Obama advocates abuse of power to pass healthcare

[Kratos]

With the clock once again ticking on health care reform legislation, President Obama today will launch his final push to get a bill passed and will indicate that he is willing to work with Republicans on some issues. But the president will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial "reconciliation" rules to send a bill to his desk.

The president makes a final effort on his health care bill.That parliamentary procedure would allow Democrats to pass the legislation with just 51 votes, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been waiting for direction from the president on how health care reform will proceed. In remarks scheduled for 1:45 p.m. ET at the White House, Obama will urge Congress to "move swiftly" toward votes on health care, a White House official said on Tuesday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...ory?id=9995953

[Kratos]

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., is right to be upset that liberal lawmakers want to use a rule intended to reduce deficit spending in order to increase it. And Byrd - the conscience, in many ways, of the Senate - is correct to point out that the rule in question never was intended to be used as liberals now are contemplating.

Liberal senators, with the backing of President Barack Obama, have been discussing use of a technique called reconciliation to pass their controversial health care bill. As matters stand, the liberals do not have enough votes in the Senate to gain approval of the bill.

But if they use the reconcilation process, it is possible for them to pass the bill with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes they would need otherwise.

The reconciliation process was established many years ago as a means to limit debate, primarily on budget measures. In 1985, senators agreed to the "Byrd rule," named for the West Virginia senator, to limit use of the reconciliation process.

But now, liberals in the Senate are discussing ways to get around the 25-year-old "Byrd rule" - simply because they can find no other way of passing their health care bill.

That prompted Byrd to write a letter to other senators last week, urging them not to use reconciliation to pass the health care bill. Byrd wrote to his colleagues that efforts to use reconciliation in this case "are grossly misguided."

This is not the first time Byrd has objected to efforts by liberals to manipulate the legislative process improperly. Nearly a year ago, he sent a similar letter to other senators, informing them that, "I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate."

Byrd sees clearly what some of his colleagues are attempting to do. They are furious that legislative procedures used for decades - often on matters of enormous importance - do not allow them to ram their health care takeover through the Senate. So, the liberals want to change the rules.

[Kratos]

The Byrd Rule was adopted by the Senate in 1985 to combat budget deficits. Anything not germane to the budget and, anything that adds to the deficit, cannot be included in reconciliation under the Byrd Rule. Byrd warned the White House in 1993 that health care would not pass muster as part of reconciliation, and Clinton abandoned the strategy.

If Obama uses this method to ram through health care, any bill in theory is in bounds anytime you have a senate majority under the same party as the president.

[Mooseman33]

clock ticking on the Dems having senate marjority.....they are digging their own graves..

i dont think this bill passes the house, senate yes but the house i dont see it happening...

[Kratos]

The point is, if in the end he goes this route, it's an abuse of power.

see what he says about it yourself....of course when the other party was in power...
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...unders-intent/

[Kratos]

also in that video
Biden: "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

[BgMc31]

Weren't Bush's tax cuts passed with the same tactic, as well as welfare reform, and COBRA reform. Simple majority has been used many times throughout history.

[thegodfather]

Using reconciliation in this way is a threat to the democratic process in our legislature. Plain and simple.

[FUZO]

Blojama is the worst pesident that we have seen ever in our life time. He wont be able to even get 51 votes from the democrats and they have the majority but not for long. Your going to see a huge swing in the nov election for us republicans.From day 1 ive called out this scum bag on all of his lies and ive been rght every step of the way. Liberals are weak minded people and think nancy **** pelosi and harry reid will save america. This scum bag has created more debt then any us president in history,he has passed bush. In 3 years this scum bag wil be out and we will have a new republican president. New facts just came out,this scum bag took 8 states that bush had won and now after 1 year all those 8 states that this scum bag won are now in the negative for him and will continue to drop for him.

[Kratos]

Weren't Bush's tax cuts passed with the same tactic, as well as welfare reform, and COBRA reform. Simple majority has been used many times throughout history.

Congress has never before used the budget reconciliation process to enact broad social legislation.

Cobra did not need reconciliation. The original Senate bill passed on a 93-6 vote. The reconciled bill (the one incorporating compromises with the House bill) then passed by a voice vote, indicating that the outcome was so apparent that no tally was required.

President Clinton’s welfare reform statute, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. The statute had significant bipartisan support and did not depend on the reconciliation process for its enactment. On the final vote, there were 78 Yeas and 21 Nays, with one Democrat not voting. Twenty-five Democrats (the minority party) joined 53 Republicans in supporting the bill.

The reconciliation process is designed for budget issues -- i.e. provisions which affect revenues and outlays. The tax cuts under Bush although you could make a case against, fit the definition of provisions that could be passed through the reconcilation process.

What Obama is saying: With the health care act, I'm going to impact affect revenues and outlays. I'm going to be laying out cash to pay for healthcare.

Well, duh anything you do is going to cost or save money. That doesn't mean this rule gives you the power for all legislation. Only when directly related to the budget. Spending or saving money being the only qualifier means there is never a reason for more then 51 votes anymore.

[Kratos]

And the time frame for reconciliation bills is at most ten years, after which they expire unless explicitly renewed (which will happen with the Bush tax cuts).

But how do you let the healthcare bill expire after 10 years. I mean, you've just changed the whole healthcare system. You've got millions and millions of people dependant of the new gvmt health system. It becomes impossible to just let the bill expire and Obama knows it.

[A7X]

The difference to me is that obama and biden were stricktly against it "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." than they turn around them selves and use it. In my opion they have little care to what the american people want and are pushing their own special agenda.

[Kratos]

"that is now prompting a change in the senate rules that really I fear will change the character of the senate forever...what you simply have is majoritarian absoloute power on either side, and really that's not what the founders intended"
--Obama

C'mon BgMc, clearly this is one case where he's wrong in bending the rules to get what he wants. If Trent Lott's "Nuclear option" is a bad idea, so is using reconciliation to change the voting threshold in matters not directly pertaining to budget. They are essentially using a loophole as the nuclear option without ever passing the nuclear option bill.

Either the number of votes required to be filibuster proof is 51 or 60. It should not depend on who is in power or how important the person in charge thinks the bill is. I'll pass on Obama saving me in my own stupidity in opposing the healthcare reform bill.

[gymmonster]

l know this is an old post but l had to chime in on this.
Have any of you saw some of the crap they have in this bill its crazy,
l cant believe anyone "other than politicians" want to see this thing go through. l have to think anyone that stands behind this bill is either psycho
or they just have no idea whats in it.

[BgMc31]

"that is now prompting a change in the senate rules that really I fear will change the character of the senate forever...what you simply have is majoritarian absoloute power on either side, and really that's not what the founders intended"
--Obama

C'mon BgMc, clearly this is one case where he's wrong in bending the rules to get what he wants. If Trent Lott's "Nuclear option" is a bad idea, so is using reconciliation to change the voting threshold in matters not directly pertaining to budget. They are essentially using a loophole as the nuclear option without ever passing the nuclear option bill.

Either the number of votes required to be filibuster proof is 51 or 60. It should not depend on who is in power or how important the person in charge thinks the bill is. I'll pass on Obama saving me in my own stupidity in opposing the healthcare reform bill.

Unlike many on this forum, Kratos, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I was unaware of the details of this issue. Thanks for the clarification of the details. Going by what you have posted, you are absolutely correct that this is a deviation and misuse of power. I have emailed both Harry Reid's office and Obama's website, as well as the local democratic party to see why no one has called Obama out on this. And where is the outrage by the opposition power if this is illegal?

[BgMc31]

l know this is an old post but l had to chime in on this.
Have any of you saw some of the crap they have in this bill its crazy,
l cant believe anyone "other than politicians" want to see this thing go through. l have to think anyone that stands behind this bill is either psycho
or they just have no idea whats in it.

So you've read all 2700 pages or are you just parroting talking points?

[gymmonster]

So you've read all 2700 pages or are you just parroting talking points?

No l havent read it all but l know a good amount of what is in it.
l watched a breakdown video "10 minutes long" of probably the worst stuff my man ben armstrong could find in it, and it really is insane.

[gymmonster]

l dont need to see the good stuff thats in it theres no way it could justify the bad

[Kratos]

Unlike many on this forum, Kratos, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I was unaware of the details of this issue. Thanks for the clarification of the details. Going by what you have posted, you are absolutely correct that this is a deviation and misuse of power. I have emailed both Harry Reid's office and Obama's website, as well as the local democratic party to see why no one has called Obama out on this. And where is the outrage by the opposition power if this is illegal?

The outrage is there.... "A raw exercise of legislative power," Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called the emerging game plan. He vowed, "It will be the issue in every race in America this fall."
The vague language of the law makes it difficult. But, if the Dems go through with this it will become very clear to the American public what was done here. And then when the Republicans are in power again....the sky is the limit.

Harry Reid is big on pushing this forward.
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom...cfm?id=323016&

quotes from his letter

There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.” Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”j

Is there something wrong with majority rules...yeah, it only benifits the majority party...in this case it would be you.

Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry....
If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.


So in other words, we tried to work with republicans...they were just too terrible. We know what's best and we're going to get our way.
If you were a senator, and a bill came before the senate that you saw as a bad bill, something that should not be passed into law...what would you do? Delay it and try to kill it? or try to write changes into it? Killing bad bills should be an option don't you think?