I'm somewhat surprised to not see any discussion of Graham's comments about Nelson's deal making. Specifically the bit about Nebraska being exempt from the medicaid enrollment increase.
I don't think it's illegal but it is certainly distasteful.
I'm somewhat surprised to not see any discussion of Lamar's comments about Nelson's deal making. Specifically the bit about Nebraska being exempt from the medicaid enrollment increase.
I don't think it's illegal but it is certainly distasteful.
Eh, of all the kinds of bribes that are given out over legislation it hardly sounds like the worst affront.
I'm somewhat surprised to not see any discussion of Lamar's comments about Nelson's deal making. Specifically the bit about Nebraska being exempt from the medicaid enrollment increase.
I don't think it's illegal but it is certainly distasteful.
Eh, of all the kinds of bribes that are given out over legislation it hardly sounds like the worst affront.
It'll even improve the lives of Nebraskans! I mean, it's dumb we're not doing it nationwide, but at least it's not waste.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm somewhat surprised to not see any discussion of Lamar's comments about Nelson's deal making. Specifically the bit about Nebraska being exempt from the medicaid enrollment increase.
I don't think it's illegal but it is certainly distasteful.
Eh, of all the kinds of bribes that are given out over legislation it hardly sounds like the worst affront.
Oh, I agree. I was just shocked to hear something from an R that wasn't completely stupid.
While I'd rather it not happen, I'd rather it happen along with a bill than no bill at all.
Someone earlier in this thread suggested the House simply choosing to take the Senate Bill part and parcel in order to avoid another cloture vote and any potential shenanigans with Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
Someone earlier in this thread suggested the House simply choosing to take the Senate Bill part and parcel in order to avoid another cloture vote and any potential shenanigans with Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
See, this is why abolishing the Senate would be fine. Since the Senate version of any given bill is the only bill that really matters, we already have a de facto unicameral Congress, because what the Senate says, goes. And it would be better if the one chamber were the House instead of the Senate.
Someone earlier in this thread suggested the House simply choosing to take the Senate Bill part and parcel in order to avoid another cloture vote and any potential shenanigans with Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
See, this is why abolishing the Senate would be fine. Since the Senate version of any given bill is the only bill that really matters, we already have a de facto unicameral Congress, because what the Senate says, goes. And it would be better if the one chamber were the House instead of the Senate.
At the very least apply the same damn rules to both Houses voting wise (majority rules!).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Someone earlier in this thread suggested the House simply choosing to take the Senate Bill part and parcel in order to avoid another cloture vote and any potential shenanigans with Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
See, this is why abolishing the Senate would be fine. Since the Senate version of any given bill is the only bill that really matters, we already have a de facto unicameral Congress, because what the Senate says, goes. And it would be better if the one chamber were the House instead of the Senate.
At the very least apply the same damn rules to both Houses voting wise (majority rules!).
Ironically the rules incorporated so as to govern the procedure of the House are Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States by Thomas Jefferson.
Someone earlier in this thread suggested the House simply choosing to take the Senate Bill part and parcel in order to avoid another cloture vote and any potential shenanigans with Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
See, this is why abolishing the Senate would be fine. Since the Senate version of any given bill is the only bill that really matters, we already have a de facto unicameral Congress, because what the Senate says, goes. And it would be better if the one chamber were the House instead of the Senate.
At the very least apply the same damn rules to both Houses voting wise (majority rules!).
Ironically the rules incorporated so as to govern the procedure of the House are Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States by Thomas Jefferson.
I hate the Senate so much.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.
Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.
McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Very, very loosely interpreted might apply? I don't see any other clause that would prevent it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.
Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.
McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Bluster or substance?
Not sure, but it doesn't really matter after we get Nelson's vote. If the Medicaid deal turns out to be unconstitutional then it'll get taken out and we'll still have health insurance reform.
moniker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
The flipside to the Senate's supermajority requirement is that once this passes, it's never going to un-pass.
Yeah, GOP's not going to have all three chambers again in enough time to repeal it. Benefits start in 2014; I can't see them sweeping Congress and the White House before that. And veto-proof majorities, forget it.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Just for fun. This came about as a group effort in a Fark thread about how the Senate's been getting by on takeout pad Thai, cafeteria panini and office cookies in order to get through this thing, and I thought it was good enough to bring over here:
Day 32 - Another cloture vote. Joe Lieberman refused to budge until Harry Reid agreed to give Connecticut a pony. We're down to our last Nutri-bar and the GOP has their goons surrounding the last vending machine in an effort to starve us out. I don't think we'll make it past the next roll call. Franken says we have to do something. He says Robert Byrd has a stash of Wheat Thins in his office. Al thinks we can take him. My god, has it really come to this?
Day 33
They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates, but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes. Drums, drums in the deep.
Day 34
A few Capital security guards, bribed with the promise of pay raises, escorted a pizza delivery man into the chamber. Six pies, all cheese, all cold. It is enough food, if rationed, to keep us to week's end. We tipped as well as we could, but it is unlikely he will make it back to his car alive.
Day 35
The genie of Citadel station is out of the bottle, and I am the cause. I can't bear to be Pandora. And I'm not brave enough to wait around and see the death and misery I have caused... This is my last transmission, my friend. Be careful... I think SHODAN has plans for you.
Day 36
Today Klobuchar turned into a giant anthropomorphic hamburger with legs. Salvation!
Day 40
Pizza is gone. Cloture may now be impossible; the recently deceased Senator Byrd was taken last night by a group of Blue Dogs armed with commemorative pens and a mad look in their eyes. Only those ruthless enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage may survive. Why has Reid forsaken us?
Day 41
I've been told by one of our high staffers that it may be possible to complete the summoning ritual for Kennedy....it may be our only hope.
Day 42
summoning ritual has failed. Ye Liveliest Awfulness now roams the Senate halls, consuming staffers too slow witted to avoid its unnatural hungers. Cloture more in doubt than ever before. Research continues.
Day 43
I hear His call in my sleep. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn" He calls to me. He hungers for blood. We've used up all the interns and Franken looks weak. His rhetoric won't save him now. We'll take him. We'll take him at dawn.
Day 44:
I pitied Franken; my pity amounted to horror: I abhorred myself. . . .I knew that I was preparing for myself a deadly torture; but I was the slave, not the master of an impulse, which I detested, yet could not disobey
Day 45
Fought off group of insurance company lobbyists today. skirmish in meeting room 38b, second floor. Artillery support was lacking and they almost had us, but a rampaging group of bluedogs crossed trails with lobbyists. The lobbyists fought well, but they went down in a hail of tic tacs, impaled in a pungi pit built from gum and sharpened pencils. their screams haunt me still.
Day 46
We decided to take hostages. It seems fitting that we got the senior senator from Arizona first.
Day 47
My god, where did she come from? She hit us like an Alaskan hurricane, a whirling maelstrom of spite, folksiness and you betcha. Feingold went down first with a spear through the chest. Leahy tried to put up a fight, but the old guy never stood a chance. She was the Queen of the Tundra, a raging angel of death come down from Real America to smite the infidels. I would pray to God, but it's clear he's abandoned us.
Day 48
The Banshee is still wailing within our walls. My dreams were haunted. Little sleep last night. The battle wears on. My fellows are weakened and hungry since the pizza is gone.
There's no sign of any more delivery at this point.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
The flipside to the Senate's supermajority requirement is that once this passes, it's never going to un-pass.
Yeah, GOP's not going to have all three chambers again in enough time to repeal it. Benefits start in 2014; I can't see them sweeping Congress and the White House before that. And veto-proof majorities, forget it.
Again, the GOP doesn't need majorities because the same conservadems that grudgingly voted for this bill will happily vote to take away the benefits. This is how our Congress works. As soon as they have the White House again, they're going to try, and odds are decent they'll succeed, unless there really was a realignment away from Reaganism.
I'm going to be completely unsurprised if Social Security and Medicare get gutted next year because of a similar phenomenon and an absurd belief that it has to be done among "moderates" and the President goes along with it because only Nixon can go to China or some bullshit.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
No, it's vulnerable only as long as the benefits haven't kicked in. Once they do, once people start recieving and grow to appreciate them, the backlash will start on anyone trying to take them back. The term 'bait-and-switch' will come into play- 'I paid you all that money and now you're going to take away my benefits just when I'm about to start getting something back?! RAAAAARGH!"
They'll back off in a hell of a hurry. God help the poor schmuck tasked with introducing the bill in the first place.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I think you underestimate the Senate's callousness and overestimate its responsiveness to the electorate. If there's one thing we all should have learned over the past 10 months or so it's the Senate could give a shit what the public thinks.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
And if there's one thing I've learned over the past 10 months it's that the public is just in a perpetually angry mood right now and are liable to go absolutely batshit if they feel something's been taken away from them. Something. Anything.
To the point where part of Congress is making active efforts to avoid meeting with constituents. (And on some level I have to sympathize. I know it's their job, but really, forget what your job is, if you knew you were going to get screamed at and called a Nazi socialist impure heathen all day long, would you want to go into work that day?)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.
So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.
Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.
Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.
Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a surplus without gutting entitlement programs, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "THEY'RE GOING TO REPEAL NEW DEAL PROGRAMS NEXT YEAR HOLY FUCK" from.
So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.
Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.
Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a surplus without gutting entitlement programs, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "THEY'RE GOING TO REPEAL NEW DEAL PROGRAMS NEXT YEAR HOLY FUCK" from.
Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.
Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.
Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.
Time to break out the supervirus I guess
It's called The Flu.
Cantido on
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited December 2009
Also, the governor of Nebraska is now asking that the carve-out bribe that Nelson insisted upon be removed from the bill. Nelson has agreed to remove it in conference if the governor insists.
I will be kind of surprised if the governor is willing to take it that far. The bribe is some bullshit, but is the whole basic reason that Nebraska maintains senior democratic senators.
Also, the governor of Nebraska is now asking that the carve-out bribe that Nelson insisted upon be removed from the bill. Nelson has agreed to remove it in conference if the governor insists.
I will be kind of surprised if the governor is willing to take it that far. The bribe is some bullshit, but is the whole basic reason that Nebraska maintains senior democratic senators.
There's also this.
The attorneys general from seven states -- South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington -- are investigating whether a deal given to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is legal. The AGs, all Republicans, are looking into the deal, which granted Nebraska 100 percent federal funding, in perpetuity, to pay for a Medicaid increase -- something no other states get. Nelson was the 60th vote needed to pass health care reform out of the Senate.
I'm watching CSPAN2 right now waiting for them to get to the final cloture vote, but I'm considering just going to bed. They have 6 points of order (they're on the second now) before they get to it, and every vote from here on out is supposed to last 10 minutes. The last one was about 15 minutes I believe. I don't know how the Senate gets anything done.
EDIT: Final vote's been bumped up to 7am tomorrow for those interested.
Bullio on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited December 2009
Oh I doubt the legality question will go anywhere. Much worse has gone through the Senate in recent memory, the US AG is a Dem, and the Senate Ethics panel has been a partisan joke since forever. It's just a publicity stunt.
"Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is on the floor right now introducing an amendment which would prohibit the practice of giving senators earmarks in exchange for votes. He's also suggesting a point of order to strike any such earmarks -- such as Nelson's Medicaid deal -- from the health care bill.
...
Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment to prohibit trading earmarks for votes was tabled, 53 to 46."
Opportunistic, double-standard, hypocritical fuckhole. Consensus only has objective value when polls dip down for some democratic cause.
Posts
I didn't realize Medicaid was so great. I always thought it was subpar compared to the average private plan &c. but that sounds pretty good.
I don't think it's illegal but it is certainly distasteful.
If the bus line outside my house ran every 5 minutes, I would be fucking THRILLED. Instead it's 15 minutes, which can lead to disaster.
Eh, of all the kinds of bribes that are given out over legislation it hardly sounds like the worst affront.
It'll even improve the lives of Nebraskans! I mean, it's dumb we're not doing it nationwide, but at least it's not waste.
Oh, I agree. I was just shocked to hear something from an R that wasn't completely stupid.
While I'd rather it not happen, I'd rather it happen along with a bill than no bill at all.
Well, it appears that the House is going to either largely accede to the Senate version, or just pass it entirely.
To be honest, it was a cheap and easy bribe to do.
See, this is why abolishing the Senate would be fine. Since the Senate version of any given bill is the only bill that really matters, we already have a de facto unicameral Congress, because what the Senate says, goes. And it would be better if the one chamber were the House instead of the Senate.
At the very least apply the same damn rules to both Houses voting wise (majority rules!).
Ironically the rules incorporated so as to govern the procedure of the House are Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States by Thomas Jefferson.
I hate the Senate so much.
See also: Republicans can pass things easily.
Bluster or substance?
Very, very loosely interpreted might apply? I don't see any other clause that would prevent it.
Not sure, but it doesn't really matter after we get Nelson's vote. If the Medicaid deal turns out to be unconstitutional then it'll get taken out and we'll still have health insurance reform.
Yeah, GOP's not going to have all three chambers again in enough time to repeal it. Benefits start in 2014; I can't see them sweeping Congress and the White House before that. And veto-proof majorities, forget it.
Again, the GOP doesn't need majorities because the same conservadems that grudgingly voted for this bill will happily vote to take away the benefits. This is how our Congress works. As soon as they have the White House again, they're going to try, and odds are decent they'll succeed, unless there really was a realignment away from Reaganism.
I'm going to be completely unsurprised if Social Security and Medicare get gutted next year because of a similar phenomenon and an absurd belief that it has to be done among "moderates" and the President goes along with it because only Nixon can go to China or some bullshit.
They'll back off in a hell of a hurry. God help the poor schmuck tasked with introducing the bill in the first place.
To the point where part of Congress is making active efforts to avoid meeting with constituents. (And on some level I have to sympathize. I know it's their job, but really, forget what your job is, if you knew you were going to get screamed at and called a Nazi socialist impure heathen all day long, would you want to go into work that day?)
I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.
This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.
Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.
Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a surplus without gutting entitlement programs, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "THEY'RE GOING TO REPEAL NEW DEAL PROGRAMS NEXT YEAR HOLY FUCK" from.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.
Time to break out the supervirus I guess
It's called The Flu.
I will be kind of surprised if the governor is willing to take it that far. The bribe is some bullshit, but is the whole basic reason that Nebraska maintains senior democratic senators.
There's also this.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/health-care/?ref=fpb#309839
I'm watching CSPAN2 right now waiting for them to get to the final cloture vote, but I'm considering just going to bed. They have 6 points of order (they're on the second now) before they get to it, and every vote from here on out is supposed to last 10 minutes. The last one was about 15 minutes I believe. I don't know how the Senate gets anything done.
EDIT: Final vote's been bumped up to 7am tomorrow for those interested.
Just so you know, he won the last election because he was more Republican than the Republican that ran against him.
...
Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment to prohibit trading earmarks for votes was tabled, 53 to 46."
Opportunistic, double-standard, hypocritical fuckhole. Consensus only has objective value when polls dip down for some democratic cause.
So now the only remaining vote is tomorrow at 7.