E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated 5:42 pm
Three would-be members of Congress were never sworn in yesterday, including National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, which could have an impact on when the health care repeal bill is brought to the floor.
The Texas Republican is a member of the Rules Committee, which has been engrossed all day in debating how to bring the health-care repeal bill to the floor. Debate on the bill is supposed to begin tomorrow, and it is supposed to be voted on Wednesday.
But the news that Sessions -- who participated in debate and votes today in committee -- wasn't sworn in could throw a wrench into that timeline.
The Rules Committee hastily recessed when Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) found out Sessions never took the oath, and Speaker John Boehner interrupted speeches on the floor this afternoon to swear in Sessions and Republican freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (PA). But any votes either of them participated in during the last day-and-a-half could be null.
(Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was the third person not sworn in, but he filed a leave of absence with the Clerk's office for yesterday and didn't participate in any votes. He was sworn-in by Boehner before the reading of the Constitution this morning.)
Dreier is now waiting for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to agree to allow a unanimous consent motion to the floor to retroactively allow everything these two members have already done to stand.
Where were they when the oath was administered yesterday? With supporters in the Congressional Visitor's Center, according to the Bucks County Courier Times. "Wednesday, a sea of about 500 supporters overwhelmed a large room in the Capitol and caught a break when the Bucks County native took the oath of office in front of them rather than on the House floor," the paper writes.
Sessions' office provided this statement:
"During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor. To ensure that all constitutional and House requirements are fulfilled, Congressman Sessions officially took the oath of office this afternoon from the House floor. Public records and votes will be adjusted accordingly."
*** UPDATE *** From NBC's Shawna Thomas and Luke Russert
The Rules Committee has reconvened, and Dreier has attempted to address the problem of one of his members not quite being a member of the House. Dreier said, “Mr. Sessions and Mr. Fitzpatrick took the oath yesterday. However, under Jefferson’s Standard of collegiality, one is to be in the proximity of the Speaker of the House when taking the oath.” He continued, ““When we report out this rule, we will take the steps to vitiate whatever votes were cast by those two members would obviously have not been in order because they were not standing the chamber.”
According to Dreier’s Press Secretary Jo Maney, this will probably be in the form of a resolution that is part of the rule that will have to be voted on separately by the House of Representatives. The resolution should also fix any issues that may arise from Sessions taking part in Rules Committee proceedings.
However, Ranking Member of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter (D-NY) wasn’t so sure the problem was fixed. Slaughter said that she was “anxious” about the process and did “not want to be in any risk on anything that could go against the Constitution.” She told Dreier that the Committee should “recess and start over.”
Dreier chose to go on with the hearing without Sessions. Since Sessions wasn’t a member yesterday, he isn’t technically a member of the Rules Committee until the resolution is passed to fix this convoluted problem.
Leave a Comment:
A Texas Republican.
This was no mistake. He probably thinks the rules don't apply to him for some reason. Maybe they are unconstitutional, or something.
Whats wrong with Pelosi and Slaughter here - the votes these 2 made had zero outcome in the votes they took - just cooperate and allow a unanimous consent motion and be done with it - why they refused to timely just agree and say it was ok is beyond me. It is wasted breath and wasted effort on both sides - for crying out loud - would both side just stop the bullshlt and get on with it . . .
This was the Texas version of American Exceptionalism.
So much for the Party of No and Baggers sticking to the rule of law....like the Constitution.
`Speaking of wasted bull@!$%#, it's sorta like repealing health care! LOL! We know this is a total waste of time and taxpayer money! Well they want to make a point I don't pay them for this waste of my money. tdemex
Why repeal a Healthcare Law that provides healthcare to 30 million uninsured, while reducing the deficit by $230 billion?
Isn't that what Republicon, Party of No, GOBPers have been demanding?
Only in the nutjob world of Conservatives.
To the new Party of No and Bagger House members....where are the jobs?
You have proven that you really don't care about the American Public.
We on the Left have known this about the GOBP for 30 years and the Baggers for 2 years.
@Comanchepilot
Really, after all, it's just the law, we don't need to allow something as silly as the law to get in the way............
Because only a fool thinks insuring 30 million folks is a deficit reduction. You seem to forget the 500 million that was supposed to be taken out of medicare to pay for your health care bill. Only one small problem seems the Democrats forgot about making that happen. So the numbers the CBO is crunching amounts to nothing.
You are correct Brandon, where are the jobs. Perhaps we should be asking that question to Obama, Pelosi and Reed. Didn't they fund various stimulus programs that spent money for that sole purpose? And, hasn't the President been in office for over 2 years now; nancy and harry for over 4? Oh, that's right, the HC bill was more important.
Barry!!!!!Where are the jobs?
Safecracker - maybe you should ask the all the corporations that are setting on billions in cash waiting for the economy to "stablize". Obama can't just say start hiring, wave his magic wand and poof it's done. Businesses actually have to do the hiring, otherwise it would be communism.
Ghostmaker, you are right and don't forget the money for the "doctor fix" that was passed in a separate bill to prevent it be added to the HCR bill. Also did any of the democrats think about the additional cost to the states for their portion of Mediaid? Repeal the damn thing and start over and get it right. Hopefully the courts will throw the whole bill out as being unconstitutional.
Playing games already.
Repealing the whole thing will only lead to no reform, increased costs to seniors on a fixed income for medications, as well as allow HUGE insurance companies to reap outrages profits over americans health. Look at all these CEOs who just took large bonuses for esentially keeping company profits up by NOT HIRING people.
Only a fool thinks un-insuring 30 million folks, who then cant afford to pay their medical bills, would not harm the american family. The time that the Republicans House members take plan and then actually repeal the healthcare reform bill could be used to do something positive and productive.
"Why repeal a Healthcare Law that provides healthcare to 30 million uninsured, while reducing the deficit by $230 billion?"
Now I don't claim to be an expert on the Healthcare Law, but my personal experience with it is that I'm still not covered and a good friend of mine in his mid 50's and in good health was just told that his premiums were going up by almost 50%. Is that the kind of change we were looking for?
I'm sure the insurance companies have spent a lot of money buying elections for Republicans so that they will kill any law that says they have to insure people with pre-existing illnesses.
Republicans were instrumental in screwing the law up in the first place by killing the best parts. Now they want to kill the rest rather than fixing anything.
I suspect that we the taxpayers are providing top notch health care for all of these politicians along with an above average salary. No wonder they are out of touch with the rest of us.
I can't believe some of these post. Some will place a bloated defense budget over strained programs that actually help people. The healthcare reform is a start. Single payer is the goal--I hope.
Ron D: Might not be what you were looking for, but I think it is the best a community organizer can deliver. The whole bill was a sham from beginning to end. If the democrats had been waiting for so many years to pass health care reform, why in the name of all that is good did they have to bribe members of their own party to vote for it?
Republican dictionary: Reform n To dismantle.
Hey, Brandon -
What about the other 20 to 30 million that will lose the coverage they now have, because insurance becomes too expensive, and end up falling through the cracks because they will earn 'too much' to qualify for subsidies (subsidies that will end up in higher taxes for those who actually pay taxes)?
Even your democratic 'leaders' admitted that faux pas last year when they passed this debacle.
Are you implying it's the President's fault that your insurance company is now gouging you? Perhaps the GOP's stonewalling of a national not for profit health care plan is where you should start laying the blame.
There really is no need to repeal the health care law. When the courts struck down the individual mandate it effectively killed the entire law. Due to the need for the law to remain revenue neutral, at least on paper, and to get the insurance companies to go along with, it there is no severability clause in the law. What this means that if one part of the law is struck down, the entire law goes. Normally a law has this severability clause to keep this from happening. However, in order to get the insurance companies to go along with the law, the Democrats agreed to make it an all or nothing. This is because without the individual mandate, the requirement to accept those with preexisting conditions would drive premiums into the stratosphere. This is because no one would bother carrying insurance until they got sick. Once they got sick they would sign up and the insurance companies would have to cover them for everything. This would mean that only those that actually needed medical treatment would carry health insurance, thus driving premiums through the roof. If the law was allowed to stand as is now with the mandate removed and the rest still in force, virtually everyone in the country would see their premiums go to levels where they could no longer afford health insurance. This is what the genius Democrats did to the health care law, and you wonder why the Republicans want to repeal it. People should try reading a little instead of spouting what they hear from talking heads on news programs and maybe they would start to understand the issues a little better.
The thing is that I have never heard the insurance companies come out and campaign against it. Why should they after all the bill requires everyone to buy health insurance from those same companies. That's right go out and put more money in the pockets of those same companies. Don't you feel better now?
The topic is simply: You had to be in a certain place to be sworn in. that is in the constituation. Many on the right want a return to using the consituation as the guiding factor in all laws, which it is, just more obvious. If you want it done right, if you want it done in conjunction with your political goals and statements of intents, you have to accept the constituational requirement. YOU have too. Otherwise your playing mental mastrubation: YOU ONLY THINK IT FEELS GOOD.
So the Rules Committee can break the rules and all is forgiven. Sets a really good precedent.
THe Ed Show reported that Sessions and Fitzpatrick skipped the swearing in to attend a fundraiser! Keeping to the Teabagging Republican creed, those two.
The repeal in the house is a BIG WASTE OF TIME since we already know it will never get past the senate...........
Repeal the damn thing and start over and get it right. Hopefully the courts will throw the whole bill out as being unconstitutional.
This has got to be the dumbest argument on the HC bill. It takes an idiot to even argue this. This bill has parts in from both sides of the aisle going back 20 years. No bill is perfect but by delaying its implimentation only the HC industry and insurance companies win and 30 million Americans lose. Oh thats right the HC industry and insurance industry own the Repubs.
gotta love this. Republicans force a reading on the constitution. but forgot the rules on the constitution. whoops. that and that whole thing reading it coast a million. what a waste. Like I've said, time to sit back and watch the show as the Republicans and tea party members destroy their party.
Obamacare is not the answer. We have the best health care in the world. Does the system need improvements, yes. Obamacare will not decrease the deficit. You cannot add 30 million to the system while reducing costs. The sleight of hand with the "cuts" to medicare of 500 billion which will not happen and the doctor fix will not happen. Allow increased competition by the ability to cross state lines for coverage. Single payer will doom healthcare. Doctors will leave. Where will the Canadians go to get full cost care if they can't come here. When was the last time CBO was accurate?
goliph
The last time the CBO was accurate is when it suited the repugs purpose.
ROFLMAO!
what a bunch of crumbs
The real head scratcher is why the republicans are wasting time trying to repeal the Health Care Bill in the first place. Anyone that has at least a two digit IQ knows that their repeal bill will never pass the senate and, even if it did, would be vetoed by Obama within a fraction of a second after landing on his desk. The republicans are doing this purely to put on a show: they think they can score political points by keeping the issue in the news as long as possible.
This kind of nonsense is exactly why congress is so wildly unpopular with the American people.
"Now I don't claim to be an expert on the Healthcare Law, but my personal experience with it is that I'm still not covered and a good friend of mine in his mid 50's and in good health was just told that his premiums were going up by almost 50%. Is that the kind of change we were looking for?"
I have two words for you - public option.
"I suspect that we the taxpayers are providing top notch health care for all of these politicians along with an above average salary. No wonder they are out of touch with the rest of us."
Yes, the Federal Employee Program (FEP) health insurance is one of the best health insurance plans, out there.
It covers all members of congress, and other Federal Government workers, is the plan that the original health care reform plan was modeled after, is taxpayer funded and, yes, it is a SINGLE PAYER plan administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina through it's subsidiary Palmetto Government Benefits Administration.
Why aren't the rest of the American people entitled to the same medical insurance coverage that congress gets?
"Hey, Brandon -
What about the other 20 to 30 million that will lose the coverage they now have, because insurance becomes too expensive, and end up falling through the cracks because they will earn 'too much' to qualify for subsidies (subsidies that will end up in higher taxes for those who actually pay taxes)?"
Have you noticed that the health insurance companies can raise their rates any time they want and don't have to have any justification?
Blue Shield of California (my previous employer), just announced a rate increase of 59%.
The new health care law does little or nothing to stop health insurance companies from raising their rates. That's why the health insurance companies, through their Republican lackeys, killed the public option. Now they can continue to raise the rates, as they always have, as much as they want and we can't do anything about it.
But just keep on blaming the health care bill and the Democrats for your increasing health insurance costs.
I think that, over the next two years, the American people will finally figure out who is to blame for their rate increases.
JS in SD
"There really is no need to repeal the health care law. When the courts struck down the individual mandate it effectively killed the entire law."
Really? Which courts were those and did it include the Supreme Court?
If the national individual mandate is unconstitutional, then why wasn't the Mitt Romney Massachusetts health care plan, that included the individual mandate, declared unconstitutional?
The plan seems to be working pretty good, so far, for the citizens of Massachusetts.
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2010/12/ezra-klein-reform/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79933/meanwhile-the-individual-mandate-working
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/July/072210Frakt.aspx
Oh, and BTW, health insurance premiums are going DOWN, in Massachusetts as health insurance companies are having to compete for customers in the health insurance exchanges.
Here is an evaluation of the Massachusetts plan, one year after beginning implementation.
http://www.csgeast.org/pdfs/health/massreform.oneyear.pdf
Note that the approval rating is slightly lower, at 67%, than the national approval rating that includes the public option, which is about 70%.
david1159
"The thing is that I have never heard the insurance companies come out and campaign against it. Why should they after all the bill requires everyone to buy health insurance from those same companies. That's right go out and put more money in the pockets of those same companies. Don't you feel better now?"
It was pointed out on MSNBC that the health insurance companies would sure like for the Republicans to stop opposing the individual mandate, as this is billions of dollars of new business that they wouldn't otherwise have had.
The Republicans have already done their part for the health insurance companies, by killing the public option, so they can just shut up, now.
D-Nice
It's interesting that you claim Obama can't tell corporations to start hiring.......but in other postings, libbies are asking the House just where are the jobs? do we have a double standard here?
does the Dude-in-Chief have a responsibility to create innovative programs to stimulate businesses to hire again? As for the sitting on Trillions of $ - from where does this number come from? Are companies waiting to see what the costs-per-employee will be? Without a turn-around in the policies of this administration, business will continue to wait.
You are correct Brandon, where are the jobs. Perhaps we should be asking that question to Obama, Pelosi and Reed. Didn't they fund various stimulus programs that spent money for that sole purpose? And, hasn't the President been in office for over 2 years now; nancy and harry for over 4? Oh, that's right, the HC bill was more important.
Barry!!!!!Where are the jobs?
I see the Republicans started out with their usual incompetent ways.
The stimulus was largely a bail-out of states and municipalities that included jobs like teachers, cops, etc. It also included tax cuts. Only a small amount remained for things like infrastructure construction, thanks to the Republicans who could only win seats in the mid-terms by creating failures.
The jobs disappeared long ago, especially under Bush/Cheney during which job creation barely kept pace with population growth. Google "bikini graph" and you can see that Obama and the Dems were slowly cleaning up the Republican mess--and in only two years time.
In the coming year, and as the stimulus runs out, states and cities will once again be on the verge of bankruptcy. As a result, Teapublicans will not cut spending. In fact, they will raise the debt ceiling, increase revenues through some form of taxation, and will not create jobs--and they don't have a plan because they know they can't.
You’d know this if you shut off NASCAR or WWE or some other worthless programming, and tune into the so-called “liberal” media and maybe you’ll learn something.
Just another in a long line of mistakes by the GOP, there just getting started, what a joke, congratulations Baggers you've once again voted to screw the middle class in this country and Seniors. Enjoy
how so. obumbo flubbed his oath of office in front of the nation. did that not make him president? the vote too repeal is important in the context of 2012 when america can see who or not will try too stop something over 60% of americans do not want as written! waste of time please we have had 4 years of a congress who wasted americs time and gave us the finger!
few things carl6352
Sessions failed to take the oath in proximity of the speaker which is the congressional rule for new members to be sworn in, as explained.
the president has no requirements for being sworn in, he simply becomes the president at noon on the 20th.
Roberts fumbled the words, Obama repeated them verbatim
Obama retook the oath with the words in correct order... so Sessions retaking the oath kind of fits
Where do you get the data point you reference? Considering the reason the bill ended up being junk is the Repubs whining, why would we want them to try it again? the problem with our country is we no longer debate factually, openly or honestly, we just argue opinions and talking points for popularity
Wrong answer pumpkin. It was Chief Justice Roberts that flubbed the oath when the President was sworn in. By let truth and facts get in your way?
Of course 60% don't want the health care bill as written. A large majority of those want a national health care plan, which the GOP refuses to allow.
"the vote too repeal is important in the context of 2012 when america can see who or not will try too stop something over 60% of americans do not want as written!"
Finally, some sense from a Republican!!
You are right.
Something over 60% of Americans do not want the health insurance law, as written, because it does not contain the PUBLIC OPTION.
Without the public option, they argue correctly, the law will have little effect on controlling health insurance costs, as we are, now, seeing.
Maybe, in 2013, after the Dems win overwhelming numbers in the House and Senate, we can put the public option in place. And this could happen, even before the individual mandate goes into effect in 2014.
 I can understand that error by the freshman congressman but Sessions has no excuse. Any votes that he made should be purged.
So, purge them if it makes the democrats happy, it still would not have any bearing on the outcome of whatever was being voted on. Just more political BS from the losing side.
I'm not a Democrat I am a Republican. I am a Republican that believes that rules are not simply to be ignored at whim. Of all people Sessions was aware of the rule. He chose to ignore and should be subjected to the consequences of the violation.
David1159,
Your my hero!
Thank-You David! I'm glad to see someone can actually see things for what they are and not include any of this He said She said BS into it!
Honestly, What I think needs to happen is we as the middle class people, need to form a third party and abandon both of the "BIG" parties! We need to let all of them know that we are sick and tired of all the petty squabbling that is getting this country nowhere! It needs to be a party that is middle of the road and take on no causes that don't benefit or affect us as a whole! We have become a stagnant country that is allowing former third world countries stomp us into the ground on many battle fronts! We need to stop outsoursing and allowing corporate America dictate and destroy us on a whim! We need not cater to the Right or the Left! They are very small compared to the whole of Middle Class America! Get MAD People! Get A Grip...Both the Republicans & The Democrat Parties Suck!!! Do you feel like your best interests have been looked after for the last 10 years? If you do then you are probably NOT a middle class American! Think for Yourselves America! What has been done to benefit YOU in the last 10 years?! It's time for America's largest voting class to take back the reigns of this Great Country! Don't get me wrong either! I think the Independants are just as much at fault and can be just as easily bought! This is YOUR Country People...Send a message to Washington! We Are Mad As Hell and We Aren't Going To Take It Anymore! Work for us as a United Front...or We're Gonna Kick Your Asses Out in their next election! It's time to Make America Work Again both in Functionality and Jobs!
AMEN Brotha's & Sista's!
Jeff
David1159 - Here here, well said sir!
I agree. All of this BS is ridiculous. The Republicans spent the last 2 years being obstructionists, the previous 8 years being hawks. The Democrats had an opportunity to really get something done, but they have become the party of "I'm too comfortable with my current position and don't want to do anything to jeopardize my position". In the meantime, we sit back and do nothing. We allow both sides to ferment. The baggers aren't any better. The ones that get the most press are backwards racists that are concerned about their own agenda. We need representation from men and women that understand that we need jobs here, not more created oversees. I swear, if I call one more insurance company or credit card company and get someone with a thick accent tell me their name is John, I am going to start screaming obscenities. (yes, I know that doesn't help) please, people, if you are out there, if you can hear me, SPEAK UP, BE HEARD!
Rep. Sessions, I introduce you to Mr. Facepalm.
I had a big long statment to make but then I realized this isn't worth talking about with all of the illegal Krap the Democrats have done in the past two years this is nothing. Even if these three votes aren't counted so far the results of the bills they voted on would not change. so Blah, Blah, Blah.............
I'd say that you are trolling and/or trying to start a flame war. And you confuse "illegal" with "unconstitutional". Passing something legislatively that is later determined to be unconstitutional is not a crime. Actions taken by the executive branch, however, can be deemed illegal if they violate federal laws (e.g. warrantless wiretaps; orders to kill civilians; detaining people without charges).
with all of the illegal Krap the Democrats have done in the past two years this is nothing.
Typical Republican, it's illegal when the other party does it. Democrats haven't done anything the Republicans didn't do when they had the full power!
The Republicans still believe that they've cornered the "market" on Patriotism. Right..........
We all know what the Republicans had done for those past 8 years ending in 2008. It all started to unravel for them in May, 2008, and who was the incumbent President of our country with egg on his face then? REPUBLICAN (eggs over well) George Dubya Bush. WOW! It's surprising how far we've come in 2 years to clean up their mess, considering what they left us!
I feel sorry for the Republicans.. I don't know where they're going to find a plunger big enough to help flush all the krap they have to clean up from the last 4 years. Our economy started to unravel in mid to late 2007. As far as GWB, he could only work with what was presented to him, especially since January 2007.
Really? You're kidding right? The economy starts to tank on his watch after he inherited a record surplus and you are defending him and trying to blame the 2007 start to the economic problems on the Democrats? I think your statement is more accurate if you were to say "As far as Obama, he could only work with what was handed to him at the beginning" That's the KRAP of which you are talking.
the surplus that clinton left us was an illusion...from the trade deficit...the budget was balanced but the country has not been out of the red since the depression. And Clinton didn't have the world trade center bombing (oh, yes he did, just killed a couple of people in the garage and he did nothing) so GWB had a bit of war costs that postponed this recession. If you will recall the dotcom market burst on CLinton's watch. The facts always seem to get in the way of emotions. The problem I have is that BUsh did something and it was horrible but if Obama does something, he can't help it because its Bush's fault. Bush was left with the previous presidents problems, but I never heard him blame Clinton. Clinton was left with the 1st Bush's problems, but I never heard him complain. It seems everyone has vilified Bush because of the 2004 election. Whatever....if you are the boss, its your job to fix the problems. So....if you aren't up to the task, should you be the boss?
deb-1927647 Ummm, Clinton didn't complain about 1st Bush's problem because he fixed them. Remember the '90's were good for you and me. And 2nd Bush didn't complain, because Clinton didn't leave him any problems. 2nd Bush managed to mess it up all by himself. And if there was one thing that 2nd Bush was good at, it was messing things up. So much that here we are 2 years later just getting our heads back above water. But at least now things are moving in the right direction. Hopefully the new congress doesn't take things off track and continues the bipartisanship we saw at the end of the last congress. By the way, I'm an independent. I want the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. Unfortunately, the far left democrats want to be in my wallet and the far right republicans want to be in my bedroom. That is why we need those centrists and their bipartisanship to run the country.
um...what illegal krap?
Yes, that's right Deb but the problem is that war in Iraq was never included in a Fed. budget so all the billions given Halliburton, et al just was given away by Bush/Cheney/Republicans in control. At least under Obama the war in Afghanistan and wrap up of Iraq are included in the Fed. budget.
Ed -
I think if you look back in time, most wars aren't 'in the budget', but let's not let facts get in the way of your rant.
By the way, the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan always showed up in the national public debt figures. the funds were appropriated, otherwise the bills wouldn't have been paid.
@Klaatu 1999: "And 2nd Bush didn't complain, because Clinton didn't leave him any problems."
You are mistaken. The dotcom bubble burst before Clinton left office. But, he covered it up until his term was up. We were headed for recession BEFORE 9/11. The war only prolonged it. Also, if Clinton had not refused to take Obama when he was arrested and OFFERED to us on a silver platter, Bush would not have had to fight this war. It was Clinton's inaction from the the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of our embassies, and his ineptitude to protect us in general period that got us into this mess. The ONLY time he retaliated against the attacks the terrorists were making against us he was trying to divert media attention from his Lewinsky affair. LOL. You are not as independent as you claim. Else, you would not be buying into the Democrat propaganda.
if Clinton had not refused to take Obama when he was arrested and OFFERED to us on a silver platter, Bush would not have had to fight this war.
You do mean Osama... right? No wonder you make pooky.
Facepalm moment... yes. Now fix it and move on.
Who would want to be in the proximity of the new Speaker? Thomas Jefferson would have refused.
And Thomas Jefferson relayed this message to you????
Now I understand why the Republicans needed to read the constitution on the floor. Some of them obviously don't understand it.
Charles
I agree this was a stupid mistake and they should be made to re-take the votes on the rules that were voled on by Sessions.
However, your leap to the rason they should read the Constitution is ludicrous.
Robert, please! Every time there's mistake, they should do a retake? We're not paying them to backpedal!!!
As for reading the Constitution, fine, read the sacred document. Do you UNDERSTAND what is being expressed? Or, is this posturing for the cameras?
Perhaps they should just throw the RED FLAG. But, they'd be afraid of losing a valuable time out.
She is more of a patriot than you'll ever be
Actually, trbl, I don't think she understands what it means to be an American, let alone a patriot. She is, after all, from the San Francisco area where they think that the Constitution is just a piece of literature.
This is a great day to celebrate. Queen Pelosi has been de-gaveled. Things are looking up.
I agree!
Pete (Republican-Attacks-Taliban-Style or RATS) Sessions was too busy trying to figure out how to repeal the health care bill to care about his swear-in. Or maybe he was too busy congratulating himself on getting stimulus dollars for the shovel-ready light rail project in his district. You know, the stimulus that he voraciously condemned before, during, and after the vote...and then hypocritically clamored for the money?
Swear-ins...we don't need no stinkin' swear-ins.
Newsflash... The Repeal of the Healthcare Bill will COST America 230 Billion over the next 10 year (courtesy of the congressional budget office). Let's see what the so called fiscally responsible GOP have to say about that???
headshaker
I agree they need to answer that question.
But bear in mind that the CBO projection was made based on numbers, projections and assumptions that the Democrats made in preparing the health care bill and the CBO does not question or validate the assumptions they are given. They score the bills on the information given to them (as they should).
I am betting that when presented with the projections and assumptions that the Republicans believe are correct that they will come up with a different scoring.
It goes to show that people can make numbers fit any argument that they want to, so we must always be wary of even CBO projections.
Remember one of the assumptions made by the CBO was that doctors would not receive any increase in payments for their services. In the next year or two it is expected that approximately 14% of family practices stop accepting medicare and Medicaid patients due to low reimbursements. If this is to be corrected it will require a massive increase in costs. The CBO made their assumptions based on what is in the bill not what may be added in the future. This is only part of the problems concerning costs. If you believe their numbers you are deluded.
Agree, David. The CBO report does not include the "all in" costs to business, health care providers, and all citizens.
@david1159
Where do you live that Dr's are expected to turn down Medicare and Medicaid because of reimbursement? I'm not finding that to be true here in Philly. In fact, several of my Dr's had petitions supporting health care reform. I think this might be regional, which is why I'm asking about your area.
You haven't looked very hard. When my doctor's office closed due to bankruptcy they left a list of doctor's offices that were still accepting patients. Of those who still were over a third stated that they would not accept any medicare patients. The facts are out there you just choose to ignore them.
Just to let you know I live in a suburb of Washington DC. At the start of this the AMA supported health care reform but since have changed their stance. They were under the belief that they would benefit from the law but since then have found otherwise.
You cannot count costs lost of not enacting a bill that was touted as saving costs that haven't been realized yet. It is, at this point, all imaginary money. Good for sound bytes, but not so good at paying for stuff. Think about it. Suppose you were counting on a raise this year (I know pipe dream) and planned all the ways you were going to spend the extra cash. Suddenly, your company decides to roll back raises in order to save jobs and have a cushion for the future. Have you taken an actual pay cut? No. And neither has the federal government. It just isn't that difficult.
headshaker -
Considering that Obamacare is slated to cost well over a trillion dollars now, I would consider that a bargain and just one more nail in the political coffins of the democrats who passed the thing in the first place over the objections of over half of the country.
In other words, doing nothing would have definitely been better than doing what they did, making the progressives ethically responsible for wasting the taxpayer's money.
Do you just make up numbers? At no time did anyone say it would cost over a trillion dollars. Not the Republican senators. Not the CBO.
Well said, old geezer! - (luv that by the way!) Yes, almost every number in this particular thread is wrong:
headshaker - luv the direction of your point, but you sell it short - the number from the CBO is $1.2 Trillion.
No, CBO numbers DO NOT come from the people sponsoring the bill -- EVER!
GoUSA - Not imaginary numbers; analysis by the CBO of the things the bill ACTUALLY CHANGES in the status quo, SUBTRACTED from what we currently PAY for same. It's is hypothetical during debate, but only till the bill passes, at which point it becomes 5th grade mathematics.
Tammy - ...ok, you're seriously just makin' stuff up! REMOVES over a Trillion in national debt -- not "Costs" ... "Removes..."
CBO has been wrong many more times than not. Ever hear of unintended consequences. CBO scored Clinton luxury tax increases of increasing revenues, yet ended up reducing revenue. Wiped out the boat building industry here in the USA.
"I am betting that when presented with the projections and assumptions that the Republicans believe are correct that they will come up with a different scoring.
It goes to show that people can make numbers fit any argument that they want to, so we must always be wary of even CBO projections."
I'm sure that the partisan Republicans can come up with more realistic numbers than the non-partisan CBO.
"You haven't looked very hard. When my doctor's office closed due to bankruptcy they left a list of doctor's offices that were still accepting patients. Of those who still were over a third stated that they would not accept any medicare patients. The facts are out there you just choose to ignore them."
My doctor's office seems to be run very efficiently and doesn't seem to be in any danger of going bankrupt.
So, are you saying that Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting doctors?
Tammy-311614
"headshaker -
Considering that Obamacare is slated to cost well over a trillion dollars now, I would consider that a bargain and just one more nail in the political coffins of the democrats who passed the thing in the first place over the objections of over half of the country."
We heard it on Fox News so it must be true.
And BTW, over half of the country didn't like the health care bill because it didn't include the PUBLIC OPTION. With the public option included, 70% say they would have liked it.
Must be nice just to pull numbers out of your ass and hope that nobody notices.
Puddleduck,
Of course the Republican numbers on HC will be different from the Obama numbers. The Dems presented the CBO with the criteria to score the program, and based on those numbers, a value was created. If the criteria were to be different, a different result would be published. It's the old rule, garbage in will produce garbage out.
It's like the old job when an executive was interviewing various candidate for his CFO.....the winner was the one that answered: "what do you want the number to be."
The current party in power in the House is correct in my mind, the increase in just numbers of people moving onto the roles will impact the number of visits to the doctor, and will increase the total overall cost of the program.
Another issue I have is the mandatory inclusion into Medicare/Medicaid. If I don't want to become a participant, and desire to continue with my current health care, I must go into the program. While I keep my present insurance, I am forced to double pay into the program. Additionally, the government is forcing people to accept the program or face penalities, citing the commerce clause as the deciding factor in this ruling. But is it? The courts will ultimately rule on this and I do believe they will find in in violation of the Constitution.
But, we disagree based upon our belief systems. That's ok though, it is good to agree to disagree.
 That;s about right for Sessions ,he's never in the district as well.
I am as big as a liberal as there is. And this is preposterous. The guy was duly elected, has been a congressman for years and a nitty little formality shouldn't have a big effect on things. That kind of blind rule-following is a GOP thing but not for us Democrats. Besides, the Senate will not vote on the bill and if they did pass it, Obama would veto it. It's all just a big show
Don
What a refreshing and reflective view I am impressed that either side would be a logical based on the normal back and forth we see here
Bravo!
Yeah, How bout these parties stop grandstanding & get to work on reducing the national debt.
Reduce the debt?? The repubs just insisted on adding 900 billion to the deficit. Boy, the teabaggers sure do look stupid now...
I've been reading a lot of speculation and not much reality. Who knows all the downfalls there will be in Obama Care. Bigger and larger than we can imagine both from human and financial view points. I think it will be a painful thing to see in our nation as we learn our lessons one by one what an enormous mistake it is. So I'm all for the Republicans repealing it and starting over. Life is never easy, life is hard and if we think we can make everyone happy little campers it just can't happen. Never has and never will not in the history of the world. We are not any smarter than those that tried before to make people equal. They were never equal in a socialist or communist state. Their promises never could be met. Once in power the only ones that benefited were the leaders and even sometimes they found their heads chopped off or landed in some rotten prison where they died. So come to reality and know that all people cannot be equal. You can take everything away from the rich and end up with everybody living in a poverty.
"So I'm all for the Republicans repealing it and starting over."
What makes you think that, even if the Republicans were able to repeal HCR, that they would actually want to replace it?
According to Republicans, our health care system is just fine and needs no adjustments.
While it is true that the health care system is doing just fine, the people that use it are not.
The Texas Republican is a member of the Rules Committee.
Great start... He didn't follow the RULES!!! --a trend? Probably.
Great name MJHV-G .. :)
Rules Committee not following the rules .. is that like having someone in charge of the Treasury that didn't pay his taxes?
Fix the damn country, don't play parliamentary games!
that's right, damn the Constitution, full greed ahead!! Oh, sorry, I forgot; your doing all this for us Americans.
Well if they are going to be sticklers for the constitution and house rules now is a good time to start. The vote should be retaken or at least their votes nullified...as someone already pointed out the three votes don't change anything...but rules are rules
Did I understand correctly that the republicans are already running from their pledge to cut 100B in spending this fiscal year...now they are waffling and talking about being part of the way into this fiscal year (its 3 whole months) and some of them are talking about tax cuts and adding that to the deficit...wheres all this fiscal sanity and spending cuts we keep hearing chatter about? Its been two days already, we want results now.
The Rep. just finished reading the constitution and can't follow the rules.
The new leadership is off to an expected start. how sad for the USA.
l
well said
Nice start, baggers.
Business as usual, partisan bickering. I don't see change coming from either side, just more of the same. Foolish to expect otherwise.
America, be careful what you've asked for, You just might get it!!
The two Republicans were too busy having their egos fluffed to be sworn in for their jobs. They weren't on the clock so the votes don't count. Sessions knows better but his ego doesn't.
What a bunch of clowns!
Swearing In and Birthers: Boehner has outstanding leadership skills on display, team can wander off in all directions, and so what it is a team anyway? The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures for private documents, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment supports the fourth amendment it, since there is no law requiring the original document, and there is no reason to issue a warrant.
If you are going to read in Congress the Constitution, read all of it, because it is a history lesson, not an exercise in making a new interpretation for your own benefit. At least until now we have had three separate branches of government, having Congress block 100 judicial appointments and having private meetings with the current justices, cast a very long shadow of distrust on the Congress. The shadow on Congress has been made much darker, by damaging rulings made by the US Court, allowing secret unlimited donations to be spread nationally into the local and individual political races that are properly the exclusive right of those citizens to consider and to choose. Having an unlimited secret national resources directed by political parties to achieve their party ends is definitely undemocratic. Justices that consider case and rule for light and transient causes, are a threat to the Constitution, known to be a document that rarely needs changing, and is rarely changed because of the long and deliberate process to change and to have states ratify. The US Courts attitude is the opposite from its historical choice of judicial review, the US Courts willingness to apply ideological artifacts to circumvent the Constitution intensions at its convenience needs to be examined, apparently by the other branches. Since the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive are not performing as expected, the only recourse is for the States to intervene, as dangerous as that is given the same party affiliation of those States Governors. If Congress’s leadership has such an attitude that all is a happy hour on the floor of the House. Then the last and final recourse is for the public to intervene and make it clear that the Constitution either holds the 50 States in a Union or those 50 States need to go their separate ways. If that is the sorry state of affairs in the Unites States of America, then the public must accept its awful responsibility, of ending this form this form of government. The epitaph will be written, here lays the American Union, torn to pieces by an unconstitutional political party system after its whole sale purchase by the almighty corporation.
Let freedom ring, even after you read this gem.
You were told to stop drinking White Zinfadel and then start posting. You didn't listen, did you?
What are you trying to say?
WTF!?!?
sorry, what you say?? was busy watching c-span replay of today's reading.
I stopped reading about half way through. Can anyone tell me if any point was made.
Not that I could figure out.
Boehner with very fine strings attached. When a man speaks honestly on variety of occasions you come to know that man, and can anticipate what he might say and what he might do on some other occasions. That man is assessed as speaking in character, what he says is consistent with what has been said. After long time we come to some degree of comfort of familiarity with this person, and favor or disfavor as we are so inclined. The moments where that person speaks spontaneously, are most revealing because we hear and often see the true character. Other occasions where the person speaks from a prepared script, we easily detect comfort if the speaker authored the script, or if the speaker is reading from a script written by others we detect awkwardness.
These are but a brief survey, matching natural observations as normal matter of course to measure means of determining truthfulness.
These modest preparations need to be updated to modern standards of political rhetoric as a defensive measure. Thus the entrance of the actor, who can successfully read a script in character is awarded praise, not for what is said but how it said. However when we citizens demand important work by elected politicians, we have to turn our lie detectors on to full sensitivity. Boehner, today’s example, frequently mouths words scripted by others, repeats those same words, with differing inflections, over time the message is re-scripted to make it appear spontaneous and new. When two things happen, first by repetition it sounds like it is detached from the speaker, or mocks the speaker’s own view causing the slow hesitation halting destination in delivery. When, later, the message changes to the opposite view conflicting with the need to be consistent and leaving you with no idea of who is speaking to you.
It is at this critical point where you should ask. Is this the person who is speaking his mind? Or is it a person who has given upon their own wits substituting words they might use for another. Examining the words of Boehner it appears that he never demonstrates independent thoughts or words, but merely delivers words handed to him. We don’t need to know any more about Boehner, we do need to know who the architect of the party dialogue? Who is placing these words before the House Speaker? Who is it that is pulling the strings, not just on Boehner? Who is that can overreach so far and manipulate so much with so little regard for the American public? In these times every word spoken and every word written must cause pause, because after success comes the consequences. After the repeal of everything, what are the next few steps? Document the Steps! Document the Goal! Before driving off the cliff!
The GOP is only doing this for show, knowing full well that it cannot EVER succeed, and more importantly because the GOP neocons DO NOT WANT TO REPEAL the bill!!
The bill is PLANNED to be attacked by the GOP for its consumer protections only! The GOP, will in fact work to REPEAL only the protectios, and transform the bill into a HUGE CASH COW for the insurancy industry and the elitist-pigs who own them and who the GOP serve, first and foremost.
The neocon-owned GOP is the most corrupted political entity Washington DC has ever seen, AND WE WILL ALL GET TO AGAIN WITNESS THEM RIP OUR NATION OFF FOR EVERY SINGLE PENNNY THEY POSSIBLY CAN, JUST LIKE THEY DID UNDER BUSH-CHENEY...
right on!
So much for the self-imposed experts of and touting the Constitution.
It takes more than lip service to be a leader and so far the "new" majority lacks in substance.