Reconciliation - Want to see the ultimate in Democrat HYPOCRISY?

[Xplorr7]

Check out this video with rightous indignation from all your favorite liberals when Republicans threatened reconciliation in 2005 on a judicial nomination.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Keep watching for VP Bidet's second "powerful" statement.


Right, right, right - that's what changed. D-rats are in power now.

 

[busybody..]

Check out this video with rightous indignation from all your favorite liberals when Republicans threatened reconciliation in 2005 on a judicial nomination.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Keep watching for VP Bidet's second "powerful" statement.


Right, right, right - that's what changed. D-rats are in power now.

DUMMY

You actually think ANYONE will watch the video?

they DONT care

THEY ARE EVIL


Points of Order That Apply Only to Amendments to a Reconciliation Bill Amendments that are not germane are not in order (though changes in numbers and dates are per se germane).

Amendments that would reduce the amount of deficit reduction below the instructed level are not in order, except that amendments to strike are always in order (except when they’re not; Parliamentarians’ call).

Byrd Rule Points of Order

The Byrd rule operates differently than most other budget points of order. When most other budget points of order are raised and sustained, the measure being debated falls in its entirety. If a Byrd rule point of order is raised and sustained, only the offending provision is stricken from the legislation, and debate on the remaining legislation continues. The Byrd rule applies to the reconciliation bill on the floor as well as to amendments to the bill.

A provision is extraneous (and therefore subject to a point of order) under the Byrd rule if:

it has no budgetary impact.
it increases outlays or reduces revenues and the instructed committee fails to meet its overall instruction.
it is not in the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the title of the reconciliation bill.
it has a budgetary impact which is merely incidental to the policy components of the provision.
it increases outlays or decreases revenues in any one year after 2014 and that offense is not netted at least to zero by other outlay reductions or revenue increases in that title of the bill in that year.
it includes changes in Social Security.
What Have They Said on Reconciliation?

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND):

“Once you’ve unleashed reconciliation, you can’t get it back in the barn, and it could be used for lots of different things that are completely unintended at this moment. People need to think about that very carefully.” CongressNow, 4/21/09

“I don’t think this was the purpose for which reconciliation was originally desed. There are many problems that it creates in trying to write substantive legislation. So I would much prefer that we not have reconciliation instruction in this resolution.” RollCall, 4/21/09

“Reconciliation was never intended for this purpose [health care reform], and it doesn’t work well…It was never intended for this purpose, and I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences.” RollCall, 4/21/09

“Reconciliation was designed for deficit reduction. The place where I would agree with the Senator is, I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended to write major substantive legislation.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 3/31/09

“Our distinguished Parliamentarian has said, if you try to write major legislation in reconciliation, you will be left with Swiss cheese. So I hope people are thinking about that. I know there are attractive features of reconciliation …..I don’t think we should do it for substantive legislation that is really not deficit reduction legislation.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 3/30/09

Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV):

“I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would olate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09

“As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that…reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits…it was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09

“I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting ews within the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting ews about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 4/1/09

“I understand the White House and congressional leadership want to enact their legislative agenda. I support a lot of that agenda, but I hope it will not require using the reconciliation process. Again, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for excluding reconciliation instructions, and look forward to working with him to ensure those instructions are not included in conference.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 4/1/09

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)

“Under reconciliation, the Senate is not the Senate; the Senate is a different institution.” Senate floor statement, April 5, 2001

“I’ve not totally ruled it out…I am doing everything I can to prevent us from going down that road.” Senate Finance Committee hearing, February 25, 2009

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)

[Reconciliation] is an abuse of the process.” From 2003, as cited in The Hill on April 23, 2009

“I have strongly opposed past efforts to use reconciliation…it wasn’t appropriate then. It isn’t appropriate now.” Senate floor statement, April 2, 2009

“There are some features of this resolution with which I take exception, most notably the use of reconciliation as a tool to expedite health care reform. The arguments over the use of reconciliation are familiar to this body. Sadly, a tool intended to streamline the painful process of deficit reduction has been used to clear a path for major policy changes that have, at best, only a passing relationship to reducing the budget deficit.” Senate floor statement, 4/29/2009

“Health care reform is long overdue, and I look forward to the Senate finally acting on an issue that is so important to my constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves. It is no more appropriate to use reconciliation as a hammer to push through health care reform under regular procedures than it is to use it directly to enact those reforms. Both are abuses. Both undermine its original intent. Both inte even greater abuses in the future.” Senate floor statement, 4/29/2009

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

“Today, we are being asked to turn our backs on Senate history by adding language to this budget resolution which will make it difficult for the Senate to fully debate.” Senate floor statement, April 5, 2001

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

“Reconciliation was designed to help Congress pass a large package of measures to reduce the deficit, not to be used to resolve one major policy issue.” Senate floor statement, March 16, 2005

Robert Reischauer, President of the Urban Institute; former director of the Congressional Budget Office

“Reconciliation may appear attractive, given the challenge of rounding up the 60 Senate votes needed to pass significant health-care reform or meaningful climate change legislation, but the risks suggest that seeking just 51 votes — possibly all Democratic — is not the path to follow. The Byrd rule strips from reconciled legislation prosions that don’t substantially affect outlays or revenue. Significant portions of any health reform or climate legislation could be left on the cutting-room floor. While these outtakes would be considered under normal legislative procedures, if they then failed to surmount the 60-vote hurdle, we’d be left with an unworkable reform.” Washington Post, 3/22/2009

Larry J. Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics; author of A More Perfect Constitution

“Using budget reconciliation, President Obama could get just about everything that matters to him in year one. But short-term gain would yield long-term pain. Grabbing 51 easier Senate votes now could make reaching the critical 60-vote threshold on most everything else much tougher for the rest of his presidency. Rushing passage of controversial health-care and energy plans will alienate not just Republicans but also a sizable corps of moderate Democrats, especially in the Senate.” Washington Post, 3/22/2009

Words of Wisdom from the President Pro Tempore Senator Robert C. Byrd

Nearly a quarter-century ago in October 1985, the Senate agreed (by a vote of 96-0) to adopt a rule to protect the effectiveness of the reconciliation process and to preserve the deliberative character of the Senate. During that debate Senator Byrd stated:

“If the majority on a committee should wish to include in reconciliation recommendations to the Budget Committee any measure, no matter how controversial, it can be brought to the Senate under an ironclad built-in time agreement that limits debate … to no more than 20 hours.”

“It was never foreseen that the Budget Reform Act would be used in that way. So if the budget reform process is going to be preserved, and more importantly if we are going to preserve the deliberative process in this U.S. Senate—which is the outstanding, unique element with respect to the U.S. Senate, action must be taken now to stop this abuse of the budget process.”

1993 Clinton Health Reform

In 1993, the Democratic majority considered using reconciliation to do the Clinton health plan, but Senator Byrd talked them out of it. When the leadership talked to Senator Byrd about it, he said:

“No. It is a violation of the process. We will regret it. It will be misused later on.”

Recent Statements from Senator Byrd

“I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)

“I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. … The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting views within the majority caucus.” (Floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, April 1, 2009)

“The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting views about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.” (Floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, April 1, 2009)



http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/682410241_DbLUS-M.jpg
[We have reposted this article in view of the recent news that the Democrats may yet resort to ‘reconciliation’ to get their way.]

 

[busybody..]

DUMMY

No one will even read this

They have their heads up "obama's" asshole

 

[busybody..]

The KNEE GROW THEN:

Quote of the Day


Via Jake Tapper, here's Obama in 2005:

You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus before the country moves forward.



THE KNEE GROW NOW:

Yo MOFO, I fucking won, you fucking lost, we do the fuck what we wanna fucking do, whats it to you, HONKEY

 

[Xplorr7]

DUMMY

No one will even read this

They have their heads up "obama's" asshole

Sorry I beat you to it

 

[busybody..]

you do realize

othen then me

aint no one gonna read this

 

[Xplorr7]

you do realize

othen then me

aint no one gonna read this

Say it ain't so BB!

Btw - what was Palin wearing today??

 

[busybody..]

I dunno

Im gonna email her and AXE

Hopefully something like a garter n stuff and see thru panties

 

[RobDownSouth]

Check out this video with rightous indignation from all your favorite liberals when Republicans threatened reconciliation in 2005 on a judicial nomination.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Keep watching for VP Bidet's second "powerful" statement.


Right, right, right - that's what changed. D-rats are in power now.

The "reconciliation" process is used to get a final consensus on previously passed bills, like Reagan's tax reform, Clinton's welfare reform, all but seven federal budgets since 1980, and Bush's disasterous tax cuts for the very wealthy.

It was not intended to be used as an end-around for judicial nominations.

It is however appropriate to use reconciliation for previously passed health care reform.

Not that facts ever mattered to you.

 

[Xplorr7]

The "reconciliation" process is used to get a final consensus on previously passed bills, like Reagan's tax reform, Clinton's welfare reform, all but seven federal budgets since 1980, and Bush's disasterous tax cuts for the very wealthy.

It was not intended to be used as an end-around for judicial nominations.

It is however appropriate to use reconciliation for previously passed health care reform.

Not that facts ever mattered to you.

Please explain this and cite where this would be any more appropriate than for a judicial nomination. (which of course it would not)

May want to read above letter from Robert Byrd.

Not that facts ever mattered to you.

 

[busybody..]

Please explain this and cite where this would be any more appropriate than for a judicial nomination. (which of course it would not)

May want to read above letter from Robert Byrd.

Not that facts ever mattered to you.

that guymakesshit up, dont bother

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

Paraphrasing Harry: ‘America, Shut Up Already’


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Republicans yesterday to “stop crying” about the possible use of the reconciliation process to pass health care reform.


http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcihYQI.m4v

From the looks of the video above, a phenomenal compilation done by the talented folks at Naked Emperor News, it takes a crybaby party to know one.


Was Harry right in saying that reconciliation–a procedure through which Congress is able to pass budgetary matters through a simple 51-vote majority rather than the 60-vote majority needed to stop a filibuster–has been used 21 times before?

Absolutely.

Has he and other Democrats been correct in asserting that most of those 21 occasions were spearheaded by Republicans?

You betcha.


The difference here, however, is simple.

Not a single time has reconciliation been used to pass the biggest entitlement program in this nation’s history, or even anything close to its size.



In fact, reconciliation is, by definition, reserved for use in detailed budgetary matters — not massive reforms which would fundamentally transform one-sixth of the American economy.


That’s why Republicans used reconciliation to tweak legislation which became the Bush tax cuts, a measure which led this nation into years of prosperity.

Furthermore, the people wanted the Bush tax cuts, whereas when it comes to the Democrats idea for health care reform, the vast majority of the American people do not want what the Democrats are prepared to force through. At last count, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows that 56 percent of Americans oppose the legislation, with 45 percent of Americans strongly opposing it.

In fact, Americans have been crying out desperately, begging to be listened to by Harry Reid and his democrats, for more than a year now. Americans cried out against the stimulus package, cried out against the budget-busting budget for 2009, and cried out against a government takeover of the American health care system throughout the spring, summer fall and winter of 2009 at town hall meetings, home town rallies, and historical marches on Washington, D.C.

And make no mistake about it — even though the president’s health care reform plan, released on Monday, may not contain enough specifics to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office (rhetoric in place of detail, how surprising!), the White House itself admits that it would cost $950 billion over the next ten years. Make no mistake about it, this is still a government takeover of health care.

Among other issues, the president’s plan retains many of the 111 new board, bureaucracies and commissions created by the bills shuffled through the House and Senate, including a comparative effectiveness research board that smacks of the UK bureaucracy known for taking patient care decisions away from patients.

It also keeps the mandates, including a patently unconstitutional individual mandate and an economic growth-stifling employer mandate.

It slashes Medicare Advantage plans and increased the Medicare payroll tax even higher than it already is, putting undue pressure on seniors.

And is forcing prospective entrepreneurs and business owners to think twice about creating businesses and jobs in America.

While it may have done away with the rightfully maligned “public option” in name, it maintains federal government-overseen multi-state plans and co-ops.

Furthermore, the president’s plan retains the kickbacks and backroom deals we saw in Harry Reid’s attempts to obtain votes in the Senate, including the $300 million “Louisiana Purchase,” the flabbergastingly disgusting Medicaid deal used to bring Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson into the fold and the exceptions to “Cadillac plan” taxes given to unions.

Even worse, it spits in the face of normal, everyday Americans who at one point or another bought into the many promises made by President Obama, both from the Oval Office and while on the campaign trail — his proposal will cost more than his $900 billion threshold, it will increase health insurance premiums for American families, it will force Americans to change doctors and health insurance providers, and it will raise taxes on middle and lower class families making less than $250,000 per year.


So, Harry Reid was partially correct.

He was correct in saying that the reconciliation process has been used many times before and predominately by Republicans.

And he was correct in saying that Republicans are “crying” about the Democrats’ intended use of reconciliation to pass their health care reform legislation.

The thing is, Republicans are crying because they are listening to Americans for a change, and it is those Americans–people who are struggling to make ends meet every month, people who have been out of a job for so long that they just stopped looking, people who are so far underwater with regard to their home mortgage that they’re just walking away–who are crying.


By telling Republicans to “stop crying,” Harry Reid is scolding America.

He’s telling people like you and people like me to shut up already.

He’s telling us that government knows better, that Democrats know better, and that our cacophonous voice means absolutely nothing to a political party bent on perpetuating political power at all costs.

 

[RobDownSouth]

NOW we go to school......

Please explain this and cite where this would be any more appropriate than for a judicial nomination. (which of course it would not)

May want to read above letter from Robert Byrd.

Not that facts ever mattered to you.

I would be glad to attempt to lessen your colossal ignorance!

Okay, first of all, "reconciliation" in this regard is defined as "a joint House and Senate committee who get together to find a compromise between the House version of a passed bill and a Senate version of a passed bill".

Note the key words in the above paragraph: HOUSE and SENATE.

Judicial nominations, on the other hand, are under the exclusive purview of the United States Senate. The cite is HERE.

Since the House of Representatives have NOTHING to do with judicial nominations and confirmations, there is NOTHING to "reconcile".

Here's where your disconnect comes in:

Back in 2005, the Democrats in the United States Senate decided to filibuster some nominees that they felt were unqualified to become federal judges.

The Republicans were angry! They WANTED unqualified judges on the federal bench. They were SO angry that they FORGOT that the House of Representatives had NOTHING to do with judicial confirmations (in fairness, many Republicans (particularly George W. Bush) regarded the United States Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper").

So the silly Republican Senators announced they were going to bypass the Constitution's checks and balances and "reconcile" these unqualified federal judge nominees.

Much mirth ensued, and the SILLY Republicans eventually gave up on their unConstitutional threats.

Please let me know if you understand this important difference between "reconciling bills" and "confirming federal judges". I won't ask you to apologize for misrepresenting my position as I realize your parents were miserable failures when it came down to instilling "core values" like honor.

 

[cebalrai]

(Rob is schooling you guys)

 

[busybody..]

someone tell the RACIST Byrd

who wrote the shit

that ROB says he knows nuthin

Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV):

“I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would olate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09

“As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that…reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits…it was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09

“I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting ews within the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting ews about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 4/1/09

 

[cebalrai]

busybody

This message is hidden because busybody is on your ignore list.

No seriously, he is. It's obvious that the right wingers just got fed the Fox News description of reconciliation. But OOPS it's another distortion that makes you all look like idiots.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

(Rob is schooling you guys)

slob hangs out at schools.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Xplorr7]

Okay, first of all, "reconciliation" in this regard is defined as "a joint House and Senate committee who get together to find a compromise between the House version of a passed bill and a Senate version of a passed bill".

Your definition would be correct relative to reconciling usually minor differences between bills passed in the House and Senate.

Where you are completely wrong and thoroughly reveal your ignorance (and that of your lap kitty cebalrex) is reconcilitation (AKA the "nuclear option") which that small, small man Harry Reid is threatening to use to pass the reconciled bill in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

So there are two (2) contexts of reconciliation. One is pretty typical. The other was created as a means to break an impasse to pass a BUDGET. That is b-u-d-g-e-t. (Not a health care plan that the majority of the country does not want, and not to pass judicial nominees - would have been a bad precedent had Repubs used this.)

Watch the video. It's short. See how empassioned your side was AGAINST this and their reasons.

 

[busybody..]

Your definition would be correct relative to reconciling usually minor differences between bills passed in the House and Senate.

Where you are completely wrong and thoroughly reveal your ignorance (and that of your lap kitty cebalrex) is reconcilitation (AKA the "nuclear option") which that small, small man Harry Reid is threatening to use to pass the reconciled bill in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

So there are two (2) contexts of reconciliation. One is pretty typical. The other was created as a means to break an impasse to pass a BUDGET. That is b-u-d-g-e-t. (Not a health care plan that the majority of the country does not want, and not to pass judicial nominees - would have been a bad precedent had Repubs used this.)

Watch the video. It's short. See how empassioned your side was AGAINST this and their reasons.

try pissing in the wind

you will get better results

 

[cebalrai]

Your definition would be correct relative to reconciling usually minor differences between bills passed in the House and Senate.

Where you are completely wrong and thoroughly reveal your ignorance (and that of your lap kitty cebalrex) is reconcilitation (AKA the "nuclear option") which that small, small man Harry Reid is threatening to use to pass the reconciled bill in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

So there are two (2) contexts of reconciliation. One is pretty typical. The other was created as a means to break an impasse to pass a BUDGET. That is b-u-d-g-e-t. (Not a health care plan that the majority of the country does not want, and not to pass judicial nominees - would have been a bad precedent had Repubs used this.)

Watch the video. It's short. See how empassioned your side was AGAINST this and their reasons.

Reconciliation is a technicality that counters the filibuster technicality. Who came up with these rules???

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your definition would be correct relative to reconciling usually minor differences between bills passed in the House and Senate.

Where you are completely wrong and thoroughly reveal your ignorance (and that of your lap kitty cebalrex) is reconcilitation (AKA the "nuclear option") which that small, small man Harry Reid is threatening to use to pass the reconciled bill in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

So there are two (2) contexts of reconciliation. One is pretty typical. The other was created as a means to break an impasse to pass a BUDGET. That is b-u-d-g-e-t. (Not a health care plan that the majority of the country does not want, and not to pass judicial nominees - would have been a bad precedent had Repubs used this.)

Watch the video. It's short. See how empassioned your side was AGAINST this and their reasons.

Nine times in the past 30 years health care reform measures have been enacted through the reconciliation process. LINK

With the Republicans out of power, though, they've rebranded reconciliation as "the nuclear option" and sent their legions of flying monkeys out to fling the requisite poo.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Actually, the Democrats wanted to expand the use of the Filibuster when they were in the minority...

__________________
"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
Joe Biden