What sparked this latest round of forehead-slapping? Behold!
At a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday, Bachmann declared illegitimate the potential route that House Democrats could take to pass the health care bill. She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill by declaring it passed as part of the reconciliation bill. Bachmann pronounced this to be taxation without representation. "They have just started a revolution -- and they did it," said Bachmann.
"But mark my words, the American people aren't gonna take this lying down," Bachmann later said. "We aren't gonna play their game, we're not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don't have to. We don't have to. We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law. That's not the American way, and that's not what we're going to do."
Bachmann continued. "Because it's one-party rule now in Washington, D.C. Their Chicago tactics, their Chicago friends, twisting Democrats' arms, threatening their own team members with ethics charges and a submission. This handful of people thinks (sic) they can enforce their will on 300 million Americans? They're not gonna do that. This is dictatorial, what they are doing. We are not compelled to follow a non-law just because Obama and Pelosi tells us we have to.
"If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law -- until we repeal it. But if they pass it illegitimately, then the bill is illegitimate, and we don't have to lay down for this. It's not difficult to figure out. So if for some reason they're able to get their votes this week and pass this 2,700-page Senate bill -- if they get it, trillions of dollars is what it's gonna cost, when we didn't vote on it, we need to tell them a message: That if they get away with this, they will be able to get away with anything -- with anything. And you can't say you voted on a bill when you didn't, because it's fraud. But we are not helpless here. We are not helpless, there are things that we can do."
First of all, I think it is hilllllllllllllarious that Bachmann is still trotting out that "phony ethics violation" line about the Democrats and Eric Massa. Honey, when even Glenn Beck has backed away from the crazy, you're on a pretty shaky limb. But then, Michele Bachmann could no more do without crazy than she could do without oxygen.
But that's nothing compared to the heaping pile of crazy that makes up the bulk of her comments. There are two equally distressing possibilities here. One is that she sincerely does not think that having the House pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill then smoothing over budgetary differences in the reconciliation process is a legitimate process. Despite the fact that, not only is it perfectly legitimate, but it has been done plenty of times before. The other is that she knows the reconciliation process is totally legitimate, but she is telling people to break the law for the sake of being inflammatory. (I'm sure she will pony up the cash to spring people when they're arrested for tax evasion.)
On the one hand -- idiot. On the other hand -- liar. In either case -- depressing.
Update: Further details here, with this being the money quote:
"We're looking at a couple of different ways to get the bill to the floor and any path we take will obviously require a majority House vote," Slaughter spokesman Vincent Morris told me today. "And it's worth pointing out that whatever we do will be built upon the precedents of the house and familiar to Republicans from when they held the majority."
In any case, whatever the result, it will be the law, even if the voices in Michele Bachmann's head don't think so.
Posts
... having the House pass the Senate version...
ReplyDeleteEh? TPM's article said "She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill." That sure sounds to me as if the House would not have passed the Senate bill. If the Senate bill doesn't come up for a vote, it can't pass, at least in a world where words do not have infinitely pliable meaning.
Given that nowhere have I read about the existence of a plan wherein the House would not vote on the Senate version, and that pretty much every site following this issue is doing so through the lense of an ongoing House vote tally, I think this particular parliamentary procedure exists only in Michele Bachmann's head.
ReplyDelete"This handful of people thinks (sic)" Why the sic? This handful thinks (handful is certainly singular). The Subject agrees with the verb in number, people is the object of the preposition. Be mighty careful dr.dan when correcting grammar, correcting correct grammar is a definite no-no.
ReplyDeleteAs to the bill, the House will deem the Senate bill passed because the yes vote will also be part of the fixes that will be later taken up by the Republicans. It is constitutional, therefore it is legal, because, in the end, they will be voting yes. Just because Democrats are saying that they are only voting yes on the parts they agree with, doesn't mean that the whole bill doesn't pass.
charo
Dr. Dan, you need to ask Mr. Google about the Slaughter Solution. Remember Rep. Slaughter, D-NY, of the story about the constituent wearing her dead sister's teeth? Well, Rep. Slaughter proposed that the House not vote on the Senate bill, but rather "deem" that it had passed the House once a House reconcilitation bill was passed. In other words, there would never be a vote on the Senate bill, just as Rep. Bachmann said.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill. If the Dragon Lady had the votes, we'd see a vote. But she doesn't, so we won't.
Bear in mind too, the severity of the response she is suggesting. To stop paying taxes? To not follow laws? From a lawmaker, a suggestion that is basically revolutionary/secessionist.
ReplyDeleteCharo, the [sic] was from the original source. However, I would note that the statement reads "this handful of people thinks they..."
ReplyDeleteAnd GJ, "Slaughter Solution" or otherwise, the law that would go into effect would have been voted on by the majority of the House. If they bypass a vote on the Senate version and go straight to the reconciliation bill, it will be within the bounds of legal parliamentary procedure, and the final law will be no less legitimate... because the majority of the House will have voted on it.
Bachmann is talking nonsense (and good luck parsing that sentence about the Senate), and nothing about this would be a fraud. It's always amusing to me when you defend the patently absurd.
However, I would note that the statement reads "this handful of people thinks they..."
ReplyDeletewha???? If you are saying the original source was wrong, there was no reason for you to include the mistake, unless you were to (sic) (sic) it, which would be silly. But what does the however mean? It should be "this handful of people think (that) they..."
These are two separate clauses linked by a relative pronoun (which is understood), that they is plural is irrelevant.
And gj is just talking rubbish again. The Democrats will be voting on the bill, it is just that it will be tucked inside a larger bill. For heavens sake, this is pretty standard procedure on Capitol Hill, unless gj is utterly oblivious to how earmarks become law.
charo
Elizabeth, we may well have a revolution in this country, again. I'm perfectly serious. I'm not supporting any government that thumbs its nose at the will of the People. There can be no question but that HCR is not supported by a clear majority of the citizens. This bill is important enough, costly enough, and so profound in the effect on everyday life that we as citizens deserve to be convinced before it is enacted. A gifted orator has pushed this program for a year, and the more people hear, the more unpopular HCR becomes. It is a drastic change in how our society operates, how our government operates, and it will not be forced down our throats by soi-disant 'elites' who imagine their morality is the only one that counts. Expect a metaphorical bloodbath in November. I'm not taking this crap, and I'm not alone. I aim to misbehave.
ReplyDeleteA gifted orator has pushed this program for a year, and the more people hear, the more unpopular HCR becomes.
ReplyDeleteThat's not actually true, GJ. Support has begun to uptick a bit. Regardless, we'll all see if this revolution you predict will come to pass. My dime's on "no."
And charo, "thinks they" is awkward syntax. I don't really have a nickel in this dime, though. Again, the [sic] came from the original citation.
Support has begun to uptick a bit.
ReplyDeleteWithin the margin of error, or is this a statistically significant change? If the latter, what poll?
GJ, what you say would not be acceptable even if the will of the people were clear. But it isn't clear.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I like that Michelle Bachmann and her head are two different entities.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said is not acceptable? Exactly what is not acceptable? That citizens deserve to be convinced before spending squillions which will fall on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren? That citizens should revolt if a power-mad Congress passes sweeping, and potentially unconstitutional, laws that are widely rejected by the public?
ReplyDeleteMaybe "acceptable" is a strong word. But I would save revolution talk for absolutely severe situations. (I'm more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian, personally.) The previous administration I believed to be behaving extraconstitutionally (most notably, torture) and incompetently. But not revolution-worthy. A health care bill seems not worth anyone's violent death.
ReplyDeleteA revolution doesn't have to be bloody. I'm talking about things like, oh, a popular call for a Constitutional Convention where we amend the Constitution to require balanced budgets (except for military expenditures in foreign theaters during a declared war), 12 year term limits, restricting Congress to 90 days in session per year maximum, forbidding any Federal employment or lobbying position for 10 years after leaving Congress, making any law unconstitutional which exempts Congress from any provision of the law. Forbidding Congress from traveling outside their home district for more than 120 days per year. Stuff like that. Now that would be a revolution.
ReplyDeleteLet me know how those Constitutional amendments work out for you, John.
ReplyDeleteI'll dream about them while Nancy and Harry dream about passing a bill.
ReplyDelete