Anybody see the interview of Harry Reid actually saying that the health care bill will be attached to an unrelated tax bill?
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
Bogus legislation
Anybody see the interview of Harry Reid actually saying that the health care bill will be attached to an unrelated tax bill?
Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.
Are you surprised? The only way the Bush tax cuts passed was that they were handled through the budget reconciliation process so that they would only require a 50% majority and were not subject to floor amendments. I fully expect that any health bill will be passed in a similar manner since it is unlikely that a meaningful bill can attract 60% support.Originally Posted by TXduckdog
Fully Agree, because the majority of Americans are happy with their Health insurance and don't see the need for Gov. run Health Insurance.
America will be fortunate indeed if osamacare and cap & trade wind up in the congressional dumpster
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback Chesapeakes
ROLL TIDE!
All I saw was a brief mention about Sen Reid having worked out a special deal for Nevada. Something about Nevada not being impacted by changes in Medicare. Just found it......Same old, same old.
Eric
************
By Lisa Mascaro
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 | 10:27 a.m.
Sun Coverage
WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a deal today that would give Nevada full, 100 percent funding in the Senate health care bill for an initial expansion of Medicaid.
The agreement reached with the committee chairman comes after Reid vowed last week to strike a better deal for Nevada before bringing any legislation to the floor.
Last edited by Eric Johnson; 10-08-2009 at 02:30 PM.
The Bush tax cuts were applicable to the BUDGET reconciliation process. Health care reform isn't a budgetary item and technically isn't subject to BUDGET reconciliation. So if the dems want to ram the square peg of health care reform into the round hole of budget reconciliation they're going to have to get down and dirty...really dirty...way more so than the GOP had to in order to pass the tax cuts. If they're feelin' that froggy, they should just go ahead and jump. 2010 is just around the corner.
Here's a really interesting and even-handed article about it: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...als-fuming.php
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
When you're tanking in the polls in your home state you gotta bring home the bacon no matter what it takes. Reid is dripping with flop sweat at the thought of becoming the next Tiny Tom Dashole.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
They are very comparable. The tax cuts, which included provisions phasing in and phasing out over a period of more than a decade to avoid an even more seriously negative CBO appraisal, were related to the budget process only because they involved revenues. Health care legislation, which phases in spending and revenues over a period of a decade but, unlike the tax cuts, does not result in deficit increases, is related to the budget because it is directly related to spending and revenues. That is all the justification that has ever been used in attaching controversial programs to the budget reconciliation process to avoid the Senate rules requirement for a supermajority.The Bush tax cuts were applicable to the BUDGET reconciliation process. Health care reform isn't a budgetary item and technically isn't subject to BUDGET reconciliation. So if the dems want to ram the square peg of health care reform into the round hole of budget reconciliation they're going to have to get down and dirty...really dirty...way more so than the GOP had to in order to pass the tax cuts. If they're feelin' that froggy, they should just go ahead and jump. 2010 is just around the corner.
Here's a really interesting and even-handed article about it: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...als-fuming.php
Jeff...you can't be serious. Tax cuts are worlds away from the biggest government monopoly in history.
Where do you get the idea that health care doesn't increase deficits. This bad boy sure does.
Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.
What government monopoly? Under the Senate bill the government has no role in providing health services or administering payments beyond what it has today. Tax cuts and health spending are both related to budget equally and therefore are equally appropriate to be addressed within the context of Senate rule for budget bills. The 60 vote rule is a Senate tradition, not a law, and may be changed at any time by majority vote. It is a tradition that has been maintained because neither party wants to give it up permanently. However, it is also a tradition that has been set aside on a regular basis for certain types of votes. Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts passed the Senate with less than 60 votes. The 2003 cuts passed with 50 votes plus the vote of Cheney as tie breaker. If that kind of vote was appropriate for something that combined to add more than $2 trillion to our deficit, I don't see why it is not equally appropriate to do it for health care.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote