Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Adam Green on ED Show states (and names each Senator) that there are 51 votes for a PO in the Senate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 06:16 PM
Original message
Adam Green on ED Show states (and names each Senator) that there are 51 votes for a PO in the Senate
Elijah Cummings (D) Maryland on now stating that House doesn't trust Senate - even with the supposed commitments mentioned by Adam Green. Doesn't look like we're getting anywhere yet :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pelosi said the House gave the Senate a PO before, and they're not going to do it again.
(I'd be pissed, too.) But with Bernie standing by to do something in the Senate, and with a real 51 votes, what can we do to get Nancy to reconsider? Do we need her to, or could it conceivably be done all in the Senate? (That was hard to type without a :spray:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. If there are truly 51 votes for the PO in the Senate, why doesn't the Senate go back and pass that
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 06:42 PM by 4lbs
House bill they got several months ago, that had the PO in it?

Then they can vote on the final bill the day after.

Why does the House have to first pass the bill + PO again?

Why can't the Senate just simply put the PO in their current bill and pass it first? Or pass that House bill that had the PO that was then given to the Senate several months ago?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. House has to agree to include PO in reconciliation bill
So far, no dice :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The problem with that...
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 06:56 PM by damonm
is the House bill has that abomination known as the Sestak Amendment.

(edit for typo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Stupak Abomination
not to be confused with the more honorable Sestak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. WUP! Sorry - I stand corrected.
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 12:13 AM by damonm
The name NOT being close to "STUPID" shoulda clued me in...will fix it on edit.
(on edit - too late to fix the original error, dammit!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I knew who you were talking about
I'm sure most everyone else did too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That would require 60 votes, that's why.
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 07:41 PM by stopbush
Either House can elect top pass without changes a bill from the other House, but the prevailing rules of each House would apply. In the case of the Senate passing the House version, it would mean a super majority of 60 votes.

That's why the only option right now is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is - they only need a simple majority in the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. What does this mean, please.
"Either House can elect top pass without changes a bill from the other House, but the prevailing rules of each House would apply"

It's not clear to me. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. If the Senate has to pass the original version of the House Bill, they would need 60 votes to bring
cloture, not 50 as will be needed to make changes with reconciliation. The PO would be better off coming from the House side because with the reconciliation process is could be bogged down with Rethug amendments and the Dems will go to the Senate Parliamentarian and ask him to stop all amendments (because Rethugs are obstructing the bill). It could get really tricky to get the PO through an amendment.
The issue is the House, rightfully so, does not trust the Senate. The House could put the PO in and then it could be rejected by the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Thanks Jennicut. Why wouldn't they need 60 then with a new PO from the House?
I don't know. We've come this far. It seems like if they were serious they'd push a new PO through the house if that's what they had to do. It would be vastly more popular than the other bill and would help the party come November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. The House will pass the Senate bill and then I believe must draft what changes
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 08:42 AM by Jennicut
will be in the reconciliation bill, and can include a public option in that. Then they send it to the Senate where it takes only 50 votes (plus Biden if needed to break a tie) because of the use of reconciliation. I believe this is the process but I need to research it a bit more. It is so arcane and confusing, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think it's the leadership's last excuse. It's their final stand. Procedurally
bureaucratically we can't find a way to do this even though we all want it. Are people buying this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Here's how it goes.
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 02:08 PM by stopbush
Any Senator or Representative may introduce a bill in their respective House of Congress. The proposed bill gets a cosigner or 10 and is scheduled (or not) for the debate and voting schedule of the respective House. Once the bill passes either House, it must be approved by the other House before it can go to the president's desk for signature or veto. Either House could present a bill from the other House as is for a vote.

On most bills - especially large bills like HCR - both Houses work on their own versions of the bill. Each bill will usually have significant differences when compared to each other. Once the Senate & House pass their respective bills, the bills usually go to a conference committee. This committee works out the differences between the two bills and merges them into ONE bill. That bill is then sent back to both Houses for approval, as it is no longer the original bill that was passed. That merged bill must pass each House based on it's rules. In the HoR, that means a simple majority vote. In the Senate, it means the 60-vote super majority.

In the case of the current HCR legislation, both Houses have passed their own versions. Normally, the two bills would go to conference and a single merged bill would emerge to be voted on by both Houses. And there's the rub - since the Ds now have only 59 votes in the Senate, a merged bill would not pass the Senate unless a few Rs crossed over and voted with the Ds. There's also the chance that the merged bill would lose a few D votes, votes from conservative Ds who voted for the original Senate bill because they were bought off with pork. That pork would most likely be removed from a merged bill.

If a merged bill failed in the Senate, it would kill HCR for this Congress. If it was killed this time around, most Congress critters would be loathe to take it up again.

Which brings us to where we are. We know that no merged HCR bill will make it through the Senate as it is now comprised. That means that the only option is to fore go the conference committee and have the House vote on the Senate version that was passed. That means throwing out the House version completely. This scenario has a chance because Pelosi need only round up a simple majority - 216 votes - to pass the Senate version. Bills pass in the House with a simple majority. They pass in the Senate with a super majority. Once the present HCR Senate version is passed in the HoR, it goes to the president and is signed into law. The process could have been reversed if, say, the Ds had picked up 2-3 seats in the Senate and lost the House in the last election. Then, the Senate would have been in a position to toss its version and pass the House version.

Reconciliation is a process that is like a conference committee, except that it is limited to items in the now-passed Act that effect the budget, AND it requires only a simple majority to pass in BOTH Houses. Reconciliation happens after the bill becomes an Act. So, reconciliation could insert the PO because the PO saves money. Reconciliation could not address the Stupak Amendment because it has no impact on the budget. Reconciliation requires only a simple majority in BOTH Houses to pass because it is dealing only with items in the legislation that effect the budget directly.

The problem with reconciliation is that the House Ds must trust the Senate Ds that there will be reconciliation AND that some provisions that were in the tossed House version (like the PO) but that weren't in the Senate version will be allowed to be added to the Act as amendments during the reconciliation process. There is the very real possibility that the Senate would screw the House and decide not to go to reconciliation AFTER their version of the HCR bill became law. Even if the Senate does go to reconciliation, there's no guarantee that the Senate could muster a 51-vote majority to vote for the PO if it was added as an amendment.


Hope that helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Now THAT was a truly WORTHLESS post.
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 07:03 PM by stopbush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Thank you.
Edited for caps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Edited to remove text that could have been considered attacking a fellow DUer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Great explanation! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Cummings is right: I wouldn't trust the Senate either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. He also said it would "muddy up" the process so we may not get a reconciliation bill passed.
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 09:21 PM by jenmito
If it's not relevant to finances, it could need 60 votes and then the whole THING can be killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yanno...I think Sanders and Grayson are onto something
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 11:14 PM by DearAbby
the way to get a Public option through, is with a stand alone bill. It is too popular for Senators to vote against it this close to election. Seriously, this may be the way.

Edit: a big honorable mention to the Congressman from NY, Anthony Weiner :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. A stand-alone bill on the PO would need 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Where would those come from? The Ds have only 59 votes, at best. Every R will vote against the PO in the Senate and maybe even a few conservative Ds.

Grayson's bill could well pass the House. After all, the House ALREADY passed a PO in their HCR bill. There's no reason to think it wouldn't pass again. But the problem with a standalone bill is that it needs 60 votes to pass the Senate. That's why reconciliation with its lower threshold is the only possibility for getting a PO passed at this time.

In short, a stand-alone bill will fail in the Senate, so what's the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yes! PO please!!!!!!
without PO there is no limit to what the private insurers can
jack up premiums for all customers. They have no competition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
26. As Cenk (of TYT) predicted...even with 51 senators the Dems will NOT want to pass a PO.
cuz they are owned by the industry -- they pay them and so since the industry doesnt want the PO then no matter what it will not be part of the bill. Cenk predicted this would happen and also mentioned that most of the senators on this list are only on it just so they can not seem like the bad guy even if they had no intentions of voting for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC