So fire him and replace him with someone predisposed to agree with you. It's what the Republicans did to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, hardly as important as insurance reform. Hire someone who hasn't had health care for years because they couldn't afford it.

Why can't we hear from the parliamentarian directly? Why did the senior gopper go all anonymous for this if it is such a slam dunk truth? Inquiring minds want to know?

Given Reid's letter to McConnell (see Benen's previous post), there's no reason for House Dems to be nervous about the Senate leadership's sincerity.

Kind of amusing actually, because forcing the House to go first and pass HCR into law shows how completely fake the GOP complaints about reconciliation were. This way makes it painfully obvious that HCR became law not through reconciliation, but through a majority vote in the House and a super majority vote in the Senate. Then the votes on the reconciliation bill to improve the existing bill will require the GOP to vote in support of things like the "cornhusker kickback" they were just opposing.

Before Speaker Pelosi became the most powerful female politician in American history, she was a homemaker for two decades. I suspect she still knows how to wield a kitchen knife, and I suspect that Senate Dems know that if they value their balls, they had better not cross her on this.

Could the Senate act on a resolution to the effect that they will pass a budget fix according to the relevant terms? They don't even have to pass it. Let it fail a cloture vote 51-49.

I mean do that as a show of good faith.

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate's "Byrd Rule", http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf, p. 4-5:

"The Byrd rule is a relatively complex rule that applies to two types of reconciliation measures considered pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 -- reconciliation bills and reconciliation resolutions. A reconciliation resolution could be used to make changes in legislation that had passed the House and Senate but had not yet been enrolled and sent to the President. The practice of the House and Senate has been to consider only reconciliation bills.)"

The House is incredibly stupid if they kill the bill over this. As David points out above, all the Republican obstruction strategies become immediately ridiculous as soon as the House passes the Senate bill and Obama signs it. Doing it this way should be by far the easiest way to get this thing done - if they had to pass the Reconciliation bill first in order to get the House to pass the main bill the Republicans would have every reason to do every little thing they could to derail the reconciliation. If the House just gets over itself ans passes the Senate bill, the Republicans have no real incentive to do anything of the sort, except to be obnoxious for obnoxiousness' sake (which I wouldn't put past them, but it'll just make them look like assholes for no reason).

Reid is already pulling the reconciliation rug out from under progressives.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_102/news/44084-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS&page=2

Anyone surprised?

Perhaps Obama will host a meeting with House and Senate Dems. Really sad given history of health care reform failure in the US if this effort fails due to things that, in perspective, are really petty grievances. I really like Michael Capuano and wish that he had been Dem candidate in MA special election. But can't understand how he and other progressive Reps can somehow convince themselves that expansion of coverage to 30 million plus, and ending worst abuses of insurance companies, doesn't deserve their support. And (e.g. Rep. Kagen) spare me the alternative universe thought experiments about how we should pass several smaller bills. In whose lifetime? As Bogie would have said to the House Dem caucus, if you don't vote for this bill you will regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

I think I've mentioned this before but my dad pointed out back during Christmas that the smartest thing Democrats in the House could do would be to simply pass the Health Insurance bill as is from the Senate. It would effectively nullify the Republicans and force them to filibuster many of the improvements they have been calling for.

Needless the say the Democrats (being Democrats) did not do this.

I still give the current bill a barely 50% of passing. Democrats will go into November with no big wins to champion and will get slaughtered.

You want to know what the House Dems are afraid of? Stuff like this:

The White House and Democratic leaders are considering wrapping a student loan reform bill into the reconciliation �fix it� bill the Senate plans to pass for health care reform. At least nine senators, however, now oppose the plan, complicating Democrats� plans to finish health care reform as quickly as possible.

Not sure why a budget related fix to the student loan program that the GOP will filibuster isn't appropriate in a budgetary reconciliation bill...

Even if unrelated, since when has adding random crap ever stopped a bill from passing? Sure, it might make the process look uglier, but actually prevent it from passing, no way.

If the Dems can't pass a student loan reform bill on its own merits, then they truly are pathetic.

If the Senate can provide a written pledge to pass the agreed reconciliation amendments, signed by at least 50 senators, then the House should go ahead and pass the Senate bill.

If the Senate reneges, the House can publish the written pledge so everyone can see who the real traitor(s) is/are. Then all hell breaks loose.

The votes are simply not there in the House to pass the Senate bill unless the “fixes” are passed first.

Nothing is stopping the House from passing a reconciliation bill prior to the Senate Bill and sending it to the Senate.
FWIW, I see the easiest way forward as passing this bill, and then getting the promise of 50 Senators to pass the reconciliation bill AS IS (i.e. vow to defeat every and all amendments). Then the House could pass the Senate Bill once the reconciliation bill is scheduled in the Senate.

Sheesh, my comment is a mess. Here is what they should do:
1. Get House Reconciliation bill that House and Senate are both happy with language (and can pass muster with parliamentarian).
2. Get 50 Senators on record that they will pass reconciliation bill AS IS, i.e. they vow to vote down every single amendment.
3. Senate schedules reconciliation bill.
4. House pass Senate bill
5. Prez sign Senate Bill like 2 hours before Senate starts reconciliation.
6. Senate pass clean reconciliation bill.

Why would the house think the senate might not actually follow through? Well because this whole time the house has come through and every god damn time the senate has dropped the ball. Why wouldn't they assume the senate would one more time?

The senate bill, as is, is far worse than the status quo. That being the case (and yes, it really is) you choose between killing the whole thing or enacting a monstrosity in the slim hope that for once the senate will follow through on a promise.

Under those circumstance the smart money is on scrapping the bill.

I would consider the source of the information before freaking out. Republicans say they have an "verbal" communication from the parliamentarian. Nah. That doesn't sound like any parliamentary procedure to me they're just trying to stampede reluctant congresspeople.

What Say You?
The Reconciliation Jig Is Nearly Up
Jennifer Rubin - 03.11.2010 - 3:24 PM

For a week or so now, Republicans and the conservative media have been hammering away on a procedural point, which is, in fact, vital to the whole reconcilition gambit being pushed by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi troika: the president will have a bill to sign once the House passes the Senate version, making any reconciliation process irrelevant and potentially moot if the Democrats then declare “victory” and end the process. Today the senate parliamentarian agreed:

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

So there you have it, House Democrats. Once you vote for the Senate bill, Obama will sign it, the Left will declare victory, and who knows if reconcilliation will ever happen. This confirms that the Democratic leadership has once again been hiding the ball and not leveling with either their own members or with the public about the procedural aspects of the bill. It will certainly not help to calm the nerves of House Democrats, who already suspect the “fix” is in and that they are being trapped into voting for the noxious Senate bill — Cornhusker Kickback and all.

Let me get this straight.
So not only does Congress not READ the bills it votes on, but under this proposal, they won’t have to even VOTE for the bills either for the Bill to become the law of the land? Hmmm

Did you see where even Dick Durbin said that the House had every right to not trust the Senate? He also contradicted the President by saying that if the bill is passed it will raise premiums and not lower them. He went on to say that anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful. Did Durbin become a Republican?

The Vice-President gets to tell the Senate Parliamentarian how the rules apply.

And if Biden reverses the decison of the Parliamentarian the game is over even if the bill passes. Since when did Joe become an expert on such matters, or doesn't that matter?

Really doesn’t matter. What he says goes.

At least it’s better than the way the Republicans did it. When they didn’t like the ruling from the Parliamentarian, they fired him and replaced him with their flunky.

Thug style.

I've been chastised before for not taking the trouble to Google to find my answers, but I'll risk it again...

Republicans have used reconciliation, time and again. Have *they* used reconciliation only to tinker around the *already signed* bills? If not, how have the parliamentary rules changed since Jan 20,'09?

Ric,

I'm gonna guess you just wandered in here from whatever site would actually print Jennifer Rubin, and haven't been around long enough to get the gist of how it works here. Allow me to explain:

1) Don't reprint other people's work as your entire comment. If you can't think for yourself, you should stick to sites that cater to that sort of defect. I hear National Review Online has lots of writers who will tell you what to think, and convince you that you are always right at the same time.

2) A quote: "Let me get this straight.
So not only does Congress not READ the bills it votes on, but under this proposal, they won’t have to even VOTE for the bills either for the Bill to become the law of the land? Hmmm"
I'm here to see you get it straight. No, most Congressmen do not read the entire bill. They have armies of highly-trained, dedicated aides who do that. The most intelligent and involved may be more familiar with the contents of the bill, but no sane human would actually try to read hundreds of pages of legalese every day. Secondly, and I'll go slowly here, since I see your not that informed about what's been going on; they ALREADY voted for the bill in the Senate, they have yet to vote for the bill in the House, and even after that, both sides will have to "reconcile" the different versions, and THEN there's another vote on the "reconciled" version, in both chambers. Are you still with me? Note how I used the ALL CAPS button to draw your attention? That's annoying, ain't it? hmmm
Run along now, back to NRO, or the Freepscape, or that new site, the one from the douche in the bowtie who can't hold a job? They have lots of friendly people there who will tell you what you want to hear. Just pesky ol' facts and logic here.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Also, I got a lot of facts wrong. And terms. But wot the hell, right? It's all about what you want to believe, eh?

This is so ridiculous on the part of the House Democrats. They should simply vote for what they want, including amendments that they have general assurance can be passed by the Senate via reconciliation. They should know by now exactly, and I mean the exact wording, of what that amendment will look like. Getting unenforceable "assurance" from the Senate should be beside the point. Each Representative will have gone on record.

As to the public option, that should be split out into a separate amendment, and Democrats (Obama in particular) should make it clear that the public option "will never go away," put a public option amendment into play, and turn it into a "for-the-people-or-for-the-insurance-company" litmus test for November. Given the popularity of the public option, which will only grow as it receives exclusive attention without the (necessary) baggage of the main bill, it will be a fantastic issue for dramatically shifting the momentum for November. Would you prefer to be a Republican protecting insurance company 40% increases, multi-billion dollar profits and multi-tens-of-millions CEO salaries at the expense of down-on-their-luck Americans who can't get insurance through their employers? And you wonder why Republicans are desperately trying to convince Democrats how unpopular the bill is?

Obama can begin mending fences with his disillusioned base by echoing loudly that the public option will never go away because it is a good idea -- a necessary non-profit option for Americans who cannot get affordable insurance any other way -- and that it can be added to the exchanges long before they actually go into operation; and "talk hard truth" to the insurance companies that it is probably coming sooner more than later, that he will sign it if it is voted for his signature by Congress, and they better start figuring out how to live with the competition.

I'm posting this again because everyone seems to have missed it.

What the Republicans claim to have been told is contradicted by a written report to Congress prepared last year by the Congressional Research Service. See The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate's "Byrd Rule", http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf, p. 4-5:

"The Byrd rule is a relatively complex rule that applies to two types of reconciliation measures considered pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 -- reconciliation bills and reconciliation resolutions. (A reconciliation resolution could be used to make changes in legislation that had passed the House and Senate but had not yet been enrolled and sent to the President. The practice of the House and Senate has been to consider only reconciliation bills.)"

This thread is like a clown car for concern trolls.

And if Biden reverses the decison of the Parliamentarian the game is over even if the bill passes. Since when did Joe become an expert on such matters, or doesn't that matter?

Ah . . . Joe Biden was a senator for a couple of decades, and one of the smart, well-read ones, which would put into a distinct minority in the current body.