JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 1, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Republicans have thrown up a nearly endless series of reasons why it would be an unprecedented moral outrage for Democrats to use budget reconciliation to amend health care legislation: reconciliation has never been used for major policy, it's never been used for health care, it's only been used for deficit reduction. All these arguments have been debunked. Finally, former Republican advisor Martin Gold has a new reason why this use of reconciliation would be so unprecedented:
Republicans have used the tool frequently and for far more than just minor fiscal adjustments. But Gold believes the reason Democrats will deploy the strategy is blatantly political — in “express defiance of an election outcome” — and would set a negative precedent in the Senate.
Well, it's a distinction. Reconciliation may have been previously used for major policy changes, health care reform, or measures that (unlike health care reform) are scored as increasing the deficit. But, it's true, it's never previously been used in "express defiance of an election outcome." I have a hard time understanding why this distinction would suddenly render reconciliation unthinkable. But of course, this is the sort of logic that you come up with when you're justifying partisan hypocrisy. No two episodes are ever exactly alike. If you want to explain why it's wrong for the other party to employ a tactic your party used, if you look hard enough, you can always find some difference in circumstance and hold that up as the key distinction.
This sort of faux moral scrupulousness is just a tool for parties to turn Congressional rules and procedures into a tactical advantage for achieving their policy goals. You think I'm hurling an unfair accusation at Gold? Here's an advertising pitch for a lobbying seminar Gold (who works for Covington and Burling) held on behalf of the American League of Lobbyists:
Can you turn Congressional rules and procedures into a tactical advantage for achieving your policy goals? Absolutely!
Sounds like just the sort of ethical arbiter we should be paying attention to.
9 comments
Actually, it is in express agreement with an election outcome. In the last election, Democrats won a majority, and they can proceed to take a vote in which the majority wins. Scott Brown won his election, and we presume he will vote no. Brown gets 1 vote in the Senate, not 100.
- JEFF FREY
March 1, 2010 at 11:52am
What Jeff said.
- ironyroad
March 1, 2010 at 12:05pm
Not to mention that it *already passed* under the allegedly "normal" situation where the opposition threatens to filibuster even the bills that ultimately pass unanimously.
- frippo
March 1, 2010 at 1:45pm
You could say any use of reconciliation is in "express defiance of an election outcome". When Republicans used reconciliation to pass $1.8 trillion in completely unpaid for tax cuts highly focused on the rich they used reconciliation in "express defiance of an election outcome", the outcome that in the last election they got less than the 60 seats required to avoid reconciliation. The difference is they had less than the Democrats current 59, and they would have passed tax cuts for the rich without a second thought even if they had lost 20 special elections. Are we ready to go back to majority rule now so we can govern this country? We (largely) had it until recently. The filibuster was only recently elevated to a regular supermajority requirement. Before it was very rarely used, and when it was it overall really hurt the country, like in stopping the abolition of slavery and civil rights.
- serlin
March 1, 2010 at 1:57pm
....That Democrats will deploy the strategy is blatantly political — in “express defiance of an election outcome” Wait. Didn't the Democrats win the last election? The one in 2008, I mean. Oh, I forgot that Obama isn't a U.S. citiizen and, therefore, can't legally BE the President. How absent-minded of me!
- desertdog
March 1, 2010 at 2:15pm
Very true, desertdog. Also, the 2008 election punished the Republicans who had strayed from conservative principles. Electing Democrats was merely an unfortunate by-product.
- frippo
March 1, 2010 at 2:20pm
frippo...I think you missed my sarcasm.
- desertdog
March 1, 2010 at 2:57pm
Er, possibly you missed mine!
- frippo
March 1, 2010 at 5:47pm
You got me! An unfortunate by-product...yes! Very unfortunate.
- desertdog
March 1, 2010 at 7:01pm