If we hold the incumbent president to the standard, to which many of his supporters held his predecessor, well, then, he’s a liar–and a serial one at that. I won’t go so far, but will note his opportunistic principles.
When I read this morning (Pacific Time), that the President “will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial ‘reconciliation’ rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the ‘fix’ to the Senate bill,” I recalled viewing his comments–and those of his then-Democratic colleagues on the Senate–opposing a simple majority for judicial confirmations. Iowa’s far-left Senator Tom Harkin is leading the charge for reconciliation, announcing earlier today that reconciliation is a go.
As Mark Tapscott puts it at the Washington Examiner, Democrats “had a different view of reconciliation when it was a Republican majority using it to pass measures advocated by President George W. Bush.” And not just on federal judges:
Here’s what then-Senator Obama had to say in 2005 about reforms in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program that he and other Democrats opposed:
“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”
Guess when it comes to ramming an unpopular program through, the rules change. It’s all about control.
UPDATE: Obama Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With 50-Plus-1 Strategy (Video)
And Republicans had no problem using it when they were the majority in power, its just how the game is played. They, being the minority party, will always play to the public and idea of being over run by the abuse of majority power in order to either slow something down or get some kind of compromise.
I honestly think its unfair to say He is anymore hypocritical than any other Senator or Politician has played both sides of the fence of the issue.
Senator Obama saying:
… at a times when the deficit, courtesy of Bush, was under $400 billion. My laugh of the day.
DER – Are you claiming that Republicans had no problem using reconciliation to ram through sweeping (non-budget) changes that were terribly unpopular with both the Senate minority and the American people, over the objections of Robert Byrd who helped invent the process?
If so, kindly provide us with an example. Orrin Hatch couldn’t find one the other day, so if you pull it off, you will be smarter than him.
On the (few) occasions when the Republican leadership pushed the boundaries, let’s say, of reconciliation, let’s say, it was on measures that had bipartisan support, i.e. broad support from the Senate minority. Or as Hatch puts it:
So please substantiate your suggestion or implication that the Republicans did anything comparable to what the Democrats are now planning.
I hope darkeyed made a typing error when he capitalized “he” when describing the president. Otherwise, that is just plain creepy.
To answer the titled question, no. He was <i.already a liar and a hypocrite, and his current actions can’t “make” him what he already is.
Obama is both a liar and a hypocrite – but he knows it, and he doesn’t care. He was put into office to enact a agenda paid for by his monetary backers, and he has no allegiance at all to the US. He will be rich regardless of his failings. That is why Communism is so appealing to him. Gov’t power gives money and enriches the gov’t connected people.
you can split all the hairs you want on this, but the bottom line is that if obama is a liar/hypocrite for pushing for reconciliation, then so are all the republicans who are complaining about the use of a procedure that they used to jam the bush tax cuts through congress.
the problem, as i see it, isn’t the reconciliation process itself. rather the problem is that the conditions under which it’s used are too ambiguous. assuming that ILC is right, and reconciliation cannot be used to make non-budget changes, what kind of guidance does that provide to the legislature? health care costs are government expenditures, i.e. part of the government’s budget. the standard for using reconciliation is just too ambiguous.
rather than complaining, and pointing fingers across the aisle, maybe it’s time to clarify the rules on how reconciliation is used.
There is a difference between using it for budget purposes/tax cuts and for pushing a major overhaul of the health industry complete with the creation of new gov’t agencies, the right of the IRS to be connected to your checking a/c to insure you are buying insurance, the ability to tax us before so-called benefits kick in. This is major legislation and it is not splitting hairs. Obama clearly said he would not use reconciliation for health care legislation…that makes him a liar.
Welcome back Chad,
I figured you’d run away forever, after the drubbing you got here.
This article sums up the issues with reconcilliation. I know you never read the original post in your previous comments, nor the links provided, but please try to follow along here.
health care costs are government expenditures, i.e. part of the government’s budget.
WRONG.
Health care costs for all citizens are not part of the government budget. The ONLY things that even remotely qualify in that regard are Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, which apply only to a certain subset of citizens. Health care costs in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases are borne by private businesses and private citizens.
Chad just gave away the point of ObamaCare — it is to put ALL health care costs in this country under the purvey of the government. The delusional Obama Party is coming at this from the standpoint that the government is the only entity that should own or control health care in this country — and therefore reconciliation would be meaningful.
The rest of the things in this bill — price controls, punishment of insurance companies, forcing insurance companies to do the government’s bidding — have nothing to do with health care costs for the government. They have everything to do with nationalizing health care and putting everything involved at the government’s control.
Actually I did typo He, didn’t mean for the big H or anything.
Actually all health care reform has been done through reconciliation and several controversial measures have been as well. I’m not saying he isn’t a hypocrite but its stupid to point fingers at Democrats for doing it when Republicans have done it before. Everyone does it, there is no moral high ground on the issue. I am personally sick of each side trying to act like a victim in the fight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985
NPR did a story on the issue and found several times when reconciliation had been used for health care like with passing COBRA, CHIP and few other changes.
As Scott Ott put it, Republicans used reconciliation to lessen the burden and financial confiscation on the American people.
From WSJ:
http://tinyurl.com/ygemkxk
This is simply pathetic desperation to pass what Americans don’t want.
Some people were duped and fooled thinking Obama was more than just another crooked lying pol. Not me. Chad, how is it that Obama is any different than the pols you crucified in the past?
OK, so to review, DER I asked you this: “Are you claiming that Republicans had no problem using reconciliation to ram through sweeping (non-budget) changes that were terribly unpopular with both the Senate minority and the American people, over the objections of Robert Byrd who helped invent the process?”
And you didn’t come up with an example which would rise to that level. You mentioned CHIP, but ignored the fact that I had already mentioned CHIP myself (from Hatch’s article) as an example of reconciliation being used when a bill enjoys broad, bi-partisan support.
Nice job on the smoke and bluster, though.
P.S. The bottom line is this: If the Democrats want to ram through a takeover of one-sixth of the American economy having several features that are immoral, unconstitutional and unprecedented, on party-line votes that mis-use a certain legislative process so horribly that even the Democrats who invented it (Byrd) object… then the Republicans will be right to oppose them with everything they’ve got.
And, should the Democrats succeed: the result will enjoy no political legitimacy.
“Temporary” assistance? Yeah, we see how temporary it is…