« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

BREAKING: Dems Go Nuclear on Obamacare

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 15th, 2009 at 04:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Connie Hair has the details:

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) held a hearing this morning to certify that H.R. 3200 — the main House Obamacare bill which was the subject of all the town hall rage in August — has met all requirements to pass as a “budget reconciliation” measure.

Under reconciliation, the bill can be passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate — just 51 votes — and will be given preferential treatment on the House floor as well. The Dems have apparently invoked the “nuclear option” to shut out Republicans and ensure the bill is passed before the end of the year.

The bill certified for “reconciliation” is the Ways & Means version of H.R. 3200 that was passed out of committee before the August break, and before it was read aloud at town hall meetings across the country and blasted by voters across the country.

Read the rest here.

Tags:
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk

    He busted his butt on this and now Reid’s going to tell him “Thanks for nothing. We’re tossing yours in the trash.”

    The GOP had better be ready to shut down the Senate completely if this is true.

  • bags64

    let’s see how the blue dogs bark.

  • bs
  • dhorowitz3

    Call me crazy but I think this would be great news. If HR 3200 passes about 70 rats would automatically lose their seats and 50 more would be in jeopardy. I can’t imagine they would be that stupid. While they definitely want socialized health care, they want to stay in power even more.

  • Alberta

    ie can we use the nuke option to get rid of it?

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    and not-so-educated in politics, how do the republicans shut down the senate? I am familiar with the filibuster, but it is my understanding that it requires 41 votes to be effective. There are only 40 republicans in the senate. What other tools do the republicans have? Can they put some type of hold on it?

  • mschmitt

    I can almost hear them now: “See, (insert noodle spined centrist name here), we bought off the seniors with the promise of that check for $250, and now we’ll pass 3200 without you if you don’t line up behind the Baucus bill.”

  • pirate55

    I believe the good voters of this country will “go nuclear” in the upcoming elections, yet to undo all of this may be impossible. I fear for my own health care and that which I worked hard for over 36 years. I believe our government no longer abides by the “will of the people”. I am saddened by our politicians arrogance, sense of entitlement and privilege, and sheer disrespect for the working class.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    “No.”

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

  • illinoisconservative

    that’s how. This is all in the hands of the Democrats. If they pass it, it’s all theirs.

    But the Senate needs 60 votes to pass its version of healthcare before the reconciliation begins. They don’t have enough votes for the public option.

    But.. Why would the Senate roll over for the House during reconciliation? This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

  • Jack_Savage

    All the Blue Dogs / swing districts vote against it, the safe libs vote for it (and get all the glory and no heat), the effects are not felt until 2012, and the Republican rebound in 2010 is tempered as we will probably be in the middle of WW III anyway.

    Perfect.

  • spainishirish

    And remember, these cats normally don’t hear or read anything but an excerpt before they launch into a pompous pronouncement about how great or bad a bill is.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    So, if they request unanimous consent, as I understand it from that link, if even one senator objects, it is stricken? Also, it says “Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted.” Who has the “granting” authority, Harry Reid?

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    They know they don’t have the 60 votes for the Baucus bill. So this way, they only need 51, and they still get Obamacare. If what I’ve read is true, HR3200 is more liberal than the Senate version anyway.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    It’s usually a way to speed up the boring, time-consuming, all-t’s-dotted details of parliamentary procedure, on the reasonable assumption that if everybody involved doesn’t think that things need to be run through in full, then they don’t. So every Senator has the granting authority.

    In the grand scheme of things, implementing this is a counter-move equal in fraught…ness… to implementing reconciliation in the first place. Now would be a good time for cooler heads in the Democratic party to start talking about how to back down while they still can.

  • bk

    That can waste a ton of time as well.

    And the GOP can filibuster every nominee and every (non-reconciliation) bill. If Snowe thinks she was stabbed in the back by this by Dems – and she most definitely was – then she should be happy to join the rest of the GOP. The Dems will get nothing done except for however long they can wheel in Byrd and have someone push the buttons for him when needed.

  • cwilson

    I have no confidence in the so-called “blue dogs”. They are liberal democrats who hid behind masks to win election in conservative districts. They are still liberals.

  • cwilson

    about the future of our country. Democrats delenda est.

  • BlueLandRed

    the term “going nuclear” is reserved for breaking a filibuster by majority rule and not for using the reconciliation process.

    From wikipedia

    In U.S. politics, the “nuclear option” is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.

    The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

  • bs

    …if the GOP leadership has the balls to do this. And frankly, I don’t want to find out.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Now the Republican distraction is over, the Dems have to confront the reality that they are not united. They probably dont have sixty with Snowe and will probably lose her and a few others after the bill is tweaked.

    Republicans should stay strong with their current coalition, but they now have a new group to covet: the “good government” and “respect the process” crowd. They should make this an affront to the whole institution of the Senate and remind people that Republicans never did this when they had a majority. There are some Dems who are looking for a reason to bail, Give it to them. Their are other Dems who really cherish the process like Byrd, what does he think?

    If they still have fifty votes, I think they should make life hell for the leadership. Moderate Dems are just worrid about Cap and Trade, Card Check and Amnesty. If we can bloody and bruise them up over this, it could exhaust political capital and cripple the 2009 legislative session.

  • bs

    despite what the Source Of All Human Knowledge says about it. “Nuclear” is simply a phrase used to indicate that it’s a pretty freaking profound move to be made.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    But feel free to use it. When we are done, I intend to see no stone upon another.

  • BlueLandRed

    but there is precedence for using the reconciliation process. However, successfully “going nuclear” has never been done, at least in the modern era.

    If the Dem use the reconciliation process (which I think is now likely) would surely lead to a shut down the Senate. However, if the Dems go nuclear it could permanently alter how the Senate works (or doesn’t work, depending on your feelings about the body)

  • larueladue

    assuming that the GOP would gain enough seats to be able to do anything about it.

  • BlueLandRed

    Republicans never did this when they had a majority.

    is not true.

    The Republicans used the reconciliation process several times in the recent past. Of course, they did use more inline with the original intent of the process and not to jam through the roots of a massive new entitlement program.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I know the process exists for budget emergencies, but, in context, I was speaking of initiatives that were not emergency budgetary in nature, like this, which isnt gong to effect until 2013.

  • Han_Pritcher

    “They should make this an affront to the whole institution of the Senate and remind people that Republicans never did this when they had a majority.”

    ? The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
    ? The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]

    The second one passed 50/50 with the Vice President making the tie-breaking vote. If minority rights warrant such deference (and I agree with many here that they do), it would be wise to remember how your party comported itself the last time it held a majority. Power corrupts, and neither political party can long resist the temptation to trample the minority in order to achieve their agenda.

  • Jack_Savage

    Re: reconciliation:

    “Elements in bills that are not strictly designed to have a budget impact can be removed on points of order, leaving comprehensive bills less than comprehensive. And the time frame for reconciliation bills is at most ten years, after which they expire unless explicitly renewed (the problem, of course, with the Bush tax cuts.)”

  • Jack_Savage

    That this is, by far, the most aggressive use of reconciliation? And that this is, by far, the most removed from the original purpose?

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Reconciliaition has been carried out on budgetary items. And there is a sunset clause, which is why the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010 absent their reinstatement by the current Congress (which isn’t going to happen, as we all know).

    And there has been talk of the Democrats breaking out the items that could be subject to reconciliation and trying to pass them. The problem is that you have a disjointed bill with sunset and the ability to reverse also by a simple majority.

    But it was agreed that the Democrats could try this if they dared

    What I’m reading here, though, is that the House is attempting to define the ENTIRE House bill as eligible for reconciliation, and that is a horse of a different color. That is a attempt to completely end-run a Senate fillibuster by House declaration, and that comes close to “nuclear”.

  • WarEagle01

    Those bills actually applied to the budget, which is what reconciliation was designed for. Those bills also had wide popular support. This bill has parts that are budgetary, but most of it is not. I’m not sure what this “certification” does to it. I guess Rangle is now saying the whole thing is budgetary based on his dubious “certification.” Even more importantly, the American people don’t want this piece of crap legislation. But, the Democrats in Congress obviously think that the opinion of the mouth-breathing public doesn’t matter. What your party is now proposing to do is give the American people the finger.

  • Han_Pritcher

    To the best of my knowledge, yes, this would be the most aggressive use of reconciliation, and I don’t support using thusly, barring some truly exigent circumstances. However, this is still just a matter of degree.

  • Han_Pritcher

    And you may recall that I once called for his resignation. While I personally like the man (war veteran, long career of public service, clever politician generally), he’s long past the point of usefulness.

    I do not support using reconciliation to pass this bill. I think this mechanism was intended for another purpose entirely. If the Senate’s rules need tinkering (and they do), then tinker with the rules.

  • Jack_Savage

    If you shoot a man in the foot, then shoot a man in the head it is essentially the same thing – the difference is just a matter of degree.

  • Han_Pritcher

    The current president campaigned on universal health care with a public option as a part of that plan. He won by seven points. If he’s giving anyone a middle finger in this process, it’s the moderates in the Senate in his own party.

    Elections have consequences. I’m not taunting anyone in so saying. We had this debate as a large part of the campaign, and no one who paid attention can claim this wasn’t a part of the platform.. That being said, you guys and gals are doing strategically what you should – opposing a plan with which you (rather vehemently) disagree. Dissent is no less patriotic now than it was a year ago. Have at it.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • archer52

    I read this article from the American Spectator by Codeville. It goes into great detail about the history of the type of government our “leaders” have been designing to replace the Constitution. It is not the first time it has been tried (Italy, Argentina, Mexico), and may not be the last, but it is what we see today and goes a long way to explain why we are witnessing “water running up hill.”

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/10/15/i-hate-being-right-especially-on-this-american-spectator-outlines-our-future-not-good/

  • Swamp_Yankee

    A) Not only is not budgetary, it is not emergency.

    B) You kidding me if you think the majority of Americans who voted for Obama voted for health care with a public option. The average voter did not know the intracacies of his plan, which is what they oppose now. Liberals always do this. Yes, we all want a clean environment, better schools, … The vague language used by Dems is a smokescreen. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with their health care and are worried about the debt. Wanting “health care reform” isnt synomymous wit hare going to fundamentally cahnge health care for everyone and break the bank. By the way, how is that no mandate promise treating you.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    nt

  • billyd

    That’s what you think the american people voted for? You think he won by 7 points because of his stance on a public option? Really? Let’s get something straight. The people that voted for Obama had no idea what he was going to do. His entire campaign was a vague as possible, and the media did as much as they could to cover up for the ultra left liberal policies that he represented. The guy ran his campaign like someone running for middle school class president. No more Homework!!! Free Ice cream for all!!! He made promises that he never intended to keep in order to make people “Hope”. I’ll be you really believe him when he says that he will not sign a bill that will add 1 dime to the deficit. And at the same time, will not raise taxes 1 dime on anyone making less than 250k per year. Open your eyes man. Obama stood in front you, told you how great his magic oil was, and you couldn’t wait to buy it. Eventually, you’ll realize, what you were told, is not what you got.

    By the way… If you haven’t noticed. Obama can’t even get his own party to support his radical agenda. And now, those on the left want to attempt to circumnavigate our system to push their agenda.

    Last point…. You won’t be in power forever, and payback is a bitch!

  • yoyo

    They are RICYs. “‘Republican’ in Campaign Years”

    That is how they get elected. After they are elected, they fall in line, right behind the rest of the “D’s”. Yeah, they ‘protest’ a lot, but that is just for show.

  • wgsampson

    Byrd would be with the Republicans on this one. He cares more about the image and prestige of his beloved Senate than he does anything else. Whether he agrees with the legislation or not what is best for the Senate is to try to do this the right way. So, Byrd would stand against reconciliation.

  • Michael Dugas

    That will allow the Blue Dogs to cover themselves with No Votes won’t it? They’ll be able to go back to their constituents and say they voted No. That will suck.
    Also if the Republican Senators and Congressmen “Go Quietly into that Dark Night” over this it could well spend the end of the party as we know it. You may very well see a huge splintering off the party thus ensuring Democrat rule for a long time.
    And, IMO, if Obama Care passes with three years or more left until we can hope to get a majority again, it will be near impossible to put and end to such a huge benefit. Imagine all those millions who would been switched to the government plan would then need to find what will probably be unavailable medical coverage. I really am having dark thoughts about all of this.

  • izoneguy

    Even with a government run health insurance option – it won’t be free….Sure some “poor” people with get “free” healthcare. But the young 25 year old Harvard grad & Obama voter making 100K per year that had great health insurance at their cushy job will lose that as they step up the corporate ladder. And soon those 25 year old’s settle down and have a family and now his young babies are in the “government” program.
    What – your one year old child has a life threatening condition? Sorry – we can’t pay for it – We are the government and we are here to help only those we deem worthy.

  • izoneguy

    Once the dems lose power – and they will.

    Payback will be a bitch. Conservatives will dismantle the statist federal government – one law at a time. I am fifty but I would be willing to forgo all of the Social Security I have built up so my kids will have a future.

    We are on the brink. If the socialists push on then we will have to reform and refound a new America without them.

  • mbecker908

    You can’t actually believe that Congressional Republicans would dare to use a nuclear option do you?

  • mbecker908

    stealing from public coffers, clever politician and very effective influence peddler generally.

    Not only is the SoB long past any point of usefulness, he’s long past the point where he should have been scooped up in an Abscam investigation and left to rot in prison.

  • IJB

    Which is all perfectly legit for reconciliation.

    What the Dems are proposing is so far beyond the pale in comparison to that, it’s not even funny.

    Personally, I hope they try it. Then I hope the try to close Fox News. It’ll all go over like a lead balloon…

  • IJB

    Or their choice will be going nuclear in retaliation, or not going nuclear and something a lot worse happening to them…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You are the most dishonest person ever to come to this site.

    Get out.

  • Michael Dugas

    …the Blue Dogs some cover by possibly being able to vote “NO” in
    +R leaning districts. Now will that “possible” scenario outweigh the potential for a huge swing to the right by the voting public? I don’t know. But I do know that only needing a simple majority to cheat it through may work in the favor of some moderate democrats who would likely be voted out with a “YES” vote.
    The Fiscal Insanity, The Job Destroying Legislation’s, The Jobless Faux-Recovery, Cap & Tax, The Alleged Stimulus, and The Open & Blatant Corruption by Top Democrat Leaders in Washington should be shouted…hell screamed daily and put on record and brought up for review, charges etc etc etc. We need a loud, articulate, easy to understand voice to bring our views to light and cut through the BS.

  • redpens

    about the American people. This agenda is all about them.

  • IJB

    For all of Pritcher’s/Reaper0Bot0′s smugness, he has even less of an idea why Obama got elected then “we” supposedly do.

    But it is amusing to try to see the self-proclaimed “civility” Lefties try to one-up the “activist progressive” Lefties of Kos about who’s more smugly (a)morally “superior”…

  • bk

    http://www.npr.org/s.php?sId=4566818&m=1

    And that was regarding filibusters of nominees, not trillion-dollar bills.

  • mbecker908

    learned from history WHEN?