Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Democrats Double Standards on Reconciliation
Share:
by 158 | February 25, 2010 at 02:35 pm
293 views | 10 Recommendations | 11 comments
Photos
Republicans have used a filibuster to block President Barack Obama's health overhaul effort with just 41 of the Senate's 100 votes. To overcome that, Democrats may use the reconciliation process to end the filibuster and pass the bill with just a simple majority.
This is a interesting view.
Democrats opposed the
reconciliation process when
Bush was president but they
now approve of it.
A reconciliation bill is supposed to be limited to provisions that directly affect taxes and spending. That means it may be hard for Democrats to include provisions they covet such as curbing insurance industry practices, defining how exchanges for purchasing health coverage would operate and restricting the use of federal health subsidies for abortions.
Secretary of state Hillary Clinton
was a senator from New York
in 2005. She also gave a speech
in the senate opposing reconcilation.
Republicans complain that reconciliation was never meant for enacting sweeping new programs. But of the 22 reconciliation bills Congress has sent a president since the process was first used in 1980, 16 were approved by a GOP-controlled Senate, including for President George W. Bush's tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2006.
Current vice president Joe Biden
said it was an example of the
arrogance of power, a fundamental
and illegal power grab.
THE PRESIDENT: Obama defended the practice at his summit despite criticism from Republicans. "I think most Americans think that a majority vote makes sense," he said.
Yet in 2005 he criticized
the republicans and also
criticized president Bush
for doing what he now
wants to do.
Republicans have used a filibuster to block President Barack Obama's health overhaul effort with just 41 of the Senate's 100 votes. To overcome that, Democrats may use the reconciliation process to end the filibuster and pass the bill with just a simple majority.
This tactic has been used in the past. Republicans used it
several times under former president George Bush.
Republican senator Lamar Alexander asked the president
to drop the plan force passage of health care through on a
partisan vote through reconciliation. Obama has said he will
go reconciliation process if necessary to pass government
run health care plan in the Senate. Republicans oppose this
tactic now but supported it under Bush when they had a
majority. Democrats opposed it under Bush but support it now
that Obama is president. This is hypocrisy at the worst and
more partisan politics and refusal of both parties to work
together and compromise,
A reconciliation bill is supposed to be limited to provisions that directly affect taxes and spending. That means it may be hard for Democrats to include provisions they covet such as curbing insurance industry practices, defining how exchanges for purchasing health coverage would operate and restricting the use of federal health subsidies for abortions.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York then
said that it was a constitutional crisis threatening
the checks and balances written into the constitution.
Republicans complain that reconciliation was never meant for enacting sweeping new programs. But of the 22 reconciliation bills Congress has sent a president since the process was first used in 1980, 16 were approved by a GOP-controlled Senate, including for President George W. Bush's tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2006.
It seems that for both parties principles change when the other party takes power...
Obama defended the practice at his summit despite criticism from Republicans. "I think most Americans think that a majority vote makes sense," he said.
In 2005 senator Barack Obama said, about the reconciliation process, that the president, Bush, did not get his way. so he wants to change in the Senate rules so that he can pass his programs. He also said simply majority absolute power by either party is not what the founders instituted.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (10)
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
Redwater, Alberta, Canada
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (11)
at 15:34 on February 25th, 2010
A majority vote might make sense. Health care, as written does not.
at 15:52 on February 25th, 2010
That is why I support filibuster. It can slow down the majority, give time to make known the problems with the legislation, maybe force some compromise. If a bill can't get at least 4 or 5 votes from the minority party then it probably is a bad bill.
at 16:06 on February 25th, 2010
If you don't know it by now, you'll never never know it.
Is that a song?
at 20:22 on February 25th, 2010
Filibuster - you support it?
Isn't there a House of Reps? A Congress? If there is then surely a Bill can be manifested in one, debated in another, amendments put together and then a compromise met - then the Bill becomes law?
Obama, by the way, has been trying for bipartisanship since day one. It is the Repubs who have been saying no, no and no again. Now that he is saying 'Well feck this ...' he is now still in the wrong?
The mind boggles.
at 22:16 on February 25th, 2010
Cynic:
Obama, by the way, has been trying for bipartisanship since day one.
You call yourself a cynic? HA! You sound like a Democrat ideologue!
at 15:59 on February 25th, 2010
158: Don't you just love it every time the pot calls the kettle black? Especially when the pot claims the moral high ground in doing so! What a bunch of stinking hypocrites! I can smell 'em all the way down here in Florida. Good lord! What a stench!
at 01:08 on February 26th, 2010
Come on fuscia boy. You should know by now that Republicans do things because they are mean, whilst the Democrats do the same thing because they are not only much smarter than us mere mortals, but they also have pure motives and want to enslave us....ooops - help us poor common folk!
at 16:05 on February 25th, 2010
Double standard translates to use it or lose it.
at 19:08 on February 25th, 2010
Jim: In my book "double standard" stinks! It takes a pretty big man or woman to rise above it. Those men and women are out there no doubt, but unfortunately they don't appear to be on either side of the American political isle at this point.
If the Democrats think that their health care reform legislation is such hot stuff and great for the American people then they should put their money and their own health care where their mouths are: namely give up their present tax-payer funded Cadillac health plan and sign up for the plan, in perpetuity that they're pushing on the American people.
But you and I know that they'll never do it because they're a bunch of frauds, fakes, and phonies and their health care reform has nothing to do with the welfare of all the American people--just the welfare of people that they can potentially get votes from. The Dems are taking a big gamble on this one and they just may lose their house as a result . . . .
at 19:31 on February 25th, 2010
Name a single political party in any so-called democratic country which doesn't stick tenaciously to double-standards-which means no standards.While in politics,do as politicians do.Speak from highest pedestal of morality,while remain at the bottom of it.
at 19:45 on February 25th, 2010
T K:
"While in politics, do as politicians do. Speak from highest pedestal of morality, while remain at the bottom of it."
F-ing A! You've defined the nature of a politician impeccably!