gang of 14

[Azazello1313]

Democrats: No thanks to new 'Gang of 14'

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to revive the bipartisan Gang of 14 — this time for health care reform, not judicial nominees.

 

But most of his moderate Democratic colleagues aren’t rushing to R.S.V.P.

 

Graham said Tuesday that a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators could rescue the Senate from an institutional disaster brought on by the use of the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to finish the health care bill.

 

“Many Republicans who were ready to pull the trigger on the nuclear option on judges are now glad they didn’t,” Graham said. “This place would have ceased to function as we know it. If they do health care through reconciliation, it will be the same consequence. So if you are a moderate Democrat out there looking for a way to deliver health care reforms and not pull the nuclear trigger, there is a model to look at.”

 

But some of the moderates who would usually be the first to join such a push scoffed at the idea.

 

“Who are they going to get?” asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a member of the original Gang of 14. “It is not the same as it was before.”

 

The resistance to Graham’s proposal is a sign of how centrist Democrats, who were among the most skeptical of reconciliation after their party’s Massachusetts Senate defeat, have come largely to accept that the use of the fast-track rules is a legitimate tool to enact fixes to the Senate health care bill.

 

Faced with dire predictions from Republicans — Sen. John McCain, for one, has said reconciliation would “harm the future of our country” — Democrats accused the GOP of resorting to hyperbole.

 

“It is kind of ironic that some of the people ... who are screaming the loudest against it are those who have voted time and again for reconciliation,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). “That just doesn’t make sense.”

 

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said, “It’s a little too late to start that process.”

 

“This health care bill is going to pass,” Landrieu said. “There will be opportunities for bipartisan coalitions to build on the foundation of this bill, but there’s no talk about starting over.”

 

One moderate Democrat, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said he’d be willing to consider such a structure, even as he defended the use of reconciliation. And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he had spoken to Graham about the idea but signaled it would work only if the House couldn’t get health reform done.

 

“If the House doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill on health care reform, then maybe there’s an opportunity for a bipartisan group to get together, and there’s no question that Lindsey, and I think some other Republicans, might like to be part of that. It would be a smaller bill,” Lieberman said.

 

so in other words...thanks for the offer of a bipartisan solution, we'll think about it if we fail ramming it through with the nuclear option

[Perchoutofwater]

By hook or by crook

 

House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill UPDATED!

By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor

03/10/10 4:17 PM EST

 

Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?

 

Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:

 

"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

 

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

 

"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."

 

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

 

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

 

Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner's blog described the approach as a "twisted scheme."

 

How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc.

 

How anyone can support these people is beyond me. Almost everyone agrees this health care bill is horrible, yet how many living in the district of a democrat congressman have called their congressman? Has anyone here called a democrat congressman over this?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Democrats: No thanks to new 'Gang of 14'

 

 

 

so in other words...thanks for the offer of a bipartisan solution, we'll think about it if we fail ramming it through with the nuclear option

 

I don't want reconciliation used either, but perhaps the Dems realize the GOP has become such an obstructionist force that trying to put together such a coalition would prove futile.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

so in other words...thanks for the offer of a bipartisan solution, we'll think about it if we fail ramming it through with the nuclear option

 

 

With a bill that has passed the Senate and is close to passing the house, it's as close as they have ever been to passing health care reform. If this bill dies, the issue is dead. If it passes then the nuclear option is only for the fixes. If the house approves the Senate bill as is then HC reform has passed, period.

 

In fact for many fixes to the bill that are republican ideas, such as tort reform, reconsiliation isn't needed. Just throw it out there for a vote and as far as the dems are concerned if the republicans want to filibuster and kill their own ideas then so be it. This will really put them in a tight spot because now challengers for their seats from their own party will use this against them. "So and so voted against tort reform."

 

Or imagine if the Stupac anti-abortion language was up for a vote as one of the fixes to the bill and republicans had to decide whether or not to continue with their obstructionist tactics and vote against the fix or vote for it to appease their pro-life supporters.

 

I think the real fun starts if/when this bill passes.

[Perchoutofwater]

Primarily crook

 

Darrell Issa raises questions about Joe Sestak

 

 

By JAKE SHERMAN | 3/10/10 4:42 PM EST

 

 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the White House may have broken a federal law if Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) claims of an administration job offer are true. |

 

The top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee says the Obama administration may have broken the law by offering Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) a job in order to persuade him not to mount a primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter.

 

Sestak has said that the administration offered him a high-ranking government job if he’d stay out of the race. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has been asked repeatedly about the accusation in recent weeks but so far has neither confirmed nor denied that a job was offered.

 

But in a letter to White House general counsel Robert Bauer Wednesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that, if Sestak’s allegation is true, administration officials may have violated a federal statute which makes it a crime for a government employee to use his authority “for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for certain offices, including Senate seats.

 

"While the White House may think this is politics as usual, what is spectacularly unusual is when a candidate — a U.S. congressman no less — freely acknowledges such a proposal,” Issa wrote. “Almost always candidates keep quiet about such deals, and for good reason — they are against the law."

 

Issa listed a series of questions he wants answered by March 18:

 

1. At any time, did White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel have communications with Rep. Sestak about the 2010 race for the United States Senate? Identify the communications.

 

2. At any time, did White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina have communications with Rep. Sestak about the 2010 race for the United States Senate? Identify the communications.

 

3. At any time, did any official within the White House Office of Political Affairs have communications with Rep. Sestak about the 2010 race for the United States Senate? Identify the political officials and the communications.

 

4. Identify any other individuals at the White House that had communications with Rep. Sestak about his bid for the United States Senate. For each individual, identify the communications.

 

5. What position(s) was (were) Rep. Sestak offered in exchange for his commitment to leave the Senate race?

 

6. Following Rep. Sestak’s disclosure that he was offered a position in the president’s administration in exchange for bowing out of the 2010 race for the United States Senate, what, if any, investigation did your office undertake to determine whether the criminal activity described by Rep. Sestak occurred?

 

7. Do you expect to make a referral to the United States Department of Justice in this matter? When should we expect this referral?

 

Sestak first made the accusation during a television interview in early February, and he repeated it when asked about it during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this week.

 

Asked about the allegation Tuesday, Gibbs said: “ I don't have the update with me, but let me check and see if I do have anything.”

 

I think Rahm is about to be forced to fall on his sword, though I'm not sure he is the type to do that quietly.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Azazello1313]

I don't want reconciliation used either, but perhaps the Dems realize the GOP has become such an obstructionist force that trying to put together such a coalition would prove futile.

 

umm, you realize it is republicans making the offer of a bipartisan centrist coalition, and the democrats rejecting it? it is futile specifically and only because none of the democrats are interested. obviously, the whole point of this coalition would be getting something reasonable passed that would overcome a fillibuster. come on man, take the damn blinders off for a minute.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Azazello1313

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

umm, you realize it is republicans making the offer of a bipartisan centrist coalition, and the democrats rejecting it? it is futile specifically and only because none of the democrats are interested. obviously, the whole point of this coalition would be getting something reasonable passed that would overcome a fillibuster. come on man, take the damn blinders off for a minute.

 

It is only a couple of Republicans correct?

 

Edit: Actually I only see one, Lindsey Graham mentioned.

Edited March 11, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Azazello1313]

It is only a couple of Republicans correct?

 

Edit: Actually I only see one, Lindsey Graham mentioned.

 

mccain and graham are the two pushing it, but you know for certain snowe and collins would be on board. I am sure bob bennett would also be amenable, probably judd gregg. but even if it were only 2, that is enough to overcome a fillibuster. democrats are clearly and unequivocally the ones saying 'No' here.

 

as this illustrates, the administration and congressional leadership are not interested in passing a bill that can attract any republican support. hell, they aren't even interested in passing a bill that can get all of the democrats on board. apparently they feel it would water the bill down, or something. so they press onward, with people like you (who pay lip-service to bipartisanship when it suits you) following along blithely in tow to defend it.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

mccain and graham are the two pushing it, but you know for certain snowe and collins would be on board. I am sure bob bennett would also be amenable, probably judd gregg. but even if it were only 2, that is enough to overcome a fillibuster. democrats are clearly and unequivocally the ones saying 'No' here.

 

as this illustrates, the administration and congressional leadership are not interested in passing a bill that can attract any republican support. hell, they aren't even interested in passing a bill that can get all of the democrats on board. apparently they feel it would water the bill down, or something. so they press onward, with people like you (who pay lip-service to bipartisanship when it suits you) following along blithely in tow to defend it.

 

Can you point out where i have defended the bill?

 

I was merely trying to point out the political games being played by those on the right who have chosed obstruction as their key to re-election.

 

I'm not enthused with this bill and i'm not happy about reconciliation either.

[Duchess Jack]

the administration and congressional leadership are not interested in passing a bill that can attract any republican support.

 

I don't think its possible that they could pass a bill that can attact Republican support unless the republicans write it themselves - so they can that they succeeded where Obama failed.

[Perchoutofwater]

Can you point out where i have defended the bill?

 

I was merely trying to point out the political games being played by those on the right who have chosed obstruction as their key to re-election.

 

I'm not enthused with this bill and i'm not happy about reconciliation either.

 

Have you contacted you elected officials about it? Or do you just have a mild aversion to it bordering on apathetic?

[Azazello1313]

I was merely trying to point out the political games being played by those on the right who have chosed obstruction as their key to re-election.

 

right, you don't like it, but it's all the republicans' fault. never mind facts that get in the way, like democrats who can't support the bill (are they obstructionist, too?), or the fact that republicans are offering to come to the table with a fillibuster-proof coalition only to be rebuffed by the democrats.

 

if you were even a little bit honest about this, you would recognize that the republicans were shut out of this process from the very beginning, because obama/reid/pelosi calculated that they could get something done on a party-line vote (they did have 60 seats when specter came over). then after the scott brown wake-up call, they finally bring republicans to the table by staging a little dog and pony show and then two days later announce they're going to forge ahead via reconcilliation, proving just how sincere they were. yet somehow it's always the republicans' fault for not laying down. well, hey, whatever makes it easier for you to swallow...

Edited March 11, 2010 by Azazello1313

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Have you contacted you elected officials about it? Or do you just have a mild aversion to it bordering on apathetic?

 

My elected officials are all against the bill. McCain, Kyl, and Flake.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

right, you don't like it, but it's all the republicans' fault. never mind facts that get in the way, like democrats who can't support the bill (are they obstructionist, too?), or the fact that republicans are offering to come to the table with a fillibuster-proof coalition only to be rebuffed by the democrats.

 

if you were even a little bit honest about this, you would recognize that the republicans were shut out of this process from the very beginning, because obama/reid/pelosi calculated that they could get something done on a party-line vote (they did have 60 seats when specter came over). then after the scott brown wake-up call, they finally bring republicans to the table by staging a little dog and pony show and then two days later announce they're going to forge ahead via reconcilliation, proving just how sincere they were. yet somehow it's always the republicans' fault for not laying down. well, hey, whatever makes it easier for you to swallow...

 

Hey, the Dems in Congress suck too. I'm an unaffiliated voter now thanks to their stupidity. And I've been critical of Obama for not authoring this legislation himself instead of delegating it to the idiots in Congress.

[Azazello1313]

I don't think its possible that they could pass a bill that can attact Republican support unless the republicans write it themselves - so they can that they succeeded where Obama failed.

 

there are any number of ways they could approach this that would garner republican support. they could deal with medicare first, address all the fraud and waste there and use the savings to, you know, save medicare from going bankrupt rather than using all the savings to pay for a new entitlement. or they could go back to the approach of the bipartisan wyden-bennett bill, or of mccain's campaign proposal, or of every sensible health care economist out there, of paying for health reform by going after the employer health benefits tax exclusion. but that would require taking on the unions, and it's too much of a market-based solution rather than government-based, so it's a non-starter with the people currently in charge.

 

it's probably too late now to come up with a sensible bill....it's an election year, the dems feel they're too far down the road to turn back, they're willing to go down chasing their white whale if they have to, most of the the republicans aren't about jump on board. but it is interesting that graham and mccain are leading this charge right now, because really from a political standpoint they would potentially be throwing the democrats a major bone, giving them "bi-partisan" cover, avoiding reconciliation, and so on. just shows how committed the dem leaders are to the cause, I guess. just keep throwing out all the crap rhetoric about obstructionist republicans (while they rebuff republican overtures) and evil insurance companies (while they prepare to write them a giant check) and hope a little sticks to the wall. damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

[Azazello1313]

man, this really nails it:

 

[The Democrats] assumed that economic distress would make Americans more amenable to big-government programs. They felt history calling: Harry Truman pushed for national health insurance in 1945, and Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare in 1965. Now it was time to go further.

 

Temptation was placed in their way in the form of big congressional majorities. Democrats had a 257-178 majority in the House after the '08 election; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had shown her capacity to squeeze out a majority time and again.

 

Democrats came out of the 2008 election with 58 senators, got a 59th when Arlen Specter switched parties in April 2009 and got the 60th when Al Franken was sworn in in July. A filibuster-proof majority at last!

 

But just after Franken was sworn in, polls started showing pluralities or majorities against the Democrats' health-care proposals. Town-hall meetings in August demonstrated that opponents were far more enthusiastic than supporters. Opinion has only grown more negative as Obama has made one speech after another in support of (usually unspecified) Democratic proposals.

 

This made passing legislation much harder. The decisions Democrats made on health care in early 2009 ruled out the possibility of significant Republican support. You can pass popular legislation on party-line votes, and you usually get some support from the other side, even if unsolicited. This was the case on Medicare in 1965, for example.

 

But it's hard to pass unpopular legislation on party-line votes. Take the example of the Troubled Asset Relief Program in fall 2008. Bailing out banks was obviously not going to be popular. (The 2008 exit poll shows voters opposed by 56 percent to 39 percent.) It was easy to imagine opponents running negative ads in the next campaign. TARP was passed by bipartisan coalitions of members with safe seats. Members of both parties with vulnerable seats, with only a few exceptions, were left to protect themselves by voting against it.

 

In fall 2009, Democrats could have pivoted on health care to craft a popular bill or a watered-down unpopular bill to be passed by a bipartisan safe-seat coalition. Instead, they plunged ahead and rammed through unpopular bills on party-line votes.

 

Pelosi got a 220-215 margin in the House in November after accepting an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak that banned funding of abortions.

 

In the Senate in December, Majority Leader Harry Reid predictably had to pay a high price -- the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase -- for the 59th and 60th votes. That's always the case when you need 60 out of 60.

 

Scott Brown's election in January in Massachusetts deprived Reid of his 60th vote. The only way forward for the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then trust the Senate to fix it through the reconciliation process. Pelosi has had six weeks to get the votes for that and hasn't done so yet.

 

It's beginning to look like the goal of health-care legislation was a bridge too far. There's a reason it's hard to pass unpopular legislation on party-line votes. It's not the Senate rules. It's called democracy.

[Jimmy Neutron]

man, this really nails it:

 

Bingo.

[Azazello1313]

And I've been critical of Obama for not authoring this legislation himself instead of delegating it to the idiots in Congress.

 

you say you're being critical of obama, but I think we both know the real point of such sentiment is to shift the blame away from dear leader.