Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Sounds Good; But Can We Believe It?”

« God v. State: Steel Cage Death Match, Loser Leaves Town! | Main | My Soul Mate? »

February 24, 2010

Sounds Good; But Can We Believe It?

Hatched by Dafydd

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA, 92%) makes the firm claim that Democrats "[don't] have the votes" to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare, which is the necessary first step down Reconciliation Road:

“The buzz around Washington right now is the inevitability that this healthcare bill is going to pass, that we are somehow going to go to this healthcare summit and there will be a decision on the part of Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid to go ahead and jam this bill through,” Cantor said.

“Speaker Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House. That’s just where we are, and it’s indicative of the fact that the American people don’t like this healthcare bill.”

In a memo to the Republican caucus Wednesday morning, Cantor wrote that House Democrats are farther away from securing the votes to pass a government healthcare bill today than they have ever been, and that they will never be able to muster the votes needed to pass a Senate reconciliation bill in the House.

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI, 90%), he of the Stupak Amendment against federal funding of abortion, agrees that Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%) is woefully short of the votes she needs. In a radio clip of an interview he gave, Stupak said that "15 to 20 Democrats" have already told him that they will not vote for the Senate version because it funds abortions and insurance companies that pay for abortions, and there is no correction in the President's follow-on "fix-it" bill.

These representatives would be among those who actually voted for the previous version of ObamaCare, precisely because they first passed the Stupak Amendment. That means that if they make good their threat, that's a whopping huge hole in Pelosi's previous bare-majority victory.

It all sounds great. I hope it doesn't turn out to be "sound and fury, signifying nothing," with all these Democrats under siege bowing their heads and accepting Party discipline for the sake of the Vision.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 24, 2010, at the time of 4:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4285

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

All sorts of people are making all sorts of pronouncements about this, and I don't think any of them really know.

I'm going with Yogi Berra on this one: it ain't over 'til it's over. We won't know if the votes are there until they call the roll.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste at February 24, 2010 9:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

As I understand it, the reconciliation process can only be used to adjust the budget-- to "reconcile" the amount spent with the amount budgeted (what a concept!)-- and therefore any other item would be impermissible and it could be challenged in court. Then there is the matter that the funding for this has fallen apart, what with the 50-state Cornhusker Kickback, the 50-state Florida Geezer exemption, and passing the "doc fix" outside the bill. In other words, its very nature makes it "irreconcilable."

So suppose by some miracle the House DID pass the "fix" and then passed the Senate bill. The "fix" then has to pass the Senate. Anybody believe Harry Reid could get 51 votes to completely undo the changes he had to put into the bill to get to 60 votes? When there are 18 Dems with their jobs on the line in November?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at February 25, 2010 2:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

And here is the trillion-dollar question: Is Pelosi going to bring this up for a vote until she KNOWS she has the votes? I mean, this is the Last Stand for this issue. If that vote fails, the fat lady sings, right?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at February 25, 2010 2:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

Don't put too much faith in a court challenge. The reconciliation rule is a Senate internal rule created under authorization of Article I of the constitution (which permits each chamber to set its own rules). The courts generally refuse get involved in those things, properly seeing it as a violation of separation of powers.

The ajudicating authority is actually the Senate parlimentarian, a "non-partisan" appointed position. If Reid is sufficiently ruthless, and if the parliamentarian rules in ways Reid doesn't like, he can replace the parliamentarian with someone who will rule the way Reid wants.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste at February 25, 2010 8:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

Except that the reason for the reconciliation rule, again as I understand it, is that tax bills (and spending bills?) must originate in the House, per the Constitution. If the House passes the Senate bill, and it includes taxes, then we have a potential, valid challenge.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at February 25, 2010 10:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

You might not have standing to sue. The courts have been using the issue of standing as a way of ducking these kinds of cases. (You'd think the courts would accept that "being a citizen" would be enough standing, but apparently not.)

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste at February 25, 2010 1:03 PM