Not right

[augie]

"Deem" the bill passed? "Self-executing" rule? "Slaughter strategy?" What are they thinking?

[Jeannie]

"Deem" the bill passed? "Self-executing" rule? "Slaughter strategy?" What are they thinking?

The same thing Republicans were thinking every time they used the procedure.


It makes sense but can't be explained in snappy ten second sound bites. The Dems want to pass the Senate bill but not the provisions for the excise tax and the special deals for Nebraska etc. Stuff NOBODY wants in the bill anyway. They could vote to pass the bill and get rid of those provisions through reconciliation. But they know the GOP will spin it that they all voted FOR the excise tax and sweetheart deals. Then the Dems are stuck explaining boring parliamentary procedure to Americans with the attention span of a gnat in order to explain that they were against that stuff even though they voted yes on a bill that had those provisions. Or they could rewrite the bill and have healthcare reform fall into the black hole of fiibuster never to be heard from again.

I think the Dens have backed themselves into a corner trying to get around the problem with the deem & pass procedure but it's not new to either side no matter how much shock and outrage the GOP feigns over the issue.

Someone sent me an RNCC e-mail today that was just so overwrought it was hysterical. The Dems really need to learn to talk like that. The reds are coming! It's the end of freedom in America! These guys should make horror movies.

[Tonia1]

The ends justify the means...

They don't care how it gets done, just as long as it gets done. I just watched Brett Bair's interview with Obama, and he had no interest in discussing or explaining anything to do with the process of getting this bill passed. His only response was to say how much the American people will benefit from the bill. So, apparently, as long as what you are trying to get passed is what's best for the American people, then it doesn't matter how it happens. And just because the other side has done these types of things before doesn't make it okay, and it just feels a little more "icky" coming from a man who promised change.

[augie]

"Deem and pass" has never been used for a bill of this magnitude. From what I've read it's been used for stuff like amendments and (of course) raising the debt ceiling.

The bill wouldn't have passed the Senate without paying off Ben Nelson - this is the price they now have to pay. We were assured that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was business as usual in DC and to move along - nothing to see here. Well, now it's coming back to bite.

[augie]

So true. And Obama's condescending, paternalistic "find out what's in the bill after it's passed" just grates on me as I'm sure it does on millions of other Americans. We don't have the attention span of gnats - we're engaged, we want to know what's in the bill before it's voted on.

They ALL need to watch Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" because they seem to have lost touch with the basics.

[jvirginia]

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy of the republicans on this is so transparent that I can't believe that they are saying this with a straight face. They have vowed to use "every means necessary" to block the bill, including obscure parliamentary procedures. They have used Deem and Pass in the past, plus a "self executing rule" that is even more bizzarre.



http://blog.american.com/?p=11467


When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/jo...pinion/conason

And, while I'm sure you are engaged (despite having repeated many utter inaccuracies about the Obama bill in the past on this site) the general public is grossly mis-informed about what is in this health care bill. If asked if they support the bill, they tend towards No, but if asked if they support the specific policies in the bill, they tend towards Yes. The republicans did a great job mis characterizing the bill as every thing from a government takeover of health care to an immigrant-entitling, abortion-spreading, death panel advocating monstrosity. You are wrong that people are engaged in the substance of the bill - those who are engaged and only focused on process, and polls show that most voters don't understand the substance. Obama's point is that the actual items in the bill are going to be quite popular.

Also, when November comes and the world hasn't ended with the passage of this bill (contrary to the predictions of many republicans) I think their protests will end up having seemed very, very hollow.

Now, to be fair, I think the health care thing has been handled abysmally by Pelosi and Obama, from the beginning, and they will be punished for it. However, the "deem" issue is just another red herring from Fox news and disingenuous Republicans who say they care about substance and are really into distortions and fake outrage.

[Kim of VA]

Total hypocrisy

I have to agree with Jeannie - please Republicans, spare me the total hypocrisy and feined outrage.

This little blog entry about sums it up: http://blog.american.com/?p=11467

Not only have republicans used the same procedures many, many, many times, they went to court to defend it .

[augie]

On a bill of this magnitude? They example cited was $40B. This bill is a trillion plus.

I think this practice isn't right, no matter which party is employing it. Why always living and discussing things in the past, though? Why not defend the current actions on their merits?

[augie]

Since it's indefensible, let's discuss 1995? They're all rats up there in DC - that's plain to see. But to howl "whaa-whaa, Repubs did it so we can too!" Where's the "change" in that? I find that argument so lame.

And JV - please - when someone decides to pop up out of the gopher hole on the SB - why make it personal right out of the gate? I asked questions about the bill that no one could answer. Far from "utter inaccuracies." No better way shut the discussion down . . .

[jvirginia]

I didn't mean to make it personal, I'm saying that people are NOT focused or engaged on the substance. You said: We don't have the attention span of gnats - we're engaged, we want to know what's in the bill before it's voted on. As far as I can tell, most people don't know what is in the bill, and frankly the opposition has no interest in focusing on the substance of the bill and Fox News and that ilk (I'm listening to the Obama interview right now) are doing their best to keep it that way.

In addition, if you want to go back and look at past threads discussing Obamacare, there are lots of threads with utter inaccuracies (esp. related to abortion and illegals) but also related to drug policies, and other requirements of the bill.

Conservatives are looking at business as usual, at practices that are less egregious than what has been done at the past, and suddenly finding it outrageous. I find that more than a tad disingenuous. The republicans suppressed information about the true costs of the medicare drug bill in order to pass it.

ETA: I just finished watching Obama on Fox News. Clearly, Fox has ZERO interest in discussing substance. I mean, I've seen lots of interviews where the reporters have asked substantive questions and the interviewee tried to deflect them but in this case it was absolutely the opposite. No wonder Obama got testy.

[jvirginia]

I don't think the outrage has anything to do with the magnitude of the bill, it has to do with republicans wanting this bill to fail because it would be "Obama's Waterloo" ...

[twinks]

loved that

So true. And Obama's condescending, paternalistic "find out what's in the bill after it's passed" just grates on me as I'm sure it does on millions of other Americans. We don't have the attention span of gnats - we're engaged, we want to know what's in the bill before it's voted on.

They ALL need to watch Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" because they seem to have lost touch with the basics.

"By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you will know what's in it". Lovely, simply lovely. Let's pass a couple trillion dollar bill without the President knowing exactly whats in it!! Leadership at it's finest!

[Jeannie]

On a bill of this magnitude? They example cited was $40B. This bill is a trillion plus.

I think this practice isn't right, no matter which party is employing it. Why always living and discussing things in the past, though? Why not defend the current actions on their merits?

I did defend it on its merits. I specifically discussed what was happening and why it was happening and what the Dems are trying to accomplish. But no one has responded to that. Why is it a bad thing to want to get rid of the excise tax and special deals without killing the whole bill?

But we also have to talk about the past to defend it because the GOP is claiming the Dems just made up some new ridiculous rule and procedure in order to get this thing done.



FWIW, I always thought that deal with Nelson was outrageous and was pissed the Dems caved that way.

and a $40 billion bill is not exactly a minor bill

[twinks]

fake outrage?

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy of the republicans on this is so transparent that I can't believe that they are saying this with a straight face. They have vowed to use "every means necessary" to block the bill, including obscure parliamentary procedures. They have used Deem and Pass in the past, plus a "self executing rule" that is even more bizzarre.



http://blog.american.com/?p=11467


When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/jo...pinion/conason

And, while I'm sure you are engaged (despite having repeated many utter inaccuracies about the Obama bill in the past on this site) the general public is grossly mis-informed about what is in this health care bill. If asked if they support the bill, they tend towards No, but if asked if they support the specific policies in the bill, they tend towards Yes. The republicans did a great job mis characterizing the bill as every thing from a government takeover of health care to an immigrant-entitling, abortion-spreading, death panel advocating monstrosity. You are wrong that people are engaged in the substance of the bill - those who are engaged and only focused on process, and polls show that most voters don't understand the substance. Obama's point is that the actual items in the bill are going to be quite popular.

Also, when November comes and the world hasn't ended with the passage of this bill (contrary to the predictions of many republicans) I think their protests will end up having seemed very, very hollow.

Now, to be fair, I think the health care thing has been handled abysmally by Pelosi and Obama, from the beginning, and they will be punished for it. However, the "deem" issue is just another red herring from Fox news and disingenuous Republicans who say they care about substance and are really into distortions and fake outrage.

I assure you, the outrage is real. Most polls indicate that Americans are not in favor if this bill, yet the Dems will force it through using any means necessary.

How can the American people be grossly misinformed about what is in this bill when the President himself is quoted as saying once the vote is taken "not only I will know what's in it, you will know what's in it."

Seriously JV - you're an economist? Yet you have absolutely no qualms about passage of a bill of this magnitude when the financical ramifications are anything but confirmed?

[twinks]

or perhaps

I don't think the outrage has anything to do with the magnitude of the bill, it has to do with republicans wanting this bill to fail because it would be "Obama's Waterloo" ...

This bill will be Obama's waterloo - when the dems force it through by any means possible. The outrage from the American people (the majority of whom are opposed to the bill) will be unprecidented.