Hmmmm:WHAT IS 310G?Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats – thrown out with a trump card procedural motion.
... “Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress.
HERE:
BWHAHAHAHA!Points of Order Relating to Social Security
Section 310(g): Social Security and Reconciliation
Prohibits consideration of reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations with respect to Social Security.
WE GET TO HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO: THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED
"YES" ON CLOWARD-PIVEN-OBAMACARE ARE TOAST, ANDS WE DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!
HOORAY!
A WIN-WIN FOR US AND A LOSE-LOSE FOR THEM!
OBAMACARE: WORST LEGISLATION EVAH!
OBAMA: WORST PRESIDENT EVAH!
UPDATE:
THE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOT IT DOWN.
After hearing arguments on both sides, Frumin said that Democratic plans to push back an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans until 2018 was within the purview of budget rules allowable under the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. The GOP had argued it was beyond the scope of the five-year budgetary window allowed under the rules, and it was a violation of the so-called Byrd rule because of its changes to the Social Security law.
Republicans were hoping that if Frumin had ruled that the tax plan was out of order, it would have derailed the entire reconciliation measure.
WE SHALL NEVER GIVE UP OR GIVE IN... ON TO THE NEXT FRONT... THEN NEXT BATTLEGROUND: THE SCOTUS!
6 comments:
Question: What difference will it make if reconciliation does not pass? Dems are willing to commit career suicide tonight to get healthcare passed, and it looks like it will. Will they really care if reconciliation then doesn't pass? They'll have gotten what they wanted and the real damage will be done. Please explain how losing rec. really matters? Thanks, T.
if the house votes to pass and the dems don't pass it in th senate or if they do and the scotus throws it out, then the dems have lost BIG:
because they suffer the cost of voting for obamacare but don't get the benefit of having it become the law and ushering in socialism and ushering out the USA as the world's best and indispensable superpower - both goals of the left.
if the house votes to pass and the dems don't pass it in th senate or if they do and the scotus throws it out, then the dems have lost BIG:
because they suffer the cost of voting for obamacare but don't get the benefit of having it become the law and ushering in socialism and ushering out the USA as the world's best and indispensable superpower - both goals of the left.
if the house votes to pass and the dems don't pass it in th senate or if they do and the scotus throws it out, then the dems have lost BIG:
because they suffer the cost of voting for obamacare but don't get the benefit of having it become the law and ushering in socialism and ushering out the USA as the world's best and indispensable superpower - both goals of the left.
if the house votes to pass and the dems don't pass it in th senate or if they do and the scotus throws it out, then the dems have lost BIG:
because they suffer the cost of voting for obamacare but don't get the benefit of having it become the law and ushering in socialism and ushering out the USA as the world's best and indispensable superpower - both goals of the left.
Im not sure that is correct. If the Senate bill passes but the reconciliation bill does not we are stuck with the senate bill as law with no corrections. Did I miss something?
The senate parliamentarian ruled against the 310g challenge today.
@UncleZeb - you are correct, the bill would have gone into effect without having the kickbacks etc stripped out, if the reconciliation bill had not been allowed
@Reliapundit - you're confusing the healthcare bill with the 'fixes' package
March 22, 2010 | 4:18 PM ET
Parlimentarian Hears Challenges To the "Cadillac Tax"
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/22/parlimentarian-hears-challenges-to-the-cadillac-tax/
Senate Republicans chose to challenge the so-called "Cadillac tax", ie- the excise tax on high cost insurance plans, as their first topic as they and their Democratic counterparts went before Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin Monday.
Staff to Democratic leader Harry Reid & Budget Cmte Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, (just staff) along w/ staff to GOP leader Mitch McConnell & Budget Cmte Ranking GOPer Judd Gregg, R-NH, met behind closed doors with the Parliamentarian just off the Senate floor.
Betsy Holahan, spokeswoman to Gregg’s side of the committee, e-maIL to Fox about the meeting, “It was a good discussion. Questions were raised, and those answers are being gathered. The Parliamentarian is still considering the matter, and no final decision has been made.”
A spokesman for Conrad declined comment, as did a Reid spokesman.
A McConnell staffer tells Fox that it is unclear when the Parliamentarian will rule.
Both sides argued their case to the nonpartisan Senate lawyer.
Reconciliation has strict rules and prohibits any affect on the Social Security trust fund. Republicans contend there is a trickle down affect from the excise tax --- insurance policies are taxed; employers eventually stop buying the higher-cost policies & buy less-costly plan; employers then, according to economic modeling, start to pay their employees more....thereby increasing revenues from payroll taxes....thereby adding dollars (having an affect) into the SS fund.
Democrats say there should be no violation of reconciliation rules, because they are having no negative impact on the fund.
Here's the language in the Budget Act of 1974, section 310(g) -- you play Parliamentarian:
"..It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget...that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act."
It is common for staff to meet behind the scenes with the Parliamentarian, who, like a judge in arbitration, listens to both sides. In fact, they have been meeting separately with him for weeks, as they prepare.
Remember, Frumin is a lawyer, so he will hear both sides, research any precedent that might exist, then dispense with a ruling.
Republicans are set to challenge the Caddy tax on a number of fronts, most notably the Social Security front ---- in Senate-speak, it's called a "310(g) challenge." If Frumin rules in their favor, the bill is basically taken down. It must go back to the committee of jurisdiction, in this case the Senate Finance Committee, and it's stripped of its reconciliation protection.
Republicans also intend to lodge a budget point of order against the excise tax, because it does not go into affect until 2018, and reconciliation legislation this year has a 5-year window.
Democrats counter that the entire bill comes in deficit-neutral, as it's supposed to, after 5 years and creates no deficit thereafter --- again, that's part of the rules. They think they're on solid ground.
But also remember – the Parliamentarian's ruling is NON-binding. If Frumin were to rule in Republicans’ favor on any of the points of order they intend to lodge against this provision, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN can always overrule Frumin.
NO NO NO indication Biden, as the presiding officer, would do this. And note – the White House has not yet confirmed Biden will preside.
Republican aides have said they have a list of other challenges they'll be running by Frumin. Clearly, they feel their Caddy tax challenge is their biggest.
Post a Comment