Obama's Broken Promise Backlash

[Sinatra]

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

Here are some questions and answers about the final effort to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill.

Q: What is a conference committee?

A: A conference committee is appointed by the House and the Senate to settle differences between the two bodies on legislation. Who serves on the committee is up to House and Senate leaders, but it usually comprises senior members of the committees that originated the legislation. Both parties are represented, but the committee makeup would reflect the majority control of each chamber. In this case, Democrats control both chambers and a healthcare conference committee would have been controlled by Democrats.

Q: What is the advantage of bypassing a formal conference?

A: The process of going to conference takes time and Democrats are anxious to deliver a healthcare overhaul bill to Obama as quickly as possible, perhaps before his annual State of the Union address to Congress that is expected to take place later in January or early February.

Republicans solidly oppose the Democratic legislation and would likely have used the process of naming a conference to slow down the measure and build more opposition to it before the November congressional elections.

Since no Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, and only one in the House supported it, Democrats were always going to focus the negotiations on settling differences among themselves.

In theory, a conference committee is suppose to be open to the public, and the cable industry service channel C-Span was eager to broadcast deliberations on the healthcare bill.

The reality is that no matter which party controls Congress, bargaining over legislation takes place behind closed doors. Open conference committee sessions are used for little more than making statements about the bill.

Closed-door talks between the House and Senate are nothing new. Negotiations on President George W. Bush's tax cuts and legislation creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly were held in closed-door sessions.

Q: What is the disadvantage?

A: Democrats are taking considerable political heat from Republicans over bypassing the conference process because Obama promised during his presidential campaign to keep deliberations over the healthcare bill open to public scrutiny.

Q: How will the two bills be merged.

A: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lead negotiations between the two chambers and the White House. There are significant differences over abortion, taxes, insurance subsidies and regulatory control of proposed new insurance exchanges to be worked out. But the two bills are similar in their structure and many analysts believe a final bill will emerge within weeks.

The legislation will have to be submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office that analyzes legislation, for an official cost estimate. That process could take up to two weeks. Then the final bill must be passed by the House and Senate before going to Obama to be signed into law.

The legislation could be open to amendment in the Senate, but Reid has some procedural tools he could use to shut out Republican efforts to change the bill. [The same "tools" Republican majority used against the Democrats]

Q+A-Why are healthcare talks behind closed doors? | Reuters

 

[Vast LWC]

Here are some questions and answers about the final effort to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill.

Q: What is a conference committee?

A: A conference committee is appointed by the House and the Senate to settle differences between the two bodies on legislation. Who serves on the committee is up to House and Senate leaders, but it usually comprises senior members of the committees that originated the legislation. Both parties are represented, but the committee makeup would reflect the majority control of each chamber. In this case, Democrats control both chambers and a healthcare conference committee would have been controlled by Democrats.

Q: What is the advantage of bypassing a formal conference?

A: The process of going to conference takes time and Democrats are anxious to deliver a healthcare overhaul bill to Obama as quickly as possible, perhaps before his annual State of the Union address to Congress that is expected to take place later in January or early February.

Republicans solidly oppose the Democratic legislation and would likely have used the process of naming a conference to slow down the measure and build more opposition to it before the November congressional elections.

Since no Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, and only one in the House supported it, Democrats were always going to focus the negotiations on settling differences among themselves.

In theory, a conference committee is suppose to be open to the public, and the cable industry service channel C-Span was eager to broadcast deliberations on the healthcare bill.

The reality is that no matter which party controls Congress, bargaining over legislation takes place behind closed doors. Open conference committee sessions are used for little more than making statements about the bill.

Closed-door talks between the House and Senate are nothing new. Negotiations on President George W. Bush's tax cuts and legislation creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly were held in closed-door sessions.

Q: What is the disadvantage?

A: Democrats are taking considerable political heat from Republicans over bypassing the conference process because Obama promised during his presidential campaign to keep deliberations over the healthcare bill open to public scrutiny.

Q: How will the two bills be merged.

A: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lead negotiations between the two chambers and the White House. There are significant differences over abortion, taxes, insurance subsidies and regulatory control of proposed new insurance exchanges to be worked out. But the two bills are similar in their structure and many analysts believe a final bill will emerge within weeks.

The legislation will have to be submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office that analyzes legislation, for an official cost estimate. That process could take up to two weeks. Then the final bill must be passed by the House and Senate before going to Obama to be signed into law.

The legislation could be open to amendment in the Senate, but Reid has some procedural tools he could use to shut out Republican efforts to change the bill. [The same "tools" Republican majority used against the Democrats]

Q+A-Why are healthcare talks behind closed doors? | Reuters

What an excellent, well-written post.

 

[Sinatra]

+

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

Here are some questions and answers about the final effort to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill.

Q: What is a conference committee?

A: A conference committee is appointed by the House and the Senate to settle differences between the two bodies on legislation. Who serves on the committee is up to House and Senate leaders, but it usually comprises senior members of the committees that originated the legislation. Both parties are represented, but the committee makeup would reflect the majority control of each chamber. In this case, Democrats control both chambers and a healthcare conference committee would have been controlled by Democrats.

Q: What is the advantage of bypassing a formal conference?

A: The process of going to conference takes time and Democrats are anxious to deliver a healthcare overhaul bill to Obama as quickly as possible, perhaps before his annual State of the Union address to Congress that is expected to take place later in January or early February.

Republicans solidly oppose the Democratic legislation and would likely have used the process of naming a conference to slow down the measure and build more opposition to it before the November congressional elections.

Since no Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, and only one in the House supported it, Democrats were always going to focus the negotiations on settling differences among themselves.

In theory, a conference committee is suppose to be open to the public, and the cable industry service channel C-Span was eager to broadcast deliberations on the healthcare bill.

The reality is that no matter which party controls Congress, bargaining over legislation takes place behind closed doors. Open conference committee sessions are used for little more than making statements about the bill.

Closed-door talks between the House and Senate are nothing new. Negotiations on President George W. Bush's tax cuts and legislation creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly were held in closed-door sessions.

Q: What is the disadvantage?

A: Democrats are taking considerable political heat from Republicans over bypassing the conference process because Obama promised during his presidential campaign to keep deliberations over the healthcare bill open to public scrutiny.

Q: How will the two bills be merged.

A: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lead negotiations between the two chambers and the White House. There are significant differences over abortion, taxes, insurance subsidies and regulatory control of proposed new insurance exchanges to be worked out. But the two bills are similar in their structure and many analysts believe a final bill will emerge within weeks.

The legislation will have to be submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office that analyzes legislation, for an official cost estimate. That process could take up to two weeks. Then the final bill must be passed by the House and Senate before going to Obama to be signed into law.

The legislation could be open to amendment in the Senate, but Reid has some procedural tools he could use to shut out Republican efforts to change the bill. [The same "tools" Republican majority used against the Democrats]

Q+A-Why are healthcare talks behind closed doors? | Reuters

 

[Vast LWC]

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

OR...

It shows that Obama was as transparent as he was able to be, and now that both bills have been gone over and over again by everybody and their mother, the Congressmen are going to do their negotiating where they cannot be interrupted by people who are doing nothing but trying to obstruct the process.

 

[Sinatra]

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

OR...

It shows that Obama was as transparent as he was able to be, and now that both bills have been gone over and over again by everybody and their mother, the Congressmen are going to do their negotiating where they cannot be interrupted by people who are doing nothing but trying to obstruct the process.

___

Nope.

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

____


I'm an independant. I voted for Obama and I'm not stupid. Stupid would be if I voted for him again. I assure you I wont be voting for him a second time.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah... but that doesn't explain why they won't let the cameras in.

The way I see it, denying the committee process is about me, the conservative. But keeping the cameras out altogether is about you, the liberal. These are two separate issues entirely. Two separate questions.

We conservatives can't possibly get any more pissed off than we already are. There's nothing to lose there. What they lose, by letting America see them put the final touches on the sausage... is you. So, you're the one they're hiding from, not me. It would seem the appropriate question to ask yourself might be "Why?".

This isn't anything different than what we were talking about the other day on another thread. "Who has something to gain?" The negative publicity of broken promises is a pretty heavy burden to bear if there's no profit in it.

The reason for the rush is obvious. Obama wants it done before his State of the Union. The reason for skipping committee is obvious. They don't want anymore Republican challenges. But the reason why the cameras aren't allowed inside is a good bit more murky, wouldn't you say? They don't seem to have a coherent answer for that.

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

If the economy is a more pressing issue as you say, then why not trackle that first?

Instead, he pushes healthcare through with little or no transparency for time expediency reasons...uses the excuse that 14K a day LOSE health insurance....admits that regardless of how quickly it goes through, it wont start insuring the uninusred for 4 years...

And finally...why is it that with this "transparent" administration, you answer a question with "I would say"...which means you dont know for sure...but you assume....

I find that most interesting.

With skyrocketing health care costs projected by many analysts to reach over 17% of GDP by 2017, it is indeed a serious factor in the overall economic health of the nation. THAT'S why a reform package was introduced at the outset.

And picking on symantics doesn't improve your argument. My parenthetical words meant zilch to the context. You already have the most transparent government in history, in case you don't know it. Complaining that every uttered or printed word isn't put on the Internet in a nanosecond is stupid. If I can find what I want in short order, then you can too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Someone already said this but I would like to reiterrate it...

The fact that he has gone back on his word about CSPAN is a slap in the face of the liberals and the left of centers...

Most centers and rights have already expressed their displeasure with the bill...seeing it on CSPAN will not anger us any further....we already know about the back room deals......

The left denies these deals exist....

So not being on CSPAN is a direct slap in the face of the left...as it is Obama saying to them that he does not wnat them to see that the right has been accurate all along.

Yet the left blindly supports his decision to NOT put it on CSPAN.

No, they did not. Back room deals are the norm in Washington. Why would "leftists" claim they're not? It is your ilk who hilariously believe that the methods by which this bill has passed through the two houses is somehow something "new."

Just for kicks, some of you should start watching (or taping) the rereuns of "The West Wing" on BRAVO from 8AM-10AM every day. You'll get a better understanding that there is no bill of any import that isn't accomplished with a lot of give and take (aka back room deals).

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay... I'm not gonna be an asshole about it and keep pressing the point. But I suspect you already understand that CSPAN putting cameras in the room doesn't affect the speed of the process. It's not like cameras make PEOPLE move in slow-motion.

___

Whatever. I've already said I don't care if it's televised or not.
___

Then move along.

This thread is for those who care...

Well I sure hope they're all enjoying your spamming. Ironically, I'm so sick of YOU, I don't even read what you repeat anymore. At least you've stopped just using a series of periods to bump your own perceived profoundly briilliant statements.

 

[MaggieMae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsliz5rw2iy


i'm an independant. I voted for obama and i'm not stupid. Stupid would be if i voted for him again. I assure you i wont be voting for him a second time.

spam alert!!!​

 

[MaggieMae]

Q+A-Why are healthcare talks behind closed doors? | Reuters

What an excellent, well-written post.

Thanks, but I didn't write it. Idiots like Sinatra seem to think Obama/Pelosi/Reid invented the conference process. How quickly they've forgotten the way the Republicans pushed through the Prescription Drug Bill. Was anyone awake in the wee hours of the morning when DeLay and Hastert finally broke enough kneecaps to get it done?

Wikipedia entry - Prescription Drug Bill - Legislative history

The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval.

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with David Wu (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea." After controversy ensued, Smith clarified no explicit offer of campaign funds was made, but that that he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" which he had assumed included financial support.[14]

About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.

The Democrats cried foul, and Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means committee, challenged the result in a gesture to satisfy the concerns of the minority. He subsequently voted to table his own challenge; the tally to table was 210 ayes, 193 noes.

The Senate's consideration of the conference report was somewhat less heated, as cloture on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29.[15] However, a budget point of order raised by Tom Daschle, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.

For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[16] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[17]

[edit] Aftermath

In July 2004, it was revealed that Thomas A. Scully, Medicare Administrator, had ordered Richard Foster, a Medicare actuary, to withhold information from Congress on pain of termination. Foster had projected that the bill would cost at least 139 billion dollars more than the White House was claiming.

 

[MaggieMae]

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

OR...

It shows that Obama was as transparent as he was able to be, and now that both bills have been gone over and over again by everybody and their mother, the Congressmen are going to do their negotiating where they cannot be interrupted by people who are doing nothing but trying to obstruct the process.

___

Nope.

All of the below is great - it simply shows that Obama, in making his repeated promises for a far more open government process, and that the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN, had NO CLUE as to how the process actually worked, even though he himself was a United States Senator.

More proof that Obama did NOTHING of substance as a legislator. He was running for president as soon as he was shown his DC office space.

Well done in bringing this fact to light!!

____


I'm an independant. I voted for Obama and I'm not stupid. Stupid would be if I voted for him again. I assure you I wont be voting for him a second time.

Gee, honey, why don't you post it again since it's such a brilliant statement? I mean who knows? Maybe FoxNews will pick it up and your genius will be known far and wide!

 

[Sinatra]

Someone already said this but I would like to reiterrate it..



No, they did not. Back room deals are the norm in Washington. Why would "leftists" claim they're not? It is your ilk who hilariously believe that the methods by which this bill has passed through the two houses is somehow something "new."

______

Ah, so you are admitting Obama's promises to change Washington - to stop the back room deals and require an open and honest legislative process was false?

That he either knowingly lied or was to ignorant of how Washington actually worked? Or perhaps far too arrogant to think he could even change it?

All three perhaps?

Your education is coming along nicely!!

 

[Sinatra]

So we have a president who, according to the "Maggie" did not actually understand how the DC legislative process works. That promises for open and accountable government are in fact lies, that oft repeated promises that the healthcare debate are to be open and televised for all to see, and that the corruption inherent within the DC political system is just the way it is and we should all just leave good enough alone.

Did I miss anything there from our liberal apologist?


Bring on the Correction Election of 2010 folks...

 

[Vast LWC]

Forget it Maggie, it's not worth the effort.

If Obama excreted gold from his rectum and used it to pay off the national debt, these guys would complain about how bad the gold smelled.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every day I come here there are more grandiose proclamations of how Obama did this or didn't do that and the people are turning against him, and his popularity is plunging, blah, blah, and yet, his approval rating is basically the same as it was in August.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I mean, seriously, do you people actually believe what's coming out of your own mouths?

My girlfriend is a conservative, so I can wrangle the truth about these internet cons out of her, and no they don't believe most of it, except for the ones who are too stupid to know better.

 

[Sinatra]

Every day I come here there are more grandiose proclamations of how Obama did this or didn't do that and the people are turning against him, and his popularity is plunging, blah, blah, and yet, his approval rating is basically the same as it was in August.

FYI

Actually at the beginning of August it was about 4 points higher.

At the beginning of June it was about 10 points higher.

 

[keee keee]

Just another lie from Hopey Changie!!! Hey Kool-Aid drinkers you were warned that this guy was a FRAUD, LIAR, CON ARTIST AN EMPTY SUIT. He is now making Bill Clinton look like a honest politician!!!!

 

[keee keee]

I think he is lower than Bush was after 8 years of a war, Keep up the good work DingleBarry Jimma Carter wants to get off the top of the list as horrible presidents!!!

 

[Sinatra]

Just another lie from Hopey Changie!!! Hey Kool-Aid drinkers you were warned that this guy was a FRAUD, LIAR, CON ARTIST AN EMPTY SUIT. He is now making Bill Clinton look like a honest politician!!!!

Clinton was a far superior negotiator than Obama - though it took him a year or so to catch his stride.

Obama may not prove nearly as capable, as he does not appear nearly as intelligent as Clinton...