The "Deeming" Debate, Get Over It

Oh please, if it weren't for the mess in the Senate there would be no need for "deeming" in the House.

If the Senate could have passed health legislation by a simple majority, its bill would have been closer to the more liberal House version and Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have to be considering subterfuge to win passage.

But here we are. To gain the 60-vote super majority overcoming Republican filibuster threats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to dilute his bill to please conservative Democrats -- so much so that House Democratic leaders are having trouble winning support among their own.

Thus emerges the "deeming" plan, which allows a vote on fixes to the Senate bill that includes a rule deeming the underlying bill as passed in the House without actually conducting a roll call on it, and giving members cover to say they never voted for it.

The fixer bill, called reconciliation, can then be passed by a simple majority in the Senate.

So, let's remember that all of this chicanery in the House, which will surely make Democrats look bad, might be necessary because the Senate's minority party, the GOP, used the filibuster threat to prevent a simple-majority passage of a bill that most senators would have supported.

At the end of the day, even if this convoluted process is how the health overhaul becomes law, it was still supported by a majority of the nation's elected lawmakers in Congress. And that's democracy.

Craig blogs daily for CQ Politics

 

 

 

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[mikegriffith]

08:01 AM on 03/17/2010

Let's also remember that if the Democrats had not written their bills in backroom sessions that excluded Republicans; if they had not outright bribed some senators with corrupt sweetheart provisions in their bills; if they had not insisted on including taxpayer-funded abortion in their bills; if they had been willing to include at least one or two major Republican proposlas in their bills; and if they had not tried to hide the true cost of their "reform" will fuzzy math and dissembling, we wouldn't be where we are now either.

[mikegriffith]

07:55 AM on 03/17/2010

And let's also remember that if the Democrats had not written their bills in back rooms with Republicans excluded; if they had not outright bribed some senators with corrupt sweetheart provisions in the bills; if they had been willing to include one or two major Republican proposals in the bills; if they had not insisted on using taxpayer money to fund abortion; and if they had not tried to hide the true cost of their "reform" with embarrassing gimmicks and dissembling, we wouldn't be where we are either.

[G Taylor]

05:10 AM on 03/17/2010

Two wrongs never make a right, Craig. You call it "chicanery ," then you ask us to "get over it."

The simple fact is...if the bill had the wide support it should have from the constituents, Congress would pass it overwhelmingly.

This chicanery is a sad testament to a Congress out of control. And that's never an acceptable way to pass legislation that affects the nation.

This is a bill that will subsidize the private insurance industry. Without the public option, it's a loser. For Pelosi to pass this bill, knowing that, is a disgrace.

[RichardU]

03:31 AM on 03/17/2010

Has the past year somehow gone entirely unnoticed by Democrats? I would think the message that process matters would be loud and clear, yet it is still being trivialized by Democrats.

[NeverForget911]

03:29 AM on 03/17/2010

Yeah, let's just forget about whether the bill is passed Constitutionally.