Reconciliation Puts Dems in Driver's Seat

On Health Care, GOP Senators Face Tough Challenge to Derail Bill's Fast Track Process

(AP)  Democrats are tying the fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul to a fast-track process that will make the bill tough for Republicans to derail in the Senate. But GOP lawmakers will still be able to force votes and make arguments that could give them ammunition for November's congressional elections.

Some questions and answers about the reconciliation process, which has itself become controversial as the health care debate enters its end stage.

Q: Why is it called reconciliation?

A: The process was established in the 1974 law that requires Congress to pass a federal budget at the start of each year. Some years, the budget will instruct Congress to pass legislation that "reconciles" tax and spending laws with the policies laid out in that budget and triggers a process that makes it easier and quicker for lawmakers to do that.

Q: How does reconciliation make the process simpler?

A: It's a blunt instrument that makes it easier for the majority party to win. It has little impact in the House, where the majority usually has its way. But in the Senate, it prevents the minority party from using a filibuster, which lets it block legislation with just 41 of the chamber's 100 votes.

Q: What does that mean for the health care drive?

A: Democrats want the House to send Mr. Obama a huge, nearly $1 trillion measure that the Senate approved in December reshaping the country's health care system. At about the same time, both chambers would send him a second, narrower measure making changes Democrats want in the first bill, like removing federal Medicaid aid solely for Nebraska. That second measure would be the reconciliation bill.

Democrats have 59 Senate votes, and all Republicans are expected to vote "no." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would be able to let nine nervous Democrats oppose the bill and still get the 50 votes he'd need to win, with the tie broken by Vice President Joe Biden.

Special Report: Health Care Reform

Q: Is that the only advantage reconciliation provides?

A: It also limits Senate debate to 20 hours, rather than the potentially unlimited time allowed normally.

Q: What weapons do Republicans have?

A: They can claim that certain provisions violate the budget act, which if the Senate parliamentarian agrees would strip those items from the legislation. The constraints include the "Byrd rule," which requires that language in a reconciliation bill - and amendments to it - be chiefly aimed at revising spending and tax laws.

The top Republican on the Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said in an interview he has about a dozen points of order he can use to "punch holes" in the bill.

Should the parliamentarian uphold such a challenge, Democrats would need 60 votes to keep the language in the bill - unlikely in the highly partisan health care fight. Knowing this, House and Senate Democratic leaders are trying to produce a bill that won't be vulnerable to such challenges.

Q: Can Republicans try to amend the legislation?

A: Absolutely, and theoretically they can offer an unlimited number of amendments. After the 20 hours of debate have expired, they begin a so-called vote-a-rama, an exhausting marathon in which senators vote on amendments with little or no debate or interruption.

Some past reconciliation bills have seen scores of amendments handled this way. Conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said in an interview that Republicans "won't have any trouble having hundreds of amendments," though he said each would make a valid point and not be aimed at delay.

Q: Can Democrats curb this?

A: Republicans will need the physical stamina to offer an unending parade of amendments. With votes occurring every few minutes, Democrats won't make it easy for them by allowing many breaks.

Reid might ask the Senate parliamentarian to rule that the sheer number of amendments is aimed at slowing a process designed to expedite legislation. A parliamentarian has never decided that question. Should he conclude that the amendments are dilatory, Republicans could challenge the ruling but would need a majority of votes to win - virtually impossible under these circumstances.

With Democrats casting the GOP as the "party of no," Republicans might hesitate to feed that perception with obvious delaying tactics. On the other hand, stifling GOP efforts to revise the legislation could reinforce Republican accusations that Democrats are strong-arming them.



Q: What else could Republicans do?

A: The 20-hour debate limit excludes the time needed to read amendments or vote on them. Coburn wouldn't say if Republicans would craft an extremely long amendment. Once again, the parliamentarian has never ruled on whether an amendment should not be read because its sheer length makes it a delaying tactic.

Q: So it looks tough for Republicans to defeat the bill in the Senate?

A: Yes, but Republicans can score political points even as they lose votes.

They can offer amendments highlighting their own vision of health overhaul, or even completely unrelated but embarrassing amendments such as closing the military-run prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Even knowing their amendments would lose or be declared out of order, they could force symbolic votes that might produce fodder for campaign season TV ads.

Q: Do senators trust the chamber's parliamentarian to rule fairly?

A: Alan Frumin, the parliamentarian, has been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans when each had a Senate majority. There is always grumbling, but both Gregg and Coburn said they believe Frumin is evenhanded. "On this he has to be fair, because the whole country is going to be watching," said Coburn.

Q: Is it an abuse of reconciliation for Democrats to use it?

A: Republicans say reconciliation is for altering the budget, not making profound policy changes like revamping the health care system. But Republicans haven't hesitated to use it for their top priorities, like President George W. Bush's deep tax cuts of 2001.

Q: Does reconciliation mean the Democrats are on their way to finally passing their health overhaul?

A: Not nearly. Their thorniest problem remains in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is struggling to get the 216 votes she'll need, mainly due to lawmakers concerned that the bill's limits on federal abortion aid are too loose or that the bill is too expensive.

[Zann-Zel]

Where are all those comments about the american people not wanting this? That poll in the above article says 54.59% AGREE with the the Democrats using reconcilliation!

[dragon8me]

The Republican obstructionism will backfire. Oh, in GOP strongholds like Texas it might work but the nation as a whole are sick of their bully tactics, double standards and outright lies. People now know that last summers town hall fiasco was orchistrated by the insurance lobby. The Tea party movement is paid for by corporations and extreemist groups. The latest tactics from the right are straight out of the NAZI playbook.

[Mortar_29]

LOL.

[klgrube1]

Yes, we are sick of the bully tactics being used by the Dems to force Obamacare on us! And we will boot out every Senator and Member of Congress who votes for this idiotic, reprehensible bill! Kill this bill and start over with common sense health insurance reform that won't bankrupt this country or cover abortions or illegal aliens!

[tsigili]

The Dems don't know how to steer. Not a problem.

[Cattzen]

Driving ms daisy!

[Cattzen]

Republicans need to lend a hand in this legislation to have their constituency represented, that?s what they are there for! Americans vote and American People need to have this legislation passed so that HealthCare will be available and affordable for everyone. It?s the right thing to do.

[Mortar_29]

The yare lending a hand...by not voting for or promoting all of this junk that is unConstitutional and against the best interests of the people.

Sounds like they are finally representing their constituents pretty well!

[smoknmirrors]

Mortar's right. The Republicans are representing their constituents' well. A well is a deep hole filled with empty air, where, if one has the misfortune to be an occupant, a hand up and a hand out are one and the same in effect, and the strength of the party on top has a lot to say about the salvation of the party at the bottom. Here's wishing (.) you well (.) with Tom Coburn's notion about how much rope we can afford.

[starving1968-3]

by slownewsday_____ March 10, 2010 10:14 AM EST
Ouch.

Well, maybe Bush thought reconciliation was supposed to CAUSE a budgetary crisis.

I realize he was pretty confused most of the time...

Regardless, we got nothing out of that. We've gotten nothing out of the Iraq war. For once, if we're going to spend a buttload of money, I'd like to actually see some good done.






What's amazing is that those "tax cuts" were supposed to spur economic growth which would cause employers to hire more people.

And now that unemployment has SOARED to 10%, the republicans want EVEN MORE tax cuts for the wealthy.

Apparently the 6 million manufacturing jobs that were offshored / outsourced since 2001, aren't enough for the republicans.

[slownewsday_____]

I really believe the root of the problem is only having two political parties, as all it does is foster an "us or them" mentality in which each side locks itself into a platform.

More parties would allow more issues to be properly represented. And sure, a parliamentary system would create some chaos for a while, but no more than our current failed system does.


.

[dragon8me]

Yes, we need a fair and open election system with more parties participating. The system we have now makes it impossable for third parties to run, much less get elected.

[starving1968-3]

by slownewsday_____ March 10, 2010 10:03 AM EST

You do realize that the Bush tax cuts cost us $1 trillion, right? Were those cuts due to a "budgetary crisis"?






Actually slownewsday, the Bush tax cuts cost us an estimated $4 TRILLION over 20 years:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

"The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed."


http://www.ctj.org/pdf/housetestimony030507.pdf

"Under current law, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after 2010. But even if that happens, not all the cost of the tax cuts will go away. Over the following ten years, interest expenses associated with the elephantine debt built up to pay for the 2001-10 tax cuts will total about $1.5 trillion dollars. All that borrowing has created a cost that will just keep on costing."

[slownewsday_____]

Ouch.

Well, maybe Bush thought reconciliation was supposed to CAUSE a budgetary crisis.

I realize he was pretty confused most of the time...

Regardless, we got nothing out of that. We've gotten nothing out of the Iraq war. For once, if we're going to spend a buttload of money, I'd like to actually see some good done.


.

[starving1968-3]

But it's no big deal for the republicans: $4 TRILLION for tax cuts for the wealthy, $3 TRILLION for the Iraq disaster, $7 TRILLION for the Medicare Part D kickback to big pharma - those are all perfectly acceptable reasons to cause our national debt to soar ruthlessly out of control.

But $800 BILLION that directly benefits the American people -- "NO WAY!!!!!"

[slownewsday_____]

"by scobrasen54
Just because Obama WANTS to write a 1 trillion dollar check for health care, does not mean there is a budgetary crisis."


You do realize that the Bush tax cuts cost us $1 trillion, right? Were those cuts due to a "budgetary crisis"?

Besides, what did we get in return for that?

I am a fiscal conservative. The difference is that I'm not just a fiscal conservative on a national level, but on a personal level, and would like to have more money for retirement rather than giving it away at gunpoint to the insurance companies.


.

[1history]

Such vivid imaginations! It isn't hard to tell who all is in the 25% who still don't know enough about the Government Health Care Plan to oppose it yet!

[SoCalSuperSage]

I think the biggest problem is Obama`s much vaunted `charm`.

It turns out that it doesn`t actually exists.

He`s a mean, thin-skinned, arrogant, condescending jerk who can`t believe he`s being forced to explain himself to this bunch of idiots (us).

And the idiots remain unimpressed

[skyk-2009]

SoCalSuperSage, you who gave us the WORST President in US History and a Party that not only couldn't keep a balanced budget but had 10 years to address the same problem and did NOTHING, calling someone else Idiots?? ROFLMAO Wow! Look we have ONE chance here to do something about a problem thats been with us for a very long time... ONE party is willing to try, the other just wants to keep things as they are. It doesn't take are real intelligent person to figure out you'd better go with the ones who will try. Course you have never been the sharpest tool in the shed now have you?? ROFLMAO

[BlueDogDem]

SoCalSuperSage..."He`s a mean, thin-skinned, arrogant, condescending jerk who can`t believe he`s being forced to explain himself to this bunch of idiots (us)."

That's really productive, SoCal. Right up there with liberals calling Bush a stupid drunk moron when he was president.

[drsam8]

REPUBLICANS MUST STOP THREATENING DEMOCARTS.
DEMOCRATS MUST ACT BOLDLY AND CONFIDENTLY: Then they Will Win.
Republicans keep shouting to us, "Democrats will pay a price in November." DEMOCRATS MUST STOP THIS PROPAGANDA by declaring boldly their confidence in their vision and goals for America, their achievements and future!!! What Republicans are doing is modeled on psychological warfare tactics of the military and business promoters. This is simply an attempt at mental conditioning! It works by repetition and becomes part of the collective unconscious as people start believing it as true and acting upon it to fulfill it. That is why DEMOCRATS MUST COUNTER IT WITH MESSAGES OF THEIR CONFIDENCE. Democrats must start telling Republicans to STOP threatening them, AND MUST START TELLING THE NATION WHY THEY ARE RIGHT, ON THE PEOPLE'S SIDE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE THEIR FUTURE. They must call the Republican BLUFF. The sunset is not going to set for Democrats in November?the world is not going to end in November. Republicans are in for a surprise?when their predictions fail to come through. Democrats must ACT BOLDLY AND CONFIDENTLY now! Democrats must prove Republicans wrong in their nay-saying strategy, in their destructive path of hate politics, and in their predictions about the future. They must continue to prove them wrong?by doing something good for the American people, promoting their achievements, refining their messaging and framing issues more astutely. Surely, Democrats will do well in November?better than Republicans can ever imagine--if they believe it, act it and work hard for it.

Dr. Sam

[klgrube1]

You're joking, right? The only threat here is to the future of the United States if this idiotic, reprehensible healthcare bill passes! The voters of this country are saying NO to Obamacare in the largest numbers ever! I'm so glad the Republicans are saying NO to this government takeover of our healthcare system! Thank you!!!! Keep saying NO - and get as many Democrats as you can to oppose this bill!

[BlueDogDem]

2010 elections are looking dim for the Democrats. However, the point is this: if they pass a health reform bill, they will pay a stiff fine in November. If they pass NOTHING, they will LOSE THEIR SHIRTS.