Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So can the public option pass the Senate with 51 votes?

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-17-09 12:07 PM
Original message
So can the public option pass the Senate with 51 votes?
There's a lot of talk about the public option coming out of the conference committee and then there wouldn't be a filibuster. But here's my question. Can we even be guaranteed the House bill or something pretty damn close can pass the Senate with only 50 votes?

I could easily see Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad, Lincoln, Pryor, and maybe a ocuple of others not voting for it.

This would be a high stakes gamble for sure. But I know one thing, Sen. Kennedy would need to be there. There's no way we could spare his vote. We got too many conservative Democratic senators that are more worried about protecting insurance companies than helping their constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-17-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Exactly! When it is all said and done who really gives a damn about the other 9 sellouts who
...aren't in favor of a PubOption.

Pass the bill with reconciliation like RayGun and Bush LITERALLY did for the rich and run more progressive candidates against the others
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-17-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. We ought to at least
give the cowards a public face. Let them stand up to Ted Kennedy and vote no. Let their constituents know exactly how little they value them. Demand a voice aye or nay vote with the cameras rolling. I can see the Rachel show that overlays a graphic of just how much insurance money went to each congressman/woman as they vote.

No other way to make them accountable if we don't make them vote publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. CSPAN has video on every vote
You may not hear the "aye" or "nay", but you see them signal thumbs up or down. The votes already are on public record and that has been true for centuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-17-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let's hope Senator Kennedy is well enough to be there...
Let's hope that Senator Kennedy is well enough to attend. I think the greater the delay in voting, the lower the chance that Senator Kennedy will be able to help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. It could pass with 51 votes in reconcilliation if 60 votes can first
be mustered for cloture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I don't think that's right
If its a budget reconciliation bill, debate in the Senate is limited to 10 hours -- no filibuster is possible.

If its not a budget reconciliation bill, a conference report can be filibustered.

At least that's my understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. No, if you get cloture, then it takes 50 votes (plus Biden) to pass
The hard part of passing cloture is getting those 60 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes, with presidential leadership. But we do not have that.
We have been shafted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Third Doctor Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm beginning to believe you.
This recent shuffle forward shuffle back crap has finally pissed me off. I shrugged at the earlier instances but this was hard to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I would rather be WRONG in this case. BUT....
It is hard to deny the evidence before our eyes.

I have been out there SUPPORTING this man and this policy in the face of PA town hall crazies.

And for THIS?

This is the worst moment in Democratic presidential politics since Clinton;s "Welfare Reform" betrayal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'll take 50 + Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. The 60-vote Senate rule is unconstitutional
should be ruled by the Chair as such, and ram the legislation through. Republicans can commit hari kiri for all I care!

No more appeasement!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. can you cite the constitutional provision on which your statement is based?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. US Constitution
Article I, Section 3:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

A simple majority is all the Constitution requires, with a couple of explicit exceptions: A 2/3 vote is required for Senate conviction on impeachment, overriding a veto, and ratifying treaties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Article I Section 5
"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

The flaw in your argument is that the Senate is given free rein to decide the rules of its proceedings, including how and when to limit debate. The passage of legislation still only takes a majority vote, but nothing in the Consitution limits the power of the Senate to decide how and when to proceed to such a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Those 'procedural' rules don't trump the simple majority rule for passing legislation
you must start thinking like a Bolivarian and not like another victim of the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Nah, I'll just stick with thinking like Al Gore, Common Cause, Moveon
All defenders of the filibuster:

Here's Al discussing repub efforts to "cut down a rule that has stood for more than two centuries as a protection for unlimited debate. It has been used for devilish purposes on occasion in American history, but far more frequently, it has been used to protect the right of a minority to make its case. Indeed it has often been cited as a model for other nations struggling to reconcile the majoritarian features of democracy with a respectful constitutional role for minority rights. Ironically, a Republican freshman Senator who supports the party-line opposition to the filibuster here at home, recently returned from Iraq with an inspiring story about the formation of multi-ethnic democracy there. Reporting that he asked a Kurdish leader there if he worried that the majority Shiites would "overrun" the minority Kurds, this Senator said the Kurdish leader responded "oh no, we have a secret weapon?. filibuster." The Senate's tradition of unlimited debate has been a secret weapon in our nation's arsenal of democracy as well. It has frequently serves to push the Senate—and the nation as a whole—toward a compromise between conflicting points of view, to breathe life into the ancient advice of the prophet Isaiah: "Come let us reason together"; to illuminate arguments for which the crowded, busy House of Representatives has no time or patience, to afford any Senator an opportunity to stand in the finest American tradition in support of a principle that he or she believes to be important enough to bring to the attention of the nation. In order to cut down this occasional refuge of a scoundrel, the leadership would cut down the dignity of the Senate itself, diminish the independence of the legislative branch, reduce its power, and accelerate the decline in its stature that is already far advanced. Two-thirds of the American people reject their argument. The nation is overwhelmingly opposed to this dangerous breaking of the Senate's rules. And, so the leadership and the White House have decided to call it a crisis.

But what does Al know?

Or those folks at Common Cause: http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=362177&content_id={B7A6F813-32B4-4353-BDCB-F63E10AB1FA9}¬oc=1


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Link with vote counting by Nate Silver
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Les Streeter Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. YES!!!!! Screw the blue dogs, and the Republicans.
Edited on Tue Aug-18-09 05:49 PM by Les Streeter
Get 30-40 million more people getting health care,and another 10 million willing to go vote in 2010..........against Repubs and Blue Dogs, and FOR Obama care.

Screw any voter, or Republican, or blue dog Dem, who can't see the importance of this issue, and can't figure out the logic of the public option.

Let them shoot themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. No, we can't, or at least we can't as one comprehensive bill
The Senate passes an overall budget resolution in the first half of the year that sets the general parameters of what the budget is going to look like for each of 13 different departments. Then, each of those departments, defense, agriculture, etc have their more exact and legally binding budgets pass before the Senate. (Each budget has to pass the House as well with identical language or else it won't be lawful.)

The process of producing these budget bills is called reconciliation and there are rules that govern what kind of amendments can be added to the different bills governing the different federal agencies. The bill, as passed by the Health,Education, Labor and Pension committee would almost certainly be subject to a challenge under the Byrd Rule for reconciliation. This rule deserves it's own explanation: http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf">Congressional Research Report

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”



Summary

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in some years reconciliation has involved revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation
is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).

During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing
budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included
such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or
reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending
or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.

In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these
practices. The Byrd rule has been extended and modified several times over the
years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).

A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with
instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order
authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter
already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments
or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).

The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally
described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation
instructions.

SNIP

A provision is considered to be extraneous if it falls under one or more of the
following six definitions:

  • it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

  • it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the
    instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

  • it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the
    title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

  • it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely
    incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

  • it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the “budget
    window” covered by the reconciliation measure;10 and

  • it recommends changes in Social Security.



This is a very risky way to attempt to pass health insurance reform. Any piece of legislation is subject to a waiver vote of 3/5ths of the Senate or 60 votes. We could wind up with passing just a mandate, for instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Wow, this really show that reconcilliation is not a magic cure all solution
There really are no easy solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. Without reconciliation it can pass the Senate with 50 votes (Biden casting tie-breaker)

Just challenge the Republicans to engage in a real filibuster.

All filibusters end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. The 60-vote canard only has to do with breaking filibusters
not passing legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
23. Now there is talk about going it alone?
Or is it that the media's propaganda fell through, so now it's time for a change in direction? Plan B perhaps... or is this plan C?
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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