Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fineman just told Keith that the public option can't be in a bill going to Reconciliation

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
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:12 PM
Original message
Fineman just told Keith that the public option can't be in a bill going to Reconciliation
He said it was because of "some archane" rule. No details, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. He has said this several times in the last few days. I don't
understand what this is all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsamuels0078 Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. hardball
he said that on hardball
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes he did, But again he didn't explain why. And neither did
Tweety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. This was the first I heard it said
Maybe someone can give us some details. But I read here where people are wanting to go to Reconciliation with the public option included. So it gets confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. 'Budget Reconciliation', Ma'am, is The Full name Of The Thing
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 07:25 PM by The Magistrate
It applies only to measures altering the expenditure of Federal funds in already existing channels. A law which said 'everyone is covered by Medicare, end of story' would qualify for the process, because it would simply alter how that program's budget is spent. A law which says 'we are creating a new office to administer a public insurance program' would not qualify, since it involves more than altering an existing budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Thank you. The 'budget' is not usually mentioned when they
speak of reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. People get confused with the two concepts regularly.
I think they're trying to limit the already too-large number of people that think that passing the annual budget is the same thing as going through a budget reconciliation process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. A concise, accurate explanation. Thank you.
Another way to put it would be to allow everyone to buy into medicare - that would make it through reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. he said the same on Hardball. Duers posted more details on this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8599936
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Great, thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Think it's the Byrd Rule, when affecting the budget, causing anyone to object and pick apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. but the Bryd rule was satisfied by a line inserted in the budget
particularly to permit reconcilliation on a health care bill containing public option. Fineman was corrected by Larry O'Donnell about this after first writing but he continues to mis-inform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Fineman liked Bush, so understand that. Asked on another thread about budget line. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Some details here from Ezra Klein.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8599936&mesg_id=8599954
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Thanks to you, too, PS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
14. He's wrong
They could pick whoever they want to be the Senate Parliamentarian. Whatever that guy decides is allowed, is allowed.

http://openleft.com/diary/14693/senate-parliamentarian-hired-by-republicans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well that's an interesting twist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. True Enough, Doctor
And raw enough to appeal to me personally as a course of action....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. The plot thickens. I found this article:
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 07:43 PM by alsame
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk


Alan Frumin May Rise From Obscurity to Craft Senate Health Bill
By Brian Faler

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The central figure in Congress’s struggle to craft health-care legislation may be someone who’s neither a Democratic nor Republican lawmaker, or an elected official of any kind. He’s Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian.

snips

That move would enable Senate Democrats to pass a bill with 51 votes, rather than the 60 typically needed for contentious legislation. Under Senate rules, it also would give Frumin, 62, broad authority to decide which portions of the Democrats’ bill are relevant to the budget and empower him to delete provisions he considers unrelated.

“You’d end up with the parliamentarian of the United States Senate writing a health-care bill,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.

Provisions of a health-care plan Frumin may remove, lawmakers say, include a proposal barring insurers from denying coverage, the creation of a government-run insurance program and efforts to encourage preventive medicine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. And when did Fineman serve in Congress?
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 07:56 PM by Clio the Leo
Was he on any of the same committees Joe Biden or the President were?

Where did he sit on the House floor in relation to Rahm?

Did he and Hillary ever do lunch during any of his time in office?

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I am sure cleverly wording the legislation can work.
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 10:06 PM by Jennicut
" The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor." http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm
It depends on what the Parliamentarian allows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I guess we can kill the messenger but I think he was just passing along what he's heard
Evidently, it is a hurdle to what we'd like to see remain in the bill. But from what's been discussed around here in DU, it looks like there's a way to work around it.

What can I tell you, I'm a worry wort. :shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Actually not. His sources called him on his error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
22. I have revised my opinion on this
the arcane rule, as read, appears to rule in anything that increses the budget deficit. As long as the PO isn't revenue neutral, it should be able to go in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
23. Great, now I'm much less sure we will get a public option if it can't be done thru reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Fineman is wrong. Larry O'Donnel has gone through this
several times. Public option can go through reconcilliation while some revenue neutral insurance reforms could not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. Rep Vanhollen(sp>) said on MSNBC this morning that there would be
3 parts, which sounds exactly like what Howard Dean said. Presumably, public option would be it's own bill, and in that case, as I understand it, it COULD go through reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. You are right about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. He said he "heard" and he's "pretty sure" and other things less than 100% confidence. n/t
Edited on Thu Aug-20-09 02:39 PM by jenmito
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:09 PM
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