| Here's the sequence:
1. Conrad commission suggests big cut to social security among others.
2. Conrad commission nominally states that a 3/5 majority is required to pass it into law.
3. A Republican or conservative Democrat raises a point of order during consideration of the Commission package that the section dealing with the voting requirements to pass is out of order.
4. The Chair rejects the point of order.
5. Another Senator appeals the ruling of the chair, and 51 Senators (or a majority of those present and voting) vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
Bingo, the 3/5 nominal requirement is bypassed and the Conrad bill can pass on a simple majority vote (in the Senate at least though probably the same thing could happen in the House).
Here's some of Baucus' comments introducing his amendment:
It is clear from the statements of Senators CONRAD and GREGG that they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this commission is all about. It is a threat to Social Security and Medicare.
That is why the first amendment this Senator offered is to protect Social Security. Senators CONRAD and GREGG have proposed a system that will not allow Senators to offer amendments to protect Social Security later, after the commission has come up with its recommendations. That is why we have to vote to protect Social Security now, while we still can offer amendments.
No love lost there for Conrad it seems. No mention of the nuclear option prevention clause, and maybe it was never likely, but that Baucus felt this was needed just in case, says he at least fears it.
I'll be happy to be wrong, but that is probably the only way any bill that came out of the Conrad commission could pass, so if I'm right, was that "the plan" all along, and did Baucus head it off at the pass?
|
STATE BLOGS
