Doocy baselessly claims Slaughter is angling to pass health care reform without a vote
Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy baselessly claimed that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is offering a way to pass health care reform legislation "without actually voting on it." However, the House has already voted on and passed a health care reform bill, and a legislative rule reportedly under consideration would still require the House to vote on changes to the Senate's health care reform bill.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Doocy: By passing a rule, the House can "pass the health care bill without actually voting on it"
From the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: It's interesting, though. While the Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today, Louise Slaughter, who is the chair of the House Rules Committee -- she has apparently got this idea on how the House can vote on this bill without actually voting on it. Because apparently, what -- you know, where people actually come out and say, "I'm for it," or "I'm against it" -- apparently, with each bill they have to come up with a -- they have to agree on a set of rules. And according to the papers this morning, the "Slaughter solution" rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version to have been passed by the House, and then House members would then have to vote on whether or not to accept the rule. So, by passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it. That is crazy.
House has already passed health care reform legislation and would still need to vote on changes to Senate bill
House has already passed health care reform bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House "can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it," the House already passed health care reform legislation on November 7, 2009.
Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House would pass the bill simply by voting "on whether or not to accept the rule," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:
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.
"So, by passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it. That is crazy."
SOMETHING is crazy, that's for sure.
-- Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November...the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost...
Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.
However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan...Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data. --
Assuming you meant to call them Democratic pollsters, you're still wrong. Caddell hasn't been a Democrat for decades. He's a darling of the right and is a frequent guest on Fox "News." As for Schoen, we're talking about a guy who wrote a book expounding on what a huge threat Chavez and Venezuela are. He has collaborated with Scott Rasmussen. His firm does work for Insurance firms. He may have done some work for Democrats, but his personal politics are far from liberal.
These are two guys with conservative agendas.
It was a Tokyo Rose piece, pure and simple.
"Reality" is that Republicans have poisoned the well. But HCR is not poisonous. It's the lies, distortions and omissions of relevant data that they've spewed that's made it APPEAR that HCR is bad for America. A fair look at the reforms offered shows a different picture. So, given that fact, why would or should Democrats give up on this effort?
Just like you did above!
Correcting you is so easy. The would allow members to cast a vote, without a direct up down vote on the bill itself. BTW delly, are you still claiming, and i quote you directly that there ls "absolutely no evidence Mazza engaged in sexual harassment"? Just curious if you ever admit to being wrong.
There's still no evidence that Massa engaged in sexual harassment as a Congressman. None. Not an smidgen of evidence of that. There's hearsay evidence that he sexually harassed a Navy comrade. That's it.
I admit to being wrong when I'm wrong. I wasn't wrong when I said that there was no evidence whatsoever that Massa engaged in sexual harassment, and there's still none that he did so as a Congressman.
Will YOU admit that YOU'RE wrong for alleging that I was wrong?
Yeah, I didn't think you would.
Pelosi's office reportedly heard concerns about Massa in October, though they involved not sexual harassment but claims that Massa had hired too many staff members, was living with several of them, and used foul language around them.
And, no, you didn't "correct" me on the issue under discussion here either! I never SAID that they'd cast a direct vote on that bill - the legislative rule that's being considered is to have that vote count for BOTH bills.
But thanks for providing further evidence that without lies and distortions, you got nothin'.
Several people on that thread expressed the same idea I did. In fact, I simply replied to one poster that I agreed with him.
And the original poster, who expounded on the subject originally, didn't get a thumbs down. And other posters who agreed with him, just as I did, didn't get thumbs down.
There's no other explanation for that behavior other than that the thumbs down were personal attacks! It's not paranoia if people are really out to get you.
But, when YOU, RightON, can't address the topic of my post, what YOU do is make ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the post I made.
Please, keep showing how dishonest you can be. Please, continue doing it. I love it when people like you dig your own graves.
Sue, for the love of god, please seek psychological help, I mean it. You stomp around these boards with the wildest nuttiest statements about people out to get you?
I now feel sorry for you.
Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public. Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.
In fact, the attacks on the health care bill are part of a broader pattern. As has been well documented, your caucus conspicuously shattered the record for obstruction last Congress by demanding gratuitous procedural votes on even the most non-controversial matters, and by stalling the work of the Senate despite the urgency of the serious problems facing our country. Senate Republicans are on pace to again break their own record this Congress, illustrated by Sen. Bunning's effort to prevent the Senate from acting to extend families' unemployment and health benefits even after those benefits had expired.
While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes.
In that same way, you've demonized me and falsely accused me of being paranoid when it's clear that people ARE out to get me.
But thanks, for once again, failing to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence to refute a THING I've said, and for thinking that substituting a personal attack that I'm mentally ill is sufficient to make your point.
Actually, it makes MY point - that you can't win an argument with the facts, just like Sen Reid told Sen McConnell. Just like Reid told him that he's out to misinform the American public, you're out to misinform posters here.
I don't SEE it as completely debunking your argument.
It DID completely refute Point of View's argument - my post was a reply to his. Is that one of your sockpuppet identities? I was accused of being unwilling to admit that I had made an error in judgement. I debunked that allegation that I had anything to retreat from! Completely.
So, tell us, how many sockpuppet identities do you have?
But thanks for remembering what sockpuppet identity you were posting as THIS time, since you forgot with your previous post!
Really? So, now you righties are in favor of an up and down vote? But I thought simple majorities were akin to communism? Or ramming down the throats or some other such absurd comparison. I am happy to hear we are now going to have up an down voted on healthcare reform. That is a relief to all Americans who still believe in majority rule.
"Let it be enacted that the full text of [whatever the Senate bill was], subject to the following amendments: [reconciliation bill]"
So, I guess in principle, voting for this would count as voting for the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill. It seems plausible to me, though I'd certainly understand if the parliamentarian disagreed.
However, it is not dishonest. If this sort of bill passes and the Senate passes its reconciliation bill, both houses will in effect have passed the exact same law - albeit in a parliamentarily unusual fashion.
"House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill." Again, voting on corrections is not voting on the bill. They want to approve a different bill than the one approved by the Senate. That is unconstitutional. The House wants to approve a different bill than the Senate, but declare the Senate bill approved by the House without holding a direct vote on it. Which version of the bill will be presented to the President to sign, the one passed by the House, or the one passed by the Senate? The Constitution says "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States."
I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Figure it out, son. These are things you should have learned long, long ago.
The "annointed one"....how hilarious and original. You and Beck better stop using Jesus references for purposes of ridicule...He's not going to be happy with you at all. By the way, Obama can't pass anything in the Senate..that's not our form of government (see Civics 101). And a newsflash: Health Care Reform did pass with a 60 vote supermajority.
All the manipulation and wrangling going on are attempts to gather support. If the bills were so great, they wouldn't need all the backroom deals and shenanigans going on.
The bills are not great by a long shot but they're a good step in the right direction. Also, Democrats are not monolithic so they're gonna disagree on certain provisions. Pelosi is trying to get enough of them to agree so the process can move forward.
Well, that is simply ridiculous. You are either being obstinate or are completely ignorant of how politics works. By your definition, every single piece of legislation ever passed by Congress was a piece of junk.
Doocy is obviously referring to the corrections bill.
Members would be far safer voting for health care than voting for a rule like this. 2010 looks like a terrible year for the party already and this will make it multiples worse. On top of that, the whole thing will probably get thrown out by the courts anyway.
How on earth would it be unconstitutional? What article of the Constitution does it violate?
The Constitution gives the Senate and the House the power to create their own rules. This proposal isn't even the creation of a new rule; it's the application of an existing rule. You're straining to portray it as some nefarious act when it's perfectly valid within Congressional rules. No court would ever throw it out.
The fact remains that if this method is used, every single member of Congress will still be on record as having voted for or against health care reform. It's a means of expediting the process, not a dodge.
Here's where information on the House rules: link
And for the Senate: link
Yes, I have a LOT of bookmarks under 'government'
So, again, you're not being honest.
You may want to do a little research on your beloved filibuster, being such a strict constitutionalist and all...
I believe some of this was covered in INS v Chadha.
After being presented and debated, a bill is then voted on. If passed, it is then sent to the other chamber (House or Senate) unless that chamber already has a similar measure under consideration. If either chamber does not pass the bill then it dies. If the House and Senate pass the same bill then it is sent to the President. If the House and Senate pass DIFFERENT bills they are sent to Conference Committee.
This would be the case for the House and Senate bills since they are different. Members from each house form a conference committee and meet to work out the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with the bill. The representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill.
If the Conference Committee reaches a compromise, it prepares a written conference report, which is submitted to each chamber. The conference report must be APPROVED BY BOTH the House and the Senate before it can be sent to the president and signed into law.
That's why there is all of this talk of the Slaughter Solution, reconciliation, and all of the Republican outrage. In order for health care reform to be signed into law, one of the following has to happen:
(1) House passes the Senate bill as written
(2) Senate passes the House bill as written
OR
(3) A compromise bill is formed and passed by both chambers
It's clear that the only of the three outcomes that has a snowball's chance in Hell of passing is the first option - the House has to pass the Senate version of the bill - because the democrats know that the Senate will NEVER be able to pass the a compromise between the two bills or the more liberal House bill. Reconciliation is being discussed because the House doesn't like the Senate bill and would want to change it, but it doesn't matter unless the House can pass the Senate bill. If the Slaughter Solution is used, the House would be passing the Senate bill WITHOUT actually voting on it. It doesn't matter that they've passed their own version, they have to pass the Senate version to avoid drafting a compromise and forcing a vote in the senate on a compromise bill. Democrats know that such a vote in the Senate which would ultimately fail and kill Health Care Reform with it.