Thursday, March 04, 2010
Consistency: Does It Matter??
Recently, I cheered when President Obama endorsed the reconciliation process to pass health--care reform. I was "called out" on not being consistant by a fellow blogger Republicans are in a fit because they can not stop Health Care Reform which if not passed would be President Obama's "Waterloo". Republican Senators want to change the Senate rules so reconciliation can’t be used for anything involving entitlements and the John McCain of the past felt a bit differently. McCain voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 with Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote which slashed Medicaid which IS a healthcar program. McCain voted for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 which overhauled the doctor payment system for Medicare. Here is my response with the help of my cup of coffee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Mark, you missed my point. Do you agree that Republican use of reconciliation was proper?
Tossing John McCain's actions as a retort is not substantive; I do not support much of what he does.
My point about consistency is about you, Mark. I take it you were not in favor of using 50+1 to pass tax cuts and the like. Why is it okay to do so now for some other issue?
BTW, President Obama used to say he was against doing so too.
s
I dare say Mr. Owens has selective memory. You do not remember the application of reconciliation by repulicans as enumerated by Mark? No memory, no outrage, as such use is abhorrent to you? Unaware of politcal goings-on during the Bush administration? Or did you turn a blind eye? IF SO , WHY ARE YOU UPSET NOW! Please, tell us more about the principles you were brought up with and consistency.
Changing the rules to a mere majority to pass legislation is wrong. It is wrong when Republicans do it, and it is wrong when Democrats do it. It was wrong when Republicans pushed through tax breaks a few years ago. It will be wrong if Democrats employ this option to push through healthcare now.
Consistency requires one to hold the position regardless of who is in power. I don't think Mark was being consistent in his position. He didn't like it when reconciliation was used, but now that his guy/issue is going to have it, all of a sudden it was something to triumph. To me that is inconsistent.
Mark is a good man. I encourage him to reconsider supporting something he has not favored when others use.
Nobody will be changing any rules about how Congress operates -- its just the usual whining by the minority party. People bitch about filibusters, reconciliation, committee shenanigans every so often, each time as if it has never happened before!
There are benefits to being in the majority (unless you are a bunch of hapless and goofy Dems that can't remember this rule).
I especially love our elected officials on both sides of the aisle who are all for reform/change/whatever, as long as it doesn't adversely affect their district. Haha. That is one consistent thing in DC!
Where's Cheyney when you need him most? Is there another country without Osama Bin Laden or Weapons of Mass Destruction that we can invade to take our mind off things? It's only the poor that die anyway. Geepers Mark, what's the daily cost of operations in Iraq, I forget. Let's look at the numbers, closely.
I used to be against reconciliation too. Then I realized that the bill will not get passed in any form whatsoever. The Republicans say "lets start over" we'll deal now...this year. Well, no they won't. Almost to a person they have stated and shown by their actions to not wanting to negotiate.
They are being dishonest and one would be naive to think if we started over and tried the bi-partisan route again this year that anything would be different than it is now at the end of the year. There were a couple of Republicans who actually were honest about it and said "no, I don't want to deal because I am philosophically against health care for all'.
Nice blog, sorry forgot to say that!
Post a Comment