Reply With Quote
It really does not matter at this point.
They had to buy votes to get to 60. It's basically the same thing.
Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jonathan D. Salant
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.
That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.
“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”
Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.
Van Hollen also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.
‘Pure Hallucination’
Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was “pure hallucination.”
“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said. “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner.”
He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.
At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.
“We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it,” Van Hollen said.
Haitians in U.S.
Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced yesterday that Haitian nationals now in the U.S. will be allowed to stay for an additional 18 months because of the quake devastation.
On other domestic issues, Van Hollen said Congress won’t raise the gasoline tax this year to fund a new long-term construction program for roads and mass transit. The current six-year, $286.5 billion transportation legislation is expiring.
Jobs legislation passed by the House includes $50 billion for construction projects, Van Hollen said. Longer-term legislation with a gas-tax increase will require “some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward,” he said.
On the decision to call Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, Van Hollen said that while he didn’t believe Geithner was in political danger, it was appropriate for him to come before Congress.
New York Fed
Lawmakers want to know why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Geithner formerly led, agreed to payments of 100 cents on the dollar to companies that held American International Group Inc. credit-default swaps tied to subprime mortgages.
Van Hollen said the New York Fed’s decision was wrong and the U.S. needed to “understand how that decision was made, because that kind of decision should not be made in the future.”
As Democratic congressional leaders worked with the White House to meld House and Senate versions of the health-care overhaul legislation, Van Hollen said there was no deadline for completing the measure.
“Our more important goal is to make sure we get it right,” he said.
While polls show opposition to the legislation -- a Quinnipiac University survey found 58 percent of Americans opposing the way Obama was handling the issue -- Van Hollen said the individual components were popular and most people will support the measure once it clears Congress.
“It’s been subject to a lot of demagoguery, a lot of misinformation,” Van Hollen said. Once the measure is finished, “people will see the benefits.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at [email protected].
It really does not matter at this point.
They had to buy votes to get to 60. It's basically the same thing.
If Kennedy's seat goes Repug, then Dems have 59.
If the Repugs can force through tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) with reconciliation, then the Dems can force through health care with reconciliation.
60 votes is a Senate rule, not a Cons utional rule.
Put back a Medicare-for-all robust/aggressive public option available to everybody (including those on employer plans), and ram it through with reconciliation. the avaricious health insurance companies in every orifice, and make some new ones.
In this case, where what is planned, will clearly infringe on cons utional rights... It should require a cons utional change.
Remember, the 60 votes is the required 3/5th to stop a senate debate. It's a senate rule that has been in place for as long as I can remember, maybe as long as our nation has existed. You cannot change it for just one agenda.
I'd hate to see the precedent set from doing something like this with only 51.
"in place for as long as I can remember"
only since the mid-70s. (1970s, not 1870s)
"You cannot change it for just one agenda."
... for an "agenda" of which you don't approve, but reconciliation for "one agenda" [sic] oftax cuts for wealthy, you be kool widdit.
the blue dog bags who have destroyed healthcare reform.
With all this desire for ing someone it's clear most Americans are going to get screwed. Good job.
No. They need to recognize this tidal wave for what it is - a repudiation of their current tactics. Go back to the table, invite moderates, and make it transparent.
I think bleeding liberals will continue to bleed all over this bill and do whatever it takes to pass this atrocity. 51 votes is ok with them. They'll do anything to pass a bill, any bill.
Yeah, it's all the blue dogs fault...
the blue dog bags who have destroyed healthcare reform.
The blue dogs (Obama included) are the reason this bill is basically extending the status quo, so yes, it is clearly their fault.Yeah, it's all the blue dogs fault...
Barry is a blue dog?
He's just not the "liberal" everyone wants him to be. On both sides, it seems.
Judging him on his actions and not his words, yes.
Upon what part of the cons ution is it infringing?
Please post it.
the blue dogs? haha
You seriously think blue dogs were the problem???Sucks to be that blind for a lifetime.
Reinforces my belief that Common Sense > I.Q. w/ Agenda. Nice Ivy League Obama brahNo. They need to recognize this tidal wave for what it is - a repudiation of their current tactics. Go back to the table, invite moderates, and make it transparent.
Common sense is liking paying the highest price in the world for a lousy healthcare system? It's hilarious how the Glenn Beck crowd has redefined "common sense" to mean utter stupidity.the blue dogs? haha
You seriously think blue dogs were the problem???
Reinforces my belief that Common Sense > I.Q. w/ Agenda. Nice Ivy League Obama brah
yeah i hate when senators to what their cons uents want
the blue dog bags who have destroyed healthcare reform.
Or what the corporations giving them money want...
But just as a matter of argument, is a senator's role to do what his/her cons uents want, or is their role to act in the best interest of their cons uents?
As a matter of argument, are we talking about how the founding fathers originally meant for the senator, who weren't supposed to be elected in but appointed?
Yes, the Founding Fathers who were clearly for mob rule and unchecked power of the state.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
