Fast Tracking Healthcare

[Darius871]

Uh, the Dems were whiny little *****es when it was used against them also. Obviously both parties are laughable hypocrites on this issue.

I honestly don't remember anyone making a big deal about reconciliation before this Congress. I may be wrong, but I very much doubt that the degree of whining was at all comparable.

I won't waste any time googling the countless relevant quotes about the grave threat to "constitutional" checks and balances when Jon Stewart already pwned Pelosi on this (skip to about 6:05):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Ever Spending Story
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Yes, but did anyone pay attention to her? Were there posters on Poly whining about reconciliation? This was insider baseball that the press largely ignored.

I don't know or really care what Poly had to say about it, and obviously any individual may be more consistent than others on the same side of the aisle, but in the mainstream press there was a huge amount of whining by Dem legislators and pundits for at least a full news cycle every time it happened, especially in 2005. I also distinctly remember how the phrase "nuclear option" was thrown around by the Dems almost ubiquitously back then (almost as if ordered by a talking points memo), only to see the same people now stick to "reconciliation" or "fast-track" in amusingly Orwellian fashion.

Personally I'd like to see the filibuster permanently abolished anyway instead of this silly case-by-case basis, because 1) there's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever, 2) most "discussion" needed for any major bill is already done amongst committees, off-hill drafters, backroom negotiations, etc. nowadays, making floor "debate" virtually obsolete except as mere theater, 3) our party system has become too hopelessly divided for continued floor debate to have significant impact on vote outcomes regardless, and 4) the fact that technically a mere majority can circumvent it with reconciliation makes it a joke to begin with, doing the harm of inviting a flurry of hypocritical political posturing every time it's used and making the whole process more cynical than it already is. Even so, I can't help but acknowledge that it has benefited and harmed both sides at different times, and that it'd be the height of hypocrisy for either to complain about it.

[Kuciwalker]

Some of the legislation that the Republicans considered under reconciliation include:

* 2005 - Legislation That Reduced Spending on Medicaid and Raised Premiums on Upper-Income Medicare Beneficiaries

* 2003 - President Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts

* 2001 - President Bush's Signature $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut

* 2000 - $292 Billion "Marriage Penalty" Tax Cut (VETOED)

* 1997 - Balanced Budget Act

* 1996 - Legislation to Enact Welfare Reform

* 1995 - "Contract With America" Agenda

In other words, Republicans are being whiny little *****es.

But they're also right. Y'all ran on a platform of "we're better than the other guy". It's totally fair to complain when you don't live up to that.

[Ramo]

Senate majority/minority leaders vote against bills that they support all the time. It is a parliamentary maneuver used to ensure that they can bring up the bill again in the future.

The major compromise bill floating around was John Chaffee's. And it had not only Dole as a cosponsor but 20 or so other Republicans.

but in the mainstream press there was a huge amount of whining by Dem legislators and pundits every time it happened.

Can you substantiate that? And I presume that you don't mean C-Span 3. Who here had honestly heard of reconciliation rules (and to be clear, I don't mean House-Senate Reconciliation) before 2008?

I also distinctly remember how the phrase "nuclear option" was thrown around by the Dems almost ubiquitously back then (almost as if ordered by a talking points memo), only to see the same people now stick to "reconciliation" or "fast-track" in amusingly Orwellian fashion.

Huh? The nuclear/constitutional option and reconciliation are two entirely distinct processes. Most major legislation was considered under reconciliation; the nuclear/constitutional option never happened.

And to be clear, I wish that the Dems killed the filibuster when they had the chance (i.e. agreeing to kill the filibuster for judicial nominations only if filibuster for legislation is killed as well).

[Ramo]

Y'all ran on a platform of "we're better than the other guy".

Who ran on a platform of limiting the use of reconciliation rules?

[chequita guevara]

Abolish the filibuster!

[Kuciwalker]

Y'all ran on a platform of "we're better than the other guy".

Who ran on a platform of limiting the use of reconciliation rules?

Please, you're better than this.

[Ramo]

Reconciliation is not bad government. It's necessary to make Congress not completely ineffectual. The filibuster is bad government, and that's where the real hypocrisy from the Dems lies.

[Darius871]

Huh? The nuclear option and reconciliation are two entirely distinct processes.

Procedurally yes but functionally no as far as I'm concerned, since either way a simple majority decides what will or will not be subject to filibuster. The fact that reconciliation happens to do it preemptively and the nuclear option does it reactively is meaningless to me, and the SCOTUS hasn't ever ruled on whether the latter would be permanent or could be measure-specific (only the VP did).

But you're right that the nuclear option debate was limited to judicial nominee approvals and not bills, so that's what I was getting wrong about the nomenclature. I don't think I've ever heard nuclear option used in reference to reconciliation except on forums.

Can you substantiate that? And I presume that you don't mean C-Span 3. Who here had honestly heard of reconciliation rules (and to be clear, I don't mean House-Senate Reconciliation) before 2008?

Of course it would only be on the radar of the few people that pay attention to politics, C-Span or no C-Span. Since the judicial appointment controversy and the last GOP use of reconciliation were both in 2005 I probably got them mixed up entirely, so the vast majority of the media attention I remember probably wasn't about the tax and Medicare/Medicaid bills. But I had heard of reconciliation well before 2008, and learned of it from complaints against its use. Granted it wasn't a heated controversy beaten to death on the nightly news and the front page of every paper, but I recall seeing passing references to it on the 24/7 networks and reading a few articles on newspaper sites, which wasn't much less exposure than what we're seeing today. FFS, the Dems' current use of reconciliation isn't on the first page of CNN.com or even a right-wing aggregator like Drudge yet, so I fail to see why you think today's GOP whining is getting so much more "attention" than the Dems' earlier whining did.

And even supposing there is more "attention" this time around, it doesn't make either side more or less hypocritical.

[Kuciwalker]

Reconciliation is not bad government. It's necessary to make Congress not completely ineffectual. The filibuster is bad government, and that's where the real hypocrisy from the Dems lies.

The filibuster is bad government. The filibuster only working some of the time based on legislative tricks is even worse government.

[Ramo]

Procedurally yes but functionally no as far as I'm concerned, since either way a simple majority decides what will or will not be subject to filibuster.

That's not what happens. The majority fashions a bill that they hope would have no objection under the Byrd rule. The Senate parliamentarian decides if it passes muster, and the legislation lives or dies on his call. Even if they don't kill it, they can do unpredictable things to legislation, leaving some language in and other language out. The Republicans had actually fired two consecutive parliamentarians for Byrd rulings. So there's a significant disincentive to go through reconciliation. And more temperamentally conservative Senate leaderships try not to go that way.

If reconciliation worked the way you believe it did, that would be great. It would negate the filibuster (which I think you stated that you agree with). As is, it only provides the grease that keeps the Senate out of total paralysis, i.e. is better than nothing.

Getting rid of the filibuster is a much more radical step.

Of course it would only be on the radar of the few people that pay attention to politics, C-Span or no C-Span. Since the judicial appointment controversy and the last GOP use of reconciliation were both in 2005 I probably got them mixed up entirely,

2006. The legislation wasn't voted on in the Senate until 2006.

so the vast majority of the media attention I remember probably wasn't about the tax and Medicare/Medicaid bills. But I had heard of reconciliation well before 2008, and learned of it from complaints against its use.

Your memory is apparently a lot better than mine, 'cuz I don't remember a damn thing about reconciliation rule controversies.

I do remember plenty of complaints about conference committees substantially changing legislation during reconciliation between the House and Senate, but that is something completely different.

FFS, the Dems' current use of reconciliation

What current use of reconciliation? It's not on the table until October, and may not even happen (if the Senate can come up with a compromise).

And even supposing there is more "attention" this time around, it doesn't make either side more or less hypocritical.

Here's the thing. I was talking about whining. Whining requires volume.

You can see this in the language individual members of Congress use. Pelosi talks about debate, rules, checks & balances, etc., while Gregg talks putting peoples' feet in cement and throwing them in a Chicago river.

[Ramo]

The filibuster only working some of the time based on legislative tricks is even worse government.

Why?

[DanS]

The fact that the filibuster has no constitutional basis is beside the point. Neither the House nor the Senate day-to-day workings are based on the constitution. Rather, they're based on parliamentary tradition going back centuries established by the likes of Jefferson and even earlier British figures. See, e.g., Jefferson's Manual, which is referenced even today.

[Darius871]

That's not what happens. The majority fashions a bill that they hope would have no objection under the Byrd rule. The Senate parliamentarian decides if it passes muster, and the legislation lives or dies on his call. Even if they don't kill it, they can do unpredictable things to legislation, leaving some language in and other language out. The Republicans had actually fired two consecutive parliamentarians for Byrd rulings. So there's a significant disincentive to go through reconciliation. And more temperamentally conservative Senate leaderships try not to go that way.

If reconciliation worked the way you believe it did, that would be great. It would negate the filibuster (which I think you stated that you agree with). As is, it only provides the grease that keeps the Senate out of total paralysis, i.e. is better than nothing.

I'm aware of the Parliamentarian step (assuming there would be a Byrd objection in the first place), but as you know, Frumin's post is purely "advisory," and constitutionally the Senate retains full authority to A) revise/replace the very Byrd Rule he interprets (indeed, in 2007 the new Dem majority made it out of order to even consider reconciliation legislation that would cause a net increase in deficit, a narrowing of the Byrd Rule that they'd evidently have to repeal if/when healthcare reform uses reconciliation) and/or B) fire his ass like the repugs did. Both he and the rule are at the simple majority's disposal. Given that, I don't see any reason to think he wouldn't use a broad definition of pertinence to budget improvement to let the healthcare bill through with only insignificant changes if any, or that if he would turn it into Swiss cheese, the majority wouldn't just fire him and get someone who'll play ball. With legislation this important, either move would be worth taking whatever paltry news cycle worth of flak they'd get for it. But you're right, it's at least a bump in the road that the nuclear option could avoid.

2006. The legislation wasn't voted on in the Senate until 2006.

I said the GOP use of reconciliation, not when the bill was passed; upon receiving the DRA the Senate amended to insert a reconciliation provision on 10/27/05.

Anyway all I'd meant was my memory of the nuclear option controversy and the DRA reconciliation debate are probably jumbled together since they happened just months apart. Incidentally Alito was nominated that same week, and rumors that he might be filibustered brought up the nuclear option topic that was put to rest earlier that year (ultimately it ended up not being an issue when cloture killed Kerry's filibuster), so maybe I did get them confused and the reconciliation was a more arcane story than I thought. But it was at least on my radar at the time, which was at the time made up of nothing more than a half-hour or so of cable punditry before bed and a half-hour or so of skimming forums and articles from online outlets throughout the day, however unrepresentative a media sample that may be.

What current use of reconciliation? It's not on the table until October, and may not even happen (if the Senate can come up with a compromise).

So what? It's a fact that the House-Senate deal already includes reconciliation instructions, meaning the only thing that'll stop it is the unlikely event that the GOP bends over backwards to reach a compromise bill packed with the very government expansion and entitlement spending they openly ran against. Even though they haven't had occasion to pass the resolution yet, its inevitability's implicit threat and reaping negotiating leverage from it constitute "use" in my book.

Certainly the GOP "used" the nuclear option with their threats attempting to scare the Dems into dropping their filibuster, even though at the last minute the Gang of 14 deal ultimately made it impossible to carry out that threat. That's how these people operate.

[DaShi]

The American voters made their decision. If a discussion is needed, one thing is clear, Americans don't want republicans invovled.

[Darius871]

The American voters made their decision. If a discussion is needed, one thing is clear, Americans don't want republicans invovled.

Just one more reason why I support abolishing the filibuster entirely. It's not a partisan issue.