Dems dropping "Deem and Pass"

[Carmen813]

Instead will do 3 votes.
Source:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/countdown-to-reform-wire/index.php#325490

I hope this report is accurate. This should eliminate at least one potential Constitutional issue.

In addition, an executive order is being considered to solve the current abortion conflict Democrats are having.

 

[Craig234]

I'd prefer they find a way to pass it without deem and pass. That doesn't mean deem and pass isn't debatable as to being ok.

If Republicans try to lie and say House Democrats voted 'for the bad things in the Senate bill' when they clearly opposed them, did not vote for them, and only voted for a package plan including the repeal of elements of the Senate plan, then voters should add one more to their list of 100 lies by Republicans why to vote against them.

 

[Carmen813]

I'd prefer they find a way to pass it without deem and pass. That doesn't mean deem and pass isn't debatable as to being ok.

If Republicans try to lie and say House Democrats voted 'for the bad things in the Senate bill' when they clearly opposed them, did not vote for them, and only voted for a package plan including the repeal of elements of the Senate plan, then voters should add one more to their list of 100 lies by Republicans why to vote against them.

As I've said in other threads, I support reform and want this bill to pass. That said, I would find it utterly heartbreaking to use it pass it with a strategy that may later make the whole thing unconstitutional.

As for your second point, I agree. It shouldn't be hard to explain to constituents.

 

[daniel49]

Instead will do 3 votes.
Source:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/countdown-to-reform-wire/index.php#325490

I hope this report is accurate. This should eliminate at least one potential Constitutional issue.



Yes, thats good , but Obama seems intent upon wiping his butt with the constitution regardless.

 

[Craig234]

As I've said in other threads, I support reform and want this bill to pass. That said, I would find it utterly heartbreaking to use it pass it with a strategy that may later make the whole thing unconstitutional.

As for your second point, I agree. It shouldn't be hard to explain to constituents.

The thing is, it shouldn't be hard to explain but lies work more than they should.

Remember how almost impossible it was t debunk the lies about Kerry 'voted aganst it before voting for it' or Al Gore such as 'inventing the internet'.

The simple facts that Kerry's votes were for two different things based on whether the money was borrowed or not, and that Bush *also* took different positions, were not much reported.

 

[Carmen813]

The thing is, it shouldn't be hard to explain but lies work more than they should.

Remember how almost impossible it was t debunk the lies about Kerry 'voted aganst it before voting for it' or Al Gore such as 'inventing the internet'.

The simple facts that Kerry's votes were for two different things based on whether the money was borrowed or not, and that Bush *also* took different positions, were not much reported.

At the same time, we have the benefit of experience now. People are following the health care debate much more closely than they were following the bill that Kerry supposedly flip-flopped on.

I understand your fears, but I don't think they will work this time around.

 

[her209]

As I've said in other threads, I support reform and want this bill to pass. That said, I would find it utterly heartbreaking to use it pass it with a strategy that may later make the whole thing unconstitutional.

As for your second point, I agree. It shouldn't be hard to explain to constituents.

The Dems challenged the "deem and pass" rule in court when it was used by the Republicans and the court said it was constitutional.

 

[Carmen813]

The Dems challenged the "deem and pass" rule in court when it was used by the Republicans and the court said it was constitutional.

Yah, but do you really want to risk it? It's not like the consequences are worse if they vote for it using deem and pass or the "normal" way. It's not going to change the way the debate is framed in November in any meaningful way.

Dropping it also secures a couple of votes.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think it was pretty much a smokescreen, and a possible option of last resort.

The Cons (as usual) get their panties tied up in a wadd, and it reveals what type of hypocritical schmoes they are with their own reconciliation, holding votes open and twisting arms, deem and pass, etc.

They've been running Ads around here about, "Oh, noes! The Dems are breaking all the rules" that are more than 30 days out-of-date.

They are getting desperate and recycling all their talking points. I'm surprised the John Boehner "Ram it! Ram it! Ram it!" video hasn't made it to Youtube or Crooks and Liars yet.

His red face complements that orange spray-on tan he has - LOL.





--

 

[Ozoned]

Instead will do 3 votes.
Source:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/countdown-to-reform-wire/index.php#325490

I hope this report is accurate. This should eliminate at least one potential Constitutional issue.

In addition, an executive order is being considered to solve the current abortion conflict Democrats are having.

This is about the only way they can do it without issues. Reconcilliation can only be used on existing law. The senate bill must be voted on and signed by the potus, before a reconcilliation bill can be voted on.

 

[cubby1223]

They're still circumventing the normal rules of legislation.

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate. But they can't achieve that. Reconciliation is not meant to be used in the way they're using it.

 

[cubby1223]

I'd prefer they find a way to pass it without deem and pass. That doesn't mean deem and pass isn't debatable as to being ok.

If Republicans try to lie and say House Democrats voted 'for the bad things in the Senate bill' when they clearly opposed them, did not vote for them, and only voted for a package plan including the repeal of elements of the Senate plan, then voters should add one more to their list of 100 lies by Republicans why to vote against them.

You'll never take your blinders off, will ya

 

[OrByte]

they're still circumventing the normal rules of legislation.

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate. But they can't achieve that. Reconciliation is not meant to be used in the way they're using it.

liar!!

 

[Carmen813]

They're still circumventing the normal rules of legislation.

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate. But they can't achieve that. Reconciliation is not meant to be used in the way they're using it.

Remember when liberals said that a few years back about the Bush tax cuts? What goes around...

 

[flavio]

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate.

Can you go point out the part of the Constitution that supports your claim? When I read it I find it to require a majority in the Senate.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

They're still circumventing the normal rules of legislation.

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate. But they can't achieve that. Reconciliation is not meant to be used in the way they're using it.

This is the problem with a lot of people on both sides. They are very ignorant to what is actually in the constitution but they'll spout off like they know, when what actually happened is they got their bad info from some other idiot.

So yeah you should actually try reading it.

 

[ProfJohn]

I'd prefer they find a way to pass it without deem and pass. That doesn't mean deem and pass isn't debatable as to being ok.

If Republicans try to lie and say House Democrats voted 'for the bad things in the Senate bill' when they clearly opposed them, did not vote for them, and only voted for a package plan including the repeal of elements of the Senate plan, then voters should add one more to their list of 100 lies by Republicans why to vote against them.

What happens if those 'fixes' never come about??

Do you really think the Democrats are going to keep pushing healthcare after all the bad press they have gotten lately??

As soon as the bill is signed they will move on to something else and try to save face before the fall elections.

 

[RY62]

Remember when liberals said that a few years back about the Bush tax cuts? What goes around...

I remember.
Bush and the Republicans did a lot of things that the people didn't like. The people then kicked their sorry asses to the curb. What goes around...

 

[woolfe9999]

As I've said in other threads, I support reform and want this bill to pass. That said, I would find it utterly heartbreaking to use it pass it with a strategy that may later make the whole thing unconstitutional.

As for your second point, I agree. It shouldn't be hard to explain to constituents.

The deem and pass idea was utteraly stupid, considering how much negative perception has already come out of various procedural aspects of this legislation. It wouldn't have given any of the dems any cover. More than likely, it was 1 or 2 fence sitters who asked Pelosi to do this and she agreed in order to get their votes. After the negative press, she went back to them and said look, this isn't going to give you any cover and it is causing a frackus, so please drop your demand for this. They must have agreed and hence no more deem and pass.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

What happens if those 'fixes' never come about??

Do you really think the Democrats are going to keep pushing healthcare after all the bad press they have gotten lately??

As soon as the bill is signed they will move on to something else and try to save face before the fall elections.

There is actually no chance whatsoever of the fixes not getting passed. The reconciliation bill contains a 100 or so provisions that are crafted to address tax and budget issues. If the parlimentarian axes any of them, then those certain items will get dropped and the House will then re-vote on a slightly modified fix bill. However, the worst than can happen is they lose a minor provision or two. Purportedly The Senate dems have already gotten an informal opinion from the Parlimentarian on this stuff so they may actually not lose any of it. Anyway, the point is, the reconciliation isn't a pass or fail; it could pass with like 2% of the provisions having to be removed.

As far as the dems not pursuing it, that would be extremely bad chemistry with loads of house dems. It would cause huge internal rupture among the dems. Not to mention leaving the Nebraska thing in there, which is immensly unpopular. Way too politically costly to let it drop.

- wolf

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't want this to pass. I like sections of it, but believe that there are not adequate cost control provisions in it.

With that being said, I am glad the Democrats decided to abandon such a controversial strategy. As most of you know, I strongly dislike both parties but had the Democrats used the "deem and pass" strategy, it would have cost them dearly in November. Not that I care if the Democrats lose badly in November, of course.

 

[Craig234]

They're still circumventing the normal rules of legislation.

If they wanted to truly follow the constitution, this new bill would receive a majority in the house and 60 in the senate. But they can't achieve that. Reconciliation is not meant to be used in the way they're using it.

Underlying that is that the *filibuster* is not meant to be used the way Republicans are abusing it.

Not only how they're using it on nearly everything when it's supposed to be rare, but how it's supposed to'extend debate', not totally block a bill from a majority vote permanently.

The way it's 'supposed to work' is a *majority* vote, eve if after extended debte, NOT the 60 you say.

 

[Craig234]

I remember.
Bush and the Republicans did a lot of things that the people didn't like. The people then kicked their sorry asses to the curb. What goes around...

The people sadly did not punish the Republicans after they did the worst, in the 2004 election.

But healthcare reform has public support.

Much of the 'no' sentiment is because it should do MORE, not less, and when asked 'if you had to pick this or nothing', most of the 'not enough' no's pick 'do this'.

Also, when the provisions of the bill are explained, many of the no's turn to yes.

 

[Craig234]

What happens if those 'fixes' never come about??

They will. I know you love to use FUD, but these things are agreed to before the vote. Indeed the second corrective vote is immediately after the first.

If they didn't, it would be a big betrayal of a trust within the party.

Can you show me where any similar situation has not happened as agreed?

I made the analogy previously to how the constitution was passed with the promise of a bill of rights - and it was done.

Do you really think the Democrats are going to keep pushing healthcare after all the bad press they have gotten lately??

As soon as the bill is signed they will move on to something else and try to save face before the fall elections.

The fix bill is right after the Senate bill.

Hopefully they will move on to other issues - nothing to save face for, just more good things to get done, like the financial reform the Republicans are blocking, and much more.

 

[Fern]

Remember when liberals said that a few years back about the Bush tax cuts? What goes around...

You do realize tha taxes are 'revenue', and 'revenue' is a budgetary matter?

You do know that 'reconcillaition' is for budgetary matters, right?

So how again is a tax bill not eligible, or appropriate for the (budget) reconcilliation process?

TIA

Fern