “force” the government to interfere with and try to nationalize utilities, limit coal companies, etc.

          • redneck_hippie

            reaching across the aisle with Kerry and Lieberman to handcuff utilities, transportation, and industry.

            http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0302/Senate-climate-bill-may-drop-cap-and-trade

            Cap and tax wasn’t stealth enough, so the Marxists have been forced to be more targeted, and merely kill off the energy, mobility and manufacturing in the US. Greater love hath no politician than to ensure the decline of our once great nation.

          • writeblock

            …for practical reasons: he needs to encourage the House to trust that the Senate bill, if the House passes it, will be fixed. He’s trying to sound sincere about passing the amendments that will fix the Senate bill. Right now the votes aren’t there and he needs them to be there. I don’t think the House will buy his schtick. I don’t think it trusts him any more than we do.

  • redneck_hippie

    on abortion?

    • Menlo

      Pelosi and Democrats say the Senate bill will be the final language. Here they selectively apply “rules” for reconciliation.

      • redneck_hippie

        to “fix” abortion, I don’t see how it passes the House. For House Ds to vote for the senate bill would be like buying commercials for the republicans in Nov. The House and abortion in the senate bill are worth many millions to pro-life republican candidates.

  • JSobieski

    The U.S. Constition gives the Senate less of a role in judicial confirmations than it does in legislating. Arrticle I gives Congress the primary power to legislate. The role of the President is secondary, with a limited veto power power provided to the President in Article II.

    In contrast, it is the President who has the primary power (and Congress with the secondary power to “advice and consent”) to judicial nominees under Article II. to judges, the power of Congress is not priprimarymary—it is secondary to the President.

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2

    A Senate rule (a rule enacted by the Senate) can further limit the Senate’s power under the Constitution. However, a Senate rule cannot reduce the Article II power of the President because that is power that the Senate does not have. Section II of Article II (not Article I) sets a 2/3 vote requirement for treaties and a majority vote for all other “advice and consent” powers.

    There is a strong basis to conclude that the fillibuster of judicial nominees, and for Supreme Court nominees in particular, violates Section 2 of Article II. Could the Senate pass a rule that says all 100 Senators must agree to all Supreme Court appointments? No it couldn’t because the Senate’s powers on this issue are secondary to the President just as the President’s power with respect to legislation is secondary to the Congress.

    There is no basis for concluding that the fillibuster is either Constitionally required or Constitutionally prohibited. Reconciliation of Obamacare is simply against the Senate rules of Reconciliation. However, the Section 5 of Article I does say that a 2/3 vote is required “to detrmine the rules of its proceedings”

    I am aware of only one instance in which a Supreme Court nominee was subject to a fillibuster. That instance involved the proposed elevation of a sitting Justice for the Chief Justice spot, a fillibuster that occurred in 1968.

    Bottom Line: The Senate is free to screw itself in any way it chooses, but it is not free to violate the separation of powers embodied in the first three Articles of the Constitution.

  • gman2008

    The Byrd Option or Constitution Option is the nuclear option. It kills the fillibuster period. I still believe reconciliation can be faught with a vote-o-rama or amendment bomb approach and DeMint, Hatch, and Orrin have talked about this in the past. What I am unsure of is whether the VP can rule this approach out of order by stating the amendments are dilatory and therefore being used to delay the process. HOWEVER, regardless of how the filibuster by amendment is killed – a ruling by the VP (if possible) or the outright killing of the filibuster – the end result is the same – the filibuster will be killed.

    This is all just a game of chicken for the Dems. I don’t see any way they will do this as it will forever destroy the Senate comity and they know that turnabout is fair play. They are trying to get the Republicans to blink – which they had better not do. I am not worried about any of this.

    The bill is dead.

    • redneck_hippie

      They blink and the GOP will have trouble paying their electric bill.

    • youdontknowyourself

      reconcilation != ‘nuclear option’

  • gman2008

    Sorry about that.

    Cheers.

  • sbpkwlg

    While I do not like this bill, I am also not sure that what the Democrats are doing is something unheard of. They are making a lot of changes that are not budgetary for sure, but how is that different from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997? Unless I am wrong it is in this bill that CHIP was created and voted for while the Republicans were in control? While most of the bill obviously dealt with the budget, how did this reduce the deficit to create CHIP? Hopefully someone can explain why this is different, but from what limited understanding I have, it does not appear much different than what the Democrats are trying to do.

    • gman2008

      Hey, Robert Byrd (D-WV) – that’s right, I said democrat, and the ARCHITECT of the reconciliation process, is AGAINST this approach:

      http://tinyurl.com/yjmfxem

      Nuff said.

      • sbpkwlg

        So if I pose a honest question I am a troll? I am asking a question that someone asked me in an argument on healthcare and I can find no real answer to so far. I can scan my voter card for you if that would make you feel less worried about trolls. I honestly hope that they do not pass it at all and that they do not use reconciliation. I also understand that Byrd is against using it like this and that does say a lot. Yet my question is still, did the Republicans use reconciliation to create CHIP. Sure CHIP is a much smaller scale than the current bill, and I know that many arguments that show why reconciliation should not be used here. However, I hope someone can honestly answer the question I was challenged with and had no answer for.

        • gekster

          Reconciliation is used for budget bills.
          It is not for “changing law bilss”, as the health care bill is going to change law..

          As simply as I understand it.

          • sbpkwlg

            That was the understanding I had too, but everything I can see says that the Children’s Health Insurance Program was created, not just modified, but created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that was passed through reconciliation. So that was what I was wondering. Whether or not it should be used to create things, has it not already been used to create things by the senate when Republicans were in charge.

          • mavericktime

            That’s the difference. And, the country favored it.

          • sbpkwlg

            That’s a good argument for why it should not be used and I understand that CHIP did have bipartisan support. I also agree with Byrd in the WSJ article where he said it was an abuse of the power in 1993 and there is no reason to see it as any different now. Yet, I still don’t see a good argument for how CHIP is different because the main argument is not that if there was bipartisan support it would be ok, but that this is an unprecedented use of reconciliation to create a program, not just change programs or cut taxes, etc. Again, while CHIP is no where near the size of Obamacare, it was a new program that is big.

          • redneck_hippie
    • mavericktime

      If the House were to pass the Senate-passed bill as is, there would be no need for reconciliation. So, I think focusing the opposition exclusively on the “nuclear option” is shortsighted.

      Please read the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, called “Abuse of Power.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion#

      The issue in my mind is that the Democrats are pushing forward with their version of health reform with NO Republican support and against the will of the American people. This is not anywhere near what anyone who cares about our Constitution or tradition of government would condone.

    • Brian Darling

      I am looking at that measure that was enacted August 5, 1997. That bill passed 85-15 (Ds 42-3 and Rs 43-12). I would say that the first difference is that the 1997 bill was a bipartisan effort, unlike ObamaCare. Just because reconcilation was use for CHIP, does not make it right to pervert the reconcilation process for ObamaCare.

      • sbpkwlg

        I understand that argument and that reconciliation wasn’t used in 1997 because they couldn’t get the votes. Yet, that still doesn?t answer how we can say that this is an unprecedented use of reconciliation to create a program. Unless I am undersatnding this wrong, CHIP was a new program that was created in a reconciliation bill. I’m not saying that this not a misuse of the law or that it the bills used in the past have either had bipartisan support or were bills that made since with reconciliation or that any of this is right. I just don’t know how we can claim that this is unprecedented when, from what I understand, a program has been created in a reconciliation bill before.

  • dadx3

    Well, it looks like the Idiot and Thief is going to give the American People the middle finger salute. Never before have so few taken so much from so many.

  • Jeff Weimer

    What’s to stop Obama from signing the Senate bill if it passes the house?

    After all, it’s one bill that’s passed both houses and is eligible for his signature into law. No separate “reconciliation” bill needed.

    I’m beginning to think this whole sturm-und-drang is to distract from that simple reality. We cannot allow this process to move forward, and not because of the problems with reconciliation.

    It’s a bait and switch.

    • gman2008

      And it is why the House does not trust the Senate. What guarantee is there the fixes will pass? What’s to stop Obama from signing the House bill? Nothing. If the Senate is unable to act, then too bad, Obama will still have his bill. That is why the fight is in the House.

  • ehud

    I think Pelosi will get the votes somehow unless we change the political dynamic. I don’t know what our congressmen can do.

    The best thing I can think of is a GIANT rally in DC where we physically try to block congress from entering the capitol. And if they call in the police to drag us away, so much the better. Let the American people see a visual of Obama crushing dissent in order to pass this bill.

    Read my diary entry today:

    http://www.redstate.com/ehud/2010/03/03/march-on-washington-2/

    If someone has a better idea I want to hear it.

  • tngal

    If you go to his diary it explains more. I wanted to get it bumped to the front page but it keeps rejecting replies.

  • reaganliveson

    I just wonder why they didn’t use it before. You guys think he could actually bring back government takeover public option with the reconciliation? Right now the bill is terrible, but at least it’s watered down from what Obama wanted to push down our throats before.

  • redneck_hippie

    making a statement to the press, and a good write up via hotair:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/03/oh-my-two-house-yes-votes-on-obamacare-may-flip-to-no/

  • http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/ reelman

    his is my post (also sent as an LTE to the Natchez, Ms. paper this afternoon) response to a misguided lefty railing at Repubs about the HC Bill…my points parallel his topics/points as a rebuttal.
    =====
    DEMONS, DISTRACTIONS AND FACTS

    I read with amazement at the faulty information found in the long letter of 3.3.10 concerning Health Care.
    Does the writer know that not once in his poitical life has Obama ever ACTUALLY extended his arm to those he opposes?
    He was the rated MOST liberal (aka secular socialist) human in the U. S. Senate for a reason.

    Where was this writer when the Democrats were the “Party of No” just a few years ago? Was that okay?
    All we heard then was the constant chatter about “the rights of the minority”.

    I ask who took our Social Security megabillions and put them into the General Fund? (Democrats) Who broke
    the tie vote to TAX our Social Security checks? (Gore) Who signed the bill to TAX our Social Security?
    (Clinton) Which Party exempts themselves from this expensive takeover of our Heath Care and rejected
    Republican attempts to include everyone? (Democrats)
    Which Party exempted the 1.8 million unionized gov-meant workers from this wonderful bill? (Democrats)

    Some REAL reasons Health Care costs are way above what they should be are: Democrats refuse to allow us to shop
    for a Plan nationwide like we can do for car insurance. Why not have 1,300 companies to pick from?
    Democrats refuse to allow lawsuit (tort) reform like the successful Texas model because the trial lawyers
    are big democrat contributors. Doctors pay 2-4 thousand a month thanks to democrats blocking tort reform.
    Democrats refuse to allow Portability so we can take our Plan from one job to another or at least keep the same Plan for a year between jobs.

    Democrats ALWAYS hurt the poor by their wrong-minded policies that lay off the little guys first. The Party that
    has controlled Congress since Jan. 2007 has the nerve to blame others for putting us all $13 trillion in debt AND
    doubling the jobless.

    The voters have told the controlling Party for a year they do NOT WANT socialized medicine and 2 trillion more of
    debt. They do not want to be fined because they do not buy insurance. They do not want over 100 boards and panels
    to run their personal health care. Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this but only to share the blame.
    The misguided have drank the smiling socialist kool-aid again.

    J. Carter Obama is clueless but the average American is not fooled by the daily lies. Voters will send a message to
    the arrogant they will not forget. If this bill is sooo wonderful, why are the Democrats telling us they are willing to risk
    huge defeats in the next election? Why will they lose if its so wonderful?

    America is jobless, broke and hurting. It is not the time to tell us fantasy stories about strawman demons.