<iframe src=" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Reconciliation
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/25/harry-reid/reid-says-repblicans-have-used-reconciliation-more/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/25/harry-reid/reid-says-repblicans-have-used-reconciliation-more/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<A HREF="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/25/harry-reid/reid-says-repblicans-have-used-reconciliation-more/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
The RepubliKlan strategy for dealing with inconvenient truths has always been to Lie!, Lie! & Lie!
Who can forget the massive Republiklan lie during the BuShit administration - "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Now with the always available 24/7 assistance of the the RepubliKlan Noise Machine the RepubliKlans are now lying to the brain-addled core of their base about how reconciliation is used in the legislative process.
The video and article below quickly debunks the serial prevarications of the unashamed RepubliKlan bloviators.
If you want to know why the Lie!, Lie! & Lie! Strategy works so well with the RepubliKlan brain-addled base, <b>even though the lies are so easy to prove as false, look at the passage below.</b>
<blockquote><font color="#240466" size="4" face="tahoma"><b>
Functional illiteracy in North America is epidemic. There are 7 million illiterate Americans. Another 27 million are unable to read well enough to complete a job application, and 30 million can’t read a simple sentence. There are some 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate – a figure that is growing by more than 2 million a year. A third of high-school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives, and neither do 42 percent of college graduates. In 2007, 80 percent of the families in the United States did not buy or read a book.</b></font></blockquote>
[/color] by Chris Hedges page 44
</font>
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc743039"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=35679836&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc743039" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=35679836&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
The Republicans' Big Lie About Reconciliation
by E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, March 4, 2010; pg.A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097_pf.html
<br>For those who feared that Barack Obama did not have any Lyndon Johnson in him, the president's determination to press ahead and get health-care reform done in the face of Republican intransigence came as something of a relief.
<br>Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.
<br>Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health-care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.
<br>He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health-care summit. What he's (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.
<br>Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.
<br>It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.
<br>In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."
<br>No. <em>The</em> health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?
<br>Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
<br>Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package," which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.
<br>Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
<br>The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.
<br>I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.
<br>It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.
ok quit talking about it and DO IT....
let s be real...the republicans have lied about it all.....
so we need to stop fronting like they will ever be truthful...
so we need to stop fronting like they will ever be truthful...
They're not going to pull that trigger until they know they have all the votes.
I know it and you know it.
I say "Fuck 'Em" and pull the trigger and pass the bill to the President. Let him sign it, claim victory and keep it moving. The Repubs are going to give them hell if they do or if they don't. The American public's never been too keen on what's good for them. 
Don't believe? Explain 8 years of Bush! 
Don't believe? Explain 8 years of Bush!
60% super majority is a joke any way.
Senator Judd Gregg (R) New Hampshire was for it before he was against it!
Republicans
Republicans
2005 vs. 2010
[<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Senator Judd Gregg (R) New Hampshire was for it before he was against it!
Republicans
2005 vs. 2010
[<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFzFAAqPbMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I say:
"Bring 'em on"
source: Christian Science Monitor
Republicans rage against reconciliation for healthcare reform
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell vowed to fight any Democratic effort to pass healthcare reform on an 'up-or-down' vote. The process, called reconciliation, is fraught with difficulties.
President Obama’s call Wednesday for an “up-or-down vote” on healthcare reform may not sound like fighting words, but for Senate Republicans, it’s a call to arms.
“If this bill is passed, in the next election every Republican candidate will be campaigning to repeal it,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell in a briefing after the president’s White House statement.
He said the bill involves $500 billion cuts to Medicare, $500 billion in new taxes, and $2.5 trillion in new spending, and most Americans oppose it. “He’s calling on us to ignore the wishes of the American people," Senator McConnell added.
At issue is not just the policies the White House wants to move through the Congress but how it plans to do it. House and Senate Democrats now say they will move healthcare reform through a controversial process called reconciliation, which requires only a majority vote instead of the 60 votes now typical in the highly polarized Senate.
The Democrats' new plan would go like this: The House would first vote to approve the Senate healthcare bill, which passed on Dec. 24 on a party-line vote, 60 to 39. But because the Senate bill is unacceptable to most House members, the House would also pass a package of “fixes.” Then, the Senate would pass the fixes under the reconciliation rules that require only a majority vote.
Angry Republicans present only one of the challenges to this plan. House Democrats wary of the Senate present another.
The key is convincing House Democrats that the Senate will pass the fixes, as promised. Asked at a press briefing whether the House is willing to take a “leap of faith” by passing the bill before the Senate passes the fixes, House majority leader Steny Hoyer said: “Well, we're working on having that faith verified."
The problems with reconciliation
In truth, Senate Democrats can only promise so much.
With Senate Republicans unanimously opposed to the bill – and furious at the prospect of reconciliation – Democrats know to expect strong procedural objections if they go forward. And even without strong opposition, the procedures for reconciliation are complex and results of the process often unpredictable.
Under the Byrd Rule, for example, opponents can try to strike “extraneous matter” from a bill. "Extraneous matter" is defined as any measure that does not contribute to the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit. The Senate's presiding officer – typically following the guidance of the Senate parliamentarian – decides whether a challenge will stand or not. Once material has been stricken from reconciliation legislation, under the Byrd rule there is no way to add to the legislation it in another form.
In other words, even with good will, honest assurances, and every Senate Democrat fit to vote, House members can’t be sure of the outcome of votes on the fixes.
“It’s a a gamble that [House Democrats] have to take," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in Princeton, New
Jersey.
“Because of the reconciliation process, it’s never clear what will get through. It’s easy to see some of those fixes knocked out,” he adds. “House Democrats are going to have to assume that Senate Democrats are good to their word, then hope the fixes get through.”
House Democrats: we have no choice
House leaders say there is no choice but to move to reconciliation. The Senate's inability to move legislation though normal procedures makes reconciliation the only option.
“We now have 290 bills that have passed the House that are over in the Senate – 80 bills at least of large significance and many of which passed on a bipartisan basis, and yet they are all stuck and on hold,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland in a press briefing on Wednesday.
The reason? He said it is “a very calculated an cynical strategy to try and bring the work of the American people to a halt."
Meanwhile, interest groups on both sides of the issue are rallying their constituencies outside Washington to bring pressure to bear on the outcome. “Trying to jam this unpopular legislation through when it affects one-sixth of the American economy with a simple majority vote is ... an outrage," said R. Bruce Josten, top lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce in a statement.
"Bring 'em on"
source: Christian Science Monitor
Republicans rage against reconciliation for healthcare reform
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell vowed to fight any Democratic effort to pass healthcare reform on an 'up-or-down' vote. The process, called reconciliation, is fraught with difficulties.
President Obama’s call Wednesday for an “up-or-down vote” on healthcare reform may not sound like fighting words, but for Senate Republicans, it’s a call to arms.
“If this bill is passed, in the next election every Republican candidate will be campaigning to repeal it,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell in a briefing after the president’s White House statement.
He said the bill involves $500 billion cuts to Medicare, $500 billion in new taxes, and $2.5 trillion in new spending, and most Americans oppose it. “He’s calling on us to ignore the wishes of the American people," Senator McConnell added.
At issue is not just the policies the White House wants to move through the Congress but how it plans to do it. House and Senate Democrats now say they will move healthcare reform through a controversial process called reconciliation, which requires only a majority vote instead of the 60 votes now typical in the highly polarized Senate.
The Democrats' new plan would go like this: The House would first vote to approve the Senate healthcare bill, which passed on Dec. 24 on a party-line vote, 60 to 39. But because the Senate bill is unacceptable to most House members, the House would also pass a package of “fixes.” Then, the Senate would pass the fixes under the reconciliation rules that require only a majority vote.
Angry Republicans present only one of the challenges to this plan. House Democrats wary of the Senate present another.
The key is convincing House Democrats that the Senate will pass the fixes, as promised. Asked at a press briefing whether the House is willing to take a “leap of faith” by passing the bill before the Senate passes the fixes, House majority leader Steny Hoyer said: “Well, we're working on having that faith verified."
The problems with reconciliation
In truth, Senate Democrats can only promise so much.
With Senate Republicans unanimously opposed to the bill – and furious at the prospect of reconciliation – Democrats know to expect strong procedural objections if they go forward. And even without strong opposition, the procedures for reconciliation are complex and results of the process often unpredictable.
Under the Byrd Rule, for example, opponents can try to strike “extraneous matter” from a bill. "Extraneous matter" is defined as any measure that does not contribute to the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit. The Senate's presiding officer – typically following the guidance of the Senate parliamentarian – decides whether a challenge will stand or not. Once material has been stricken from reconciliation legislation, under the Byrd rule there is no way to add to the legislation it in another form.
In other words, even with good will, honest assurances, and every Senate Democrat fit to vote, House members can’t be sure of the outcome of votes on the fixes.
“It’s a a gamble that [House Democrats] have to take," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in Princeton, New
Jersey.
“Because of the reconciliation process, it’s never clear what will get through. It’s easy to see some of those fixes knocked out,” he adds. “House Democrats are going to have to assume that Senate Democrats are good to their word, then hope the fixes get through.”
House Democrats: we have no choice
House leaders say there is no choice but to move to reconciliation. The Senate's inability to move legislation though normal procedures makes reconciliation the only option.
“We now have 290 bills that have passed the House that are over in the Senate – 80 bills at least of large significance and many of which passed on a bipartisan basis, and yet they are all stuck and on hold,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland in a press briefing on Wednesday.
The reason? He said it is “a very calculated an cynical strategy to try and bring the work of the American people to a halt."
Meanwhile, interest groups on both sides of the issue are rallying their constituencies outside Washington to bring pressure to bear on the outcome. “Trying to jam this unpopular legislation through when it affects one-sixth of the American economy with a simple majority vote is ... an outrage," said R. Bruce Josten, top lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce in a statement.
It may be seen as a victory for the insurance industry, but a lot of people will have health insurance. Yes, this is not the best plan, but it will be better than no plan, unfortunately.
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<A HREF="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<font size="5"><center>
House sets health care vote for
Sunday after CBO report</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman,
Margaret Talev and
William Douglas
March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON — Democrats plan to vote Sunday in the House of Representatives on a revamped health care overhaul bill aimed at insuring millions more Americans, providing more Medicare drug benefits and reducing federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next 10 years.
On Thursday, President Barack Obama canceled his Asia trip, which had been scheduled to start Sunday, so he could make a last-minute push for the 216 House votes that are needed to pass the most important initiative of his 14-month-old presidency.
As of early Thursday evening, Obama had met with or called more than three dozen members of Congress to try to win their support, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs declined to confirm or deny lawmakers’ accounts that Obama considers the fate of his presidency at stake.
Though they appeared still short of the votes they need, House Democratic leaders were increasingly confident that they’ll triumph. Thirty-nine Democrats opposed the House version of the bill in November, but two more of them — Reps. Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Betsy Markey of Colorado — said Thursday that they’d switch. They joined Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who said Wednesday that he’d vote yes.
In addition, the 23-member Congressional Hispanic Caucus announced Thursday that it backs the bill. They said that while the legislation wasn’t perfect, it would provide help to nearly 9 million American Latinos who are currently uninsured. Some caucus members previously had been undecided.
If the House approves the package, it will go to the Senate, where leaders hope to dodge procedural hurdles that Republicans are threatening and finish the bill next week. Republicans warned that they’ll fight hard to derail the plan.
At the Concord Coalition, an independent budget watchdog, executive director Robert Bixby questioned whether the legislation would produce the considerable savings it claims from Medicare, and whether some claimed future tax revenues really will go into effect.
An excise tax on high-end insurance policies, for instance, wouldn’t kick in until 2018.
“It’s already unpopular,” Bixby observed, particularly with labor unions, which raises questions about whether a future Congress will let it take effect in eight years.
The legislation would make historic changes to health insurance coverage, the most in decades. Insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to anyone because of pre-existing conditions starting in 2014, and the provision would apply to children six months after enactment.
Health insurers also no longer would be able to put lifetime caps on coverage. Children would be able to stay on their parents’ policies until their 26th birthdays. Most people would be required to have health insurance by 2014, and most employers would be required to offer policies.
Under the legislation, an estimated 32 million people who now are uninsured would gain coverage, expanding coverage to about 95 percent of all Americans. Currently, 83 percent are covered.
The House plans to consider the legislation in two stages Sunday, after allowing 72 hours for the new bill’s provisions to be reviewed. First, it’ll vote on the rule governing debate — a rule that’ll say the health care version that the Senate passed Dec. 24 is deemed passed by the House upon adoption of the rule.
If the rule is approved, the House later will vote on the changes to that Senate bill that were announced Thursday; the bill containing those changes is called a reconciliation package.
The changes, which the Senate would consider next week, include:
— Ending the Medicare prescription-drug coverage gap. Medicare drug plans now stop paying for prescriptions each year once the government and the consumer have spent $2,830 on them. The benefit resumes once annual out-of-pocket spending reaches $4,550.The bill would close that so-called "doughnut hole” by 2020.
This year, beneficiaries who hit the doughnut hole limit would get $250 rebates.
— Broadening the reach of the Medicare payroll tax to cover wealthier people's unearned income, such as capital gains, dividends and interest. Singles with annual incomes above $200,000 and families that earn more than $250,000 would pay a 3.8 percent tax, up from the 2.9 percent that Obama originally proposed.
— Picking up all state costs of Medicaid, the state-federal program for lower-income people, from 2014 to 2016. The federal government then would pick up 95 percent of the costs in 2017, and reduce that share on a sliding scale until it hits 90 percent in 2020.
— Scaling back a new excise tax on high-end insurance policies so it wouldn't take effect until 2018. The Senate had wanted it to begin five years sooner. The tax would be applied to most premiums above $10,200 for singles and $27,500 for families, somewhat higher than the Senate-passed limits.
— Helping families that earn up to about $88,000 annually pay insurance premiums. The new bill would assure that no family that earns less than that pays more than 9.5 percent of its income for health insurance.
New Congressional Budget Office cost estimates Thursday triggered a new wave of debate, as the CBO forecast that the bills would reduce federal budget deficits by $138 billion over 10 years. Republicans and some independent analysts questioned the numbers.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., argued that “this bill is the biggest deficit-reduction bill any member of Congress has had the opportunity to vote on,” and Gibbs said the estimate gave “a significant boost” to prospects of passage.
However, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, called the legislation “full of spending gimmicks and hidden costs.” For instance, he said, it doesn’t include an estimated $70 billion that will be needed to implement the bill.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/18/90639/obamas-health-care-plan-cuts-deficit.html
The Secret Republican Plan to Repeal 'Obamacare'
The Secret Republican Plan to Repeal 'Obamacare'
And why the fight is far from over.
By Chris Frates
Updated: March 28, 2013
A few minutes after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding President Obama’s health care law last summer, a senior adviser to Mitch McConnell walked into the Senate Republican leader’s office to gauge his reaction.
McConnell was clearly disappointed, and for good reason. For many conservatives, the decision was the death knell in a three-year fight to defeat reforms that epitomized everything they thought was wrong with Obama’s governing philosophy. But where some saw finality, McConnell saw opportunity — and still does.
Sitting at his desk a stone’s throw from the Senate chamber, McConnell turned to the aide and, with characteristic directness, said: “This decision is too cute. But I think we got something with this tax issue.”
He was referring to the court’s ruling that the heart of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the so-called individual mandate that requires everyone in the country to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, was a tax. And while McConnell thought calling the mandate a tax was “a rather creative way” to uphold the law, it also opened a new front in his battle to repeal it.
McConnell, a master of byzantine Senate procedure, immediately realized that, as a tax, the individual mandate would be subject to the budget reconciliation process, which exempted it from the filibuster. In other words, McConnell had just struck upon how to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority vote.
The Kentucky Republican called a handful of top aides into his office and told them, “Figure out how to repeal this through reconciliation. I want to do this.” McConnell ordered a repeal plan ready in the event the GOP took back control of the Senate in November — ironic considering Democrats used the same process more than two years earlier in a successful, last-shot effort to muscle the reforms into law.
In the months that followed, top GOP Senate aides held regular strategy meetings to plot a path forward. Using the reconciliation process would be complicated and contentious. Senate rules would require Republicans to demonstrate to the parliamentarian that their repeal provisions would affect spending or revenue and Democrats were sure to challenge them every step of the way. So the meetings were small and secret.
“You’re going in to make an argument. You don’t want to preview your entire argument to the other side ahead of time,” said a McConnell aide who participated in the planning. “There was concern that all of this would leak out.”
By Election Day, Senate Republicans were ready to, as McConnell put it, “take this monstrosity down.”
“We were prepared to do that had we had the votes to do it after the election. Well, the election didn’t turn out the way we wanted it to,” McConnell told National Journal in an interview. “The monstrosity has ... begun to be implemented and we’re not giving up the fight.”
Indeed, when it comes to legislative strategy, McConnell plays long ball. Beginning in 2009, the Republican leader led the push to unify his colleagues against Democrats’ health care plans, an effort that almost derailed Obamacare. In 2010, Republicans, helped in part by public opposition to the law, won back the House and picked up seats in the Senate. Last year, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s embrace of the individual mandate while Massachusetts governor largely neutralized what had been a potent political issue.
But, in the next two years, Republicans are looking to bring the issue back in a big way. And they’ll start by trying to brand the law as one that costs too much and is not working as promised.
Democrats will be tempted to continue to write off the incoming fire as the empty rhetoric of a party fighting old battles. But that would be a mistake. During the health care debate, the GOP’s coordinated attacks helped turn public opinion against reform. And in the past two years, no more than 45 percent of the public has viewed Obamacare favorably, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s tracking polls. Perhaps even more dangerous for Democrats, now-debunked myths spread by Republicans and conservative media remain lodged in the public consciousness. For instance, 40 percent of the public still believes the law includes “death panels.”
During the legislative debate over the law, Democrats promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower health care costs, and allow people to keep their current plans if they chose to. Those vows, Republicans argue, are already being broken.
The Congressional Budget Office, the Hill’s nonpartisan scorekeeper, estimated that the health care law would reduce employment by about 800,000 workers and result in about 7 million people losing their employer-sponsored health care over a decade. The CBO also estimated that Obamacare during that period would raise health care spending by roughly $580 billion.
McConnell’s office has assembled the law’s 19,842 new regulations into a stack that is 7 feet high and wheeled around on a dolly. The prop even has its own Twitter account, @TheRedTapeTower.
“All you got to do is look at that high stack of regulation and you think, ‘How in the world is anybody going to be able to comply with all this stuff?’ ” GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch, told National Journal. “And I’m confident that the more the American people know of the costs, the consequences, the problems with this law, then someday there are going to be some Democrats who are going to join us in taking apart some of its most egregious parts.”
In fact, just a few hours after that interview last week, 34 Democrats joined Hatch on the Senate floor to support repealing Obamacare’s medical-device tax. Though the provision passed overwhelmingly, it doesn’t have a shot at becoming law because the budget bill it was attached to is nonbinding. Still, Republicans see it as a harbinger of things to come.
“Constituent pressure is overriding the view that virtually all Democrats have had that Obamacare is sort of like the Ten Commandments, handed down and every piece of it is sacred and you can’t possibly change any of it ever,” McConnell said. “When you see that begin to crack then you know the facade is breaking up.”
Of course, Republicans are doing their best to highlight and stoke the kind of constituent anger that would force Democrats to tweak the law. In fact, if Democrats come under enough pressure, Republicans believe they might be able to inject Obamacare into the broader entitlement-reform discussion they are planning to tie to the debt-limit debate this summer.
But that is a long shot. If Republicans hope to completely repeal the health care law, they have to start by taking back the Senate in 2014 and would likely need to win the White House two years later. Still, some Republicans think the politics are on their side.
“I’m not one of those folks who ... because I didn’t support something, I want it to be bad. I want good things for Americans. But I do think this is going to create a lot of issues and … affect things throughout 2014 as it relates to politics,” Republican Sen. Bob Corker said. “The outcome likely will create a better atmosphere for us.”
Republicans will need to win half a dozen seats to retake the chamber. So, what are the chances?
“There are six really good opportunities in really red states: West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Alaska,” McConnell said last week. “And some other places where you have open seats like Michigan and Iowa. And other states that frequently vote Republican, an example of that would be New Hampshire. So, we’re hopeful.”
And earlier this week, Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson put his home state of South Dakota in play when he announced he will not be running for reelection in 2014.
In addition to trying to win back the Senate, McConnell will have to protect his own seat in two years. McConnell has made moves to shore up his right flank to fend off conservative challengers. He’s hired fellow Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign manager, who helped Paul defeat the establishment candidate McConnell backed in the primary.
In the meantime, Republicans will continue to, as GOP Sen. John Barrasso put it, “try to tear (Obamacare) apart.” And the GOP suspects it might get some help from moderate Democrats less concerned about protecting Obama’s legacy than winning reelection.
It’s just the latest act in a play that saw McConnell give more than 100 floor speeches critical of Democratic reforms and paper Capitol Hill with more 225 messaging documents in the 10 months before Obamacare’s passage. Away from the public spotlight, McConnell worked his caucus hard to convince them to unite against the law, holding a health care meeting every Wednesday afternoon. GOP aides said they could not remember a time before, or since, when a Republican leader held a weekly meeting with members that focused solely on one subject.
“What I tried to do is just guide the discussion to the point where everybody realized there wasn’t any part of this we wanted to have any ownership of,” McConnell recounted. “That was a nine-month long discussion that finally culminated with Olympia Snowe’s decision in the fall not to support it. She was the last one they had a shot at.”
Indeed, some Republicans remember opposition forming organically as it became clearer where Democrats were headed, crediting McConnell for crystallizing the issue. Asked who unified Senate Republicans against Obamacare, Corker recalled, “I think it happened over time.… As time moved on, it just seemed that this train was going to a place that was going to be hard to support.”
McConnell had finally won his long-fought battle to unite the conference against Obamcare. And some Republicans credit McConnell with being first to that fight.
“He had the Obama administration’s number before almost anyone else,” Hatch recalled. “He began laying the groundwork for this fight very early, in private meetings and so forth, and really was the first one on our side in the ring, throwing punches just about how bad it was for families, businesses, and our economy.”
“There’s been no stronger fighter against this disastrous law than Mitch McConnell,” he added.
And as McConnell’s war continues, Democrats have begun positioning themselves for the next battle. Leading up to last week’s three-year anniversary of the law’s passage, Democrats held press events touting its benefits, claiming more than 100 million people have received free preventive services; 17 million children with preexisting conditions have been protected from being denied coverage; and 6.6 million young adults under 26 have been covered by their parents' plan.
Democrats wisely rolled out many of the easiest, most-popular Obamacare benefits first. The next few years will see the implementation of provisions that are both more complicated and controversial, like creating state-based insurance exchanges where people can buy coverage. Asked about the political ramifications of possible implementation problems, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a chief architect of Obamacare, sidestepped the question saying, "My job is to do my best to make sure this statute works to help provide health care for people at the lowest possible cost."
Far from a full-throated assurance that everything will run smoothly, Baucus’s answer hints at the dangers Democrats face as Obamacare comes online.
And with the law moving from the largely theoretical to the demonstrable, the health care debate is poised to return to intensity levels not seen since before the law passed.
For congressional Republicans, it’s probably their last, best chance to turn opposition into political gain.
And much of that job falls to McConnell, a brilliant defensive coordinator who will have to play flawless offense if he hopes to take control of the Senate next year.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-secret-republican-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-20130327
The Secret Republican Plan to Repeal 'Obamacare'
And why the fight is far from over.
By Chris Frates
Updated: March 28, 2013
A few minutes after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding President Obama’s health care law last summer, a senior adviser to Mitch McConnell walked into the Senate Republican leader’s office to gauge his reaction.
McConnell was clearly disappointed, and for good reason. For many conservatives, the decision was the death knell in a three-year fight to defeat reforms that epitomized everything they thought was wrong with Obama’s governing philosophy. But where some saw finality, McConnell saw opportunity — and still does.
Sitting at his desk a stone’s throw from the Senate chamber, McConnell turned to the aide and, with characteristic directness, said: “This decision is too cute. But I think we got something with this tax issue.”
He was referring to the court’s ruling that the heart of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the so-called individual mandate that requires everyone in the country to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, was a tax. And while McConnell thought calling the mandate a tax was “a rather creative way” to uphold the law, it also opened a new front in his battle to repeal it.
McConnell, a master of byzantine Senate procedure, immediately realized that, as a tax, the individual mandate would be subject to the budget reconciliation process, which exempted it from the filibuster. In other words, McConnell had just struck upon how to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority vote.
The Kentucky Republican called a handful of top aides into his office and told them, “Figure out how to repeal this through reconciliation. I want to do this.” McConnell ordered a repeal plan ready in the event the GOP took back control of the Senate in November — ironic considering Democrats used the same process more than two years earlier in a successful, last-shot effort to muscle the reforms into law.
In the months that followed, top GOP Senate aides held regular strategy meetings to plot a path forward. Using the reconciliation process would be complicated and contentious. Senate rules would require Republicans to demonstrate to the parliamentarian that their repeal provisions would affect spending or revenue and Democrats were sure to challenge them every step of the way. So the meetings were small and secret.
“You’re going in to make an argument. You don’t want to preview your entire argument to the other side ahead of time,” said a McConnell aide who participated in the planning. “There was concern that all of this would leak out.”
By Election Day, Senate Republicans were ready to, as McConnell put it, “take this monstrosity down.”
“We were prepared to do that had we had the votes to do it after the election. Well, the election didn’t turn out the way we wanted it to,” McConnell told National Journal in an interview. “The monstrosity has ... begun to be implemented and we’re not giving up the fight.”
Indeed, when it comes to legislative strategy, McConnell plays long ball. Beginning in 2009, the Republican leader led the push to unify his colleagues against Democrats’ health care plans, an effort that almost derailed Obamacare. In 2010, Republicans, helped in part by public opposition to the law, won back the House and picked up seats in the Senate. Last year, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s embrace of the individual mandate while Massachusetts governor largely neutralized what had been a potent political issue.
But, in the next two years, Republicans are looking to bring the issue back in a big way. And they’ll start by trying to brand the law as one that costs too much and is not working as promised.
Democrats will be tempted to continue to write off the incoming fire as the empty rhetoric of a party fighting old battles. But that would be a mistake. During the health care debate, the GOP’s coordinated attacks helped turn public opinion against reform. And in the past two years, no more than 45 percent of the public has viewed Obamacare favorably, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s tracking polls. Perhaps even more dangerous for Democrats, now-debunked myths spread by Republicans and conservative media remain lodged in the public consciousness. For instance, 40 percent of the public still believes the law includes “death panels.”
During the legislative debate over the law, Democrats promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower health care costs, and allow people to keep their current plans if they chose to. Those vows, Republicans argue, are already being broken.
The Congressional Budget Office, the Hill’s nonpartisan scorekeeper, estimated that the health care law would reduce employment by about 800,000 workers and result in about 7 million people losing their employer-sponsored health care over a decade. The CBO also estimated that Obamacare during that period would raise health care spending by roughly $580 billion.
McConnell’s office has assembled the law’s 19,842 new regulations into a stack that is 7 feet high and wheeled around on a dolly. The prop even has its own Twitter account, @TheRedTapeTower.
“All you got to do is look at that high stack of regulation and you think, ‘How in the world is anybody going to be able to comply with all this stuff?’ ” GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch, told National Journal. “And I’m confident that the more the American people know of the costs, the consequences, the problems with this law, then someday there are going to be some Democrats who are going to join us in taking apart some of its most egregious parts.”
In fact, just a few hours after that interview last week, 34 Democrats joined Hatch on the Senate floor to support repealing Obamacare’s medical-device tax. Though the provision passed overwhelmingly, it doesn’t have a shot at becoming law because the budget bill it was attached to is nonbinding. Still, Republicans see it as a harbinger of things to come.
“Constituent pressure is overriding the view that virtually all Democrats have had that Obamacare is sort of like the Ten Commandments, handed down and every piece of it is sacred and you can’t possibly change any of it ever,” McConnell said. “When you see that begin to crack then you know the facade is breaking up.”
Of course, Republicans are doing their best to highlight and stoke the kind of constituent anger that would force Democrats to tweak the law. In fact, if Democrats come under enough pressure, Republicans believe they might be able to inject Obamacare into the broader entitlement-reform discussion they are planning to tie to the debt-limit debate this summer.
But that is a long shot. If Republicans hope to completely repeal the health care law, they have to start by taking back the Senate in 2014 and would likely need to win the White House two years later. Still, some Republicans think the politics are on their side.
“I’m not one of those folks who ... because I didn’t support something, I want it to be bad. I want good things for Americans. But I do think this is going to create a lot of issues and … affect things throughout 2014 as it relates to politics,” Republican Sen. Bob Corker said. “The outcome likely will create a better atmosphere for us.”
Republicans will need to win half a dozen seats to retake the chamber. So, what are the chances?
“There are six really good opportunities in really red states: West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Alaska,” McConnell said last week. “And some other places where you have open seats like Michigan and Iowa. And other states that frequently vote Republican, an example of that would be New Hampshire. So, we’re hopeful.”
And earlier this week, Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson put his home state of South Dakota in play when he announced he will not be running for reelection in 2014.
In addition to trying to win back the Senate, McConnell will have to protect his own seat in two years. McConnell has made moves to shore up his right flank to fend off conservative challengers. He’s hired fellow Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign manager, who helped Paul defeat the establishment candidate McConnell backed in the primary.
In the meantime, Republicans will continue to, as GOP Sen. John Barrasso put it, “try to tear (Obamacare) apart.” And the GOP suspects it might get some help from moderate Democrats less concerned about protecting Obama’s legacy than winning reelection.
It’s just the latest act in a play that saw McConnell give more than 100 floor speeches critical of Democratic reforms and paper Capitol Hill with more 225 messaging documents in the 10 months before Obamacare’s passage. Away from the public spotlight, McConnell worked his caucus hard to convince them to unite against the law, holding a health care meeting every Wednesday afternoon. GOP aides said they could not remember a time before, or since, when a Republican leader held a weekly meeting with members that focused solely on one subject.
“What I tried to do is just guide the discussion to the point where everybody realized there wasn’t any part of this we wanted to have any ownership of,” McConnell recounted. “That was a nine-month long discussion that finally culminated with Olympia Snowe’s decision in the fall not to support it. She was the last one they had a shot at.”
Indeed, some Republicans remember opposition forming organically as it became clearer where Democrats were headed, crediting McConnell for crystallizing the issue. Asked who unified Senate Republicans against Obamacare, Corker recalled, “I think it happened over time.… As time moved on, it just seemed that this train was going to a place that was going to be hard to support.”
McConnell had finally won his long-fought battle to unite the conference against Obamcare. And some Republicans credit McConnell with being first to that fight.
“He had the Obama administration’s number before almost anyone else,” Hatch recalled. “He began laying the groundwork for this fight very early, in private meetings and so forth, and really was the first one on our side in the ring, throwing punches just about how bad it was for families, businesses, and our economy.”
“There’s been no stronger fighter against this disastrous law than Mitch McConnell,” he added.
And as McConnell’s war continues, Democrats have begun positioning themselves for the next battle. Leading up to last week’s three-year anniversary of the law’s passage, Democrats held press events touting its benefits, claiming more than 100 million people have received free preventive services; 17 million children with preexisting conditions have been protected from being denied coverage; and 6.6 million young adults under 26 have been covered by their parents' plan.
Democrats wisely rolled out many of the easiest, most-popular Obamacare benefits first. The next few years will see the implementation of provisions that are both more complicated and controversial, like creating state-based insurance exchanges where people can buy coverage. Asked about the political ramifications of possible implementation problems, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a chief architect of Obamacare, sidestepped the question saying, "My job is to do my best to make sure this statute works to help provide health care for people at the lowest possible cost."
Far from a full-throated assurance that everything will run smoothly, Baucus’s answer hints at the dangers Democrats face as Obamacare comes online.
And with the law moving from the largely theoretical to the demonstrable, the health care debate is poised to return to intensity levels not seen since before the law passed.
For congressional Republicans, it’s probably their last, best chance to turn opposition into political gain.
And much of that job falls to McConnell, a brilliant defensive coordinator who will have to play flawless offense if he hopes to take control of the Senate next year.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-secret-republican-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-20130327
