THE TREATMENT JANUARY 27, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
If congressional Democrats manage to pass health care reform, they're likely to do so by passing the Senate bill, as written, and then making some changes through the budget reconciliation process. And if the Democrats proceed that way, Republicans are likely to object that such use of the reconciliation process is an illegitimate, unprecedented perversion of the legislative process.
Fortunately, we have the historical record by which to judge that statement. And, even more fortunately, we have the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to remind us of that, as they do in a new briefing:
Some critics have charged that using reconciliation to enact a major change in policy, such as health reform, would be unprecedented and would represent a gross misuse of the process. A review of the past use of reconciliation demonstrates, however, that this charge is incorrect:
- Congress has employed reconciliation many times to make major policy shifts. These include sweeping welfare reform enacted in 1996, massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and creation or expansion of several health coverage programs. Using reconciliation to help enact health reform would be consistent with past congressional practice, as Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute have explained.
- The sharp break with past practice took place in 2001, when Congress used reconciliation to enact a large tax cut that greatly increased federal deficits and debt. Prior to 2001, every major reconciliation bill enacted into law reduced the deficit. In 2003 Congress used reconciliation to pass another round of deficit-increasing tax cuts.
- If health reform is enacted in part through use of the reconciliation process, the reconciliation legislation will have to be designed so it does not add to the deficit. In 2007, the House and Senate adopted rules preventing Congress from using reconciliation to increase deficits and debt as was done in 2001 and 2003.
- Since rising health costs are the single largest reason for projected long-run deficits, it is appropriate that health reform be considered through the reconciliation process.
Of course, there's an even simpler way to make the argument. By filibustering, Republicans are thwarting majority rule. Reconciliation, in which 50-plus-one senators can pass a law, would allow the democratic process to function.
9 comments
Jonathan, You are certainly prolific today, but I really think you are grasping at straws. Why don't you get ahead of the curve and talk about what a slimmed down version of HCR might look like. Also please quit with the rants about the Senate being un-Democratic. Yawn. The whole purpose of the Senate was to be un-democratic and a check on the democratic House. Either party can use the nuclear option if they want to get rid of the filibuster, but most Senators (Republican and Democrats) know in their heart of hearts that the filibuster is a good thing which protects against the tyranny of the majority.
- dtohmatsu
January 27, 2010 at 12:33pm
The Senate is already constituitively undemocratic. The minority party holds 41% of the seats yet represents only 38% of the population. No need to further exacerbate that with supermajority requirements for any and all major legislation.
- thetraytiger
January 27, 2010 at 2:01pm
I have not the slightest doubt, dtoh, that if the House pulls itself together and passes the Senate bill, you will be the first in line to complain about how un-democratic it is to 1) fail to allow the Republicans to filibuster some more and 2) defy the will of the voters of Massachusetts. I am not sure, tiger, but I think the percentage of the population represented by the Republican senators is even lower than that.
- roidubouloi
January 27, 2010 at 2:40pm
Roid, my calculation gave split Senate delegations half of the population of their state. Pre-Coakley, it was 40 R's representing 36% population (TX and GA boost their average a bit). Mass. has just over 6 million people, or 2% of the US population, so that gives the GOP one percentage point. So yeah, they represent 37 or 38% of the population by that calculus. http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog/?p=1504
- thetraytiger
January 27, 2010 at 3:56pm
Of course, the figure I had somewhere in my head was pre-Brown-MA. Thanks, tiger.
- roidubouloi
January 27, 2010 at 4:10pm
The simple answer to the charge of parliamentary trickery is, as Cohn suggests, that the *filibuster* is the real parliamentary trickery. The bottom line is that the rules are the rules, and they allow for both the filibuster and reconciliation. If the GOP can use the former to block legislation, Dems can use the latter to pass it. All's fair until the rules are changed. And, really, since majority vote is all that the Constitution requires, the filibuster is the rule that should be changed. A supermajority requirement for every Senate act is unconstitutional. All the other stuff -- about how Republicans used reconciliation to increase deficits, and so on -- is great too. I'm sure that objective news stories in the papers and on TV will duly present all of these pertinent facts when reporting GOP bogus talking points. Oh wait.
- jhildner1
January 27, 2010 at 4:42pm
Anyone who knows the basic of health care legislation knows that the reconciliation process has been used multiple times to pass health care legislation: Obra 90, Obra 93, BBA 97, etc. So we did not need the center on budget priorities to be educated about that fact. What has never been done is pass a reconciliation bill THAT AMEND PROVISIONS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THEREFOR NOT PART OF THE CBO BASELINE. There are many, many parliamentary and scoring problems and hurdles to accomplish this. Johnathans -- Keep on grasping on straws and dream on.
- lawphd
January 27, 2010 at 5:10pm
THANKS FOR YOUR COMPELLING CONTRIBUTION, LAWPHD.
- jhildner1
January 27, 2010 at 5:24pm
Gee, lawphd. Where do you get that phd, back of a matchbook? Everyone who has been following this knows that the Senate bill would have to be adopted by the House and signed into law prior to the reconciliation bill being signed into law, regardless of the order of passage. Do you think it is beyond the capabilities of the majority of both houses to have the CBO (you do know what CBO stands for don't you?) score a pending bill on the assumption that the Senate bill is signed into law so that everyone knows exactly what will happen before the reconciliation dance begins?
- roidubouloi
January 27, 2010 at 5:57pm