Reply With Quote
Yup. I've thrown any hope for transparency out the window.
CG: Once again, the promises of openness and transparency prove to be bull . Heaven forbid we take the time to figure out what something costs before voting on it.
*********************
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill.
It was the committee's first vote out of more than 500 amendments awaiting them, in what has already been a contentious mark-up session.
The amendment would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about two weeks to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its final analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans for the amendment, further signaling that she may be an attractive swing vote for Republicans.
Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require the committee to post the full bill, in "conceptual" instead of legal language, as well as as a CBO cost estimate.
Separately, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday announced their own effort to force Democratic leaders to give members of Congress -- and the public -- 72 hours to review legislation before any bill is brought to the floor for a vote.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, and Republican Reps. John Culberson of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon, would require House leaders to post all non-emergency legislation online, in its final form, three days before a vote.
The lawmakers have begun circulating a discharge pe ion that would force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on their bill, which has been stuck in committee for months.
GOP lawmakers in particular have hammered Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for rushing long, complex bills through the House.
"The American people are angry that Speaker Pelosi didn't allow the public and their elected representatives to read the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' bill or the national energy tax before they were rammed through the House," Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday. "Congress can, and must, do better."
In the Senate Finance Committee debate, Democrats argued that the amendment, offered by Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, was merely an attempt to stall President Obama's top legislative priority.
"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," said Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.
Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, promised committee members that they'd have a preliminary analysis of the bill before they vote.
Republicans said the full analysis, which details the cost and implications of the bill, is necessary to inform their vote.
"It's what [the public] expects us to do anyway -- read a bill before you vote on it," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, ranking Republican on the panel.
Further complicating the process is the fact that the Finance Committee works on "conceptual language" -- plain English explanations that are later turned into legislative text.
The committee has always worked with conceptual language with the understanding that if a lawmaker finds a discrepancy later, the chairman can change the text to reflect what was intended.
Democrats argued that the conceptual language made it easier to understand what the committee is voting on, but Republicans said that the legislative details are significant.
Rushed floor votes on the stimulus bill and the cap-and-trade energy bill -- both of which totaled more than 1,000 pages -- have fueled calls from the public that lawmakers read bills before voting on them. The House resolution is supported by several public-interest groups, including the Sunlight Foundation, which point out that hasty votes can result in unintended consequences, such as the provision tucked into the stimulus bill that had the effect of authorizing executives of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to receive retroactive bonuses.
Earlier this summer, Mrs. Pelosi told a reporter she would allow a 48-hour waiting period prior to bringing health care legislation up for a vote.
The discharge pe ion requires 218 signatures to force a vote on the bill, which has 98 co-sponsors. There are currently 256 Democrats and 177 Republicans in the House.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...-votes//print/
Yup. I've thrown any hope for transparency out the window.
I saw Snow, or whoever that ugly chick is, making her "we need to take our time" speech and I agreed 100%.
These changes aren't going to go in effect for another 2 years... is 2 weeks too much time to ask?
those assholes.
And you Kerry... of course it's a delay tactic. Everything should be fleshed out. I know the right has been spreading untruths about the reform, but if you had an actual bill with concise wording you wouldn't have to worry about that.
Once the bill is complete there should be somewhat lengthy time for debate over the facts.
When that two weeks can be spent allowing the public to actually get up to speed on what our congressmen are about to do to us?
Absolutely that's WAY too much to ask.
I agree, them.
This is pretty bad, there shouldn't be a rush. But at the same time, the've been debating this for months. Nobody is interested in solutions anymore. Well, unless it fits their tunnel vision view of the world.
But it's been over a debate over a non existent bill.
Debate the complete bill. Not some phantasm.
The left is mad about people spreading lies... but at the same time they haven't come out with a concrete example of what it's actually going to say.
Excellent point. It's hard to have credibility about saying the other team is lying about what's in the thing when your team is taking steps to prevent people from finding out what actually is in the thing.
All I have to say is the Baucus bill was a reasonable starting point. Both parties shot it down. (It really doesn't make any money for any of their interests, that's my theory)
Is there anyway this could be declared as "uncons utional"?
In today's internet...what would it hurt for the PEOPLE of the nation to be able to view and express approval or disapproval to there respective congressman regarding issues such as this.
It's a deliberate attempt by members of our legislation to nulify a true voice of the American people.
I wouldn't (don't) know any intelligent person who doesn't review and double check before deciding upon any important decision in their life.
This is nationwide news worthy material that needs to be broadcasted by every media outlet. And it doesn't matter which party affiliation you prefer...this is an amendment that will benefit the people of the nation and keep ANY bill (whether Democrat or Republican agenda based) to be allowed to rush through.
Repugs never act in good faith, why should the Dems trust them now?
Dems go smash-mouth back at the smash-mouth Reugs, and the Repugs whine like little es.
"benefit the people of the nation"
do you really believe Congress acts in any interest other than SELF-interest? where that interest is how much money they get from the corps.
WOW...we agree...
In principle.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to give government more power so often. Seriously, I cannot connect those dots. You ought to be libertarian with your level of (spot on) cynicism.
True, but that does nothing to invalidate their claims. Just because their motives are anything but pure doesn't mean that their point isn't valid. I mean you certainly can't believe that pushing the bill through before people have read it is in the best interests of the people, right?
This isn't about helping the people, and it isn't about health care.
yes they should allow people to review bills being passed before Congress. I don't rememebr ever hearing the conservatives complaining when the GOP did that when they were in power maybe it's because most of them are hypocrites..
"government more power so often"
technically, the corps can't make legislation, don't have that Cons utional power.
EFFECTIVELY, lobbyists actually write the legislation and/or amendments and give it to the s to pass into law.
Do you think that any kind of change is better than the status quo?
You could give Congress 2 years instead of 2 weeks and they still wouldn't read the bill.
No one is saying the republicans did everything right when they had control. But remember - when Madame "Bug-eyed, Stretch" Pelosi took over as speaker, she promised to clean up the "culture of corruption" and be the most ethical and transparent congress in history. And Obama campaigned on having transparency in his administration.
THEY BOTH LIED!!!! And the current democrat-controlled congress and white house are far, far worse than their predecessors.
True enough. Senator Bunning slept through part of the debate over his own amendment to the Baucus bill.
I'm not going to argue this one because you're right.
Oh my... have we entered a parallel universe? I don't think we've ever agreed on anything before - maybe there's hope for this world after all.
LOL
I can't wait to see what words Obama will run on in 2012.
No doubt, they will work.
HOPE AND CHANGE YES WE CAN!BUSH DID IT TOO, STFU!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
