Comments on: Democrats Could Resort to Procedural Rule to Avoid Healthcare Filibuster

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:39:47 +0000

Brian Krenz, you said that both parties have used this procedure. You are correct. However, using such a rule to reform healthcare would be the largest departure yet from the historical uses of reconciliation. Historically, this rule was used narrowly for spending reduction purposes. I know it has been used more widely under the last two presidents, but to dramatically continue that abuse is a poor idea. Unfortunately, both dems and reps have been irresponsible under the last two administrations. It seems that an ability to use power seems to give modern politicians the belief that it is right to use such power. I’m glad Max Baucus is showing restraint.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:42:30 +0000

Like there’s anything bipartisan about the republicans in congress right now?

By: Smooth Jazz

Smooth Jazz — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:46:25 +0000

If you believe in universal health care, then the best bet is to try to do it the bipartisan way, and then if that doesn’t work, ram it through with reconciliation. The price you pay is that the funding only lasts for 10 years, but that’s better than nothing. This is actually the current Democratic strategy. The Dems have given Reps until early September to work out a compromise.

By: Smooth Jazz

Smooth Jazz — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:44:36 +0000

There is no guarantee that if the program let’s say muddles through or is adequate, and the funds given are only temporary that it would be allowed to continue if Obama lost in 2012. This is one of those existential fights, where there can be only one winner, the Dems or Reps. Loss for either side would be a crippling blow basically for the rest of the forseable American history. If Democrats fail, then they will have lost one of their signature issues AGAIN at a time of the peak of their political power. If Republicans lose and the law is made permanent, it will probably be as impossible to repeal as Social Security is. Americans would become dependent on universal healthcare and thus repealing it would be political suicide. For Republicans, it means that the political center would have permanently shifted to the left towards a more European and Canadian style of government.

By: Nick Benjamin

Nick Benjamin — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:18:48 +0000

I’m not sure this will actually alienate any of the handful of Republicans the Administration cares about. McConnel et al. are in full opposition mode, which means that they’d Filibuster the Bible if Obama submitted as legislation. And threaten Specter, Snowe, and Collins if they didn’t call Obama the anti-Christ while voting to sustain the filibuster. So Obama can force those three to go through that again, or he can make their votes irrelevant by using this procedure.

Hopefully Mitch McConnel and his mob will be too busy decrying this use of an obscure parliamentary procedure to bother the trio. If they like it they can support it and honestly tell their GOP colleagues that voting no would make their re-election unlikely and hurt the party, and not help the cause because the dang thing would pass anyway. If they dislike it they can join the mob and build up some GOP cred. Along the way Obama can let eight (nine if Franken gets seated) moderate Dems stake out a position independent of the Administration by voting no.

If the health plan works great it’ll have enough support to be made permanent sometime in the next four years. If it’s a disaster it should be scrapped and rewritten anyway.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:33:34 +0000

My advise is to look at the routes of the world economy failure through history= The world order control is here (the New super bank is here)
controlled by a few elites – look at the united states? by the out the bad debts.. government and the federal reserve will own the world bank
Americans are asleep as usual while they are herded like sheep and the puppet in place is Obama? ask yourselves why? He is continuing Bushes polices..

The shadow government

1.Private offshore supper bank (bank of the world
2.more than 100Taxes- pay toxic- carbon taxes to the Fed(green tax)
under carbon trade systems all citizens will be forced to pay more taxes to the same elite group owned by the Federal reserve and the shadow government..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waQBIODtiqk&feature=related

By: Brian Krenz

Brian Krenz — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:01:04 +0000

Parties on both sides of the aisle have used this rule. This is nothing new. I'm sure the Dems will try to get bipartisan support, but they don't have time to waste battling with a party that just says no for the sake of saying no.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:07 +0000

sorry but there aren’t smart voices about deregulation in the current Republican Party. The Democrats aren’t great, but we need to move to the left just to get back to the center. It’s convenient that we forget that the Republicans used the reconciliation process to keep the Bush Tax cuts for the weathiest alive. I say the Dems should grow a set a push through their legislation. Republicans lost their power and they need to let the majority rule and suffer the consequences, much like the Republicans did in this past election. Bipartisanship is STUPID. Why do we care about bipartisanship- the public should support things that are best, regardless of what party you tend to vote for (and NO form of deregulation will work until we change our culture). Our federal representatives are supposed to be NON-partisan.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:54:59 +0000

sorry but there aren’t smart voices about deregulation in the current Republican Party. The Democrats aren’t great, but we need to move to the left just to get back to the center. It’s convenient that we forget that the Republicans used the reconciliation process to keep the Bush Tax cuts for the weathiest alive. I say the Dems should grow a set a push through their legislation. Republicans lost their power and they need to let the majority rule and suffer the consequences, much like the Republicans did in this past election. Bipartisanship is STUPID. Why do we can about bipartisansip- the public should support things that are best, regardless of what party you tend to vote for (and NO form of deregulation will work until we change our culture). Our federal representatives are supposed to be NON-partisan.

By: Smooth Jazz

Smooth Jazz — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:08:42 +0000

I thought I heard something about how passing things with the procedural vote doesn’t make it a law per se. It makes it something that expires within a number of years. So it could be that healthcare passed in this way could expire, just like the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

I guess it really depends upon moderate Dems (Conrad, Bayh, etc) and the handful of moderate Reps that are left.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:38:30 +0000

I no longer believe that the party of Rush has anything useful to contribute on this or any other subject.

Nor do I believe they are even slightly interested in contributing anything of value.

Alan, I think you’re seeing the GOP through a lens of nostalgia. The GOP is dead. A zombie party entirely in thrall to a race-baiting radio goon.

A shame, because we do need a second political party. I’m hopeful that someone will start one.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:13:01 +0000

What Republicans want a voice to use for something positive in actual health care reform? I haven’t heard one Republican who wants anything but to keep health insurance as insurance of the financial health of the insurance companies. They claim otherwise but somehow that always seems to be the end goal of their plans, if you judge them by their proposals instead of their rhetoric.

By: SD3

SD3 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:21:08 +0000

Hey, go for it. It’s not like we’re going to turn away from the cliff were sppeding towards. Might just as well hit the accelerator & go out ‘Thelma & Louise’-style, eh?

You know, the beautiful irony of all this is that liberals, flush with invincible political power, will (at least legislatively) finally see all of their pet-project dreams come true.

And once the dollar collapses under the weight of hyper-interst rate increases, every social program ever conceived (and coincidentally NOT mandated by the constitution, BTW) will go away: the ‘Great Society’, social security, food stamps, healthcare, public schools, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, low income housing, etc.

And then you’ll understand what printing cash is really all about.

Then we’ll rebuild society (for history to repeat itself yonve more).