The Obama administration may use the 'Budget Reconciliation Process' to pass the budget
By John Amato Monday Mar 02, 2009 4:00pm
If you really want to see conservative heads explode, then hope for the budget reconciliation process to be put in effect by the Obama administration. Here's Peter Orzag on THIS WEEK:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And in order to get it, though, you saw how difficult it was to actually spend money, give benefits with the stimulus package. You're scrapping for those three Republican votes. Some key Democrats on Capitol Hill are saying, if you want to do all of these big projects this year, you're going to have to follow what is called the reconciliation process, put health care, put energy inside the reconciliation process so that the effect of it is you only need 51 votes, not 60. Is that the administration's intention?
ORSZAG: I think it's premature to be figuring out the
legislative strategy exactly right now.STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're not ruling it out?
ORSZAG: It's not where we go first, but we have to keep
everything on the table. We want to get these -- these important
things done this year.
You may remember that the Republicans almost pulled the trigger on the nuclear option by the mad doctor Bill Frist because they were power hungry madmen and were whining about their judge appointments even though over 90% had actually gone through. This is a procedure that is legal for Obama to use if he so chooses. I hope it doesn't come to that, but he can't have his budget decimated by whining conservatives or half baked Democrats like Ben Nelson and then have them vote against it.
Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.
Howie likes it very much:
If you watched ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning you may have been as cheered as I was to hear Obama's brilliant young OMB head Peter Orszag, unveil a potent weapon that can be used to defuse the Republicans' filibuster-everything tactic. If Reid invokes the budget reconciliation process to deal with the budget-- as he should-- the Republicans won't be able to filibuster and even if a couple of far right Democrats like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln defect, the budget will still pass handily-- with or without the 3 mainstream Republicans. I can hear Miss McConnell, Kyl, Cornyn and the rest of the obstructionists bellowing now!
Gives a little oomph to the "Bring It On" response we heard from the Obama Administration last week in regard to lobbyists and obstructionists claiming they would eviscerate the budget.
Login or Register to post comments.
President Barack Obama is truly the protector of the Commonwealth whereas Rush Limbaugh is the protector of the fiefdom.
I have to say that I'm very impressed with Orszag. I think he's one of the best appointments Obama has made so far.
(And it would be poetic justice if they used the same process to pass health care and energy reform that the Bushies used to pass those massive tax cuts.)
Will support the budget. He has to because he will be running for re-election next year in the clearly blue state of Pennsylvania.
by his own party before that happens. On Rush Limbaugh's orders, he's going to get whacked for collaborating with the other crew, and they'll replace him in the primary with some extremist in a KKK sheet. Chalk up another Democratic senator from Pennsylvania.
Yeah, Sphincter probably will not even run again. He's old and has had cancer twice. He may not want to deal with this again and that was why Tweety was interested in running because the seat will be up for grabs and will be difficult for a Republican to win. Tweety bailed out when the Democrats told him to blow and he realized he would have to step away from hid day gig.
Blue dawgs hold the whip-hand, if not the nutz.
what concessions will be 'necessary"?
Bust a foot off. This is what these simpering idiots need.
And give them some of the Johnson Treatment, one on one, up close and personal. You got the height. Use it -- for us.
David E. RePass has a column in today's NYTimes recommending that Sen. Reid just allow the Repubs to filibuster all they like:
"...And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin.
"Some argue that this procedure would mire the Senate in one filibuster after another. But avoiding delay by not bringing measures to the floor makes no sense. For fear of not getting much done, almost nothing is done at all. And what does get done is so compromised and toothless to make it filibuster-proof that it fails to solve problems.
Better to risk a filibuster — an event that, because of the great effort involved, would actually be rare — than to save time and accomplish little or nothing.
It also happens to make a great deal of political sense for the Democrats to force the Republicans to take the Senate floor and show voters that they oppose Mr. Obama’s initiatives. If the Republicans want to publicly block a popular president who is trying to resolve major problems, let them do it. And if the Republicans feel that the basic principles they believe in are worth standing up for, let them exercise their minority rights with an actual filibuster."
For a long time, I've thought that was a great idea. About time to make the bums put up or shut up.
Although I agree that Reid should use the Budget Recon Process to get the budget passed, he MUST break the Repub's backs, and soon!
On last night's Hardball, Matthews hosted Trent Lott and John Brough to talk about filibusters - and threats thereof. My main complaint is that he failed to hold Lott's feet to the fire for the GOP's blanket filibuster threats in 2007-08 session. It was Lott who made the rounds of Fox, on 11/8/06, telling all who'd listen, that "It ALWAYS takes 60 votes to move ANYTHING through the senate." The GOP set a new record for the number of times a cloture vote was demanded by the minority party.
With the next bill - after the budget - Reid should hold an immediate cloture vote. When it fails with 58 votes, he should just say "start talkin'" and sit down - no prep, no "rolling in the cots" spectacle, coordinated with Fox News... - rather than just accepting the implied filibuster of EVERY bill.
If Harry won't do it, how do we move him to a back-bench? Maybe we can get a real fighter to lead - I want Boxer! (of course that would mean both houses led by women, so we'd have to topple Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi. Fine. I think Barney Frank would make a GREAT Speaker - AND, he's still historic - the first gay speaker!)
.
"If Reid invokes the budget reconciliation process to deal with the budget-- as he should--"
Oh shit, I get a bad feeling that good old Harry "Stern Letter" Reid will roll over on this if it actually comes down to it. With friends like that worthless POS who needs the opposition..
That's why I wouldn't depend on it happening. Depending on Harry Reid for an underhanded parliamentary maneuver is like making Mr. Rogers the boss of the Gambino family.
Wasn't that guy in DEVO???
I hope they do this after 6 years of the rethugs telling the dems to go screw themselves it about time the dems do unto otheres what has been done unto them...plus reid can keep his balls safely where he has kept them in a jar on his night stand without fear of haveing the rethugs go boo and reid's balls shrivel up and he caves ...and to mary landrieu go pound sand from one of the people that HAD to vote for you or vote rethug... what a choice huh?? twiddle dipshyt or twiddle dipshytyer
Quite a bit of this discussion supports a view of how to resolve all of this conflict, as put forth by someone who sought admission to the Institute for Applied Common Sense, but whose request was rejected.
That solution? Simply divide the country up geographically, and peaceably allow people to shift to the section which conforms to their beliefs. Sort of a negotiated civil division without the war.
According to our colleague, we should have done this a long time ago. He feels that it's almost ludicrous to think that people with such widely varying views of the world and life can live together in any type of productive fashion.
He also argues that people will gladly pick up and leave the area where they previously lived, if they knew that like-minded citizens would be in their neighborhoods, and vote for the same candidates and policies consistent with their beliefs. In fact, he contends that there would be no need for debate and checks and balances in government. Group Think and Group Speak would smooth out lots of issues.
Homogeneity, at least in terms of basic core values, would rule the day. He submits that mixing people together, who do not wish to be together, i.e. a forced melting pot, has nothing but negative ramifications.
"voluntary" ideological cleansing sounds so much cleaner than 'eviction and displacement'...
Login or Register to post comments.