That's the Wall Street Journal's take. Here's another:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/16/846782/-Stupid-headline-tricks

Hmmm, whom to trust? The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Hill, or some guy who makes spends all day justifying the most ineffective Democratic Congress ever?

I'm not saying I approve of this way of going about legislation, just that it's hypocritical for the GOP to be up in arms considering they have backed 17 of the 22 bills passed by reconciliation since 1980. See:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/GOP_backed_17_of_22_reconciliation_bills_passed_since_80.html

Donna, it's not just reconciliation. It's also the "self-executing" b.s.

As a progressive person about most things, I find this Congress to be a sick joke. If you can't just straight-ahead-pass bills with the kinds of majorities the Democrats have now, you either need to find a different job or have a rotten agenda.

Or you are scared that you are violating the will and best interests of the people you are supposed to represent and need to hide your actions from them.

Thanks
JK

More lies from the WSJ to keep us divided.. I don't know much about this manuever but heard about it last evening and saw this article and particular quote from it about the hypocrisy that's being perpetrated by the conservative media on this move.. granted, it would be better if the votes were there (by the way, I support reform but this isnt reform, just another give away to the big corportations who donate to the re-elections of the very people giving them our tax dollars for this program).. but I digress.. the following is from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank..

..."In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?"

http://blog.american.com/?p=11467

If you can't just straight-ahead-pass bills with the kinds of majorities the Democrats have now, you either need to find a different job or have a rotten agenda.

soooooo true.

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for Dinner.
-James Bovard

"granted, it would be better if the votes were there"

What the heck does that mean? Why even bother with a Congress that votes on things then?

If your only excuse is to call tu quoque on the Republicans are you really that much better than them?

THe whole bunch is a clown show.

Sooner or later the slippery slope hits bottom and there is no accountability left.

Well if congress no longer needs to vote on stuff, how about we send them home ?

If you can't just straight-ahead-pass bills with the kinds of majorities the Democrats have now, you either need to find a different job or have a rotten agenda.

This is fine. But please just remember this when the Republicans take control of Congress in November -- when they begin to use all these same strategies to pass legislation.

The Democrats aren't doing anything new here. These procedures have been used for years in Congress.

However, because it's not a War or a Tax Cut, and because it's something that might actually help poor people. Well, now you can't use these procedures. It's improper.

F#*& that. I don't care about health care, it's not why I voted for Obama. But it's nice to see the Dems finally showing they have a spine.

Steve, I think Ive been very critical of both parties.. critical of republicans because by default they are the party of big business and do nothing for the people and of democrats because they have sought to take succor from the same sources that the republicans do... i think my statement is clear.. and reflects this manuever has been used by both parties.. but somehow the republicans conveniently forget and claim to be honorable when theyre are the farthest thing from it... and the right wing mainstream media lies for them...

But please just remember this when the Republicans take control of Congress in November -- when they begin to use all these same strategies to pass legislation.

Right. Because pointing to other stupid behavior is an excuse.

Well, now you can't use these procedures. It's improper.

Why should they need to use these procedures with the majorities they have? Something isn't quite right over there. That real nice feeling I had on Nov 5th, 2008 is loooonnng gone.

We need a new set of "rascals".

"and reflects this manuever has been used by both parties"

So it's OK if both sides abuse the process? I'm still not sure what you're arguing for - If its to say Repubs are corrupt, that seems a bit of a truism. If you want to say this behavior is wrong no matter who engages in it, OK.

jimbo, they dont have the majorities you claim.. in party affiliation they do, but in reality, many dems are really repubs that ran on the democratic party (Dino's) ticket.. unfortunately, Rahm caused them to be part of the democratic party as he pursued them to run for office through his leadership in the DLC... you know that...

Steve, I'll cut to the chase.. if there's a viable public option or a medicare buy in for 50 to 55 and older, I'll support the bill whatever legal way they get it approved and signed by the president... deem and pass is legal no matter how much the opposition lies.. it went to the supreme court to be heard and it was declined which meant the SCOTUS said the original standing remains..I error in favor of the people.. the constitution is written under the premise of government of, for and by the people.. not the corporations..

"if there's a viable public option or a medicare buy in for 50 to 55 and older, I'll support the bill whatever legal way they get it approved and signed by the president"

Big IF - No one knows what is in this bill (though definitely no public option) besides that it needs to be Obama's legacy and there is no other way we can do this besides this bill.

I am completely amazed that no one is addressing cost controls or if they want a public option so bad, just expand Medicare quals. Why we need to go thru this process of shoving stuff thru to shove it thru is mystifying and really does nothing to polish Congress' reputation.

whats the big rush? why aren't they taking time to do it right? I say lets vote all the b***ds out. Too bad the Halifax Gibbet isn't still in use.

Steve says, "I am completely amazed that no one is addressing cost controls or if they want a public option so bad, just expand Medicare quals."

Because its all about appeasement, not good governance.. do you think there's another agenda out there thats much bigger than anything weve been told about?

I say the goals of the current people in power and that means the corporate heads of the largest trans-nationals and the top people in the Bildeberger Group, are to dismantle the aspects of how our govt worked in the past and replace it with more emphasis on the state providing services that the fed used to..

I think thats the secret that were not being told and thats why these bad deals are being struck.. and the people most harmed are the taxpayers and the middle class...

have you noticed how the goal is to privatize everything, including our freeways and water providers.. weve already privatized the operations of the wars and next is still Medicare and Social Security but they havent got the backing of the people as we saw what lack of oversight did to the banks and the people arent ready to buy any sort of sales job that Wall St wont do the same to Soc Sec and Medicare if they get their hands on those deposits.. were going through a paradigm shift in how we are governed and its not pretty.. I firmly believe its all in support of a one world government with the PNAC types in leadership positions..

"think there's another agenda out there thats much bigger"

You lost me there.

But it's nice to see the Dems finally showing they have a spine.

Seriously? If anything, this shows they DON'T have a spine, or a conscience for that matter.
What is so bad about this bill that they dont want a vote & have their name attached to it?

"Why should they need to use these procedures with the majorities they have?"

There are only two viable political parties in this country, so the two parties necessarily cover a very broad spectrum of political views. This is especially true of the Democratic party now that the Republicans are largely the party of the far right and are behaving like nihilists, basically opposing anything not tax cut- or war-related that Democrats support.

It's not really surprising or a sign of ineptitude--though it is very frustrating--that the Democrats have a hard time passing legislation in the face of undivided Republican opposition. And let's remember, health care legislation did pass both the Senate and the House--but a compromise bill wouldn't be able to pass the Senate again because, after Republican Brown was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, the Democrats wouldn't be able to overcome a Republican fillibuster.

Where's the Republican outrage about "majority-rule" and Constitutional principles when it comes to killing legislation by fillibuster? Passing two measures at once through "deem and consent" does rely on a simple majority vote and is therefore far less offensive to democratic principles than the fillibuster.

This isn't a tool to get around having a vote. It's a procedure to get around the Republicans filibuster.

If the Republicans promised not to filibuster, than the Democrats would happily put the bill up for a vote. They have a majority (51) in the Senate. They just don't have a filibuster proof majority(60).

I'm a little surprised more people don't get this.

Justin, Ive never heard it explained that way... why didnt Pelosi and the leadership say it, if its true, as succinctly as you have... sounds like good soundbite material..

Because the Democrats are incompetent idiots.

"This isn't a tool to get around having a vote."

Also, they don't have to explain what the heck is in this bill that everyone is puffing about - Go ahead I dare you.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am beyond caring about how they get it done.

I've been to clinics in five foreign countries (Mexico, germany, slovenia, france, and canada) in the last 10 years, and was amazed every time by the quick, courteous, reasonably priced care and meds.

In contrast to the US, where until recently pharmacies still gouged people for fifty bucks for drugs that have been on the market 75 years;

where the poor get their care in endless lines at ER's;

Where people used to have to buy their HIV drugs from India so they could afford them;

Where babies born in the hospital get a needle stuck in them at age 24 hours to immunize them against an illness they are very unlikely to contract early in life (Hep B, transmitted by dirty needles and sex);

where babies are born and the nurse says "will that be breast or bottle?" and PROVIDES free formula to people too ignorant to know that breastfeeding is much more generally protective against disease than the newborn Hep B shot;

where people with severe dementia and no family around to stop the madness get unnecessary procedures and tests done every single day in a hospital near you;

where the majority of health care dollars spent are on the last six weeks of life in a hospital

where hospice care is woefully underdeveloped and unavailable, because guess what, there's no profits to be had;

Cry me a freaking river about how this gets done.

Justin,

This has nothing to do with reconciliation. Pelosi is proposing a rules tactic in the House, not the Senate. There is no filibuster in the House.

This is simply a politician's way to try to pass unpopular legislation without actually owning up to it. Or, more likely, she knows that the House could not pass the legislation as written because the "majority" itself can't even stomach the serious flaws in the bill.

If Obama and Pelosi were smart, they would break this controversial bill into smaller pieces that everyone can understand and just vote yes or no. I'd bet 75% of it would pass. The rest is crap anyway (bribes, pork barrel, etc.).

In contrast to the US, where until recently pharmacies still gouged people for fifty bucks for drugs that have been on the market 75 years;

where the poor get their care in endless lines at ER's;

Where people used to have to buy their HIV drugs from India so they could afford them;

Where babies born in the hospital get a needle stuck in them at age 24 hours to immunize them against an illness they are very unlikely to contract early in life (Hep B, transmitted by dirty needles and sex);

where babies are born and the nurse says "will that be breast or bottle?" and PROVIDES free formula to people too ignorant to know that breastfeeding is much more generally protective against disease than the newborn Hep B shot;

where people with severe dementia and no family around to stop the madness get unnecessary procedures and tests done every single day in a hospital near you;

where the majority of health care dollars spent are on the last six weeks of life in a hospital

where hospice care is woefully underdeveloped and unavailable, because guess what, there's no profits to be had;

You really think any of that will change?
It wont. For-profit insurance companies & hospitals are still involved. If anything, it will be worse with government involvement. Remember the jokes about $400 hammers?

Absolutely things will change. For starters, there will be enough money in the system to start making strategic infrastructure changes. Like financing and promoting hospice care.

The government already has a "baby-friendly" hospital initiative, where they plead with hospitals to stop giving out free formula. This is the first step in changing the culture of the maternity ward to simply give formula a suspicious and bad name..( as in, oh, we don't believe in formula, bad for the baby, will make you both fat and the baby dumber, etc )Some pathetic number of hospitals, like 5%, have complied. When the government pays a bigger portion of the hospitals' operating costs, it can also demand that hospitals comply with obviously beneficial public health policies.

Likewise, when the government is paying a bigger portion of the bills, it can curtail the ridiculous activity of keeping doomed persons alive. Right now the family is listening to the oncologist say, well, yeah, there's a 10% chance this dying patient will respond to this new chemo regimen...but when the government starts refusing to pay the bill for experiments, guess what, the experiments won't be offered.

When the government pays a bigger portion of the hospitals' operating costs, it can also demand that hospitals comply with obviously beneficial public health policies.

You mean like that hep B shot?

As for baby formula...ever hear of WIC? The government gives formula away.

And the "government" isnt going to be paying anything....WE are.