That Horrid Tyrannical Manuever Known as Reconciliation

Filed in National by on March 5, 2010

Let’s see which party is absolutely evil in its use of the most devastating anti-democratic immoral legislative tool ever invented. Indeed, when you use reconciliation, God kills a kitten.

E.J. Dionne lays out the GOP lie:

Republicans, however, don’t want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn “reconciliation” into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are “ramming through” a health bill. It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie — or, if you’re sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.

In an op-ed in Tuesday’s Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, “ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill.”

No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the “reconciliation” rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for “only parts” of the bill. But why didn’t he say that in the first place?

Hatch grandly cited “America’s Founders” as wanting the Senate to be about “deliberation.” But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone “reconciliation.” Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn’t say is that Byrd’s comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post’s Ezra Klein this week that it’s perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation “to improve or perfect the package,” which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.

Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation” unless the legislation has “significant bipartisan support.” But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were “substantive legislation.” The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about “ramming through.”

About the Author ()

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:

    Hmmm….. it would seem that the GOP should be screaming at themselves.

  2. We all know that the GOP has no intellectual consistency or sense of shame.

  3. Scott P says:

    The frustrating part for me, though, is that this is another example of the GOP seemingly winning the PR war with half-truths and lies over actual facts. No, reconciliation is not that unsusual, Republicans have used it more, it’s been used for bigger things, it’s not being used to pass “The Health Care Bill”, and it is absolutely NOT “The Nuclear Option” (or “Nucular Option” for you Bushies). So instead of spending time talking about the legislation itself, we’re again wasting time arguing over blatantly false statements. UHG!

  4. I’m still giggling about an exchange yesterday between Evan Q and one of the anons. Evan Q has some long screed about how the U.S. isn’t meant to be a democracy and uses the phrase “50 + 1 plurality.” Anon said “that’s called a majority.” BOOM!

  5. anon says:

    Evan would be happier in a fife-and-drum reenactment society.

  6. Delaware Dem says:

    Simple math for our idiot Rethugs like Evan Q: When the total is 100, half of 100 is 50. So when you add one to 50, you get 51, which is a majority out of 100. I know George Bush winning the presidency in 2000 with only 48% of the vote confused you.

  7. Delaware Dem says:

    And the thing about those fife and drum colonial reenactment societies… the founding fathers revolted BECAUSE they wanted to vote. Not because they wanted to OBSTRUCT.

  8. anon says:

    And the original tea party protested taxation without representation. Whereas today’s teabaggers are protesting their ARRA tax cuts voted in by their elected representatives. Go figure.

    I don’t think the teabaggers will be sending back their ARRA tax cuts anytime soon. They will just keep the money and pretend it was a tax increase.

  9. Wasn’t there a recent survey of the teabaggers and less than 10% even knew that they had gotten a tax cut? Some 60% or more thought their taxes had been raised.

  10. anon says:

    Republicans have been taught 41 senators is a majority, so no wonder their math is all messed up.

  11. Scott P says:

    This seems to be a big sticking point among conservatives — The Health Care Bill has already passed both houses. Reconciliation is only being used to make small modifications to it, not to pass the whole thing. If the House passes the Senate bill, Obama can sign it whether reconciliation bogs down or not. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out whether they understand this or not, but as Jonathan Chait wrote today, “One of my guidelines to understanding the world is, when confronted with strange behavior, never assume malice when ignorance is available as an explanation.” I love that line.