While you're all outraged about the bailout...

[TheMercenary]

There is no doubt about it. This is how you ramrod legislation.

The shortcut, known as "budget reconciliation," would allow Obama's health and energy proposals to be rolled into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.

With 58 Senate seats, Democrats need the support of at least two Republicans to block a filibuster. But they could pass a reconciliation bill without any Republican votes -- and without the support of troublesome moderates in their own party.

Some moderate Democrats are arguing that reconciliation would empower their party's liberal wing while undermining a critical aspect of Obama's popular appeal -- his promise to work across the aisle.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) said reconciliation would send the opposite message, creating "kind of a divisive atmosphere." Lincoln, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has been working for months with GOP colleagues to lay the foundation for health-care reform, said circumventing that painstaking process "would just be sticking them in the eye."

Lincoln is one of seven Democrats who last week joined 21 Republican senators in declaring their opposition to using reconciliation to expedite Obama's plan to auction off permits for the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a proposal known as cap and trade.That legislation "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy," letter says, adding that any move to put it on a fast track or to limit debate "would be inconsistent with the administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031703798.html

"Reconciliation" is a parliamentary procedure in the House and Senate rules, primarily used to get quick passage of a budget when necessary to keep the govt running....its been used (abused?) by most recent Congresses at one point or another for other purposes.

Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts.

The "nuclear option" is not a rule or procedure, but was a way to fudge the Senate rules by having a simple majority (51) agree to change the Senate rules regarding approval of judicial nominees.

If any of that makes sense...lol.

[TheMercenary]

So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?

In the same manner that the Bush tax cuts amounting to over $1.5 trillion were "ramrodded" through with this procedure?

In fact, I agree with Lincoln to some extent (I think even Robert Byrd opposes using the procedure) that it is not the best way to proceed.....but at the same time, the filibuster/cloture vote procedure should not be used (abused) as much as the Republicans have since 2007..far more often than the minority party in any time in recent history.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In the same manner that the Bush tax cuts amounting to over $1.5 trillion were "ramrodded" through with this procedure?

In fact, I agree with Lincoln to some extent (I think even Robert Byrd opposes using the procedure) that it is not the best way to proceed.....but at the same time, the filibuster/cloture vote procedure should not be used (abused) as much as the Republicans have since 2007..far more often than the minority party in any time in recent history.

But over here you state:

There is no transparency issue.

Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago.

The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments.

The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold.

It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)

When in fact there is a huge transparency issue when debate is stiffled and limited options are available for any elected official to influence what the US public will ultimately pay for. And yet you bitch that they are only doing what the Republicans did for tax breaks? Double Standard much?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But over here you state:


When in fact there is a huge transparency issue when debate is stiffled and limited options are available for any elected official to influence what the US public will ultimately pay for. And yet you bitch that they are only doing what the Republicans did for tax breaks? Double Standard much?

The budget proposal has been publicly available for weeks...debate is not stifled....hearings are being held...amendments in committee and the floor of the Senate are allowed.... it is not done in secret.

The procedure just allows for a simple majority rather than a super majority.

There is no transparency issue.

I said I dont think it is the best way to proceed...but it may be the last way to proceed if the Repubs are not willing to negotiate.

The "double standard" applies both ways.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Transparency. Not.

If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.

Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

Your charaterization is bull shit.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Your characterization is bull shit.

I honestly just cant see how any objective person can characterize the threat of the Dems to use the "reconciliation" procedure as an issue of transparency.

The budget deliberation process since Obama sent his budget proposal to Congress two weeks ago has been completely transparent by any meaning of the word. To suggest otherwise is what is bullshit.

IMO, the Dems are using the procedure as a bargaining chip.

Its clear that the Dems intend is to begin the process of enacting serious health care reform in this session of Congress. If the Repubs want to play ball and participate in the process, they can.....much like the deliberations on the stimulus bill.

According to the latest report I read, the crafting of the legislative health care reform proposal will take place over the course of the next six months:

Republicans and some interest groups also protested a decision in the House to use a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation that would make it easier to pass comprehensive health legislation in the Senate.

In its version of a budget blueprint approved in committee Thursday, the House added language that sets a mid-September deadline for enacting health reform. If lawmakers do not act by then, a bill could be attached to the final budget, which would require 51 votes in the Senate, a much easier threshold than the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

More Support for Health Care Fix

But if like the stimulus bill, all they want to do is bitch and whine and walk away from the table because they dont get everything or even most of what they want in a health care reform package, then the Dems are not going to let them block it with a Senate filibuster.

The Republicans are the minority....everyone understand what that means but them.

They had their chance to take the lead on health care reform for six years and did nothing.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Your charaterization is bull shit.

No, your accusations are. If they weren't being transparent, they'd be covering this up. They aren't. They're just strong-arming the minority party. Don't like it? Win an election.

Get used to it. You have at least 20 more months of it.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?

Because it isn't true.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Republicans are the minority....everyone understand what that means but them.

It's about time the damn dems figured it out. I thought those morons would NEVER catch on.

Now I'm gonna put some popcorn on and watch the GOP howl on CSPAN.