The GOP has gone insane

The House is doing a terrible job, so says We The People delivering a 5% approval rating:

Government Shutdown Blamed On Republicans: Poll
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/government-shutdown-republicans-poll_n_4069254.html

We keep hearing the same talking point from the Republicans responsible for the government shutdown: President Obama won’t compromise.

Liberals wanted single-payer Medicare-for-all, but the president settled on a Republican plan instead, a plan Republicans supported until Obama got on board with it. Republicans didn’t like the public option, so he compromised by removing it. He compromised on abortion coverage. He compromised with the “Cornhusker Kickback” (which was later removed by the Senate). He compromised on Medicare drug price negotiation, and drug reimportation.

He compromised by delaying the employer mandate. He compromised on the CLASS Act, and the 1099 requirements.

Democrats asked Republicans 19 times, starting in April, for a conference to negotiate on the budget, and were told ‘no’ 19 times.

For the budget, President Obama wanted one funding level, and the Republicans wanted a much lower level, so the president agreed to the Republican level. Not some middle-ground between the two proposals – he accepted their number. After getting literally everything they wanted, Republicans said ‘no’ to the deal anyway, deciding they wanted more.

They demanded defunding of Obamacare, or they’ll blow up the country. Then they said, okay, instead of defunding it completely, just gut part of it – they call that a ‘compromise’ because they would only get some, not all, of what they want in exchange for not destroying the country.

Obama says no, you don’t get to demand something in return for not destroying the country. “Not destroying the country” should be sort of a baseline expectation, when you’re in Congress.

And that, folks, is what Republicans call ‘refusing to compromise’.

Please don't copy-paste blog posts as your own.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 09, 2013, 04:14:07 AM

We keep hearing the same talking point from the Republicans responsible for the government shutdown: President Obama won’t compromise.

Liberals wanted single-payer Medicare-for-all, but the president settled on a Republican plan instead, a plan Republicans supported until Obama got on board with it. Republicans didn’t like the public option, so he compromised by removing it. He compromised on abortion coverage. He compromised with the “Cornhusker Kickback” (which was later removed by the Senate). He compromised on Medicare drug price negotiation, and drug reimportation.

He compromised by delaying the employer mandate. He compromised on the CLASS Act, and the 1099 requirements.

Democrats asked Republicans 19 times, starting in April, for a conference to negotiate on the budget, and were told ‘no’ 19 times.

For the budget, President Obama wanted one funding level, and the Republicans wanted a much lower level, so the president agreed to the Republican level. Not some middle-ground between the two proposals – he accepted their number. After getting literally everything they wanted, Republicans said ‘no’ to the deal anyway, deciding they wanted more.

They demanded defunding of Obamacare, or they’ll blow up the country. Then they said, okay, instead of defunding it completely, just gut part of it – they call that a ‘compromise’ because they would only get some, not all, of what they want in exchange for not destroying the country.

Obama says no, you don’t get to demand something in return for not destroying the country. “Not destroying the country” should be sort of a baseline expectation, when you’re in Congress.

And that, folks, is what Republicans call ‘refusing to compromise’.

Please don't copy-paste blog posts as your own.

I put it here because it is true not to impress you.

This describes exactly my problem with this particular tactic.  Let's suppose that Obama says, "Ok, we'll agree to negotiate and settle this list of issues before anyone approves a budget."  So he agrees to their points and delays implementation of the ACA for a year.

So what happens when the GOP says, "Actually, that's not good enough.  Now we want more.  We also want the trillions in spending cuts that we requested and a balanced budget amendment to the constitution."  When Obama inevitably says, "I can't/won't do that," are you going to accuse Obama of being a dictator who refuses to negotiate with the lawmakers in his government?  Where does it end?

 

If Obama negotiates then he is no longer a dictator. He is then doing his job and engaging in compromise with Congress. Negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.

If the President and the the House can't come to an agreeable compromise then the country will simply default until a solution can be found. Obama should have begun engaging in these talks months ago, not ten minutes before midnight.

And how is one man calling the shots in Washington?  Obama doesn't control House or Senate Democrats.  I'm not trying to downplay his influence, but House Democrats aren't slaves to Obama.  Obama can't make House Republicans accept his budget.  For all this talk of dictators, you don't seem to get that dictators typically don't want for their legislatures to fund their projects.  Obama the dictator would simply have mandated universal health care.  The whole reason we're at this point is that Democrats have no choice but to compromise with Republicans at every level of government, and vice versa.

Obama and the Democrats basically did mandate Obamacare. We've seen here that Obamacare was passed in a shady way. It is outrageous that Harry Reid would take a bill which has already been passed by the House and "amend" it by replacing its title and content with the Obamacare bill.

The Republicans should stand up to it on just that fact alone.

There is nothing to negotiate on and there is nothing to compromise about. If the country foes in to default then you know republicans will be blamed. Poll after poll indicates this. Your party has more to lose here than the dems. None of us want this shutdown but if it happens then at least the dems still have a party.

What is shady about voting in a bill? That is the job they were elected to do.  If anything, it is the people's fault for giving the presidency, House, and Senate to one party. 

If Obama negotiates then he is no longer a dictator. He is then doing his job and engaging in compromise with Congress. Negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.

If the President and the the House can't come to an agreeable compromise then the country will simply default until a solution can be found. Obama should have begun engaging in these talks months ago, not ten minutes before midnight.

Reasonable negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.  Good faith negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.  The GOP is not currently doing those things.  The GOP has refused to continue to govern until the president meets their list of demands.  Look at that list.  There is no way that any intelligent human being could expect the Deomcratic party to achieve meaningful negotiations on those topics BEFORE APPROVING A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO KEEP FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT.  How are you not getting this?  The substance of the demands is very, very, very important to this process. 

Describing the ACA as a dictatorial policy that Obama and/or the Democratic Party shoved through Congress without opposition or compromise is completely asinine.  That's not at all what happened.  If it had been, we'd have universal health care.  THE ENTIRE BILL IS ONE GIANT CONCESSION TO THE GOP.  That's a fact.  That the GOP now uses that concession as a way of lambasting the president is...I don't even know.  It's fucking stupid.

There is nothing to negotiate on and there is nothing to compromise about. If the country foes in to default then you know republicans will be blamed. Poll after poll indicates this. Your party has more to lose here than the dems. None of us want this shutdown but if it happens then at least the dems still have a party.

Obama has an obligation to negotiate with Congress. If negotiations are prolonged and the country defaults, Obama should have thought about that months ago, not when the government is already shut down due to his inaction and the bills are due.

If you are failing in class, last minute studying does not excuse you when you end up with an F on your finals.

Reasonable negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.  Good faith negotiation and compromise is how our system of government works.  The GOP is not currently doing those things.  The GOP has refused to continue to govern until the president meets their list of demands.  Look at that list.  There is no way that any intelligent human being could expect the Deomcratic party to achieve meaningful negotiations on those topics BEFORE APPROVING A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO KEEP FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT.  How are you not getting this?  The substance of the demands is very, very, very important to this process.

What Obama is asking would be like your employer coming to you at the end of the year and telling you to sign your name on your next employment contract, and agree to terms you fundamentally disagree with. You will be paid an unfair rate and be forced to travel away from your family, expenses not included. You are told you can negotiate the terms of your contract after you've signed your name on the dotted line.

That is simply not how our system of government works.

Describing the ACA as a dictatorial policy that Obama and/or the Democratic Party shoved through Congress without opposition or compromise is completely asinine.  That's not at all what happened.  If it had been, we'd have universal health care.  THE ENTIRE BILL IS ONE GIANT CONCESSION TO THE GOP.  That's a fact.  That the GOP now uses that concession as a way of lambasting the president is...I don't even know.  It's fucking stupid.

But it is what happened. Read the bill history. It's all there in black and white. The democrats took a Military Housing bill which was already passed by the House and "amended" it by replacing its title and content with the Obamacare bill. This was done because the House Democrats were unable to initiate and pass Obamacare in the House, where all revenue generating bills must originate.

That is not how checks and balances work. It cannot be said that Obamacare was passed fairly through our system of government and that we must all just roll over to it. What was done is slimy and wrong, and you should be ashamed for defending it.

Ok tom you want negotiate. What do the republicans have to offer other than to not destroy the government?

Ok tom you want negotiate. What do the republicans have to offer other than to not destroy the government?

Allowing Obamacare to keep existing, which will destroy America.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 09, 2013, 11:50:52 AM

Ok tom you want negotiate. What do the republicans have to offer other than to not destroy the government?

Allowing Obamacare to keep existing, which will destroy America.

Hmmm. So you don't want to defund Obamacare?

What Obama is asking would be like your employer coming to you at the end of the year and telling you to sign your name on your next employment contract, and agree to terms you fundamentally disagree with. You will be paid an unfair rate and be forced to travel away from your family, expenses not included. You are told you can negotiate the terms of your contract after you've signed your name on the dotted line.

That is simply not how our system of government works.

Those two things are not the same.  If they were, it would be more like the CFO of a Fortune 500 company telling the CEO that he refuses to issue any payments on any accounts until he gets a raise, a Ferrari, a vacation home on the French Mediterranean, 6 months paid vacation every year, Sally in HR is fired, and the company renames itself to BIG BUTTS INC.  The CEO says that she obviously can't and won't do any of those things, and that if he wants to talk to her about getting a raise, then he first has to go back to doing the accounting work he was hired to perform because it is vital to the operation of the company.  So you think that the right thing to do is for the CFO to declare that the CEO is a totally unreasonable for being unwilling to negotiate his terms, and to continue blocking normal business transactions? 

Do you really not believe that the nature and substance of the demands themselves are at all relevant to this discussion?

Let's suppose that Obama concedes and allows the House to defund the ACA.  And let's suppose that the GOP wins the presidency in the next election.  House Democrats declare that enough is enough and that they refuse to vote for any budget that does not fully fund the ACA.  In addition, they also have the following demands:

1.  Abolish the US strategic nuclear arsenal.
2.  Cut military spending in half.
3.  Fully subsidize planned parenthood.
4.  Abolish the War on Drugs.
5.  Comprehensive gun registry and assault weapons ban.
6.  Double the minimum wage.
7.  Pass the DREAM Act.
8.  Double federal education funding.
9.  Pass the Buffett Rule.
10.  Shut down Guantanamo Bay.

And then add ten more things.  You're telling me that you would find this proposition reasonable, and you would expect the GOP to sit down and negotiate these issues before funding our debt obligations?

And you still haven't explained what the GOP negotiating position is.  A big list of demands is not good faith negotiation.  It's a big list of demands. 

Ok tom you want negotiate. What do the republicans have to offer other than to not destroy the government?

Read the list you posted.

Building the Keystone pipeline certainly isn't going to destroy the government, nor would an expansion of off-shore drilling. Nor would ending Obama's "War on Coal" to allow our coal plants continue operating. Those things bring in more revenue, create jobs, and make the country more energy sufficient.

Cutting off an abortion clinic from public funds isn't going to destroy the government.

A balanced budget isn't an unreasonable thing to ask, nor is tax reform. The country must spend less and cut trillions. The path Obama has us on is simply unsustainable.



Right now the country's Debt to GDP ratio is 73%. This is unusually high. The country is consuming about as much debt as it was during the first years of WWII, which briefly peaked to 110% in 1946. In addition, this type of spending is going to continue for much longer than WWII lasted, which makes it unsustainable.

It's just like racking up bills on a Credit Card. The more added to it means the greater our monthly payments will be, until it is impossible to pay it off. The GAO said it themselves it was unsustainable:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that federal spending will drive the national debt to “unsustainable” levels in the coming decades, fueled by ever-rising health care costs and federal entitlement spending.

“The growing fiscal imbalance is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging of the population,” the GAO said in its report, The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Spring 2012 Update.

Furthermore, "[d]espite limits on discretionary spending that would bring discretionary spending to levels not seen in recent history, our simulations show total federal spending continuing to exceed revenues and feeding an unsustainable growth in debt," states the report. "The policy actions required to close the fiscal gap are significant, and changing the long-term outlook will likely require difficult decisions about both federal spending and revenue."

Obama must make the hard decisions here and now. He cannot just continue to spend money he does not have.

And where in your post where you are defending republican demands have you offered anything that would incentivize democrats to negotiate?

Those two things are not the same.  If they were, it would be more like the CFO of a Fortune 500 company telling the CEO that he refuses to issue any payments on any accounts until he gets a raise, a Ferrari, a vacation home on the French Mediterranean, 6 months paid vacation every year, Sally in HR is fired, and the company renames itself to BIG BUTTS INC.  The CEO says that she obviously can't and won't do any of those things, and that if he wants to talk to her about getting a raise, then he first has to go back to doing the accounting work he was hired to perform because it is vital to the operation of the company.  So you think that the right thing to do is for the CFO to declare that the CEO is a totally unreasonable for being unwilling to negotiate his terms, and to continue blocking normal business transactions?

But the business transactions in this case are not "normal". It's not like that at all. What a terrible analogy. A more appropriate analogy is that new CEO comes in and wants to spend more money than the company has, taking out debt the company cannot repay. The CFO is doing the fiscally responsible thing and not signing his budget proposal. The CFO submits one of his own, with normal spending, and the CEO is refusing to sign that. The CFO asks to bargain, bringing a number of concessions to the table, and the CEO flatly refuses to negotiate saying "I will not negotiate with a gun to my head!"

The company has in its bylaws that it cannot continue to operate unless an agreement is signed and that's where we are today.

Let's suppose that Obama concedes and allows the House to defund the ACA.  And let's suppose that the GOP wins the presidency in the next election.  House Democrats declare that enough is enough and that they refuse to vote for any budget that does not fully fund the ACA.  In addition, they also have the following demands:

1.  Abolish the US strategic nuclear arsenal.
2.  Cut military spending in half.
3.  Fully subsidize planned parenthood.
4.  Abolish the War on Drugs.
5.  Comprehensive gun registry and assault weapons ban.
6.  Double the minimum wage.
7.  Pass the DREAM Act.
8.  Double federal education funding.
9.  Pass the Buffett Rule.
10.  Shut down Guantanamo Bay.

And then add ten more things.  You're telling me that you would find this proposition reasonable, and you would expect the GOP to sit down and negotiate these issues before funding our debt obligations?

And you still haven't explained what the GOP negotiating position is.  A big list of demands is not good faith negotiation.  It's a big list of demands.

If the situation were reversed and the Democrats controlled the House, they have the absolute right to disagree with the federal budget being used for unnecessary spending on Military or the federal government's inappropriate use of Guantanamo Bay. The Republican president would be obligated to reach over the isle and come to a compromise with his opponent. It is not his way or the highway. We do not live in a dictatorship where the president just gets to recklessly spend on military and provide zero safety net for the elderly and disabled.

Compromise is how our system of government works.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 12:45:05 AM

But Tom!  They compromised to pass the bill, that's what you're so fond of, right?  Compromise?  At any rate, it was passed entirely legitimately, there is no law against rewording a bill to do something else so long as the revision is passed by both parts of Congress.  There's also no law against requesting that your counterparts in the other portion of Congress pass a bill, and offering a reconciliation after the fact to make sure as many people are satisfied as possible.  The Republicans got to vote on it, and they voted no.  They just didn't hold enough positions to have any sway.

So basically what I've gathered is that the power structure and myriad rules of Congress allow for some terrible exploitation should one party every hold the majority in both House and Senate, and the quote backs me up on that.  This is by no means a surprise to myself, I've already given you my opinion of the government, it's full of so much shit the governing bodies can't see straight.  It is surprising to me, however, that you call foul for use of a totally legitimate and to the letter strategy for passing a bill into law

It's not totally legit process. The House Democrats were unable to introduce their own Health Care bill into the House and so the Senate Democrats took a bill which was already passed by the House and gutted it. Look at the Bill Text history:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

Quote

1 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH][PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.3590.EH][PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.3590.PCS][PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.3590.AS][PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print - PP)[H.R.3590.PP][PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.3590.EAS][PDF]
7 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.3590.ENR][PDF]

A totally unrelated bill, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was introduced and passed in the House in steps 1 to 3.

At step 4 when it gets to the Senate, Harry Reid takes this House-passed bill and transforms it into Obamacare. The only other time is is passed and voted on is was at step 7, the shady issue where Republicans say they were cheated via improper use of reconciliation - where a bill could pass with fewer Senate votes than necessary.

Can you say with an honest heart that this looks like checks and balances of government were ethically followed?

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

As I've already pointed out, the ACA was not passed by means of reconciliation.  It literally could not have been as it was a new bill, and there has been nothing you've shown that said it did.  There HAVE been several sources you linked that state the offer of a reconciliation to amend the ACA after it's signature into law was what allowed it to pass, but again, the ACA passed Senate with the full sixty votes required, to the thirty nine opposed.  The revision passed Senate with the full fifty one votes required and then some.  The Republicans held no sway in the Senate, so you can blame voters and past officials that instated reconciliation without significant limiters for this one.

So yes, I can say with an honest heart that the severely mangled system of checks and balances were ethically followed.  Just as they're technically being followed now, although there's a great lot more at risk if Boehner keeps it up, which is again why I don't get how you have it in your mind to defend the man actively hurting almost a  million Americans and threatening the rest of the world with a slump the likes of the Great Depression, but you're pissed off at a bill passing that allows the working poor to continue being the working poor and not the rotting dead for a few of your tax dollars.

Stop making shitty analogies, all of you.  We are not talking about a family or a private business.  We are talking about a country.

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

Bills half way through the legislative process of becoming a law are not regularly "gutted and used for something else". I don't know what backwards third world phony-democracy you think we live in, but this is NOT the way our government is supposed to work.

Revenue generating bills like Obamacare must originate in the House. The Democrats were having trouble initiating and passing the act through the House through the normal method and so they conspired to skirt our system of checks and balances.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 12:56:29 PM

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

Bills half way through the legislative process of becoming a law are not regularly "gutted and used for something else". I don't know what backwards third world phony-democracy you think we live in, but this is NOT the way our government is supposed to work.

Revenue generating bills like Obamacare must originate in the House. The Democrats were having trouble initiating and passing the act through the House through the normal method and so they conspired to skirt our system of checks and balances.

They skirted it by the house by getting them to vote on and approve the final version.  How dastardly!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2013, 01:17:29 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 12:56:29 PM

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

Bills half way through the legislative process of becoming a law are not regularly "gutted and used for something else". I don't know what backwards third world phony-democracy you think we live in, but this is NOT the way our government is supposed to work.

Revenue generating bills like Obamacare must originate in the House. The Democrats were having trouble initiating and passing the act through the House through the normal method and so they conspired to skirt our system of checks and balances.

They skirted it by the house by getting them to vote on and approve the final version.  How dastardly!

The final version of Obamacare was approved via reconciliation. Pyrolizard is wrong that reconciliation was not used to pass the ACA. Improper use of reconciliation was used to pass a bill which had not yet been passed.

I encourage you to read up on old articles on the subject.

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/02/28/lying-and-cheating-to-pass-obamacare/

Reconciliation is unprecedented and unusual for a few reasons.  First, the left is using reconciliation, the ObamaCare Nuclear Option, as a procedure of last resort to get ObamaCare passed.  It would be interesting for the left to produce other bills that have failed during the use of the regular order for a bill, necessitating Congress to resort to reconciliation.  ObamaCare passed the House in November [when it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009] and the Senate on Christmas Eve, yet they are resorting to reconciliation because they know they can’t get one Republican to support the President’s health care bill in the Senate.

Second, reconciliation has never been used to amend a bill that has yet to pass.  The Health Care Nuclear Option will be used to pass a new bill that amends the Senate passed version of ObamaCare. Finally, reconciliation has not traditionally been used to steamroll the will of the American people.  The bipartisan Blair House Summit was merely some feel good politics before the real effort by Democrats to jam an unpopular ObamaCare bill through Congress using a the procedural Nuclear Option.  The American people should take note that Washington continues to view their opposition with contempt and politicians would like you to believe that they know what is best for America.

Stop making shitty analogies, all of you.  We are not talking about a family or a private business.  We are talking about a country.

A million times this.  Government is a beast unlike any other.  It cannot be compared to anything other than other governments and to a small degree not-for-profits.

Sorry Tom, I fail to see how using a legal power is cheating.  You are negating your exact rationale for government being shutdown.  Reconciliation does not prevent Republicans from voting on the Bill either; it only reduces the amount of time for debate:

"Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body."

And just so you know, Congress has to approve reconciliation as well.  So to sum up, Reconciliation, a legal power of Congress was implemented by Congress, with a Republican majority, to reduce debate time on a bill, that was subsequently voted on and approved by a House with a majority of Republicans. 

Wow Tom, you really nailed that one.  You should choose your propaganda blogs a little more carefully.

Sorry Tom, I fail to see how using a legal power is cheating.  You are negating your exact rationale for government being shutdown.  Reconciliation does not prevent Republicans from voting on the Bill either; it only reduces the amount of time for debate:

"Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body."

And just so you know, Congress has to approve reconciliation as well.  So to sum up, Reconciliation, a legal power of Congress was implemented by Congress, with a Republican majority, to reduce debate time on a bill, that was subsequently voted on and approved by a House with a majority of Republicans. 

Wow Tom, you really nailed that one.  You should choose your propaganda blogs a little more carefully.

Congress did not approve reconciliation for bills like Obamacare. It was an improper use of reconciliation.

The reconciliation process was created in the 70's so that Congress could move quickly on budget matters. By ramming Obamacare through the legislative process via reconciliation it allowed Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to ignore all dissenting voices and pass, against bi-partisan opposition, their bill with only 50 Democrat votes instead of the traditional 60.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, says as much here:

"...reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction... The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work... It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care."

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 12:56:29 PM

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

Bills half way through the legislative process of becoming a law are not regularly "gutted and used for something else". I don't know what backwards third world phony-democracy you think we live in, but this is NOT the way our government is supposed to work.

Revenue generating bills like Obamacare must originate in the House. The Democrats were having trouble initiating and passing the act through the House through the normal method and so they conspired to skirt our system of checks and balances.

Correct, it's very unusual and extremely novel while still being fully legitimate and legal, and hopefully there will be a fix passed soon.  As it stands, politicians politicked.  They exploited every loophole they could to get what they wanted done, and didn't go against a single law in the process by means of following the word of the law but not the intention.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 09, 2013, 01:19:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2013, 01:17:29 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 12:56:29 PM

Tom, the seventh revision was passed by both parts of Congress.  As in, as it stood in it's final version, it was passed, see the bolded text in brackets after the final revision.  There's a very specific rule in Congress that both sections must pass the same version of the same bill.  Harry Reid gutted the bill and used it for something else, and it was subsequently passed by the House and the Senate.

Bills half way through the legislative process of becoming a law are not regularly "gutted and used for something else". I don't know what backwards third world phony-democracy you think we live in, but this is NOT the way our government is supposed to work.

Revenue generating bills like Obamacare must originate in the House. The Democrats were having trouble initiating and passing the act through the House through the normal method and so they conspired to skirt our system of checks and balances.

They skirted it by the house by getting them to vote on and approve the final version.  How dastardly!

The final version of Obamacare was approved via reconciliation. Pyrolizard is wrong that reconciliation was not used to pass the ACA. Improper use of reconciliation was used to pass a bill which had not yet been passed.

I encourage you to read up on old articles on the subject.

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/02/28/lying-and-cheating-to-pass-obamacare/

Quote

Reconciliation is unprecedented and unusual for a few reasons.  First, the left is using reconciliation, the ObamaCare Nuclear Option, as a procedure of last resort to get ObamaCare passed.  It would be interesting for the left to produce other bills that have failed during the use of the regular order for a bill, necessitating Congress to resort to reconciliation.  ObamaCare passed the House in November [when it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009] and the Senate on Christmas Eve, yet they are resorting to reconciliation because they know they can’t get one Republican to support the President’s health care bill in the Senate.

Second, reconciliation has never been used to amend a bill that has yet to pass.  The Health Care Nuclear Option will be used to pass a new bill that amends the Senate passed version of ObamaCare. Finally, reconciliation has not traditionally been used to steamroll the will of the American people.  The bipartisan Blair House Summit was merely some feel good politics before the real effort by Democrats to jam an unpopular ObamaCare bill through Congress using a the procedural Nuclear Option.  The American people should take note that Washington continues to view their opposition with contempt and politicians would like you to believe that they know what is best for America.

Would you like me to show you the article linked in one your own that details the ACA passing mere hours prior to the reconciliation being raised again?  It may be true that anything of substance in the ACA was passed via reconciliation, I can't say otherwise, I didn't follow the procedures as they happened.  It's even true that talk of the reconciliation and an early draft began prior to it being signed into law.  But the ACA passed the Senate with a supermajority of Democrats and the House with the promise of amendments to the bill in the form of reconciliation being raised, which did indeed happen.  The reconciliation was used to make changes to the ACA after passing to avoid it having to go back through the Senate, which was no longer a supermajority Democrats and thus could be filibustered.

I CAN show you when the ACA was passed, with how many votes in the House and Senate, and that the procedure for passing it although unorthodox was fully legitimate.  I can also show you a reconciliation raised the day it was signed into law, promised and drafted prior, the date a week later that the reconciliation passed, and that it was indeed NOT filibustered.  Would you like that, Tom?

Quote from: Rama Set on October 09, 2013, 01:57:44 PM

Sorry Tom, I fail to see how using a legal power is cheating.  You are negating your exact rationale for government being shutdown.  Reconciliation does not prevent Republicans from voting on the Bill either; it only reduces the amount of time for debate:

"Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body."

And just so you know, Congress has to approve reconciliation as well.  So to sum up, Reconciliation, a legal power of Congress was implemented by Congress, with a Republican majority, to reduce debate time on a bill, that was subsequently voted on and approved by a House with a majority of Republicans. 

Wow Tom, you really nailed that one.  You should choose your propaganda blogs a little more carefully.

Congress did not approve reconciliation for bills like Obamacare. It was an improper use of reconciliation.

The reconciliation process was created in the 70's so that Congress could move quickly on budget matters. By ramming Obamacare through the legislative process via reconciliation it allowed Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to ignore all dissenting voices and pass, against bi-partisan opposition, their bill with only 50 Democrat votes instead of the traditional 60.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, says as much here:

Quote from: Kent Conrad

"...reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction... The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work... It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care."

Right.  They followed the letter of the law, and not the purpose, and subsequently got a terrible law out of it.

Correct, it's very unusual and extremely novel while still being fully legitimate and legal, and hopefully there will be a fix passed soon.  As it stands, politicians politicked.  They exploited every loophole they could to get what they wanted done, and didn't go against a single law in the process by means of following the word of the law but not the intention.

It is neither legitimate nor legal. Read the actual reconciliation law. The Byrd Rule, which Senator Kent Conrad invokes in my previous post, is part of the actual law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being filibustered in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted what is known as the Byrd Rule (Section 313 of the Budget Act).

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 02:16:21 PM

Correct, it's very unusual and extremely novel while still being fully legitimate and legal, and hopefully there will be a fix passed soon.  As it stands, politicians politicked.  They exploited every loophole they could to get what they wanted done, and didn't go against a single law in the process by means of following the word of the law but not the intention.

It is neither legitimate nor legal. Read the actual reconciliation law. The Byrd Rule, which Senator Kent Conrad invokes in my previous post, is part of the actual law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Quote

The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being filibustered in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted what is known as the Byrd Rule (Section 313 of the Budget Act).

If it's illegal, why hasn't the GOP challenged it in court?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 09, 2013, 02:16:21 PM

Correct, it's very unusual and extremely novel while still being fully legitimate and legal, and hopefully there will be a fix passed soon.  As it stands, politicians politicked.  They exploited every loophole they could to get what they wanted done, and didn't go against a single law in the process by means of following the word of the law but not the intention.

It is neither legitimate nor legal. Read the actual Reconciliation law. The Byrd Rule, which Senator Kent Conrad invokes in my previous post, is part of the actual law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Quote

The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being filibustered in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted what is known as the Byrd Rule (Section 313 of the Budget Act).

Your quote doesn't contradict me.  It was used as a bargaining chip with the House for a bill that already had much to do with healthcare when it passed the Senate, and amended budgetary items.  Perhaps a list of provisions in the reconciliation?  Wikipedia should do again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010#Provisions

As you can see, most amendments are indeed budgetary, with the ones that aren't being indirectly related to the budget.  And if you don't like Wikipedia for this purpose, I can grab the passed copy and you can try and pull out non-budgetary items.

If you'd like to direct me to a reliable source that tells of how the ACA was actually passed by reconciliation, and that it wasn't simply used to amend the ACA closer to the bill that was in the House when it passed Senate, by all means do.  As of yet all your sources have been vague and highly biased, saying only that reconciliation is the reason Obamacare passed, not how this is the case.  Combining that with the official story and several news organizations stating rather clearly that the reconciliation occurred AFTER the bill was signed into law, I'm inclined not to believe what they're implying without good reason and more clarity of wording.

Tom, each instance of reconciliation must be approved by congress. So in the case of the ACA, the Republican controlled House approved the reconciliation procedure.

I'm pretty sure that if there was any validity - or even any reasonably colorable validity - to this claim that the ACA was passed illegally, the Republicans would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.