Conservative media revive "nuclear option" falsehood to accuse Democrats of reconciliation hypocrisy
Conservative media are pushing the falsehood that "the nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process in order to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for previously criticizing the nuclear option and now considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform. But Democratic criticism of a 2005 Republican proposal to change filibuster rules is in no way inconsistent with passing health care reform through reconciliation -- a process that has repeatedly been used to pass legislation, including major health care reform.
Conservative media spread Breitbart.tv video and message that Dems are hypocrites on "nuclear option"
Breitbart.tv headline: "Obama & Dems in '05: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." On February 24, Breitbart.tv posted video showing Democratic senators expressing opposition to a Republican proposal that would have eliminated use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. Text accompanying the video states, "Biden: 'I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.' "
Beck: "[T]hey all stood up and said this was such a bad idea." On his radio show, Glenn Beck played clips from the Breitbart.tv video and said of the possibility that Democrats might use reconciliation: "Why are they threatening this so much? Especially when they all stood up and said it was such a bad idea." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 2/24/10]
Limbaugh: Democrats were "against doing this precise thing back in 2005." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Democrats, "They are going to blow up the Senate rules, they are gonna nuke the Senate rules, in order to get health care through the Senate. They were all against doing this precise thing back in 2005 to confirm judges." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/10]
Drudge links to video. In red text above the site's logo, the Drudge Report echoed Breitbart's headline and linked to the video (click on image to enlarge):
Fox Nation embeds video. The front page of the Fox News website Fox Nation featured a headline on its front page reading "Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option":
The headline linked to a Fox Nation page on which the Breitbart.tv video was embedded.
HotAir: "Video: God doesn't listen to Joe Biden." HotAir.com blogger Ed Morrissey wrote in a February 24 post, "Or maybe God just figured that Joe Biden wasn't terribly serious about this 2005 prayer, unearthed by Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News today." Morrissey also embedded the video in the post.
Townhall.com: "Flashback: Obama, Dems Call 50-Vote Nuclear Option 'Arrogant' Power Grab." In a February 24 post that also contained the video, Townhall.com blogger Meredith Jessup wrote, "With rumors Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might try to force a nuclear option vote on Obama's health care plan, this video is especially poignant today."
"Nuclear option" was coined by GOP to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules
Lott described proposal to change filibuster rules as "nuclear option." The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of the proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.
Reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly
Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."
Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)
Reconciliation has been used to pass major changes to health care laws
Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:
On NPR, Prof. Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the last 30 years has been the reconciliation process." Additionally, during the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."
Of I forgot, the only reason it's opposed is because it hasn't been communicated properly - haha.
The aforementioned trio don't want to lower health care costs or preserve the quality of health care, they simply want more federal control over it. They'll take what they can get on the way to their dream of a one-payer system, and then increment from there.
"They didn't. The electoral college did. Guess who's getting voted out of office?"
Now you say....
"No, I'm saying that Obama's approval rating is 47% which isn't the majority of Americans."
You are a prime example of why I hate Republicans..... They are nothing but lying, hypocrites, that hate this country, the American people, and most importantly the Constitution.
So to address your original post, which is what you really meant and then when you realized you were wrong you changed your answer, here are the actual figures which shows America DID elect President Obama.
Obama: 349
McCain: 163
Popular votes:
Obama : 64,639,738
McCain: 56,899,510
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results…
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calcula…
all republicans are _____ or
all liberals are _____?
Josh, I think it's short-sighted and dangerous not to address the health care calamity. Among other problems with the system, medical bills account for 60% of bankruptcies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/).
Mandating buying health insurance doesn't sound great to me either, because I have not seen an insurance company that I trust. I would much rather be taxed for a public option, with a refund / exclusion if one is paying for private health insurance.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Nobody suggested that. Shaggles, I imagine, meant that the majority of Americans elected Obama president because, in part, he promised to make health care reform a priority.
The majority of Americans are not now opposed to health care reform, they just recognize that the butchered up bills that the Democrats in the Senate cobbled together to try and appease the obstructionists are not any sort of real reform.
This was a one time deal.
This anomaly will never happen again.
The race card will never work again.
What the hell? Settle. Down.
The race card has been over played and will not work again.
My claim is a philosophical one and that's the way it shall be argued.
Most likely you are included.
This of course is no surprise.
Whatever gives you comfort. Given your bizarre views of reality, your personal forecasts don't give me much cause for concern.
Maybe your goal is to destroy America.
Anyone who thinks government run health care is going to save money should reserve a ticket to the looney farm.
Another reason the jobs number appeared to be improving in the last report was because of the freezing weather that caused people to bundle up.
All we need to do is wait and see. If my predictions come true I am sure you will forget them.
Don't worry, I've already forgotten them. But I'm sure Beck and Limbaugh et. al. will be there to remind me.
Was that supposed to have made sense? C'mon, admit it. You're a liberal posing as a conservative just to make conservatives look bad, aren't you?
Because that's what Jose thinks you are.
If you haven't looked at this yet, it is worth a read.
Your text to link here...
Our Constitution was clearly written to avoid the situation we are in.
Your text to link here...
The mainstream media is not going to cover this subject unless they want their heads cut off.
Oh my god...I just realized that the Republicans only agenda is to make thier opponents fail...when did that happen? They surely don't have the interests of we the people at heart, and thier goal is going to destroy America!
You serve as the perfect example of a liberal progressive who gets surprised when the government does something they're required to do, such as defend the country with a military.
When it comes to the Republican agenda, I don't know much about it except they have the same progressive contamination as the Democratic Party.
The electoral college is getting voted out of office.
The majority of voters did elect Obama.
Shaggles is suggesting that the majority of Americans approve of the current health care plan because they elected Obama.
The reality: his approval rating is 47% and the majority of Americans oppose the current plan.
If so, I would agree with you! Elections have effects that last far longer than a poll. But to say that the people should just take what a politician does because they voted for him, without being given the details of his programs is a bit juvenile.
There will be no health care, no climate scare, Bush's war will be larger than ever, unemployment is going to new highs, inflation is about to go through the roof, the debt will approach GDP, and China will stop buying debt.
Add world events like Europe going bankrupt and Iran going nuclear and Obama will have to be tempted to declare martial law as protests like the 1960s break out.
Obama is on his way out.
I don't think Glenn Beck is reporting that the debt is mathematically impossible to pay.
See if you can find a flaw in this story.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you're not fearing the events you describe so much as you're eagerly hoping for them.
The world temperature has peaked and is heading downward and like you said will be meaningless.
Employment is plummeting downward and today's unemployment numbers are in line with expectations of anyone who has a clue of what our oppressive government has done to destroy the free market system.
I'll present another prediction that after Obama policies destroy the economy (like putting GM bond holders behind the union) he will declare that capitalism doesn't work.
Likewise, world temperatures are not heading downward. 1998 was an aberrational peak, but the trend has remained upward since then. 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record and the decade was the hottest. There's no rational reason to believe that the upward trend we've experienced won't continue.
Given your poor command of facts, I give your ability at predicting the future very little credibility.
One question, though. Wasn't the current right-wing talking point that the stimulus wasn't actually creating any jobs? Do they know you're straying from the party line?
What a laugh. How does any of the things I said help get me through the night?
You really are a moron.
In case you haven't figured it out by now, I don't give a rats a$$ about right-wing talking points.
McCain would have been just as bad as Obama is.
Obama's approval rating has dropped because he hasn't shown the spine to stand up to the obstructionist and regressive minority in Congress, not because a majority of American's have changed their mind about wanting to see a big change from the way Republicans have screwed the pooch for so many years.
If you somehow think his slipping approval rating is going to turn into any sort of long term victory for the Republican Party, you have some real disappointments awaiting you as you move on through the real world.
Remember, the minority party couldn't stop anything in either the house or senate, the dems themselves ran from this as best they could.
I have had enough.
I'm already spending half of my life (maybe more with embedded taxes) working for the government. How much more of my life do they want?
And, do you have no problem with thousands of your fellow Americans dying or being forced into bankruptcy?
Compassion is something I'd look into acquiring.
30% overhead? Where did you get that information?
Now the majority of Americans oppose health care reform? Where on earth does that ridiculous claim come from?
They just can't count.
They really do appear to believe in the theory that if you say it often enough and loud enough then people will believe it. Hmmm...now, where did that theory come from, again?
So yes, Banquet Fried chicken it is, but hold the corn, we need that to boost the gasoline supply until we can finish drilling, baby, drilling.
Americans like healthcare reform, certainly we need it, but this particular statist policy has been rejected.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
But none of that matters because as I have said throughout this thread a poll does not trump an election.
Obama was elected to be not Bush and probably on the economy and jobs, not to pass statist healthcare reform. I liked Obama for his foreign policy if anything, I didn't hear much on specific ideas for his healthcare proposal, only that he had one (like so many other issues), so I can't agree that because he was voted in means we need to do healthcare. Clearly the recent elections and current if-it-happened-today polls suggest otherwise, do not pass healthcare reform (at least, as it is written).
Are you suggesting that our elected representatives should ignore the constituency's requests? I know it's a fine line between flip-flopping with popular opinion and voting with your constituents, but I draw it at will you get voted out of office if you make the wrong vote. Currently that looks like a resounding yes.
Yes, when people are asked about this bill, they generally oppose it, but they support key parts of its contents:
* public option: 60% - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
* mandating purchasing insurance: "Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Maybe if they fixed the fraud problem in the government run programs there would be an inkling of confidence that the cost of health care would go down.
This is the same as proposing amnesty without first securing the border. It is madness.
The majority of Americans don't oppose health care reform.
We just found that 'something' that's in your pants.....
Looks like about 73% of Americans want some sort of health care reform.
But it looks like the democrat lawmakers aren't listening .....
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to van jones, who's brakes in his van are working but more importantly is now out newest national, albeit communist, treasure!
How does this help your cause (and such as), proudconservative?
~
Never mind, they probably don't care. It's still working on you regardless of your possession of it.
Here is what I gather from the history of the 'nuclear option'. It seems it was used in reference to 'changing the rules' of the senate in 2005. Now the liberals are griping that conservatives have labeled 'reconciliation' as the 'nuclear option' (inane argument to completely take eyes off real deception...even if that argument was correct it would be mere semantics). The act of 'changing the rules' is a process, so 'nuclear option' could be applied to various situations.
Using the 'reconciliation' process to pass an entire stand-alone health care package is 'changing the rules', as the full title of the reconciliation process is 'BUDGET reconciliation'. Therefore, the nuclear option CAN be applied to the current situation because they are changing the rules by using it to accomplish something other than BUDGET reconciliation.
An example of how the process is misrepresented in the liberal articles above.
The Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 is represented as though the act itself was a complete health care program:
"1986 - COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care."
Was it stand-alone legislation to create a health care program? No. Health care reform was a very small part of the act, buried deeply in it. COBRA, as it applies to the reconciliation act in regards to health care, is basically a nickname. The act itself was a BUDGET act, not a health care creation act (which, using it only to create health care would be an improper use of reconciliation...considered as 'breaking the rules'...also know as the 'nuclear option').
The consolidated budget reconciliation act, created to 'reconcile' the budget, had a provision in it (slipped through with very little debate), Article X, that contained amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the IRS Code, and the Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Those amendments created the changes that fall under the COBRA moniker. The real medical 'COBRA' falls in those three areas. When you look deeply at how such legislation is enforced, you realize why the government is terrified of changing the IRS code. So much of our legislation is intertwined in it that it would be literally impossible to separate it. For example, the real force of COBRA is in punitive amendments to the tax code.
Yes, as stated in articles above health care REFORM has happened WITHIN the reconciliation process (small changes...some sneaked in), but as amendments to strengthen or change existing programs. Not to create the programs themselves.
Therefore, everything stated above is either a lie or misrepresented.
If reconciliation is only to be used for issues that affect the budget only, well, this bill might qualify, for the CBO says it can reduce the deficit as more people will be insured, and hospitals won't pass bills along to the taxpayer for those who are uninsured but are obligated to be medically treated.
As far as reconciliation, I updated another post with a little more detail under a Rachel Maddow article here on Mediamatters.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002240063
It goes into more commentary on the reconciliation process.
If you want to examine the actual process, you can check this out:
http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf
It is a really big stretch saying that the health care legislation is budgetary. With anything the government does, the larger the program (or modifications), the more out of whack the figures get. The current CBO figures will be irrelevant before any of the changes in the system (other than gathering the funds for it) takes affect in several years.
A current CNN article that just popped up on my phone states it best, regarding the use of reconciliation:
"Another question Democrats have for the parliamentarians is more fundamental: What can they actually pass through the reconciliation process? It is supposed to be used only for legislation that affects taxes and the deficit."
Congress, on both sides, is made up of mostly lawyers who do nothing but look for loopholes. Right now the democrats could care less about the "American People", and are just looking for ways to score political points. Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying so hard to pass something that even most of their own members do not like.
I mean they did say it. And I realize that it has been used before, but I just wish our guys didn't go on camera so vociferously against the process. Especially VP Biden. But then you know he passionate, if not very smart about what he says in front of the cameras. :). But we love you anyway, Joe.