Good for you

You have no proof they didn`t, and their statements at the time don`t provide any factual evidence that Dove was wrong in his rulings.

" lost the argument on the facts,"
-
Yet you still have no proof they did.

They lost the argument on the facts, and won the war on power and politics. Showed their true colors.

" I don`t believe they could win an argument with a guy with Dove`s experience, and credentials. Can you?"
-
Looks like they did win...

"Can you show me where the Republicans proved he was factually wrong in his ruling?"
-
No, but I never said they were right. I did say " the...guy that declared only one tax bill a year could be immune to a filibuster." But you already knew that.

"other than assuming he was right." Can you show me where the Republicans proved he was factually wrong in his ruling? They were "frustrated" with his rulings, but in the articles I read they never gave any facts to dispute those rulings on a parliamentary, or factual basis. Just as Lott threatened the next parliamentarian, he didn`t say his rulings were wrong based on fact, only the Republicans opinion. You are making the case Dove was fired for making decisions that were wrong based on the budget rules. Can you cite those rules? The Republicans never did in any article I saw. I don`t believe they could win an argument with a guy with Dove`s experience, and credentials. Can you?

So, back to the facts. If you think he was right and that is your position, fine. Next time state your opinion as that, don't start with "under that year`s budget rules, it was true", when you have nothing to show for it other than assuming he was right.

You are starting to sound like the current senators and media who were saying an opposition to unanimous consent is a filibuster...sadly the rules of the senate and Robert’s say something completely different. But then, this is just a political game over one party trying to make the other look bad it has nothing to do with reality.

"You`re starting to sound like...with the name calling." REALLY? Remember righting this? "now that you are a parliamentary expert". Hey as long as long start the game, be prepaired to play it.

You`re starting to sound like andre with the name calling. He was fired because he followed the rules as he, in his position, saw them. I`m sure, with his experience, he knows the rules better than a bunch of partisan Senators. The Republicans are already questioning the objectivity of the guy they hired in Doves place,nine years ago, and he hasn`t even been asked for a ruling about reconciliation yet!

" If you have a gripe ask him for references now that you are a parliamentary expert."
-
I never claimed to be an expert---dolt, the issue I provided was one of the reasons he was removed from his position. If you contend it was right...prove it.

My mistake, the rules are set at the beginning of the fiscal year(Oct.1), so whatever was put in the budget resolution then is in order. They have until June 15 to finish reconciliation bills, under the law. Any amendments offered to a bill under reconciliation have to be deficit neutral, you cannot cut taxes without cutting spending, or spend more without getting more revenue.

Dove said the rule existed, he was a 36 year veteran of parliamentary rules and procedures for mainly the Republican party. If you have a gripe ask him for references now that you are a parliamentary expert.

Robert Dove, the parliamentarian, following the rules of the Budget process in 2001, ruled only one tax cut bill could be brought up under reconciliation, then he got fired. The rules are subject to change every year. In 2003 the new parliamentarian ruled any tax cut over $350 billion could not be brought up under reconciliation, the Republicans threatened to fire him, but then they changed their bill. These people know their rules better than you or I, if they believe they can bring up some of the health bill changes under reconciliation, I`m sure they`ve checked their own rules. Rules are set before budgets are debated, have they done that yet since Obama proposed a budget? I don`t know, do you? Can you show me where I said they should pass the bill under reconciliation? Just because I believe they can I have never said they should.

"Yes, under that year`s budget rules, it was true."
-
Please provide a link or a reference where the filibuster rules did not apply that year. Not a news piece or oped column, the actual rule you declare existed preventing the use of a filibuster.

Yes, under that year`s budget rules, it was true.

Yes Dove, the same guy that declared only one tax bill a year could be immune to a filibuster.

"You know what happened to the last parliamentarian who did that, I fired him!" Trent Lott(R), after the parliamentarian ruled against dropping the filibuster rule on future tax cuts of over$350 billion under the budget rules of 2003 forcing the Republicans to change their proposals. Robert Dove worked for Republicans for 36 years until he was fired, even ruling on Republican policies during their Conventions prior to elections. He served as parliamentarian for several foreign countries also, but when a couple of his rulings went against Republicans, he was ousted. Until the Democrats bring something up for the parliamentarian to rule on, we won`t know if they are as hypocritical as Republicans or not when it comes to following the rules of the Senate. According to news reports, the Republicans set a new filibuster record already, and are looking to add more.

Oh the parliamentarian that declared only one tax bill a year could be immune to a filibuster...

Yes why fire someone that doesn't understand reconciliation; the same reconciliation process democrat advocates are asking be used for healthcare legislation.

I agree, the VP won`t overrule the parliamentarian, but according to the one that was fired, he legally could. And, as I have stated only parts of the bill would have to be passed under reconciliation.

"The "parliamentarian" of the Senate would rule if the health bill was legal under reconciliation. Biden, as Senate president, could overrule him..."

Not to split hairs, but the VP's role is to read the Parlimentarians ruling on the reconciliation portion only, not the entire bill of course. I don't think a VP has ever overruled the Parlimentarian, and that won't happen this time. As you stated, there is the Republican precident of simply firing the Parlimentarian...

Reconciliation can only change the portions of the existing Senate bill that have budget consequences. For example, there is a big divide between the House and Senate on abortion language, which probably can't be changed by reconciliation. The House is simply going to have to accept the Senate language, and that's why there is a lot of lobbying going on in the House to muster votes. They know the reconciliation rules.

The Republicans are so desperate to kill this bill, they, and Faux News, are lying to the public by calling this the "nuclear option". Note that the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) certainly changes health insurance rules through reconciliation.

I will quote Thomas Jefferson:

"If People let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

Jefferson also says:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Jefferson again:

"We must NOT let our leaders load us with perpetual debt."

Jefferson:

"Never spend money before you have it."

And my Favorite from Mr. Jefferson:

That government is best which governs the least, because people discipline themselves."

Health care is a RESPONSIBILITY not a RIGHT.

The "parliamentarian" of the Senate would rule if the health bill was legal under reconciliation. Biden, as Senate president, could overrule him, or as the Republicans did in 2001-3 on allowing Bush tax cuts under reconciliation,, they could fire him, hire a new one, and get a favorable ruling.

" The Senate knows their own rules"
-
Yes they do. That is where the debate is at right now...wanting the senate to forgo current rules to push this through. It is fine if you think they should use reconciliation; like the Mr E does.

Because you think it should be does not mean that it follows current senate rules.

Examples of past legislation passed under reconciliation;
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA)
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

"They even tried to change the rules(nuclear option)"
-
There was a debate to change the rule. Starting with pressure from president Bush. This is way off from saying they tried to change the rules.

Like you saying they cut Medicare, when Medicare was never cut...a reduction in future growth of spending is still an INCREASE.

Nice try, but don`t let the facts get in the way. Budgets are passed in pieces, the only time omnibus bills are used is if Congress is behind in their legislative duties, or a very controversial bit of legislation is up for a vote, and parts of the budget are bundled together to be voted on together(omnibus). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used 23 times, 17 by Republicans. They even tried to change the rules(nuclear option) to get votes on judicial appointments,that is not allowed under the law. If a piece of legislation goes through the Budget Committee, it is legal to use reconciliation to pass it. The Senate knows their own rules, the Republicans know that the Democrats can bring up the health bill if they want to, that`s why they are griping. The bills have passed, the only parts that have to be re-voted on are the changes made in the Conference Committee to reconcile the House and Senate bills.

Andre to answer you question correctly , the very one Pharm attempted...

The correct answer is no. Budget bills, commonly refereed to omnibus spending bills, create the frame work for future spending. Subsequent bills that use funding from previous said omnibus are not budget bills.

The senate knew this bill as cerated did not fall under the rules, as written, for reconciliation; the same rules approved by all senators at the start of the legislative session.

andre, the short answer is yes, as long as changes are made to revenue or spending. It used to be that it could only be used to lower spending or deficits, but it was changed. But, not to confirm judges as the Republicans wanted to do.

MBHammer the sad truth is the very issue you bring up is not addressed in the healthcare plans. You don't see the charges before treatments occur; name a medical care center you have been in that has prices listed...you are not allowed to price shop, this is the exact opposite of free market competition and one of the very reasons prices are out of control.

Real healthcare reform would take greed out of the picture. We will never see sensible charges for services being billed to the insurance companies. People seem to accept that healthcare is supposed to be expensive. My sleep study in 2005 for sleep apnea cost my insurance $3300.00 for one night for someone to monitor my sleep, to see if I snore. A friend had the same study for one night at a different facility and it cost over ten thousand dollars. A sleep study shouldn’t cost over $250.00. These kinds of charges are in the category of the $1200.00 oil change or $75.00 for a gallon of milk. If the government’s plan is to fund a greedy healthcare system that is already in place, then it will make the A.I.G. bailout look like a five cent lemonade stand.

If the current Health Care bill is so great why did senators need to be bribed in order to vote for it?
Florida,Nebraska,Louisiana and a few others. 40 plus years of liberal socialism has created the financial mess this country is currently in. Since when were Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky our Founding fathers?

Andre what have I told you about facts....don't confuse people with them.

Exactly, changes in revenue or spending, both of which apply here.

reconciliation bill - A bill containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.


reconciliation instruction - A provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to report (or submit to the Budget Committee) legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.

reconciliation process - A process established in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress changes existing laws to conform tax and spending levels to the levels set in a budget resolution. Changes recommended by committees pursuant to a reconciliation instruction are incorporated into a reconciliation measure.

Ref: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/referen...

Nice try...

Reconciliation is only supposed to be used for "changes" in revenue or spending. The health bills easily qualify. They increase revenue and cut spending for Medicare $400 billion.

I stand corrected...part of deficit reduction act. It NEVER cut Medicare it slowed future growth...typical spin though.

The medicare deal you refer to was part of an omnibus spending bill...vastly different than what is current; try again.

Raising taxes to cover the health bills is a budget issue, as is cutting Medicare.

Reconciliation on a tax issue involves budgets...

" If the health bill is written as a budget issue"
-
That would only further expose the scam for what it is...pass something just to pass it regardless of how bad it is or how much it costs; never mind the idea of actually solving the issues as raised.

oldtimer, go to either of those sites and pose the question, "Will Congress be covered by the proposed, House and Senate, health care bills?" You`ll get your answer.

pharm, an amendment doesnt mean it will be in there on the final vote, also can you quote me from those websites where it will apply to ALL govt employees? I know I am not to smart but would like the facts.

BUN, the Republicans have already used reconciliation to cut taxes, cut Medicare, and to try and drill in Anwar(couldn`t get the votes even under reconciliation). The clips showing Democrats arguing against reconciliation were about the Republicans wanting to use it to pass Bush judicial appointments, nothing to do with any budget issues. If the health bill is written as a budget issue, it would be in order under Senate rules to use reconciliation. By the way, more of Bush`s judicial appointments passed than Clinton`s. After Democrats took Congress in 2007, an even higher number passed. To argue against reconciliation, on budget issues, not judicial appointments, is the height of hypocrisy for the Republicans when they have used it to their advantage in recent years.

oldtimer, go to factcheck.org, or politifact.org, or Senator Grassley`s website. He put an amendment into the Senate bill last summer to make sure Congress was covered.

Shall we play a new game?
what legislation should the Republicans pass using reconciliation if they should gain a simple majority?
.
I'll start with repeal of the GCA's of 1934 and 1968 so I can order a Thompson submachine gun with silencer through the mail. How about abolishing the IRS? or start the ball rolling on repealing the income tax?
(this is an example of why the Republicans did not use reconciliation in general legislation/appointments - fun, isn't it?)

"It seems we have an revisionist view of history and have drunk the "tea flavored kool-aid."
.
What happened to all of the overwhelming majority of Southern Democrats who filibustered against civil rights in the 1960s? They became Republicans."
.
Thats nice, but what does that have to do with anything? (The article mentions the 64 CRA not the 1960, Just as an aside.) So the fact that someone changes parties negates what party they were a part of at the time of the vote? Democrats were the majority party for each of the CRA votes (57(?), 60 and 64). Democrats were the obstructionists in each case so the legislation would not have passed without Republicans. Therefore the authors comments that Democrats had to pass these over Republican obstructions is incorrect. Also for your general knowledge I prefer BEER to tea flavored kool-aid.

WOW eh?
Have you watched any of this topic on CSPAN? Have you listened to the exchange on the matter? Many bloggers have done their homework, and I commend them for their insightful additions here/ on both sides of the ailse. It is good that we all can agree to dance around the elephant* in the middle of the room. Pretend that a problem doesn't exist, and mudsling for simple self gradification.
As in any governmental (sorry for this caps thing) CONTROL; we need to take a real hard look into complete history of the world. Put the time proven facts to work on motives. Dispell any disbelief in systems that have failed. Then move ahead towards progress in this system to benefit the common man.
That being said, as I make it sound trivial; a key point we have to pay heed to. (and my reasoning for responding);
He that controls the DEBT, controls IT. He has the power to direct institutions. He can make good bed-fellows out of foes under the same train-wreck system.
I do not desire to go head to head about 'party-disputes'; I merely suggest that we set aside that and look deeper into a healthcare system that would acttually function and provide that care we all seek equally.
It is time that government is held accountable for past misjudgements and mistakes. It is time for getting back to basics serving and representing the best interests of the people.
Let us not allow the Debt Controlers to do this job for Us.
We have seen how well this administration has done to cure the debt situation...Watch them closer. Peer deeper into the science than you have restricted yourselves from doing.
Health and Life isn't a Partisan-Issue; its a basic survival mandatory concern.

kbear- Great point. And the longer congress and the president spend on this issue ( it' been a year now, only three years left) they won't be spending time figuring out how to get people back to work making a decent wage.

pharm How do you know that????

free enterprise is effectively eliminated once it become effectively regulated.

It seems we have an revisionist view of history and have drunk the "tea flavored kool-aid."

What happened to all of the overwhelming majority of Southern Democrats who filibustered against civil rights in the 1960s? They became Republicans.

I wish I could take this "socialism concern" seriously. If it walks like a duck, then it had better sound like a duck. There is no elimination of free enterprise. There is no attempt to eliminate religion. Private enterprise isn't going anywhere. Competition isn't going anywhere. If someone honestly believes that there is anything close to being socialism advocated by the President, then this debate is utterly pointless.

What is a health insurance exchange? Ask yourself that question. How is that basically different from any exchange, including the stock exchange? Face it. Every system needs rules. I'm sick of been taken advantage of by a medical insurance system that would see me die if it made someone else a profit. Profits are fine. Taking lives is not. Enough is enough.

I disagree with letting it pass just to win/lose an election. The end cost of this for our country is the main issue.

"Let the Dems use reconciliation, the only thing they'll be reconciling is distraught voters to the polls. They can kiss their majority in both the house and senate goodbye."
.
RIGHT ON THE $$$ Dwight!
Apologies for acting like a teenage girl writing a love letter, and putting ever frivolous thing in CAPS. Oh wait, some other people who want to be taken seriously do the same!
.
What a clown this guy is. I hope the Gazette is not paying this moron anything for publishing this blog? What an utter waste of operating capital that would be!
Angus; please tell me this guy is not being compensated for this 3rd grader recess journal quality blog entry?

The same people that are now declaring use reconciliation, which was designed for budget items, to force through healthcare would be screaming bloody murder if the other side used reconciliation to end ANY entitlement program.

The best health care program in the world is a good paying job with a manufacturing company that pays good benefits! This forgotten fact seems to have been lost on our politicians, who are still allowing good manufacturing jobs to go overseas. We don't need more socialism, Obama care or any other government healthcare program. Bring back manufacturing jobs to this country, so true wealth can be created, so that everyone that wants a good paying job and is ambitious can then afford health care. You know, the way it used to be!!

"Why not just listen to the Presidents own words from 2005 when he was a Senator...

"The President hasn’t gotten his way and that has prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever...What I worry about would be that you would still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but simply majoritarian absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the founders intended.""

Touche dude.....touche!

BunBun, don't start bringing out facts...it confuses people.

"Civil rights act of 1964, ..., I am keenly aware that these public policy actions have been voted by DEMOCRATS with opposition from the REPUBLICANS."
.
may WANT to DO some FACT checking there. The filibusters in the civil rights act were lead by democrats (including grand klegele Robert Byrd). The majority of Republicans voted to pass this in both house and senate when the filibusters lead by southern DEMOCRATS were finally ended.

oldtimer, the House and Senate bills would both apply to the insurance Congress gets, and all other Federal employees.

andre said: " They controlled the house and senate and didn't need one, not one, republican vote to pass their health care bill and get it to their presidents desk."

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. 60 votes are required to pass anything in the Senate, due to the filibuster rule. The House and Senate have both passed health care reform bills, but once Kennedy died, the 59 vote majority in the Senate wasn't enough to present a joint bill and overcome the inevitable Republican filibuster.

Great post shotten99.

I seldom have met graceful losers or generous winners. The ideas are incongruous in operation of real government and are just fine as hypotheticals in a theory course. Pragmatic politicians just see the word RECONCILIATION as a hoisting of the flag of truce. Any way you explain it you are still a loser in the end, and the public good seems to never be served.

Untill the Senators, Representatives and upper level bureaucrats subscribe to the same plan as the common citizen there is no "reform".

I had made a post similar to that the other day. One of the congressmen or senators posed that question. Basically asking the others why the wouldn't want all American citizens to have the same coverage they have. Of course their moved on avoiding an answer. If some one else saw that part and can name to politician or can provide a direct quote that would be great.

TIME for PEOPLE to start CAPITALIZING EVERYTHING :O)
AND FOR NO REASON!!!!

Mr Eyster do you think it is fair that congress and govt employees should have a different health care program that the rest of us cannot get? they should pass no laws that do not apply to them.

TCB. very good comment. Obama is a dictator, he wants to rule the world. He wants to pat himself on the back when ANY health care program passes on his watch.

John,

Yuo should be ashamed. Not only for using wikipedia as a proof source but also for not defining the real use of reconciliation-

Lets take an objective view of what this steaming pile of healthcare reform really is. First, this is not about improving the health of the American people. It is about passing something — anything — to keep the Obama administration from ending up with egg on its face by being unable to pass a bill, after so much hype and hoopla. Politically, looking impotent is a formula for disaster at election time. Far better to pass even bad legislation that will not actually go into effect until after the 2012 presidential election, so that the public will not know whether it makes medical care better or worse until it is too late for the voters to hold the administration accountable.

First it was supposed to be passed before the August 2009 Congressional recess. Then it was supposed to be passed before Labor Day. When that didn't happen, it was supposed to be rushed to passage before Christmas. Why — especially since the legislation would not take effect until years from now?

The only rational explanation for such haste to pass a bill that will be slow to go into effect is to prevent the public from knowing what is in this massive legislation that even members of Congress are unlikely to have read. That is also the only reason that makes sense for postponing the time when Obamacare goes into action after the next presidential election.

Poll after Poll demonstrate that the public, the tax payer does not want Obamacare. Yet, Obama, needing a political victory of any sorts is determined to pass anything. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind, is it?

Mr Eyster why do you think we must have government in every aspects of our lives? also Your classes must be all one sided. We will always have massive fraud in any govt program,

Let the Dems use reconciliation, the only thing they'll be reconciling is distraught voters to the polls. They can kiss their majority in both the house and senate goodbye.

The problem is "WE THE PEOPLE" created this mess. We allow elected officials to make decisions on our behalf, knowing full well they have no idea what we, as individuals truly want or need. In 2008 only 56.8% of citizens of voting age even bothered to choose who would represent the entire population."WE THE PEOPLE" are un-informed, ill-informed and for a large part not educated enough to make decisions concerning 262,856,643 U.S. citizens. It was a great idea 200+ years ago, but we have allowed it to be abused and perverted to such an extent all the work the founding fathers did has been all but lost. JMO

I still want to know how far Obama has come on reforming the government sponsored health care program already in place? Let us know, Big O--have you got your hands on that $500 billion that went missing in Medicare waste and fraud yet?

Mr. Eyster, I feel I have done my job as an American Citizen, Health Care Worker and proud veteran to get two whole paragraphs in your blog. I must have stricken a nerve with you.
.
I listed your credentials to support my point, that your expertise is in the political arena, not in heath care. The point I was trying to make is that you comments are your OPINION, and in MY opinion some of your comments are intentionally or inadvertently misleading the readers to information that is only partially true.
.
You state there are many health care administrators that you have consulted with? Do you have their names, I am sure they wouldn't mind you supporting their crusade. Do they tell you how many jobs they will have to eliminate to stay profitable if the current Health Care Reform bill has passed. I am sure that you readers would like to know what they have to say.
.
If we really are to be we the people, then people need to be informed with facts. Facts discussing how small health care providers will likely go out of business with the passing of health care reform. Facts like job loss due to inability to pay for forced health care coverage. Facts like decrease in health care benefits or increased waiting times. Socialized health care does not work. I cannot tell you how many times in my 20+ years of health care work I have taken care of those who came to America to get health care because adequate or appropriate health care was not or could not be provided. Some of these came from Canada or overseas.
.
Mr. E. I appreciate your statements and feel it would be wrong for me not to respond. I obviously do not have the platform that you have for getting my message across. I would encourage you to research both sides of the issue. Finally, I do apologize if any of my comments were taken as accusations as they were only intended to shed light on the other side of the issue. Have a great day and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Obammmma promotes socialistic programs, has a socialistic bent through and through. He is a socialist...."If it walks like a duck......."

It still dumbfounds me that a regulated exchange of PRIVATE insurance companies could somehow become socialism. Polices are bought and sold via negotiation. Allowing the government to provide me with the best deal around from a private company is ideal. It's not perfect, either. It is a start.

Regulation isn't a bad thing. I think it's finally time we realize that. Ask yourself: Would you get into an elevator which was manufactured under regulated as loosely as a credit default swap?

I'm tired of the GOP resisting accountability for anything other than Presidential acts of marital infidelity. Tort reform is nothing more than giving a free hand to the medical community to not be held accountable for its mistakes. I'm sure like all supply side/trickle down economic policies, the voodoo doll looks nice on paper, but this isn't enough to solve the problem. Again, while our culture is "sue happy", this wouldn't be the issue or concern it is if we had sane employment laws, unemployment insurance, and paid medical leave as does the rest of the industrialized West. For crying out loud, that old "socialist" Bismark gave insurance to the Germans in the 1880s. Tick tock, anyone?

Why not just listen to the Presidents own words from 2005 when he was a Senator...

"The President hasn’t gotten his way and that has prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever...What I worry about would be that you would still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but simply majoritarian absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the founders intended."

Thanks for your comments re. Health Care Reform! I think there are a couple resources which need to be added to our dialog/discussion. First, the editorial, "ENOUGH TALK: ACT" from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published yesterday (2/26) - URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/854.... Second, Dana Milbank's OpEd column, "Obama needs to flex his political muscle" dated for tomorrow's Washington Post (2/28) - URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con.... BE SURE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE SATIRE in the contrast between US President Obama and British Prime Minister Brown! Here we go... Mr. E.

From my own personal perspective; I find this blog posting way to long, with WAY TO MANY CAPS, to emphasize things that are not even important. It was one of those blogs you read, and keep asking yourself: "is this rant OVER WITH YET??". Sure glad I don't have to be tortured by attending one of this guys lectures! I think I would rather attend a paint drying seminar. For someone who professes to have an advanced understanding of the constitution; perhaps he should actually read it from time to time. Then come back and write another 100,000 word rant on where in the constitution it says the federal governmnet should provide health care.

I hope they use reconciliation, just to see the political carnage that results from it! Even if they do go the reconciliation route, it's not so certain that it even gets through that way; however. Many southern democrats will back out from pressure back home, and when they do, you will have them being bought off by the Palosi leadership; much like Nelson and Landreau were in the senate. When that happens, the public backlash will intensify even further. Also; as I understand the process, the Republicans can offer up amendment, after amendment, that will keep delaying the process, as each amendment must get a full debate, and vote. Delay, will, of course work to their ADVANTAGE, as the economy continues to collapse. People will wonder why this issue drags on as the economy continues in shambles.
.
From the political side this will be a TOTAL VICTORY for the Republicans. Despite what many on here believe, I do not endorse EITHER political party. I am simply a political analyst, and play political futures on the Intrade world market. Something which I have an unbelievable success record at over the years. I am down HARD on the Democrats to LOSE the house in November. Especially after this "Summit".....errrrrr; photo op, yesterday. That future at this moment is about a 50/50 proposition (meaning you can get about even money on contracts opened). Really a gift, in which you are taking advantage of a lot of clueless players in Europe, who do not understand American politics, and what will soon happen here. Soon they will see that it's all but lost for the Democrats, come November. They lost 54 house seats in 1994, in an environment that was not nearly as bad as it is now. Not that the Republicans offer all these great solutions, but they simply win by default; as the party not in charge of this disaster.

How very sad...

This view point of, passing a bad bill is better than nothing, is the main reason our country is over 14 trillion dollars in debt and rising. Entitlement programs, once created never go away...they only grow.

andre_linoge, all I know is that when Republicans start flinging around words like "hypocrisy", Democrats are about to Get Something Done. Enjoy.

Mr. E,

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!”

Perhaps you should research this quote a little more and you may come to understand why many of us oppose large scale government intervention into our lives.

NVgrf, thank you for your post. Very true.

You mean this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sjJPJ2sQ...

Andre, you don't even know what you are arguing. Republicans are now trying to call reconciliation, a legislatively-enacted process, the "nuclear option". They are re-writing history. The 2005 "nuclear option" was an idea to use an INFORMAL rule in the Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_opt...

The partisanship of the Party of No is becoming a joke. They have no concern for those who day to day struggle without basic health care. Their concern is simply the destruction of the current administration. Very sad!

We the people went to the polls and voted. We voted for these representatives. Many of them ran on a platform of health care reform. If they are unable to do that will be very telling.

Reconciliation has been used 21 times since 1981. 14 times by a Republican controlled Congress, and 8 by a Democratic controlled Congress.

There is no "ramming down the throat". The House and Senate have already passed separate health care reform bills. If reconciliation is used, it will be used only to modify the existing Senate Bill, after the House approves the existing Senate Bill. Reconsiliation still requires a 51 vote majority.

Once again - if the democrats wanted to ram this monstrocity down the throats of the citizens they could have without one republican vote. Once We The People got wind of the terrors in it We the people said NO - not the republicans.

I don't read his blogs. SHUT OFF THE CAPS PLEASE.