The NYT has a brief piece co-authored by Thomas E. Mann of Brookings and Norman J. Ornstein of AEI1 on the reconciliation process (Reconciling With the Past) which concludes:
The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.
Of more significance (or usefulness) is the chart that accompanies the write-up, which “which lists 15 major reconciliation bills passed by Congress since the process was first used in 1980.” Really, it is difficult to review the evidence and reach the conclusion that there is any chicanery to be associated with using the reconciliation process as is being proposed by the Democrats.
What needs to ultimately be understood here is that if (and it is still an “if”) health care reform is passed it will not be passed through an arcane, unfair or unprecedented process (as the current charges would have it). Rather, the bill has already passed the Senate (with, I would note, a supermajority of 60 votes). The bill would then need to be passed in the House. Nothing arcane or unusual about that. Reconciliation comes in as a means of making modifications to the bill (after the House vote) that are needed to induce the House vote in the first place. Such changes would have to be linked to spending.
Really, regardless of one’s disposition towards the bill, the above facts are simply that, facts. Any argument about the process that makes it sound underhanded is simply an attempt to try and block the bill in a disingenuous fashion. Now, all’s fair in love and war and all that, but if one wishes to be intellectually honest regardless of desired outcomes, then one has to acquiesce to the facts.
The current discussion about the reconciliation process is an excellent example of how the discourse gets shaped by preferences about outcomes to the detriment of honest discussion.
The fundamental fact of the matter is that if health care reform passes it will be because, as the cliché goes, elections have consequences. At the moment the party in favor of health care reform controls the Congress (comfortably, I might add) and the White House. As such, it is not a surprise that they are attempting to push their agenda. Now, it may be that Charlie Cook is right, and this health care debate is Obama’s Iraq War (i.e., a colossal mistake) and further it may also be true that the American people hate this bill. If so, we have a fantastic remedy for the situation: more elections (in November of this year again in 2024) wherein the voters can speak and rectify the situation if they so choose.
- In other words, think tanks associated (in a broad sense) with the left and right, respectively. [↩]
March 8th, 2024 at 8:26 am
Personally, I’m getting tired of hearing about wreck-&-silly-ation, because it’s not actually the problem.
The only reason it’s even an issue is because of the “modern” filibuster which, unlike the old-school version, doesn’t require a senator to actually run his mouth on the Senate floor until he can’t do it anymore. For some reason, the required investment in a filibuster has been reduced to “zero down, no payments, no interest.” There have been dozens of these modern phantom-style “filibusters” over the last few years, but I can only recall one instance where there was actually a full-on Senate floor debate that was held up with the real McCoy — and it was widely viewed as an anachronistic stunt. Since it’s free, of course it gets used for every little trifle — there’s no downside when your only goal is to obstruct until you can retake power.
The Republicans want to drag this out for yet another year so they can point at “two years of no results, OMGWTFLOL” and the Democrats don’t even know what they want — if they knew, the damn thing would have already become law, now wouldn’t it?
A pox o’ both their houses.