Merged Slaughter the House Bill / Pass without voting

[Drysdale]

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for dems.

If they do indeed use a loophole such as this, that opens the door for more use(misuse depending upon how you look at it)down the road. When GOP regains control, which they will history dictates at some point.

Dont like the HC reform? No problem, use the Slaughter rule to reverse it.
Dont like abortion? No problem, Slaughter rule.
Prayer in school? Slaughter rule.
And etc...

And when Dems regain control which again history shows they will it swings the other way. Some precedence that would set there.

 

[dudalb]

Regardless of the merits of the bill, using a, frankly, sneaky parlimentary manuever like this makes me uneasy. I know there are Health Care advocates out there who have adapted pretty much a ends justifes the means attitude toward getting this legislation passed, but that is damn short sighted view.

 

[Freddy]

Regardless of the merits of the bill, using a, frankly, sneaky parlimentary manuever like this makes me uneasy. I know there are Health Care advocates out there who have adapted pretty much a ends justifes the means attitude toward getting this legislation passed, but that is damn short sighted view.

The Democratic leadership is convinced that no one pays attention to parliamentary procedures. Normally, that is true. But in this case, they are very wrong. Everyone is following this, because they are doing something that will affect everyone's daily life in a very tangible way. That is rarely the case with any particular piece of legislation. It would be a very grave error to attempt this, and they will be punished for it, even (especially?) if it works.

 

[ryarger]

I like that Nancy Pelosi admits that the purpose of this strategy is to avoid accountability for passing a bill that she insists most Americans want.

Be honest about this... Pelosi is not the one trying to avoid accountability. She's trying to enable her centrist and Blue Dog colleagues to avoid accountability.

 

[Thunder]

Pass health-care reform, by NOT voting for it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100316/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

I want health-care reform...but not with smoke and mirrors.

If someone votes for the bill.....ANY bill..there vote should be counted and on record.

If you can't stomach the idea of your vote being counted for something...then don't vote for it.

Gross. The CBO study on this new plan better be a good one...or the Dems are gonna have hell to pay in November.

 

[hgc]

Don't believe the hype. This process involves voting on it.

 

[Thunder]

Don't believe the hype. This process involves voting on it.

right. they vote on the changes to the Senate bill. but they don't go on record as voting for the Senate bill first.

i don't know what to think any more.

why don't they wanna vote on the damn thing if they know they are gonna vote to change it an hour later? seems sneeky to me. i don't want my party to have to resort to sneeky tricks to get stuff done.

 

[dudalb]

If the GOP gets control of congress and uses shady parliamentary manuevers to pass legislation, I don't want to hear any of you complain about it. You sort of lost all creditbility.

 

[willhaven]

Why vote on the bill and then the reconciliation package when you can simply do both at once?

That is essentially what they'd be doing right?

 

[quixotecoyote]

If the GOP gets control of congress and uses shady parliamentary manuevers to pass legislation, I don't want to hear any of you complain about it. You sort of lost all creditbility.

So because he complains about democratic maneuvers, he loses the right to complain about republican maneuvers? How does that work?

 

[dudalb]

The Democratic leadership is convinced that no one pays attention to parliamentary procedures. Normally, that is true. But in this case, they are very wrong. Everyone is following this, because they are doing something that will affect everyone's daily life in a very tangible way. That is rarely the case with any particular piece of legislation. It would be a very grave error to attempt this, and they will be punished for it, even (especially?) if it works.

The Democratic suppoters of this kind of crap say..rightly,,that the GOP used similiar tactics to get legislation to get things passed..and they are 100% correct. The GOP are a bunch of hypocrites for screaming about reconciliation, since they used it during the BA.No denying that.
The difference is no one was really paying attention when the GOP did it and, now the parliamentary maneuvers are being closely covered, and the "Your another!" argument will not work.
But I think the Dems have adapted a "any means necessary" attitude toward Health Care.
But Don't get me wrong, the GOP is no better.

 

[dudalb]

Don't believe the hype. This process involves voting on it.

Just be honest and admit that you think Health Care Reform is so necessary that any means are justified to get it passed.

 

[dudalb]

So because he complains about democratic maneuvers, he loses the right to complain about republican maneuvers? How does that work?

No, it works that if you support the Dems when they use this kind of maneuver, it's pretty hypocritical to attack the GOP if they do the same thing?
This whole "It's fine if my side does it, but evil if the other side does it" attitude drives me crazy.

 

[joobz]

right. they vote on the changes to the Senate bill. but they don't go on record as voting for the Senate bill first.

i don't know what to think any more.

why don't they wanna vote on the damn thing if they know they are gonna vote to change it an hour later? seems sneeky to me. i don't want my party to have to resort to sneeky tricks to get stuff done.

Actually, thinking about it, I can see the logic.
(Please someone correct me if I am wrong).

Let's say the senate Bill #Joobz-7 is a bill to establish Joobz Day, but contains a rider that says all men must get punched in the sack on that day.

The house would first need to vote on that bill in order to attach any changes. let's say they like the idea of Joobz day, but oppose the rider. So they make a vote and either reject the bill or accept the bill. after that they make a motion to remove the sack punch rider and then vote to pass the revised bill.

Now, on the record each person has voted on the interim bill that contained the sack punch. Which means later attack ads can say:
Congressman X voted to punch you in the crotch!
or
Congressman Y hates Joobz so much that they voted against Joobz day.

Instead, they simply have a record of the actual vote that they actually wanted to make and not some procedural intermediate that contains elements that creates negative campaign fodder.

 

[Meadmaker]

If the GOP gets control of congress and uses shady parliamentary manuevers to pass legislation, I don't want to hear any of you complain about it. You sort of lost all creditbility.

To be fair, the Democratic leadership is trying to use shady parliamentary maneuvers in order to get around GOP shady parliamentary maneuvers.

Unless somehow you think filibusters aren't shady. Oh, well. "Shady" is a subjective term. Democrats are skating on the thin edge of the rules in order to vote on a bill, and if the majority votes for it, it will pass.

It's hard for me to get upset about a procedure that allows a vote that the other party is trying to prevent.

If they actually break the rules, no doubt the Supreme Court will be right there to call them out on it, but if not, it's not something I can get all worked up about.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the changes made to a bill by the Senate during reconciliation would not have to be passed by a vote of the House of Representatives, right?

Not really. It means the procedural vote would deem the bill to have been passed. There will be a vote.

FWIW, I just heard the figures for how often this procedure has been used. I can't quote you the exact figures, but it was 30-something times in the most recent Republican-controlled Congress and 40-something times in the previous Democrat-controlled Congress. And it has been used for large, substantive legislation in the past. It's not a new rule.

I find it absurd that the Tea Party people who are claiming this is a violation of the Constitution (it's not) have no problem with the filibuster which is the reason this process has been so difficult. I remember during the most recent Republican-controlled Congress, I used to hear them frequently wishing their bills could be granted a simple up or down vote. Remember, if the health care bill only got that, it would have already been passed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why vote on the bill and then the reconciliation package when you can simply do both at once?

That is essentially what they'd be doing right?

Basically, yes.

And, as has been pointed out on the other thread on this same topic, this is not a new procedure. It's been used even for large substantive legislation many times in the past by both parties.

It's just as legitimate a rule as the filibuster that made this measure necessary. (So the Tea Baggers who are claiming it's unconstitutional are simply and clearly wrong.)

ETA: People may wonder why they never heard of the "deeming" rule used (even though it has been used many times). I suspect the answer to that is, despite claims to the contrary, this has been one of the most transparent Congresses we've had in a long time. And the business of politics (making deals, compromising with your political opponents, the various maneuverings and applications of arcane procedural rules, etc.) isn't pretty.

I can't remember when congressional procedure has gotten this much scrutiny. (I'm not claiming that's a bad thing--though I might if it results in "gridlock" in Congress.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have to almost admire the Democrats for their deviousness. However, "I didn't vote for the bill, I voted to say it had passed," doesn't sound like a very convincing excuse.

See Joobz' fine explication of this point on the other thread on this topic (which I suspect will be merged shortly):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5724668#post5724668

There's nothing wrong with it. It does protect members of the House from attack ads claiming they voted for something when they voted for something knowing it would be changed to what they actually intended to support. Basically, it combines the vote for the changes, and the vote on the existing bill.

It's no more "devious" than the application of other existing rules (such at the Senate filibuster).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Democratic suppoters of this kind of crap say..rightly,,that the GOP used similiar tactics to get legislation to get things passed..and they are 100% correct. The GOP are a bunch of hypocrites for screaming about reconciliation, since they used it during the BA.No denying that.
The difference is no one was really paying attention when the GOP did it and, now the parliamentary maneuvers are being closely covered, and the "Your another!" argument will not work.
But I think the Dems have adapted a "any means necessary" attitude toward Health Care.
But Don't get me wrong, the GOP is no better.

I mostly agree with it, but the "your another" argument really does work when you realize that the "deeming" rule is just as legitimate at the filibuster. It's not really admitting to doing something wrong or unethical at all. (See also Joobz' fine explanation of this rule.) It's playing by the rules that have already been established.

 

[MikeMangum]

Democrats are skating on the thin edge of the rules in order to vote on a bill, and if the majority votes for it, it will pass.

That's just it, they won't be voting for it. It will simply be "deemed" to have passed. It will become law without ever having been voted on by the House of Representatives.

For anything to become law, it must be passed by both houses of Congress with identical text and signed by the President (or pass with 2/3 majorities in both houses). They don't have the votes to do that.

What they will be voting on is an amendment to a law, a law that was never passed. After that amendment passes, they will "deem" the law to have passed without ever voting on it.