Hidden Within HC Bill

Hidden within the language is a student-aid bill, which would reform the student loan program. What other shit is hidden in this bill? What strings are attached, and who is the puppeteer?

I don’t understand why it’s so impossible to have bills that only address a single subject. It’s no wonder people don’t trust Congress.

Well Pelosi said it true enough…“we have to pass this bill in order to see what’s in it.”

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Of course, who doesn’t buy a house, a car, or something simple like a piece of clothing without checking it out first. Perish the thought.

Not for nothin, but every bill passed in Congress since the beginning of the country had other bullshit tacked on. It’s the American way.

all I want to know is who keeps putting these assholes in office???

^the people in their district

I think the democrats are doomed in the fall anyway. But passage of this catastrophic piece of crap called health care will assure that republicans take control of both the Senate and the House.

At this point, I think the Dems know they are fucked, and are willing to go out “in a blaze of glory.” Pass whatever they can regardless of their political future.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
At this point, I think the Dems know they are fucked, and are willing to go out “in a blaze of glory.” Pass whatever they can regardless of their political future. [/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

On the other hand, it’s dangerous to underestimate the self-interest and clinging-to-power of individual politicians.

The chance of every Democrat in the House, in districts won by McCain or toss-up districts, being willing to fall on his or her sword for Obama is pretty small, as personal opinion.

So the question is, how many will refuse to do so. I don’t think it will be just one or two.

“No,” even if having voted “yes” for the House bill, is such an easy vote to defend. “I want health care reform but I want it done right. The Senate bill was blah, blah, blah, and there is no way I’m allowing you, my constituents, to be ripped off with the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. Such shameless vote buying may work in the Senate but that’s not what I’m here in Congress to do.” Etc.

This is why if they think they can get away with the Slaughter proposal (simply deem the Senate bill to have passed the House, without actually having a vote) they may well do this.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Not for nothin, but every bill passed in Congress since the beginning of the country had other bullshit tacked on. It’s the American way. [/quote]

Oh, I know this. In Colorado there’s a rule that a bill needs to have one subject to avoid this sort of thing. Makes sense to me.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Not for nothin, but every bill passed in Congress since the beginning of the country had other bullshit tacked on. It’s the American way. [/quote]

Presidential line item veto would be a HUGE step in the right direction, IMHO. As the nations chief executive, I can’t imagine them not having this capability. This would put the president in a position to pear down a ridiculously stuffed pork bill, while at the same time putting the onus on him to ensure that the bill isn’t stuffed. No more of this “well, my hands were tied, and Americans needed this bill”. Bullshit.

With a line item veto, the only items that would be allowed past the presidents desk, would be the items that they wanted past that desk.

To me, the only way for a line-item veto to be justifiable and workable would be for it to be simply a mechanism that is already available: to send something back and say “If you pass this I’ll sign it, but what you’ve sent me now, I won’t sign.”

It does not make sense, IMO, to have a system where whenever Congress decides to do A and B, with A perhaps being agreed to only because of B, the President can keep A but throw out B and have his version be law with Congress never having agreed to that.

For example, suppose Congress passes a bill to allow persons to take the standard deduction and add to that their medical expenses, including health insurance. But to make the bill revenue neutral, the bill also increases tax rate slightly.

Let’s say not one person in Congress wanted the tax rate increase without this improvement in deductions, if we’re picking that example.

Precisely why should the President have power to create a law – and really he would be creating it – where there is only the tax increase but not the improvement in deductions?

That isn’t what Congress passed.

Sure, he ought to be able to refuse to sign the bill, and if it passed by less than 67%, then there is no bill, and if he wants he can suggest to Congress that they try the bill again with only the tax increase.

That mechanism makes sense.

The mechanism where the President can strike out whatever he wants, while it sounds nice, has problems to it.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
To me, the only way for a line-item veto to be justifiable and workable would be for it to be simply a mechanism that is already available: to send something back and say “If you pass this I’ll sign it, but what you’ve sent me now, I won’t sign.”

It does not make sense, IMO, to have a system where whenever Congress decides to do A and B, with A perhaps being agreed to only because of B, the President can keep A but throw out B and have his be law with Congress ever having agreed to that.

For example, suppose Congress passes a bill to increase a tax rate but be more generous with deductions, or decrease tax rate but eliminate some deductions.

Let’s say not one person in Congress wanted the tax increase without the improvement in deductions, if we’re picking that example.

Precisely why should the President have power to create a law – and really he would be creating it – where there is only the tax increase but not the improvement in deductions?

That isn’t what Congress passed.

Sure, he ought to be able to refuse to sign the bill, and if it passed by less than 67%, then there is no bill, and if he wants he can suggest to Congress that they try the bill again with only the tax increase.

That mechanism makes sense.

The mechanism where the President can strike out whatever he wants, while it sounds nice, has problems to it.
[/quote]

I see where you’re going with that. What if the line item veto was limited to propositions of spending only? That’s really the itch I was trying to scratch with this idea, the ability to tell a pork addicted congress “NO”.

Even there couldn’t there be cases where spending money on A is, in the view of the majority of Congress, only a good idea if for example reducing spending on B?

And reducing spending on B is a good idea, in the judgment of the majority of Congress, only if spending money on A?

A line item veto could result in a law that no one in Congress was in agreement with.

The President can already veto a bill and send it back to Congress saying that he’d sign it if it had the following changes. What is wrong with that mechanism, other than that presidents have been lousy about doing it?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
To me, the only way for a line-item veto to be justifiable and workable would be for it to be simply a mechanism that is already available: to send something back and say “If you pass this I’ll sign it, but what you’ve sent me now, I won’t sign.”

It does not make sense, IMO, to have a system where whenever Congress decides to do A and B, with A perhaps being agreed to only because of B, the President can keep A but throw out B and have his be law with Congress ever having agreed to that.

For example, suppose Congress passes a bill to increase a tax rate but be more generous with deductions, or decrease tax rate but eliminate some deductions.

Let’s say not one person in Congress wanted the tax increase without the improvement in deductions, if we’re picking that example.

Precisely why should the President have power to create a law – and really he would be creating it – where there is only the tax increase but not the improvement in deductions?

That isn’t what Congress passed.

Sure, he ought to be able to refuse to sign the bill, and if it passed by less than 67%, then there is no bill, and if he wants he can suggest to Congress that they try the bill again with only the tax increase.

That mechanism makes sense.

The mechanism where the President can strike out whatever he wants, while it sounds nice, has problems to it.
[/quote]

I see where you’re going with that. What if the line item veto was limited to propositions of spending only? That’s really the itch I was trying to scratch with this idea, the ability to tell a pork addicted congress “NO”.[/quote]
Just elect a president with some balls and fiscal discipline. He could easily say “If this bill has spending X,Y,or Z in it, I veto.” The line item veto idea sounds attractive because we haven’t had such a president in so long.

Yes: not only can a president after a bill has been passed by Congress refuse to sign it but say that if they come back with such-and-such he will sign it, he also certainly already can advise Congressional leadership on what he will and won’t sign.

E.g., Obama could have told Reid, “This Cornhusker Kickback thing… I’m not going to sign the bill if it has that, so why waste time negotiating it? Just tell the SOB that I won’t do it, that it’s not on the table.”

He has chosen not to do such things: and this is nothing new, as his predecessors also generally did not.

So do you think they got the votes? I heard 7 dems just turned their backs on it.

BTW, I love how obama is focusing on jobs like he promised. You know if fewer people were unemployed fewer people would need healthcare.