Fast Tracking Healthcare

[KrazyHorse]

I'm in favour of abolishing the Senate AND Presidential vetoes entirely.

[Ramo]

Sounds good, but the only situation that might happen would be that the Senate destroys the country.

But you're right, it's at least a bump in the road that the nuclear option could avoid.

If you look at WH priorities (whose legislative strategy we know either because it already happened or it was established in the budget), there are a.) the stimulus b.) universal health care c.) cap and trade. The stimulus wasn't passed through reconciliation, and had to be strongly watered down as a consequence. Health care will be under reconciliation only if the Republicans refuse to compromise through October, and therefore Republicans have a good shot at watering down the public insurer. Cap and trade won't be passed under reconciliation, and as a consequence probably won't happen this year. If it's just a bump in the road, this clearly wouldn't be the state of affairs.

[Darius871]

But you're right, it's at least a bump in the road that the nuclear option could avoid.

If you look at WH priorities (whose legislative strategy we know either because it already happened or it was established in the budget), there are a.) the stimulus b.) universal health care c.) cap and trade. The stimulus wasn't passed through reconciliation, and had to be strongly watered down as a consequence. Health care will be under reconciliation only if the Republicans refuse to compromise through October, and therefore Republicans have a good shot at watering down the public insurer. Cap and trade won't be passed under reconciliation, and as a consequence probably won't happen this year. If it's just a bump in the road, this clearly wouldn't be the state of affairs.

It's far less likely that this state of affairs results from fear of potential omissions by the Parliamentarian, over whom the majority has total control, than from fear that steamrolling the minority could make them look like douchebags to the public. It's the politics that are worse than a bump in the road, not procedure.

IMHO that fear's unfounded since the Dems' momentum won't peak for another few years (by which time arcane tiffs like this would be long forgotten), and if there's ever a good time to circumvent or even abolish filibusters it's now, but we all know Dem legislators haven't exactly been renowned for courage in the past decade.

[Ramo]

I was referring to sum total of the constraints associated with reconciliation, not just dealing with the parliamentarian (probably the largest).

[Darius871]

I was referring to sum total of the constraints associated with reconciliation, not just dealing with the parliamentarian (probably the largest).

Even so, every single one of those constraints could be revised or totally abolished on a whim, so they're merely a fiction and it's only cynical political theater that drives the issue. That's all there is to it.

[Ramo]

The filibuster can also be abolished on a whim. I don't know what your point here is.

The Senate operates on comity - unanimous consent agreements, etc., and a few people can really gum up the works. A ridiculous amount of time is dedicated to cleaning up obstructionism from a single Senator (i.e. Coburn). If the minority party goes to war with the majority, it can really grind things to a halt. A heavy-handed approach from the majority carries real costs.

[Darius871]

The Senate operates on comity - unanimous consent agreements, etc., and a few people can really gum up the works. A ridiculous amount of time is dedicated to cleaning up obstructionism from a single Senator (i.e. Coburn). If the minority party goes to war with the majority, it can really grind things to a halt. A heavy-handed approach from the majority carries real costs.

Under normal circumstances, yes. When dealing with a minority that's thoroughly discredited to a once-every-70-years degree and knows it, no. Aside from Reconstruction and the New Deal I honestly can't think of political capital and legislative opportunities as huge as the Dems face this year and potentially the next, but they're too damned timid about public opinion to strike while the iron's hot, which has been the party's only talent so far this century.

[Ramo]

I don't disagree with that sentiment, but that still means that in practice reconciliation is a very ****ty substitute for abolishing the filibuster. For a variety of reasons. But that's the way our political system works.

[Darius871]

Fair enough.