Obama Looking To Bypass Filibuster To Pass Nationalized Health Care And Carbon Caps
Which sounds a bit like cheating to me, and not at all like the sort of unity, bi-partisanship and consensus-building Obama promised when campaigning for office.
President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.
Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
But he added: “We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these…. important things done this year.” Orszag called healthcare in particular “the key to our fiscal future.”
Orszag made the comments on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.
Still, using budget reconciliation to pass policy proposals is controversial, even among some Democrats who believe doing so strains Senate rules and tradition.
The Obama blueprint calls for major changes in both energy and healthcare policies that is likely to engender significant opposition from Republicans and business lobbies. The reforms are expect to win widespread support from Democrats and more left-leaning constituencies.
The policies Obama wants to push through Congress with this change in the rules are the nationalization of our health care system and the institution of a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that would have every industry in the country purchasing permission for production from the government. Now, given what a radical impact these policies would have on the way we live our lives and go about our business, shouldn’t they be subjected to the full rigors of our legislative process? Why should Obama get to set aside the rules to make it easier to impose his will on the rest of us?
Especially when he himself promised bi-partisanship? What is bi-partisan in lowering the bar for your legislation so that it can be ram-rodded through Congress by purely partisan votes?
Much like with the “stimulus” spending spree, Obama wants to implement his policy with as little debate and dissent as possible.
