âNow itâs up to us to pass a bill 51 senators can agree to.â
So they are going to nuke the filibuster.
Awesome.
Reconciliation, no?
Also, they really only need 50, with Pence as the tiebreaker.
But the HouseTrashers are gettinâ their âattaBoyâ Buds from HeWhoMustBePlacatedâŚ
The plan is to use reconciliation.
But whatever happened to the notion that these bills must originate in the house?
And then the new bill will need to go back to the house for another vote. Wonât that be fun. The major concern in the senate is the reduction in medicaid funds. By the time the house gets this hot potato back, it could end up being more costly than the ACA. It already does not save all that much in the context of the total budget.The freedumb caucus will love that.
You work seven years to accomplish something and celebrate with Budweiser? VulgariansâŚ
Twelve lawmakers are working on a Senate proposal that may incorporate elements of the bill passed Thursday by the House, the Washington Examiner reported, but it will not be based on the current measure.
It DID originate in the House. Then the Senate will keep 10 words out of the whole piece of sh*t and then send it back. And, literally, 10 words is what will remain intact. As @middleway says, Medicaid has to be kept intact to some extent or another. Pre existing conditions is another issue.
Reconciliation is only for budget bills. According to Wikipedia:
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The âByrd Ruleâ (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline for which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be âextraneousââand therefore ineligible for reconciliationâin six cases:
-
if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
-
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the
instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; -
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
-
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
-
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; or
-
if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader. The Vice President as President of the Senate can overrule the parliamentarian, but this has not been done since 1975.
Not sure how the Senate GOPers intended to get around that without some more cheating and changing the rules of the Senate.
on purely political grounds this is the best thing that could ever happen for democrats.
lets hope they dont blow it.
Only revenue bills must begin in the House.
That said, the Senate has never had a problem hollowing out some superfluous House initiated bill to name a Post Office or something, and pour in an entirely different bill (as an âamendmentâ to the aforementioned âpost office namingâ bill from the House) to get around the blue-slip issue.
Trashy beer for trashy people.
Mitch McConnell. Thatâs how.
âItâs reconciliation because I say itâs reconciliationâ.
If you thought the âGreat Collapse of the Moderatesâ in the House was a spectacle, waitâll you get a look at the Senateâs production!
What are the procedural implications of this? If the Senate passes a separate bill, as opposed to acting on the House bill, does it affect the ability to align the two through the reconciliation process? Once reconciled, is an additional vote needed in each chamber?
Yes, they need to vote again. And the Freedom Caucus has already demanded defunding of Planned Parenthood in the final version.
The problem with the House bill is that while it does give millionaires more money and it will take health coverage away from millions of people, it will not cause people to literally bleed.
The Senate hopes to rectify that.
Now itâs GOP Senators turnâŚ
@lestatdelc is right. One of the challenges to Obamacare was based on the rule that appropriations bills must originate in the House when the Senateâs version literally took a House bill and completely gutted it, effectively working from the ground up. Courts said that such a tactic is perfectly fine.