FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Beyond Reconciliation- The Slaughter Rule





jwellsy
If the House can't pass the Senate bill, do they really need to vote on it to pass it?
What happened to draining the swamp of corruption?

Quote:
Slaughter Preps Rule To Avoid Direct Vote On Senate Bill
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
by Anna Edney, with Billy House and Dan Friedman contributing
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said.
As leaders put final touches on a corrections bill and await CBO scores, leaders, key committee chairmen and White House Chief of Staff Emanuel huddled Tuesday evening.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman said members had a special message for Emanuel.
"He was certainly informed that we don't feel we want any deadline assigned to us," Waxman said.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last week President Obama wanted the overhaul passed by March 18. Gibbs reiterated the deadline Tuesday.
"The information I gave out last week was based on conversations with staff that I've had here in the building, and I've been given nothing that would change that advice that I was given last week," he said at Tuesday's White House briefing.
House and Senate leaders have brushed off the mid-March push but have indicated they would like to pass something by Easter recess closer to the end of March. Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad said they expect to get preliminary scores today on the pieces CBO has in hand.
"Are we gonna get some scores from them tomorrow?" Conrad asked. "We anticipate we will. Final scores? No."
House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
"We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.
While members await a final package and a CBO score, Senate Majority Whip Durbin said Democrats have asked Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin for information on how reconciliation can be used "with our goals" and what "the basic rules are."
Durbin said Democrats want to know how long the amendment process can go on. Republicans want to offer points of order that require 60 votes to overcome under the so-called Byrd rule. Democrats want points of order limited and straight majority votes. It will be up to the parliamentarian to rule what is subject to the Byrd rule and Democrats, Durbin indicated, are looking for guidance on how he views those questions.
"We're talking to him, but in fairness to him ... it is really hard to discuss this in theory. They have to see the bill and take a look at it," Durbin said.
Once a bill is complete and scored, Democrats could then show the parliamentarian the bill in an effort "to try to anticipate problems under the Byrd rule."
As Democrats hash out the final package, federal abortion funding is another hurdle. House Democratic leaders will have to reach an agreement with anti-abortion rights Democrats or find the votes to make up for a loss of a dozen or so who do not believe the Senate bill does enough to maintain current law prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions except in the case of rape or incest.
Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., who some considered a potential "no" vote based on the Senate abortion language, dispelled the notion Tuesday.
"I'll probably vote for the [Senate] bill," Kildee said. "I think the Senate language maintains the principles of the Hyde amendment."


http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/CD_03-10-10_Slaughter_Preps_Rule_To_Avoid_Direct_Vote_On_Senate_Bill.pdf
jwellsy
The corruption continues. The House passed the amendments to the Senate bill, and Deemed the Senate bill to have passed without voting on the Senate bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/index.asp

Now, the traitor in chief is knowingly signing a bill not agreed to by the Senate.

Let the impeachments begin!
Bikerman
Presumably if indeed this is corrupt then there are any number of republican judges and lawyers willing to raise it in the supreme court? Have they?
Referring to Obama as 'traitor in chief' seems to me to damage you more than him....just a thought...
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
The corruption continues. The House passed the amendments to the Senate bill, and Deemed the Senate bill to have passed without voting on the Senate bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/index.asp

Now, the traitor in chief is knowingly signing a bill not agreed to by the Senate.

Let the impeachments begin!


I am still trying to understand this. Let's contrast:

Bush inherited a budget surplus and a decent economy, had very high level of public and bipartisan support after the 9/11 attack, and party control of Congress much of the time. What did he do with all this? He invaded Iraq based on non-existent WMD. Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives lost, Middle East politics damaged beyond repair in our lifetime. Millions of dollars unaccounted for! Add to that wrecking US reputation abroad, leaving office with an economy in collapse... etc etc

Obama inherits a Great Recession, sabotaging opposition from the opposing party, tons of opposition within his own... And he passes a historic bill designed to help people get medical insurance. Not to mention the instant tax break for 95% of Americans in the Stimulus Act and all the other positive things he has done.

In any worse case, worst spin scenario of Obama's accomplishments, they don't remotely compare to the obvious long-lasting catastrophe Bush presided over. And yet vocal, active haters are all over Obama with "traitor" and "corruption" while giving Bush a pass. Jwellsy, do you at least have a problem with the damage Bush did, which has repercussions for decades to come?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
In any worse case, worst spin scenario of Obama's accomplishments, they don't remotely compare to the obvious long-lasting catastrophe Bush presided over. And yet vocal, active haters are all over Obama with "traitor" and "corruption" while giving Bush a pass. Jwellsy, do you at least have a problem with the damage Bush did, which has repercussions for decades to come?
When Bush was President, they were all over him with "traitor" and "corruption" too. Perhaps this is something that comes with the job? Obama seems to be wanting to please everyone, Bush called a spade a shovel. If it had been the reverse scenario and Bush had to sell a Health Care Reform Bill, he may have let go of it a long time ago. I am almost certain that an Agenda of a President needs to consist of more than a Health Care Reform Bill, so wonder how many other issues have been neglected by Obama while he has been playing his guitar with just one string. There have been very clear signals of disapproval by a large number of the population that have been ignored. Any other Bill may survive implementation without a unanimous approval, but this particular one has a strong chance of dying before it gets to be implemented in its current format.
handfleisch
Here's more. In just the three days since the health care bill passed, there has been a wave of vandalism and death threats against Democratic offices and representatives.

In all the time of Bush and Congress starting a war based on lies, turning a large budget surplus into a budget deficit, establishing widespread warrantless spying on private citizens, etc etc, we never had anything like a wave of vandalism against Congress.

Can anyone please explain what might be in the minds of the apparently considerable number of Americans who sat back and cheered Bush for these things, but now are violently angry over a health care bill?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Presumably if indeed this is corrupt then there are any number of republican judges and lawyers willing to raise it in the supreme court? Have they?

Presumably, it will come up, and may indeed be found unconstitutional with help from Bush-appointed judges.

The process used is one problem to raise. I'm aware the Republicans have also used it in the past, and I'd be all for making it illegal for both parties.

Another issue though, and more valid, is if this bill falls within the limited power of the federal government. The feds have ignored the constitutional limitations of their power for too long now- this might be the right time to bring it up.
handfleisch
An op-ed piece puts forth an answer to my question about why this rage is happening now. It might not be the answer, but it is one answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
Quote:
The Rage Is Not About Health Care

To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.


Read the whole thing here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
An op-ed piece puts forth an answer to my question about why this rage is happening now. It might not be the answer, but it is one answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
Quote:
The Rage Is Not About Health Care

Really? Again we see the 'people hate Obama because they're all racists and he's black' argument... Somewhat subtly put forth this time, but still the same.

Do you really think people dislike 'obamacare' because Obama is black? Really?
Voodoocat
Wow! Frank Rich really missed the point on this one. The outcry is against the enormous and unfunded increase in spending coupled to a vast increase in government.

It's sad that someone must always proclaim "racism".
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Wow! Frank Rich really missed the point on this one. The outcry is against the enormous and unfunded increase in spending coupled to a vast increase in government.

It's sad that someone must always proclaim "racism".


You guys miss the point. If it is about money, why wasn't the rage there when Bush was turning burning money for the Iraq war? If it is about "increase in government", why wasn't it there when government was increased to include massive warrantless spying on Americans, to shred habeas corpus, a bedrock of the limitation of government power?

Now, I don't think Frank Rich has it all right, and to a certain extent the answer will never be definitive. But one thing Rich misses is the factor of corporate lobbyists like Freedomworks and political agitation organizations like FOX whipping up the rage. I don't think we would see the rage on a large scale at all if it weren't being coordinated and promoted by cynical power players like these.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/ZZ56685266.jpg







This one was seen at quite a few of the protests:


And you're really saying racism is not a factor at all in these demonstrations?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Now, I don't think Frank Rich has it all right, and to a certain extent the answer will never be definitive. But one thing Rich misses is the factor of corporate lobbyists like Freedomworks and political agitation organizations like FOX whipping up the rage. I don't think we would see the rage on a large scale at all if it weren't being coordinated and promoted by cynical power players like these.
Surely Handfleisch, you cannot blame the rage (I would rather call it deep frustration) only on Fox? There are a large number of Americans who have a different opinion about the Health Care Reform Bill, and I don't blame them for being frustrated in having obviously not been heard. They are of the opinion that the Bill was not ready yet, and that it had been pushed through without real careful thought, other than "winning" a political point at an enormous cost to tax payers. I agree with them. People in Government States, who are presently putting together legislation to contest the Bill as not being legally binding on the States are most certainly not "whipped up". They are pretty much focussed in a very rational way.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Now, I don't think Frank Rich has it all right, and to a certain extent the answer will never be definitive. But one thing Rich misses is the factor of corporate lobbyists like Freedomworks and political agitation organizations like FOX whipping up the rage. I don't think we would see the rage on a large scale at all if it weren't being coordinated and promoted by cynical power players like these.
Surely Handfleisch, you cannot blame the rage (I would rather call it deep frustration) only on Fox?


Is English your second language?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Now, I don't think Frank Rich has it all right, and to a certain extent the answer will never be definitive. But one thing Rich misses is the factor of corporate lobbyists like Freedomworks and political agitation organizations like FOX whipping up the rage. I don't think we would see the rage on a large scale at all if it weren't being coordinated and promoted by cynical power players like these.
Surely Handfleisch, you cannot blame the rage (I would rather call it deep frustration) only on Fox?


Is English your second language?
Why are you asking? Or is this your usual way of chipping away/discrediting your opponent when you don't have a logical answer?

During your previous posting you had made this point/accusation:
Quote:
But one thing Rich misses is the factor of corporate lobbyists like Freedomworks and political agitation organizations like FOX whipping up the rage.
I then responded with that the rage cannot only be blamed on FOX. Maybe you can comment on that?
coolclay
The blame I believe is very multi-layered. On one hand you will always have those that blindly oppose everything that the opposite party in power does, which we all know happens. You also have those stimulating factors such as thinktanks, lobbyists, news organizations, and other political orgs, but you will also have these on both sides of every issue. You also have those few racists out there, even though Obama is just as white as he is black so we all know their opinion is null and void.

But in the end the truth is that the Democrats purposefully isolated every one but their own key players out of the discussion process regarding the health care system overhaul. There are also a lot of major concerns/problems with the plan the Dems were originally attempting to push. I agree that a lot of things could be done to make our system here in the US better and a lot of them are in the current plan.

Until our politicians learn to work together to solve those key problems, and Americans learn to not blindly oppose everything that the opposite party suggests, nothing will ever truly get solved.

I don't believe anyone should be forced to purchase healthcare, that is a part of our freedom here in the US, the freedom of choice. But I think those that forgo health insurance should still be responsible for their own health needs should they arise, if they can't afford an emergency operation put them on a payment plan. But I don't think insurance companies should be able to turn people away with chronic long term problems. I also support tax rebates and other incentives for companies that provide health care to their employees.

BTW the op-ed piece definitely raises some serious other concerns about the negativity surrounding the healthcare debate. Americans have always been historically afraid of large waves of identity change and this would definitely qualify.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
I don't believe anyone should be forced to purchase healthcare, that is a part of our freedom here in the US, the freedom of choice.
There are so many people who believe in this, which makes it that more baffling that this Bill ever saw the light of day. The principle of forcing someone to purchase healthcare insurance has to go against everything about freedom that Americans stand for. Yes, there needs to be an overhaul in the medical system so that people who cannot afford health care insurance can be better looked after, but no one should be forced to take out medical insurance if they prefer not to have it.
Related topics
Sacred: Underworld
The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell, Dustin Thomason
Microsoft plans to build more Unix features into future vers
New Rule is Cool
Me beyond smokes
Rigid School system in Asia
Formula 1
Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
islam is...
Justification for War in Iraq
F. Nietzsche
how many of the four cardinal virtues do you practice?
Gay Marriage
National Institute for Civil Discourse - what ever for?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.