Veto Session Coming Next Week

The legislature will reconvene for its constitutionally-mandated veto override session next week. Democrats are currently trying to figure out which bills to hold a vote on–but they may not get to all of them. A choice quote:

Derek Slap, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats, says lawmakers have enough votes to override a number of vetoes. But he says how many may depend on whether minority Republicans attempt to wage lengthy debates.

The problem for Democrats is that the veto override sessions can only last up to three days. Therefore parliamentary procedures and lengthy debates can really gum up the works and lead to bills not getting a vote.

Therefore, they’re going to have to prioritize. As many as seven or eight bills may have the votes for an override–it’s just a question of which bills will come up for a vote.

No word on whether Democrats can override the governor’s high-profile veto of two health care bills.

Advertisements

23 responses to “Veto Session Coming Next Week

  1. Gridlock is a wonderful thing…
    The longer this lasts, the longer we get to keep our hard earned money

  2. AndersonScooper

    If Cafero and McKinney engage in such bull-shit, I hope the media will hold them accountable. (Counting on you Ms. Sindland, and you, too, Mark Davis.)

  3. The problem for Democrats is that the veto override sessions can only last up to three days.

    Oh no…..THREE DAYS they can still get into all sorts of trouble.

  4. What bulls__t? It sounds like you’d blame the Republicans for maintaining their positions — shouldn’t you blame the Democrats for passing eight crappy bills?

  5. AndersonScooper

    I think if the popular body can muster a veto over-ride, that’d amount to the will of the electorate.

    And yes, I think using procedural crap to prevent those votes, — is utter bullshit.

  6. One can only hope they (the GOP) take as much time as possible. If we’re really, really lucky they’ll prevent any votes at all.

    The fewer of these ghastly bills the Democrats manage to sneak past Rell’s veto the better off we’ll all be … and that goes extra-super double for Speaker Union Label’s “pooling” bill and the even more deplorable “BustiBudget” bill, which are two of the worst examples of legislation since the Stamp Act.

    From a purely public policy standpoint they’d be better off trying to repass Edith Prague’s end-run around the Siting Council. At least that legislative turd made no pretense at being anything other than a “f*k you, process” bill. BustiBudget purports to be a no-fiscal-impact, “study” bill when in fact it is written to give the “study committee” no choice other than to go with the BustiBudget Plan at a price tag of untold billions — at a time when the state budget is headed right down the crapper.

    The Dems — in particular, Speaker Union Label and Senate President Pornstachio — are hellbent on making this veto session a contest about whose wingwang is bigger, not a debate over who has the better ideas for the future of Connecticut. That’s not only a pathetic (but tragically revealing) statement about the insecurities of the Democratic “leadership,” it’s a piss-poor way to make law.

  7. And yes, I think using procedural crap to prevent those votes, — is utter bullshit.

    Given similar circumstances you would scream bloody murder if your people failed to do the same.

  8. Given the recent Federal action on Health Care a Sustinet veto is OK with me.

    Sustinet will look much different in six months when the feds are done.

    Gotta admit I like the CT Democrats for coming up with a health care plan that is obsolete before they can vote for an over ride. It’s so them.

  9. Mr. Reality

    The voice of the minority should be limited? Wow that’s an interesting take…Good thing society doesn’t follow that logic. Whatever you say TrueBlue.

  10. Mr. Reality

    How about this…you have 6 months to debate a bill…instead of bringing it up a couple of days before the deadline, bring it out earlier. That would be the responsible thing to do…if you really believed in that legislation.

  11. The SustiNet health care reform plan would actually end up saving our state millions of dollars and create thousands of jobs.

    Connecticut’s economy is struggling, unemployment is rising, health care costs continue to skyrocket, and more state residents are going without health care coverage. The number of uninsured in our state is more than the combined populations of New Haven plus Hartford plus Middletown plus New London. And most of us WITH insurance are just a lay-off, a divorce, or a serious illness away from un-insurance.

    PA 09-148, the “SustiNet” bill, will give us all economic and health care “peace of mind.” None of us will ever again be without quality, affordable health care. And for each dollar invested by the state, Connecticut employers and employees will save $2.80 in health care costs. That means more jobs for our state and more money in all of our pockets.

    I think our legislators know that 75% of state residents support comprehensive health care reform.

    I think they also know that the children in Connecticut who have no health care coverage whatsoever would fill 1,000 bright yellow school buses.

    They’ll be there Monday, they’ll override the governor, and Connecticut will become a national model for effective, affordable state health care reform.

  12. Suggesting that 75% of state residents support SUSTINET is absurd. Health Care reform doesn’t equate to SUSTINET.

    Suggesting that the legislation is ‘better’ than the Mass plan and will create savings is just plain wrong. It will be costly to implement. The MASS plan cost twice the estimates. CT doesn’t have estimates in the cost.

    I support National Health care and it will cost money.

    The fact the supporters hang their hate on two MIT pro-National Health Care lobbyists that have been inable to cover the costs or prove their cost modeling in their own state is an indication that there are a lot of smoke and mirrors around the SUSTINET plan.

  13. GoatBoyPHD,

    And what does “PHD” stand for?

    Petty Hypocritical Delirium??

    “Suggesting that 75% of state residents support SUSTINET is absurd.”

    That was your absurd suggestion, not mine, kid. Listen to Oprah: OWN your feelings.

    But that number comes up again and again, and it’s for major reform, and I don’t see another such bill out there that was passed with veto-proof majorities by the people Connecticut elected to represent them. If you’ve got a better idea for comprehensive reform that the 300 CT residents who lose their health care coverage each day would prefer – well, I guess you should have brought it up sooner. Now, your goal is clearly word games and idea games in the cause of delay, status quo, delay, status quo, and did I mention delay.

    “Suggesting that the legislation is ‘better’ than the Mass plan and will create savings is just plain wrong. It will be costly to implement. The MASS plan cost twice the estimates. CT doesn’t have estimates in the cost.”

    I had my eight-year-old daughter, who is an “I Spy” whiz, go over my comment, and every other comment, on this post. The only person who says anything about Mass. is you. So now you’re arguing with yourself — and I think you’re about to lose. Go figure.

    “I support National Health care and it will cost money.”

    Wow! You sound like one of the most committed supporters of national health care I have ever (not) met! And is that the way you try to convince non-believers to join the cause: “Support national health care. It will cost money! Sign-up NOW!” Muy impressivo, mi cabrona.

    “The fact the supporters hang their hate on two MIT pro-National Health Care lobbyists that have been inable to cover the costs or prove their cost modeling in their own state is an indication that there are a lot of smoke and mirrors around the SUSTINET plan.”

    Let’s look around the room for a moment….. who seems most like they have so much hate that they have to hang it on a hook or it will tip them over? Maybe… our local PHD?

    And I have to admit – I have no idea whatsoever what an “MIT pro-National Health Care lobbyist” might be. Is that a new career track they have up there on the banks of the Charles? Do they always work in pairs? And someone asked them to personally cover the costs of national health care? Are they allowed to borrow from family?

    That’s not to say you didn’t prove your point, kid. It’s just to say they you have no point AND no proof for it.

    And hey – get away from that garbage can!!

    Monday. Rell’s vetoes overridden. Applause.

  14. And yes, I think using procedural crap to prevent those votes, — is utter bullshit.

    The majority party in our legislature constantly uses procedurial measures to prevent votes on the floor of both chambers.

    Never a shortage of proving the ‘selective’ vision employed by a poster.

    Majority party does it=no problem.

    Minority party does it=damn them to hell.

  15. Iv’e read the SUSTINET plan and bills several times as well as the supporting material.

    Wow! You sound like one of the most committed supporters of national health care I have ever (not) met! And is that the way you try to convince non-believers to join the cause: “Support national health care. It will cost money! Sign-up NOW!”

    Underestimating the costs will create a reactionary backlash IMHO.

    And like you I know there are those that will stop at nothing to get SUSTINET passed. It’s all on board and throw the financial facts out the windows.

    It’s irrelevant anyway. The Federal plan will require SUSTINET supporters to start at square one if they over ride the veto. I was told they will come up a couple votes short. Monday we’ll know.

    I applaud the Democrats for attempting to pass a plan that will be obsolete in 6 months. It’s so them.

    The comparison to MASS is pertinent in that the plans are very similar. MASS is ahead of CT in their prototype eRecords initiative as well. SUSTINET supporters are desperate to distance themselves from the MASS plan now that the costs are becoming a concern. Distance yourself as you like. The savings from eRecords will take years to realize . There’s a reasons why eRecords have a long history of failure state to state.

    All you have to do is go here and click on the tabs for vendors, payers and providers to see how far CT has comes since funding was authorized for protptypes in 2006. And these people want taxpayers to fund SUSTINET without asking further questions?

    http://ehealthconnecticut.org/

    As far as personal attacks go, if that’s the best you can do OK.

    In the previous post there was a typo ‘hang their hats’ read ‘hang their hate’.

  16. Dr. Kid,

    You throw out a string of the Limbaugh/CBIA anti-reform talking points that have been used to help defeat any efforts to improve the health care system for more than two decades.

    Your claims are completely devoid of facts; statistics; and citations of studies, research and surveys (in this last post as well).

    You don’t even do the blog the courtesy of proofreading your writing.

    And you choose to call yourself “GoatBoyPHD.”

    Do you really expect to be taken seriously??

  17. jimmy d,

    If you’re going to whine about people not proofreading their posts, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you. I do agree that people should not be sloppy with their posts but this blog doesn’t allow people to edit their comments to removed typographical errors. GoatBoyPHD is hardly one of the habitual offenders of sloppy posting on this blog, unlike some of your other liberal friends that post here, you know like the immature children who refuse to use the shift key. Now THAT is deliberately not showing this blog courtesy so please jimmy, go after those losers instead of GoatBoyPHD.

    Someone’s choice of a screen name has nothing to do with whether or not they should be “taken seriously.”

    It’s unfortunate that because you don’t like his opinion, you choose to attack him personally.

  18. It’s unfortunate that because you don’t like his opinion, you choose to attack him personally.

    That’s rich coming from you, Brenda. Does this mean an apology is coming for getgear, who you personally attacked for being “too simple minded to read the subject matter of [a] thread” and called “a mean spirited prick”, simply for discussing an issue brought up earlier in that thread by Republicans?

    GoatBoyPHD is hardly one of the habitual offenders of sloppy posting on this blog, unlike some of your other liberal friends that post here, you know like the immature children who refuse to use the shift key.

    Name two. Speaking of…

    jimmy d,

    Your shift key appears to be broken.

    so please jimmy, go after those losers instead of GoatBoyPHD.

    And you appear to be breaking the rules of this blog again.

  19. No sam, the gear guy deserved what he got, he knows it and you know it too.

  20. Hank Morgan

    GoatBoy, who wrote your talking points in post #12? They deserve a raise!

  21. Brenda,

    Thanks for your interest is this matter.

    FYI – As far as I know, I have no friends – liberal or otherwise – on this blog.

    Of course typos in comments are to be expected. We’re not writing for publication. I’m no great typist and I usually have one or two typos in each of my posts. Like most people I know, I DO write my posts in Word and spell-check/grammar check them first, to catch most mistakes.

    But then you’ve got people who don’t seem to care if their comments (and their criticisms) make any sense at all – grammatically, factually, or logically. They just go into mindless attack mode and spew.

    And you’ve got the phonies who work really hard at writing badly so as to appear to be “just a regular guy” — generally a Plumber Joe who hates unions, taxes, and the very IDEA of any government at all. Who really has time to read and/or respond to that kind of crap?

    You write: “And “GoatBoyPHD is hardly one of the habitual offenders of sloppy posting on this blog”?

    All I know is this:

    “Suggesting that 75% of state residents support SUSTINET [**the plan is called “SustiNet” – not all caps] is absurd. Health Care [** incorrect capitalization of “care”] reform doesn’t equate to SUSTINET. [**I believe he means “does not necessarily equate….” because, like it or not, SustiNet IS a form of health care reform]

    Suggesting that the legislation is ‘better’ than the Mass plan and will create savings is just plain wrong. It will be costly to implement. The MASS [**are we calling the state “Mass” or MASS”?] plan cost [**should be “costs” or “is costing” or “will cost”] twice the estimates. CT doesn’t have estimates in the cost. [**Sentence is not comprehensible]

    I support National Health [** incorrect capitalization of “National” and “Health”] care and it will cost money.

    The fact [**missing word “that”] the supporters hang their hate [**should be “hat”]on two MIT pro-National Health Care lobbyists [**incomprehensible label/title] that have been inable [**should be “unable”] to cover the costs [**whatever that last phrase is supposed to mean, it doesn’t] or prove their cost modeling [**last phrase also muddled in meaning – prove what to whom?] in their own state is an indication that there are [**should be “is”] a lot of smoke and mirrors around the SUSTINET plan.”

    This isn’t a writing class – but we all finished high school, right?

  22. **HOUSE OVERRIDES GOV. RELL VETO OF SUSTINET, 102-40!**

  23. CT makes history! Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto of SustiNet!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s