The Straight Poop on “Reconciliation”

Posted: February 20, 2010 in Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Of course, this has nothing to do with reconciling differences between Democrats and Republicans, or even between radicals & moderates within the former group. This “reconciliation” is a controversial procedural move that the Democrats in Congress want to use to pass Obamacare, despite their losing the 60-vote Senate supermajority.

Since its introduction in 1974, the reconciliation process has rarely been used, and only for its original purpose of sidestepping impasses on budgetary resolutions. Ostensibly for reducing deficits or increasing surpluses, its wording only refers to “changes” in revenue and spending amounts. Although intended for only limited application and for a single fiscal year, it has since been expanded in scope to pass sweeping omnibus bills. For example, Congress used reconciliation to pass Clinton’s 1993 budget. The President also wanted them to use the same tactic to enact “HillaryCare”, but Sen. Byrd, author of 1985’s Byrd Rule, prevailed in his arguments that healthcare was out-of-bounds. It wasn’t until 1999 that reconciliation was used by the Senate to enact something that would actually have a negative impact on the federal fiscal position (i.e., the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act). It was used again to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, with similar results. [Note: It might be interesting to note that reconciliation was used 3 times under George W. Bush, each time to pass major tax cuts, which would lapse after 10 years in adherence with Byrd Rule guidelines.]

U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Capitol Building where U.S. Congress meets

By its very nature, reconciliation favors the majority party, because it limits debate and amendment and avoids filibuster. Rather than the usual 60 votes needed to pass a bill, the procedure allows the Senate Parliamentarian (i.e., currently Alan Frumin, who has already shown himself to be partisan toward Democrats) to modify the bill such that it only requires a simple majority (in the Senate) of 51 votes. If there is a 50/50 tie, the Vice President votes the tiebreaker; and we all know which way Biden leans. The bill then goes to the President for his sign-off. Important point: It doesn’t matter which order bills are passed by Congress, but it does matter what order the President signs them into law.

Now we have the Democrats in the majority and trying again to pass another socialistic, debt-growing healthcare plan via reconciliation. Of course, in addition to the above, the procedure does involve going through several committees and meeting certain requirements from the 1974 Budget Act and the 1985 “Byrd Rule”, which restricts non-budgetary use of the reconciliation maneuver. Also, the minority party in the Senate still has a chance to force a separate roll call vote on every line of the bill. But, Sen. Reid et al. think they can somehow get around the “Byrd Rule” and any other obstacles. Despite resistance from the fiscally conservative “Blue Dogs”, Pelosi’s Democrats have the majority in the House, which is why no one is talking about using reconciliation there. [UPDATE: It seems that Pelosi may not have the votes she needs, after all. Go here and here for more on this.]

With the President expected to present his new plan any day now [Note: Originally posted 2/20/2010.], House and Senate Democratic leaders are winding down weeks of negotiations over the details. (Questions: If Obama is crafting his own version of what he thinks is a “good bill”, which will then be presented to Pelosi & Reid, what exactly has the Democratic leadership been negotiating? Are they merely humoring him? How much detail will Obama get into? How closely are they expected to adhere to his bill? Is this constitutional? Just wondering….)

While even congressional Democrats can’t be sure what will end up in the final bill, reconciliation efforts will probably go something like this (as per the NCPA):

1) House Democrats pass several “fixes” for the Senate bill.

2) Senate Democrats endorse the “fixes” and send them to the President (who does nothing with them, yet).

3) House Democrats bypass the need for subsequent Senate vote by passing the Senate bill as-is and sending it to the President.

4) The President first signs the Senate bill, then the “fixes”.

So, what can those of us who oppose Obamacare do? We need to convince Senate moderates (e.g., Blanche Lincoln, D-AR), and anyone else in Congress currently on the fence about Obamacare of at least one of the following:

1) Passing Obamacare in anything like its current state is against the will of the majority of the people (as multiple surveys, demonstrations, & elections have shown), and voting for it would work against them when they are up for re-election.

2) Passing Obamacare in anything like its current state is simply unethical, because of its tremendous costs, intrusive control over people’s health/lives, unconstitutional interference with the market, etc.

3) Using the reconciliation tactic to pass anything other than budgetary resolutions is inappropriate and unethical, because it would violate its intended purpose and subsequent guidelines set in the Byrd Rule.

4) Using the reconciliation tactic to pass Obamacare in particular (given its controversial nature) seems underhanded and “dirty politics”, since it effectively cuts out Republicans and bypasses much of the normal legislative process. A topic this huge deserves full-throated, bipartisan debate.

If enough can be convinced, we can keep the yea-votes to 49 or less and defeat the “reconciliation” of Obamacare. The Democrats currently have 59 votes in the Senate, so we only need about 12 (including an additional couple to counteract the RINOs like Olympia Snowe, R-ME, and Robert Bennett, R-UT, who may go against party lines and vote for it). We CAN stop it!

If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to join the Free Our Health Care NOW! Action Army, then call or write your Congressman. You can also donate to the NCPA here.

  1. The Center Square says:

    I agree with this — a highly unusual move, and not in the spirit original intended in 1974. Then again, the tactics being used by the Republicans to stymie the Democratic majority are rooted in their own controversies. I think BOTH sides have effectively declared, “We will do whatever it takes to prevail, procedurally.” The fight is fair, at least.

    • sirrahc says:

      Just curious, CS… Is there some procedural tactic that the Republicans have used that you think is unethical or unconstitutional? If so, then shame on them. But, nothing comes to mind.

  2. Elric66 says:

    A certain blogger wonders why I call these demomarxist thugs. Let them do it. Let the American people see these marxist thugs in the full sunlight.

  3. The Center Square says:

    Unethical or unconstitutional? No. Then again, reconciliation is neither unethical nor unconstitutional either. It is merely unwise, because it sets us on a slippery slope of running roughshod over minority viewpoints.

    Examples of comparable Republicans tactics are the way they are blocking presidential appointments, and making it clear that they will prevent healthcare bills from coming up for a floor vote. Again, neither unethical nor unconstitutional, but surely hardball politics. Same as reconciliation.

  4. […] The Straight Poop on “Reconciliation” « A View from the Right […]

  5. Jay says:

    I’m wondering how preventing the single most expensive and governmentally intrusive bill in this nations history is comparable to using a clearly questionable budgetary tactic on the part of a majority when:

    1. The majority of the American people clearly don’t want it in it’s current form
    2. Would drive up our deficit to even more astronomical levels than it is now and
    3. Clearly is not about health-care but instead about government control and clearly designed to increase dependence on the part of the American people. 10 million people need health insurance so we force the other 310 million to get it as well or be fined and/or jailed?

    As for the blocking of Obama’s radical marxist/communist/socialist appointees. I hope they succeed in blocking every single one of them. Google Cas Sunstein or any other radical/lobbyist he has employed. The only thing Sunstein has on the other guys is he knows how to file his taxes. Their all elitist scum.

    There is a difference between blocking a socialistic, redistobutionist agenda and cramming an unwanted bill down the throats of the American people.

    You can call it what ever you wish. It is what it is.

  6. […] does not want. Does anyone remember being “stuck on stupid”? Huge hat-tip to Sirrahc over at “A View from the Right” and we encourage anyone and everyone to read the details over at his site; also, we must mention […]

  7. The Center Square says:

    @ Jay: I’m not commenting on the wisdom of the legislation, just the legislative procedures. In fact, filibusters, putting blocks on presidential appointments, and reconciliation are used all the time. People just tend to take more notice when such tactics are used to thwart what they want to see happen.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s