« A "Progressive Conservative" telling an Ol' Duck About New Tricks?... | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog | Fill in the Blank: Dear Joe Lieberman, ___________ . »
Reich Left Out the Unspoken in the Reconciliation Process
If push comes to shove .... Watch out what you ask for . . .
On Friday, Robert Reich presented a good point when he stated: Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us ...
Mind you... that was not a question he asked.
The point I wish to deal with in his piece is where he presented this point:
It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.
So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?
Grassley's hands? But if the bill goes to reconciliation does it really rest in Grassley's hands... Or Baucus' ... or Conrad's hands... or any other member of the Finance Committee, for that matter?
What Reich didn't say is what the Senate weasels may be relying on to weasel out of their responsibilties if the heat gets to be a little too much.
Which brings me to: Who's Alan Frumin and why he may craft Senate health bill?
Read that article by Brian Faler at Bloomberg very closely so as to grasp the implications that may occur during a reconciliation process.
And ... Think about that . . .
~OGD~
As an Add:
The following was brought up in this thread and I thought it would be good to show you what the reader what alluding to.
Off point for a minute. The Sunday morning shows were mentioned earlier here. I watched Bob Schiefer ask Charles Grassley why he said the plan would pull the plug on grandma.
I'm offering a $500.00 prize to anyone that can decipher Grassley's answer.
Posted by JohnW1141
August 24, 2009 8:51 AM
Good Luck deciphering that jibber-jabbering jackass . . . .
Advertisement
I think it was on Face the Nation this a.m. this was being discussed. The reconciliation was never meant to be used in this manner, but there's no language prohibiting this either per se.
There's also talk of two bills, basically putting everything they can't place in recon into regular bill.
Perhaps this is Obama, et al. getting tough?
Thanks for posting this - we need all input and info we can get!
Rec'd!
August 23, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely bother to watch the Sunday shows . . .
But, thanks for that info.
Did someone actually say anything about what Faler wrote in the Bloomberg link I provide as cited below?
Thanks again for your comment.
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if they referenced this specific article or not. I confess I paid attention mainly as the reconciliation info was discussed and it was done clearly and concisely. As I recall it was pretty much same only more in depth.
(Sunday Morning and Face The Nation(CBS) are usually the only two I watch and the latter is dependent upon the guests. Totally different, and I believe much better, than MTP(NBC) or George's et al. drivel(ABC).
August 23, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks ... Aunt Sam . . .
I allow my dearest Donna to clue me in to the Sunday morning talking heads. She can remain much calmer than I. It's that Spec. Ed teacher in her.
I tend to tend the vegetables out in the back forty. Me and the bees get along much better than the bickering of the political hacks.
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn are afraid that a Senate parliamentarian might write this bill as opposed to the Big Pharma and health insurance lobby.
Do I have that right?
August 23, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea about Coburn or Alexander . . .
When it comes to the "public option" I don't really think that Big Pharma and the health insurance lobby wish to see that included in the bill. And being that the public option most likely is “incidental” to the budgetary impact the parliamentarian could hack it from the bill.
This is what stuck out in my reading of the what Faler wrote in the Bloomberg article at that link:
And my point comes down to the possibilty that all these political hacks on both sides of the aisle will rely on the parliamentarian so as not to have to do their duty.
Do you get my drift?
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will force the Republicans to negotiate, if you take Faler's article as the last word. There will be provisions the opposition wants 'in' that the the parliamentarian would rule out and the reverse. Horse trading would ensue.
I believe there is another possibility, there is this from wikipedia (sourced at senate.gov);
As the Presiding Officer of the Senate may not be fully aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, staff from the Senate Parliamentarian's office sit on the Senate dais to advise the Presiding Officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from Senators. The role of the parliamentary staff is strictly advisory; the Presiding Officer is in no way required to follow their advice, though they almost always do so.
This indicates to me that the presiding officer's (Joe Biden?) refusal or acceptance of "advice" from the parliamentarian would have to be overridden by a 60 vote super majority. Thus more horse trading.
Ain't Democratic Republics grand!
August 23, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note ... Jonnie . . .
The old duck here never takes anything as "...the last word."
I operate on the principle of the present word coupled with the possibility of the future word. Time and space and all ... ya' know?
And thanks for that tidbit ... All input helps.
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating. back when I get thru.
August 23, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reconciliation has been used 22 times, by both parties, since it was created in 1974. Republicans relied on it in 1981 to cut spending programs such as welfare and food stamps. President George W. Bush employed the procedure to approve his tax cuts. In the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton revamped welfare policies with it. In 2007, Senate Democrats invoked it to pass a measure cutting subsidies to student-loan providers.
You know OGD, I have talked about this as have others and I figured it could kind of go down this way with a more 'liberal' House due to no bother about cloture, etc...
But I never realized how much I had been thinking out of my butt.
Great find. Great article(s)
Great Post
August 23, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing that article OGD it was very enlightening. I guess the thing I want to know is why are these maneuvers even constitution to start with? It seems to me that through this the creation of this supermajority parliamentary trick the Senate has enhanced its power over its legislative partner the house. Weren't they designed to balance legislature between population and geography. Wasn't that the whole Great compromise we all studied in grade school?
Has this been challenged? Can a constitutional lawyer around here tell me what I am missing?
(Not that I am under any illusion that if challenged the Republican court would approve a change. However I would very much like to see the strict 'constitutionalists' think (scalia, thomas))
August 23, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well . . .
Saladin...
Your point is well taken and not lost on my ears about the constitutionality issue.
But don't overlook this:
So ... as you most likely realize, at this point in time the Senate itself is the only one to resolve its own procedures.
We must deal with what is ... Not with what we wish it to be at this point in time.
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think much about our revered bicameral system. Give me a proportional representative parliament any day.
I just looked up Article 1 and read it myself, should have done that much earlier. Its ironic we moved from a system that required owning property to vote- to a system that gives us that illusion of democracy but is rigged so far in the favor of property owners that you almost need an absolute catastrophe like the great depression in order to get any real change. Sad.
Thanks though, you are right we need to accept what is and keep pressing. Keep it up.
August 23, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just an odd thought--I have them when it gets late.
Reconciliation may provide a kind of cover for certain politicians who would favor some sort of public option but who have powerful interests or constituencies at home who would punish them if they supported it directly. Not the bravest course of action, granted, but I can hear echoes of "I did my best to stop it but they overwhelmed me in the reconciliation process".
August 23, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah hah ... AMike . . .
You've brought up a very interesting angle...
As I said up thread:
Thanks for the input...
~OGD~
August 23, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Br'er rabbit put it, please don't throw me into that brier patch; a modern day tar baby.
August 24, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this OGD. I'm looking at that list of things that might get dropped:
"Provisions of a health-care plan Frumin may remove, lawmakers say, include a proposal barring insurers from denying coverage, the creation of a government-run insurance program and efforts to encourage preventive medicine. "
I can agree that reform on insurers' abusive practices and the preventive medicine measures may have an 'incidental' effect on the budget. So they'll have to pass separately.
But Frumin, unless he's completely corrupt, can't argue that the public option and its 150 billion in savings and/or its intrinsic budget cost as gov't spending is 'incidental to the budget'. Nor can he argue seriously that its purpose is anything other than cost-control - i.e. reducing the overall budget by lowering the level of subsidies. And i'm not too worried if the PO passes and the abusive-practices reform doesn't. It will just make more people turn to the PO in the certainty that coverage won't get denied, thereby forcing the private insurers to improve their practices by self-regulating. So I really see no danger in this reconciliation strategy, depending of course on the character of the parliamentarian...
August 24, 2009 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the opening ... Obey . . .
Now here's some info that dovetails with the point you have raised . . .
Also: Abstract || Research Brief
And here is a video link from the C-SPAN archives that I was watching today that just concluded with the principal researcher from RAND.
Health Care Costs and the Economy
~OGD~
August 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks OGD. I like this kind of docs. Let me use THAT as an opening for another point - Lieberman's BS about it not being prudent to pass this reform during a recession. For one thing the spending/taxes don't ramp up until 2013, which means now is EXACTLY the time to pass it. If you wait for a recovery, the ramp up will risk coming in the next downturn. A second point which pertains more directly to the CATO stuff you're citing, is that companies are holding down their investments, and they're doing so because expansion isn't cost-effective, in part because worker-related expenses are going through the roof with health care costs out of control. If they can be convinced the cost-curve can get tamed, they'll come out of their defensive posture and start investing in expansion.
This leaves me wondering why the Chamber of Commerce isn't pushing harder for cost-controlling reform. They're really not helping, and the status quo hurts them as much as anyone. Partly it may have to do with the fact that the HC sector is already 1/6 of the economy. So they will weigh in hard on the CoC's position. And once you accept that interpretation of events, then NOT passing HCR now will just make it that much harder to pass in future as the industry gets bigger and more powerful...
In short, Fuck You Lieberman.
August 24, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As per usual ... great points Obey . . .
One minor correction: RAND ... not CATO ...
Thanks again for your input.
~OGD~
August 25, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off point for a minute. The Sunday morning shows were mentioned earlier here. I watched Bob Schiefer ask Charles Grassley why he said the plan would pull the plug on grandma.
I'm offering a $500.00 prize to anyone that can decipher Grassley's answer.
August 24, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding Parliamentarian Frumin,
He came in after his predecessor, Robert Dove, was fired by Majority Leader Trent Lott after Dove ruled against him and Lott feared further rulings down the pike.
Dove worked for Bob Dole before moving to the Parliamentarian office, so this was an intraparty squabble.
If there is an issue with Frumin, Senator Reid can have him fired and hire a Democrat before the vote. Why the Republican appointee is still in this position at this late date is anyone's guess.
August 24, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda like Governor Dean for this position, he's not currently employed, is he?
August 24, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink