President Barack Obama seeks to push a vote on health care reform.  Which would meaning using the reconciliation procedure that only requires 51 votes rather than 60 votes in order to have a filibuster-proof vote.  Has reconciliation been used?  Yes it has.  On a bill that encompasses 1/6 of our economy or something so comprehensive?  Um, no.

By the way he was against reconciliation before he was for it.

Oh yes, "If we want to transform the country… that requires a sizable majority." He advocated then that Democrats should not pass health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy. But now that he won’t get his bill passed any other way, he’s all in.  Let’s be bipartisan unless we can’t get our bills passed.

Of course, one of my senators, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), is all giddy… reconciliation is a go!  Oh goody!  Again while reconciliation has been used before in the past, this move by Senate Democrats, backed by President Obama, represents an abuse of power.  Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial said about this move:

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again…

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can’t sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children’s health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.

The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan’s 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn’t the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O’Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn’t used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn’t actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won’t vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn’t in fact law at all—and can’t become law without those amendments.

Anyway, but yeah let’s go quickly rush this through since this wouldn’t even take effect until 2014.  Rush, rush, rush, rush, rush…. and wait (oh but we’ll start taxing you early).

(False) Hope and change (of mind) for you…. and perhaps a little Chicago politics thrown in there.

Hopefully this blows up in the House.

1 comment
  1. Well, I hope everyone who voted for this snake oil salesman got what they hoped for. I just couldnt bring myself to vote for him. This guy can look you in the eyes and just lie up and down, and then make you think it is truth. He is very crafty, but that edge is going away and people see through him.

    The only change this guy is doing is changing his campaign promises

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

The Tea Party vs. Public Employee Unions

For the last two years we’ve all been treated to analysis of…

Steve King Responds to ObamaCare Ruling

Congressman Steve King (R-IA), a leading critic of ObamaCare issued the following…

Congressman Steve King Says No To Debating Matt Campbell in Iowa 5th Congressional District Race

Democratic challenger Matt Campbell confronted Congressman Steve King at a townhall meeting…

Big Tent…

Honestly, I think that is probably the term I dislike the most…