Democrats hide behind Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare bill without voting - OR NOT
DC Independent Examiner
Update: Well it appears that the Dems have now shied away from using the "deem and pass" rule. They are still gutless scum. What this likely means is that Pelosi has finally twisted enough arms to get the votes she wants so that they won't have to risk the Constitutional challenge the "Slaughter rule" clearly poses. They also won't have to be seen as cowering behind it. Instead they will be hiding under her skirts. Some remain skeptical that they have enough votes, but I expect they will get them.
Original Article
Never in the field of American politics has so much cowardice, hypocrisy and criminal fraud existed among the entire Congressional delegation of one Party. Never! News just arrived that House Democrats have voted in favor of the “Slaughter Rule” which they will use to “deem” the objectionable Senate healthcare bill passed without any of them having to actually vote on it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear her reason for wanting to use this mechanism a couple of days ago when she
said: “I
like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.” Incredible. You want to bypass the democratic process, just make up a rule!
How mind bogglingly corrupt and arrogant can a person be? Each time you think Pelosi can sink no further, she effortlessly pulls it off. This has even shocked some liberals. For example, CNN’s Jack Cafferty called Pelosi “beyond sleazy” for endorsing the Slaughter Rule, saying “this reeks!” and labeling the process “simply unbelievable.”
A few weeks back Cafferty described Pelosi as a “horrible woman.” For once, I truly agree with the man. That is the problem with being a doctrinaire liberal. At some point those with even a smidgen of an open mind realize they are being had. Doctrinaire liberals will ultimately do one of two things: either they will surrender their souls and join the ranks, or they will be honest with themselves and convert, realizing that true, movement leftists are just brutal, self-serving, entrepreneurial parasites. This happened recently to such noted Hollywood personalities as John Voight and David Mamet. I suspect Cafferty may be undergoing a Lou Dobbs conversion too. Look out for an offer from Fox.
But we never had illusions about Pelosi. This vote is an indictment against the entire Democrat Party. What it clearly means is that there are not enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill with an up-or-down vote. What it also clearly means is that virtually all House Democrats (vote count: 222 yeas, 28 nays,) are willing to toss the democratic process out the window to please the leadership. They are abject cowards, and have violated their oaths of office. They put their own self-interest above the Constitution, which this decision eviscerates.
What about Democrat claims that this rule has been used before? As usual it is a half-truth that turns the meaning of the procedure on its head. Known as a “self-executing rule,” the House has passed a number of legislative items using this technical device for issues upon which it has already agreed. See here for a complete run down on past uses.
This is a new low for this lowest of low Congresses, a new low for our country, and a frightening harbinger of what may be coming.
Businessman and freelance writer James Simpson is a former Office of Management and Budget (White House budget office) economist and budget analyst. Best known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis, his writings have been published in American Thinker, The New Media...
Comments
Excellent, you nailed it.
Didn't you know that Republicans have used this rule many times on big legislation often in the beginning stages?
Pelosi is giving the GOP some of their own medicine and they act outraged. Ha-ha, I applaud this courageous woman.
Sounds like you're going to need some health care after you have a heart attack, which appears to be happening in real time.
NO ….HEALTH CARE
The government in all its woven web of political rhetoric have not successfully administered many programs, and for the life of me and I can’t think of any success stories at the moment. . The general concept of health care is fantastic, but it as many programs before it, has holes….big enough to put the Brooklyn Bridge inside. For example ….social Security…welfare….and the bank bail out….
We all came to America whether in 1620 or 1920 but legally. We all had that common dream of a “better life”. We honored our county and our flag and were anxious to contribute our skills for the betterment of ALL.
Government has crushed and suffocated our dream with its bi-lingual classes-lack of respect for our flag. Our constitution as been ignored or twisted to satisfy a few. At the expense and tangled in individual rights of profiling we have witnessed Fort Hood, 9/11 and yet millions of illegals continue to erode our economic system. There is secu
Sandra, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The self-executing rule has NEVER been used to "deem as passed" a bill that the House has not considered, debated, voted on, and passed.
You're welcome to try to disprove this assertion - but you will fail. In fact, I dare you to try to find an example of a House bill (not a rule on House procedures, but an actual bill) that was "deemed as passed" that was not already at the Conference Report stage.
Go ahead. I dare you.
@Mr. Simpson: thanks for the link. I'm hoping the compilation is useful. Perhaps it is too much to ask for readers such as Sandra to read what you've so kindly linked in your article.
Chipper: I guess you didn't know that the House and Senate already passed health care reform bills, and now we're in the reconciliation process.
Whoops, wrong again.
There is no "reconciliation process" for bills passed by the two chambers. Rather, there is a "Conference Committee" that is seated by unanimous consent of the members.
The House originally passed HR3200. The Senate then took an unrelated House bill, HR3950, and by a manager's amendment struck everything from it and replaced its text with the Senate's health care bill wording.
One Senator (Jim DeMint, bless him!) objected to seating of conferees, thus there is no Conference Committee - and therefore, no Conference Report for HR3200 and HR3950.
The House must pass the Senate bill unamended, or else the bill is returned to the Senate, and the process starts all over again.
The "reconciliation" term that gets bandied about so frequently refers to the *budget reconciliation* process, which reconciles a budget bill with government tax revenues in order to reduce the deficit. It does *not* reconcile two different bills passed by the two chambers.
Thanks
That last comment was mine:
There is no "reconciliation process" for bills passed by the two chambers. Rather, there is a "Conference Committee" that is seated by unanimous consent of the members.
The House originally passed HR3200. The Senate then took an unrelated House bill, HR3950, and by a manager's amendment struck everything from it and replaced its text with the Senate's health care bill wording.
One Senator (Jim DeMint, bless him!) objected to seating of conferees, thus there is no Conference Committee - and therefore, no Conference Report for HR3200 and HR3950.
The House must pass the Senate bill unamended, or else the bill is returned to the Senate, and the process starts all over again.
The "reconciliation" term that gets bandied about so frequently refers to the *budget reconciliation* process, which reconciles a budget bill with government tax revenues in order to reduce the deficit. It does *not* reconcile two different bills passed by the two chambers.
Hell has come to breakfast...
Thanks Jim for another revelation.
Whatever way it's done, we'll finally have universal health care in the USA and you're going to like it, Gramps!
Wrong again, morons:
See American Enterprise Institute-
Hypocrisy: A Parliamentary Procedure
By Norman J. Ornstein
March 16, 2010, 4:24 pm
"Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That st
Cont'd-
"That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?"
The slaughter rule was used by Republicans because where they used it, it was constitutional. Unlike how Democrats are using it, as stated by some blogging, the rule is used for procedural matters already voted on by a house of Congress. It is not used to pass bills not voted on by Reps. People who blogg should actually know what they are talking about and not just repeat Democrat propaganda
For those who find this confusing, an analogy of the slaughter rule would be your playing pool with a friend on a pay to use table and your hand hits one of your own balls into a pocket. Your not playing for money so you both agree to put one of your friends balls in the pocket to even things out because you don't want to scratch the whole game, put more money into the money slot and re-rack the balls. This is the slaughter rule.
It is used for procedural matters mostly that have been already voted on where votes have been recorded on a matter. What the Democrats have done is to smack all their balls into the pockets at once and say, "I win, and, by the way, the game is for a million dollars." this can not be legal.
Jeff, Ha, ha. When the Repubs use the procedure, it's legal. When Dems use it -- not legal.
Why are Repubs so repugnant and hateful? The country needs health insurance for all and most of all, because the current system can't be sustained.
@Mona:
The Republicans have never used the self-executing rule to do what the Democrats are doing. Never. Not once in the history of the House.
The Republicans have only ever used a self-executing rule to expedite a Conference Report amending a bill the House has already considered, debated, voted on, and passed.
Go ahead: prove me wrong. I dare you.
Sandra, Please read the link provided in Mr. Simpson's story. The uses of the device described there do not appear to have occurred respecting big legislation and none of the uses detailed involved legislation that had not been voted on. Thus, those were not comparable uses.
Given that this particular legislation is HUGE respecting the potential damage it could inflict, this is most definitely not the time to resort to methods that conceal responsibility, regardless of the use of the method in the past. NONE of bills in question was as large as this one and if we're going to call ourselves a republic, now is for sure one of those times we need accountability, not legislators hiding behind a smokescreen. Our system does not have an infinite capacity to absorb undemocratic actions whether taken by the courts, legislature, or executive.
It will not stand the test of time Valerie...and you're going to like that!
Hey Valerie,
NEVER in the 200+ years of the existence of this country have the people been mandated to buy anything. That could change now. The Founding Fathers intended for the States to be independent of the Federal Government but the tables are totally upside down. Health care is NOT an inalienable right. Sorry. This is another entitlement program and it will destroy the US. I believe it is the intent of this administration to do just that. And no matter how the vote goes, there will be lawsuits that will tie this mess up for years. Nowhere in the bill does it say which Insurance Company(ies) will administer this plan. Today, our VP said "WE" will control the insurance companies. Why can't you see that this is like the way Chavez and Castro took over their countries? This congress has wasted 15 months trying to figure out how to cheat behind behind closed doors to make sure this becomes law. It's against the Constitution and is more than likely completely illegal.
Again, another excellent article, Jim. I truly appreciate your insight which is always spot on.
Georgia Congressman Jim Marshall voted for the Slaughter Rule, even though he was opposing the Bill. What does that say about Jim Marshall? A man of conviction or a man of convenience?
They're not using the self-executing rule, you right wing morons.
I'm a bitter liberal lesbian bitch. I'm always right.
Hey, I'm a bitter lesbian too!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!