http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#psycho
...for that matter, almost all of 'em apply! :-( http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html On Mar 23, 2:17 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Forgive me if I'm telling you what you already know. > > She's referring to the process known as reconciliation. Basically only > requiring a simple majority, 51%, rather then 60% to pass major legislation. > While it's been done before by both sides of the aisle it has never been > done for something this important. Other major forms of legislation to do > with healthcare like social security and medicare and medicaid passed with > bipartisan support. Not so this one. Add to this the intricacies of the > Slaughter Rules and chaos reigns. > > This is really very huge and very risky politically for the current > Congress. I think the Republican howling at the moon some politicians are > doing is inappropriate and unnecessary. We should be focusing on dealing > with what we have and stopping a further slide into Soviet style socialism. > > Here's a short description of how this came to be I've stolen from Taranto's > Best Of The Web Today from last week. It's an interesting journey through > manipulation that both appalls and fascinates me. While your average > American sleeps through it all. > > *Democrats trying to force through ObamaCare over the will of the voters are > transforming the House of Representatives into a procedural funhouse hall of > mirrors. "House Republicans announced a plan Tuesday that would force > Democrats to vote on whether they should have a vote," the Washington Post > reports. > > Let's try to explain. Late last year, the House and Senate each passed its > own version of ObamaCare. Normally, these bills would go to a "conference > committee," at which selected congressmen from both chambers would iron out > the differences between them, producing a "conference report"--a single bill > that would become law after both chambers approve it and the president signs > it. > > Scott Brown's election made it impossible to enact ObamaCare using the usual > procedure. Republican senators now number 41, enough to prevent any > conference report from coming to the floor for a vote. For whatever > reason--and we'll speculate on this in a moment--President Obama was > determined to ram this thing through despite the message the voters of > Massachusetts sent in January. So congressional Democrats had to come up > with a Plan B. > > Since the House, unlike the Senate, operates for the most part by simple > majority rule, the simplest solution would be for the House to pass the > version of ObamaCare that the Senate already approved. It could then go to > President Obama for his signature without any further Senate action > required. Take that, Massachuses and Massachusettes! > > But this option, while procedurally simple, was politically impossible. As > Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate > bill." Some liberal House members view it as insufficiently socialistic > since, unlike the House bill, it would not put the government directly into > the business of selling insurance (the so-called public option). And most > everyone is squeamish about the special deals struck to win the votes of > senators like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, Florida's > Bill Nelson and Connecticut's Joe Lieberman. Principled moderates all, they > steadfastly refused to vote for legislation they didn't believe in unless > the price was right. > > Democrats thus had to find a way of getting the Senate to make some changes. > They alighted on "reconciliation," a procedure through which certain > legislation involving the federal budget can go through the Senate on a > simple majority vote. The House would pass the Senate bill, and both houses > would pass the reconciliation bill, yielding a final product that, if all > went well, would be merely miserable as opposed to horrible. > > Up to this point, the procedural logic makes sense even if the political > logic doesn't. But now things take a bizarre turn. The promise of > reconciliation isn't enough to persuade some representatives to set aside > their objections to the Senate bill. The result is the delightfully named > "Slaughter rule," under which the House, instead of approving the Senate > bill, would approve a "rule" that would "deem" the Senate bill to have > "passed." > > Republicans object to this bit of trickery--hence their effort to force a > vote on holding a vote. "By supporting this resolution, Democrats can > demonstrate that they will not try to hide from their constituents," the > Post quotes Minority Leader John Boehner as saying. > > What will probably happen is that Democrats will block the vote on whether > to hold a vote on the bill. Then--assuming Pelosi is able to scrape together > a majority, which remains uncertain--they will vote on the rule to deem the > Senate bill passed. They would thus bypass both the vote on whether to hold > the vote and the vote itself. > > But they would still have to approve the "rule" to "deem" the bill "passed," > which--assuming the courts either approve of this procedural dodge or decide > the question is not justiciable--is the functional equivalent of voting for > the Senate bill. > > The Post reports that Democrats "suggested Republicans were trying to > distract from the real discussion of what's actually in the reform bill. . . > . 'If you don't want to talk about substance, [you] talk about process,' > Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said." The Washington Times quotes Rep. > Steny Hoyer, Pelosi's No. 2: " 'So what,' says [sic] the American people. > What they're interested in is what resulted. 'What did you do for me and my > family to make my life more secure and better and greater quality.' And > that's what we're trying to do." > > But if the substance of the bill is as good as they say it is--indeed, if it > is anything other than a monstrosity--why do they have to come up with one > procedural gimmick after another to persuade their fellow partisans to > approve it? > > Furthermore, especially if the American people care about substance and not > process, the Slaughter rule looks delusional. Is any voter going to judge > his congressman more favorably because he voted for a "rule" to "deem" the > Senate bill "passed" rather than cast the substantively identical vote to > pass the bill? Is any wavering member of Congress foolish enough to expect > that his constituents will make this distinction? > > Admittedly, one can't rule out the possibility of congressmen behaving > foolishly. Perhaps Pelosi and Hoyer are close to a majority and the > Slaughter scam is targeted at a handful of waverers whom they know to be > especially gullible. > > But such tactics seem more likely to backfire. CNN, for example, reports > that undecided Pennsylvania Democrat Jason Altmire "said he doesn't support > Slaughter's idea because it 'increases the opportunity for the public to > say, "You know what, I'm not comfortable with this process." ' " > > What accounts for the relentless drive to ram ObamaCare through every > procedural obstacle, regardless of the political cost? Ideological zeal, > from Obama himself above all, is part of the explanation, but it isn't > sufficient. One can, after all, be ideologically committed to a goal without > falling into a self-defeating obsession. > > There seems to be an emotional desperation at work here. The legislative > success of ObamaCare has become so tied up with Obama's sense of himself > that he feels he must push ahead--and to some extent, the leaders in > Congress feel the same way. Obama is not the calm rationalist he seemed > during the campaign. But while there's a place for passion in politics, to > be governed by a politician who fails to govern his passions is a > frightening and creepy experience.* > > dj > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:46 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > "What I dislike most about Obamacare though is this notion that the > > leftists in Washington think that they can pass this thing through, > > cram it through, with disregard to consider the will of the people, > > disregard of these constitutional legal traditional processes which > > have thus far been used in America's processes to allow policy to be > > adopted that do adhere to the will of the people." > > -- Sarah Palin > > > Wow! Deep, deep thoughts! Have I got this right ... a group of > > leftists in Washington, unelected by the American people, have pushed > > through a proposal of an unelected president, in an illegal, > > unconstitutional extra-parliamentary way? The people of the USA are > > indeed fortunate to have advocates of due process and constitutional > > parliamentary procedures such as Ms. Palin ... (oh yes, and isn't her > > effortless command of the English language inspiring?) > > > Francis > > > On 22 Mrz., 04:23, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Let it all hang out. Marx and Stalin and Mao quotes welcome. Paine > >> and Jefferson quotes appreciated. > > >> "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot > >> survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, > >> for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves > >> amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling > >> through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. > >> For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar > >> to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he > >> appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He > >> rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night > >> to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so > >> that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor > >> is the plague." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero > > >> "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more > >> corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." > >> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will > >> herald the end of the republic." > >> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You > >> have to catch it yourself." > >> ---Benjamin Franklin > > >> dj > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > To post > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
