We will see if that is the case, or not, if health care reform is approved to go through Reconciliation by the Congressional Parliamentarian (a Republican appointee).
"I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation.... As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose."
“Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consisten[/I]t with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.”
Byrd Defends Use of Reconciliation - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com
(a) Inclusion of reconciliation directives in concurrent resolutions on the budget
A concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution, shall—
(1) specify the total amount by which—
(A) new budget authority for such fiscal year;(2) specify the total amount by which revenues are to be changed and direct that the committees having jurisdiction to determine and recommend changes in the revenue laws, bills, and resolutions to accomplish a change of such total amount;
(B) budget authority initially provided for prior fiscal years;
(C) new entitlement authority which is to become effective during such fiscal year; and
(D) credit authority for such fiscal year,
contained in laws, bills, and resolutions within the jurisdiction of a committee, is to be changed and direct that committee to determine and recommend changes to accomplish a change of such total amount;
(3) specify the amounts by which the statutory limit on the public debt is to be changed and direct the committee having jurisdiction to recommend such change; or
(4) specify and direct any combination of the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) (including a direction to achieve deficit reduction).
I guess you are not aware that your hero, Robert Byrd, has since clarified his position on reconciliation regarding health care reform:
Robert Byrd - “Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.”
Byrd Defends Use of Reconciliation - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com
From Gill's post #16:
Quote by Sen. Robert Byrd
Keep in mind that Sen. Byrd's quota above was from a memo dated April 2, 2009 prior to the health care reform debate going into full swing. (See link in post #16 for details)
Quote from Robert Byrd recently clarifying his position on the use of reconciliation regarding health care reform legistlation:
From Title 2, Ch. 17A, Subch. I, Sect. 641 of the U.S. Code on the Recociliation process:
I believe Senate Dems will use the rule under subparagraphs (a)(1)(C) and (a)(2) above to justify using the reconciliation process. Since both versions of health care reform legistlation provide for "entitlements" (subsidies) and atleast the Senate version came out of a specific Senate Committee and either bill will affect future budget deficits (hopefully reducing them), I'd say the Dems are well within their right to use this legistlative procedure. Hence, the reason Sen. Byrd may now have a different point of view on the matter:
I hope they do... it will provide endless hours of entertainment as Republicans offer thousands of amendments and objections to each and every reconciliation that will be considered.
And if that wasn't enough fun, we'll get to watch them all get toasted at town halls during their upcoming recesses, if they are not to cowardly to have them.
We then get the icing on the cake... watching them all get voted out of office.
You're referring to Senate Dems I presume?
As for the endless stream of Senate amendments, I think that's what the reconciliation process is all about - stopping Senators from doing just that. Hence, the rationale for a simple up or down straight majority vote.
If that's the case, this may turn out to be one hellaciously looooooong process which IMO amounts to the same old tired stonewalling tactic Republicans have been using since the health care reform debate first started.
What exactly is that suppose to mean?
No, no, no... Republicans can offer an unlimited number of objections and amendments. Each small piece of the bill must be voted on separately and the Republicans can start over each time.
Read up on how the actual process works.
Perhaps you're right (for a change), but let's wait and see how things turn out before celebrating, aight? It could turn out that even with the Republicans throwing amendment after amendment out there they'll finally jump on board and support health care legistlation they consider to be worthwhile. Lord knows it may well be the first time they vote for something in the best interest of the people at-large for a change instead of towing the line for big businesses.
The parliamentarian only advises whether it is eligible for reconciliation.
I'm always right..... read my sig. :mrgreen:
Wasn't that your claim, that health care reform wasn't eligible for reconciliation?
Yes, and that relates how to the post you quoted???
If the democrats use the "nuclear option".... or use a nuke, they will get nuked back.
If the parliamentarian (a Republican appointee) approves it for reconciliation, it will prove you wrong.
That is how it relates.
Don't go there, man. I'll take you back to "that thread" and beat you with it.
Prove me wrong how??? I never said he wouldn't approve it for reconciliation. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?