The Hypocrites: A Running Log

[bugscoe]

Quote from hermit:

Its for a few bill fixes based on various compromises.

Earth to hermit!

 

[Hello]

Of course you are, commy leeches like you are always waiting to get paid for someone elses hard work.

Quote from omegapoint:

I'm still waiting for the trickle down from that.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

Of course you are, commy leeches like you are always waiting to get paid for someone elses hard work.

Maybe that's why China is doing so well

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

Of course you are, commy leeches like you are always waiting to get paid for someone elses hard work.

Uhh... commy??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

[hermit]

Quote from bugscoe:

Earth to hermit!

Do checkout how the previous reconciliations worked out

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/what_are_these_1.html

 

[hermit]

Quote from Ricter:

Uhh... commy??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Nevermind Hello, he doesn't know what any of those word mean - his source of definitions is Glenn Beck

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from hermit:

Do checkout how the previous reconciliations worked out

I have and you're in la la land.


The Reconciliation Game
Posted by Erick Erickson
Thursday, March 4th at 10:27AM EST

For all the talk about the Republicans having used reconciliation more than the Democrats, it is important to remember a few things:

• Each time reconciliation was used, it was used to fix legislation already enacted into law.
• What the Democrats want to do is use reconciliation to fix legislation before it is enacted into law.

And guess what? The Senate Parliamentarian is telling everybody that won’t work. According to the Parliamentarian, reconciliation can only apply to fix legislation already signed into law by the President.

In other words, Blue Dogs in the House are going to have to actually pass the Senate legislation, have Barack Obama sign it into law, then hope the Democrats still want to fix the legislation and that the fix is deemed only a deficit neutral financial fix for purposes of reconciliation.

There are a lot of ifs in that scenario.

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from hermit:

Do checkout how the previous reconciliations worked out

Conrad: Reconciliation won’t work for ObamaCare
FEBRUARY 28, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

No wonder the Times was so pessimistic about reconciliation. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), who runs the committee that would have to run a reconciliation push, says that the budgetary process can’t be used for ObamaCare. It would only address the actual budgetary issues, which leaves a lot off the table. The Budget Committee chair told CBS’ Face the Nation audience that reconciliation wasn’t designed for this purpose, nor is it appropriate for such sweeping legislation:

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

That’s a long clip, which replays the entire FTN segment on health care. Steny Hoyer insisted that ObamaCare would proceed in Congress, but not if the Senate Budget Committee refuses to play along with the reconciliation strategy. The House will not pass the Senate version of ObamaCare as the last word on the subject, not with the unions getting a big tax on their benefit plans. Even Hoyer seems to understand that much:

However, Hoyer deflected questions about whether there were enough votes in the House to pass the Democrats’ plans as outlined thus far. Even though a reform package passed in the chamber last November, many analysts think it could be harder to get the votes the next time.

“I don’t think we have the votes in terms of a specific proposal because there’s not a specific proposal on the table yet,” he said.

Hoyer added that he thinks a specific proposal will be put forth within “the next couple of weeks,” and then Democrats will start counting votes for that bill.

That almost sounds like the Democrats may have a do-over in the House. If so, then the process starts over from scratch. If the House passes a different bill than the one the Senate has on the table, then either Democrats have to have a conference committee — whose report can get filibustered in the Senate — or the Senate has to pass the new House version. Either way, that adds weeks to the process, and probably months … putting the debate squarely in the middle of the midterm general elections. It’s a disaster for Democrats, the worst of all possible worlds.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bugscoe:

Then what is the reconciliation for?

I haven't researched it myself but a friend of mine seems to think the reconciliation process was intended for budget issues. Not entitlement programs that can't pass a normal vote.

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

I haven't researched it myself but a friend of mine seems to think the reconciliation process was intended for budget issues. Not entitlement programs that can't pass a normal vote.

I think you're on to something...

However, hermit says:

Quote from hermit:

You do know that the bill passed in the Senate with 60 votes right?

So in hermit's world, the bill is already passed as law and the reconciliation is just to fix some minor things on some various compromises.

Agh...the mind of a liberal...