Sorry Orn, didn't mean that particular post to be argumentative. It's an opinion piece. So is the Taranto piece I quoted from. His description of the process is accurate but his opinions on the effects are just that.
dj On Mar 23, 10:25 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > PostquotesMinority 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 TimesquotesRep. > > 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 Maoquoteswelcome. Paine > > >> and Jeffersonquotesappreciated. > > > >> "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 > > ... > > read more »- 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.
