Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell, in part (h/t Jack):
There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
Looks like nobody but CNBC, the Hill and Blue Hampshire noticed or cared about Gregg's latest, pathetic concern troll tactic to block HRC by sowing doubt into House Dems, so he tried it again today.
Judd Gregg, so at the end of the line of obstructing health care reform, is rapidly descending into self-parody:
The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn't want things rushed through. They saw the parliamentary system. They knew it didn't work. So they set up the place, as George Washington described it, where you take the hot coffee out of the cup and you pour it into the saucer and you let it cool a little bit and you let people look at it and make sure it's done correctly. That's why we have the 60-vote situation over here in the Senate to require that things get full consideration.
This is, to be polite, detached from reality. Yglesias calls it "abject nonsense." Jared Bernstein agrees.
In sum: Um...no, the the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster was not written into our constitution by the Founding Fathers. And what parliamentary systems were there in the late 18th century that the Founders were allegedly rejecting? There were none (adding: in the modern sense, of course).
I'll add one more: how is legislation worked on for over a year an example of something being "rushed through?"
Our senior senator puts on his finest Concern Troll costume:
The White House may renege on passing fixes to the Senate's healthcare bill once the House has passed it, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) claimed Thursday.
Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that President Barack Obama may back off making changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process, which the White House and the Senate have said they would use to make changes to the Senate bill in order to placate House members.
"They're using reconciliation to pass the great big bill," Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. "Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House didn't care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?"
This fact-free absurdity was obviously directed at nervous House Dems, who, to be frank, have little reason to trust the other chamber (or perhaps I should say, 290 little reasons). And just one more reason Congresscritters should turn off the TeeVees in their offices, imo.
Judd Gregg, meanwhile, appears to divest himself of shame and honor the closer he gets to being on the losing side of the health care battle.
When he's gotten so desperate as to try to telegraph paranoia to House Dems via the cable news in an obvious effort to depress the requisite votes needed, you know the GOP leadership hasn't much left in their arsenal to stop President Obama and the Democrats from fulfilling a major campaign promise to the American people who voted them into office.
The GOP leadership must be getting desperate given their upcoming loss on trying to block health care reform. Since Gregg's 2005 comments on reconciliation have (finally!) been getting nationwide play in print and on TeeVee, he has been shying away from his earlier, gobsmackingly hypocritical assaults on majority rule vote.
But today he was back at it:
Though, to be totally candid, in a way I have a kind of perverse admiration for Gregg's willingness to do what needs to be done to move the needle for this side, regardless of facts or consistency. I don't think I have it in me, but it is nonetheless truly something to behold.
Bad Faith Anti-Democratic Senate Obstructionist Judd Gregg didn't just love reconciliation when it came to tax cuts for the wealthiest. Or drilling in ANWR.
He also wanted to use it to cut funding from Medicare. From a news conference he held in 2004:
QUESTION: You mentioned health care just in the context of (OFF- MIKE). What are your plans for issues such as Medicare for broader cuts or any kind of (OFF-MIKE) issue like that?
GREGG: Well, of course, those decisions would be made by the Finance Committee or the committee of jurisdiction. We only would direct them to make certain savings either under reconciliation or in some other way.
Obviously, if I asked somebody to make those savings as chairman of the committee, I would presume as chairman of the committee I'd have at least the integrity to make suggestions even thought I don't want to step on people's turf. I mean, it's Senator Grassley's job to make those decisions and I don't want to step on his turf.
But if we make a budget up that has reconciliation instructions in the area of Medicaid or Medicare, I assume that there are going to be ideas out there to support this, but I'm not going to get into specifics.
QUESTION: And you would support that during what timetable (OFF- MIKE)
GREGG: Well, Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest drivers of the out-year deficit. They're even, they're much larger than even Social Security.
And we have to address, not in the next four years, not in the next five, not in the next eight years, but in the next 20 or 30 years, how we're going to effectively deliver health care to seniors without just destroying the capacity of younger people to have a decent lifestyle because we're taxing them so much to support that system.
And let's hope-and let's demand of ourselves and other Obama supporters-that we recognize that unifying the party won't happen only by Clinton supporters coming to us, but by us embracing the Clinton supporters. We must all recognize that reconciliation and banding together isn't something demanded only of our primary opponents, but is something to be demanded by, and of, all Democrats.
