Bending the Rules

As the Massa implosion fades, Capitol Hill returns today to health care reform with both chambers considering obscure parliamentary procedures in order to pass legislation before Easter recess, which officially starts March 28. The House is on a shorter leash, with the White House pushing them to get something done before President Obama leaves for a tour of Indonesia and Australia next Thursday (the CW being that massive legislation is more easily passed with the president physically in Washington). Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, though, noticeably left the door open for missing that deadline in a pen and pad with reporters yesterday: “None of us have mentioned the 18th other than [White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs. We are trying to do this as soon as possible. That continues to be our objective.”

House leaders, Politico reports, are considering a self-executing rule – hoping to save their members from actually voting on the Senate bill. Such a move means the House would pass a rule saying if the Senate passes reconciliation, then they’ll consider the Senate bill passed. If B is followed by C then A will be enacted. But, there’s a problem with this strategy. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, whose committee reconciliation must go through, says it’s impossible to do “fixes” on a bill that hasn’t already been signed into law. In other words, the House must pass the Senate bill – Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Deal and other warts included (you can just imagine the TV ads House Republicans are gleefully contemplating) — and send it to Obama for his signature before the Senate can take up reconciliation. Those sweetheart deals are meant to be stripped in reconciliation. House and Senate negotiators have appealed to the parliamentarians to decide who is right and a decision is expected this week.

If you’re not already totally confused, there’s more. In the Senate, Dems are eyeing Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn and his promised “hundreds” of amendments warily. So warily that they’re considering an obscure procedural tactic some Republicans are labeling the “nuclear option.” Under reconciliation rules, debate is limited to 20 hours and only 51 votes are needed for final passage as the budget is immune to filibusters. But there is no limit on amendments and if Republicans file hundreds of them the Senate Parliamentarian could need months to rule on them all. Democratic leaders could, after a few days of amendments, say that Republicans are trying to filibuster by amendment and given that filibusters are not allowed in reconciliation, they could rule all other amendments “dilatory” and move to final passage. Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, have plead with Democrats not to employ this highly unusual tactic saying it could have dire effects on the Senate as an institution and on other pending legislation. “It’s just one of those things that you don’t do,” Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters today. “You can imagine what would happen if irresponsible presiding officers exercised that power.Iit can always come back to bite you when you’re in the opposite situation, so as a general rule it has not been done.”

Another problem? Neither of these hip-busting dance moves would solve the problem of abortion. Reconciliation can only be used for “germane” fixes to the budget, of which abortion is not. A third bill may have to be passed through both chambers to solve this conundrum, thus complicating the potential self-executing rule and negotiations with the Senate where there aren’t 60 votes for the Stupak amendment.

Given all the complex and rarely used machinations, some Dems worry it’ll be hard to argue that they aren’t “ramming through” health care reform especially if they are forced to use both tactics. On the other hand, the longer this process takes, the less likely they’ll pass a bill as elections are rapidly approaching and just about everyone is sick of dealing with health care after more than a year of negotiations. Vulnerable members are anxious to get health care off the table and get back to talking about job creation. So, for the sake of expediency, in this final push Dems may have to sacrifice all bipartisanship not just on health care but on other agenda items.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: dilatory amendments, health care reform, House, parliamentary procedures, self-executing rule, Senate, 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Budgets, Congress, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Republican Party, Senate
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • afguy

    Translation: NEVER underestimate the ability of Congress to be a bunch of cowardly, self-protecting, self-serving weasels when their back are up against it.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks for the rules update, Jay. Will either the House or Senate have tickle fights to resolve this (literally)? Don’t forget that no matter what the Senate parliamentarian decides, Biden can override it, and I don’t think he’ll try to stall any HCR bill. Is Karen really the parliamentarian?

  • nflfoghorn

    As long as something positive gets done I don’t particularly care about bipartisanship. Did the GOP care when they used reconciliation for tax breaks? Or obfuscation, arm-twisting, and flat-out lying to go to war?

  • kevin

    So warily that they’re considering an obscure procedural tactic some Republicans are labeling the “nuclear option.”
    .
    Jay, could you all please stop carrying the Republicans’ water on this by spreading their terminology? They call everything the nuclear option, and it’s just an effort to blur the lines and confuse the public.
    .
    We had a lengthy exchange about this in an earlier post:
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/10/morning-must-reads-fiery/#comment-143459

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, have plead with Democrats not to employ this highly unusual tactic saying it could have dire effects on the Senate as an institution and on other pending legislation. “It’s just one of those things that you don’t do,” Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters today.”
    .
    Are they saying the same thing about Coburn’s threat?
    No?

  • carotexas1

    Jay, David Waldman seems to have a lot of knowledge on congress procedures and he questions
    Conrad on the fixes not being able to pass first and that neither does former parliamentarian Bob Dove.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/10/844781/-CBO-scoring-fix-bill-despite-Conrads-insistence-it-couldnt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29&utm_content=Twitter

  • grape_crush

    both chambers considering obscure parliamentary procedures in order to pass legislation
    .
    Reconciliation is an ‘obscure’ procedure? Since when?
    .
    Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, have plead with Democrats not to employ this highly unusual tactic saying it could have dire effects on the Senate as an institution and on other pending legislation.
    .
    Utter bullsh!t, coming from the side of the aisle that has set records for the use of the filibuster to block legislation and regularly puts holds on Executive nominations as a means of extorting concessions on legislation and pork. Damned hypocrites.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    “So, for the sake of expediency, in this final push Dems may have to sacrifice all bipartisanship not just on health care but on other agenda items.”

    This quote above which I copied from the article by JNS is great! I have written these same lines in so many ways here on Swampland.

    When the Healthcare debate first started, I wrote that Democrats needed to unite in order to pass this key initiative by Obama.
    It was (is) not an issue which required posturing and extended debate from them.
    I also stated that Obama needed to take a firm and strong leadership position of his party.

    Yes, the Democrats in Congress are not a monolith but they are part of ONE party- because they agree on core ideological matters. They can agree on Healthcare reform and do it!

    Everyone can point to the Republican “PARTY OF NO” as the major roadblock to Healthcare reform however the democrats have been complicit in sabotaging themselves and this President.
    Blue dogs, yellow hounds, progressives, liberals and screamers :) should all get together under one banner and get something done to pass this bill.

    Healthcare is broken, this hardworking, young and idealistic President can fix it with the support of his party and the support of the public.

    Let us hope this is not another variant of the continuing lengthy Washington type posturing when the lobbyists and big businesses eventually force the status quo to stay same.

    LM

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    the dilatory rule is the obscure parliamentary tactic I was referring to in the Senate, not reconciliation itself.

  • kevin

    As big a lie as the “reconciliation is the nuclear option” is, in Jay’s defense, her link directs to a discussion not of reconciliation, but what is a truly obscure fix.
    .
    But this speaks to my earlier point. Republicans call everything the “nuclear option” now — in 2005, the “nuclear option” was the bold new move of amending Senate Rule 22 to prevent filibusters on all judicial nominations; in 2009, the “nuclear option” was the use of a tried-and-true tool like reconciliation; and now in 2010, it’s this new thing … and reconciliation too.
    .
    “Nuclear option” is an idiotic term, applied freely to anything and everything by … well, idiots. Using their language only helps them spread fear and confuse the public.
    .
    Please stop helping them do that.

  • allthingsinaname

    The rules are there so they have something to hide behind. The GOP is actually giving the Dems something to cover their behinds with.
    .
    I doubt they will get anything done.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Democrats need to unite and do something to pass this bill. The entire notion of bi-partisanship is illusory and will not work.

    LM :)

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

  • Paul-no not that one

    So using the dilatory rule is obscure-by which I assume we mean rarely used.
    .
    But it is used as a push back to “hundreds of amendments” so I am curious if you can give us some examples of filibuster by amendment.
    .
    Is that as obscure/rare?

  • grape_crush

    …the dilatory rule is the obscure parliamentary tactic I was referring to in the Senate..
    .
    Oh, you mean the provisions of the Byrd Rule, which:

    has been applied to 19 reconciliation measures considered by the Senate from 1985 through 2004. In 42 of the 55 actions involving the Byrd rule, opponents were able to strike extraneous matter from legislation (18 cases) or bar the consideration of extraneous amendments (24 cases) by raising points of order. Nine of 41 motions to waive the Byrd rule, in order to retain or add extraneous matter, were successful. The Byrd rule has been used only four times during consideration of a conference report on a reconciliation measure (twice in 1993, once in 1995, and once in 1997).

    You can read the actual rule rather then relying on GOP framing at:
    .
    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33030_20050810.pdf
    .
    pages 81-87.
    .
    It seems to be at the discretion of the Chair as to whether or not to consider the GOP’s promise of ‘unlimited’ amendments – which is a clear abuse of the rules, like their use of the filibuster – as extraneous. Theoretically, an infinite number of amendments would have to include some quantity that are not related to budgetary matters, which should be enough cover for the chair to dismiss the lot of them.

  • stuartzechman

    Dave Waldman has been making this point for a while, and it should be addressed by those purporting to have a handle on the intricacies of the process…

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    Excuse me Jay, but reconciliation is not “obscure.”

  • freeinpa

    Lets’ see: we have an issue that Obama believes he was crowned to mandate, the majority is in favor, its going to cut our deficit, bring down premiums and have evryone live happily everafter

    but:

    It gets written behind closed doors, there is Obama still not fully fessing up as to what will happen to whom, there is fast and dubious accounting for 10 years, tortures of the dam to get it passed out of one House and now for the true profiles in courage a vote without voting to make law what the majority of Ameircans has said “start over”

    What a country!

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for responding to commentary with clarifications, Jay Newton-Small, it is very much appreciated.

  • stuartzechman

    I’m no fan of the legislation, but the reason I’m not supporting it is because both House and Senate versions are available for me to read online. These aren’t secrets. What these people are planning on doing is right there in the public eye in documents with which to take issue.
    .
    As far as it passing, it may be an indictment of centrist Democrats for promoting (and liberal Democrats for accepting) harmful policy, but not of Democrats for abusing their power or authority.
    .
    This is a majority-rules democracy, and even if I don’t agree with it, it’s not wrong or illegitimate, just like it wasn’t wrong or illegitimate for these same Democrats to vote to authorize the President to invade Iraq.

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    BTW, I don’t give a flying expletive if bi-partisanship goes the way of the dinosaurs.

    The republicans have no interest and no plans to do anything but filibuster, delay and kill any and all legislation. Why shouldn’t the democrats use any and all procedural tactics to get the nation’s business done?

  • dneuner

    Jay, how come this isn’t an option the WH is considering?

    “A commission is our best chance, Mr. President. Load it up with doctors and nurses and business people. They can study what other countries have done and figure out what would work here. It wouldn’t take long. A commission could do its work in six months.

    After the commission makes a recommendation, it could go to Congress for a vote up or down. No amendments.”

    The public likes Obama, trusts Obama, so why isn’t Obama telling Congress to forget it and he’ll do it himself? Makes sense to me..

    Source: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcclellan/story/0E137561F2E5A408862576E10081034E?OpenDocument

  • Paul-no not that one

    grape_crush-Thanks for the research and context. Funny how things get framed, isn’t it?

  • freeinpa

    SZ:

    That is ideological rationalization to justify an end.

  • freeinpa

    “to get the nation’s business done”

    You are correct if you define the nation as the left wing extremists. Majority of the Americans have said “start over”

  • stuartzechman

    What?
    .
    No it isn’t!
    .
    I don’t think this end should happen, I am strongly encouraging my Congressional representatives to vote against Health Care Reform, so I’m not invested in the end at all.
    .
    The fact is, though, that this majority-rules, up or down vote will be as legitimate an exercise of representative authority as the vote to invade Iraq was, i.e. completely democratic and legitimate.

  • stuartzechman

    Please link to the polling (preferably not Rasmussen) that suggests that starting over is the majority opinion in America.

  • diecash1

    Good luck with that. Freep doesn’t believe in “proof” or facts, only what supports his preconceived ideas.
    ..

    I don’t need to provide what you believe is substantiated proof.

    ..
    Another gem.

  • freeinpa

    “Please link to the polling (preferably not Rasmussen) that suggests that starting over is the majority opinion in America.”

    I love it when the left who uses dubious sources as a matter of course, complains about sources they provide an opposing possibility.

    ==
    “Good luck with that. Freep doesn’t believe in “proof” or facts, only what supports his preconceived ideas.”

    No I just don’t have the time or inclination to parse public statements made by politicians then have you say “prove it” like a petulant 8 yr old.

  • freeinpa
  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:
    .
    Thanks, let me look at the language of these polls, and I’ll return.

  • freeinpa

    SZ;

    No problem. Happy hunting

  • deconstructiva

    re: the hill / zogby poll:
    Nate Silver has had serious q’s about Zogby before –
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/worst-pollster-in-world-strikes-again.html
    …was Zogby poll phone or internet? Where were samples taken (only 2500?)? Were they nationwide, only TX (which tends to be conservative, lovely KT aside), or elsewhere? That hill piece doesn’t provide details to verify the poll that many here demand of the swampreporters.

  • deconstructiva

    …washexaminer / gallup poll: that one had 1009 replies …out of 307 million people in the US. That’s a tiny percentage. Hopefully those 1009 are well distributed and without bias. It’s probably hard to find those 1009 randomly.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    “It’s just one of those things that you don’t do” is the GOP playbook this session, starting with the record number of filibusters.

  • freeinpa

    A poll is an sample not a census.

    Check to see if the pollster was sending out psychic messages to influence the results.

  • grape_crush

    Funny how things get framed, isn’t it?
    .
    Yep. First, reconciliation was an “arcane budget procedure” used to “jam through this legislation” as part of “an assault to the democratic process” that was “unprecedented in scope” and would “degrade our system of government”.
    .
    Oh; all those lies were actually said by a sitting Republican Senator:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030102754.html
    .
    Now, exercising the Byrd rule is a “highly unusual tactic” that in a democracy is ‘”just one of those things that you don’t do’”.
    .
    Yep…funny.

  • apr2563

    Right on. I say RAM it through! Show some courage. Let the right whine.

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:
    .
    This is Nate Silver on Zogby:

    It seems clear, however, in light of this new poll, that Zogby has made a decision to become the bottom-feeders of the polling marketplace, a one-stop-shop for wingnuts of all stripes, who will make no particular distinction between fact and innuendo in the questions they poll. To be clear about the issue at hand, there is a distinction between a merely leading question — merely couching a statement of fact in favorable terminology — and a misleading one — reporting a highly questionable statement as fact to the respondent.

    To be fair, I’m still not finding the language that Zogby gave to its respondents that engendered a 57 percent “start over” majority.
    .
    I’ll keep looking.

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:
    .
    It seems that the actual language used by Zogby/University of Texas is nowhere to be found.
    .
    The Hill article doesn’t link to it, it appears that the results were simply “announced” to idiot, lazy reporters who then wrote these things down without inquiring as to a source.
    .
    I can’t find it anywhere, certainly not at Zogby or UT’s sites.
    .
    This is the closest I’ve found to the language used (link to UT):


    When asked what would be the best course of action to take in regard to healthcare reform at this point, 44 percent selected start over, 25 percent choose pass some legislation and modify as necessary and 18 percent selected have the House just pass the Senate bill and modify later as needed.
    .
    Asked what should be the main focus of President Obama and Congress right now, 46 percent choose unemployment, 26 percent selected excess government spending and 18 percent opted for healthcare reform.

    What’s interesting to me (and discrediting to Zogby) is that, in the same poll, respondents were given the choice of “excess” government spending as the focus of Obama/Democratic Congress, which, to me, is a leading question. It’s as leading as if they inserted “enormous bank executive bonuses” as a choice facing Obama/Congress.
    .
    I can’t say for sure, but something seems up with this.
    .
    Do you have any clue as to what Zogby/UT’s language was, freeinpa?

  • freeinpa

    SZ:

    To play the game that many o fthe left here do, Silvers is a confirmed Democrat and an Obama fan. Using that standard as many do here- he may not be the best judge.

  • tjoyce994

    “It gets written behind closed doors. . .”
    -
    This is one I am tired of hearing. For centuries legislation has been written behind closed doors. It is how it’s done. Enough of this mock horror that no one sent you an e-mail.
    .
    “there is Obama still not fully fessing up as to what will happen to whom, . .”
    .
    The bill is on line, if you are that interested.
    .
    ” there is fast and dubious accounting for 10 years, . . .”
    .
    The CBO is the official referee, and they don’t have problems with the accounting.
    .
    ” tortures of the dam to get it passed out of one House . . . ”
    .
    So what? It’s what they get paid to do.

    “and now for the true profiles in courage a vote without voting. . .”
    .
    Again, if it’s within the rules, so what? Are you afraid that the republicans will have more problems distorting the truth? I wouldn’t worry, if I were you.
    .
    “to make law what the majority of Ameircans has said “start over.”
    .
    Again another distortion (read lie) in the same vein as “We have the best healthcare system in the world.” If you want the to start from scratch and waste a year of work, then you should speak for yourself. But I and millions of Americans have not authorized you to speak for us. We want an up or down vote NOW.
    .
    It would be simpler for you to simply say that you hate Obama, and if he discovered cures for AIDS, cancer, and sunburn, you would still hate him. Healthcare simply gives you a specific complain.

  • deconstructiva

    Free, by your own standards then Rasmussen is NOT the best to use either since Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. We’ll remember this next time you and rusty quote their polls.

  • freeinpa

    SZ:

    No I did not find any further language and have yet to look at the questions for the Gallup Poll.

  • shepherdwong

    And here’s Nate explaining that about 15% of those everyone counts as opposed to the current legislation actual feel that it doesn’t go far enough, i.e., they want more progressive legislation:
    .
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-polls-much-opposition-to-health-care.html
    .
    As usual, your majority is all in your head (screaming hysterically, no doubt).
    .
    Oh and it doesn’t matter whether Silver is a Maoist. He’s a pollster so the only thing that matters is his methodology.

  • freeinpa

    SherperWrong

    Still testing positive for stupid. It only matters for pollsters if the results give the left an answer it doesn’t like.

    Still imagining things and hearing voices.

  • shepherdwong

    “It only matters for pollsters if the results give the left an answer it doesn’t like.”
    .
    That’s right, crappy, corrupted results from bad methodology, like Rassmussen’s and Zogby’s – you know, the ones always cited by the right. I’d explain about polling methodology but it requires at least a young adult intellect to really understand it.

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    Um, no grape_crush, the dilatory rule is NOT in the Bryd rule. Do you see the word dilatory in the Bryd rules?? I, too, can read and have been covering Senate policy physically in the Senate for 8 years now where we have a non-partisan expert staff steeped in Senate rules. So, kids, the dilatory rule has never been used in conjunction with reconciliation. It has been used on non-reconciliation bills but, again, only rarely.

    Next time (and this goes for you, too fourlegsgood and anyone else who thought I was referring to reconciliation as an obscure tactic) READ THE LINK I PROVIDE!! From the Roll Call story:

    Senate rules prohibit dilatory amendments and motions once the chamber has broken a filibuster or invoked cloture, but there do not appear to be any specific rules pertaining to how many amendments or motions can be offered under reconciliation. However, Senate Democrats are likely to argue that reconciliation rules prohibit a filibuster, and that offering an endless stream of amendments is an attempt to get around that rule.

    [...]

    Democratic sources said there is a well-established principle in the Senate of getting around delay tactics. One key precedent they point to is the 1977 fight over a natural gas regulation bill. At the time, Sens. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) and James Abourezk (D-S.D.) were mounting what was known as a “post-cloture” filibuster. The Senate had agreed, 77-17, to invoke cloture, or limit debate on the bill, but for 12 days and one full night the two Senators filed amendment after amendment, forced readings and demanded quorum calls.

    Then-Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) called on then-Vice President Walter Mondale to rule 33 amendments out of order on a variety of bases.

    “I asked the Vice President to take the chair and rule on points of order — which I and other senators would raise — making various motions and quorum calls dilatory under cloture and peremptorily ruling amendments out of order on their face, (for example, as being incorrectly drawn or not germane), thus avoiding the endless roll calls that could otherwise consume weeks,” Byrd wrote of the incident in his book on the history of the Senate.

    After that incident, Senate rules were changed to prohibit post-cloture filibusters. The rules regarding cloture now state: “No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order.”

    Roll Call could not identify any precedents involving a reconciliation bill.

  • bobcn1

    Exactly.
    .
    This is not the ‘nuclear option’. Under the threat of the real ‘nuclear option’ seven Dem and seven gop senators got together and reached an agreement to prevent the Dems from bottling up Bushes judges. The judges got the ‘up or down votes’ the gopers demanded. Those senators were widely praised in the press.
    .
    Since we’re calling it the ‘nuclear option’ can we expect the MSM to ask where the seven gop senators are that are willing to compromise so that the Dems can also get an ‘up or down vote’?

  • Art Pepper

    The majority of Congress passing a bill: “Ramming it down our throats”; “obscure parliamentary procedure”; “nuclear option”; “unprecedented.”

    The minority party blocking every bill and then dragging it out with endless ammendments: Now that’s a functioning democracy, just like the Founders intended!

  • grape_crush

    Do you see the word dilatory in the Bryd[sic] rules??
    .
    The way I see the Byrd rules written:

    A point of order may be raised against a single provision or two or more provisions in the bill (usually as designated by title or section number, or by page and line number), in amendments offered thereto, or in motions made thereon, or against an entire amendment or amendments. The chair may sustain a point of order as to all of the provisions (or amendments) or only some of them.

    the basis of that objection, Jay, can be for any one of a number of reasons, including the fact that an amendment or amendments are dilatory (time-wasting) in nature.
    .
    So, Jay, when you say “Democratic leaders could…rule all other amendments ‘dilatory’ and move to final passage”, you are actually talking about something that would happen a) as part of the reconciliation process and b) within the provisions of the Byrd rule…Hopefully you can understand that much…
    .
    The only mildly debatable point is whether the Republicans’ contention that the act of quashing their promised flood of time-wasting amendments is unheard of…which, while technically correct with respect to reconciliation, wasting time is against the intent of the reconciliation process and has a clear precedent present in the cloture rules for regular legislation.
    .
    Of course, all this mess and confusion is due to (1) the Republicans’ unprecedented abuse of the filibuster and (2) unprecedented threat to stall the reconciliation process with a flood of time-wasting, pointless amendments.
    .
    I, too, can read and have been covering Senate policy physically in the Senate for 8 years now…
    .
    In other words, ‘acknowledge me as an authority and shut up’…what a petty, immature response. Instead of choosing to clarify for better understanding or checking to see if you actually know what you are talking about, you get snippy. Nice.
    .
    You’d think that you’d be able to explain things more clearly as a result of your time spent lurking around the halls, at least.
    .
    …where we have a non-partisan expert staff steeped in Senate rules.
    .
    Which you probably didn’t consult before posting, instead choosing to sum up a few passages from a couple of Roll Call articles and combine them with your own very special interpretation of the situation.
    .
    So, kids…
    .
    Petty, immature, and insulting. I’m guessing that a lot of the regulars here are older than you, kid, myself included.

    …the dilatory rule has never been used in conjunction with reconciliation.
    .
    Um, that’s because there is no ‘dilatory rule’ associated with reconciliation. According to one of your Roll Call links, there’s no precedent for striking a flood of time-wasting, pointless amendments during reconciliation…probably because offering a flood of time-wasting, pointless amendments is in itself unprecedented.
    .
    Your post shows how deeply you have fallen into the GOP framing of this, Jay. To be fair, it’s not just you.
    .
    Next time…
    .
    …you should be more specific in your writing, not rely so much on jumbling together others’ reporting in order to cough up a blog post. Your readers shouldn’t have to follow all of your links in order to make sense of what you’ve written. Finally, have a better understanding of what it is you are writing about.
    .
    READ THE LINK I PROVIDE!!
    .
    Stow the caps, Jay. That comes off as shrill and unprofessional, and you’re better than that, I think.

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    I’m sorry, grape_crush, you can talk down to me but when I patronize you it’s unprofessional? I think when you can tell the difference between the Byrd rules and the Senate’s governing rules you might have a case to talk down to me. In the meantime, please don’t embarrass yourself.

  • deconstructiva

    …time for a group hug?

  • grape_crush

    I’m sorry, grape_crush…
    .
    Yes, apparently you are. What a shame; I consider your dispatches from Haiti valuable and worth reading.
    .
    …you can talk down to me but when I patronize you it’s unprofessional?
    .
    You’re getting the sequence mixed up, Jay. You condescended to us, patronizingly calling us ‘kids’, and then I lit into you. If you would have chosen to respond maturely and professionally, then you would have received a very different response.
    .
    I think…
    .
    You’re not proving that by your responses in this comment thread, Jay.
    .
    …when you can tell the difference between the Byrd rules and the Senate’s governing rules you might have a case to talk down to me.
    .
    Nonsense. The Byrd rule is one of the Senate’s rules.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Rule
    .
    So, I now have a ‘case to talk down’ to you, right?
    .
    …please don’t embarrass yourself.
    .
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • lcky9

    Touchy touchy touchy you PROGRESSIVES are .. Everyone is well aware of the fact that the DEMOCRATS have had the MAJORITY and it has NOT been the REPUBLICANS alone who have held the bill back..LOL.. Hey, I love being the water carrier for the fact that even the DEMOCRATS don’t want this bill.. IF they do manage to BUY enough votes they had better not be going home for EASTER.. it didn’t work out well for them at Christmas or last summer.. and the people are ready to March.. It must be awkward to go home and have to lay low.. I am not being mean I got a laugh out of it when the same thing happened to the Republicans who supported Amnesty..why do you think so many of the independents crossed over to support OBAMA? I voted 3rd party didn’t like who the RNC OR the DNC chose for us to vote for.. wish more independents had to done the same we may have had better luck.. BTW IF one says using the NUCLEAR option is NOT what the forefathers had intended and then does the same thing doesn’t that make them hypocritical? No more double standards.. call them like they are..

  • stuartzechman

    Jay Newton-Small:
    .
    Great thanks for engaging in commentary debate on matters of fact, it is very much appreciated by your readers.

  • drboaz

    SZ- your bias is obvious for all- I have no problem with that. Your scuffles with those that disagree with you are entertaining. One questions I have for you- What would Obama have to do before you’d pull your support for him?

    Would ethics violation, criminal activity, or moral mistakes by Obama cause you any second thoughts about your love for him? I’m not accusing, just asking…wouldn’t it “be simpler for you to simply say that you (love) Obama”?

    As you criticized freeinpa- “It would be simpler for you to simply say that you hate Obama, and if he discovered cures for AIDS, cancer, and sunburn, you would still hate him. Healthcare simply gives you a specific complain.”

    Aren’t you equally as zealous in your support of him?

  • http://randyfaria.wordpress.com randyfaria

    This bill is a disaster. Many of you are so stuck on your partisan “win” at any cost that you absolutely refuse to see this for what it is.

    It accomplishes a few laudable goals, including pre-existing condition fixes and increased coverage. It is however a cost disaster. The ONLY items that may have controlled costs such as public option/single payer, taxing of cadillac plans, tort reform, have been gutted.

    I live in Mass, which has “reform” similar to the Senate plan. We have gone in three years from middle-of-the-pack nationally in terms of premiums to number one-noone else is even close. It is also bankrupting the state, as it now is about 3-5% of all state spending despite massive federal support, without which it would be well over 10%. Couple that with Medicare and Medicaid spending and its a recipte for disaster. Why do you think we voted in Scott Brown, a distateful choice for many in this state.

    Get off your soapbox–fix medicare and medicaid first, as we will be back at the table to fix these in 4-5 years as the are INSOLVANT!!!!!!

    The uphevals caused by this “reform” will cause us to a decade or more of no job growth. Where is that “pivot to a laser-like focus on jobs”????? What part of “focus on jobs first” do you people in Washington and syncopats NOT UNDERSTAND??????

  • liberty3

    A vote without a vote? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!

    CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THIS WERE BUSH/CHENEY? But always the Democrats, and Obama especially, think the American people are stupid!

    This is plain and simple the suspension of the CONSTITUTION! I KNOW THAT’S A BIG YAWN FOR DEMOCRATS!

    AMERICANS LET’S MOVE THIS IS A CRISIS!

  • midwesterchitown

    Passing health care reform is absolutely required through whatever means available so the Obama administration can then move on to Immigration reform.

    Once those millions of illegals become voting US citizens with subsidized health care benefits, liberals can finally accomplish their objective of complete control of our national elections and this country forever more.

    Wake up America!

  • nofreehandouts

    Both sides have used reconciliation to ram things through. This is not this for that or tit for tat…..lets be non-partisan and cautious.

    I think we need reform but why try and change the whole system to do it. Why don’t we simplify the bill to reflect the will of the people? Implement changes that will not require the federal government to add to the deficit or increase taxes…..

    Some ideas…..
    1) Increase competition by reducing the regulation so consumers can cross state lines to purchase insurance.
    2) Serious Tort Reform
    3) Help people be part of large high risk pools and spread those costs so no one can be denied. 4) Give Tax Credits….or let consumers have non-taxable health accounts to subsidize costs….

    These are just a few examples we can implement before we go ahead and move to a system that increases the central power of the federal government which will certainly encroach on our freedoms.

    I really don’t want the government to start legislating my sugar in take through taxation. Can we honestly say with 100% confidence that every new tax dollar generated to tackle the cost of a new healthcare system will go to it. I don’t think so. Do you really trust the government to be frugal and responsible with the money they generate in new taxes?

    Current Social Security and Medicare are both underfunded…are deficit is 11% of GDP. Greece is in chaos with rioting and financial ruin and there deficit was 13% of their GDP. I am not saying NO to reform I am just asking fellow citizens to be cautious of what we ask for. Think through how this may affect our lives and the future citizens of this country.

    Latest Polls show that 75% of America is not sure about the current bill. 60% don’t want this bill passed. Is it not dangerous when our representatives begin to ignore their constituents. Is it not true that our representatives are elected by the people to work for the people? There have been many shady deals made to get votes to pass this legislation…..that is telling on it own merit…. Once again I am not saying we should not have reform…but let’s slow down think it through and make sure it is done right. Once our government passes legislation it is very difficult to reverse course. Lets all be prudent and thoughtful of future generations.

    God bless and for those that are not believers good will….. Take care out there…it is getting a littl scary.

  • apr2563

    midwester: I can’t keep track of all the conspiracies the progressives have going on.
    1. Install a non-American in Presidency
    2. Take over legislature by using the evil Acorn
    3. Destroy the economy
    4. Turn the Justice Department into a cabal of jihadists
    5. Take over our schools and teach sex and evolution
    6. Confiscate all our guns
    7. (New one) Outlaw sports fishing
    8. Encourage another attack on the US
    9. Destroy democracy and replace with facism/communism
    10. Let in all the brown people so they will vote Dem. and eliminate the white race
    11. Accomplish all of this and more with the help of the media.
    I am sure midwester you can think of more. Run and hide. Get those survival seeds sold on the Beck show.

  • gamedman

    What a ridiculous debate arguing over nuclear options and whether reconciliation is obscure or not. That all misses the point.The bottom line is that this is an unpopular bill that has Dems contorting themselves to persuade(bribe) their own party to pass a bill that does nothing to achieve its purported intention of controlling costs, improving healthcare etc. It’s like they walked to the end of the plank and now have nowhere to go but off the deep end. Hopefully most of them can’t swim.

  • tjoyce994

    Because severe changes are necessary to fix the system. The bill doesn’t go far enough. Regarding your ideas of simple changes:
    -
    Buying insurance across state lines has little value when carriers in many areas have a virtual monopoly.
    .
    First of all, insurance settlements are 1% of the cost of insurance. Second, tort reform as it is currently
    being described doesn’t work. Texas has tort reform. There hasn’t been a drop in the number of tests
    that doctors order nor a reduction in premium. Any anyone who believes that their doctor is afraid to refuse to order requested tests has never had insurance through an HMO.
    .
    A tax credit is only relevant, if you file a long form. Millions of people don’t. I also question if you
    know just how expense health insurance is for the individual. Last year we paid almost $20,000 in premiums alone. This didn’t include co pays, deductibles or out of pocket expenses. This is half of many peoples’ gross salary.
    .
    There already is a high risk pool for the uninsurable, and we already pay for it. It’s called using the emergency room as your primary care physician. It’s inefficient, costly, but available to everyone. Instead of a $75 doctor visit, we all get pay $3,500 to $5,000 per visit. Sometimes we pay more than that. This link regards a child who died from a toothache.
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html
    .
    The only things that can be said with certainty are that the current system should have been changed years ago, and the country will go broke, if we don’t change it now. With all due respect, it sounds like you are saying, “Fix it, but don’t affect me.” That just isn’t possible.
    .
    There are millions of tax-paying American citizens that can’t buy health insurance, because the carriers refuse to sell it to them. Most bankruptcies involve medical issues, and most of those people had some type of insurance. But, you can’t fix just part of the system. If we only force carriers to abolish the pre-existing conditions, consumers will be technically able to purchase coverage, but they won’t be able to afford the premiums.
    .
    Regarding the number of people who don’t want the bill passed, that number is dramatically reduced once pollees learn the specifics. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, too many opinions are uninformed or based on false information, such as death panels. As someone who works in the insurance industry, I can vouch for the fact that most people never read their policies until they have a claim. And they only read it then, if they are told they won’t be paid for something. Health insurance isn’t any different.
    .
    The truth is most Americans don’t know whether this is a good plan for them, because they have no idea what they have now. Do you know the lifetime limit on your policy? Do you know how close your family is to reaching that limit?
    .
    This is scary because it’s new to us. We are the only industrialized, wealthy nation that maintains such a poor, wasteful system. It’s time for a change.

  • gamedman

    I think because the “work” you refer to is against the will of a majority of the people they have been elected to represent. (no matter what poll you look at).

    But then again liberals of course know best what is good for the little people they govern.

  • grape_crush

    What a ridiculous debate arguing over nuclear options and whether reconciliation is obscure or not.
    .
    Funny, considering the source of the argument was spawned by the GOP.
    .
    …pass a bill that does nothing to achieve its purported intention of controlling costs, improving healthcare etc.
    .
    You must have not read the bill. Things like eliminating the practice of denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions qualify as an improvement.

  • gamedman

    You are quite right in that I haven’t read the bill because there is no bill at this time. But I hate to confuse you with facts. Wasn’t it you that was questioning Jay about Byrd Rules and pointing out what an idiot she must be because she dared to have an opinion differnt than yours?

    Ah, I love the tolerance of liberals who always cite the right as being intolerant.To use your own words,

    Pot. Kettle. Black

  • grape_crush

    You are quite right in that I haven’t read the bill because there is no bill at this time.
    .
    The House and Senate bills are online. It’s pretty sad how your opinions are based on your own admitted ignorance.
    .
    But I hate to confuse you with facts.
    .
    Not possible, as you haven’t stated any.
    .
    Wasn’t it you that was questioning Jay about Byrd Rules…
    .
    Yes.
    .
    …and pointing out what an idiot she must be…
    .
    Nope. Immature, unprofessional, petty, and shrill, but not ‘idiot’. You’re lying.
    .
    because she dared to have an opinion differnt than yours?
    .
    Differences of opinion are encouraged, it makes for good discussion. Condescension and patronization is not.
    .
    I love the tolerance of liberals who always cite the right as being intolerant.
    .
    Considering that I didn’t ‘cite the right as being intolerant’, your smug statement is completely dishonest.

  • http://leftcoastrightbrain.wordpress.com leftcoastrightbrain

    Classic liberal line. When the GOP used reconciliation to move the “Bush tax cuts” through, they had support of about 60% of the voting public. They were being stalled by Dims who wanted to spend, spend, spend.

    That’s not the case with this so-called health care reform. The public opposes it by about 60%.

  • http://leftcoastrightbrain.wordpress.com leftcoastrightbrain

    TJoyce wrote: “The CBO is the official referee, and they don’t have problems with the accounting.”

    Another liberal sop. CBO works off of assumptions in the proposed legistlation and can only run the number out ten (10) years. With 10 years of revenue (taxes) and 6 years of benefits (expenses) AND the assumption that the Medicare SGR will be permanent, this thing looks GREAT. However, the SGR has never held (21% physician reimbursement from Medicare, slated for March 1st implementation, has been pushed back to April 1st) and in years 11 and beyond this bill is vastly expensive. POTUS and Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid are ducking those issues.

  • tjoyce994

    “TJoyce wrote: “The CBO is the official referee, and they don’t have problems with the accounting.”
    Another liberal sop.”
    .
    So now the CBO is biased in favor of the democrats? When the CBO’s scores were unfavorable to the democrats, republicas were (fairly) on every news station reciting them. You can’t use the CBO when their numbers are unfavorable and then discredit them when the numbers favor the democrats. At least you shouldn’t do that if you want to maintain any credibility.

  • nofreehandouts

    Everyone that wants to get their point across says they work for that industry to make their point stronger. How about your phone number and license for the insurance company you work for…maybe you should find a new job……I certainly would not want an employee working for me that is rooting for their company’s demise.

    Your response to my ideas…….Buying insurance across state lines has little value when carriers in many areas have a virtual monopoly.

    I disagree, the obvious benefits of granting consumers the ability to purchase health insurance outside of their own state is that this grants them the ability to do a widespread search for the very best policy at the lowest cost. The cost of living varies from state to state, as does the average cost of health insurance premiums . Grant a consumer living in a notoriously expensive state the ability to purchase a health insurance policy anywhere, and that consumer will more than likely be able to find a much less expensive health insurance policy issued in a state that does not have a very high cost of living. For some consumers, the ability to purchase a health insurance policy across state lines will not merely save a little money; it will result in profound savings. The variety of policies available will also increase exponentially, allowing consumers more variety when deciding on what coverage they want.

    Remember since you work in the insurance industry you know that insurance companies work on a 2-4 % profit margin. I would rather have my private insurance that I pay for and continue to allow companies to make a small profit than let the government start mandating what is ok or allowable. This take over will be bad for personal rights and freedom. If you are for such a system move! Have you thought about how this may and I say may affect R&D for new drugs and research….I

    Look at what government regulation, taxes have done to production and manufacturing in this country. 90% of that industry is gone.

    Your point about settlements….They are 1% of the cost of insurance. Second, tort reform as it is currently being described doesn’t work. Texas has tort reform. There hasn’t been a drop in the number of tests that doctors order nor a reduction in premium. That is Ok a total obliteration of the private system would force doctors to limit testing.

    Remember these ideas are interrelated one cannot stand alone. We are looking to save money.

    From the CBO…….As Congress wrangles over the skyrocketing cost of health care reform, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that reforming the medical malpractice insurance system, a.k.a. “med-mal reform” or tort reform, could save $54 billion over 10 years. Let’s talk in dollars not percentage points is skews the facts and make thing more palatable. You are one tricky little blogger. I am an ordinary citizen while you are a professional blogger for the United Socialist Party.

    A tax credit is only relevant, if you file a long form. “how about we shorten it……..hmmmmmmmm…how about we simplify the tax code…….Or you would probably rather have the top 25 % of wage earners who pay 80% of all the taxes be taxed even more….

    You say you paid almost $20,000 in premiums alone. This didn’t include co pays, deductibles or out of pocket expenses. This is half of many peoples’ gross salary. . There already is a high risk pool for the uninsurable, and we already pay for it. It’s called using the emergency room …WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING LETS PAY FOR THE 15,000,000 MILLION ILLEGALS….I AM SORRY I HAVE MY OWN FAMILY AND STRUGGLES>>>HOW ABOUT PEOPLE OBEY OUR LAWS>>>

    The only things that can be said with certainty are that the current system should have been changed years ago, and the country will go broke, ….NEWS FLASH WE ALREADY ARE….SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE, MEDICARE etc…., 75 CENTS OF EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR TAXED RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO THOSE TWO PROGRAMS…..I KNOW WHAT YOUR THINKING LETS JUST KEEP TAXING AND WHEN WE HAVE TAXED BUSINESS AND PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION LETS ALLOW OTHER COUNTRIES TO BUY MORE DEBT FROM US…WHEN THAT DOES NOT WORK LETS JUST PRINT MORE MONEY……ALL I AM SAYING IS LETS USE CAUTION BEFORE WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO REVERSE…

    You also say…..With all due respect, it sounds like you are saying, “Fix it, but don’t affect me.”

    My reply is…..I am saying fix what you can to help some but do it in a way that does not require me to subsidize others or affects my current choices. I like my insurance, I like how the system works and I do not think it is the role of our government to keep taking from me and giving to others. There is a lot of fraud and waste in our government until they can show me they are fiscally responsible, honest, and efficient I will never trust them. How about they start cutting other programs and reducing the deficit so that it is not 11% of GDP. I did not see your response on that aspect. It may be that the American people are frustrated with spending…..back door deals and the fact that the average salary of our representative is 175K a year and yet they are implementing a health care program that they themselves are not willing to be a part of. That concerns me……

    You say….There are millions of tax-paying American citizens that can’t buy health insurance, because the carriers refuse to sell it to them. Most bankruptcies involve medical issues, and most of those people had some type of insurance. But, you can’t fix just part of the system. If we only force carriers to abolish the pre-existing conditions, consumers will be technically able to purchase coverage, but they won’t be able to afford the premiums.

    Well thought out point and I do agree but we should not change the whole system without thinking it through. If you were really concerned about reform and care about the role of government I would think you would promote a more bipartisan approach. Would it not be more prudent to try those things that do not increase the government’s role and deficit first. It may be prudent…can you really name one thing the government does really well except for spending our tax payer dollars. Do you agree we should use some caution……??????

    Keep up the good work…since I am not paid by an organization to blog I am going to offically retire. I have a real job..with real resonsibilities and I take owness upon myself to handle my own obligations. What organization do you work for?

    Take care of yourself you insurance guy….LOL

  • tjoyce994

    You have a tendency to take liberties with statements. I haven’t said anything to imply that I’m rooting for the demise of insurance companies. They are here to stay. They certainly need to be better regulated. But you never answered my question. Do you know what the lifetime cap on your policy is? Do you even understand the significance of the term?
    .
    Regarding letting people purchase coverage across state lines, I have two words for you: credit cards. Didn’t that idea work wonderfully with credit cards? Now all the cards originate from the states that have the poorest consumer protection. How will insurance be different without the government regulation you oppose?
    .
    I know health insurance companies spend only 60 cents of every $1 on patient care, and that figure is down from 90 cents a few years ago. HCR as currently designed will bring that figure back up to 90 cents. That 2 – 4% profit figure is less impressive when you remember that multi-million dollar salaries are not considered profit. They are considered a business expense. The people who collect those salaries are to ones you should be telling to find another job.
    .
    You said that you would rather have your private health insurance that you purchase, but you also mentioned that you have a job. Let me take a wild guess. Does your job pays most of your health insurance costs? And this isn’t a government take over. That is a talking point term to describe government regulation of an industry. That’s the government’s job. When HCR passes, your doctors will still work for the same medical clinics, not the U.S. government. If you job pays for you insurance, very little will change for you. What will change is that people who don’t have employer based insurance will also have coverage. No one has been able to articulate exactly what freedoms they think they will lose. Maybe you can. I don’t know how it hurts you if I can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, or if my neighbors’ children can stay on her policy until they are 26 years old. How does removing lifetime caps affect your freedom?
    .
    Insurance companies don’t do drug R & D.
    .
    HCR isn’t a total obliteration of the private system. It is essentially the same system with some modification. If fact the current plan is almost identical to the republican proposal submitted under the Clinton administration. Bob Dole and Bill Frist have publically endorsed it.
    There is nothing in either bill to force doctors to limit testing. And if you are acknowledging that tort reform didn’t work in Texas, I don’t understand the logic in applying it to the nation. You save money by punishing people with legitimate problems, you don’t give bad actors any incentive to change their behavior, or give carrier’s any incentive to drop them as customers. If your doctor cuts off the wrong leg during surgery, is it alright to limit your punitive damages settlement to $200,000? Are you honestly willing to say “No harm no foul?”
    .
    Your comment about me being affiliated with the United Socialist Party is too stupid to dignify. That’s interesting that you equate being well informed with socialism. You comment, “WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING LETS PAY FOR THE 15,000,000 MILLION ILLEGALS….” is just insane. I haven’t mentioned illegal aliens. And even you should know that they aren’t the only people who use hospital emergency rooms as primary care physicians. Working people (probably some you know) who don’t have insurance have no other choice when they become ill.
    .
    If I understand your post, you want to change the tax code, change the courts, restrict insurance settlements all to fix healthcare. Why don’t we just change health care? And you are upset with congressmen’s salaries, but you want to leave the insurance company CEO’s alone?
    .
    “NEWS FLASH WE ALREADY ARE….SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE, MEDICARE etc…., 75 CENTS OF EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR TAXED RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO THOSE TWO PROGRAMS…..”
    .
    That figure sounds wrong. Where is the military spending?
    .
    “I am saying fix what you can to help some but do it in a way that does not require me to subsidize others or affects my current choices. I like my insurance, I like how the system works and I do not think it is the role of our government to keep taking from me and giving to others.”
    .
    You are already subsidizing others. Who do you think pays for the uninsured’s ER treatment? If they have health insurance, you will be paying a $75 doctor bill instead of a $3,500 bill. But there are people who can’t get insurance but would gladly purchase it if available. Right now, you are paying their ER bills as well. I’m glad you like the system, but most of us don’t. HCR is coming.

blog comments powered by Disqus