Quick Fact: Gerson claims Dems looking to pass "a law without a vote"
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson asserted that the Democrats are working "to achieve the congressional equivalent of the Immaculate Conception - a law without a vote" and that the self-executing rule would allow health care reform "to slip by the House." In fact, the self-executing rule requires a majority vote in order to pass and, as the Post's Ezra Klein has noted, "the effect" of passing it "is not any different than if Congress were to pass" the Senate's health care "bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after."
From Michael Gerson's March 17 Washington Post column:
As of this writing, a president who seems willing to interrupt prime-time programming on the slightest pretext has not scheduled a speech from the Oval Office to make his final health-reform appeal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is working her parliamentarians overtime to achieve the congressional equivalent of the Immaculate Conception -- a law without a vote. One gets the impression that Democrats would prefer health reform to slip by the House in a procedural maneuver on a Friday night during the NCAA basketball tournament -- which it might.
The most visible Democratic domestic priority of the past 40 years must be smuggled into law, lest too many Americans notice. Politicians claiming the idealism of saints have adopted the tactics of burglars. Victory, if it comes, will seem less like a parade than a heist.
FACT: Bill would not pass without majority vote on self-executing rule
Ezra Klein: "[V]ote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill." In a March 15 blog post, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein explained that the self-executing vote "functions as a vote on the Senate bill" because "the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House 'deems' the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes." Klein wrote:
Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.
The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.
It's a circuitous strategy born of necessity. Pelosi doesn't have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi's favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after.
CRS: Self-executing rule requires House's approval. A 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report makes clear that passage of a rule by the House is required for the "self-executing" rule to be adopted. From CRS:
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. Rules of this sort contain customary, or "boilerplate," language, such as: "The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole."
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. 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]."
CongressDaily: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. NationalJournal.com's 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 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.
OK, so you are proposing that we amend the constitution to restrict procedures on any bill that has been labeled important? I can imagine this. First congress will vote on how important a bill is before debate begins. Say there are 5 levels of importance to consider. The lowest level will be irrelevent bills and with them, all procedures are valid, even fist fights. A level 5 bill can only pass if it has 100 percent approval, signed by each congressman in blood...
What is so pathetic about this strategy of "its too important" is the hypocracy. Basically you are saying its so important that we need to change the rules in the middle of the voting. Otherwise you are saying that the Democrats should be nice and understand that this issue is so difficult for the poor and weak republicans that the democrats shouldn't really try so hard to pass it because that would be unfair. Of course, based on past experience, we can assume the republicans would do the same if in a similar position...
Well actually you can see that in this debate, the republicans and their media friends will do anything and say anything to defeat health care.
I saw a bumper sticker, yesterday, that had a large disclaimer of Bush's antics. Then, the key message said; vote democrat, while you can still vote.
Little did this person know that when he worried about losing the power of the vote it meant democrats taking that right away! Amazing how quick ultimate power will corrupt someone. Another amazing thing is that this is all because of the liberal love of killing unborn humans. We would have ALL had health care, in this nation, if Pelosi would have just compromised on the objections some had over abortion funding. But nooooo, she had to have the federal government paying for 'abortion on demand' instead of being restricted by reasonable restrictions.
Funny how so many liberals think Cheney was the one controlling Bush's actions, now we have Pelosi controlling what Obama does.
Amazing to somehow lose full control yet had full control, ultimate power, etc.
The only public statement on limiting voting in recent times was by a Republican legislator at the CPAC.
We appreciate that killing unborn "humans" means neocons have fewer living humans to abuse and kill. Sorry that's just how we are. Take what consolation that you can in that their are so many ways to do it that with some sophistication you can use several technics on one person and pretend your only using one per individual.
But does she have a man sized safe eh? Drink the blood of newborn babies? Killed James Bond?
A quality loony left rebuttal.
Many examples of neocon chickenhawks enthusuasticly sending folk off to fight their battles and die for them. Conservatives, not so much.
That's ok, I understand. None of your peers want to tackle it either (by the lack of responses). You know, I hate to actually pose a question to liberals that they are afraid to answer, but someone has to do it ;) It's the only way to keep you ALL from sounding like sheeple parroting whatever you're told. Maybe, by the lack of answers, the true answer is told. So, I should thank you for being such a good torch-bearer for all your favorable peers.
You might have a point if that were the truth.
But it's not.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5924.html
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-10/news/17179303_1_abortion-policies-debate
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/pelosi-stupak-bluffing-health-bill-abortion-threats/
Do you need any more proof that my point IS correct?
Ms. Pelosi has not done anything to the Hyde Amendment.
S'pose this could be another cause for a lawsuit from Virginia. Hope it doesn't cause the future judge in that case from laughing to hard as its thrown out.
Not yet. But, it's not as if she hasn't tried VERY hard! There are still some democrats who don't think like a criminal and prevented her from doing it. Let's see what happens on Sunday, if abortion is covered she did something to the HA. If not, then Obama is back in charge of our nation.
OOHH NNOOees a legal proceedure might get federal funds!!!! Or some such. Probably in stereo.
Any circustantial evidence even,would have multiple threads as the noise machine lit off on it.
The House will be able to pass an amended bill along with the original, flawed bill.
The reason that the House is having to chose THIS option to reconcile two versions of the same basic initiative is because of the blockage in the Senate. It can't go through the conference committee solution that's often used.
It would be YOU who seems to having trouble with a simple concept. And this has been explained to you several times over the past few days, and so that makes what you're saying here a lie and makes your post a troll post, not interested in actually participating in the debate.
Please don't feed this troll any more.
I said at the moment (like now).
You said "the house WILL BE" future tense. dang this is just oo easy. I won't even touch the part about what the house might pass in the future.
And why would it not survive a conf of house and senate dems? get real DD!
It is NOT currently blocked in the House because there aren't enough up or down votes.
That's not true. There ARE enough votes. You claimed in the first post on this thread that there aren't enough votes to pass this. There are. You'll see that when they vote on it the end of this week or early next week.
The reason they're having to manage the passage of this bill this way is because it's blocked in the Senate.Like we've said.
Dell, what makes the original bill so flawed? I thought Pelosi was your master and you agreed with everything she says (just like Obama does). You would think a good liberal, like yourself, would claim the amended bill would be the flawed one, since it takes your prized federal funding for abortion OUT of national health care. Which is the ONLY reason America isn't already insuring millions of people who didn't previously have insurance. However, as it stands, little children and homeless veterans are living without insurance because democrats don't care enough about them to get this done when it could have been done months ago.
Why do democrats and liberals hate children and vets so much?
Why?
Why should they have to vote for the flawed Senate bill? What would that do? There IS something seriously and fundamentally wrong with the Senate bill. That's why they're going to fix what needs to be fixed, as best they can, and then vote for both the original version and the amended version in one fell swoop!
In YOUR world, there may not be much common sense. In the world of a rational Democrat, there's plenty.
You're lying, once again. CAN you tell the truth? Are you capable of it?
it is gerson, who probably, wrote speeches for presidents defending passing a law without a vote on it, now whining (like all losers) about it.
What a complete overrated idiot he has turned out to be as President, was a sad mistake I made by voting for him.
There are progressive complaints against the man. Do you know any of them?
Losing the argument? Shout "TALKING POINT" which ends the discussion and declares you the victor!
The individual seems to be identifying himself as a disgruntled democrat. I'd like a little proof of that political afilliation.
Take a deap breath and try again.
Tag me as a demonizer again. Yea that'll work.
... and, you say I tag you as a "demonizer again" because I said "you're really stretching"? What's with that?
After someone has already shown that they're credible? Then yes, it's a good idea to give them the benefit of the doubt when they claim expertise/personal knowledge/a valid difference of opinion.
But people who come here, or to other sites, and in their first few posts claim that they should be given that credibility as a person formerly supporting Obama, it's just not credible.
But, since you've never shown yourself to be credible, I find it hard to understand how you get off telling someone else to be credible or don't comment.
Please don't feed the dell troll anymore.
Do you understand filibusters and anonymous blocks? Or, is the problem that you get your news from Fox and the internet?
So, I suspect you are lying when you say you voted for Mr. Obama. He's delivered on his campaign promises, but you're incensed, which says to me that you didn't want him to deliver on his campaign promises. Nice try.
FAIL.
Government transparency? Where? Bills aren't provided (to the public) in the timely manner he promised. Have you seen the current version of the health bill? Didn't he promise the American public 2-3 days of looking at every bill being voted on?
Accountability measures in Federal agency's? Does this include the tax department? Has that guy (or the other ones Obama hired) paid their taxes yet? Or did they get away with their excuses?
Put more troops in Afghanistan/pulling troops out of Iraq. Well, yes he is getting that done. Of course, any president would be getting that done ... it was Bush that got Iraq settled down enough to pull them out, Obama simply happened to be the next president. You didn't mention our increased military presence in Pakistan. That was one of his promises too, wasn't it?
Health care reform? Why? All that is needed is increased insurance control and a sign-up sheet for those who want to use government health care (just like we have to do for EVERY other government assistance). Did we "reform" the farming industry in order to put poor family's and children on food stamps? Why reform the health care industry when all that is needed is a sign-up sheet?
Largest tax cut? I'm not sure if I'm middle class, but I did get a larger than expected refund this year. Thank you Obama.
Perhaps that's what that poster means by 'disappointed'. The only thing Obama has done is lower taxes for some. So I suspect you don't know what you're talking about or you are lying (as you said the other poster was doing).
Republicans in the Senate now filibuster over 90 percent of major legislation, put anonymous blocks on appointments, and refuse to participate in government at all.
The Democrats need to do whatever has to be done to get the people's work done.
Yes, that's right. Kind of like when liberals think the current war isn't illegal now that a democrat is running it. I haven't seen the daily/weekly/monthly body count since Obama took over. While Bush was in, there was a body count every other day. So it's the same theory as your whine about "procedural games".
Uhhh, they had their chance a few months ago. You democrats need to start communicating between each other and come to an agreement. Whooops! Too late! You whined too long and now we have an impass that has to be settled on a Sunday. Good job democrats! All because Pelosi wanted abortion-on-demand paid for with federal money. Sunday we'll find out who's in charge of our nation:
Pelosi= federal funding for any abortion
or
Obama= federal funding for the current circumstances only.
Personally, I hope it passes because then we can stop hearing all the whining going on from the left. And we'll see how their plan actually works. Perhaps it will be a success. Perhaps not, but at least we should stop hearing the constant whining from the left about 'national health care'. Perhaps??