Right-wing media attack "Slaughter solution" as unprecedented, but GOP "set new records" for its use
Media conservatives have falsely characterized a legislative proposal reportedly being considered to finalize health care reform in the House as unprecedented, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. But the rule in question is an accepted part of House procedure, and Congress repeatedly used the rule under GOP leadership, according to a former GOP staff director of the House Rules Committee.
Self-executing rule is accepted part of House procedure
Politico: House leaders considering "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform. A March 9 Politico article reported that Democratic House "leaders have discussed the possibility of using the House Rules Committee to avoid an actual vote on the Senate's bill, according to leadership aides. They would do this by writing what's called a 'self-executing rule,' meaning the Senate bill would be attached to a package of fixes being negotiated between the two chambers -- without an actual vote on the Senate's legislation."
CRS: "Self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House." In a 2006 report, as Time's Karen Tumulty pointed out, the Congressional Research Service defined the self-executing rule as part of the House rulemaking process:
Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.
Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a "self-executing" rule; it embodies a "two-for-one" procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the "self-executed" provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule.
Self-executing rules require a vote. The CRS report makes clear that passage of a rule by the House is required for the "self-executed" provision to be adopted. Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, stated in a 2006 Roll Call column: "Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets.One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule's passage [Emphasis added]. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration [Emphasis added]."
Republicans "set new records" for use of rule
Wolfensberger: Republicans "set new records" for using self-executing rule. Also in his 2006 Roll Call column, Wolfensberger stated that the Republican Party "set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule:
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.
Media conservatives attack rule as unprecedented, unconstitutional, and undemocratic
Limbaugh calls rule a "twisted scheme" to "bend the rules." During the March 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) proposed using the self-executing rule to finalize health care reform legislation. Limbaugh said: "So, the scheme -- the twisted scheme by which the Democrat leaders plan to bend the rules to ram Obama's legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter solution."
Doocy: "They can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it." During the March 11 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that "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."
Hannity: Democrats' "latest solution: Don't vote at all." During the March 11 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (via the Nexis database), "The desperation among Democrats to pass this health care bill has reached new heights. Now they lacked the votes in the House to jam this bill through. So their latest solution: Don't vote at all. Now that's what House rules chairwoman Louise Slaughter is proposing. Now she wants to create a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed and once and for all by passing a minor bill that makes corrections to the Senate bill."
Fox Nation asks: "Should Rep. Slaughter be expelled from Congress?" On March 12, Fox Nation displayed the following graphic on its webpage:
Big Government: Slaughter's rule is "violating the Constitution." A March 11 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website stated, "The Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle -- the Constitution Article I, Section 7," and that "if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the 'people' will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent."
Jim Hoft: "Democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule.' " In a March 14 post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft stated, "Democratic leader Rep. Chris Van Hollen admitted today on FOX News Sunday that democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule' to ram their pro-abortion nationalized health care bill through Congress. Democrats announced this tactic last week. They will pass the bill without voting on it. They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without even voting on it."
Hot Air: House is using self-executing rule "for the first time in U.S. history." A March 14 Hot Air blog post stated, "We're hours away from Slaughter revealing the strategy and Democrats have no other mechanism to pass a bill other than using an extra-Constitutional procedure. They don't have the votes to pass the Senate Bill, so they are -- for the first time in U.S. history -- about to rule that they actually passed a bill they never voted on."
Malkin calls Rep. Slaughter a "Constitution-butcher." On March 13, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin displayed the following graphic on her website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IOKIYAR, yes, but also: IOKI your audience and party base are made up almost entirely of ignorant, misinformed malcontents and semi-literate rednecks.
Regardless, this is the first I have learned that it is nothing new to Congressional rules.
If they wanted to take control they would have passed single-payer.
Let's say the republicans didn't use the rule to "takeover 1/6 of the economy" this would mean...?
As far as I can tell the rule was never used on such a controversial issue like health care reform and nothing as sweeping as taking over 1/6 of the US economy (like taking over the economy of France or India).
Doesn't matter if Republicans used the procedure invented by democrats thirty years ago or not. It is UNPRECEDENTED in its use on a bill of this magnitude.
so the democrats have figured out how to "take over" 1/6th of a 14 trillion dollar economy with a bill that only costs 95 billion per year?!!? good job dems.
and..take over??? other than the VA which has been active for decades, how may hospitols will the government build or own? hom many perscriptions will they write? how many surguries will they perform? the answer to all of that is NONE. please support this as well. what exactly will they be taking over? no single payer, no public option, no medicare buy in, no state opt out, no state opt in... uh is there anything else that the dems negotiated away to get to the grand total of zero repubs that are on board today?
Don't worry, as soon as Republicans take control again, they will quickly take the same procedures you are now denouncing to new heights and you can then praise their fortitude for doing so.
WHAT "controversy"?! What exacvtly is "controversial" about this?! The only reason there's any "controversy" is becasue you people keep making up nonsense and lying about it!
No one should be able to take an objectrive look at our system and concluded it's good. Given the resources we have to work with, the results are abysmal, and the for-profit insurance companies are the problem.
Opposition to health care reform comes form only two sources: LIARS and PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEM.
The only EDUCTAED, PRINCIPLED opposition is coming from the LEFT, as a reult of the bill being watered down to satisfy the dishonest and the stupid, both of whom have been given an undeservedly, disproportinately large voice in the issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
There should be no "contoversy." CONTROVERSY should be a system as rich as ours being unable to provide adequate care to it's citizens. I don't know how you people sleep at night.
------------------------------------------------------
And that's a HUGE cost - because those people weren't covered, they instead run up a HUGE ER bill, rather than a relatively small (though still big, from thier POV) Doctor Bill ealier on, then they either DIE and don't pay, or LIVE and still don't pay. That cost then gets passed onto everybody else. Making everyone put in is the only way this will work. I'd prefer that every "put in" via TAXES (akin to single payer, though I have what I condier a better idea) but bottom line: it won't work if you can opt out. And since doctor's can't opt opt of treating you, whether you can pay or not, the individual mandate is necessary one way or the other. Will it give more profit to the insurers? Perhaps. Will premiums go up? Well... they'll probably go up anyway, but as long as you have the quote-unquote "market" that we have now, there's no helping that. And with people changing jobs, etc... you HAVE to require to cover preexisting conditins. It won't WORK any other way. Requiring up to put in and requiring THEM to cover us is the only way it can work.
And I'm under no illusions that this will be the end all an be all of health care reform. This is no more than a START. But it's a NECESSARY start. The status quo is unacceptable and single-payer is not attainable. Extra (healthy) people paying in will help offset the pre-exsisting conditins they'll be forced to cover. Will cost go up? Honestly? THEY DON'T HAVE TO. But it's a for-profit business, so they probably will. (Note: They will ANYWAY.) But this is no more than a necessary starting point. Much more will be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
That's part of the huge stumbling block that causes many of us to oppose this trillion dollar legislation.
As usual, you con's oppose doing ANYTHING.
The position of the con's on all economic and social issue can be summed up in eight simple words:
-------------------------------------------
I'VE GOT MINE, SCREW THE REST OFF YOU!
----------------------------------------------
IMHO
What helps when you make these arguements is if you actually read the proposed bill. Now, obviously by your statements you have not read it, remain ignorant to what is in it, and trust your government to make the right decisions for you. And your logic is....well illogical. Look at your statement "Given the resources we have to work with, the results are abysmal, and the for-profit insurance companies are the problem." The "for-profit" insurance companies are going to be making a HUGE profit when this passes as all individuals will be required to purchase insurance. The only reason health-care is so exceptionally high now IS BECAUSE of the extent of government involvement at present. Medicare and Medicaid are government run and they have the HIGHEST denial rate for coverage among ALL (yes including private) insurance companies.
I know this logic and reason will not penetrate your empty skull and my only hope is that you do not reproduce.
Can you back that up?
What they do is misinterpret that 'denial' rate and ignore that there are valid reasons why Medicare and Medicaid have slightly higher denial rates.
Here's more info from the AMA's own research.
Now go chew on the facts for awhile.
"Anyone" with half a brain can find it on the web, huh?
Like I did, and posted a link to it? Or like you DIDN'T do?
Now, YOU go chew on THOSE facts for a while.
I understand it can be painful to get caught distorting reality, and lying about the reasons behind the higher denial rate, and what it means about the current healthcare reform efforts.
Too bad, so sad. Go chew on your wounds someplace else, troll boy.
1. Ofcourse there are more parasites that use medicare vs individuals that work and get private insurance but we are talking about percentages not raw numbers. AND one of the largest reasons medicare denied claims (much much higher than private) is because they deemed treatment "not neccessary". Can you say "government dictating treatment"?
2. DD. I am proud of you that you know how to post a link but considering you don't have a job and troll MM all day it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Mike, think about it. It will come to you.....wait your sitting on your brains..it may not.
NOT ONE TIME.
I can go to any doctor and hospital that I chose not government and get the treatment that I need.
So STFU up.
I love it. Now the righties are actually going to base their argument on the idea that things like hiring of illegal aliens and House lobby ethics are not important like healthcare reform. Beautiful argument. I say, go with it. It will take you very far. Who cares about House lobbyist ethics and illegal immigrants? Those were not important enough issues to get your principles worked up. But, providing more healthcare coverage for more Americans, that is when your principles kick in. Good luck with that!
If it were a government takeover the U.S. government ( meaning we all collectively) would own the hospitals and pay the doctors and other health care personnel. (Note: This would actually be a form of socialism.)
None of the bills do this.
This is a lie that the right has been pushing, and it's simply not true, but I can say that the right has been very successful at selling this lie to millions of Americans.
Rest assured, the insurance executives will continue to draw their multi-million dollar salaries, live in their mansions in gated communities, maintain their country club memberships, take their vacations to exotic places, and enjoy all of the perks to which they have become accustomed.
Washinton has gotten totally out of control with their "creative" rule making to get bills passed.
If this health care bill was so great they wouldn't have to be so creative.
There are two bills, one from the house and one from the senate. They both passed from a vote they are only reconciling the differences between them, which are not that huge. Moreover, the senate never even had to pass a bill of thier own, and it's only because they did that we have to reconcile the two. Had only the house produced a bill, the senate would have voted on it, and if it passed (which it likely would have), it would have went to the President.
Their offer to pass anything and go back and "fix it later" is beyond stupid! Why would anyone in their right mind agree to a bad proposal on the promise of fixing it later??? If it's bad it doesn't deserve to go forward!
How about if I sell you a broken down car, with the promise to fix it later, but rave about the cool stereo in it?
The whole point of doing things this way is so they can pass the FIXES at the same time the bill is deemed passed. This way no one can accuse them of accepting the bill as it is.
Just because you think this bill is a boondoggle does not mean it is. Just because you did not vote for Obama does not mean he is not in charge. I mean, let's face it, you gave us G-Dub twice. We tried your guy for eight years. His legislation and his agenda were a disaster the first four years. And you re-elected him for four more. Now we are all paying the consequences of you and your ilk being so horribly, undeniably, completely WRONG. Forgive us if we have decided not to put so much stock in your political opinions for the next few years. Come back when you are ready to admit your recent blunders and maybe we will reconsider.
"the American people have abdicated their responsibility and bought into the divisive strategies of a group who understand that our form of government AS SET UP BY THE FOUNDERS, is the best for the people, as opposed to an elite group." - mango
What are you talking about? Elected officials? A representative democracy? What is it you are ranting against. I am guessing you do not know.
"It doesn't matter who did what when, it has been wrong since the early 1900's and it needs to be FIXED now." - mango
Who? What? When? Where? How??
"STUDY history, there is nothing new. One is a threat to freedom of the individual that is why three branches, each with defined duties." - mango
What are you TALKING ABOUT? You are making zero sense. We know Glenn Beck spends hours a day making such vague references to tyranny and the government coming after his family and it is clear that you actually swallow that nonsense he is ramming down your throat. Do not assume all the American people are so stupid and so easily convinced of impending doom with absolutely zero substance behind it. Stop watching Fox News and listening to hate radio. Read the Founding Fathers for yourself. Glenn Beck is a charlatan and you do not even realize how silly you look when you regurgitate his nonsense.
How amazing that all the rightwingers who were getting their panties in a wad over Rep Slaughter's discussion of using this rule were wrong, and I was right. Who would have imagined that I'd be right and they'd be wrong? Well, I would have, and so would many others who know that I don't say something is a fact unless I know it's a fact.
Here's what I said on 3/11.
"So, a vote for the corrections bill would DOUBLE as a vote for the original bill too? That's not passing health care without actually voting on it. That's having the vote be for both the corrections to the healthcare reform bill and the health care bill."
And guess who disagreed with me and then threw out a couple of totally bogus and off-topic charges about what I had said about Rep Massa?
If you said POV and RightON, with a healthy dose of Bludog and Wesley, two weasels, you win today's booby prize!
The House has not voted on the senate bill, therefore by voting only on the changes they will not have voted on the entire bill.
It is a trick to insulate incumbents in the fall elections. Politics as usual. I thought we sent Obama to Washington to end shady politics.
But thanks for again showing all of us that you have no credibility - your false meme has been debunked above, yet you have no shame that keeps you from repeating that debunked nonsense!
And YOU didn't send Obama to Washington, and he HAS changed politics in the capitol.
You were right . .
The entire CURRENT version is already available.
The amendments to that bill will be available for 3 days before they vote on it.
You're just throwing mud, hoping some will stick. Keep it up. Please. Keep diminishing your side's credibility. Please!
Either you already know the answer to that question, or you have been actively ignoring the answer to that question. Neither is good for your credibility.
Oops, that's right, you didn't.
Almost certainly, you are pulling something out of context.
If not, O'Donnell misspoke.
Passing a "fix" bill that incorporated the Senate bill would be fine. THAT is what is done all the time, by both parties. But that bill would not be able to pass the Senate with a simple majority as it wouldn't be reconciliation.
Changing the student loan system and adding all the fixes using BUDGET reconciliation will be the next legal hurdle. Doubts are being raised as to weather they can even change the "shell" bill.
If they use the "Slaughter solution" they have to include language in the "fix" bill stating that it incorporates the Senate bill. Doing that makes it a new bill(not a reconciliation bill). A new bill that can be filibustered in the Senate.
Seems like a lot of hassle just to avoid having your vote counted. People will assume any vote for the "fix" bill is a vote for the Senate bill.
They are NOT making a new bill. They are crafting amendments to the existing bill.
Then all the Senate needs is a 50 vote majority to pass those amendments! This is NOT rocket science, I swear!
Political shenanigans at their best!
We have a winner!!! This is the real problem. Either side will do anything to advance their agenda. Because YOU believe that we should have (pick a topic) then any measure to get it done is ok.
And crying "they did it first" is what my 5 year old does, it does not validate anything.
And, according to POV, their stalking downrating 'means' something about my credibility. But as we people who are connected to reality know, it means something about their credibility - and it's not a good thing.
Get rid of both of these "ying-yang" rules (one designed to slow things down, the other to speed up), and something might get done in a democratic fashion. Like, say, a majority vote.
USA is a republic, not a democracy.
It helps prevent tyranny by the majority. The Senate is supposed to be somewhat of a brake on the populist House of Representatives.
But when used by Republicans who can't even make themselves vote for reasonable things, it is being misused. And nowadays they don't actually filibuster - they just keep submitting nonsensical amendments, over and over, and that does the same thing. And while they do that, other important business doesn't get done. There are likely hundreds of reasonable bills that the House has passed, many with overwhelming majorities, that are waiting on action from the Senate. But the jerks in the Republican side of the Senate don't care about America - they care about their own political benefit.
It has two functions: the one you stated above or it can be used for obstruction purposes. The GOP seems to be using it for the latter.
It has two functions: the one you stated above or it can be used for obstruction purposes. The GOP seems to be using it for the latter.
Good. And neither is the self-executing rule and reconciliation. Glad you have changed your mind regarding them.
Pointing out that the opposition used these procedures would be effective if Democrats never criticized maneuvers they themselves are happy to use when in the minority. It runs both ways and the nature of majority / minority status is to use whatever arguments are at one's disposal.
Bills that address contentious issues don't always have the support of the majority of the people. A majority of Americans do want the healthcare system reformed, but the specific legislation has some critics who think it goes too far and others who think it doesn't go far enough. The final bill is a comprimise, which is a hallmark of our system.
Space Pedestrian said that the bill shouldn't be enacted because a slim plurality of voters oppose it. That's not a sufficient reason, because some of the opposition comes from the right and some from the left. The bill itself is a compromise between the two extremes.
Once again, my point is that people from both ends of the political spectrum opposing the bill does not by itself make it a bad bill. In fact, some would argue that's a sign of a good, compromise bill.
Yes, it is a blatant sham to avoid putting representatives on record. Why not simply vote to pass the Senate bill in the House, up or down?
As for the Republican use of this technique...notice how Media Matters left out the type of bills that it was used on. I'd like to see that information.
Check again what O'Donnell said. He wasn't talking about the self-executing rule or even reconciliation per se. He was talking about the whole process of dropping the conference process in favor of reconciliation.
It doesn't bother me that this hasn't been done before, as long as it is within the rules. And the Democrats wouldn't have to use these rules if it weren't for the Republicans' unprecedented use of the rules in the cause of obstruction. I haven't heard you complain about that.
Dam those republicans for trying to stop a bill that 60% of Americans oppose. Thoes Bastards!
Polling I've seen puts the opposition in the mid-40% range. More than a third (37%) of that opposition is coming from people who think the bill is too weak.
As for what O'Donnell said on Morning Joe, you might want to contact NewsBusters and tell them that they got the transcript wrong.