This shouldn’t be surprising, being on a network that receives live on-air corrections directly from the White House. She really loves to use the word ‘LIE’…L – I – E, she gloats. She really looks giddy using that term toward people who don’t share her views. Let’s examine her new slew of lies. And not the people she is calling ‘liars’, but her own lies. On March 2, 2010 Maddow called Senator Orrin Hatch a ‘liar’ regarding an article he wrote in the Washington Post, 'Reconciliation on health care would be an assault to the democratic process'.
Maddow quotes Senator Hatch from the Washington Post article:
“This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.”
“This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.”
Her giddy listing of bills Senator Hatch has voted for is irrelevant. She loves to skip words, like 'This' use of reconciliation. He is not stating that he doesn’t vote on or for reconciliation bills. He is referring to ‘this’ use of the procedure. Reconciliation bills have their purpose in the BUDGET process. He is referring to this unrelated, non budgetary legislation being thrown into a reconciliation bill. She is suggesting he is displaying hypocrisy by not voting against all reconciliation bills??? Maddow wants you to think that the complete process of reconciliation is a devious tactic with a main purpose of ramming through legislation opposed by one party (as the Democrats are currently trying to use it). The official definition of the process, from the CRS Report for Congress – Order Code RL30862:
“Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in some years reconciliation has involved revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19 reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).”
In those instances Senator Hatch has voted on BUDGET issues. Other items have been tucked into them by both sides. Some of the items might not belong in a budget reconciliation bill, but they are items that alter existing legislation. Not CREATE legislation from scratch that is not related to the budget, as Obamacare does, but alter legislation that has passed the House and the Senate, and been signed into law by the President.
She attacks Senator Hatch again for the following statement in his article:
“Both parties have used the process, but only when the bills in question stuck close to dealing with the budget. In instances in which other substantive legislation was included, the legislation had significant bipartisan support”
Maddow then goes into a cackling tirade of calling him a liar. “That is a total, utter, complete, 100% unambiguous lie. It is a liieee. It is a L-I-E and I don’t mean the Long Island Expressway. It is not the truth…”… on and on she goes. Obsess much? It is such a laughable tirade, everyone should check it out.
But who lies?
Senator Hatch was not stating there was ‘significant bipartisan support’ when a budgetary issue was voted on.
Maddow references the vote on ‘THOSE EVIL BUSH TAX CUTS’ (included in the 'Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003)
Rachel’s ‘lie’ tirade doesn’t work here. The ‘tax cuts’ were a budgetary issue. He didn’t state that budget issues were passed ‘with significant bipartisan support’. He referred to bipartisan support regarding ‘other substantive legislation’. Has she even looked at a reconciliation bill, or seen the definition of one? In this instance…Rachel…YOU LIE!!!
On the other hand, you could actually say it had bipartisan support. That bill passed with the support of two democratic votes in favor of it. Doesn't the liberal definition of 'bipartisan' just require one Republican vote? Another lie by Maddow? Yep.
As her next example, she states that “two years later there was a reconciliation vote, this time on Medicaid”. She gives the impression that stand-alone major medical legislation was passed (typical subtle Maddow deception). It wasn’t a vote ‘on Medicaid’. It was a vote on deficit reduction that included issues affecting the budget of Medicaid. She doesn’t expect her lemming followers to do something odd like actually look at the legislation themselves. Medicaid was one item among many, and again it was ‘budgetary’ changes to ‘existing’ programs. Rachel Maddow…lying again.
