This is becoming almost laughable now, the whole health care overhaul misadventure. I've made it known before that if I had my druthers, Obama would have been pushing for single-payer, like he once might have done (the classic "I was for it before I was against it" political dodge), but that nonetheless, I was pleased something was going to get passed for long-overdue reform.
I can honestly say, though, that at this point I am becoming so confounded by this way or that way shoving it through, I don't really care so much anymore. Maybe if this is what government has become, anarchy is the better alternative. Probably more apt toward getting things accomplished, at least; it arguably couldn't be much worse.
When it came down to it, that the only way getting around not having enough votes to pass a final version for signing health care reform into law was to bring up the option of budget-reconciliation, I thought there was some pretty flimsy justification for using that trick. But all right, I figured it has been done before by the opposite party based on similar hinky arguments, and maybe at least this might work to finally settle the issue and put it to rest.
Of course, for that, there must first be a bill submitted to reconcile, and there is where seems to be another sticky wicket, that the Senate's version won't pick up enough votes needed in the House to approve it for sending on to be ratified under the up and down provision of a reconciliation bill. This time a few pro-life Democrats' are being stubborn over pesky bits about abortion that they are worried to have on their records as having voted for.
So now enters Nancy Pelosi proposing perhaps using the "Slaughter solution" for overcoming this latest hitch if need be, which I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. I'm admittedly slow sometimes, but it took me forever figuring this one out, and I'm still not quite clear on exactly how this could possibly ever be a feasible back-up plan.
The Slaughter strategy would skip over requiring an actual vote on the Senate version of the bill at all, that way the few hold-outs in the House won't get in the way of ushering in a final version and can instead just pretend one is there already magically "deemed passed", going ahead and voting on only the amendments to it, thus avoiding a direct vote on the Senate version what the balky Democrats don't want, thereby keeping their records clean.
It's too overly-complicated for me, really, and it makes my brain hurt. I could be wrong about the details of how it works, but I do know I am right that the process should not be so terribly convoluted and dubious, and my question is, if that bunch in DC, on this or any issue, are allowed to continually pull off all manner of stunts and procedural gymnastics to override what are supposed to be the rules of the game, then what the hell purpose are the rules there for in the first place but to be broken?
Also, is any of this aberrant behavior even constitutional? It doesn't seem to me that much of it would be, but frankly my mind is already stretched too far trying to grasp even vaguely what all are the goings-on forcing through this damn health care bill. I sure as hell don't need to start reading over expostulation why it might or might not be constitutional, like that would make a rat's ass difference anyway.
Like I said, after all of this absurdity, I really don't care anymore what happens, I truly don't. At this point I just want it finished, thrown out if need be, the sooner the better. Health care overhaul might actually be less critical than the greater needed government reform, really, all things considered. And I also stand by my earlier contention, too, that anarchy would as likely as not, be less chaotic than this has proved the government can be. What a disaster.
I can honestly say, though, that at this point I am becoming so confounded by this way or that way shoving it through, I don't really care so much anymore. Maybe if this is what government has become, anarchy is the better alternative. Probably more apt toward getting things accomplished, at least; it arguably couldn't be much worse.
When it came down to it, that the only way getting around not having enough votes to pass a final version for signing health care reform into law was to bring up the option of budget-reconciliation, I thought there was some pretty flimsy justification for using that trick. But all right, I figured it has been done before by the opposite party based on similar hinky arguments, and maybe at least this might work to finally settle the issue and put it to rest.
Of course, for that, there must first be a bill submitted to reconcile, and there is where seems to be another sticky wicket, that the Senate's version won't pick up enough votes needed in the House to approve it for sending on to be ratified under the up and down provision of a reconciliation bill. This time a few pro-life Democrats' are being stubborn over pesky bits about abortion that they are worried to have on their records as having voted for.
So now enters Nancy Pelosi proposing perhaps using the "Slaughter solution" for overcoming this latest hitch if need be, which I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. I'm admittedly slow sometimes, but it took me forever figuring this one out, and I'm still not quite clear on exactly how this could possibly ever be a feasible back-up plan.
The Slaughter strategy would skip over requiring an actual vote on the Senate version of the bill at all, that way the few hold-outs in the House won't get in the way of ushering in a final version and can instead just pretend one is there already magically "deemed passed", going ahead and voting on only the amendments to it, thus avoiding a direct vote on the Senate version what the balky Democrats don't want, thereby keeping their records clean.
It's too overly-complicated for me, really, and it makes my brain hurt. I could be wrong about the details of how it works, but I do know I am right that the process should not be so terribly convoluted and dubious, and my question is, if that bunch in DC, on this or any issue, are allowed to continually pull off all manner of stunts and procedural gymnastics to override what are supposed to be the rules of the game, then what the hell purpose are the rules there for in the first place but to be broken?
Also, is any of this aberrant behavior even constitutional? It doesn't seem to me that much of it would be, but frankly my mind is already stretched too far trying to grasp even vaguely what all are the goings-on forcing through this damn health care bill. I sure as hell don't need to start reading over expostulation why it might or might not be constitutional, like that would make a rat's ass difference anyway.
Like I said, after all of this absurdity, I really don't care anymore what happens, I truly don't. At this point I just want it finished, thrown out if need be, the sooner the better. Health care overhaul might actually be less critical than the greater needed government reform, really, all things considered. And I also stand by my earlier contention, too, that anarchy would as likely as not, be less chaotic than this has proved the government can be. What a disaster.
Comments
Post a Comment