http://bit.ly/5a5NIm - - - Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.
That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened. “Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said. “Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.” Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules. - - - I predicted this, as these faithful archives attest. Nevertheless, I double dog dare them! Also, the "scaling back because of Senate rules" is an oblique reference to the provision modifying the Senate rules to make amendments and other attempts to retract certain provisions (yea, particularly the "death panels") by definition "out of order"; that is why they're aching for 60 votes if they can get them. Which I also shared with this august forum a month ago. Also, let's not forget that to get the fifty one votes they'd have to overcome a filibuster---the other reason they need 60 to pass this monstrosity or whatever bastard child thereof emerges from the dungeon on Capitol Hill. - Publius -- "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
