| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| The 'Slaughter Solution' to Ram Health Care Through |
| 2010-03-10 |
| The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution. The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter's scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming' the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. An article in this morning's edition of National Journal's CongressDaily breaks the story, starting with the headline: “SLAUGHTER PREPS RULE TO AVOID DIRECT VOTE ON SENATE BILL.' Excerpts: House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #4 Frank and Steve you're both overlooking the utterly predictable but absolutely-certain-to-occur scenario: the Dems ram this through via the Slaughter Solution; the S.Ct. takes the conservative view that bills were passed by both the House & Senate and that this isn't within their purview; and finally the Trunks take back Congress in the fall with enough RINOs immediately reaching across the aisle to guarantee the Dems a continued center-left agenda going forward and denying the conservatives any shot at deep-sixing Obamacare. We've seen this movie before. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2010-03-10 22:38 |
| #3 just a thought? better put than most of mine.... Louise's balloon was indeed a threat without promise because after this fall's destruction of teh Democrat party control they would be back to begging for precedence and parliamentiary rules they just obeyed. Kick them in the teeth and stomp their necks if they go through with this, and make it clear now that you will do so. Let them feel the heat now and the "Whining" accusations next year. F*ck em my thoughts.. as it were |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-03-10 21:46 |
| #2 So let's noodle this one out. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. Nothing in that statement says that the Senate has to vote again, which means that the 'corrections' are passed by the House only. Indeed, Harry Reid can stop any effort in the Senate to protest since he controls the calendar there. We all think that's blatantly unconstitutional and would take it to the courts. Possibilities: 1) the federal courts right up to the USSC decline to review citing separation of powers. Certainly possible, though the SC has to know that the reasonable respect they're currently held in by the public would disappear if they did this. The consequences are the same as in option #2. 2) the USSC eventually reviews and judges the maneuver to be constitutional. This opens up a real can of worms and would, if grabbed by all parties, mean the end of legislation. After all, if one house can pass something that the other house doesn't have to agree to, why bother with the legislative process? Should the Pubs get power back, why not have one house (e.g., the House of Representatives) pass a bill banning BambiCare? The Democrats who control the Senate refuse to call along, but who cares -- a precedent has been established. But which way? The House might argue (especially since Tip O'Neill noted that the Senate was the 'enemy') that this turns the Senate into, essentially, a House of Lords -- useful but not necessary, and a group that can always be bypassed. But the Senate might try very quickly to turn the new rule around and pass something that Obama really wants that the House doesn't get to consider. What then? Louise Slaughter isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but even she has to see that such a new constitutional rule could easily mean the end of any progressive agenda. It creates so much instability that our system has to fail, fail quickly, and she certainly understands that the US is a center-right country (else why go through such maneuvers to pass the health care bill in the first place?). Louise, reminder #1: who owns most of the firearms in this country? Louise, reminder #2: if called upon to stop a march or insurrection, which way would our military break? Finding this maneuver to be constitutional is the quickest way to a left-fascist state and subsequent Spanish-style civil war I know of. Pelosi, Reid and Obama can't be that stupid. That leaves option #3. 3) the USSC eventually reviews and judges the maneuver to be unconstitutional. Ah-ha. Who is happier, you or Louise? If the SC says this can't be done, the progressives and Democrats (but I repeat myself) can go to their now enraged constituencies and say hey, we tried but the danged SC stopped us. Y'all have to give us money so we can get re-elected and replace the SC. Obama can do the same. We did our best but the evil insurers, Republicans, courts, etc blocked our agenda. Health care goes away as an issue and by November (they hope) the short-attention span public is fixated on other things -- any other things. In other words, they get to kick the can down the road, game the mid-terms, and come back in 2011. Or 2013. Or 2023. They can keep trying. For that scenario to help the Democrats, it's best to do it quickly. If the SC takes until October to rule, the Democrats are cooked in the mid-term election. 4) none of this happens because the House realizes that it risks the results of the previous options. That means BambiCare goes down to defeat. If they can kill it quickly enough the Democrats can go back to their districts and campaign for the fall, hoping that by November the short-attention span public is fixated on other things. They minimize their losses, maybe even keep the House, and come back in 2011. Louise and the Democrats suffer little for floating the idea. They suffer only modestly if they do it and the SC promptly strikes it down. They think they win if they do it and the SC doesn't strike it down, not recognizing the coming storm. I'm betting this proposal dies a quiet death -- option #4. But it doesn't hurt Louise to try it; she's in a safe, safe district. That's why Pelosi had her be the mouthpiece on this one. Just a thought. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-03-10 20:30 |
| #1 --She can take her constituents dentures and stick it ...... |
| Posted by: Tom--Pa 2010-03-10 18:44 |