Attention All Reconciliation Commenters
It's clear from all the comments on CG&G and elsewhere that Republican and Democratic commenters are refusing to acknowledge the basic facts about reconciliation. So here are several factual statements.
Get over it. Stop denying it. Move on.
1. Reconciliation is not a rule or an attempt to get around the rules; it's a law -- Public Law 93-344 (The Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be exact.
2. Reconciliation has been used by both Democrats and Republicans when they were in the majority.
3. When they have been in the majority, Democrats and Republicans have both argued that using reconciliation was proper. Whey they have been in the minority both parties have maintained that it was improper for the other even to think about it.
4. The fact that one party has used reconciliation more than another is interesting but not instructive in any way. The bottom line, again, is that they've both used it repeatedly.
5. Reconciliation has been used for both major and not-so-major changes. It's also been used to increase and decrease the deficit.
6. The parliamentarian plays a major role in deciding what does and doesn't qualify under the Byrd Rule and, yes, the parliamentarian is appointed by the majority.
Which Democrats have said
Which Democrats have said that using Reconciliation is improper, and for what? I am racking my brains...
Thank you
I'd like to focus on understanding the process, and speculation on what we might achieve from it.
I've got a kid with a pre-existing condition; remaining in the US hinges on the outcome of this process for her.
Dems who were against reconciliation
before they were for it. Brad, Nelson, Lincoln, and Bayh all spoke out against using reconciliation as recently as late January - Nelson's come around lately, it remains to be seen whether Bayh and Lincoln have.
Here's a link:
Lincoln, Bayh Won't Support Passing Health Care Fixes Via Reconciliation | TPMDC
Critical point is sticking to the rules
Reconciliation is a legitimate process if, and only if, it is used according to the established rules. Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget committee has stated on several occasions that he does not believe the controversial components of HCR can be protected under reconciliation. This was a major reason the original Senate HCR bill was not brought up under reconciliation rules.
Apparently the current idea de jure is to bundle these components into a "side car" bill with the claim that even if individual components do not merit reconciliation protection, they are covered as part of a larger package. The Republicans tried this with energy legislation in 2005 and their own parliamentarian struck it down. It has been noted that he lost his job over that decision but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats overturned the decision.
In reality, it is very difficult to predict what will happen. The Democrat staff is almost surely working as closely as possible with the parliamentarian to fully understand the rules, precedents and decisions of the Senate so they can write a bill that meets the Byrd rule requirements. Frankly, given what they are trying to do, I do not see how they will be able to reach that goal.
A very critical point is that Alin Frumin, the Senate parliamentarian, is VERY well respected by both sides of the aisle. He and Robert Dove switched back and forth in the office from 1980 (might have been earlier) until 2005 depending on which party controlled the Senate and when Dove was fired in 2005, the Republicans chose Frumin to come back in as parliamentarian.
If Frumin rules as most observers expect; The presiding officer of the Senate, presumably the VP will be in the chair but it could be any Democrat Senator, will need to issue a ruling from the chair in conflict with the ruling from the parliamentarian. It is the ruling from the chair which is final and sets the precedent for not only this bill but all other reconciliation bills in the future. Republicans would of course appeal the ruling of the chair but they would need 60 votes to uphold the appeal and that is not going to happen.
If these events unfold as expected, and Democrats at both the staff and Senator level have been fairly open about their intention to overrule Frumin if neccessary; Republicans would be completely justified in maintaining the process had been perverted. I sincerely hope I am wrong but given the restrictions of the Byrd rule and Alin Frumin's recognized integrity, I see no other way the Democrats can prevail.
Signs and clues
Woodbridge makes some interesting points, though I'm inclined a priori to be skeptical about a poster who uses "Democrat" as an adjective, but not "Republic". The parties are the "Democratic" and "Republican", and anyone who willfuly mangles the name of one is intentionally sowing signs and clues of a particular disposition in a way that is not conducive to reasoned argument.
The more important point, though, is the insistence that reconciliation be used "according to the established rules." I am willing to agree, but am also curious about who determines what these rules are? The case of Dove's ejection after blocking a particular Republican ("-an"...see how easy it is to be accurate and respectful?) is notable, and an important precedent. The parliamentarian's decision is clearly an important part of the 'rules.'
But by Woodbridge's own account, the ruling of the chair is also part of the 'rules.' Now of course, it's tempting to say that the parliamentarian is a neutral and objective functionary, whereas the Senate chair would be 'playing politics.' There's a problem with that view, though, since the whole point of the Senate is to reach political decisions -- and reaching political decisions means 'playing politics'.
Americans, in particular, love to think that there is somehow a rational and neutral process for reaching decisions on public policy, but even a quick look at history shows that this is nonsense. Politics, with all of its rules and traditions and (sometimes) distasteful necessity for horse-trading and rule-bending exists because there is no other way when opposed views or interests have to coexist. The point of the process (including rules about reconciliation, the authority of the parliamentarian, and the role of the Senate chair), therefore, is to keep the parties in the game, and there's no chance of the Republican party folding up its tents and turning to civil insurrection if the Democratic party uses the established law concerning reconciliation to pass a health care finance bill. Whether the Democratic side chooses to use reconciliation or not is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of prudence and judgment -- as was the Republicans' decision to vote 'no' unanimously on the bills, to refuse any compromises during the bill's drafting, and to vociferously oppose elements of the bill that they themselves had been proposing a few months or years earlier. So it goes: that's politics, and I don't blame the Republicans for their choices (though I may dispute their prudence), and I won't blame the Democrats for theirs.