Will the Democrats Use Reconciliation for ObamaCare?
Tags: Obamacare.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
NRO reports:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment, and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”
If the Democrats pass a health-care bill through reconciliation, it means they would need only 51 votes in the Senate for final passage. To start the process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would need to bring a new health-care bill to the House Budget Committee with reconciliation instructions, with the Senate doing the same.
Well, go ahead, make my day.
Nothing like having opponents bent on political suicide. If they so much as try it, the impression will be not just of a party out of touch, but determined to hold the people – and their views – in contempt.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
54 Responses to “Will the Democrats Use Reconciliation for ObamaCare?”
Caucus of Corruption
those arent cards Chuck, they are IOU’s…
“no union, unsafe working conditions.
no union, defectively-designed chinese testing equipment effecting peoples lives.
no union, fudged testing data effecting our soldiers.
stick to what u know unless u like looking like another fool…again.”
What a tool! It is definite oo does not know anything outside his union protected job. This individual could not make it in the real world. He needs a union to protect him from his own incompetence.
no union, unsafe working conditions. – BS! There is a company in NC that has had ZERO safety incidents in 12 YEARS!!! – NON-UNION! The unionites I have worked with had more accidents and safety violations than non-union. The unionites look forward to the time off – demanded by their unions even if they are not hurt. If a unionite creates an unsafe work condition the union protects that person even when they are completely negligent. The company cannot fire them because of unions.
I think a defense of unions, such as the teachers’ union mentioned by our lefty lemming orrie in another thread, would carry more weight if his posts showed that he was even marginally educated. Pretty funny to defend a teachers’ union in illiterate kidspeak…
There will always be those who defend unions, because there will always be those who would be unemployable if it were not for the work done by unions to elevate the slacker while tearing down those who excel, in order to establish a mediocrity that only benefits those elevated by the collective.
It’s pretty clear that orrin would not be employable at all without the protection of a union to ensure that he can’t be fired no matter how incompetent he may be, or how much work time he spends on blogging. Without a nanny union protecting him, orrin would have to compete on a level playing field with the truly competent, and would have to answer for nonproductiveness and getting paid to play with the company computer.
Thumbsucker rana is really hooked on this blame game, isn’t he? As if only the GOP is responsible for the decision to require 60 votes for cloture.
But then we have discussed at length the Left’s desperate need to rewrite history and/or redefine terms. What will the ranas of the world do without the vile spewings of Ranty Rhodes, et al, to fuel their hatreds and pack their teeny tiny little minds with utter crap? Guess this will just lead to more thumb-sucking.
Did rana whine and whimper about the unfairness of Bush’s inability to get highly qualified appointees past that 60-vote mark? Does he know the difference between blocking nominees just for the sake of blocking them and refusing to rubber-stamp them due to a belief they needed closer scrutiny? (Stefanie Villafuerte comes to mind…)
No, rana is just a lockstep kneepad uber-Lib who chugs down the RRL Koolaid and never has a real thought of his own.