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

[Undertoad]

This appears to be true. What's the difference?

[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?

[sugarpop]

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"?

How is it abuse when republicans are the ones who've used it the most? My god, buncha babies, whine when the other side wants to use the same tactics they themselves used. Not to mention, the way fillibusters are used today is not how they were meant to be used. If one side or the other wants to fillibuster, they should have to stand up and make endless speeches, not just go straight to a vote.

[Undertoad]

Let them filibuster. I don't think the public will find it very impressive behavior.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Fox News will play them as heroes and their base will cheer wildly.

[Undertoad]

Well they'll do that regardless.

It's interesting, because the GOP is still looking for some way to insist that they have principles that the voters can believe in. It'll be important for them to take it all the way on some issue in the next two years, and then give in before appearing to be simply naysayers.

Maybe that's why the Ds put health care into the budget. Let them filibuster for two weeks, then say, OK, we'll take health care out and make that a separate bill, now either allow the vote or use reconciliation to get the rest of the budget passed. Then when health care is separate, if they filibuster again they'll look bad.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sounds like a good plan.

[Happy Monkey]

Q.E.D.

[TheMercenary]

Q.E.F.