The bill is still pretty bad, but at least he wants that crap deal taken out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/1 ... 25304.html

I know...flip flop and all, but credit is deserved for being able to man up and work to take out a bad provision like this.

Well, they already got his vote for cloture, so I doubt the Democratic leadership care all that much.

Ham

He's waffling to his pissed off constituency (he's been running campaign ads in Nebraska even though he's not up for re-election this time around) and avoiding yet another constitutional challenge.

Nothing manly about that.

They'll need that vote again. Harry Reid did say any Democratic leader that didn't have something special inserted in the bill were failing their district.

Hmm. I was under the impression that by skipping the conference committee, all they had to actually do was vote on the final bill, which would only need 50 votes to pass. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Ham

Well, doesn't Biden count as vote 51? Besides, would you really be shocked to see this Congress use some shitty method to ram legislation down the people's throats?

Ham

They'll need 51 votes, but that's only if they opt to use the reconciliation process.
That would be a shitty and underhanded way to pass such sweeping historical legislation though and not their preferred option.
The bill would also have to be scaled back to qualify for reconciliation.

here's the latest on that angle:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... Ch9c&pos=9

GOP passed 2001 tax cuts through reconciliation. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which provided for tax cuts and prevented tax increases, was passed through the reconciliation process. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period."

GOP passed 2003 tax cuts through reconciliation. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which accelerated previously enacted tax cuts and provided for additional tax reductions, was passed through the reconciliation process. The CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, "would increase budget deficits ... by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period.

GOP passed 2005 tax cuts through reconciliation. The Tax Increase Prevention Reconciliation Act of 2005, which prevented tax cuts from expiring and raised the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption, was passed through the reconciliation process. The CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress and signed by the president, would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

Well, doesn't Biden count as vote 51? Besides, would you really be shocked to see this Congress use some shitty method to ram legislation down the people's throats?

Ham

Is it shitty and underhanded when the Republicans do it?

[color=#80FF00]There is nothing wrong with using parliamentary rules to your benefit. Both parties do it.

Speaking of parliamentary rules, I'm supervising a group of Model United Nations students today. They are debating the topic of peacekeeping missions around the world. It is pretty amazing to see a group of 16-17 year olds, dressed up in their Sunday best arguing world issues and using parliamentary procedures on a Saturday morning when they could just as easily be sleeping in.

I have a great deal of confidence that this generation will overcome our screw-ups.[/color]

politics aside, do you find it acceptable that legislation of this magnitude, which is opposed by the American people (right and left for different reasons) should pass the Senate with a simple majority via a parliamentary rule?

Of course both parties will use whatever dirty tricks are at their disposal, but I think the legislation in question should weigh on such considerations.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.