Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says

[TheSarge]

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using 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,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“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.”

Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.

Van Hollen also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPg2UfFaCh9c&pos=9

[BlueStateSaint]

What they're too ignorant to realize is this:

What goes around, comes around.

If they do this, it will be done to them when they're in the minority.  And we won't have to wait that long for that to happen.  November 6th, 2012 isn't that far away, and that date will start the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Dems.  Hell, November 2nd of 2010 isn't that far away.  And any rules they make for the Senate to follow are done at the end of that particular Congress, so if the Dems say, "It takes 67 votes to override a Presidential veto" on November 3rd of 2010, that would apply until January 2nd of 2011.

Maybe the Dems think that their thugs (SEIU and ACORN) will keep them in power, no matter what.  That would require a Civil War.  Not sure that they really want to go there.

[TheSarge]

What they're too ignorant to realize is this:

What goes around, comes around.

If they do this, it will be done to them when they're in the minority.  And we won't have to wait that long for that to happen.  November 6th, 2012 isn't that far away, and that date will start the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Dems.  Hell, November 2nd of 2010 isn't that far away.  And any rules they make for the Senate to follow are done at the end of that particular Congress, so if the Dems say, "It takes 67 votes to override a Presidential veto" on November 3rd of 2010, that would apply until January 2nd of 2011.

Maybe the Dems think that their thugs (SEIU and ACORN) will keep them in power, no matter what.  That would require a Civil War.  Not sure that they really want to go there.

I don't think they care.  They look at what they can do to skew the vote via ACORN the Black Panthers  the MSM and the labor unions and believe they can do whatever they want while giving the people a big middle finger.

[AllosaursRus]

What they're too ignorant to realize is this:

What goes around, comes around.

If they do this, it will be done to them when they're in the minority.  And we won't have to wait that long for that to happen.  November 6th, 2012 isn't that far away, and that date will start the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Dems.  Hell, November 2nd of 2010 isn't that far away.  And any rules they make for the Senate to follow are done at the end of that particular Congress, so if the Dems say, "It takes 67 votes to override a Presidential veto" on November 3rd of 2010, that would apply until January 2nd of 2011.

Maybe the Dems think that their thugs (SEIU and ACORN) will keep them in power, no matter what.  That would require a Civil War.  Not sure that they really want to go there.

I'm game! I think about 60% of the electorate is also! These arrogant SOB's are goin' to push too far one of these days!

[DefiantSix]

I'm game! I think about 60% of the electorate is also! These arrogant SOB's are goin' to push too far one of these days!

Unfortunately, that day is not that far off.

Want an interesting mental exercise sometime?  Read the Declaration of Independence again sometime, and in the section that ennumerates the colonies greivances, substitute 'the President' for 'the King', or 'he', and 'Congress' for 'Parliament', and see how many of the greivances have come right back around again...

[Ptarmigan]

Arrogance.

[ColonialMarine0431]

If the democRATs succeed in passing this abomination, then they'll pay dearly for it in November. Hopefully when we retake Congress and the White House in 2012 we can push back this bullshyt.

[BlueStateSaint]

If the democRATs succeed in passing this abomination, then they'll pay dearly for it in November. Hopefully when we retake Congress and the White House in 2012 we can push back this bullshyt.

That's the whole thing--I think that the Republicans retake both houses of Congress this year, then when Obama is up for re-election, there will be 24 of the 33 Senate seats, that are in play, that will have to be defended by the Dems.  It's very possible that the new Republican President could have 64 or 65 Republican Senators to work with, when said Republican President takes office on 1/20/2013.  If the Dems try to rewrite the Senate rules so that it takes 67 Senators to break a fillibuster, that would take effect for the duration of that Congress--January 2nd of 2011.  It would be null and void for the next Congress, and it would go back to 60 votes on January 4th of 2011, when the Republicans would fix the problem.

ETA:  This is interesting . . .

Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 54 mins ago

BOSTON – A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.

Aides worked frantically Sunday amid fears that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's seat. A Brown win would give the GOP 41 Senate votes, enough to filibuster and block final passage of the House-Senate compromise on health care now being crafted.

House Democrats, especially liberals, viewed those compromises as vital because they view the Senate-passed version as doing too little to help working families. Under the Senate bill, 94 percent of Americans would be covered, compared to 96 precent in the House version. The House plan would increase taxes on millionaires while the Senate plan would tax so-called Cadillac, high-cost health insurance plans enjoyed by many corporate executives as well as some union members.

The House passed its own version last year, and members assumed it would be reconciled with the Senate bill and then sent back to both chambers for final approval by the narrowest of margins.

The rest of the article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_massachusetts_senate

I think that the Left just might kill this thing, if they try this.

[rich_t]

That's the whole thing--I think that the Republicans retake both houses of Congress this year, then when Obama is up for re-election, there will be 24 of the 33 Senate seats, that are in play, that will have to be defended by the Dems.  It's very possible that the new Republican President could have 64 or 65 Republican Senators to work with, when said Republican President takes office on 1/20/2013.  If the Dems try to rewrite the Senate rules so that it takes 67 Senators to break a fillibuster, that would take effect for the duration of that Congress--January 2nd of 2011.  It would be null and void for the next Congress, and it would go back to 60 votes on January 4th of 2011, when the Republicans would fix the problem.

ETA:  This is interesting . . .

The rest of the article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_massachusetts_senate

I think that the Left just might kill this thing, if they try this.

I don't there is any way that the GOP will retake both houses this year.  The Senate maybe, but not both.

[Oceander]

They won't go this route and they know it.  Reconciliation would essentially permit/require the House Parliamentarian to rewrite the entire thing, including the wholesale carving out of anything that isn't an appropriations provision.  This isn't called the "nuclear option" for naught.  If they really tried to do it, they'd be dead, from both sides of the fence:

[The Village Idiot]

Now the Democrats are talking about bypassing another Senate vote by getting the House to simply pass the Senate's original version and then sending it to Obama for signature.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/unreal-obama-considering-signing-senate-health-care-bill-into-law-without-another-vote-if-scott-brow.html

[Oceander]

Now the Democrats are talking about bypassing another Senate vote by getting the House to simply pass the Senate's original version and then sending it to Obama for signature.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/unreal-obama-considering-signing-senate-health-care-bill-into-law-without-another-vote-if-scott-brow.html

Except that I don't think that would fly insofar as it contains provisions that raise revenues which, if I recall correctly, clause 1 of section 7 of Art. I of the Constitution provides "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."  So the revenue-raising provisions of the Senate bill would all have to be stripped out in order for the House of Representatives to simply pass the Senate bill as it stands.  But that requires that the bill be modified, which takes us back to the Senate, which ....

[Chris]

Good point.  The Democrats already had a piece of legislation sent to the circular file a couple years ago because the Senate version included a tax that was not in the House bill.

I forgot what it was... it may have been their attempt to raise the minimum wage in 2007.

[bkg]

I don't think they care.  They look at what they can do to skew the vote via ACORN the Black Panthers  the MSM and the labor unions and believe they can do whatever they want while giving the people a big middle finger.

they're doing this for a very basic reason... so in 2010, 2012 and beyond, they can campaign on "the republicans will take your healthcare away!" It cements their power. It will be just like Social Security and Medicare... you and I may want it repealed, but it will NEVER HAPPEN. This is a VERY SMART move to ensure their rule.

[Lacarnut]

they're doing this for a very basic reason... so in 2010, 2012 and beyond, they can campaign on "the republicans will take your healthcare away!" It cements their power. It will be just like Social Security and Medicare... you and I may want it repealed, but it will NEVER HAPPEN. This is a VERY SMART move to ensure their rule.

Once it is passed, you can forget about it getting repealed. We need to stop the health care bill, cap and trade, new taxes, etc.

[Chris_]

they're doing this for a very basic reason... so in 2010, 2012 and beyond, they can campaign on "the republicans will take your healthcare away!" It cements their power. It will be just like Social Security and Medicare... you and I may want it repealed, but it will NEVER HAPPEN. This is a VERY SMART move to ensure their rule.

That might be a tough sell since it doesn't start providing any benefits until 2013.......only the taxes start immediately.  Thats the scam that they came up with to make it appear "deficit neutral" over the first ten years........second ten years, not so much.......

doc

[Oceander]

they're doing this for a very basic reason... so in 2010, 2012 and beyond, they can campaign on "the republicans will take your healthcare away!" It cements their power. It will be just like Social Security and Medicare... you and I may want it repealed, but it will NEVER HAPPEN. This is a VERY SMART move to ensure their rule.

That is the real reason why they're doing it; Rep. Weiner-dog himself as much as admitted to that just recently.

[bkg]

That might be a tough sell

Incorrect. Once it passes, healthcare is a right. Doesn't matter if it hasn't take effect for years AT ALL. It will have passed, it will have become an entitlement...

[thundley4]

Incorrect. Once it passes, healthcare is a right. Doesn't matter if it hasn't take effect for years AT ALL. It will have passed, it will have become an entitlement...

And once it is a "right", the DimRats will campaign forever that the evil Rethuglicans are trying to take away their health care.  They do it constantly with Social Security.

[Javelin]

Unfortunately, that day is not that far off.

Want an interesting mental exercise sometime?  Read the Declaration of Independence again sometime, and in the section that ennumerates the colonies greivances, substitute 'the President' for 'the King', or 'he', and 'Congress' for 'Parliament', and see how many of the greivances have come right back around again...

Your comment thus far has been overlooked. 

I agree with you all the way.  Also each day that passes I almost wish it to happen more and more despite the consequences.  Its a very sad time when people have to think like this.  Yet facts are stubborn things.