White House Endorses Catfood Commission part II, this time it will be binding

[no limit]

Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer presented their plan for how to deal with the debt limit, which they expect to introduce in the Senate ASAP. And now that we have more of the details, I really don’t know what the two parties are arguing over at this point. Because the Reid plan and the Boehner plan are substantially similar, for one main reason: Reid’s plan includes a “Super Congress,” a 12-member, bicameral, bipartisan “Catfood Commission II” that would deliver recommendations for further deficit reduction by the end of the year. This is the copy directly from the two-page draft release, which Brian Beutler helpfully tweeted:

"Establishes Joint Congressional Committee to Find Future Savings: In addition to $2.7 trillion in concrete savings, the Senate package will establish a joint, bipartisan committee, made up of 12 members, to present options for future deficit reduction. The committee’s recommendations will be guaranteed an up-or-down Senate vote, without amendments, by the end of 2011."

That means no filibuster and no amendments. So 12 members of Congress would make the kind of decisions that all members should have a hand in making.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/25/the-reid-plan-includes-a-catfood-commission/

So can we drop the bullshit that Obama doesn't want to cut social security and medicare? He is endorsing a plan that would have the exact same result as his deficit commission had since it will have the exact same parameters but this time it will require a up and down vote. That means social security and medicare will likely take hits while taxes will actually be lowered. And the entire time Obama will be able to hide behind the idea that he is not the one doing the cutting, that it's a bipartisan commission that is doing it.

[villager]

1. head + sand = unrec

But yes, the long knives are indeed out...

[TheWraith]

2. Ahh, the joys of firebagger lies.

Where "giving something a Senate vote" is the same thing as "destroying Social Security and Medicare."

[no limit]

10. Which part of the article or what I said was a lie?

They will set up a defecit commission using the EXACT same parameters as the old one. That old one recommended cuts to social security, medicare, and it actually wanted to lower taxes.

Unlike the last commission however this one will get an up or down vote in the senate meaning it will likely pass. And I know how this works, up until the day it passes you guys will insist that they are not going to cut medicare nor social security. Then they will release the plan with those very cuts while lowering taxes and then you will insist this will never pass in the senate nor the house and Obama won't sign it. Yet when it does pass and Obama does sign it you will change your tune again and say it wasn't Obama doing it but a bipartisan commission he had nothing to do with.

So lets hear what your opinion will be if Obama allows medicare or social security to be cut under his watch. What will you think then?

[truedelphi]

14. The new mantra of the craziness defenders is this one:

We must remember that it will be history that will judge Mr Obama - mere citizens should not be doing that so hastily!

[mmonk]

17. None. But people staked their hopes on Obama and refuse

to look into any questioning. That is why they hate Firedoglake. They want it more silent on the issue like some other groups that purport to be progressive.

[Angry Dragon]

3. He can not hide

he has to sign or veto .......... his name on it ... he owns it

[jtown1123]

4. This must be seen. No more catfood commissions!

[midnight]

5. 40 Billion in integrity studies for Continuing disability reviews,SSI and

Does this mean once this is passed that SS and Medicare will be chopped?

[DJ13]

11. Where did you see that?

[asjr]

6. But it is my understandig Reid's plan

does not allow anything to change SS and Medicare.

[jtown1123]

9. What about the Super Congress clause? That could lead to cuts down the road

there is no accountability in that scenario http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

[woo me with science]

13. Perhaps not immediately, but if the SuperCongress is part of the deal,

you can bet that SS and Medicare cuts are not far down the road, along with god knows what other legislation to transfer wealth from the poor and working class to the rich.

Once you give extra powers to the twelve most powerful and corporate-connected members of Congress, you have eliminated representative government. The Congress must represent all the states and all the people, not pick and choose the members who will pass legislation favorable to the banks and corporations....which will be the result if the Super Congress is permitted to take hold.

I want details. This sounds to me like holding back on the theft for now in favor of implementing a STRUCTURE that will make the theft much easier in the near future.

[jtown1123]

16. I'm with you. We cannot afford to have a "Super Congress" that isn't accountable...

[CrispyQ]

19. A Super Congress.

~very heavy sigh.

I agree completely with your last sentence.

[meow mix]

7. yum. meow mix for all.

:pals:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Hoorah! Screwing the people and Sharing the Sacrifice by keeping the tax breaks for the wealthy.

But, of course, "what else could they do?", "not enough votes", "be realistic", "be grateful", "the Republicans will be embarrassed", and the 3rd Way, New Democrats, ever popular, "It's not as bad!".

[DJ13]

12. K&R

[KamaAina]

15. The ghost of Bill Frist

Rawk! Up-or-down vote. Rawk! Up-or-down vote. Rawk! Polly want some cat food?

[KamaAina]

18. This "Super Congress" reminds me uncomfortably of California's "Big Five"

the governor and the majority and minority leaders from each party would get together and hammer out budget deals in the classic smoke-filled room (particularly under Ahh-nuld!), then jam them down the throats of the rest of the membership. We passed a ballot initiative to make it easier for the whole Legislature to pass a budget, thereby consigning the Big Five to the ash heap of history. And now it's rearing its ugly head at the federal level, just like the notion of an all-cuts budget backed by Dems. :scared:

[mzmolly]

20. A super-congress bypasses the opportunity for one person to filibuster.

So, I'd say this option is more representative of the people, than the current status quo. Joe Lieberman is why we don't have a public option. Remember that...

[no limit]

22. And the catfood commission will be the reason people like me will suffer huge cuts to SS

and medicare.

It's so nice of our leaders to be able to come to agreement that something that screws the bottom 90% should get an up or down vote but something that actually helps those people must be dropped.

Also, your suggestion that we don't have a public option because of the filibuster is absolutely false. They passed the bill using reconciliation. All Obama had to do was get Nancy Pelosi on the phone and ask her to add the public option in the reconciliation bill before it went back to the senate which would then have gotten a up or down vote. Obama specifically asked her not to do this. So this excuse of yours is simply not true. What is true however is that there are reports Obama specifically cut a deal with insurance companies to leave the public option out.

[mzmolly]

23. There is no basis for your assumption that a "cat food commission" will evolve

in a super congress. Any legislation would require an up or down vote.

Yes they passed the bill using reconciliation and they needed 60 votes, one of which was Joe Lieberman to do so. If you recall, it was he who said no to the public option. His no vote on HCR meant a filibuster.

[no limit]

28. Reconciliation does not require 60 votes, only 50 + Joe Biden. Please get your facts straight

Also the "cat food commission" is what you would call "super congress". It's the same thing.

[mzmolly]

33. Cloture, to proceed to reconciliation, needed

60 votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5386805-503544.html

"The reconciliation process is less about overcoming Republican opposition, however, than it is about bypassing hesitant Democrats. Technically, the party only needs 60 votes for cloture -- to bring all debate, including filibusters, to an end. At that point, only 51 votes are needed to actually pass the legislation."

[no limit]

36. You are misinformed. You don't need cloture, and your news article doesnt say what you think it says

cloture is to end debate. The senate rules allow only a maximum of 20 hours of debate when using reconciliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

[mzmolly]

37. We needed 60 for cloture followed by 51 for reconciliation. Lieberman was a factor.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/12/21/171140/firstcloture/

"Moments ago, the Senate voted 60-40 to end the Republican filibuster of the manager’s amendment to the Senate health care bill, clearing an important hurdle to passing health care reform before the end of the year."

http://www.policymed.com/2009/12/senate-votes-cloture-on-health-care-reform-bill-attached-as-an-amendment-to-a-house-bill.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2513661/senate_cloture_vote_paves_way_for_passage.html?cat=7

You do understand what a filibuster is, correct? We'd still be debating HCR without cloture.

[no limit]

38. Again, you are misinformed. Do you know what cloture is?

It is ending debate. With reconciliation debate is limited to 20 hours. So yes, they might not have 60 votes to end debate but they don't need to end it, because after 20 hours by law debate ends automatically.

In case you are still not following me then explain to me why the senate would have reconciliation if it is no different than regular votes. Your flawed logic and complete arrogance toward how reconciliation works amazes me.

Also, the vote you mentioned (60-40) had absolutely nothing to do with reconciliation. It was a regular bill that passed the senate before Scott Brown got elected. However, the house democrats were not going to approve this bill and senate democrats no longer had 60 votes. So they used reconciliation to fix that bill.

If you still don't understand this then you are choosing to be arrogant on the issue.

Just incase you refuse to take my word on, refuse to listen to what wikipedia is telling you, he is another link for you:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/03/89797/heres-how-reconciliation-works.html


Q: Why are Democrats doing this?

A: Because it usually takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate. Democrats now control 59 of the 100 seats, and Republicans are united in opposing the health care legislation, so it would be difficult for Democrats to get 60 votes.

Reconciliation bills can't be filibustered; they can pass with a simple majority. If Democrats can muster as few as 50 votes, Vice President Joe Biden could break the tie to pass the legislation.

Again, I will repeat, you are misinformed beyond belief.

[mzmolly]

39. As you point out, passing HCR was not a single vote process.

There was initially a 60 vote majority needed to pass the senate version, a majority in the house was also necessary to pass the house version, then reconciliation of the two bills could proceed.

Admittedly, my initial response was poorly worded. For that, I apologize.

[no limit]

42. But again, the point is reconciliation only needed 50 votes

and they could have added the public option in to the reconciliation bill but Obama specifically didn't want to do this. Do you have any reason why?

Also, the common thing I hear from people that carry his water is that reconciliation can't be used for a public option because a public option has nothing to do with the budget. This too is false. COBRA insurance was passed using this process in the 80s. SCHIP, which provides healthcare to children was pased using reconciliation in the 90s.

So again, to say Obama and the Democrats had absolutely no way to pass a public option is totally false. They could have easily done it, they chose not to.

[mzmolly]

43. 51 votes, not 50. And, I disagree with the assertion that it would have been easy

to add a public option. Unless you know the whip count, you can't say with certainty what was possible.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26835.html

"The 1997 Balanced Budget Act, for instance, was passed through reconciliation and created both the State Children’s Health Care Program, known as SCHIP, and the Medicare Advantage program for the elderly."

COBRA doesn't impact our federal budget and SCHIP and Medicare Advantage were passed in a budget specific bill.

Why wouldn't Democrats want a public option?

[no limit]

44. Jesus, no offense but this is becoming painful

it takes 50 votes and Biden would be the tie breaker. But I'm glad we finally agree that you don't need 60 votes for reconciliation, only took how many posts to get here?

If a senate made up of 60 senators that caucus with Democrats can't find 50 votes in support of a public option then what does that tell you about Demcorats? Why do you think no public whip count was done on this issue? Why do you think Obama didn't personally push to have the public option included in the reconciliation bill?

SCHIP was passed using reconciliation, that is the point. The same way a public option could. I have no idea what you are trying to argue.

[mzmolly]

45. Painful? Your aversion to the number 51, must make reading headlines about HCR unbearable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078888721857543.html

;)

"If a senate made up of 60 senators that caucus with Democrats can't find 50 votes in support of a public option then what does that tell you about Demcorats?

It tells me that Democrats don't agree on everything. It tells me that all politics is local. I already knew that.

"SCHIP was passed using reconciliation, that is the point. The same way a public option could. I have no idea what you are trying to argue."

My point is that the comparison is apples and oranges.

Here's how it breaks down. Budget reconciliation has to jump through the hoops of something called the Byrd rule in the Senate. The Byrd rule prohibits from consideration anything that does not either score against the budget or scores against the budget only as an incident of the non-budgetary parts of the provision under consideration. This second part is where the public option is likely to be ruled out of bounds. While the public option would have budgetary impact (positive budgetary impact that is, saving the federal government money), that impact is merely incidental to the policy of setting up a brand new federal program and setting up a part of the government to run a health insurance program. It just does not have a very good chance of fitting into reconciliation on its face.

Well what about SCHIP and COBRA, then? They set up brand new federal programs under reconciliation, right? Right? Wrong. That is not at all how SCHIP and COBRA were structured. Let's take them one by one. More >>>> http://www.progressiveelectorate.com/diary/2223/public-option-not-like-schip-and-cobra

Again, why do you think Obama didn't want a public option?

[no limit]

46. You are trying to dispute the most basic facts, it's making you look absurd at this point

it's 50 votes plus Biden to pass a bill using reconciliation. This is a simple fact, yet you are disputing it. Just like you kept insisting above you need 60 votes to pass something using reconciliation.

Why do I think Obama didn't want a public option? Because I believe the reports that claim he made a deal with insurance companies to not have a public option.

Now you need to answer my question. Why did Obama not push to have the public option in the reconciliation bill and why did Reid not release a whip count of who would support and who wouldn't support a public option in a reconciliation bill?

Also, in your link the way SCHIP was structured can be applied exactly to a public option. So again, what is your point?

[mzmolly]

47. I'm not disputing the fact that Biden is the 51st vote. If you prefer to say 50 plus 1

feel free.

Also, Obama didn't need the vote of insurance companies to pass HCR. I think the fact that his mother had to fight insurance companies while she lay dying, is far more relevant, than the unfounded rumors that he had a back room deal.

"Also, in your link the way SCHIP was structured can be applied exactly to a public option. So again, what is your point?"

If you choose to view it from this perspective, SCHIP was set up in the form of block grants, i.e. $ sent to the states. HCR also allows for individual states to set up a public option. So, it could essentially be argued that a public option was passed in the same fashion as SCHIP.

[jtown1123]

30. These commissions turn into entitlement commissions stacked with fiscal hawks

Don't kid yourself...

[mzmolly]

32. Of course. I'll take what you have to say into consideration after that COLA

adjustment panic proves itself worthy.

[jtown1123]

40. What COLA panic? This will still be presented as an idea in years to come.

[mzmolly]

41. It was presented in the 1970's by a Carter appointee.

What's your point?

[girl gone mad]

29. The reason we don't have a public option is because Obama promised..

the health insurance industry that he would keep it off the table in exchange for their mild support. A sign of things to come.

[mzmolly]

35. Proof?

:shrug:

[librechik]

21. Reid's version has the chained CPI, which results in hundreds to thousands less/yr

the older you get. Can we all say STUPID??? becasue I expect my needs to incrrease the older I get, not decrease. All due to a "reinterpretation" of the Consumer price Index/inflation.

Thank you Catfood Commission.

[mzmolly]

24. Where did you find this information about a chained CPI?

:shrug:

[librechik]

31. Molly--I just read a brief bullet point version of it somewhere

I should try and find that--the reason I remember is that it made me furious. But then, maybe it'll change by voting time.

[mzmolly]

34. I'm cautious

as I read that Reid said "took entitlements off the table." ;)

[girl gone mad]

25. k & r

[SidDithers]

26. Unrec for firebagger nonsense...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

27. Is ''firebagger'' the new ''truther''?

You know, as in "crazy" like a "conspiracy theorist"?

Read more than a few threads in which the term was used.

Sure sounds like a demeaning term or label.