Comments on: Senate Passes the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/ Your Life Beyond The Capitol Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:42:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-1489 Jonathan Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:21:43 +0000 http://www.welovedc.com/?p=6485#comment-1489 Strike "rider", replace with "amendment". And get me some coffee - I must be less awake than I thought. Strike “rider”, replace with “amendment”. And get me some coffee – I must be less awake than I thought.

]]> By: Tom Bridge http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-1487 Tom Bridge Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:07:20 +0000 http://www.welovedc.com/?p=6485#comment-1487 Jonathan, The rider IS the bailout. Because the Senate lacks the power of the purse, in order to get the ball rolling on the bailout, they had to hollow out an existing house bill, and stuff it full of the bailout. It's a parliamentary end around. Jonathan,

The rider IS the bailout. Because the Senate lacks the power of the purse, in order to get the ball rolling on the bailout, they had to hollow out an existing house bill, and stuff it full of the bailout.

It’s a parliamentary end around.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-1477 Jonathan Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:40:47 +0000 http://www.welovedc.com/?p=6485#comment-1477 What does a rider really mean on a 700 billion dollar bailout? Are we missing the huge elephant in the room? What does a rider really mean on a 700 billion dollar bailout? Are we missing the huge elephant in the room?

]]> By: Dawn http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-1476 Dawn Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:05:00 +0000 http://www.welovedc.com/?p=6485#comment-1476 The reason the bailout didn't pass the first time was because of the amendments and such added to it. It's possible the plan itself would've been just fine and that the House actually DID read it (gasp!) from beginning to end. Our theory at work was that it was the capital gains tax issue, but admittedly we're distracted by putting out fires with every decision made (or not made) on Capitol Hill this week. The reason the bailout didn’t pass the first time was because of the amendments and such added to it. It’s possible the plan itself would’ve been just fine and that the House actually DID read it (gasp!) from beginning to end. Our theory at work was that it was the capital gains tax issue, but admittedly we’re distracted by putting out fires with every decision made (or not made) on Capitol Hill this week.

]]> By: Don http://www.welovedc.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-the-paul-wellstone-mental-health-and-addiction-equity-act-of-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-1468 Don Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:39:31 +0000 http://www.welovedc.com/?p=6485#comment-1468 They hollowed-out an existing bill that had gone through certain hoops already because otherwise they'd have to potentially contend with dissenters putting holds on an actual new bill. It's a procedural end-run, and you can find some explanation of it if you look around; I think Pearlstein explained it a little in a recent business column. All we can hope for now is that the House continues to show just barely enough sense to keep resisting this turd. Hopefully they didn't add enough deck chairs to the Titanic (FDIC guarantee increase? Really? It's already a guarantee <i>per account</i> so it's not like it's not <b>already</b> possible to shield an infinite amount - you just have to create more accounts) to convince the holdouts that they can vote for it. They hollowed-out an existing bill that had gone through certain hoops already because otherwise they’d have to potentially contend with dissenters putting holds on an actual new bill. It’s a procedural end-run, and you can find some explanation of it if you look around; I think Pearlstein explained it a little in a recent business column.

All we can hope for now is that the House continues to show just barely enough sense to keep resisting this turd. Hopefully they didn’t add enough deck chairs to the Titanic (FDIC guarantee increase? Really? It’s already a guarantee per account so it’s not like it’s not already possible to shield an infinite amount – you just have to create more accounts) to convince the holdouts that they can vote for it.

]]>