It's actually perfectly in keeping with the Democrats' approach on this so far.

From day one they have refused to "stand by" their legislation, first trying to claim the bill is "bipartisan" because it has Republican ideas (watered down beyond recognition, of course), then claiming that even using reconciliation to pass it wouldn't stop the bill being "bipartisan", and now they want to be able to claim they voted for a "rule" not a "bill". Plausible deniability.

To me it seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too. If HCR passes and is a success, it'll be lauded as a great Democratic achievement, but were it to fail (as I suspect it will) they want to blame the Republicans for passing a bad bill. They want to have it both ways, proving they're too weak to lead.

Isn't anyone seeing red (no pun intended) over the fact that the House Democrat leadership will try and "deem" the Senate CrapCare as passed, because they don't have the votes to actually PASS it for real??

Imagine the outcry from the Left if Republicans had the majority and they "deem" that Patriot Act Severe will pass, even though there isn't any votes to pass it..

Hell, why not do away with voting all together?? Since the majority party can "deem" any legislation they want as passed, it makes no sense to even HAVE a vote, right??

What is it about Democrats?? Is CrapCare SOOO important that they are willing to destroy the democratic process to get a law that 4 out of 5 Americans do NOT want??

And, imagine the precedence that Dems will be setting.. When the GOP returns to Majority status, what's to stop THEM from "deeming" legislation as passed??

Michale.....

Wouldn't be the first time ;-)

But reconciliation bills don't have to "change" another already-passed bill (although that is the case for HCR currently), they just have to deal directly with the budget.

Oh, I know. What I meant was that aspects of the American Clean Energy And Security Act wouldn't fall under the remit of reconciliation. Such as:

1) Requiring electric utilities to meet 20% of their demand through renewable energy sources.
2) Protections against energy price increases.
3) Targets for reductions in emissions.

None of those impact federal spending or debt, so they wouldn't be suitable for reconciliation. My understanding is that comprehensive reform falls foul of the Byrd Rule. Those provisions would have be enacted the usual way. So whilst Boxer could get the subsidy portions of the act through reconciliation, the substantive aspects would have to be passed by a recalcitrant Senate.

(Actually, Kent Conrad, Senate Budget Chairman, agrees with me, and said that if Cap and Trade were passed through reconciliation you'd have a bill that looked like "Swiss cheese".)

When Dems passed their 2009 outline bill, they included a few things for possible reconciliation -- HCR was one, and (from what you say) cap and trade might have been another.

WaPo confirms that the budget outline that passed didn't authorise the use of reconciliation for cap and trade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/29/AR2009042901033.html

we follow the much more sedate Robert's Rules Of Order in our legislative branch rather than let everyone scream at each other like kindergarten children... heh... couldn't resist that one...

Fair enough. They do act like kindergarten children. Personally I find it adds to the enjoyment of the occasion, and it's precisely why I'd venture that our PM Question Time gets more viewership compared to anything on C-span at the same sort of time (12 noon). Many visitors love watching PMQs.

(Our normal debates actually tend to be much more sedate than PMQs).

I saw some footage from the Senate the other day and it was like watching paint dry. Call me old fashioned but I like my politicians to be passionate.

Michale: Like you I think the Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't pass healthcare reform the same old "the Democrats can't govern effectively" arguments come home to roost.

If they do, it could be a disaster of epic proportions. The CBO projects that the spending under the Senate bill will only outstrip the cuts elsewhere by the year 2016. In other words, pay now, "benefit" later. People will see the cuts before they see any increase in spending. That'll hurt in November.

Touche' :D Fair enough..

But I am the original Alfred E Neumann in this case.. :D

Because, as I have pointed out ad nasuem, either way CrapCare turns out, it will mean hell for Democrats in the mid-terms..

I used to think that it would be a lot worse for Dems if CrapCare failed and Dems didn't get anything done. But I am actually coming around to the perspective that it will be much worse for Dems if CrapCare passes the House. Because then it will force Dems to either put up or shut up when it comes to reconciliation.

By passing CrapCare that the vast majority of Americans do NOT want, Democrats will prove that they are out of touch with Joe Q Public and this will all but assure GOP majorities in the mid-terms.

two points: (1) only the Senate is bound to follow the Senate Parliamentarian's rulings, meaning the House (who has their own Parliamentarian) is free to do whatever they feel like, and

True..

However, what the House does in this case affects the Senate procedures. The Senate Parliamentarian has stated that the Senate can't create the side car legislation unless the original legislation is signed into law.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if the House "deems" the original legislation passed. The Senate still won't be able to create the side car legislation unless Obama signs the original bill into law. And, if Obama signs the original bill into law, the House loses it's leverage for forcing the Senate to act. It will also negate the "cover" that the House leadership wanted to give struggling Democrats by using this trick.

(2) the President of the Senate, VP Biden, is free to make his own rulings on points of order and rules, and is totally free to ignore the parliamentarian whenever he feels like it.

True, but that would ALSO be a political win for the GOP as it would provide more proof of how Democrats are willing to bend and break the rules to force passing of legislation that the American people are against, 4 to 1.

But I am curious as to what ya'all feel about this?

And yes, I'll take your bet -- 1,000 quatloos on the Senate bill passing the House. And another 1,000 that says the reconciliation sidecar bill (no matter what it eventually contains) will go through both houses.

Woot!!! I might actually win some quatloos this year!! :D

Now that the Dem leadership in the House as told anti-abortion Democrats to go frak themselves, I think I just might have an extra 2K quatloos within the next week or so.. :D

Michale.....

While I have to admire your diligence in digging out the "endgame" quotes, I have to admit I've lost count of the times you've pronounced HCR deader than a doornail. Methinks I smell a tinge of worry wafting from your direction... heh.

Moderate -

I think you're misunderstanding reconciliation. Granted, it's easy to do, because where else in the Universe than Washington is a word whose normal definition is "a coming together" used as a blunt partisan weapon to drive parties apart? But reconciliation bills don't have to "change" another already-passed bill (although that is the case for HCR currently), they just have to deal directly with the budget. And the "budget" is actually a process. This process starts with a "budget outline" bill at the beginning of the legislative year, and then is followed by around a dozen "appropriations" bills. The "reconciliation" is with the original budget outline, which sets dollar-amount targets, but does not give details, which are done in the appropriations bills. When Dems passed their 2009 outline bill, they included a few things for possible reconciliation -- HCR was one, and (from what you say) cap and trade might have been another. So Boxer could be right -- I'd check your facts. Search around late spring last year for the budget outline that passed, and the word "reconciliation." It did make the news, although briefly.

Michale -

As for what the Senate Parliamentarian rules (interestingly, for Moderate, we don't have a "parliament" but we do have a "parliamentarian" even though we follow the much more sedate Robert's Rules Of Order in our legislative branch rather than let everyone scream at each other like kindergarten children... heh... couldn't resist that one...), two points: (1) only the Senate is bound to follow the Senate Parliamentarian's rulings, meaning the House (who has their own Parliamentarian) is free to do whatever they feel like, and (2) the President of the Senate, VP Biden, is free to make his own rulings on points of order and rules, and is totally free to ignore the parliamentarian whenever he feels like it. None of it rises to "Constitutional" in any way shape or form, as the Constitution itself is silent on Senate procedure, other than to say that the Senate can decide for itself what procedures to use.

And yes, I'll take your bet -- 1,000 quatloos on the Senate bill passing the House. And another 1,000 that says the reconciliation sidecar bill (no matter what it eventually contains) will go through both houses. But I'm not stupid enough (after the past year) to bet on WHEN either of these takes place! Could be the next week or so... could be longer than that... heh. The deadline is next January, when a new Congress is sworn in, as bills have to be reintroduced at that point, and start all over.

-CW

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

In other words...

Sorry Dems... You can't throw in unconstitutional procedures on a whim, simply because you can't keep your house in order...

I have to wonder what part of NO CRAPCARE does the Democratic Party not understand???

Michale.....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-Democrats-looking-at-Slaughter-Solution-to-pass-Obamacare-without-a-vote-on-Senate-bill-87267402.html

As if the Democrats have convoluted and warped the "rules" of Congress, we now have a plan where the House has "deemed" it that the Senate Plan has passed, even without a vote!!

Get that?? House Democrats will "deem" that the Senate version of CrapCare has passed, but without an actual vote..

Can anyone say, "DESPERATION"???

Michale.....

Anyone wanna lay down some quatloos as to whether or not the House will pass the Senate's version of CrapCare As-Is?? :D

Pelosi doesn't have the votes and is unlikely to get them.

I lay down 1000 quatloos that CrapCare will not pass the House As-Is..

Michale.....

It's not evidence-based decision making.

It's decision-based evidence making.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-terence-corcoran-decision-based-evidence-making.aspx

Michale.....

As for Cap and Trade, I've been a Global Warming sceptic for a long time, if for no other reason than the insistence that "the debate was over". Thankfully Prof. Jones recently admitted (having been forced to) that this simply isn't true.

Science requires healthy scepticism. AGW cannot be considered legitimate until healthy scepticism is not only allowed, but encouraged. Until then, it's bunkum.
At best the science is ambiguous and unclear, at worst it's a policy-driven con.

The science behind it is, at best, a joke and, at worst a con/fraud..

But you are dead on ballz accurate.. The US Senate can't pass any "side car" legislation without the main legislation being signed into law first.

Hence, the reason why CrapCare will die.

House Democrats do not trust Senate Democrats. And Senate Democrats will have no reason to pass any sidecar legislation, once the House approves CrapCare..

God, I love politics!! :D

Michale.....

With healthcare the Senate bill deals with the substantive aspects of healthcare reform, and if the House passes it and it's signed by Obama, it's validly passed law. Reconciliation can then be used to pass a sidecar bill that relates solely to aspects that impact on the federal budget; no policy amendments are allowed.

'END' OF THE 'END GAME' OR 'THE END'?

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

How many "end games" must Dems have before they realize that CrapCare is simply NOT a good idea??

Michale.....

Simply because the House has to pass the Senate Bill AS IS before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation "trick"...

Pelosi doesn't have the votes, nor is she likely to get them by the White House imposed deadline.

If the House misses the Easter deadline, that will be all she wrote.

The fat lady will have sung.

Elvis will have left the building.

Michale.....