Health Care: Lock and Load

After all the missed deadlines, I’m hesitant to say this, but here goes:

Next week is the week.

The House Democratic leadership now expects to schedule a vote on the Senate health care bill and send it to President Obama’s desk next Friday, March 19, or Saturday, March 20.

After that, assuming the bill passes, the House will turn to making adjustments to that legislation through a reconciliation bill, which it would then send to the Senate. There are still some procedural details to work out; for instance, rather than passing the Senate bill as a stand-alone measure, it may “deem” the bill to be passed as part of the procedural vote that brings the reconciliation bill to the floor. (JNS wrote about this “self-executing rule” here.) The political argument for doing it in this contorted manner is to avoid forcing House Democrats to go on the record as supporting some of the more egregious provisions in the Senate bill, such as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” But the result would be the same: The Senate bill would be on its way to becoming law.

Here’s what Nancy Pelosi had to say in her news conference today:

Speaker Pelosi. Good morning. Here we are on Friday morning, one day closer to passing historic legislation to make health care more affordable, more acceptable to the American people and holding insurance companies accountable. Each day we move closer in terms of narrowing the decisions that need to be made.

We are still awaiting the report of the Congressional Budget Office for us to finally put something in print and on the Internet. But the CBO did come out with a report yesterday on the Senate bill. Mind you, the Senate bill passed Christmas Eve, but there was a CBO score going into the vote, but this addressed as amended. And what was positive about it is it showed over $100 billion in savings for the first 10 years of the bill and $1 trillion over the second 10 years. That is exactly what we — or better — what we hope to do with the reconciliation bill, to sustain those numbers. So the fact that it started at a good place for us is very positive.

Of course, we’re eagerly awaiting the final word from them. And when they do, then we will be able to send a bill to the Budget Committee, the Budget Committee will pass that out, we’ll go to the Internet with that and discuss the specifics of the legislation with our Members, and we’ll take whatever time is required for us to pass the legislation.

Again, I feel very exhilarated by a Caucus meeting that we had this morning in terms of the questions that Members have. We spent a good deal of time on the substance, but then some on the process as well. We stand ready to stay as long as it takes to pass the bill. I think Members are eager to pass the bill. And again, it won’t be long before we’ll be making a real difference in the lives of the American people.

So in terms of the House, again, as I said, the CBO, the substance in terms of what the agreement is between the House and the Senate and what the Senate tells us they are prepared to act upon, and then the action of the House.

I’m delighted that the President will be here for the passage of the bill. It’s going to be historic. And it would not be possible without his tremendous, tremendous leadership, his persistence, his concern for the American people, always, always guided by his statement that we will measure our success by the progress being made by America’s working families. This legislation not only makes history, but it will make progress for America’s working families.

Any questions?

Q: Madam Speaker, are you saying by March 21st you will pass health care reform?

Speaker Pelosi. I have said we will take the time that we need to pass the legislation.

Q: But you just said…

Speaker Pelosi. Well, I’m hoping that it will be in that time frame. Our clock can’t start ticking until we get the CBO score. But that increases the prospect that he will be here since he will be here three more days.

Q: Madam Speaker, do you think it will be easier to get votes for health care by attaching this student loan provision also to a reconciliation?

Speaker Pelosi. Thank you for that question. Right from the start, our budget instruction was about two bills that would be reconciled. One was health care, and one was education.

If I may just step back for a moment, this goes back to our budget bill that we passed in the House 100 days after the President’s inauguration, so calculate that, in the spring of last year. In that bill, the President had a blueprint in the budget for lowering taxes, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, stabilizing our economy well into the future, around three pillars. Those three pillars were investments in education and innovation, which go together; investments in energy and climate change; and investments first among equals in health care.

We have passed all three of those bills. Two of them, the education bill and the health bill, were to be part of the reconciliation. So the budget bill we passed in the spring, the budget instruction we received in the fall was about the reconciliation would deal with those. Reconciliation of education would bring us more savings and, of course, cost the taxpayers less and the students less for their student loans. So that has always been part of the plan.

There was some question as to whether this would prevail in the Senate until the Senate Parliamentarian, was it yesterday morning, I’m losing track of time, announced that it must be part of the reconciliation. And so that’s why it has emerged again as a subject of more public view, but it is really important. It’s not there to — no, I don’t think it would make any difference in our House about passing the bill.

What it will make a difference is in community colleges and support for community colleges, Pell grants, minority serving institutions, K through 12 school construction. Those are the kinds of things that will receive funding. The amounts will depend on the amount that we hear from the CBO and from the Senate.

Q: Madam Speaker, Senator Durbin said this morning that if you include the public option in your version, he will aggressively whip it with more than 40 Senators now on board. Is that something you are considering?

Speaker Pelosi. Let me say this, and I know I can say this with certain assurance in this room. I have supported — when I say support, signs in the street, advocacy in legislatures — I have supported single payer for longer than many of you have been — since you’ve been born, than you’ve lived on the face of the earth. So I think, I have always thought, that was the way to go, A.

B, the public option, it isn’t without a little sadness that I view that it is not in the bill. But in fighting for the public option, which is, I think, a fight that was led in the House, and we had it in our bill, we improved what is going to be in the final product, because while we may not have a public option, we have the purpose of the public option served by the exchanges and what they allow by the rate reviews, which we insisted upon, insurance rate reviews, and by saying that insurance companies, should they be raising rates between now and the onset of the exchanges, may be prohibited from participating in the exchanges.

So I believe we have a very strong bill that will increase competition, will lower cost for the American people and accomplish some of the same goals. It doesn’t produce the same savings, and that’s why, you know, we were fighting for it. The goal had to be served; we wanted more savings than a public option would provide, but it did not prevail.

What we will have in reconciliation will be something that is agreed upon, House and Senate, that we can pass and they can pass. So I’m not having the Senate, which didn’t have a public option in its bill, put any of that on our doorstep. We had it, we wanted it; they didn’t have it, it’s not in the reconciliation. But it has nothing to do with whether we initiated it here. We did initiate it. They didn’t.

Q: You’re saying if you initiate it, then they will whip it.

Speaker Pelosi. We’re talking about something that is not going to be part of the legislation, so why don’t we talk about what is going to happen? Because I’m quite sad that a public option isn’t in there. But it isn’t a case of it’s not in there because the Senate is whipping against it. It isn’t in there because they don’t have the votes to have it in there or they would have had it in there to begin with.

Q: How troubling is the ruling that the Senate Parliamentarian did yesterday on the President must sign the bill before they can do the reconciliation?

Speaker Pelosi. Not very troubling. I mean, it’s more of a visibility issue. But the fact is that once we pass the Senate bill, it is enacted. And that remains for the President to sign it.

Maybe more on the subject than you want to know, so I know you’ll stop me if that’s the case. It’s important to note that what we are doing is reconciliation. We’re dealing with a very few points: affordability for the middle class, equity for the States to correct the Nebraska fix, closing the donut hole for seniors — and I’m finding out that a lot of people don’t know about the donut hole — making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and expanding the accountability, the insurance reforms. In addition, on the pay for side, changing the pay for from the excise tax to another pay for.

That’s largely what is in the bill and some things that go with that. It all must be central to the budget, nothing incidental or peripheral to the budget, central to the budget. That’s what it is. The bills that have passed, ours with 220 in the House, theirs with 60 in the Senate — we’ll be acting upon the Senate bill with changes that were in the House bill reflected in the reconciliation. So in order to have the Senate bill be the basis and build upon it with the reconciliation, you have to pass the Senate bill, or else you’re talking about starting from scratch.

So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, whether the President signs it or doesn’t, people would rather he wait until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President. So it isn’t going to make any difference except maybe the mood that people are in, but the fact is that once we pass it in the House, it’s going to be the law of the land.

Q: Won’t it make a big difference? We’re hearing from so many of your rank and file that they just so don’t trust the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi. Well, that’s another thing. But the fact is that they’re committed enough to extending insurance to 31 million more Americans, to making insurance more affordable to the middle class, for having reforms that say that we end the prohibition on denying insurance to those because they have a preexisting medical condition. They’re committed to the goals of the legislation, and they’re strong enough to do it regardless if the bill is signed on Monday or if it’s signed on Friday, because we’ll have already passed the bill.

Q: Speaker Pelosi, speaking of the CBO, they came out with their newest budget number that $9.7 trillion will be added to the debt over 10 years. The smallest deficit in that window will be $724 billion in 2014. Do you intend as Speaker ever to preside over a balanced budget like Hastert or Gingrich did, and if so, what kind of time frame would that be?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, first of all, let us reflect upon where that budget deficit came from. We have two wars that were always done on a supplemental, not paid for. We had the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country, which was a very major contributor to the deficit in the Bush years, and now thereafter.

But having said that, it is our responsibility to reduce the deficit. And for that reason I’m very pleased that the Senate has now agreed to have pay as you go. It became the rule of the House the day I became Speaker; it became the law of the land only recently when the Senate agreed that they would abide by pay as you go.
Secondly

Q: Did you ever intend to balance the budget at any point in time?

Speaker Pelosi. Excuse me, I’m answering the gentleman’s question.

The second point is that we have the commission that the President has, by executive order, put forth to take under consideration everything: revenues, expenditures, entitlements, the rest. But to talk about — and that has a short fuse. You know, that will be a “this year” phenomenon. And then the President has asked for a freeze or a cut in the appropriations bills as we go forward.

So what I say to Members when they have an idea or a suggestion for legislation or an amendment to a bill, does it create jobs, does it reduce the deficit? That is the course we have to take.

But let me remind you that when the President — under pay-as-you-go under President Clinton, we came out of the Clinton Administration, the last four Clinton budgets were either in budget or in surplus. We were on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion going in a positive direction. After President Bush’s reckless economic policies, and tax cuts to the wealthiest, and engaging in wars that he did not pay for but just added to the deficit, but even before we got all of that, just in a couple of years the trajectory changed to about $6 trillion in deficit, a swing of about $11 trillion, bigger than has ever happened in history.

We know how to turn that around. President Clinton did it following the Reagan Bush deficits. We have to turn it around now, and that is our commitment.

Q: Speaking of the Senate, on the assurances from the Senate, I realize Leader Reid can’t give you ironclad assurances because of the…

Speaker Pelosi. Why not?

Q: Because of the rules of the Senate. But what assurances have you gotten from the Senate that they will promptly take up this reconciliation bill to ease your Members’ fears?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, our Members have sent a number of bills over to the Senate which have not been acted upon yet. But let me say that that is largely because of the obstructionism of the Republicans there requiring 60 votes on every bill. As I’ve said to you before, Senator Reid has had the votes, he just hasn’t had the time to address each one of these issues. So the concern that they had was about what has happened in the past based on the 60-vote rule.

Under the reconciliation, the simple majority, the constitutional majority, I think Members are much more comfortable about the fact that this reconciliation will happen. Nonetheless, there are certain assurances that they want and that we will get for them before I ask them to take the vote. But I think we’re at a very good place because our numbers are coming; you know, what we are seeing from CBO is positive. We want it to be certified so that we can go forward with the scored bill as soon as possible. And again, any hesitation anybody might have about do you trust the Senate is offset by the great vision that they have for health care for all Americans and that we will be able to do it in a reasonable length of time. It will take a little faith, but what we do always does.

Q: Madam Speaker, just on timing. You said yesterday that you would give your Members a week to look at the legislation.

Speaker Pelosi. When I said that, I meant we would have at least a week from yesterday before we would have a vote. I hope that we would have the CBO scores as soon as possible so we can go to budget on the beginning of the week, and then go on the Internet, and then take a vote.

Q: Do you expect the scores today?

Speaker Pelosi. You know, it’s an independent agency. I wanted them last Friday, and I would hope that we have them today.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, Congress, Harry Reid, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi
  • 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.

  • stuartzechman

    KT:

    Q: Madam Speaker, just on timing. You said yesterday that you would give your Members a week to look at the legislation.
    .
    Speaker Pelosi: When I said that, I meant we would have at least a week from yesterday before we would have a vote. I hope that we would have the CBO scores as soon as possible so we can go to budget on the beginning of the week, and then go on the Internet, and then take a vote.

    So she still doesn’t actually have 216 votes as of today?
    .
    She’s still got to find 9 “aye” votes somewhere, right?
    .
    Where will she get them?

  • afguy

    Why do I get the idea that, if the bill is passed, the effect will be more of a subdued “pop” with a waving “VICTORY!” flag in the barrel of the “gun” Karen speaks of, rather than the resounding “BOOM!” we hoped we would be hearing?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    She doesn’t have the votes, and i’m betting she doesn’t get them (if she does) until the last 24 hours. She expects to lose about a half-dozen, I’m told, on abortion. There are probably two or three she could pick up among members who voted no the first time and are retiring. She will be working some of the more conservative Dems who voted against the first time, and who come from relatively safe districts, with the argument that this is a smaller and less expensive bill that does not include a public option. And then, in the end, there is the arm-twisting. That’s where Obama comes in.
    .
    My gut still says this:
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/28/health-care-can-nancy-pelosi-get-it-done/
    .
    and this:
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1969568,00.html

  • deconstructiva

    KT, thanks for the update, although alas, Jay’s post (that you linked) got really ugly. Can we pledge here to just have a pillow fight instead? If none of the Senate rules really apply to the upcoming recon + R counterstrategies scenario , I’d hate to see how they’re going to wing it.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    decon: call me cynical, but my experience suggests that people in congress use procedure as an excuse, not a reason. there’s almost always a way to do something, if they really want to do it.

  • stuartzechman

    KT:
    .
    Thank you so very much for responding to commentary, it is always greatly appreciated.
    .
    I read both of your pieces carefully when you posted them, and they both still leave much up in the air (as you readily acknowledge, of course.)
    .
    This is interesting:

    She will be working some of the more conservative Dems who voted against the first time, and who come from relatively safe districts…And then, in the end, there is the arm-twisting. That’s where Obama comes in.

    Are you suggesting that Obama/Rahm will arm-twist these same 37 conservative Democrats who are on record voting against HCR?
    .
    Leaving aside for one second the highly questionable step for these Dems of leaving themselves wide-open to GOP attack ads featuring language like

    Just like John Kerry, Congressperson X voted against the bill, before they voted for it…Tell Congressperson X we’ve had enough of Democrat flip-flopping…

    , the White House hasn’t shown themselves to be particularly adept nor willing to arm-twist fellow Blue Dogs, only the liberal Progressive Caucus weaklings.
    .
    Other than the corn-husker/NOLA funds-type bribes that Congressional Dems are eager to run away from at this point, what arm-twisting of safe Blue Dogs could the WH possibly pull off at this point, KT, even if they were truly willing to exert that kind of pressure on their own people?

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, KT, I agree. Maybe many rules really give cover more than keep order. At a past job the company manual had lots of rules but that was the bosses’ decisions, not HR. The HR person often said, “The manual is to keep us from getting sued, NOT to tell you how to work.”

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    So what they say is: You thought the original House bill was too big and too expensive; you objected to that nasty cadillac tax/public option/whatever. Now you can vote for this and go back and tell your constituents how much better you made the bill…

  • charlieromeobravo

    It would be sad if that were true. The Dems really need to make a big deal about this if it happens. Getting this legislation passed in the face of total Republican opposition, industry opposition, misinformation campaigns, etc… is quite a feat even if this isn’t exactly the legislation that HCR supporters would really like to see. It’s not often that legislation of this scope is passed. It represents a big step towards bringing America up to speed with most of the rest of the civilized world and that’s worth celebrating.

  • gthog61

    “procedural details”?

    Has something so big and so obnoxious ever been passed with such an underhanded set of tricks?

    Are there any idiots left who still think this is about health care and not about the dems “getting a win”?

  • lalydialydia

    Would someone please explain to me how this can be? Don’t revenue bills have to originate in the House? Or did I miss something?

  • deconstructiva

    …did both Bush tax cuts go thru recon?

  • carotexas1

    I am interested in seeing what is in the student loan provision.

  • deconstructiva

    KT can explain it much better than me, but the House can approve the Senate bill as is without going thru joint committee. But to get them to this, the House wants changes made, so this must be done afterwards with both Senate reconciliation AND Sandra Bullock winning the Academy Award. Sandra did her part, now it’s up to Congress.

  • tedford47

    during the arm twisting, would someone please remind them to break Dennis Kucinich’s arms, both of them.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Both the House and Senate have passed versions of the health care bill. The reconciliation bill will originate in the house, and then go to the Senate.

  • afguy

    You may not like him, but you have to admit the man has been consistent in his opposition to the HCR present bill (and with his reasons too).

  • stuartzechman

    It represents a big step towards bringing America up to speed with most of the rest of the civilized world and that’s worth celebrating.
    .
    Ah…no, it doesn’t, not in terms of policy.
    .
    Even if we’re talking in political terms, the way that Obama sold this thing (link to Seth Ackerman’s takedown of Ezra’s “historic” defense)

    Barack Obama…has repeatedly told the country that this is a great bill because
    .
    (1) it’s not an unrealistic and impractical foreign-inspired government-run program;
    .
    (2) it doesn’t turn your health care over to government bureaucrats;
    .
    and (3) it relies entirely on the principles of business competition and consumer choice (usually abbreviated to “choice and competition”).

    has almost completely sabotaged any rhetoric Democratic-wing Democrats could use to promote a better bill –or any future legislation– from the left. It’s even more triangulation than the first time, only this time it “worked” (passed something).
    .
    I understand that there are differences between the views of PANS and people who want real health care reform, but…”celebrating“?
    .
    If it goes through, it will be because Barack Obama has convinced enough people that Bob Dole’s health care ideas were worth all of this trouble.
    .
    That’s a huge step backwards politically from “bringing America up to speed with most of the rest of the civilized world.” It’s also worth figuring out how to never do this way again, not celebrating.

  • stuartzechman

    KT:
    .
    LOL.
    .
    That’s so classic of a DLC political tactic that it just might work to convince those Dems to vote for it.

    You thought the original House bill was too big and too expensive; you objected to that nasty cadillac tax/public option/whatever. Now you can vote for this and go back and tell your constituents how much better you made the bill…

    ……[and your GOP-leaning constituents will surely say to themselves "Thank God we had a Democrat there to make a too big, too expensive bill a bit less big and expensive, instead of just voting against it, like the Republican says he would have."]
    .
    Who knows, maybe some of those Blue Dogs are stupid enough to buy that line. A lot of elected Democrats are that dumb.
    .
    You might be right, KT.

  • square1

    Shorter KT: “You thought the old bill was too expensive, so we stripped out some deficit-reducing provisions.”
    .
    I’m with Stuart. That just might convince the Blue Dogs.

  • jcapan

    “there’s almost always a way to do something, if they really want to do it.”
    .
    Not to echo SZ, but God bless you Karen Tumulty. The dems this Nov, when they’re grappling with what went wrong during this cautionary tale of rule, could do well to consider what voters think of leaders lacking the will to do what they promised.

  • square1

    What are the odds? Pelosi spends her entire life fighting for single-payer. Finally she gets to a point where the Senate MUST pass whatever bill she sends over.

    Unfortunately, she…just can’t seem to whip up the votes for the public option. How ironic. Where’s Alanis Morissette?

    If I were a cynic, I would suspect that she has been playing her constituents for suckers for years. But I would never accuse a politician of such mendacity.

  • square1

    Getting this legislation passed in the face of total Republican opposition, industry opposition, misinformation campaigns, etc… is quite a feat even if this isn’t exactly the legislation that HCR supporters would really like to see.

    Democrats had nearly a year to pass any bill that they wanted to, regardless of the GOP’s views.

    As for the “industry opposition,” it is non-existent. The industry wrote the bill. It includes billions of dollars of subsidies for the industry. Right now, the industry is jacking up premiums to whip up support for HCR. Industry opposition? Please.

  • trifecta55

    OT: Karen, WTF is wrong w/ Texas school boards?

  • formerlyjames

    Why do you say this? I don’t understand what you mean. Seriously, please explain.

  • square1

    Karen, WTF is wrong w/ Texas school boards?
    .
    Fixed.

  • jcapan

    Thanks for mentioning that Tri. I hadn’t heard TX was joining a lengthening list of states embracing mythology over science. Reminds me of my visit last year to the hugely popular international Darwin exhibit that passed thru Osaka. The last item up for display was a Kansas bio textbook, around which stood a Japanese family, the father and mother laughing as they explained the caption to their kids.

  • mikew67

    Add a .50 tax to every fast food order which exceeds 500 total calories. With the millions of those sold every day in America, that would help illuminate the issue, discourage the consumption a little, and toss billions of dollars into the kitty to finance health reform — saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

  • stuartzechman

    Get out you blog-whoring scum.

  • apr2563

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/10/kos_kucinich
    I like Kucinich. He is always an interesting presidential candidate. I am also in agreement with most of his causes. However, here are his accomplishments:
    //
    Introduced 97 bills since taking office in 1997
    93 didn’t make it out of committee
    3 that did become law
    1. Grant to Ukranian museum
    2. Named a PO
    3. Bill honoring Pulaski

  • stuartzechman

    apr2563:
    .
    I get your (and Markos’) point, but, given present circumstance, I’m coming to believe that Democrats’ accomplishments might be best measured in terms of what horrible bills they vote against, not what un-horrible bills they get out of committee.
    .
    What bills did Kucinich vote against, that his more “realistic” Congressional brethren voted for?
    .
    What would that score look like?

  • jcapan

    Tilting at windmills, ain’t it? Something about outliers or is it spheres of deviance comes to mind. In my experience, the objects of the most hostile marginalization in our public discourse are those who should be listened to.
    .
    This stands in stark contrast to those mainstreamed into American homes: David Broder, Tommy Boy Friedman, Lindsey Graham, sh!t, even Time’s coverboy Glenn Beck. These are the sages we should listen to (i.e. be rhetorically assaulted by)

  • jcapan

    BTW, 64 others voted for his Afghan. resolution, up from 30 odd votes the last time this came up for a vote. Kabuki or nay, given our leadership, it’s gratifying to see 65 members of congress (including 5 repub’s) with a conscience.

  • shepherdwong

    “…I’m coming to believe that Democrats’ accomplishments might be best measured in terms of what horrible bills they vote against…”
    .
    If that includes Republican bills, I might have to agree with you.

  • carotexas1

    trifecta there is a glimmer of hope as Don McElroy was voted out in the Republican primary.

    Not time to prevent this

    http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/mar/12/sboe-conservative-roll-liberals-give/

  • afguy

    But I would never accuse a politician of such mendacity.
    .
    @square1: Hey, I’m nothing if not a “team player” so I’ll volunteer to stick my neck out and say she’s quite capable of doing that because of two main reasons: (1) she’s a politician and (2) she’s breathing.

  • afguy

    Stu,
    .
    In less civilized countries, some of the more obviously obstructive members of the government would have received a sternly-worded letter been taken outside and shot for a lot less than has happened.
    .
    But, we’re the greatest country on earth, so such “political free speech” blatant bullsh!t is just the price we have to pay for our gridlock minority rule form of governance …
    .
    Any wonder why other countries laugh behind our backs when we criticize them for the same sh!t rush to imitate our legislative processes?

  • FlownOver

    KT:

    Take guidance and solace from what the late Douglas Adams (author of the five-volume Hitchhiker’s Trilogy) said:

    “I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.”

  • jonboinar

    @ 2.3:

    Shall we just say then that the Senate filibuster uh… tradition is an anachronism and needs to be done away with ASAP. As soon as we take care of that item perhaps we can actually move along with some national business. Maybe we won’t remain a laughingstock for too long.

  • jonboinar

    They would have had to do had to do away with the filibuster, wouldn’t they? Could that have been done and was there any possibility at all that the Democratic Senate would have been willing to go to that extreme? Now, I would think there’s more of a background of a reason: “As the American people can see, due to Republican obstructionism, we have to make ridiculous contortions in order to get any national business accomplished. The results have been suboptimal. Because of this terrible misuse of it by the Republican minority, the filibuster tradition must be put to rest.”

  • stuartzechman

    They had 60 votes from the moment that Franken was sworn in.
    .
    Lieberman could have lost all seniority privilege, committee chairs, DSCC funding, etc, if he didn’t get on board for an up or down vote.
    .
    The filibuster didn’t stop Democrats, Democrats who threatened to join a Republican filibuster were allowed to hijack the process by other Democrats.

  • http://presidentsuit.com PresidentSuit

    Listen up, Democrats! The American People want health care reform! They just don’t want YOUR version of health care reform!
    http://wp.me/pBZ7l-93

  • http://whitecollargreenspaceguy.wordpress.com whitecollargreenspaceguy

    The government already has the money to pay for universal health and at the same time reduce the carbon footprint of office buildings by 50%.
    The Federal government pays for almost one billion square feet of office space. Most office space sits unused 70% of the time because most white collar work is scheduled for only one shift per day or only 45 hours out of a 168 hour week. 30% efficiency is completely unacceptable in today’s economy. We could schedule 2 shifts of white collar workers, thus increasing our efficiency by 100% and reducing our carbon footprint by 50%. We could cut the cost of overhead for each employee by 40 to 50%, half as much infrastructure, half as much office space, half as many computers and supplies. With the overhead for each of our 2 million Federal workers approaching $40,000 per year, the potential savings could be $20 billion per year, enough to pay for health care reform.
    If extended to private industry, this simple plan will:

    •Save federal gov a half trillion dollars in next 10 years
    •Exactly amount needed for universal healthcare
    •Reduce white-collar overhead costs by 50%
    •Reduce carbon footprint of office space by 50%
    •Reduce budget deficits for most state governments
    •Reduce our dependence on foreign oil
    •Make workers competitive in the global economy
    •Improve profits for all businesses and
    •Increase tax receipts for state/fed governments
    •Businesses can hire more employees & lower prices
    For details and comments see:
    http://whitecollargreenspace.blogspot.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenspaceguy

  • shoptrade27

    maybe you can find something here:

    http://www.shoptrade.us/

    50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

    free shipping
    accept paypal credit card
    lower price fast shippment with higher quality

    our website: http://www.shoptrade.us/

    BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
    SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
    FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

    Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
    numder

    http://rds.yahoo.com/** http://www.shoptrade.us/

    Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
    1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
    2) They are in stock now;
    3) Various styles and color for clients’ choice
    4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price

    puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

    new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

    true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

    LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

    NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

    UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

    DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

    DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

    our website: http://www.shoptrade.us/

    Nike wholesale Nike shoes wholesale. Nike
    shoes: Nike shox air force1 jordan TL NZ R4 Turbo Monster shoes,Nike
    air max 95 360 97 2003 TN Plus shoes,Nike air jordan shoes,Nike air
    dunk shoes. We sale wholesale Nike shoes(Nike trainers, Nike
    sneakers,
    Nike basketball shoes, Nike running shoes, Nike Men’s shoes, Nike
    women’s shoes, Nike mens shoes, Nike womens shoes, nike cheap
    discount
    shoes). Nike shox shoes wholesale(Nike shox tl – shox tl 3 III, Nike
    shox nz,Nike shox r4,Nike shox r5,Nike shox turbo,nike shox
    monster,nike shox VC OZ Ride shoes). Nike air max shoes
    wholesale(Nike
    air max tn plus,Nike air max 360,Nike air max 95, Nike air max 97,
    Nike air max 2003,Nike air max 2004,Nike air max 90). Nike shoes
    wholesale other sport shoes(retro nike air jordan 21 XXI 11 XI 13
    20,nike air dunk low min high, Nike air rift,Nike air force 1 one).
    China Nike factory sale and wholesale nike shoes to your nike shop &
    nike store, Nike wholesale nike shoes to United States America and
    England and United Kingdom and Europe.

    Nike Shoes Wholesale – Nike Air Dunk:
    Nike Dunk , Nike Dunks, Nike Air Dunk, Nike Air Dunks, Nike Dunks
    Dunk
    low,Nike Air Dunks Dunk High , Nike Dunk mid Shoes.
    Nike Sale – Nike Air Force 1:
    Nike Air Force 1, Nike Air Force one Shoes, Nike Air Force 1 one,
    Nike
    air force 1 one Low mid high shoes.
    Nike Shoes Wholesale – Nike Air Max:
    Nike Air Max Shoes, Nike airmax , Nike Air Max tn, Nike Air Max plus,
    Nike Air Max 90 , Nike Air Max 360 , Nike Air Max 95, Nike Air Max
    97,
    Nike Air Max 2003, Nike Air Max 2004 , Nike Air Max 2005.
    Nike Wholesale – Nike Shox:
    Nike Shox Shoes, Nike shocks Shoes, Nike Shox tl Shoes,Nike Shox
    nz ,Nike Shox r4 , Nike Shox r5, Nike Shox turbo, Nike Shox tl 2 II,
    Nike Shox tl 3 III, Nike Shox monster, Nike Shox running Shoes, Nike
    Shox LV, Nike Shox BURBERRY.
    Nike Shoes Wholesale – Nike Air Jordan shoes:
    Nike Jordan, Nike Jordans, Nike Air Jordan, Nike Air Jordans, Nike
    Air
    Jordan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21, Nike Air
    Jordan 11 XI, Nike Air Jordan 13 XIII, Nike Air Jordan 21 XXI.
    Nike rift, Nike Air rift at
    We also Wholesale Puma Shoes, timberland Shoes, timberland boots,
    adidas Shoes, bathing ape Shoes, bape sta Shoes,Bape sta Shoes, Prada
    Shoes, Prada Boots, Reebok Shoes.
    Nike Air retro Jordan, Retro, Mart, trading company, Limited Nike
    Wholesale,retailer, sales, selle & trader &e saler, Nike website,

    Nike com, Nike products,Nike Shox xt,Nike tailwind,Nike marketing,
    Nike factory store, Nike classic, Buy Nike Shoes,Nike Shoes
    online,Nike walking Shoes,Nike sport Shoes, Nike skate Shoes, retro
    Nike Shoes, Nike training Shoes,Nike kids Shoes,discontinued Nike
    Shoes,Nike Shoes for kids, Nike new Shoes,fake Nike Shoes, customs
    Nike Shoes,copy Nike Shoes,replica Shoes, baby Nike Shoes, Nike
    AirForce 1 Shoes, Nike Shoes catalog,Nike Shoes models,newest Nike
    Shoes, Nike gucci Shoes,Nike Air Force 2 Shoes,Nike Shoes picture.

    Nike Shoes Wholesale – Nike Air Dunk:
    Nike Dunk , Nike Dunks, Nike Air Dunk, Nike Air Dunks, Nike Dunks
    Dunk
    low,Nike Air Dunks Dunk High , Nike Dunk mid Shoes.
    Nike Sale – Nike Air Force 1:
    Nike Air Force 1, Nike Air Force one Shoes, Nike Air Force 1 one,
    Nike
    air force 1 one Low mid high shoes.
    Nike Shoes Wholesale – Nike Air Max:
    Nike Air Max Shoes, Nike airmax , Nike Air Max tn, Nike Air Max plus,
    Nike Air Max 90 , Nike Air Max 360 , Nike Air Max 95, Nike Air Max
    97,
    Nike Air Max 2003, Nike Air Max 2004 , Nike Air Max 2005.
    Nike

    http://www.shoptrade.us/

  • http://jodans2010.wordpress.com jodans2010

    Thanks to your generous support, so great. killersneakers.com

  • http://phonecharger.wordpress.com phonecharger

    It is a good post,thank you for sharing!

    http://www.air-force-1s.com

blog comments powered by Disqus