Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congressional Democrats near agreement on budget
By ANDREW TAYLOR 7 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress have agreed to let his signature $400 tax cut for most workers expire after next year but are moving to give him a better chance at passing his health care bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday that most issues have been resolved in trying to combine different House and Senate approaches into one budget bill. That measure will set the rules on how Congress considers Obama's agenda for the rest of the year.
Lawmakers are rushing to agree on the budget framework in time to give Obama a victory within his first 100 days in office. Late-night talks Thursday produced the framework of a deal that would protect his ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a Republican filibuster.
A senior Democratic congressional aide revealed the fundamentals of the accord on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.
The negotiations have centered on the annual congressional budget resolution, which sets the parameters for the legislation that follows. Congressional votes next week would provide a symbolic victory for Obama's sweeping agenda to enact a universal health care system, invest in education and clean energy and cut the exploding budget deficit to manageable levels.
Obama marks his 100th day in office on Wednesday.
Most importantly, the tentative agreement would give congressional Democrats the ability to push Obama's health care initiative through the Senate under rules that prevent filibusters. Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but passage of the budget plan would allow majority Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.
Democrats hold 56 seats in the Senate plus two independents who typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
The fast-track process would limit the ability of Republicans to get concessions and give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation. Obama's plan to cut private banks and other lending institutions out of the market for student loans would also move on a filibuster-free path....
If you want to know why we do not today have a 50-vote Senate, the Byrd rule is the reason. The Byrd rule imposes a set of sharp constraints on the reconciliation process, limiting what is considered appropriate for reconciliation. The basic theory of the Byrd rule is that any legislation considered under the budget reconciliation process should principally affect federal revenues. A tax cut, for instance, can be considered under the reconciliation process. A new federal holiday cannot. But between those two examples sit crucial ambiguities.
The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "producechanges in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision." I asked Jim Horney, a budget expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, how you define "merely incidental." And what, exactly, is a "provision"?
He sighed. A provision, he said, is "not defined anywhere. It goes well below a title or section of a bill and even below a paragraph. But exactly what it is nobody knows." And the Senate rules offer no more clarity on the definition of "merely incidental." Asked if anyone had developed an accepted meaning, Horney seemed almost apologetic. "No," he said. "Absolutely not."
The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?
It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable.
Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation.
But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.
Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.
here is a less skewed source Annie
The 50-Vote Senate | The American Prospect,
...that explains the rule much more in depth...
here is a clip of it, note what is in bold and in red...pretty please!
If you want to know why we do not today have a 50-vote Senate, the Byrd rule is the reason. The Byrd rule imposes a set of sharp constraints on the reconciliation process, limiting what is considered appropriate for reconciliation. The basic theory of the Byrd rule is that any legislation considered under the budget reconciliation process should principally affect federal revenues. A tax cut, for instance, can be considered under the reconciliation process. A new federal holiday cannot. But between those two examples sit crucial ambiguities.
The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "producechanges in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision." I asked Jim Horney, a budget expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, how you define "merely incidental." And what, exactly, is a "provision"?
He sighed. A provision, he said, is "not defined anywhere. It goes well below a title or section of a bill and even below a paragraph. But exactly what it is nobody knows." And the Senate rules offer no more clarity on the definition of "merely incidental." Asked if anyone had developed an accepted meaning, Horney seemed almost apologetic. "No," he said. "Absolutely not."
The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?
It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable.
Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation.
But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.
Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.
it's not a matter of being okay or not okay,, they are going to do it no matter if we are okay with it.. they will pay a political price for it though and just remember Annie, unless it is a constitutional amendment things can be re-thought and rewritten other socialist countries aren't doing well with socialized medicine and they don't have the population we do,, if they can't do it and stay solvent it's for sure the screw ups in Washington cannot do it.. We have 3 years and 265 more days of hell. then we will see what happens.
it's not a matter of being okay or not okay,, they are going to do it no matter if we are okay with it.. they will pay a political price for it though and just remember Annie, unless it is a constitutional amendment things can be re-thought and rewritten other socialist countries aren't doing well with socialized medicine and they don't have the population we do,, if they can't do it and stay solvent it's for sure the screw ups in Washington cannot do it.. We have 3 years and 265 more days of hell. then we will see what happens.
Willow, I disagree with the possibilities or need for constitutional amendment. In the past couple weeks, both municipalities and state legislatures have backed off on spending and tax increases that seemed 'done deals'. Why? Anger directed towards representatives through the tea party type of activism.
Without the help of Congress, none of Obama's plans with come to fruition. The real question is, will the people move?
it's not a matter of being okay or not okay,, they are going to do it no matter if we are okay with it.. they will pay a political price for it though and just remember Annie, unless it is a constitutional amendment things can be re-thought and rewritten other socialist countries aren't doing well with socialized medicine and they don't have the population we do,, if they can't do it and stay solvent it's for sure the screw ups in Washington cannot do it.. We have 3 years and 265 more days of hell. then we will see what happens.
Willow, I disagree with the possibilities or need for constitutional amendment. In the past couple weeks, both municipalities and state legislatures have backed off on spending and tax increases that seemed 'done deals'. Why? Anger directed towards representatives through the tea party type of activism.
Without the help of Congress, none of Obama's plans with come to fruition. The real question is, will the people move?
if they use reconcilliation then they will be unstoppable. The Democrats in the Senate are hell bent on ramming obamalama's policy through, if they wanted the will of their constituencies they would not fall back on reconcilliation. and I didn't mean to imply they would make health care a constitutional amendment, I'm saying, if obamalama uses reconcilliation and rams it through as he is going to do it can be undone once the more rational party takes back the WH.
here is a less skewed source Annie
The 50-Vote Senate | The American Prospect,
...that explains the rule much more in depth...
here is a clip of it, note what is in bold and in red...pretty please!
If you want to know why we do not today have a 50-vote Senate, the Byrd rule is the reason. The Byrd rule imposes a set of sharp constraints on the reconciliation process, limiting what is considered appropriate for reconciliation. The basic theory of the Byrd rule is that any legislation considered under the budget reconciliation process should principally affect federal revenues. A tax cut, for instance, can be considered under the reconciliation process. A new federal holiday cannot. But between those two examples sit crucial ambiguities.
The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "producechanges in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision." I asked Jim Horney, a budget expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, how you define "merely incidental." And what, exactly, is a "provision"?
He sighed. A provision, he said, is "not defined anywhere. It goes well below a title or section of a bill and even below a paragraph. But exactly what it is nobody knows." And the Senate rules offer no more clarity on the definition of "merely incidental." Asked if anyone had developed an accepted meaning, Horney seemed almost apologetic. "No," he said. "Absolutely not."
The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?
It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable.
Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation.
But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.
Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.
So Care, you think this is a great idea. 20 minutes of debate, no public input? That stimulus bill, that no one had time to read, totally down with that too? I'm beginning to agree with what some poster said, 'they could burn down DC and the sycophants would be A-ok with that."
here is a less skewed source Annie
The 50-Vote Senate | The American Prospect,
...that explains the rule much more in depth...
here is a clip of it, note what is in bold and in red...pretty please!
So Care, you think this is a great idea. 20 minutes of debate, no public input? That stimulus bill, that no one had time to read, totally down with that too? I'm beginning to agree with what some poster said, 'they could burn down DC and the sycophants would be A-ok with that."
20 Hours of Debate, not 20 minutes?
And NO, I am NOT on board with this....and I wasn't on board with it when the Republicans USED this method of Reconcilliation to RAM THRU THE BUSH TAX CUTS, or the Drilling offshore, or TRADE Authority and a number of other measures EITHER.
Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?
Care
here is a less skewed source Annie
The 50-Vote Senate | The American Prospect,
...that explains the rule much more in depth...
here is a clip of it, note what is in bold and in red...pretty please!
So Care, you think this is a great idea. 20 minutes of debate, no public input? That stimulus bill, that no one had time to read, totally down with that too? I'm beginning to agree with what some poster said, 'they could burn down DC and the sycophants would be A-ok with that."
20 Hours of Debate, not 20 minutes?
And NO, I am NOT on board with this....and I wasn't on board with it when the Republicans USED this method of Reconcilliation to RAM THRU THE BUSH TAX CUTS, or the Drilling offshore, or TRADE Authority and a number of other measures EITHER.
Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?
Care
So Care, you think this is a great idea. 20 minutes of debate, no public input? That stimulus bill, that no one had time to read, totally down with that too? I'm beginning to agree with what some poster said, 'they could burn down DC and the sycophants would be A-ok with that."
20 Hours of Debate, not 20 minutes?
And NO, I am NOT on board with this....and I wasn't on board with it when the Republicans USED this method of Reconcilliation to RAM THRU THE BUSH TAX CUTS, or the Drilling offshore, or TRADE Authority and a number of other measures EITHER.
Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?
Care
While you can ask "Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?" The relevant response is, 'contact your representatives.' No one from the right or left can fix diddly by what they post here, best we can hope for is to influence some to take the actions they can, such as a phone call, email, or letter to editor. While were at it, might behoove all of us to recognize what goes around, comes around-such as pushing to get rid of "Reconcilliation"?
20 Hours of Debate, not 20 minutes?
And NO, I am NOT on board with this....and I wasn't on board with it when the Republicans USED this method of Reconcilliation to RAM THRU THE BUSH TAX CUTS, or the Drilling offshore, or TRADE Authority and a number of other measures EITHER.
Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?
Care
While you can ask "Where WERE YOU ALL THEN?" The relevant response is, 'contact your representatives.' No one from the right or left can fix diddly by what they post here, best we can hope for is to influence some to take the actions they can, such as a phone call, email, or letter to editor. While were at it, might behoove all of us to recognize what goes around, comes around-such as pushing to get rid of "Reconcilliation"?
I will send a note today...though I do have republican senators so, not sure if it will help the situation because they probably already agree with my position....this is way to beig of an issue to not allow extended debate....
HOWEVER, the Republicans better DAMN WELL use this filibuster to continue the debate and NOT JUST TO KILL the legislation but for extended DEBATE, and not to be just the "party of NO"....
Care
Sound vaguely familiar to complaints we've heard in the past, doesn't it?
The Dems will not only ram through Nationalized health care but also some version of cap and trade. All we can hope for is that Americans wake up and realize that this government is totally out of control. Next year we have congressional, senate elections, we need new blood in there to stop this insanity.
I agree that we need health care reform, but a nationalized one is not the answer. They run the medicare system now and look what a failure that is, do we really want to give these idiots more responsibility when they can't handle what they have now. Wouldn't a better solution be to have health care run at the state level. Everyone's going to have to pay but it could be done on a sliding scale according to thier income levels, but this has to be done in order to reduce premiums. There HAS to be a SMALL BUSINESS plan that is grouped, there is no plan now that small business can join and when you consider that 80% of Americans work for small business is it any wonder that so many people don't have health insurance.
Unfortunately, I think government involved health care is going to be rammed down our throats. The leftists and their willing accomplice of the MSM have managed to make this something that is now just expected as viable debate. Not an "if" anymore, but a "how".
Republicans are wimps because they allowed this to happen.
