PDA

View Full Version : House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it


Vincent
03-16-2010, 08:39 AM
In what might be the penultimate act of cowardice and deceit, pelosi aims to rubber stamp the bill she has neither the votes for nor the will of the people. If the elephants had a ball among them, this could be real fun to watch. But it won't be.

The visceral reaction to this assault on the constitution is anger, and a legitimate call for severe action. That would play directly into their hands. The "Cloward–Piven" strategy is at the center of this White House's game plan. They do the outrageous things they do to provoke frustration and desperation for the purpose of inciting revolution.

The rational approach is what is quietly happening right now, and very surprisingly under "the media's" radar - passage of state legislation to block implementation of obamacare. 30 states are in process. When that comes to a head, the federalies will try to impose their will on the states, obamacare will be deemed unconstitutional, and the donkeys will be relegated to their own private nuclear winter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html
House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 16, 2010; A01

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
Un-@#$%ing-believable - editor
Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional.

"It's very painful and troubling to see the gymnastics through which they are going to avoid accountability," Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), the senior Republican on the House Rules Committee, told reporters. "And I hope very much that, at the end of the day, that if we are going to have a vote, we will have a clean up-or-down vote that will allow the American people to see who is supporting this Senate bill and who is not supporting this Senate bill."

House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive.

Some senior lawmakers have acknowledged in recent days that Democrats lack the votes for passage. Pelosi, however, predicted Monday that she would deliver.

"When we have a bill, then we will let you know about the votes. But when we bring the bill to the floor, we will have the votes," she told reporters.

Pelosi said Monday that House Democrats have yet to decide how to approach the vote. But she added that any strategy involving a separate vote on the Senate bill "isn't too popular," and aides said the leadership is likely to bow to the wishes of its rank and file.

As Pelosi and other congressional leaders pressed wavering lawmakers, President Obama highlighted how close the result may be as he focused his attention Monday on Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has been a stalwart no vote on health-care reform.

Kucinich, an uncompromising liberal, has rejected any measure without a government-run insurance plan. Obama invited Kucinich to join him aboard Air Force One for a trip to suburban Cleveland, where the president made a plea for reform, the third such pitch in eight days.

As he addressed a crowd of more than 1,400, Obama repeatedly called on lawmakers to summon the "courage to pass the far-reaching package." He painted the existing insurance system as a nightmare for millions of American who cannot afford quality coverage.

The president lashed out at Republican critics who have argued that the health-care initiative would undermine Medicare, and he argued that the measure would end "the worst practices" of insurance companies.

"I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do," he said, nearly shouting as the crowd cheered. "And so I'm calling on Congress to pass these reforms -- and I'm going to sign them into law. I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."

Asked whether he was reconsidering his position, Kucinich demurred. But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Kucinich is coming under intense pressure from Ohioans who want Congress to act, and from his colleagues in Washington.

"All of us -- the governor, the congressional delegation, the president -- are making clear to Dennis that we won't have another chance for a decade if this doesn't happen," Brown said.

Persuading liberals such as Kucinich to support the Senate bill is critical to the Democratic strategy, which has been rewritten since January, when Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. The Senate Democratic caucus, reduced to 59 seats, lost its ability to override Republican filibusters and soon abandoned plans to pass a revised version of the health-care bill that would reflect a compromise with House leaders.

As House leaders looked for a path that could get the Senate legislation through the chamber and onto Obama's desk, conservatives warned that Pelosi's use of deem-and-pass in this way would run afoul of the Constitution. They pointed to a 1998 Supreme Court ruling that said each house of Congress must approve the exact same text of a bill before it can become law. A self-executing rule sidesteps that requirement, former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Democrats were also struggling Monday to put the finishing touches on the package of fixes. Under reconciliation rules, it is protected from filibusters and could pass the Senate with only 50 votes, but can include only provisions that would affect the budget.

Democratic leaders learned over the weekend that they may not be able to include a number of favored items, including some Republican proposals to stem fraud in federal health-care programs and a plan to weaken a new board that would be empowered to cut Medicare payments.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic leader tasked with protecting politically vulnerable incumbents, said Republicans would twist the nature of the health-care vote, no matter how the leadership proceeds. He defended the deem-and-pass strategy as a way "to make it clear we're amending the Senate bill."

Without that approach, Van Hollen warned, "people are going to try to create the impression that the Senate bill is the final product, and it's not."

Undecided Democrats appeared unconcerned by the flap. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), a retiring lawmaker who opposed the original House bill and is undecided on the new package, mocked Republican criticism of the process. Ultimately, he said, voters will hold lawmakers responsible for any changes in law.

"I don't think anybody's going to say that we didn't vote for the bill," he said.

Staff writer Peter Slevin in Ohio contributed to this report.

GBMelBlount
03-16-2010, 08:47 AM
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.


Can you really blame her for using every means necessary to force through something she strongly believes in, whether the means is very ethical or not?

I would imagine this has been done by both parties.

The real question for me is regardless of party, should this "self-executing rule" be allowed in the first place?

Vincent
03-16-2010, 09:01 AM
Can you really blame her for using every means necessary to force through something she strongly believes in, whether the means is very ethical or not?

I would imagine this has been done by both parties.

The real question for me is regardless of party, should this "self-executing rule" be allowed in the first place?

That's very charitable of you GB.

We're not talking about reupping a school bus program here. We're talking about seizing 1/6 of the economy against the will of the people.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/obama-teaching-1.jpg

This is key to the marxist POS' strategy to destroy capitalism, and this country.

Let them do it. It'll be the demise of that party. And the pendulum will swing hard to the right.

GBMelBlount
03-16-2010, 09:15 AM
That's very charitable of you GB.

We're not talking about reupping a school bus program here. We're talking about seizing 1/6 of the economy against the will of the people.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/obama-teaching-1.jpg

This is key to the marxist POS' strategy to destroy capitalism, and this country.

Let them do it. It'll be the demise of that party. And the pendulum will swing hard to the right.

My point is simply this Vincent, if the government is doing things that are arguably unethical and backhanded, is it now wrong because of the "scale" to which this is being abused?

Should this rule even be in place.

Tony has made the excellent point that capitalism, when completely unchecked, can very bad.

So I am asking a similar and broad question, really, about the government in this particular case.

GBMelBlount
03-16-2010, 10:31 AM
Oh, and another thing I forgot...and this sort of dovetails with my first post.

If I'm not mistaken, Pelosi was very vocal about the culture of corruption when republicans were in office. In fact, didn't she promise to not only end the corruption in Washington, but usher in a new era of ethics and transparency which all fit in nicely with the brilliant "change" slogan for Obama's campaign.

So fact that Pelosi is using this "slight of hand" per se, is even more interesting now imo...

Indo
03-16-2010, 11:14 AM
Oh yay.


Well, maybe Vincent's right---it will be deemed Unconstitutional (when has Pelosi actually EVER paid attention to the Constitution?)
It's more than a little concerning, though, because it will go to the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) where Obaaaaamie has plenty of friends...

Godfather
03-16-2010, 12:39 PM
Oh yay.


Well, maybe Vincent's right---it will be deemed Unconstitutional (when has Pelosi actually EVER paid attention to the Constitution?)
It's more than a little concerning, though, because it will go to the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) where Obaaaaamie has plenty of friends...

I'm afraid it won't be struck down, at least not on tnose grounds. Each house of Congress is free to set its own rules and the argument would be that the judicial branch has no say over parliamentary maneuvers. In fact, we have a recent precedent--Hastert and DeLay broke House rules to get Medicare Part D passed but it doesn't matter because it was a parliamentary procedure issue.

MACH1
03-16-2010, 02:33 PM
Not only are they cutting their own throats if they pass it they're cutting ours too. Everybody's taking a ride on a sinking ship.

Vincent
03-16-2010, 07:39 PM
Not only are they cutting their own throats if they pass it they're cutting ours too. Everybody's taking a ride on a sinking ship.

I think this might reveal a clue.

OK, OK. Common sense tells us that these fools are hellbent to pass "something", anything they can call "health care". Forget the "details"; they're not important. The only thing that matters is that they can "pass" something "called" "health care". Doesn't matter what it costs. Don't have a clue what it means. It just by hell or whatever must be "passed" without further delay. @#$% your careers. @#$% the budget. @#$% the country.

Is there anybody "out there" so ignorant, stupid, incapacitated, or whatever that actually believes this is about "health care"? And if you do, is it really a "good' idea to trust your health to these lunatics?

Vincent
03-16-2010, 07:46 PM
I'm afraid it won't be struck down, at least not on tnose grounds.

30 states, so far, are preparing to tell the federalies to go @#$% themselves on this. States don't do that because they merely disagree. This has historic implications. What are the federalies going to do? Enforce this by force?

NJarhead
03-16-2010, 07:53 PM
Pardon my French, but that bitch needs to be introduced to some tar and freaking feathers! :banging:

MACH1
03-17-2010, 11:52 AM
A Declaration of War ... on the American People?

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," March 16, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Guess who Republican Senator Orrin Hatch says Democrats are fighting? No, not Republicans, but he says they are fighting the American people.

Just a short time ago Senator Orrin Hatch went "On the Record."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: We have some excitement here on Capitol Hill with health care. I don't know what is going to happen, whether it is going to be voted in or not, but you have been quoted as saying no matter what happens it will be war. You backed off a little bit, but what did you mean?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R - UTAH: Look, if this bill passes, the Democrats really aren't fighting Republicans, they are fighting the American people. The vast majority of them are against this bill.

I've been all over the country. People come up to me and say put that bill down. We don't want that bill. Over and over and over -- I hardly ever get anybody who says we want that health care bill that the Democrats have. They know it is loaded with all kinds of costs.

It has 1,700 new federal programs in it. My gosh, we don't need a 2,700 page bill -- actually 2,711 page bill to tell us what to do. People are very upset about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: There's also the collateral issue of ruffled feathers, and will there be ruffled feathers on the Hill in terms of will the Republicans and Democrats be able to work together on something that -- the people are really drawing a line in the sand on this one.

HATCH: They have. The Republicans are very upset about this.

And the Democrats are upset too. If they push this bill through the way they are trying to do it, and that is by coming up with a phony rule over this -- not phony, they can do it. They can come up with a rule that they try and get everyone to vote for, and then that deems the Senate bill passed by the House?

Not only is that unconstitutional, but that's a phony way of getting around this problem because they don't want their people to directly vote for this awful bill because they know the American people are going to hold it against them. There are going to be fewer Democrats if they vote for this bill this way.

VAN SUSTEREN: This Slaughter rule would originate in the House.

HATCH: Sure, House rules.

VAN SUSTEREN: What are the Senate Democrats thinking or saying? Are they saying that's a good idea?

HATCH: I can imagine anybody thinking they are going to get away with that. They would have to think the American people are absolutely stupid to not understand that voting for the rule passes that bill. It's the same as a vote for the bill except it is illegal under Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution, which says that have to vote up and down on these bills in order for the president to sign them.

VAN SUSTEREN: If the House accepts the Senate bill and goes up Pennsylvania Avenue, gets signed by the president and comes back for reconciliation, is there any maneuver or thought in your mine there's going to be maneuvering or movement on the side of the Senate Democrats, Republicans, to do what the House wants?

HATCH: First of all, the House members are relying on Senate, you know, passing the reconciliation bill. In other words they came up with another reconciliation bill to try and correct the Senate bill that they are unwilling to vote on. In other words --

VAN SUSTEREN: You're laughing at it. You think they're going to take it?

HATCH: Well, there's no guarantee that the Senate is going to do what they want them to do. The Senate is going to have to go through trying times in order to -- assuming that bill passes the House, assuming they get 216 votes. And I don't think they have those. If they had those they would have brought it up by now.

Can you imagine -- this president is going to have the budget under his leadership go up to $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you tell him that?

HATCH: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: What does he say?

HATCH: I haven't told him that personally, but I've told him in indirect ways. The fact of the matter is the deficit is going to double in the next five years and triple in the next 10 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: They must not think that is true.

HATCH: They know it's true. Their own budget says it's true. And let me tell you, their own actuary says this is going to cost the American taxpayers $200 billion more. And yet they play these phony games to hide the rotten things they've done here, like the special deals for people.

You're talking about a $10 billion deal for Vermont of all things. I mean $500 million for Massachusetts. I mean it's unbelievable. There are like 870,000 people who still get -- will get Medicare advantage while all the rest of the country doesn't get the benefit of that. You can have millions of seniors that really are going to be left out in the cold while they take care of a few special Democrat places.

The American people have caught on this bill is a travesty. It is going to cost an arm and a leg. It is going to double and triple our national debt. It is going to cost $500 billion in new taxes. Medicare is going to lose $500 billion and they are going to use that to start a new entitlement program.

There are going to be 1,700 new federal programs that the secretary of Health and Human Services can call and do. I mean, my gosh, it doesn't take any brains to realize these people are nuts. I'm sorry to be so harsh on my colleagues, but they know it.

They just -- they've come to this conclusion if they don't pass the bill they get killed. If they do pass it then it is probably better for them. I don't think so. I think if they pass it the American people are never going to get over it.

There is no guarantee it Senate is going to do what they want on reconciliation. And they better not rely on Senate to make the changes that they want, because they are unwilling to vote for the original bill in the House. They're counting on Senate living up to --

VAN SUSTEREN: You don't that is going to happen?

HATCH: You never know, but all I can say is the Senate is a big mess.

There's just one other thing. This bill is going to allow taxpayer financing of abortions. Look --

VAN SUSTEREN: They say no.

HATCH: Oh come on.

VAN SUSTEREN: Stupak people want stricter language. The House Democrats say no. Do you think they are trying to slip it in?

HATCH: Of course they are. The fact of the matter is there will be ways that people will -- you have to buy a program under this federal program, under this bill. And almost all of those programs will have some financing for abortion.

There's no question about it. We just a letter from the Catholic bishops who make it very, very clear if you read that letter that there's no way this bill will not provide federal financing for abortion, something that even pro-abortion people are against.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why didn't the Senate when it initially debated the bill adopt the Stupak language? What was the hold up, because that would have prevented a lot of this situation now?

HATCH: Because they know darn will that they are going to slip in abortion here.

VAN SUSTEREN: So you think this was part of the Democratic plan in the Senate from day one is they didn't want the Stupak language because that meant that there was a way they could slide some federal funding for abortion in?

HATCH: I'll tell what you the problem. Under the Hyde amendment, which we always pass on appropriations basis, that Hyde amendment says taxpayers should not be saddled with funding abortion. But that's on an appropriations basis.

If this bill passes it doesn't need appropriations. And so this bill allows the incipient increase of abortion paid for in part by the federal government. And they know it and they are trying get away with that.

And any time you see Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, who are two of the most pro-abortion people in the history of the country who think this is good language, it tells you whose side they are on.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, thank you sir.

HATCH: OK, nice to see you.

VAN SUSTEREN: Nice to see you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589544,00.html

Indo
03-17-2010, 01:07 PM
It just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it...

SteelerEmpire
03-17-2010, 05:33 PM
All of these little methods to by-pass votes should not surprise us... remember our country has always been run by LAWYERS. We constantly find out little angles that politicians can take to push their agendas... It is beginning to look like the office of the President 'actually' gives him power to do just about anything he wants... if he 'really' wants to do something... a way can be found...

MACH1
03-17-2010, 05:37 PM
All of these little methods to by-pass votes should not surprise us... remember our country has always been run by LAWYERS. We constantly find out little angles that politicians can take to push their agendas... It is beginning to look like the office of the President 'actually' gives him power to do just about anything he wants... if he 'really' wants to do something... a way can be found...

Its not supposed to be that way! Its called balance of power. Or at least it was.

43Hitman
03-17-2010, 05:55 PM
The Tree of Liberty is looking awfully thirsty.

Vincent
03-17-2010, 08:40 PM
The Tree of Liberty is looking awfully thirsty.

https://tc2.wikispaces.com/file/view/guillotine.jpg/32021821/guillotine.jpg

Water it with the blood of the stalinist bastards that seek to impose this crime on us.

HometownGal
03-17-2010, 09:08 PM
Seriously - why are we still discussing this when we know at some point in the very near future, we're going to be forced to bend over and take it in the seat? Obaaaaaama, Pelosi, Reid, Madame Rotweiler, the Senate and the house (both parties) don't give a flying fandoozle what those who voted them in want. They just want a feather - any feather - in their caps as in the last almost 15 months, they've been a do-nothing administration.

Stock up now . . .

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VA6LePZ6KNY/SLclaXQmfyI/AAAAAAAAAwc/ZGMFDa3BAu8/s320/KY.jpg

GoSlash27
03-17-2010, 09:38 PM
HTG,
Uhh... "fandoozle"? :chuckle:
/ I'm a big fan of do-nothing administrations

Vincent
03-17-2010, 10:01 PM
/ I'm a big fan of do-nothing administrations

Ohmuhgarsh-muhgolly, I am too. The ideal administration is one that rattles sabers at bad guys in the morning and takes naps in the afternoon. Pair that with a balanced congress that wastes all its time bashing each other's brains out, and the private sector is free to prosper. This is the worst of situations - an clueless omnipotent hotdog in the White House and his nut hugging "leadership" riding herd on a bunch of cuckolds in the congress.

And to twist the knife in deeper, we get Ms Gigglebritches...

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/World+Leaders+Attend+First+Day+UN+General+ouHQU_uF bENl.jpg

Vincent
03-17-2010, 10:04 PM
Stock up now . . .

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VA6LePZ6KNY/SLclaXQmfyI/AAAAAAAAAwc/ZGMFDa3BAu8/s320/KY.jpg

Will "hellth care" "cover" it?

GBMelBlount
03-17-2010, 11:08 PM
Will "hellth care" "cover" it?

:chuckle:

Good one.

HometownGal
03-18-2010, 07:51 AM
Will "hellth care" "cover" it?

:toofunny::thumbsup::toofunny: