Friday, October 16, 2009

Lies, Earmarks, and Corruption in the Health Care Bills

Reps. Peter Hoekstra and John Shadegg point out very eloquently that if Max Baucus and other Democrats weren't politicians they'd all be in jail. These health care bills have nothing to do with health care at all, but is a huge power grab to control more of our lives, and take away more of our freedom. The Democrats scheme is downright criminal. Most of the damn Democrats are corrupt to the core. This is a power grab, and one of the biggest power grabs in history. This is a hatchet job being committed by Democrats upon the American people.
Here is the article called, Lies, Earmarks, and Corruption All In One Bill:

We are nominating Sen. Baucus' health care reform bill for the Pulitzer Prize — for fiction.

Like works of great fiction writers such as Ernest Hemingway, Joseph Conrad and F. Scott Fitzgerald, the story line of the Baucus bill is not what it seems and is in fact a clever subterfuge of what health care reform will mean for the American people.

Hiding behind this facade is another story about a massive power grab by the Washington political establishment.

The bill is loaded with fiction. To begin with, it purports to reduce the deficit. This is really an Enron-style scam with the bill's massive new taxes starting on day one and its dramatic new health care expenditures, which will far exceed the tax revenues, beginning in year four.
Hence its favorable score: 10 years of revenue, seven of expenditures. In the private sector, people go to jail for this type of accounting; in the U.S. Senate, they trumpet it as good news.

The Baucus bill claims to treat all Americans equitably, yet four states receive Medicaid exemptions — the federal government will pick up the state's share of Medicaid costs — for five years. That means taxpayers in 46 states will subsidize other states, including Nevada, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can bring home the bacon and get re-elected.

Sen. Chuck Schumer put in a little-noticed provision that exempts New Yorkers and taxpayers from some other states from the bill's tax on gold-plated insurance plans. The result: The rest of the nation will subsidize the health care of New Yorkers and a few others.

If you're lucky enough to live in one of the favored states, you win. If not, you lose. Guess how many of those states are blue and have Democratic senators up for re-election? Hardly seems fair, does it? Huge earmarks and health care favoritism for states served by powerful Washington elites.

There are other massive earmarks in this bill. Up to $10 billion will go to VEBA, such as the underfunded retirement health care package of United Auto Workers retirees. This may or may not be a good idea, but it clearly does not belong in this legislation.

The bill has huge, new mandated costs on the states for Medicaid, and there are many other costs omitted from the bill that will need to be paid for by taxpayers. The bill claims savings it says will be achieved by reducing reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. This has never happened in the past and won't now. It is pure fiction. CONTINUED


Dr. Dave said...

"We are nominating Sen. Baucus' health care reform bill for the Pulitzer Prize — for fiction."

Nice work. Equitable my ass...

BTW: I linked your Matthews piece near the end of mine.

Teresa said...

Dr. Dave,
This is definitely a piece of fiction. Thanks for the link. I really appreciate it. After I return from class I'll visit your blog. I always enjoy your humor. Have a great day!

Opus #6 said...

I am so worried about this. When will the agony end!

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Teresa, I just heard on the Fox News Network that the Senate is now clearing the way to use the "Nuclear Option" to push the health care reform bill (most likely with a government/public option) through over the objections of the majority of Americans.

Also, they (FNC) said that they believe that Obama's proposal to give those on Social Security a onetime $250.00 stimulus payment because they won't be getting a cost of living increase in 2010, is nothing more than a BRIBE to get seniors to support his health care plan.

nyp said...

to so-called " Most Rev. Gregori": The Fox News report is incorrect. The so-called "nuclear option" does not apply to this legislation. What the report was trying to say was that the Senate leadership may be considering applying "reconciliation" procedures to the legislation. That is completely different than the "nuclear option." A case of sloppy reporting.
to Teresa: A lot of facts are wrong in this post. The deficit scoring was done not by democrats on the Finance Committee but by CBO, about as non-partisan and cautious an outfit as you can find. CBO actually concluded that the deficit savings increase past year ten, although, as a matter of policy, it does not calculated deficit reductions beyond that point.

The Medicaid “exemptions” you complain of are the result of certain states having unusually high numbers of uncompensated medicare recipients. The “:exemption” is intended to correct a disparity.
The cost savings reductions you claim are fictitious have been demonstrated in pilot program and other studies, and have been recommended almost unanimously by hosts of experts in healthcare economics.
Overall, the proposals reduce the deficit. They “bend the curve” in health care costs. And, most importantly, they provide insurance coverage to tens of millions of American families that risk losing everything if they lose their jobs. If you have a better proposal for achieving these goals, feel free to come forward with it.

WomanHonorThyself said...

my head hurts from this girl!..Have a super weekend my friend!!:)

Teresa said...

Have a great weekend :)

Teresa said...

First, When you enter my realm, You refer to Most Rev. Gregori just as that. Show him respect, or haven't you been taught that? I know libs have a hard time comprehending the concepts of respect and responsibility but learn fast. And, if you don't, than I will delete all of your comments and you will not be welcome to produce counterarguments at my blog.
Charlie Rangel's committee just voted to allow the nuclear option with regards to the Baucus Bill, and are voting again soon on the other Health care proposals in Congress. The Democrats have made it clear that they are willing to go and will go the nuclear option route in order to pass a health care bill, even though the nuclear option is only supposed to be used in passing budgets. Health care Bills have nothing to do with budgets. This is a blatant abuse of power by the Democrats.
The CBO's score is skewed because it lacks did not take into account certain information in the bill. There are so many taxes in the bill that it will hurt the middle class. This is NOT a good health care bill at all for the American people. There will be rationing and it gives the government way too much power. The government needs to be reigned in as it is. There have been much better proposals brought before congress but they have been quashed because Dems only care about violating our freedoms so they can have yet even more control over our lives. If Dems really did care about our health care, they wouldn't need a 1200 page bill.

Teresa said...

The combining of the health care bills is being done "behind closed doors", unlike on c-span and transparent as Obama had promised.
Another broken promise by Obama.

H.R. 3200 which will be combined or melded with the Baucus Bill; contains a tax payer funded public option, coverage for abortions, coverage for illegal immigrants, increased taxes and fees, forces Americans to purchase health insurance or suffer consequences of higher taxes, fees or jail. It is the essential foundation of a government controlled, single-payer system. The “reform” does not put a cap on medical malpractice (tort reform), and it does not open up insurance competition across state lines.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis released earlier this week on the cost impact of the Democrats' proposal warns "the average family coverage" will rise by $4,000 over the next decade if "new taxes on health sector entities" and other expensive proposed provisions are included.

Plain and simple, the health care bills in congress are unconstitutional.

Teresa said...

I keep hoping the agony ends soon.

Teresa said...

Most Rev. Gregori,
I heard that same thing, also. Democats have proven that they are in fact against the American people. The bribery sounds just like the Chicago way.

United Conservatives of America said...

Teresa and Most Rev. Gregori, I heard something similar to that (nuclear option) on Sean Hannity, however I cannot be entirely sure because I was listening to his show on my walkman on the bus and there was some static, but I did hear him mention a 'Nuclear Option'.

Anyway, all of this has given me a massive headache. I am afraid to think about where our country is headed, even though I believe we cannot escape the outcome.

Thank God for Aspirin and Fallout Shelters.

nyp said...

to Teresa.
1. I put "Most Reverend Gregori" in scare quotes because, as you may have noticed, people on the internet are allowed to use pseudonyms, and, in light of the sheer venom of his statements on this blog, I have an extremely hard time accepting that he could possibly be a man of the cloth. If he adequately identifies himself, I would of course drop the quotes. But for now, out of my deep respect for the basic decency of religious Orders, I can't accept that someone who writes so hatefully could be an ordained priest.
2. I am afraid neither you, your commentators nor Fox News understand congressional procedure.The “nuclear option” refers to a parliamentary maneuver by which a majority of the Senate breaks a fillibuster. As you know, 60 votes are normally required in order to defeat a fillibuster. The “nuclear option” allows a Senate majority to defeat (through various means which none of us need to bother ourselves with) a fillibuster with only a majority vote. As far as I know, no one has suggested the use of the nuclear option in the health care debate. Notwithstanding your suggestion to the contrary, the "nuclear option" has not been employed in more than half a century. Reconciliation is completely different. A bill that is eligible for reconciliation procedures cannot be fillibustered. So the “nuclear option” is irrelevant to reconciliation proceedings. Reconciliation of House bills is basically irrelevant, since the House, unlike the Senate, generally acts on majority rules principles. What the Ways & Means Committee did is therefore completely unremarkable -except to conspiracy-minded paranoids. And, by the way, the Ways & Means bill is completely different from the Baucus bill (different chamber, for one thing,) so your statement that Rangel's committee "just voted to allow the nuclear option with regards to the Baucus Bill" is a non-sequitur.
3. Your suggestion that the current legislative process is not transparent is just silly. We have had literally weeks of public, televised legislative hearings over the course of the spring, summer and fall, most recently the multi-week markup by the Senate Finance Committee. It is true that the merger of competing bills in a single chamber is not accomplished in front of the Washingtion press corps. But that process has never been a public proceeding. Not when the Democrats were in charge. Not when the Republicans were in charge. Not in the history of the Republic. There will soon be merged bills in both chambers. They will be subject to extensive televised debate. They will be voted on in public. The conference committee reports will be debated on in public. There will be yet another vote. The idea that all this is not transparent is ludicrous.
4. I am saddened that you uncritically accept every anti-reform talking point you can find, just to score points. The PriceWaterhouse study, bought and paid for by the health insurance industry, has already been largely disowned by its own authors. None of the bills provide for any public coverage for abortion or for illegal aliens. You are simply making that up. The proposed legislation is built around private plans and has nothing whatsoever to do with "single payer."
The Baucus bill reduces the deficit, reduces the unsustainable growth in health costs, and provides relief for millions of American families. So far, you have offered no alternative. No alternative at all. When you have an actual specific alternative, I will be delighted to hear about it. In the meantime, you can understand how the Republicans have earned the title "Party of No."

nyp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

For your information reconciliation and the "nuclear option" are the same thing. There is absolutely no difference.

A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.

The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required
The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.

Under the normal process, senators can filibuster almost anything and the debate would only be cut off if at least 60 lawmakers vote to do so. For that reason, 60 is considered the magic number in the quest to pass health care reform out of the Senate.

The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.

Under the normal process, senators can filibuster almost anything and the debate would only be cut off if at least 60 lawmakers vote to do so. For that reason, 60 is considered the magic number in the quest to pass health care reform out of the Senate.

But under reconciliation, typically used in the budget process, no filibusters are permitted and a bill can pass with just a simple majority.
The vote only refers to a health care package not any specific health care package, or bill.

BTW, Henceforward I will NOT post any of your comments since you are acting with such disrespect on my blog. You have no respect for my fellow blog friends and mock them. Most Rev. gregori is exatly who he is and no other person. He cares a great deal about this country and hates seeing it go down the tubes and heading to a socialist country. So, from now on whenever you leave a comment here, it will be deleted.
The Obama administration has been about as transparent as a brick wall. This administration has lied consistently to the American people. And, I am so proud of Joe Wilson saying what a whole heck of alot of American people are thinking. He gets a donation from me for standing up for principles.


Amusing Bunni said...

Oh God Help us all! They are going to pass this lying pile of crap, and there's nothing we can do. It gets worse every day....and then I see the Dreaded Nyp again....I thought that troll crawled back under their annoying to come on here and insult all of us. Teresa, you have the patience of a saint to debate and tolerate these nuts. They DO NOT listen to reason and it's like trying to explain quantum physics to a six week old baby chimpanzee.

I got lots of trolls recently and I just delete them. They think they are getting away with something, cause I don't to comment approval or captcha's and all that, I don't like them, so their junk might stick around for a time until I see and delete it....but delete it I do, with out giving them what they want, an argument and attention!

That said, how'd you like funny video's drunk guy?I think he would be better to debate politics with than all the libtards lurking around....hee heee heee! Have a fun weekend and hope school is going well.

Teresa said...

Amusing Bunni,
Please, oh, yes, nyp needs to crawl under a rock. I love your explanation. That totally cracks me up LOL. I will be deleting these blasted trolls comments from now on. I loved the video!
Have a great weekend :)

Teresa said...

United Conservatives,
Rengel's committee paved the way to make the nuclear option a possibility. I hope we can escape the outcome! Fallout shelters sounds like a good idea.

nyp said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr. Dave said...

@nyp...I'd like you to come visit my blog, so I can eat you alive...I love the taste of dickhead liberal at any time of the day. It goes well with this crazy diet I'm on that leaves me starving and looking to take out my frustrations on moonbat zombies who dream of sticking their heads up Obugger's behind. Come over. Come over. Come over...and enter your graveyard.

Andrew33 said...

The way I see it, were damned if we do, and damned if we don't as far as the healthcare bill goes. You realize that there is more earmark spending in the defense bill than defense spending, but nobody is blogging about that, right?So if the healthcare bill passes, people will see a hefty tax increase with no benefits till 2013. Now, will the electorate be madder come midterm elections if healthcare passes or not? I say the electorate will be far madder and more apt to vote in candidates that are hellbent on neutering obama than if healthcare fails leading to voter apathy. I study military history and strategy as a hobby and to repeat a lesson learned by Caesar, Atilla, Washington, Napoleon, and Hitler is that you pick your battles. In WW2, Russia let the Germans gain lots of ground, and waited until the Germans had overextended to attack. The Dems are overreaching, but half of America needs to figure that out. My point is that if healthcare passes, it will anger the public like nothing we can do, so it's not the end of the world if it passes, just the end of the Dems and liberal Repubs.

Teresa said...

I can understand what your saying, but I'd rather not let this country get that far-gone. Also, once the health care is passed, it will be hard to reverse that process. And, once The Left has a hold on health care they will have a major advantage in pretty much every area of society. The government controlling Health Care would make this a "left" country then.

United Conservatives of America said...


As for this 'nyp' creature, on his/her/its own blog post of 9/10/09 admitted that he/she/it enjoys 'tying up the right-wing blogs' which eventually leads to his/her/its comments getting deleted and then being banned. After all, that is what we have to do sometimes with these leftist libtard lunatic demoncrap trolls.

Hence the reason my blog is already moderated.

As for 'wikipedia'--that is really not a 'reliable' source because anyone can register, sign in, and then EDIT the contents written there to make it look and read the way people want it to. Anything written there I would not believe without further research from a more rreliable source.

And as far as the 'nuclear fallout shelter'--I am already pricing them and marking out the area where I want it put.


Chicago Ray said...

"We are nominating Sen. Baucus' health care reform bill for the Pulitzer Prize — for fiction."

I agree with the DR


Teresa said...

United Conservatives,
As long as nyp keeps on coming back, I'm going to keep deleting his comments.
I have found wikipedia to be a good starting point if you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter. But, you are absolutely correct about anyone being able to change whats in it.

I think I'm going to have to start pricing fallout shelters myself.

Have a great weekend :)

Teresa said...

Chicago Ray,
The Baucus Bill is definitely fiction.

nyp said...

to Teresa: you do not provide a source for whatever article you have cut 'n pasted into your comment, but it appears to be from a Fox News site. Both you and whoever wrote that report are completely wrong in asserting that reconciliation procedures are the same thing as the "nuclear option." Just wrong. Take a look at the wikipedia description of the nuclear option.
As the entry notes, the "nuclear option" procedure is "an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster."

Reconciliation is completely different. As Wikipedia notes,it "is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. ... Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body."

The two concepts are thus fundamentally different.

P.S.: how unfortunate that you would seek to stiffle relevant, substantive dissent on such an important issue for our country. It is very dangerous to retreat to the community of the like-minded. Really an abdicaton of your responsibility to be an informed, open-minded citizen.

Andrew33 said...

NYP, have you actually watched what is happening with our government lately? Little things like precedence and constitutionality mean about as much to those in power now as what I had for lunch. Passing 4 digit sized bills without reading them has not been the norm in our history. Now I dont watch ANY tv news so come at me with the fox news zombie crap. By doing that post you are guilty of both not knowing squat about our history and insulting someone who does, both seem to be abdications of the responsibility of being an open minded citizen. You need to take a look in the mirror and realize that your open mind is really just an empty head.

Kevin T. Rice said...

nyp -

I asked Teresa to leave your comment up for a while, so that at my convenience I could deal with you.

First, you're wrong. The phrase "nuclear option" is beingused slightly differently now than it was in 2005 when the term was coined with reference to the filibuster. The basic idea of the nuclear option is the power of a majority to use rules and procedures to push their agenda through the legislative process with no need to overcome the resistance from an opposing minority that would otherwise be an obstacle if a more typical, straightforward bill-passing procedure were to be used. In 2005 it was about sing a mjority vote to end a filibuster. That was then. Its application here refers to the possibility that the democrats could use budget reconciliationto pass the health care bill.

You, nyp, did not bother to read the rest of the wikipedia article on the "nuclear option". Here is the last paragraph of that article:

"Beyond the specific context of U.S. federal judicial appointments, the term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition. In a recent legal ruling on the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (Jackson and others v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, 13 October 2005), the UK House of Lords used "nuclear option" to describe the possibility of creating hundreds of new Liberal peers, which the government threatened to do in order to force the Tory-dominated Lords to accept the Great Reform Act of 1832."

There - you see? You skate over the surface of these debates with the methodological assumption that "conservatives are always wrong, liberals are always right," and you don't go deeper to try to undertsand what's really going on or why people who disagree with you think that they do. Ironic, since you like to whine about how conservatives should be more "open-minded".

In summary - Teresa is right. In this instance, the phrase "nuclear option" DOES refer to reconciliaton, and there IS "absolutely no difference". You were wrong - they are not "completely different", and the people who said they were the same thing were not "completely wrong". You are.

But that's not what really made me want to write this. Take that correction as a free service. It's gratis - a neigborly exhortation to an ignoramus to overcome his atagonistic ignorance. What I am really here for is to ask you why you keep trying to post comments at a blog where your comments are not welcome. Do you not have a life? Do you not have a job? Are you, perhaps, a welfare parasite? Why not post your ignorant drivel where it is welcome instead of insisting on inflicting your unwelcome presence here where your comments have been banned? Why not get a job, get a life, move out of your parent's basement, find a significant other. GET LAID! Do SOMETHING for crissakes!

Most Rev. Gregori said...


Yes, I AM a n Ordained Priest and a duly Consecrated Bishop. And for your information, I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in any way, shape or form. I tell the TRUTH plain and simple and as clearly as I possibly can. If that makes me "hateful" so be it. Jesus Christ told it like it is to the money changers, the Scribes and Pharisees.

I will NEVER sugar-coat the truth just make leftists feel better. I am so sick and tired of those on the left always complaining about being offended, e3specially by everything Godly. Well boo hoo, you morally bankrupt idiots offend God far more then I or my blog could ever offend you.

Ron Russell said...

One would have to be a six-handed juggler to keep up with all the twists and turns these guys are throwing up>

United Conservatives of America said...

RIGHT ON Most Rev. Gregori!!!


United Conservatives of America said...

K.T. Rice,

I wouldn't waste your breath (or your energy typing) because that 'nyp' creature only hears (reads) what it wants to.

That's why it keeps on 'cutting & pasting' the same comment over and over.

The leftist lunatic liberal demoncraps are all nothing but a bunch of 'needle-stuck-in-the-same-groove' broken records.

Great comment by the way. It was most helpful in helping me better understand the whole 'nuclear option' thing. I had vaguely heard it mentioned on the Sean Hannity Show but didn't get to hear it clearly because there was a lot of static (my walkman doesn't play very well on the buses). So, thank you. I intend to do some extended research on it if I can.

Have a great weekend.

The Conservative Lady said...

...The American people need to stand up and say no to this callous grab of power by Washington elites.

This is the first real test of the Tea Party movement to influence public policy. Americans are counting on their elected representatives to protect them from a tragically flawed health care bill.

Grass-roots America needs to speak out before it is too late. If not now, when? Time is running out.

What more can we do? We've been screaming about this all summer! They know we don't want it, but they are going to push it through anyway. This is one of the most frustrating times of my life.

One good thing came out of nyp's comments, I have found the Most Rev. Gregori's blogs and am now following them.

United Conservatives of America said...

Same here, Teresa. I too am now following Most Rev. Gregori's 2 blogs.

Both of his blogs are very good, and a pleasure to read.

Teresa said...

I would like to take this time to thank all of my fellow conservative blogging friends for commenting and helping me to deal with nyp.

Everyone, Have a wonderful weekend!!

Andrew33 said...

Like Rev Grigori, I spend much of my free time studying pre -and early Christian history. Contrary to what hollwood morons, flat earth athiests, and Godless Muslims will tell you, Jesus lived an unusual life for a 1st Century peasant Jew. He, at the same time had more followers than all our blogs combined, and got chased from every community where he taught. The 2 biggest Jewish sects, the Pharisees and Saducees who hated each other more than life itself were willing to put their differences aside to conspire to kill the "blossoming" Jesus cult leader. Now as a province of Rome, the Jews had religious autonomy yet Jesus was brought before a Roman magistrate, and Governor and the Jewish leadership council, the Sanhedrin, to be tried for his so called crimes. That would be the equivalent of having to go before the house of representatives, the President and the UN security council for a criminal charge. Normally, The Sanhedrin had the authority to have Jesus executed, but he had to face the Romans, who had little interest in Jewish peasants. Not that I would compare anyone to Jesus, but does anyone know of a talk radio and Tv host that has lots of unwanted attention from the White House? Did the resulting attention happen because that radio host is all things to all people? No, the mnegative attention came because he Explained the difference between right and wrong as he was trying to get people to follow hIm as he stood trial. We know where her sister lives, Far from being "peace and free". I try to emulate Christ, not by being a weak soft hippie, but by telling it like It is, and at the same time being willing to help anyone by helping them help themselves. After all, Christ did not survive multiple attempts on his life, then stand trial before the Roman Empire for being politically correct. This stands in the face of anyone who would say Jesus was a liberal.

nyp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nyp said...

To: Kevin T. Rice: I appreciate your effort to actually engage on the substance of the issue I raised. Of course, you also engage in puerile personal attacks, but that that is of little interest to me. So let’s go directly to the substance.
1. You wish to support Teresa and some unnamed Fox News reporter in asserting that any Senate action that is not subject to a filibuster (i.e., that requires a simple majority rule vote) is a “nuclear option.” The reason why you wish to say this is obvious: you want to place a sinister cast on every single thing the Democrats do in enacting health insurance reform. So a simple parliamentary step is given the scary moniker “nuclear option,” even when it has nothing to do with the traditional use of that term. It is an ironic thing to do, since when the “nuclear option” was actually on the table, during the Bush administration, Republicans somewhat comically tried to label it the “constitutional option.”

2. In any event, one of the leading studies of the “nuclear option” properly defines it as “a ruling of the chair sustained by a simple majority—to achieve cloture without the sixty or sixty-six vote supermajority specified by Rule XXII.” Law & Sullom, Judicial Selection, Appointments Gridlock, and theNuclear Option, 15 Journal of Contemporary Legal Studies, 1 (2006). Law & Sullom go on to describe how the procedure was to be employed in the recent context of judicial nominations: “[t]he underlying strategy is that a Republican senator would raise a point of order that the consideration of judicial nominees may not be filibustered, and the chair—most likely Vice President Cheney, in his capacity as President of the Senate—would sustain the point of order. A simple majority vote would then suffice to win any appeal of the chair’s ruling, or to table any objections to the ruling.”
In other words, the nuclear option is the use of the power of the parliamentary chair to effectively change the rules and block a cloture requirement that would otherwise be required under Senate procedure. See also Klotz, The Nuclear Option for Stopping Filibusters, 37 Political Science and Politics, (Oct., 2004), pp. 843-846 (“nuclear option” is refusal to recognize otherwise permitted delaying tactics.) Similarly, a Congressional Research Service report stated that the “’nuclear option’” would presumably either make novel use of existing procedures or engage in ones previously not recognized in Senate practice.” “‘Entrenchment’” of Senate Procedure and the “Nuclear Option” for Change: Possible Proceedings and Their Implications,” Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2005. And an expressly conservative journal, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, in an extremely exhaustive article advocating use of what it called the “constitutional option,” defined it as a change in existing cloture rules, accomplished by a simple majority. Gold and Gupta. “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster” 28 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Fall 2004, pp. 205-272.

nyp said...

3. Reconciliation procedures are completely different. They don’t require the rules to be change; instead, they are expressly authorized by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. As the Chair of the House Rules Committee has explained, “the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.”
Reconciliation procedures allow legislation to be adopted by majority vote (among other things.) But they only apply to narrow categories of legislation. It would very difficult, although not impossible, to shoe-horn a health insurance reform bill into the narrow categories permitted by the reconciliation rules. That is why we liberals have been forced to craft legislation that will appeal to 60 senators, although we continue to explore reconciliation procedures as a possible means of enacting the reform bill. Threatening the use of reconciliation also has an obvious strategic advantage.
In sum: “reconciliation” is an accepted, normal use of existing rules. The “nuclear option” is an almost unprecedented maneuver to either break or end existing rules. The two are completely different. Significantly, none of the scholarly sources I have cited come close to describing reconciliation procedures as a form of the “nuclear option.” Not one. If you have studies of congressional procedure that suggest that reconciliation under the 1974 Budget Act is really a variant on the “nuclear option,” feel free to share them with us. If the term “nuclear option” has ever been used to describe any thing other than a deliberate breaking or changing of congressional rules to (prior to its employment by some conservatives during this year’s health care debate,) you can share that information as well.

nyp said...

4. You absurdly argue that whatever the meaning of the “nuclear option” throughout the history of the U.S. Congress, it now “refers to the possibility that the democrats could use budget reconciliationto pass the health care bill.” That is precisely my point. Conservatives such as you have taken a term that has nothing to do with the reconciliation procedure and, solely for the purpose of gaining some semantic advantage, decided to apply the term to that procedure. It is moments such as this one that send me back to re-read Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.”
5. Your sole citation is to a throw-away paragraph at the end of the Wikipedia entry on the “nuclear option.” That paragraph both bolsters my position and illustrates, (as Teresa herself said earlier) the limits of Wikipedia as a reliable source. The paragraph does not provide a single citation to any U.S. congressional action as authority for its assertion that “nuclear option” has “come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences.” Not one. The sole citation it provides is to a single British court decision in which the term was used to apply to some action in the British Houses of Parliament. I will happily accept that the term “nuclear option” has a broader meaning in British parliamentary procedure that it has in the United States. But that isn’t giving up much of anything, is it? When you can find an example of an accepted authority applying the term “nuclear option” to congressional reconciliation procedures, please come back and let us know, O.K.?
6. I will not waste time with your vulgar insults, other than to wonder what “Father Gregori” thinks of them. (I also wonder if “Father Gregori” will ever actually identify himself, since I think his superiors would be very interested in the statements he has made on the internet. But that is another topic.) But it is worth responding to your question about why I even bother with you people. Part of the answer is that I believe that the health care crisis is the single most important domestic issue of our generation, and that I ought to devote some of my time to confronting the outright falsehoods (“death panels,” “care for illegal aliens,” etc.) being floated on the internet by blogs like this one. The other part is that, as Bob Bartley used to say, I believe in the power of ideas. I believe that one can actually reason with one’s opponents. That certain propositions can be proven right or wrong. That ideology should not be permitted to trump reality. And I also believe that blogs are a forum for constructive debate, not merely a place where the like-minded can amplify their own prejudices. That is why I have posted on-topic, respectfully worded dissents, notwithstanding the juvenile invective that I receive in response. And that is why I find it so deeply offensive that Teresa would try to stifle dissent rather than admit the simple possibility of error.
It is true that what I have seen in this blog and elsewhere is deeply disheartening. The modern conservative movement really is an intellectual wasteland. Blogs like this one are truly ugly places. But discovering (or confirming) that fact is itself a worthwhile endeavor, and thus justifies my continued presence.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Nyp! Nyp! PUH-LEEZE!

It is obvious that you didn't bother to read my post. Your first numbered point makes that clear:

"1. You wish to support Teresa and some unnamed Fox News reporter in asserting that any Senate action that is not subject to a filibuster (i.e., that requires a simple majority rule vote) is a “nuclear option.” "

I never said that. I was very clear about how the phrase is being used now, and I took the trouble to read the rest of the wikipedia article, the one you quoted - you only read your quoted portion. You have a reading problem. You don't read the evidence you cite, and you don't read the postings you respond to. So why the hell would I read your long-ass post beyond that numbered point when it is clear how lazy you are? Screw that!

"The reason why you wish to say this is obvious: you want to place a sinister cast on every single thing the Democrats do in enacting health insurance reform."

Are you serious? I have no desire to "place a sinister cast"
on anything. I called you on an error because you keep posting where you are not welcome. Get a life already! Even if you are unattractive, you can probably still find SOMEONE to befriend, even if they won't sleep with you. Just get away from the computer - get out of the house. Get some fresh air!

Teresa said...

You make a statement using the word "sinister", when no other person said anything about the government being sinister.

Are you feeling guilt? Do you know of something sinister that the government is taking part in, that we do not? Do you think that our government is sinister? Has the word sinister been seeping into your consciousness so you feel that anyone that opposes our Dear Leader is sinister? Were you sinsister when you opposed George Bush? Maybe, you have deep seated anger and unhappiness that you clearly have an infatuation with the sinister. You like communism and your liberty to be taken away from you by the all too powerful congress? I prefer to promote individualism and freedom. I prefer to promote a bill that doesn't violate our constitution. The forcing of a person to buy health insurance violates our constitution. Our you against the constitution? If not, then why are you supporting a bill that clearly violates our constitution? Are you infatuated with my blog? Why do you enter the realm where you are clearly not wanted? Do you like being a pad penny?

Go to a place where you are wanted. Go to a place where you are actually capable of showing respect, because you have shown you have no capacity for that on my blog. You, nyp, need to stay the hell away from me and my blog and stop harassing me!

nyp said...

1. to Teresa: why would I possibly say that you wish to give health reform a "sinister cast"? Perhaps it is because you wrote that "The Democrats scheme is downright criminal. Most of the damn Democrats are corrupt to the core. This is a power grab, and one of the biggest power grabs in history. This is a hatchet job being committed by Democrats upon the American people." Or perhaps it is because "Fr. Gregori" wrote
"Senate is now clearing the way to use the "Nuclear Option" to push the health care reform bill (most likely with a government/public option) through over the objections of the majority of Americans." Or because you called it "a blatant abuse of power by the Democrats."
By the way, you are completely wrong in suggesting that the President's proposal is in any way unconstitutional. That one does not pass the ha-ha test.
2. to Kevin Walsh - your post pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the quality of your thought and the legitimacy of your arguments.

Andrew33 said...

nyp did anyone ever tell you that reconciliation is intended for times when political gridlock prevents basic government functions to be paid for. Now I will tell you this, if I have to pay for your medical bills, then we will start with your most obvious problem and have you Baker acted. Now you have insulted a person for how he practices his religion, but if I call you an atheist moron with delusions of grandeur and signs of homosexual tendencies you would call that a hate crime. Now I say to you that the man and woman or test tube who made you committed the hate crime. Honestly, how much pepto does it take to keep the Hershey squirts you have for a brain from leaking out. I really wish you would show up at my residence and start spouting your communist brainwashing voodoo while MY PET LEOPARD EATS YOU ALIVE. Now if you want to debate, were up for it but you are just insulting everyone here. By acting like that, I would almost think you are a liberal progressive communist. You cannot simply explain why we need to ruin our healthcare stystem. You tell me, someone who is uninsured and needs far beyond a pain pill to survive. Why since I pay my own bills, should I be fined and jailed for refusing to pay yours. Why, when I pay my own medical bills should I be taxed until 2013 to give those who are too lazy to pay their own bills. How excited are you to see our healthcare system become the gonernment of California or your local DMV? On principal, I am strongly against those who want to take up arms against our government, but, the day the government sets one foot inside my doctors office will be the day I use my weapons and explosives expertise against that government as it will at that time no longer be my government, but the thief of my rights. Issues such as government healthcare should go to the states, just like ( repubs won't like this) decriminalizing drugs. If Cali wants to legalize pot, ban sodas and French fries and have a communist government, fine. Don't force me in Florida to live like you. Why do you liberals have to push you rediculous agenda on me and people like
me. I am not pushing my agenda on you, but you agenda is being forced on me and I am sick of it. I don't want to see queers acting out their disgusting lifestyle similarly I don't want to see a hooker turning tricks in my neighborhood. It's not enough that we leave you alone or tolerate you, we have to agree with your agena being pushed on us. NOW I TELL YOU THIS: NO MORE. I don't watch network tv. You tell me, why is RushLimbaugh too polarizing for the NFL yet the treasonous msnbc nutjob who is justification for restoring public hanging..,Keith olberwoman not too polarizing? He like you cannot give reasons why communism is good, but calls anyone who disagrees with communism a redneck, a bumpkin, or totally insane? Takes one to know one, right? Now NYP, here's the ultamatum: you explain why your way is right before you say one thing about anyone else's way. Not doing so will cause me to become unfriendly. I have been
nice to you until now as I have little patience for morons that talk too much crap and don't know Jack. You go around insulting everone here and their ideas while giving no reasons why yours are better. Everytime I turn the tables on communist thugs, and put the responsibility on them, they wilt and I bet you will to, or I will blow you away in the realm of ideas. Can you handle the heatl?