"An option still on the table?" (Did the GOP 'misinterpret' what the parliamentarian said?)

[Clio the Leo]

also see...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x219288

An option still on table?

Senate Republicans caused a major stir Thursday when they told reporters that the parliamentarian had informed them that the Senate bill needed to be signed into law before lawmakers took up a sidecar bill to fix it.

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told his Democratic colleagues during a caucus meeting Thursday that he had heard the same thing.

But according to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.

For example, if the big bill itself amends some Social Security statute, reconciliation could be written to do the same --with changes sought by the House. Then if reconciliation is passed and signed by President Barack Obama after he signs the larger bill, the changes made in reconciliation would prevail.
This jives with what Pulse sources were saying soon after the first wave of stories hit – in essence, don’t take the reported parliamentarian’s declaration to the bank.

House leaders are hoping to approve the Senate bill, but hold onto it until the package of fixes also passes both chambers. Otherwise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have to convince members to vote for a Senate bill that they strongly dislike without a guarantee that the fixes get approved as well. House Democrats are worried that if they pass the Senate bill – and it is signed into law – the Senate would not act on the package of fixes.

Republicans have been trying to frighten squeamish House Democrats into voting "no" on the Senate bill – and the stories Thursday on the parliamentarian’s apparent guidance sent more tremors through the caucus.

There is no written confirmation of the parliamentarian's guidance, Senate Republican aides said.

It was relayed to them verbally, making it difficult to independently confirm what the parliamentarian said.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/An_option_still_on_table.html

To *ME* this sounds like the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=216944">"self executing" strategy we've been hearing about.

[mod mom]

1. well... this is better sourced than the tweet, but still it's politico. Why can't someone

ask the Parliamentarian?

[brewens]

2. I heard this several time and no one has asked if the same thing

came up when Bush got his tax cuts using reconciliation. It really pisses me off when I'm watching so-called journalists that will just sit there and let a statement like that stand and not challenge it with the most obvious question.
I suppose it could be a different parliamentarian interpreting the procedure that is the difference. They were talking on Morning Joe like this had never happened before.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. It did come up.

And the Republicans fired the Parliamentarian.

[Jennicut]

3. Obviously, the Rethugs just want to mess around with the heads of the House Dems.

There is no news here until Alan Frumin makes his decision and actually is seen telling reporters about it.