Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

Capitalism and Health Care

March 21, 2010 – 9:57 pm

Nancy Pelosi has the votes, and Obamacare is headed to the president’s desk. What does it mean for the future?

By Ben Domenech | Posted in Blogs, Features, Markets & Policy | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments

Latest News on Health Care: Stupak Sells Out, Pelosi Gets Her Win

March 21, 2010 – 5:18 pm

My final pre-vote piece at The Daily Caller is on Bart Stupak’s fig leaf, Nancy Pelosi’s big win, and where we go from here on health care reform.

In the end, Pelosi and Obama’s achievement is likely to come at a hefty political price. It seems clear that the American people aren’t as easy to buy off or cajole as their elected officials, and over the coming months, as they learn more about what’s within this new system, Republicans are counting on them disliking it. In a time of economic tension, the effects of new tax requirements could be immediate and tangible. And in the long term, the most significant aspect of this reform that no one has talked about that much is what it will do to the American job market — thanks to taxpayer-funded subsidies for coverage which create “cliffs” at certain income levels, many Americans will experience new penalties for success which will impact their decisions in the future.

I hope you read and find it of interest. The vote is just a few hours away.

By Ben Domenech | Posted in Blogs, The Whip | Also tagged , , , , , | Comments

“Deem And Pass” Violates The Constitution

March 20, 2010 – 10:08 am

No other conclusion can be drawn, as former judge, and current Stanford law professor Michael McConnell points out:

In just a few days the House of Representatives is expected to act on two different pieces of legislation: the Senate version of the health-care bill (the one that contains the special deals, “Cadillac” insurance plan taxes, and abortion coverage) and an amendatory bill making changes in the Senate bill. The House will likely adopt a “self-executing” rule that “deems” passage of the amendatory bill as enactment of the Senate bill, without an actual vote on the latter.

This enables the House to enact the Senate bill while appearing only to approve changes to it. The underlying Senate bill would then go to the president for signature, and the amendatory bill would go to the Senate for consideration under reconciliation procedures (meaning no filibuster).

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments

Eleventh Hour Negotiations on Health Care

March 20, 2010 – 7:42 am

On Capitol Hill, the Rules Committee is meeting this morning to run through some last minute amendments to the health care legislation. You can read those here. But they’re irrelevant — it’s clear the final standoff on Capitol Hill in the eleventh hour of the health care debate will be over Rep. Bart Stupak’s small band of fellow Democrats who oppose taxpayer funding for abortions.

The mere fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is conversing with Stupak behind closed doors at this late moment is a sign that she remains short of the vote total needed to pass the Senate bill, even after the imposition of the so-called “Slaughter strategy” to give political cover to members. There are still many concerns among Blue Dog Democrats that the bill in question will not sufficiently address the cost problems of the health care system, and the latest exchange with the Congressional Budget Office has done little to assuage their worries.

It is Stupak’s small coalition, which once numbered 12 but now seems closer to 3, who could decide the entire issue.

By Ben Domenech | Posted in Blogs, The Whip | Also tagged , , , , , | Comments

Bart Stupak’s Moment Of Truth

March 19, 2010 – 11:44 pm

There ought to be no doubt by now but that the health care reform bill before the House is a deficient piece of legislation. About the only thing standing between the bill and final passage is Bart Stupak and his caucus of pro-life Democrats. If they waver, a bad bill passes. And the concern is that they may waver:

Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who leads a group pressing for the tougher restrictions, is planning a press conference today to discuss his request for an abortion vote. His legislative director, Nick Choate, declined to comment.

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments

Could “Deem And Pass” Be Constitutionally Challenged?

March 18, 2010 – 11:40 pm

At the very least, it appears to be worth a shot. As mentioned, unlike the case in Marshall Field, an actual Constitutional provision–Art. I, Sec. 7–is implicated. As Jonathan Adler notes, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals may be willing to analogize any challenge to the one that was issued in Public Citizen, thus causing it to rule the same way that it did in Public Citizen. But since the Supreme Court may well think differently, and since there is ample cause for it to think differently, a Constitutional challenge to the use of the “deem and pass” rule should very much be found to be on the table.

Of course, if we could just have a straight up-or-down vote in the House on health care reform, perhaps we could avoid any litigation altogether. But that apparently is not going to be a luxury we can enjoy, now is it?

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments

The Illogic And Injustice Of Deem And Pass

March 17, 2010 – 6:36 am

Law professor and former Tenth Circuit judge Michael McConnell puts the issue succinctly on Speaker Pelosi’s proposed “deem and pass” scheme. I don’t have a WSJ subscription, but fortunately, Michael Cannon does, and he has excerpted the pertinent analysis:

Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments

The Ultimate Cop-Out

March 16, 2010 – 6:23 am

Think you’ve seen it all when it comes to the health care reform debate? Well, think again:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments

Endgame: Pelosi’s Health Care Gamble

March 13, 2010 – 3:00 pm

Pelosi's Endgame

This is it, folks — the health care endgame. Appropriately named Slaughter strategy, come on down!

In addition, it looks like House Democrats won’t have to vote directly on a Senate bill they really don’t like. The speaker hasn’t made a final decision, but she told her rank-and-file during the meeting that the plan now is to craft a rule that would “deem” the Senate bill passed once they approve the package of fixes.

Let’s pull together a few key issues as we go into what is in all likelihood the final week in the runup to the vote within the House of Representatives, a vote that could reshape America’s health policy and economic future.

The first and most important thing to remember: they don’t have the votes right now, but that doesn’t mean they won’t when it comes to the floor. Pelosi can only allow for 37 “No” votes from Democrats, and my current count has her at 45…but we’ll soon see how solid those are.

By Ben Domenech | Posted in Blogs, The Whip | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments

How Do You Whip Nonexistent Legislation?

March 10, 2010 – 11:28 am

Nancy Pelosi at work

My personal back of the envelope whip count on health care reform today puts the total House Aye votes at 205.

The New York Times this morning has a report on a key parliamentary decision which will determine whether the current strategy on health care is even possible. We noted this yesterday in the context of reconciliation news, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) had mentioned it earlier as a very real possibility. Essentially, this parliamentary requirement would demand that the president sign or veto the Senate health care bill after it theoretically passed the House, meaning that no reconciliation changes could be done in the Senate in time.

As with all parliamentary decisions, this is going to raise a lot of questions and result in some delay, but will probably turn out to be a false barrier to proceeding. There is always a way to navigate around such provisions.

By Ben Domenech | Posted in Blogs, The Whip | Also tagged , , , , , | Comments

Another Democrat Goes Down: Massa to Retire

March 5, 2010 – 5:03 pm

In what amounts to a mixed blessing for the GOP, New York Congressman Eric Massa is going to resign Monday for “health reasons” according to his Chief of Staff Joe Racalto. As is the culprit of late for Democrats, Massa seems to actually be resigning because of scandal revolving around sexually harassing a male staffer.

By Brad Jackson | Posted in Politics, The Whip | Also tagged , , , , | Comments

Too Little, Too Late

March 3, 2010 – 4:28 pm

It is nice to see that Charlie Rangel has finally been forced to give up his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, but the issue should have been forced a long time ago. Instead, the House Democratic leadership sought to protect Rangel for as long as possible; this despite promises of “the most ethical Congress in history,” “draining the swamp,” and battles against the “culture of corruption” that supposedly only existed when Republicans controlled Congress.

I am sure that some people will try to sell Rangel’s (temporary) departure from his chairmanship as some kind of profile in courage for him, and for the rest of the Democratic leadership. But no one should be fooled.

By Pejman Yousefzadeh | Posted in Chequer-Board | Also tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments
- March 21, 2010 -

MORE LEDGER

ELSEWHERE ON TNL

DAILY READS

MARKETS & POLICY

The WHIP

HEGEMON

CHEQUER BOARD

Follow us online

LINK NETWORK