41st Republican: What does it mean to Healthcare and Obama?
 

Yesterday, Massachusetts senate set was won by a Republican. It was held for 40+ years by Ted Kennedy a democrat.

I've been reading today all about the loss of the seat, that the Dems are finger pointing, that it's a mark against Obama just one day before his 1 year anniversary of taking office.

Personally, I don't like what is being presented in the house or the senate bills. I don't think they should pass in the state that they are in. I don't believe that one should accept shoddy just to get it int he door and fix it later.

I'm not sure what it means to Obama, it seems that people want it to be meaningful against him, losing VA, NJ and now the Mass. senate seat. Personally I don't see it that way. I see it as people just tired of the politics as usual in their own controllable worlds.

I think that the real decisions are still to come as voting is a continual process and we'll see what happens this coming November.

My first opinion was that it doesn't matter, that it's being hyped by the Right as the first glimmer of hope in a long time but still won't stop the Dems. The seat was lost because it was blatant nepotism with a weak candidate.

Then as I sat and thought about it, it's influence is only secondary. The Blue Dogs and Dems in more center-isle are probably eying this with discomfort. As we all know, unfortunately, a politician's first job requirement is to keep his/her job. The simple numerical number means nothing to Health Care, but it might just scare the politicians in reducing their open support of the bill.

A supermajority to defend means that Blue Dogs and Liebermans get a LOT of power. Now that that's done, Joe needs to lose some committee standing--the appropriate smack for holding out that 60th vote just-because-he-could.

Anything the Democrats couldn't get done with 60 votes, they also won't be able to get done with 59. Plus ça change...

The Dems weren't using the supermajority when they had it because there were too many conservative democrats. The only thing I think about this is that it's a shame an empty suit Republican took Senator Kennedy's seat.

I think a shift like this was bound to happen in Mass eventually. Being such an ultra liberal state I have to wonder if the voters were simply looking for a little political balance, especially in the face of such a national presence. Although it sounds like Coakley ran a pretty horrible campaign...I mean how stupid do you have to be to confuse the Red Sox and Yankees in the middle of a Massachussettes senate race?

Anyway if anything it has made the upcoming elections in November much more interesting.

I've certainly gone from thinking the bill will fail to being pretty sure the bill will fail. It's also a propaganda victory for the right in a 'zero-sum' kind of way.

edit: Re: Wes -

I heard more than a few people inanely state they were voting for Brown just to promote balance or something silly like that. So that's a very real possibility, just people voting on impulse. Plus, Coakley didn't really have a campaign. It's observable footprint was negligible, but I saw Brown ads, Brown signs, people holding Brown signs, etc. all over the damn place.

brown's campaign was motivated and well-organized and exploited the fact that brown was, and still is, a non-entity. so he wasn't particularly associated with the republicans and could fob himself off as an "alternative" that "independent" people could get with. coakley ran an appallingly arrogant non-campaign. she found herself positioned in a kind of amateurish way as part of some Establishment by virtue of ceding so much rhetorical ground to brown. from everything i've seen, she basically assumed the seat was hers.

i don't particularly see this as a referendum on the health care bill per se---but even if you see it in those terms, i would think its time to stop playing nice with the right, time to take the fight to them. take the ability to define what's happening away from them. they've got nothing ideologically to stand for, nothing politically except no to say. so take it to them.


anyway, i think the results are also more about other things....people are confused about why it is that job creation does not seem to be a particular priority for the administration at the policy level. why there's no commercial lending happening. from the viewpoint of a creeping freeze of economic activity that's hitting by degrees areas that so far have managed to duck the brunt of the republican-style meltdown, alot of what's happening in washington could be seen as misplaced priorities.
that's what i hear alot of, read alot of, in my little corner of massachusetts.
your results may vary.

Interesting I didn't realize she had such a small presence in the election, my Red Sox Yankee comment was just tongue in cheek but the more I hear about the election it sounds as though Brown nearly ran unopposed. Astounding.

I have been wondering for a few years now if maybe the mass political scene was beginning to shift. From the outside looking in I've wondered if maybe the ultra liberal political scene is looked at as more of the "party of our parents" and if perhaps the younger generation of voters might be looking for something a little different.

Americans have been telling politicians that they want an incremental approach to health care reform. Americans have been saying health care reform is not their primary concern. Americans have been saying that they have concerns about the size, growth, and intrusion of government. These messages were ignored by Coakly, and she lost.

Conditions may change, but if the American people continue to be ignored, those in office will be at risk.

Obama could go down in history as a great President, but he needs to hear what Americans are saying. On health care - he can move health care reform incrementally by for example taking on portability, pre-existing conditions, and expanding coverage to all children. I would support such a bill. Then through reconciliation he can do whatever he wants to try to reduce costs in Medicare/Medicaid and universal coverage for children,

Yes! Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here! They hate our freedom!!

I don't think that's what America has been telling politicians in the slightest.

Have you been looking at any polling data?
What did the election results last night tell you?
Did you attend any town hall meetings?
Did you talk politics over the holiday's with family and friends from different locations?

Perhaps it is just me, but I doubt it.

You mean the MA elections where Brown didn't run a single ad on healthcare and has himself voted for a MA healthcare reform that contains many of the provisions currently on the senate proposal?

This whole thing is mystifying to me: Obama and the democrats ran on healthcare reform, won the presidency and overwhelming majority of both houses, and have not simply approved healthcare reform because of archaic senate procedural rules, and yet a win by a guy that would be considered a commie pinko in parts of the south is supposed to be evidence that HCR is unpopular?

Just like the whole notion now that if democrats use procedural maneuvers to pass HCR before Brown takes the seat they are violating some high moral standard, while the republicans using a procedural maneuver to block it are defending the interests of the people.

Yes.

They have a super majority. Even today they could pass whatever they want. they do not need a single Republican.

The pattern for Democrats is that they need someone to blame their inadequacies on. It is always someone else's fault. The are always forced, when they do something un-popular with their base. Doesn't it ever get old?

Health care reform is not unpopular, just the current bills on the table. If Obama scales it down and takes an incremental approach he could get everything he wants.

Sometimes it pays to be honest about what you are. If I were President, I would get it done, and explain it later. You know, like Bush did with the Iraq war, enhance interrogation, Gitmo, wiretaps, etc, etc, etc. When Bush said he would do everything in his power to prevent another attack, some of us actually knew what he meant.

Brown Makes The *Political* Case For Reform | The New Republic

this is a kinda interesting take on scott browns victory. brown supports the health care coverage in massachusetts, which includes 97% of all residents.
he opposes the national bills.
moral of the story: brown is an opportunist.
the real moral of the story: jam health care through. suck it up and roll over the right. just roll over them. they dont matter now and they'll take credit once the reforms are in place so popular because in place.

incremental is political suicide. but conservatives know that. thats why they're arguing for it.

This is incremental. At least I hope. There is a lot more that needs to be done to improve the health care system for all, lower costs, and make all Americans healthier.

I don't imagine that this will change much (if it was the 51st senator, then I would be more worried.) Look what Bush was able to get done without 60 (R) senators. It does give the Democrats a wake-up call that their old enemy of the Religious Right has transformed in the the Uncompassionate Selfish Anti-government(Pro Corporation) Right and they have one year to fix things.

I hope that Obama moved further to the left. It doesn't matter to the right wing news, they are calling him a socialist anyway, he might as well make his base happy. I would start by implementing a 50% capital gains tax on short term gains (less than 6 months). And bring back the estate tax.

Not being from MA, I'm not terribly familiar with Mr. Brown. It sounds to me, however, as if he's just got a few anti-Federalist bones in him. You know, State's rights, local control to encourage accountability and transparency, all that kind of thing.

Because running roughshod over the expressed wishes of half the country (or better), the recommendations of the GAO and every non-Democrat-affiliated study that's looked at this healthcare "reform" crap is a wonderful idea...

...as for the right not mattering, tell that to Mrs. Coakley. For people who don't matter, they sure do seem to matter a lot vis-a-vis "Ted Kennedy's" seat in the Senate.

dunedan---i'm still putting information together (i'm not terribly involved with massachusetts politics) but from what i can tell brown's election is not exactly a victory for the right so much as its a loss for coakley and the democratic party machine here that assumed her election was a shoo-in. it's also a little odd, brown's position on massachusetts health care as over against the federal. i think much of the results were driven by very local, often personal questions. the national-level spins on it seem arbitrary.

but were i in obama's position i would go immediately on the offensive with the objective of rolling over the conservative opposition. i see no reason not to. for tactical reasons. were the situation reversed, you'd probably be arguing the same thing.

Not really on the rolling over. One of the oddities about my brand of politics is that it expressly disallows the active political "rolling over" of any person or persons. The objective of right-libertarianism is to avoid -being- rolled over, and to provide as many means as possible to prevent such; ie lawsuits, private-property rights, the Non-Aggression Principle and, of course, lots of guns. The only case in which I consider such a "roll-over" acceptable is when it is in the act of removing a law or statute which is an impediment to individual/personal freedom which is supported by those with a vested interest in the current tyrannical status-quo. The repeal of various Fed-level laws regarding recreation drugs, NFA weapons, and mandatory minimum sentencing rules would be good examples. Ie; the -removal- of a tyrannical law or statute would be legitimate, but the -imposition- of such a law would not be, in the same way that it is legitimate for a person to use force to escape slavery but not legitimate to use force to enslave someone.

Again, and just to frame this right: the democrats have the votes to pass whatever version of HCR they want, but a procedural issue in the senate prevents that. Using other procedural tactics to bypass that procedural block is hardly "running roughshod" over anyone.

Especially considering it now means that as many as nine obstructionist Democrats (or people who canvas with the Democrats) no longer need to be pandered to. This right here is the best news I've heard all month.

The Republicans haven't been nearly as damaging to the health care reform effort as the Blue Dog Liebermans.

To be fair... electing him isn't a reaction against health care

washingtonpost.com

He's not a sign the MA is against health care, so you're pushing yourself into the demographic I knew would pop up. You're seeing a home run where this is at best a double.

And what would America look like on the macro level if all of those (and the other agenda items) were implemented? That is what I am concerned with. Obama made his 30 minute infomercial on what changes he wanted to make for the average American, McCain and the other Republicans (Paul included) did not. Now, Ron Paul does have a few ideas that I like, but I think his policies would let corporations treat the average person like crap. And while we would have the 'choice' to not use them, it's not fair if no one can make a non-smoking bar succeed if the next city over allows it for example. (Smoking bans, trans fat, sodium, renewable energy grants, and a few other good government projects/ideas...)

Do I get to sue the power company (and other industry) for polluting the air on my property? Or will it look like the wild west, except with Chinese levels of pollution? Will the unregulated competition in the market place turn everything into a ebay style flea market where costs are cut as low as they can go by copying, stealing ideas, and using cheaper parts...

Are you suggesting that the two bills being considered in Washington are the same as what was passed in Massachusetts? It is possible to be for health care reform and be against the bills passed in Washington.

If you look at the bills the one in Congress is so much more watered down than in MA. Mass has a state public option, I doubt he'd be for the Public Option and then suddenly 180 and vote against the national healthcare bill.

The bills in Congress are a mess. There are thousands of reasons to be against those bills. The first being they may not even be Constitutional. It is very easy to support the right of a state to act legislatively but not the federal government on the exact same issue.

Coakley was arrogant. She was seen apartment hunting in D.C. a few days after The Globe noted she was 17 points ahead. Wasn't long after that that Brown started to surge in the polls. This state has been over run by corruption, cronyism and nepotism for longer than I can remember. We've had more than a few high ranking political figures either indicted or under investigation by the Feds all of whom are/were Democrats. The Democrat governor has lower approval ratings than Bush at his worst. Part of the reason Brown won was on his Obamacare stance. I believe another part is people saw Martha as just another piece of the problem here in MA.
I am hoping this is the first in a series of upset election victories here.

Oh, and by the way Will, it's not Kennedy's seat, its a Senator's seat.
Just saying...

I think the Democrats mistook the election of Obama and the super majority in both houses as a sudden shift of the country to the left when in fact the country stayed more center. The Massachusetts voters just made sure the country stayed in the center. Thank you Massachusetts!

This whole "grand message" thing regarding the whole MA election is silly. The idea that MA elected a pro-choice moderate who supports gay rights and a version of public healthcare that is more progressive than the one in the senate right now to "make sure the country stayed in the center" is nonsense. First because the idea that Obama represents the left of the democratic party is false. Second because the distance between the current democratic proposals and Brown's position is relatively small. Lieberman, Bayh, Lincoln and Landrieu are bigger problems for Obama than Brown is. And third because it ignores the main reason he won by 5 points: he was a likable, somewhat independent person running against someone who didn't campaign and who made a habit of saying foolish things.

Life imitates art
 

You all just keep telling yourselves that and continue on the same course and see where it gets you in November. I had high hopes the Democrats would do something with their super majority but instead all we got was a way left of center agenda and finger pointing at the other side. This country so needs to kick all the lobbyists from Washington and a viable third party. Nothing has been done about creating jobs, keeping jobs here or the economy in general. They haven't even passed any real Wall Street reform after the biggest financial meltdown since '29.

well now here we are back in the hall of mirrors that is framing...when i look at how the administration has been handling itself across the first year, i see a group of pusillanimous centrists who are way too eager to play nice with the right in the interest of some illusory consensus--illusory because the right has politically nothing to say---it cannot even run on its own record from the bush period or from the reagan period forward---it is only a space of "not this" whatever this is. given that, it makes little sense to negociate with the right...(this may be why my phone hasn't been ringing, why the calls for tactical advice havent been coming in fast and furious from the administration)....but it's PARTICULARLY a problem that the administration hasn't fashioned a better, more clear and consistent communications approach. they're losing control over how issues are framed and even over how their actions are positioned. this is a problem. this is an indication of the persistence of the reactionary media apparatus. and that apparatus is what's saving the republicans from themselves.

i dont consider this election to have much of a meaning in national terms. that it is painted up as having one is another instance of the ability of conservatives to control how issues are framed in the press. their only strategy for months has been aimed at generating the appearance of stopping some imaginary obama momentum as it unfolds across news cycles.

what concerns me is that the administration is taking more and more of the hit for the socio-economic and political shitstorms left behind by the bush people.
that too little attention has been paid to addressing unemployment in particular.
that nothing has been done to accelerate commercial lending---taken together it looks like the administration is not addressing what to alot of folk is really fundamental.
not doing that makes things like health care change---which i support entirely myself, but think is not going anywhere near far enough----seem incidental.
and you've got an infotainment machinery that compulsively declares recession over and recovery upon the land-and folk look around and it aint happening.

this may well be a communication problem.
it may well be a communication problem that follows from being placed in an extremely difficult situation thanks to the monumental incompetence and blindess of the right, which now would have you believe that they represent "independent thinking."

well the thing that conservative ideology seems most independent of these days is the consequences of conservative ideology actually being implemented. so conservatives are pretty independent of reality.

i dont see this as a referendum on much of anything beyond the local political situation in massachusetts--which is a confusing place. i'm still trying to figure things out about it politically.

I'm sure that the democrats will lose plenty of seats. an 18 vote majority in the senate is hardly sustainable in the long run.

But the notion that people vote because they want to send a message, and not because of more mundane concerns, is ridiculous.

I know, I know, all the winners tend to try to spin a narrative that shows how their side is being recognized as inherently true.

But that, by itself, doesn't make it true.

Was the democratic victory in NY-23 a sign that the country is becoming left-pinko? Sure not.

And if while the dems are in power the economy bounces back, the dems will gain a huge boost in popularity, but it won't be because all of the sudden the country decided to go commie pinko on us.

So are the Democrats just hanging on hoping the economy takes it's inevitable swing back up before the next election or do the Democrats actually have a plan to implement that's going to boost the economy and give them this surge of popularity? Or is the plan to try and bolster everyones spirits by making them take out insurance policies they can't afford or face jail time? Or maybe it's push all the blame off on the previous administration and repeat "we inherited this mess" enough times it will take make everyone feel better about the current party in charge. I didn't vote Republican last election neither did I vote Democrat. I voted Libertarian or independent when possible simply because I think both parties are failures and we need a viable third party. I think both parties share equally in the current mess and neither party is doing much to help. There is to much lobbyist money awash in our capital for either side to do much of anything meanwhile me and you languish waiting for things to get better so we can get a job or hope inflation doesn't overtake our wages if we are fortunate enough to have a job. I'm really pretty disgusted with it all.

I am not particularly concerned with defending the democratic party. I am simply pointing out that these sorts of grand narratives regarding an election are precisely what Roachboy described: a hall of mirrors.
The realities on the ground are significantly less glamorous or grandiose.

I suspect Brown will fall in line with the Republicans and vote agaist any federal health care bill. I think I heard him say he thought the states should control the issue with their own plans like Mass. did.

Republicans are against almost any federal health care bill and it is hard for many progressives to get behind the current health care bills. Without a public option they seem like a windfall for the insurance industry.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they scrapped the current bills and proposed a simple bill that contains two of the provisions that have almost universal appeal. No discrimination against pre-conditions and no caps. Then when premiums double come back and scramble to fix it next year with a purchase requirement and a public option. Requiring people to buy insurance without a public option will get little support from liberals.

We may get a bit of a flavor for the Healthcare post super majority tonight(BO's Speech). I think the original bill is now good for kindling (thank goodness). It is time for the folks trying to reform healthcare to get down to the key problems and address them perhaps as flstf mentions above I'd add address the 10 million folks who don't have and want coverage. Perhaps they can build something that would stand up to High Court scrutiny. I have no doubts that the original bills (both House and Senate) would be found unconstitutional on multiple fronts. Though the Courts would debate it for multiple years while we were all taxed to fund a flatulent vehicle (that was the intended word)

Once again I'll say that you can't fix the Health INSURANCE problem without first addressing Tort law.

I couldn't say it better myself:

Breitbart.tv Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent

Conversely, one could find all sorts of videos from republicans talking about how filibusters are bad and being abused, even though they're using it now more than ever. Not to defend democrats, but let's not be naive here.

I don't get Obama's strategy with this right now at all. Why is he making concessions to the Republicans? Why is he working on "bi-partisan solutions"? All he's doing is weakening the bill (all the while not "winning" a single Republican vote for the bill).

I'm not being naive, I'm sure they exist. Feel free to post them to advance the thread.

Edited: ...and I disagreed with the Republicans and supported the Democrats in priniciple in 2005. I disagree with the Democrats and support the Republicans in principle today. I'm not the hypocrit, politicians are.

They aren't talking about using the Nuclear Option, they are talking about presenting the health care bill as a Budget Resolution and therefore using Reconciliation. There is a big fucking difference. The NO involves the majority declaring that a filibuster is unconstitutional and therefore they can proceed to a straight up or down vote.

Reconciliation is an established practice and has been used for numerous pieces of legislation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. The R's had no problem with it then.

The R's are total hypocrites. They wanted to use the NO over some freaking judicial appointments. It was fine for them then.

But then again, we can't expect Breitbart to be listing facts, can we?

I believe the above is correct. The problems are evident
and roachboy pointed them out simply.

My disappointment with our president and his staff now lies before he was even elected.
It was my hope then that he and Pelosi and et al would have things ready to go,
that they had a cohesive plan to bring us round, knowing the dems had the majority.
I see now that 1, 2, 3 seats really wont make a difference.

Dont even get me started in re the media. There needs to be an abrupt change of thinking
in the minds of any ratassbackwardsshitfucker reporter who glorifies inhumane or rude
assholes of any kind and that includes ruckmongers of any sort and opinionated evildoers.
And we public need to hold them to better standards by not reading, listening, watching,
talking about, or paying any fucking attention to them or their moron views.

I would like to see this admin present a clear plan to us
via an socially educated/educational, unbiased media that included
only the unbiased plan, with no advertisements or opinions
of the corporatists (who the supremes seem to looove these days).
I would like to see us listen carefully and weigh the benefits
of the overall picture. I would like us to think carefully of each other.
I would like us to pressure our reps en masse.
Itll never happen, but a girl can dream.

And we need some fuckinpeace and some spending on education
so people know what theyre reading and can piece together that
overall big global pic.

(This is why Im not always allowed to talk politics at home. Sorry.)

I haven't figured it out yet either. There are a few blue dog democrats that he might be trying to protect, but either way they will be in trouble. They need to get something serious done and move on. They have had long enough to figure this out.

If the Republicans suggest they start over, I would love it if Obama pulled out a single-payer universal health care plan to start from.

I did some more research:

The Constitution states that the Senate must "advise and consent" to the President's nominees. Because it is required, a simple majority can be used (reconciliation), and a filibuster can be stopped.

The Constitution states that the Senate must pass a federal budget. Because it is required, a simple majority can be used and a filibuster can be stopped.

The Constitution does NOT require the Senate to pass legislation. Since it is not required, it is unconstitutional to change the Senate rules to a simple majority for passing legislation. Calling this a "budget resolution" is just the slight of hand they are using to break the rules. A budget is comprehensive and occurs once a year.

In short, the Senate was right in 2005 to stop filibuster and vote on nominees. The Senate is wrong to stop a filibuster in 2010 to pass a piece of legislation.

Of course you would interpret it that way.

While you were reading up, did you read up on all the other health care reform that was passed using reconciliation, like COBRA? Was it wrong when the GOP used it to pass tax cuts?

It's not new, it's not unprecedented, it's not anything put the GOP whining because they aren't getting their way. Looking at the history of changes health care policy, it looks like that is one of the main ways to get bills though. Like usual, the GOP is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Yes, it was wrong for the GOP to do it. As I am not a Republican, it does not pain me to say that.

It seems your argument is that because 50 other murders occurred without prosecution, my murder is perfectly fine.

No, the argument is that it is a well established practice that has been used for the past three decades.

The well established, unconstitutional practice. Correct.

How is it, exactly, unconstitutional? Which specific parts of the constitution does it violate?

Both the House and the Senate are free to set their own rules. The process is allowed by the rules.

Others beat me to it.

US Constitution Article I, Sec.5: "......Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

Doesn't the constitution say anything done by a Democrat is unconstitutional?

It was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. In my attempt to be terse, I misused the word unconstitutional. I meant "in spirit," not literally. The bi-cameral system set up was to have the wise Senate debate legislation and slow down the passion of the House. The rule of a 60 member vote is key to that system. Because there are provisions set forth in the Constitution which require a vote (budget and nominees), it is necessary to override that rule at times. However, legislation is not required and overriding that rule for legislation sets the two houses of Congress on equal terms, which is definitely a violation of system intended by the framers. Of course, in order to accept that, one must read history as to the "intent" of the framers - and I know how you guys feel about The Federalist Papers, the Great Compromise, etc.

Wait a minute. Now you get to interpret the "spirit" of the Constitution?

Who nominated you to the Supreme Court while I wasn't looking?

I have as much right as they do:

Breitbart.tv Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent

Actually, the senate was supposed to do all that because it does not allocate it's seats proportionally, and as such it is a sort of protection for smaller states.

This whole thing about the "rule of 60" and the "spirit of the constitution" is a bit meaningless, given that cloture was established in 1917 and current 60 vote rules were established in 1975.

Add to that the fact that filibusters were never used this widely

http://www.dailyawesome.com/images/filibuster.png

and it's hard to argue for "tradition" or "spirit."

The fact is that the filibuster is a procedural move that has been used historically to block an up and down vote. The reconciliation process is also a procedural move that has also been historically used to get around a filibuster. There is no more nobility to one of these acts than the other. And as far as using a reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation, isn't healthcare legislation essentially a matter of budget? Especially this bill: raises taxes on some types of insurance, subsidize others, etc.

People need to realise that they aren't using reconciliation to pass this bill. The bill has already passed, they will use it to pass the "fixes" once it leaves the house again.

Good point.

Not until some constituency elects you to be its representative, you don't.

You are absolutely correct.

However, it does say that a rule change requires 60 votes. Isn't this a "rule change" since the current rule is "must have 60 votes". So, aren't they still violating the current Senate rules by using 51 votes to proceed without first having 60 votes to change the cloture rule from 60 to 51?

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

So, let me get this straight: You have used an interpretation of the "general welfare" clause to justify every federal social program we have ever debated and now you are saying I don't have the right to interpret the Constitution during an internet argument? Um, okay.

But using reconciliation isn't a rule change. Reconciliation is being talked about as a way of fixing discrepancies between the house and senate bills.

No, you don't have that straight.

You have as much right as I do. Neither of us has the authority a legislator or especially a Supreme Court Justice has, not by a LONG shot. Their job is the management of and maintenance of the nation established by that document. You and I have never been hired for that task.

I'm really surprised at your surprise about this. It seems like... Is there a term like "crocodile tears", but for surprise? Crocodile surprise?

For the record, budget reconciliation is codified in law...it is not just a rule.

The keyword here is "budget". To attempt reconciliation on a health care bill will be difficult and not without political peril for the democrats and the president.

It wouldnt be that difficult...simply stripping out provisions that dont have direct budget implications.

I assume some Congressional staffers are working through that process as we speak.

Political peril? Probably so, but it works both ways.

Much of the anger, perhaps not as widespread or as vocal as the Tea Parties, is directed at the obstructionism.

Stripping non-budgetary provisions? Such as? It might be a good start to begin to appear honest, but honesty is not the game here.

And what is being obstructed, besides the will of the public? The public doesn't want the sorry crap-sandwich the president and congress is trying to sell. Scrap it and start over... do it right.

I think it is incredibly funny that using a certain set of procedural rules is the "will of the people" and another set of procedural rules is somehow completely illegitimate.


As far as what the "public" wants, when you actually poll each provision in the current bill separately, most of them are overwhelmingly popular. But I guess it is easier to imply dishonesty in others than to actually check things for yourself...

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf