RECONCILIATION AND THE BYRD RULE

The Democrats are threatening to use Reconciliation in order to pass Obama’s NOCARE Bill. Senator Byrd says it can’t be done according to the rules that he wrote in 1985 and that were amended in 1990. Under the Byrd Rule, for those who are not familiar with it, it defines a provision to be “extraneous” (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.  if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

2.  if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

3.  if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

4.  if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

5.  if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

6.  if it recommends changes in Social Security.

The Social Security Act of 1965  was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. This was the act under which Medicare was brought into being. The so-called Health Care Reform Bill does just this by taking money from Medicare to pay for Health Insurance. The Social Security Administration is responsible for determining Medicare eligibility and processing premium payments for the Medicare program.

OOPS: Do you think perhaps the Dems and Obama have failed to understand this part of the Byrd Rule, or do they not care? Probably not, but if they attempt to do such, it would be totally unconstitutional. But then little do they care about that either as long as they can spread their control agenda.

I have read on several blogs recently where the leftists are arguing that Bush used the Reconciliation to get his Tax Cuts passed. Yes, he did, but the legislation was written to conform with the Byrd Rules in that they expired in ten years. (See Rule 5).

The leftists on the blogs, as well as Obama and his minions Pelosi and Reid, argue that they are in compliance with the Byrd Rule, but they fail to show how they can comply with Rule 6.

There are many items in the Bill that would automatically make this piece of so-called legislation ineligible for Reconciliation.  I have picked out just a few from HR3200, or whatever name it is going by now. (A skunk by any other name is still a skunk and smells just as bad.)

1.  Section 1131 proposes changes to the Social Security Act that pertains to payment to hospitals.

2.  ObamaNOcare proposes to change the language in the SSA bill. It would change Social Security Act 1842(b)(18)(C); 1861(aa)(5)). (ii); 1861(bb)(2)). (iii); 1861(gg)(2)). (iv)’ 1861(hh)(1)). (v); 1861(ii)). (vi)

3.  Section 1122, Misvalued Codes Under The Physicians Fee Schedule, offers a revision of SSA Sec. 1848 which includes  adding this language: "(i) In General.-The Secretary shall establish a process to validate relative value units under the fee schedule under subsection …”

4.  Section 59B, Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage , “In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of (1) the taxpayers’ modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in sections 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

As well as failing to qualify under those violations of the SS Act, it also fails under Rule 1 which is a change in outlays and revenues. The Dems think they have circumvented that rule as well. The statement on Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.  (See 4 above, Section 59B.)

What part of change of revenue does this not address?  Oh, but they think they have this covered, along with several other taxes imposed within this so-called bill.

Here is how they do it: Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

And that, folks, is just more subterfuge (1.  deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade; 2.  a deceptive device or stratagem) and finagling (1.  To obtain or achieve by indirect, usually deceitful methods; 2.  To cheat; swindle:. v.intr. To use crafty, deceitful methods) of the Constitution of the United States by this Administration.