-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Barney Frank, who last night dealt what I described as a potential death blow to Obamacare, today backed away from his statement as overly pessimistic. Tonight, he told Talking Points Memo that he could vote for the Senate bill as is, as long as he would receive assurances that the problems with the bill would be fixed in a separate bill using the nuclear option of reconciliation, which would require only a simple majority in the Senate.
Last night, Frank said that trying to pass health care legislation with less than 60 votes would be inappropriate, because it would be changing the rules in the middle of the process:
"Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
But today, he outlined a different strategy that would employ the nuclear option in the Senate:
"You have to pass the Senate bill as is and the President signs it. Then people have to be assured that you can get the amendments through the House and the Senate," Frank said. "Because then the argument would be, 'Look, the bills already passed so now the question is whether you're willing to amend it or not.'"
One way to do that would be through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process. "The alternative would be, people are talking about using reconciliation: 51 votes to get the agreed on amendments in the Senate."
So in less than 24 hours, he did a total reversal.
Frank still recognizes that it may be difficult to get the Senate bill passed in the House, but he seemed to suggest that last night his bigger fear was that Democrats would try to delay the seating of Brown:
"A bill being passed [is in Democrats' best interest]--as long as it's being done in a way that's invulnerable to charges that it was jammed through, or the rules were disregarded. That's what I was afraid of was a disregard for the procedural rules: Bending the Byrd rule out of shape, or doing something with Paul Kirk's vote while awaiting certification--those things would be fatal."
I'm not sure how Frank thinks that Democrats would be immune to charges that health care was rammed through if the House passes the Senate bill with the assurance that Senate Democrats would subvert the 60-vote rule and use the reconciliation process to iron out differences. That's especially true given that the reconciliation bill would be rammed through to preserve the backroom deal negotiated to create a special "carve out" for unions on the "Cadillac tax." Forget right or wrong. If Democrats think that the politically astute response to the Massachusetts election results is to pass health care using the highly partisan reconciliation procedure to preserve the bribe to their favored special interest, they are utterly delusional.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/20/frank-flip-flops-could-now-vot
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- In Midst of Poverty, an Educational Oasis
- I Take the Secret Service Scandal Personally
- The Last in Line
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Franklin| 1.20.10 @ 9:13PM
"Someone" 'got' to Mr. Frank.
MarkJ| 1.20.10 @ 10:02PM
"Someone" 'got' to Mr. Frank.
The mental picture of that makes for a truly "Ewwwwwwwwwww Moment."
If Bawney "Ramrod" Fwank thinks he can pull this crap, especially after most of his constituents said, "Hell no" last night, he might as well announce his retirement and open up a trendy antique shop with his "special friend" on Cape Cod.
Roger Cotton| 1.20.10 @ 10:22PM
So pass the damned bill, already.
We'll only repeal it and then get started on investigating you, Barney.
Either way, yours is a Sisyphean effort.
Siegfried X| 1.20.10 @ 10:23PM
Frank's comments don't make any sense. The "[budget] reconciliation" rule is just for exactly that, budget reconciliation. So passing health care with reconciliation would be exactly what he fears, "Bending the Byrd rule out of shape". If major changes to a 1500 page health care bill can be made with reconciliation, then ANYTHING could.
The Byrd Rule says:
"Any Senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding Senator. A vote of 60 Senators is required to overturn the ruling."
So the only way the Democrats could pass this would be to have their chair pretend that each of hundreds of valid objections are not valid, and do it on national television.
bluecollarbytes| 1.20.10 @ 10:25PM
That's deciding strategy on-the-fly.
Siegfried X| 1.20.10 @ 10:29PM
The Democrats are in denial. This is just a last, vain hope for them. Pelosi and the left don't like to admit they are beaten, so now they are pretending that the filibuster doesn't exist and that any legislation can be passed with budget reconciliation.
There is another problem too, that it might be unconstitution for the House to simply approve the Senate's bill because the constitution says that all revenue bills must begin in the House.
Victor Erimita| 1.20.10 @ 10:45PM
Barney Frank will say absolutely anything. What he says bears no relation to what his intentions are or his actions will be. He is a more brazen liar than Obama and one of the biggest of scoundrels in a parliament of whores. Watch what he does, not what he says.
Pete| 1.20.10 @ 10:53PM
"He is a more brazen liar than Obama"
I just don't know. They are both experts, to be sure.
Vincent| 1.20.10 @ 10:57PM
Bawney + Fwank = Original "teabagger".....
All Fed Up| 1.20.10 @ 10:58PM
Maybe I shouldn't have called my representative this morning and told him that, since Barney Frank has declared the healthscare bill dead, he should do so, too. Sorry about that.
Mike| 1.20.10 @ 11:33PM
I think that the Dems are so surprised and confused that at this point they can't say much of anything that makes any sense. Chaos reins! Thank God!
Pete| 1.21.10 @ 1:29AM
That a man of such low moral character and breathtaking incompetence as Barney Frank should be in any position of power over our lives (let alone as a U.S. Congressman and head of the House Financial Services Committee) is one of the most depressing and disheartening thoughts that could ever invade one's mind. Why isn't this man in prison? Yet there is hope------Al Franken is already demonstrating his great leadership abilities and brilliant legislative mind and can go a long way in restoring the faith of the American people in their elected officials.
Franklin| 1.21.10 @ 6:15AM
Oh, no. What's Al done now?
Yosemeti Sam| 1.21.10 @ 1:48AM
Fool me once ....
LOL.
When the rubber hits the road - Barnard can do
the best of U-turns for the Democrats.
JP| 1.21.10 @ 9:27AM
Rep Frank's reversal indicates just how shocking Borwn's election was to the WH (note to Axelrod -get better pollsters). Even this morning, the President' is still talking about coalescing those part of the bill that both the GOP and Dems can agree on.
The Blue Dogs are running for thier lives -even Evan Bayh realizes that his vote in December was in retrosepct a huge political mistake. Congressional Dems would like nothing more than to decalre defeat and hope that the economy improves enough by November to allow them to hold on. The last thing they want is on-ongoing "negociation process" of a bill that nauseates even liberal voters. The President seems perfectly happy to let this thing continue. As long as our narcisstic President gets his bill all is right with the world.
The question now looms, who will be the bearer of bad news? The world goes on outside of the Beltway. The economy remains in dire straights and a whole host of challenges remain. Does the President make a bad situation worse by forcing the Health Care issue. This could consume his administration and his party at a time when he should be concentrating on what really matters to the voters.
ObamaCare died yesterday; everyone but the President and his sychophants realize this. Will he throw his own party overboard?
martin j smith| 1.21.10 @ 10:29AM
If the Democrat Party wants to fuel the anti-obama machine--go right ahead. Obama and his left fellow travelers show they really are yet again--to hell with the voters--the people are peasants etc. Look at the WSJ today. There are left Democrats who state their case for Obama to strike out against the voter. well maybe they need a larger lesson. or, will they change the rules again and again to suite their power needs. My sense is simple: I do not trust ANY Democrat ANY WHERE ANY TIME( I mean one in elected office )
The position of the Democrat Left for those whop disagree is simple: Keep your ears to the ground. Trust none of them. Assume trickery.
Mike M| 1.21.10 @ 10:49AM
I think "Barney" took off his purple dinosaur suit and headed back to D.C. only to have his head handed to him, (use your imagination) only to reappear today walking bow-legged and singing a new song. Back into the purple suit now for another film session.