The Hill ignored GOP's use of reconciliation process in forwarding claim it "was never intended to ram through major legislation"
SUMMARY: The Hill reported that "GOP critics of the reconciliation process have said that it was never intended to ram through major legislation," but did not mention that Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass several major Bush initiatives.
In a March 31 article on Democrats' potential implementation of the budget reconciliation process, which would allow Congress to pass "policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws)" by a simple majority in both Houses, The Hill reported: "GOP critics of the reconciliation process have said that it was never intended to ram through major legislation." However, The Hill did not mention that Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass several major Bush initiatives, as The New York Times and the blog Think Progress have noted. These initiatives include the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.
As Media Matters for America documented, Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg recently made the false claim that "[r]econciliation was last used in 2001 by Republicans to pass the first Bush tax cuts" -- an "error" for which her colleague Bret Baier later "apologize[d]." In addition, during the March 20 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that reconciliation would allow the Obama administration to pass legislation "without any Republicans even having an opportunity to vote."
From the March 31 Hill article:
Momentum among Democrats is growing to use special budget rules to push major healthcare reform this year through the Senate with a simple majority.
Two possible members of a House-Senate conference committee, which is likely to have the final say on the rules' use, on Tuesday refused to rule out the use of reconciliation instructions that would include an overhaul of the nation's healthcare system in a final budget resolution.
Separately, President Obama's nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department told a Senate panel that using the rules remain [sic] on the table.
Using the rules could allow Democrats to enact one of their long-sought goals without the support of any Republicans. That's because the budget resolution needs only 51 votes to pass in the Senate, not the 60 votes needed to move ahead most controversial legislation.
[...]
A House leadership aide said that reconciliation for healthcare is a goal of both the Democratic leadership as well as the White House, and will remain so until either congressional Democrats or the administration get a sense that Republicans are interested in getting on board with their overall approach to healthcare.
Democrats in the House want to avoid a repeat of the economic stimulus bill debate, which a number of Democrats complained was "held hostage" by the three Republican senators Reid needed to attract to win the 60 votes necessary to clear the bill through the Senate.
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), the vice chairwoman of the House Budget Committee and a possible conferee, said she would fight for reconciliation instructions that would call on committees to fund healthcare reform by September.
"We want to work with Republicans to get that done, but come the end of September, if we can't, we know that this country, American families and our American businesses ... need us to tackle this," she told The Hill.
Even House Democrats constantly eyeing whether an eventual healthcare bill will add to the deficit were comfortable with the hard-nosed strategy.
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who didn't specify his own opinion on using reconciliation for healthcare, said it made sense to at least have it on the table.
"It's silly to unilaterally disarm ourselves at this point," Kind said. "I still want to see us work in a bipartisan way on healthcare. That should be our goal."
GOP critics of the reconciliation process have said that it was never intended to ram through major legislation.
reconciliation is good enough for neo cons to ram stuff down our throats but it is unacceptable for democrats to use such tactics.
is there a better word than hypocracy?
You can put the word "scumbag" in front of it.
i was trying to be nice
You are a better man than me! :)
I'm never nice when dealing such transparent hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is pretty much the only vice I can't tolerate.
If you've seen the look on VP Dick Cheney's face when he cast the deciding vote as President Pro Tem of the US Senate on the second round of Bush's massive tax cuts, you'd know that it was legislation that was rammed through, and you'd know how happy Cheney was to screw the nation and screw Democrats.
I am not a big fan of the "fast track" legislative process, ( I believe it was used to pass NAFTA) but the reporting on these issues by a so called non- partisan publication is just pathetic. Even more pathetic is jow many republisheep swallow it whole.
-- But many Democrats, even party loyalists such as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, oppose the idea, as do many House moderates. Pelosi is being forced to abandon the idea in the face of so much opposition....
and Democrats like Conrad say it shouldn't be used for such complicated legislation. -- Think Progress
yes and look where those moderates are from...heavy republican states that are trying to keep themselves in power.
im speaking of senator bayh, sepcifically. who also incidentaly just got a hefty contribution from some wall st firm...i believe aig but im not totally sure.
Wesley, while I was able to find your AP link under the Think Progress Link, you do realize that the Think Progress article was about GOP hypocrisy, right? Claiming they would be railroaded with reconciliation when they themselves used it, and DEFENDED it!
Also, in the AP article you mentioned, Pelosi was simply forced to abandon the reconciliation measure for cap and trade, not for other things.
"Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had advocated passing the controversial cap-and-trade plan under a special bill that can speed through the Senate on a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 votes needed to move most other legislation. Democrats and their allies control 58 seats at present. Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had advocated passing the controversial cap-and-trade plan under a special bill that can speed through the Senate on a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 votes needed to move most other legislation. Democrats and their allies control 58 seats at present.
But many Democrats, even party loyalists such as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, oppose the idea, as do many House moderates. Pelosi is being forced to abandon the idea in the face of so much opposition."
Also, it appears that Conrad doesn't have too much support in his opinions, within in his party.
"In the Senate, Conrad is proposing to cut Obama's $51 billion, 11 percent increase for non-defense agency budgets to about 7 percent. That's a slightly smaller cut than he had earlier proposed.
But members of the appropriations panel say the cut is deceptively large since programs such as the decennial Census and the Federal Housing Administration need about $4 billion more each to stay on track. And emergency aid for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is proposed to cost $11 billion this year as an emergency expense, will be covered within next year's regular budget, further reducing what's available for non-defense programs like education."
So, what are Republicans going to do this time? Are they going to add billions of dollars worth of earmarks and then claim it costs too much?And if they don't vote for it, will they hypocritically take credit for their earmark? Or will they storm out and refuse to vote, and continue to whine and fuss about how they're getting a taste of their own medicine with reconciliation? Boooooooo hooooooo!
When will these Republicons realize that they really are the Party of NO, NOTHING, NIL, ZERO and for the tennis fans, LOVE. And guess what, I for one, do not care about parliamentary procedural debates which favor the Repubs. The words most used to describe the Repubs plight in this country should be, TOO BAD.
TOO BAD it is. The past eight years have been downright destructive for this country. Now the Purveyors of Destruction still want their way. TOO BAD. They have lost their majority and now they don't think the majority should prevail, TOO BAD. And for the Repubs/Cons that will follow this post, not only is it TOO BAD that you feel you are being snubbed but it would be REAL BAD to allow you to have any say in this government. Maybe after things are fixed will you be allowed to get back in the game. But for now concerning your input, I will use that a familiar phrase that most Repubs know quite well that being "NO".
Well, I guess that's fair. The Repubs no longer have a say in anything and they deserve it. That's fine. But, the good thing is that they get to criticize Dem's for everything that goes wrong from here on out, until they get more say in policy.
you are right on that....but what they should be doing is more constructive rather than the path they are walking that is destructive.
the dark, that path lies.
They'll moan and complain even if things are good. More say in ploicy, they had ALL the say in policy and here we are. TOO BAD if they moan. Let 'em eat cake.
-- Maybe after things are fixed -- prince
The spending record of the Bush administration was not very good. It over spent federal revenues by $2 trillion.
The budget proposed by the Obama administration now proposes to over spend federal revenues by $8 trillion over the next 8 years.
Having the govt throw money at problems has never worked out very good...except to increase govt intrusion into our lives and run up massive debts...and it will come as no surprise that I don't think increasing deficit spending by 400% will fix the problems.
and what about the new deal?
to increase govt intrusion into our lives
Would you please explain to me how the governement spending money does this? In what way do I get interfered with? I hear this all the time, and I never hear HOW this is the case. Worse - it comes for the party of big-religion (in schools and in teh science class), no-gay marriage, no abortions for anyone, no-civil rights, WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING, INCARCERATION WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL, SUPSEPNSION OF HABEUS CORPUS, SUSPENTION OF THE GENEVA CONECTTION... So please try not to look like to much of a hypocritical fool when you explain this to me.
Eddie, I can go with your accusations of warrantless wire taps, incarceration without trials, etc. W's administration is not what I would consider Reaganlike. Now my question to you is how were you interfered with directly under W's administration? Did you try to marry a gay? Were you denied an abortion? Were you denied Habeus Corpus? I hear this all the time too, but I've never actually heard from anyone who specifically were denied civil rights under W. All I get is instances of where it could have happened.
the mere fact that it could happen to yourself, or me or anyone is csary enough
So basically there's no infringement on you by W? Noted.
I've been on this planet for awhile, and the only thing that Govts do, IMO, is to tax me, deliver mail, and blow stuff up in other parts of the world. Now since I'm not there when they are blowing stuff up, I'm left with taxes and mail. And with the new spending the BO administration is passing, its no wonder that any Conservative would want him to fail. And before anyone wishes to respond, I'm aware that this spending did not just occur under BO. He's just simply increased it and wish the top 5% to pay for it.
What a mindless, souless drone you reveal yourself to be. You and your kind are the only TRUE threats to freedom in the world.
What nonsense. Just because it didn';t happne to you are me means it didn't happen? Or couldn't happen? Gays CAN'T marry. Many have tried. That's a matter of public and media record. Was my privacy invaded? Well I don't know do I? If it was, there was no reason it should have been - I'm not a terrorist after all - but with no judicial oversight, how would you know? As for abortion? WTF are you talking about? Abortion is LEGAL in all 50 states, but republicans in states like SOUTH DAKOTA have tried (actually PASSED laws, thatw ere later overturned as unconstitutional) to make it illegal, even going so far as to not include exceptions for rape victims.
So it's not only about what's been done, but also what they're trying to do. Over and over and over that's the case. Republicans try to (or actually) take away our liberty (our rights and our protections) by OUTLAWING THINGS and reducing the amount of JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT on the gov't, and yet somehow THEY'RE the party of "FREEDOM." (Don't make me laugh/vomit.) Meanwhile the Dem's are somehow "interfereing in our lives" by trying to provide us with healthcare. You are a truly sick man if you think can defend this position. It's nonsense. To think otherwise is to abandon all reason.
So I can put you down for another one who rights were never violated by Bush. Noted. Loved the rant, though.
You are dangerous dude. You and your like-minded (or no-minded) con-sheep are the only TRUE threats to freedom in the world.
I'd like to live in your mind for a while. It must be like skipping through daisies made out of chocolate.
The whole of your post is nothing but facist doctrine. It's astounding that you can't see that. You are so blinded by your ideology that you;ve beocme stupid enough to believe your own BS. Scary dude, scary.
-- Would you please explain to me how the governement spending money does this? -- eddie
The most recent example would be Rick Wagoner at GM...want govt money, you're fired.
Ever been to a school board meeting and witness the contortions of putting together the annual budget...while complying with govt mandates on how the school operates.
Govt. money NEVER comes without strings...and that's intrusion.
Weak. Feeble. Ridiculous.
1) If GM had been a better managed company, they would need gov't funds. If Wagoner needs a bailout, he should go. This is no different from Fanny, Freddie, AIG and Chrysler in the 70's. If you are a PRIVATE COMPANY and ytou want FEDERAL MONEY, you should expect FEDERAL OVERSIGHT. Management chanegs are usual conditions for these kinds of proceedings, and are required even in bunkrupcy.
That brings me to...
2) The School Board?! Are you joking?! You compare a local school board, which is a small, public institution, funded entirely by the taxpayer, by design, to a HUGE multinational CORPORATION, a PRIVATE ENTITY, which is asking for GOV'T FUNDS that it shouldn't even need in the first place? That's so silly... I don't even know how to explain it to someone who can't see how absurd that comaprision is on it's face.
If GM doesn't want gov't "interference" then it should ask for gov't funding. Ford saw the trade-off and decided to try and whether the storm. Good call, perhaps. We'll see. But GM is a stupendously weak example of "gov't interference" seeing as how THEY ASKED FOR IT.
Weak. Pathetic. Try again.
What problems, the leftovers? I know, cut taxes for the wealthy. TOO BAD, there is a new sheriff in town...live with it until the NO party starts coming up with ideas or just one idea.
Just to be clear...without inserting words in your mouth...you support the efforts of Pres.Obama's 400% increase in deficit spending?
Hey, I like and feel your righteous and justifiable anger there, blondie blue. I'm so sick of these GOPs acting like two year olds and stamping their feet and saying NO. Idiots all. I iwsh they'd either contribute something of value or get the hell out of the way.
The GOP did contribute. They unanimously voted NO on BO's first bit of spending/bailout nonsense. I do agree with you on their getting out of the way, I wish they would, as well, so the D's can take the hit for all of this trillion dollar spending crap alone.
It's simple Dave. Spending is stimulus. You can carp all you want. We need 2.2 trillion dollars spent in the next 5 years alone just to bring our crumbling infrastructure up to code. That means jobs. That even means better roads, bridges, no more power outages when there's (gasp) winter storms.
Just carping and saying NO isn't contributing anything except ignorance and wonton disregard for the good of our country and it' citizens. Sheesh.
Oh, and it was the GOPs who wanted to cut food stamps, when it's been shown that that money returns a greater stimulus than any other spending. You see, when people spend money, other people stay employed and businesses stay open. When people can't spend money, businesses close and other people lose their jobs and can't spend money. and it goes on and on. It's not rocket science.
So I'm with POW. TOO BAD for all those carping and complaining about the stimulus bill. And don't take what I've said to mean that I approve of everything Obama is doing. But at least he has ideas and is prescient enough to look at the situation in a holistic and bottom up manner. He's not just trying to use short term band aids. He understand we need sweeping reforms. I know it's scary for you fear mongering types.
Fair statement. When people have more money, they spend it. Now since you've brought up food stamps, I conclude that the taxes used to pay for those food stamps could've been used by those who were called upon to pay those taxes and they would have spent it too. How do you feel about a payroll tax decrease? Since the instruments are already in place, it would have been easier to do, and still places more money into people's hands. They have more money, right?
What is the likely hood that I, a taxpayer in the suburbs, will spend my hypothetical tax-savings in a supermarket in the nearby inner-city where the food stamps are going? I'll tell you: 0%. My local store will not see any change in the level of it's customer's spending. Meanwhile the urban store will go under. And many people will be out of work through no fault of their own. And SOME of those people might even live outside the city limits, and even occasionally shop at my local store.
JJ - Don't try to explain the "multiplier effect" to a con. It makes their head hurt. It prooves their philosophy to be empty, and their so allergic to cognitive dissidance that they just can't accept facts. They just can't satnd the fact that someone other than then might be getting helped out.
Dave - Just admit your shortsighted greed and get on with your life. Your economic and political philosophy has already doen that, no matter how much verbal diarreah you dress it up in. You're just saying "mine! mine! mine!" over and over again, with nary a thought to WHERE THAT MONEY COMES FROM. You are whining about money you would not have had anyway, were it not for the gov't spending that supports your salary and/or the salary of those who buy the goods and services your companies offers.
Dude, call me quirky, but I'm guessing the majority of people using food stamps would prefer not to be using them, and be employed instead. Let's start there.
Good. Call me sane, but I'm guessing that everyone working would like to pay less in payroll taxes.
Personally I'd like to pay no taxes and have infrastructure and services magically appear like manna from heaven. And while I'm at it, let's throw in world peace.
You might notice that I'm not parsing this down to an issue of lower payroll taxes as you'd wish ;-)
I didn't want my tax dollars used to kill innocent women and children in Iraq but they did. Unless that magical money wasn't from my taxes.
Oh, you're so particular. ;-/
Who knows where that magical money came from. Maybe it came solely from Dave's payroll taxes. That's why he's so verklempt. 10-12 billion a month is quite a chunk.
And just think, it could have been used to fund that romanesque type grudge match between J2 and snoop. ;-)
Ah, you saw that. I thought I'd sneak that one in...
I didn't actually see it, but my my main man (J2) saw it before it got scrubbed ;-) He says "hey"!
A Royal hello to j2
Dave said "Call me (in)sane, but I'm guessing that everyone working would like to pay less in payroll taxes."
When I was making the equivalent of what would be $30,000 today, and barely making it, I would have liked to have had fewer taxes and expenses of all kinds.
But now that I am doing well, I have no problem with the taxes I pay. The more taxes I pay, the more money I am making, and the more I am helping contribute to the welfare of the people who are stuck now where I was decades ago.
How did the GOP vote on TARP1..didn't Bush sign that baby. Or isn't Bush a Republican any longer?
The majority of Senate Repub's (including the leadership) and something like 60 (or was it 90?) House Repub's voted for it.
But no - didn't you hear? W. is NOT a "real" republican. Apparently he's not actually conservative either. Now excuse while I go throw up.
The GOP used reconciliation for years, why does the msm ignore this ?
Uh... Conservative bias? Corporate ownership?
Come on, you've been around this sight for awhile. You know what's going on here.
I realize that the feelings of the Obstructionist party would be hurt if reconciliation process was used, but so what! They didn't seem to think about the nation or the democrats when they used it. WHO won the last two elections? Use it now! Use it tomorrow, use it next week. Let them go to Faux News and cry in their beer. Bipartisanship with these fascits is impossible. Get on with it, the American people are in dire straits and need Obama's programs to move ahead. If the people don't like it, they will vote the Democrats out. That's why it's called DEMOCRACY!