The New York Times reports
Republicans paraded to the House floor on Tuesday to denounce the maneuver as a parliamentary trick. Representative Ted Poe, Republican of Texas, said Democrats were using "a sneaky snake oil gimmick" to pass their bill. "Let’s have an up-or-down vote on this bill and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo," Mr. Poe said.And the Washington Post reports
Republicans sought to block Democrats' path. Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.), who switched political parties in December, plans to introduce a resolution that would compel the Democrats to conduct a regular vote.Huh? Republicans are now clamoring for an "up-or-down vote?"
Representatives Poe and Griffith (and other "outraged" Republicans) would do better to clamor for an "up-or-down" vote in the Senate, where a minority of Republican Senators are effectively preventing that chamber from voting through the "procedural mumbo jumbo" of a threatened filibuster.
While they're at it, Republicans could also clamor for "up-or-down" votes for the 64 Obama administration nominees pending in the Senate.
6 comments:
Ok Dave,
I'll concur that the Republicans should vote in the Senate on the Judicial nominees.
By the way, a colleague of yours in a LTE to the N&R decried the outrageous cost increase in his State Health plan. He claimed a $10,000.00 cost even if no one gets sick. I did some research and at the deductible and co-pay rates he stated, I come up with a cost of just under $7,000.00. This was in yesterdays N&R
the next to last post is mine. If there are other factors here I'd like to know. Set me straight.
Jon:
$10K sounds about right. The LTE author said that those were his family's expenses "in a good year," not that no one got sick.
There would be the $7K for premia and then charges for deductibles, medicines, and the like.
My family, which is on a similar plan, spends about $3K in out-of-pocket expenses on top of the 80/20 health insurance.
to clamor for an "up-or-down" vote in the Senate
They can have an "up-or-down" vote in the Senate. However, the rule there is that it's not a simple majority winner take all; you need a super majority.
The fact that the house won't vote on the bill is a clear indication that:
A: The bill is very very bad legislation.
b: They don't have the votes.
However, by Sunday I do expect them to have the required 216. For fun, keep an eye on intrade.com
Pino:
60 votes aren't needed in the Senate to pass legislation; they are needed to end debate (invoke cloture) and permit a vote.
60 votes aren't needed in the Senate to pass legislation; they are needed to end debate (invoke cloture) and permit a vote.
Oh, so the Senate HAS had an up or down vote? Why are you so upset that they haven't had that vote?
Post a Comment