No Reconciliation

In a desperate bid to ram a government takeover of America's health care system through Congress, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have turned to a parliamentary trick known as "reconciliation" that will allow them to ignore all dissenting voices and pass, against bi-partisan opposition, their bill with only 50 Democrat votes instead of the traditional 60.

The reconciliation process was created in 1974 so that Congress could move quickly on budget matters, but the Left wants to use it to pass their big government agenda -- starting with ObamaCare

Read The Full Article and Please Sign Petition

Reconciliation… Who… What… Why…

What Is "Reconciliation" - And Why Is It A Threat?
During last week's health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that "nobody is talking about reconciliation" to pass the health bill.

It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.

It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.
But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?

A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals
The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation
While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present -- whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action
Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending
This is why passing the left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.
Leaving aside the bill's merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation's health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left's health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) "an outrage that must be resisted."

It's also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton's efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left's latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Welfare Reform vs. the Left's Big Government Health Bill
This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.
Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress' efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was "deficit neutral". President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that "added one dime" to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.
Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown's stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left's health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can't get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left's health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left's plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Three Corrupt Options for the Left
The left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.

Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.

However, they've made it clear they aren't willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.

One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.

Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.
For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left's endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final "swiss cheesed" legislation would be unrecognizable.

For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don't know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)

How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?
Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.

As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.
To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.

To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.
With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left's agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.

Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.

In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend , dismissing her caucus' concerns of defeat.

Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left's Health Bill
If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.

We'll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.

But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.
This doesn't just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.

It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.

And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left's big government health bill. After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

The President put it all on the line in an address from the White House today. Saying "now is the time," he promised a full-on campaign to pass ObamaCare before Easter. My response? Let the final battle begin! – Mat

Here is the message sent out earlier from Liberty Action:

After weeks of carefully setting up the strategy everyone saw coming all along, Barack Obama has called on Congress to schedule a final "up-or-down" vote on his pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-fiscal sanity version of healthcare reform.

Cleverly avoiding the use of the word "reconciliation,"

Obama made it clear that he's now willing to force a straight party-line vote on his massive trillion dollar takeover of America's medical care system.

Here's exactly how it will work, thanks to a statement made by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) a few hours before Obama's announcement:

The House, Harkin says, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders show House leaders they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate. Then the Senate will apply pre-arranged "fixes" and pass the bill with 51 votes or more.

Of course, Democrat House members have to believe that Senators will address their many concerns through amendment processes if the strategy is to have any chance of working.

And that's the biggest challenge the Democrats face... and our biggest opportunity to stop this bill once and for all!

++ It's still the same 2,000-page, pro-abortion monstrosity.

Using the bully pulpit of the presidency during the "Sham-Wow Summit" last week, Barack Obama pitched a healthcare reform plan that is in essence just a repackaged version of what we've already seen - with a few new bells and whistles.

Obama was never really interested in "finding common ground."

His sole purpose in the "Summit" was to resuscitate his unwanted, pro-abortion healthcare agenda that should have been dead and buried many months ago!

++ Sadly, the continual arm twisting is taking a toll in the House.

I'm deeply concerned that President Obama's power play and the continual bullying by White House operatives could sway moderates in the House into changing their votes in favor of ObamaCare.

A recent survey of 39 House Democrats who earlier voted against ObamaCare found that NINE now say they may switch their votes. And the liberal media is doing everything in its power to paint those who oppose ObamaCare as "obstructionists."

Here's the danger: The President's speech today could mark a momentum shift in favor of ObamaCare - especially if members of Congress do not hear from the majority of Americans who strongly oppose this pro-abortion, anti-family bill.

In fact, I believe the next week is absolutely crucial. We need thousands of patriotic Americans to respond to this last-ditch effort to force ObamaCare down our throats!

++ We MUST take two vital actions right away:

FIRST, please join (or, re-join) our ongoing FAX BARRAGE to flood Congress with a crystal clear message:

"NO TO OBAMACARE!"

I know you may well have sent faxes before. I wouldn't be asking you again if the President had not just launched the final "offensive" in his maniacal effort to pass ObamaCare.

Your faxes will be scheduled to be delivered with thousands of other citizens' faxes as part of a powerful FAX BARRAGE beginning immediately! Go here now to schedule your faxes to Congress:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25713&CID=310&RID=23710767

SECOND...

Please call your two Senators and your Representative and tell them what you think about the President's latest sales pitch of socialized medicine - a travesty that the vast majority of Americans simply don't want!

Here are the number for South Orange County:

Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841

Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553

Rep. Campbell 202-225-5611

Timothy, make Congress hear YOUR VOICE! Now more than ever, we must counter the socialist campaign that is reaching its climax. The president is in full campaign mode!

His technology platform is stirring huge numbers to make a "virtual march on Washington."

The next few days are absolutely critical to stop the momentum shift the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis is desperately trying to achieve! Please...

Join our intense Liberty Counsel FAX BARRAGE. This strategy has been very effective in the ongoing fight to stop ObamaCare.

There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Go here right now:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25714&CID=310&RID=23710767

If you prefer, we always encourage you to send your own faxes.

We have provided all the information you need to fax Senators and Congressmen here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25715&CID=310&RID=23710767

We must respond to the gauntlet the President threw down in today's message! Now as never before, we must actively stand against the abortion mandate, the mandate for personal participation and the fiscal insanity that are at the heart of every version of the ObamaCare bill!

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

P.S. ObamaCare, whatever version the socialists are parading, can not be tolerated! Despite this latest public relations blitz, the President's proposal is still "smoke, mirrors and gimmicks."

The next few days will be crucial in countering any potential momentum shift brought on by our smooth-talking President.

There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Please send your faxes today!

If Obamacare passes it will provide (list from Dick Morris, author of Catastrophe):
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• 30 million new patients with no new doctors
• Health care rationing
• Protocols of care to deny costly treatments based on how many "Quality Adjusted Life Years" remain
• Require the uninsured to pay $8500 to buy policies
• Fine them 2.5% of their income if they don't
• And send them to jail if they don't pay
• Tax medical devices like pacemakers and automated wheelchairs
• Force up premiums for all Americans by $2,000 a year
• Add $500 billion to the federal deficit (by 2024)
• Raise income taxes 2.5%
• Raise capital gains taxes 2.5%
• Cut reimbursement to doctors who order too many tests for patients
Please call, fax and write your congressman and Senators today and tell them: Vote NO on ObamaCare or we will vote you out!!


PHONE NUMBERS FOR SWING VOTE CONGRESSMEN:

PLEASE CALL!
DC OFFICE
LOCAL OFFICE

Harry Mitchell
(202) 225-2190
(480) 946-2411

Gabrielle Giffords
(202) 225-2542
(520) 881-3588

Ann Kirkpatrick
(202) 225-2315
(928) 226-6914

Jerry McNerney
(202) 225-1947
925-833-0643

John Salazar
202-225-4761
970-245-7107

Jim Hines
(202) 225-5541
(866) 453-0028

Alan Grayson
(202) 225-2176
(407) 841-1757

Bill Foster
(202) 225-2976
630-406-1145

Baron Hill
202 225 5315
812 288 3999

Mark Schauer
(202) 225-6276
(517) 780-9075

Gary Peters
(202) 225-5802
(248) 273-4227

Dina Titus
(202) 225-3252
702-256-DINA (3462)

Carol Shea-Porter
(202) 225-5456
(603) 743-4813

Tim Bishop
(202) 225-3826
(631) 696-6500

John Hall
(202) 225-5441
(845) 225-3641 x49371

Bill Owens
(202) 225-4611
(315) 782-3150

Mike Arcuri
(202)225-3665
(315)793-8146

Dan Maffei
(202) 225-3701
(315) 423-5657

Earl Pomneroy
(202) 225-2611
(701) 224-0355

Steven Driehaus
(202) 225-2216
(513) 684-2723

Mary Jo Kilroy
(202) 225-2015
(614) 294-2196

Zach Space
(202) 225-6265
(330) 364-4300

Kathy Dahlkemper
(202) 225-5406
(814) 456-2038

Patrick Murphy
(202) 225-4276
(215) 826-1963

Christopher Carney
(202) 225-3731
(570) 585-9988

Paul Kanjorski
(202) 225-6511
(570) 825-2200

John Spratt
(202) 225-5501
(803)327-1114

Tom Perriello
(202) 225-4711
(276) 656-2291

Alan Mollohan
(202) 225-4172
(304) 623-4422

Nick Rahall
(202) 225-3452
(304) 252-5000

Steve Kagen
(202) 225-5665
(920) 437-1954

Senators from your State. or Congress.org - Elected Officials

1-202-224-3121- Congressional Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Congressional Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care

Obama Knows Best? Vows to Force-feed Americans Bill They Hate

Barack Shows His True Colors: I’ll Steamroll Health Reforms Through Congress

O: We are Going Nuclear… No Matter What the Majority of Americans Want!!

President Obama declared for the first time today that he is prepared to steamroll his troubled health reform legislation through Congress with only Democratic support, a move Republicans denounced as the “nuclear option.”

Signalling that his patience had now snapped after a year-long fight over health reform, Mr Obama laid the ground for Democrats in Congress to muscle the Bill through using a high-risk legislative maneuver known as reconciliation, which overrides a Republican filibuster.

Although he did not use the word “reconciliation”, Mr Obama made clear that is the uncompromising route he now intends to take with his top domestic priority. White House aides and top Democrats on Capitol Hill have also stated in recent days that, in the face of unanimous Republican opposition, the legislation will now be forced through.

By using reconciliation, Democrats can get the health reform package through the Senate with a simple majority, rather than needing the Bill to pass the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Mr Obama’s party ceded their 60-stong majority in the upper chamber after losing the late Edward Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat in January.

That shock defeat was in large part due to growing public hostility to Mr Obama’s health reforms, which many see as too expensive at a time of exploding deficits. Forcing the Bill through Congress is, therefore, a high-risk strategy that Republicans vowed to exploit.

In a speech from the White House, Mr Obama conceded the risks involved. “I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it's right”, he said.

He added: “The American people…are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.”

He added: “We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades.”

Mr Obama rejected Republican calls to start drafting new legislation. “For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last another decade or even more.

“I have therefore asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks.”

The push for a swift endgame to the bruising health care battle was carefully choreographed by the White House after Mr Obama’s “bipartisan” health care summit with congressional Republicans last week.

He used that encounter to place four Republican ideas into his final health reform package today. That enabled him to declare that he was reaching out to the opposition, at a time when Democrats are in fact preparing to shut them out of the process altogether.

Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House, said: “If the president simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don’t support, it isn’t bipartisanship. It’s political cover.”

Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican in the Senate, warned that Republicans would use the health care issue to damage Democrats in November’s congressional mid-term elections.

If the Democrats “jam” an expensive Bill through Congress, Mr McConnell added, “it will be the issue in every single race in America this fall.”

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 that was designed at the time to help Congress push through difficult budget legislation, and in particular measures aimed at cutting deficits. These could not be filibustered and would only need a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate to pass. It was therefore designed to address fiscal, and not social policy. Mr Obama and Democrats have, therefore, been stressing in recent months that his reforms are aimed at reducing long-term deficits by cutting health costs.

Both parties have used reconciliation more than 20 times each since 1980, but never to pass a piece of legislation as expensive as sweeping as Mr Obama’s health reforms. Bill Clinton used it to overhaul the welfare system; President Reagan to give health benefits to people who lose their jobs. George W Bush used it twice to ram through huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Source: UK TimesOnline/Fox Nation

Text of Obama's Remarks (PDF)

Will America Let Obama Nuke Thru Gov't-Run Health Care?

Obama: 'Time to Make a Decision' on Health Care Reform

Republicans Plan Anti-Health Care Reform 'Blitz'

Obama Flashback: We Should Not Pass Health Care With 51 Votes

Video: More Slight of Hand, More Lies, More Broken Promises

America… We Have Been Had… And Continue To Be, Let’s Get to Work ~

Ok, Patriots, you just heard the President say "Make your voice heard" so let them hear us...Here's a list of the 30 Democrats that are "on the fence". This list is compliments of Dick Morris' website.

He's put the names and numbers together for us. Now all we have to do is accept the President's invitation to make our voices heard. Pick up the phone and start calling!!!

Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107
Jim Hines (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1145
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150
Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657
Earl Pomneroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954

ObamaCare Summit Reviews~

Obama Threatens Reconciliation

Weak Attempt to Salvage ObamaCare

By Amanda J. Reinecker

Yesterday, after a temporary lull in the health care debates, President Obama released a "fresh attempt" to salvage his health care overhaul agenda. Though the details will not be released for some time, the ideas at the core of this 11-page outline (embedded in article) aren't really so "fresh." Based largely on the Senate's flawed plan, the "new" proposal is riddled with many of the same harmful taxes, dubious mandates, and unprecedented federal regulatory powers.

But even though the Senate bill serves as its template, the president's proposal does have some new initiatives -- and they add up to $80 billion. This would increase the overall cost of health care "reform" to a staggering $950 billion over ten years, a cost likely to rise as the legislative text is finalized.

Perhaps the most alarming difference is the prospect of a Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would grant federal bureaucrats the power to set and control insurance prices and thus effectively create a government-run health plan. "If government can control both health benefits and health care pricing, that's the proverbial ball game,"writes Heritage health policy expert Bob Moffit. "Private health care is private in name only."

Although President Obama doesn't use the 'reconciliation' word, I can't imagine he meant the following statements as anything other than a threat to use pass Obamacare by reconciliation and let the voters pass judgment at the polls in November.

From the video:
“What I do know is this, if we saw movement, significant movement, not just gestures, then you wouldn’t need to start over because essentially everybody here knows what the issues are, and procedurally it could get done fairly quickly.

“We cannot have another year long debate about this. So, the question I’m going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time or a few week’s time or six week’s time we could actually resolve something? And if we can’t I think we got to go ahead and make some decisions and that’s what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about the vision for the country and we’ll go ahead and test those out over the next several months until November. Alright?”

Krauthammer: "If you win the presidency...you do not become the arbiter of legitimacy in American discourse." Yet... Just how many times today did Obama use the "I'm the president" routine?

Ben Stein Accuses Obama of Treating the Republicans Like Third Graders

By Heather Thursday Feb 25, 2010 3:47pm

Stein Video

Oh my, Ben Stein is apparently upset that the Republicans weren't being treated respectfully enough during the health care summit by the President. Heaven forbid... he called them by their first names. Gasp... the horror Ben. Yeah, those poor little defenseless Republicans who never attack anyone just had to fight back here because big bad Obama was being mean to them. And CNN thinks we're supposed to take anything this clown says seriously. I'm surprised Stein didn't just come straight out and call the President "uppity" because he came pretty close here.

BLITZER: Let's bring in Donna Brazile and Ben Stein, because I want them to weigh in. First to you, Ben. This whole issue of costs, premiums going up, a trillion dollars in extra cost to US taxpayers. Some of it might be offset by some cuts in projected Medicare spending. Where do you come down on this?

STEIN: Well, the 57 percent who are going to get subsidies, where is that money going to come from? That money is going to come from taxpayers. That money is not going to just magically appear. So the costs for everyone is going to go up.

Obviously, the insurance companies are going to cover more people, cover people with preexisting conditions, cover people who have very expensive treatment options involved, without having to charge more to somebody. So, somebody's going to be paying more.

I'm also sort of floored by the whole thing that's going on here, where the president is calling the senators by their first names, as if they were kids in a third grade class. And they're all calling him Mr. President.

But I'm most floored of all by the fact that we've got a very serious jolt about the economy today, and somehow they're talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when it looks seriously as if the economy is now heading for a double dip in the recession. The whole thing just has a kind of surrealistic quality.

BLITZER: What was the jolt on the economic numbers that you're referring to?

STEIN: The jobless -- the first-time jobless claims came in considerably higher than was forecast, high enough to make people think that the recovery is faltering. They were expecting 455,000, came in roughly 495,000, very roughly, very roughly. That's a very bad piece of news. Housing sales declined very sharply in the last month, from the month before. This recovery is not getting the traction that it needs. And for us to be fixating on economic issues about health care that are going to be happening in 2016 when the economy is floundering right now puzzles me.

[...]

BLITZER: Ben Stein, first to you. The president, you know, he's fighting right back in the face of some strong Republican comments.

STEIN: Well, I think he's been fighting from the first moment this thing started. I think the idea that it was a bipartisan kumbaya feel-good moment was thrown out right away, as soon as he started and as soon as Senator Reid started and as soon as Speaker Pelosi started, they started with a series of attacks. And the Republicans have come right back with a series of their own attacks.

I will say, however, that I am sometimes moved to tears that in the fact that this great, great country, the greatest country in the world, people do by in large get along quite civilly. But if I may respectfully say so, I think the president could lose some of his condescension towards the people who are not agreeing with him, and nobody would be harmed.

Conrad Says HC Bill Is Dead Unless House Acts First

By Philip Klein on 2.24.10 @ 11:48AM

U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, dealt a blow to the prospects for health care legislation just a day before a White House summit, arguing that the process would be "dead" if the House doesn't act first to pass the Senate bill.
The statement is sure to enflame members of the House, who are reluctant to take a leap of faith and pass the Senate bill without knowing that it will be changed through reconciliation in the Senate.
Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler reports:

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) outside the upper chamber this morning. "That's the only way that works."

I pointed out that House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has repeatedly insisted they won't take a flier on a reconciliation package--that they will only pass the Senate billafter the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.

"Fine, then it's dead," Conrad said.

Conrad added that he wouldn't personally make any promises or symbolic gestures to House members to assure them that the Senate can or will take any action in a reconciliation bill to address House concerns.

"I don't sign any blank check," Conrad said.

As I detailed yesterday, health care already faces a tough road in the House, even assuming that some changes can be made by the Senate. Statements such as this one from Conrad (who as chairman of the Budget Committee would play a key role in any reconciliation strategy) will only fuel more animosity between House and Senate Democrats, and create a dilemma in which neither side wants to act first.

Dems Lose Summit on Substance, Scramble for Nuclear Option?

It is hard to see how the Democrats are doing themselves anything but harm with the health-care summit.

Beyond particular observations about individual exchanges or moments I would say the morning’s session suggests three broad points. First, the Democrats appear to have no particular purpose in mind for this event. They’re not driving anywhere, or making a clear individual case, while Republicans clearly want to get across the point that we should scrap the current bills and start over in pursuit of a few incremental steps. The Democrats may have thought that simply putting the spotlight on Republicans when the subject is health care would make the GOP look bad. But Republicans so far seem prepared enough and focused enough to avoid that, and to make the Democrats look rather aimless by comparison.

Second, the Democrats are going to great lengths to argue that their bill incorporates some Republican ideas—by which they mean that it includes insurance exchanges and the like—suggesting that this means they are moving in the direction of Republicans and toward some middle ground. They fail to see (or to acknowledge) that while some similar mechanisms may be proposed by wonks on both sides, Republicans and Democrats in fact want to move in nearly opposite directions from our current health-care arrangements: Republicans toward a genuine individual market and Democrats toward a greater socialization of costs. That makes a great deal of what Obama and the Democrats said this morning basically meaningless. (This is a point I tried to argue more fully in this space a while back.)

Third, an important part of the Democrats’ problem is that Obama himself is their only star, and this format is not working for him. He certainly seems engaged and well informed (even given a few misstatements of fact, at least one of which John Kyl made very clear.) But he doesn’t seem like the President of the United States—more like a slightly cranky committee chairman or a patronizing professor who thinks that saying something is “a legitimate argument” is a way to avoid having an argument. He is diminished by the circumstances, he’s cranky and prickly when challenged, and he’s got no one to help him. The other Democrats around the table have been worse than unimpressive. The Republicans seem genuinely well-prepared, seem to have thought through the question of who should speak about what rather carefully, and several of them have done quite a good job making their case against the Democrats’ approach. If we were to judge by debating points, Republicans certainly won the morning handily.

It’s easy to dismiss all this by saying no one is watching anyway, but that’s not quite true. The purpose of this spectacle is not so much to move the public as to move Democratic members of Congress—to create some momentum that might last long enough to help wavering Democrats cast a very painful vote. That audience very likely is watching, and they are seeing their leadership fail to make a straightforward case for the Democratic approach to health care, or to respond to the most basic Republican objections about high costs, excessive spending, overregulation, and the effect of this plan on American families. They are managing to lose an argument about health care to Republican members of Congress—no mean feat.

Charles Krauthammer said, “In the last few minutes after 7-hours that the whole summit was a show to justify reconciliation, which is what they wanted to do all along!!”

Please keep up the good fight. The president intimated that his would be the final chapter on this Bill and HC Reform, at least for now. Let us make it is the final chapter of ObamaCare type of reform and that it doesn't pass. Right now they don't have the votes!!!

Related:

• Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option | The FOX Nation
• With World Watching Health Summit, Dems Sneak in Bill to Punish CIA
• Democrats Look Beyond Summit to Salvage Health Care Bill
• Health Care Summit: Stage Set for Reconciliation
• GOP Comes to Summit with Issues, Democrats Tissues
• Obama Readies a Fallback Health-Care Proposal
• 2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read… Done Deal!!! – With Back-up Research But they need some kind of actual HC Bill to activate most of these diabolical measures… Wake-up America!

Arrogant Obama Attacks former McCain at HC Summit

Pelosi: It’s Not a Health Care Bill… It’s a Jobs Bill

Accurate quote should be: It’s Not a HealthCare Bill… It’s a Power Grab Bill, America!!

I’m sure there will be many moments from today’s health-care summit that will be worthy of clipping and saving, but this one from our new colleague Greg Hengler may be the strangest one of all. In arguing for the current version of ObamaCare, whatever that is at the moment, Nancy Pelosi claims that it will create four million jobs — or nearly half of all the jobs lost over the last two years:

Let’s put this in perspective. The health-care sector already employs 14.3 million people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that this sector will add 3.2 million more people in the next eight years, thanks to an aging population. It can do that now because it doesn’t operate under price controls that will come as part of the ObamaCare bill. If Congress passes a bill that forces smaller payments to doctors and hospitals, that will actually impede hiring to meet the demand — and that is exactly what “bending the cost curve downward” means.

Pelosi also claims that passing the House version of ObamaCare would add 400,000 new jobs immediately. Where? Well, those would be the people that the government would have to hire to run their exchanges, manage the federal public option, and enforce individual mandates, among other ObamaCare initiatives. It’s a bureaucratic expansion, the kind of “jobs bill” that will further burden the private sector.

The last 5-minutes of the Summit said it all… Obama intimated that they would do whatever it takes (Saul Alinsky all the way) to get this bill passed without real bipartisan input or compromise and in the end that means reconciliation even if the American people don’t want this bill. The only problem is that right now… Congress doesn’t even have the votes for that. So stay committed and keep up the pressure.

'The Election Is Over' - Sharp Exchange Between Obama and McCain

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care