The political process known as reconciliation has been infrequently utilized in Congressional proceedings. For good reason. In order to maintain proper checks and balances in our legislative procedures, our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.
A mere majority vote in the Senate, otherwise known as utilizing the ‘nuclear option‘ or reconciliation, is allowed but typically only utilized for simple procedural measures.
Back in 2005 when President Bush hinted that he would look to use reconciliation for purposes of passing some judicial appointments, the leaders of the Democratic Party had some strong words for George W. and his Republican friends. Truth be told, Bush did use this procedure during his Presidency – although not frequently and not for something as large as healthcare. The Republicans are certainly no paragons of virtue when it comes to legislation.
Let’s watch and listen, though, as the same Democrats who railed on Bush are now positioning themselves to use the same process of reconciliation to restructure one-sixth of our economic landscape, that is healthcare. (Great video clip after the fold)
How long did it take you to say, “What a bunch of hypocritical phonies?” And, how often did you say it?
When Democrats currently comment that reconciliation exposes the underside of the political process and that it is not pretty but necessary, show them this video clip and ask if they would prefer to be called hypocrites or phonies or both.
If anybody in Washington wonders why America holds them in such disdain, this 4-minute video should answer all their questions.
Wow, I didn’t think it possible to contain so many misstatements of fact in such a short post. To paraphrase Churchill, every word here is wrong, including “and” and “the”. Where to start:
* “The political process known as reconciliation has been infrequently utilized in Congressional proceedings.” It has been used more than 20 times since 1980, including for the Reagan tax cuts, welfare reform, the 2001 Bush tax cuts, and the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
* “Our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.” Nope, the filibuster is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. And although the filibuster has been around for some time, it is only in the current Senate where there has been a routine requirement of 60 votes for all legislation.
* “A mere majority vote in the Senate, otherwise known as utilizing the ‘nuclear option‘ or reconciliation, is allowed but typically only utilized for simple procedural measures.” The “nuclear option” was a term coined by Trent Lott in 2005 to describe a process whereby Republicans would change the Senate rules to outlaw all filibusters of judicial appointments. It has no relation to reconciliation, which has been a Senate rule since 1974. Its use is not limited to “procedural” methods, but rather to bills that bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution.
* “Back in 2005 when President Bush hinted that he would look to use reconciliation for purposes of passing some judicial appointments …” As noted, Bush and the GOP were looking to eliminate all filibusters by changing the rules of the Senate. It had nothing to do with reconciliation. Since Democrats have not proposed bringing back the “nuclear option”, the above quotes demonstrate no hypocrisy.
* “Let’s watch and listen, though, as the same Democrats who railed on Bush are now positioning themselves to use the same process of reconciliation to restructure one-sixth of our economic landscape.” The Senate has already passed a health-care reform bill. If the House passes the Senate bill and Obama signs it, it becomes the law of the land. No reconciliation necessary. However, Democrats are talking about using reconciliation to pass (budget-related) fixes to the bill once it has passed. This is, in fact, what reconciliation was designed to do.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_reconciliation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Other than that, though, the post is accurate. Enjoy!
As long as I’m correcting you, I should correct myself. I had always heard the “… including ‘and’ and ‘the’” joke attributed to Churchill, but apparently it was Mary McCarthy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_McCarthy_%28author%29#Literary_reputation.
Apologies!
Thanks for your input. Not sure if any of it has any sort of impact on the hypocritical statements by the Democratic pols highlighted. Not that the republicans are “paragons of virtue.”
Congrats!! Enjoy!!
laughter is awesome medicine… and this video clip had me rolling…
Well now you’re just being obtuse.
I’ll try this again: The Democrats are not being hypocritical because they are talking about different things. The nuclear option was an attempt to change the rules. Reconciliation is an accepted rule.
You can’t change the definition of a term, then score someone for hypocrisy by assuming they’re using your retroactive definition of the term. It would be like if you declared that Iraq and Afghanistan were the same country, then showed a clip of Obama opposing the war in Iraq and called him a hypocrite for sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Zorro is NARROWLY correct in that reconciliation is not same thing that was talked about, when the “nuclear option” was considered to end the unconstitutional fillibuster against judicial appointees. However, Larry is 100% correct in the left’s sheer hypocrisy on this issue–even if some of his details are incorrect.
Reconciliation was NOT a rule used to bypass the fillibuster. It was NOT a way to CREATE legislation. It was a way for the house and senate to iron out differences between bills, before sending them up to the WH to be signed.
By a strict reading of the const, a bill must be voted on by both houses before it can become law. If a house bill passes, but is different than a senate-passed bill, neither can be sent to the WH to be signed, since neither bill was passed by both houses of congress. So AFTER each house of congress passes their own bill, THEN they get sent to conference committee to be “reconciled.” Hence the term, reconciliation. The then-reconciled legislation (only needing 50%+1 vote in each house of congress) can then be sent to the WH for signature or veto.
But the critical peice to remember here is that reconciliation was NEVER used, and NEVER inteneded to be used as a way to CREATE legislation–a way to BYPASS the fillibuster. in EVERY case where reconcilliation has been used, the senate version of the bill FIRST WAS REQUIRED to be passed in accordance with the senate rules. Meaning, they were always bills that had already survivied the fillibuster. The fillibuster was always broken in the first place, THEN the bill was passed. THEN the bill goes to reconciliation with the house.
Second critical piece is that reconcilliation, and the 1974 Congressional budget act narrowly focused the powers of reconciliation to budget items already passed. Thats why when you look at the history of reconciliation, all of the bills signed are budgets, or other adjustments in taxes or spending of existing spending or tax laws.
This would be the first time ever that reconciliation is used to CREATE a bill that had not first gone through the normal passage in the senate. OR they have been used to amend programs that already existed–like changes to medicare, or Cobra.
So, this is in fact a nuclear option. They are trying to nuke the fillibuster. The fact that they are trying to nuke it by simply pretending they no longer need 60 votes, as long as they claim its a reconciliation is exactly the same as nuking it directly.
The Democrat hypocrisy is supreme on this issue. Because while the reconcilliation has been used CONSTITUTIONALLY many times, its never been used to bypass the fillibuster and create legislation that you couldnt otherwise pass.
The difference with judicial nominations shows ever more hypocrisy, and disregard for the const from the democrats. In the case of judicial nominations, the senate is REQUIRED by the constitution to give advice and consent to the president. So the Demcorats were more than eager to thwart the constitutional requirement to vote on judges. In contrast, there is NO constitutional requirement for the Senate to pass a health care bill.
So, when the “nuclear” option was contemplated for judicial nominees, it was contemplated to correct a thwarting of the constitution. The constitution was clear and unambiguous. The senate is required togive advice and consent on nominees, and NOT by 60+ votes. A straight up-down vote.
5 years ago the left objecting to the nuclear option, to stop an unconstitutional use of the fillibuster. NOW they plane to violate the 1974 act, AND nuke the fillibuster rule by using the former to bypass the latter. Using the 1974 act in a way 100% outside its scope–creating whole new programs that couldnt otherwise survive the legislative process.
Democrat party (and their apologist) comprise a Mt Everest of hypocrisy on this issue.
Same Stuff. Different Democrats.
Thanks for your response, Aspen, but you are still getting a number of facts wrong.
Despite what it may sound like, reconciliation is NOT the process of two houses reconciling different bills. That is known as a conference committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee). If the two Houses pass slightly different bills, they appoint members to an ad hoc committee, hammer out jointly acceptable language, and then send it back to each House to be voted on again. Such votes CAN be filibustered in the Senate, which is why Democrats are not relying on a conference committee to get health-care reform passed.
However, conference committees are only required if the two houses pass different bills. If they pass the EXACT same bill, word for word, there is no need for a conference. That is the path Democrats are discussing right now. Even though the House originally passed a bill that differed from the Senate version, there is nothing stopping them from holding another vote on the Senate version (which, remember, did overcome a filibuster back in December). If that passes via a simple majority and Obama signs it, the bill becomes law.
So why haven’t the Democrats taken that step yet? Because a number of House Democrats are unhappy with elements of the Senate bill, and do not want to see it become law unaltered. Therefore, they would like to pass a second bill making alterations to some of the provisions. In order to avoid a filibuster, such amendments would be passed in the Senate via reconciliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29), which is a process that allows budget-related provisions to be passed after limited debate (and therefore cannot be indefinitely filibustered). Note, they are NOT passing the original bill via reconciliation, just these amendments. Nor do they have carte blanche to pass whatever they want via this process; any amendments must (in the judgment of the Senate parliamentarian) be budget related. That is why, for example, they are talking about altering items such as the excise tax, and removing the “Cornhusker Kickback”, but not about altering the structure of the insurance exchanges or changing the Senate’s language on financing abortion. In other words, Democrats would operating well within the rules of the Senate in passing budget-related amendments to an already approved health-care reform bill. (I should also add that, at the beginning of this session, Democrats passed a “reconciliation instruction” that specifically empowered them to pass health-care related budget legislation via reconciliation.)
I will grant you that the situation may be unprecedented, in the sense that I’m pretty sure that Congress has not previously had to rely on this sort of legislative two-step in order to avoid a filibuster on a bill that had already passed both houses. However, it is worth pointing out that the Republican strategy of using the filibuster to subject every piece of legislation to an effective 60-vote threshold is itself unprecedented. In other words, both parties’ strategies are novel, but they are also both operating within the established rules.
Finally, I don’t want to re-fight the 2005 dispute over judicial confirmations, but I will just say that while some maintained at the time that preventing judges from receiving an up-or-down vote was unconstitutional, the Constitution is ambiguous at best on that issue (nor is it likely to ever be resolved, since the Supreme Court would almost certainly decline to rule on the constitutionality of a house of Congress’ internal rules). The Constitution merely says that the Senate should “advise and consent” on judicial nominations, but does not specify what “consent” means.
In fact, strictly speaking, the phrase “nuclear option” was coined by Trent Lott not to refer to outlawing the filibuster, but rather to the step that came before it: The President of the Senate (Cheney) would issue a ruling declaring judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional, and then the Senate (by a simple majority) would vote to uphold that ruling, even though every Senate agrees at the start of each session that such rule changes require 67 votes. My point is, the unconstitutionality would simply have been a declaration by Cheney and 51 Senators, not a ruling by any court. And, of course, they never even took that step. So for you to imply that the constitutional question is settled is a massive overstatement.
Look, we all have opinions on health-care reform and the two parties, and it is natural that we will view events through those prisms. But as John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Actually, considering the woeful level of knowledge among most Americans about basic civics, I hope this debate can help educate all of us on such issues. Though I first heard the term “reconciliation” years ago, I know a lot more about it today than I did a year, or even a week, ago.
‘Thanks for your response, Aspen, but you are still getting a number of facts wrong.”
Ohhh. So close, and yet so far. And I guess to one point, I shouldnt use reconciliation intercheangeably with the conference reconciliation, and just assume contextually people would pick up the difference. However, I can suggest actually reading your sources before posting them in the hopes they support your point. Because your source (wiki) has a paragph on the conference report–and it concurs precisely with what Ive been saying.
Hypothetical example. Lets say the president ask for more money for Iraq. Senate passes a bill saying “we will spend $100 billion, under conditions a,b,c.” Meanwhole the House passes a bill saying “we will spend $120 B, under conditions x,y,z.” Since neither of those 2 bills were passed by both houses, neither can become law. So the conference committee smooths that out. THEN the conference bill has to go back to each house of congress to be voted on (since the const requires both houses must pass the same bill, before that bill can become law). Now under normal cases, even now that bill can be fillibustered. However, this is where rhe 1974 budget act (“The Act”)comes in. The Act has basically 2 guidlines. if the bill being considered is a 1) budget or 2) some type of spending/taxing adjustment or modification to an existing program, THEN the ACT eliminates the filibuster. But failing one of those conditions, even a conference report can be fillibustered.
Thats also why (as your other source–wiki–on the Reconciliation confirms) when Bill Clinton floated the idea of using reconciliation to pass his health care plan, Robert Byrd (author of the reconciliation act) told him flat out, “No way.” On the basis that creating a new health care program is NOT a budget issue.
So when the guy who authored the reconciliation rules tells me (against the wishes of his own party) that reconciliation is NOT a legal way to pass health care, I’m just gonna have to take his word for it.
“the Constitution is ambiguous at best on that issue.”
Turns out not to be the case. The Constitution is clear and unabiguous. Article 2, Section 2, Para 2 states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court…” There is no ambeguity. The Const doesnt say “unless a minority feel like endlessly stalling the vote, because they dont like the nominee.”
The duty to offer advice and consent is clear. And thats what makes it a constitutional issue–not a “senate rules” issue. As said earlier, this is a constitutional obligation that the senate is REQUIRED to perform. As opposed to simple legislation, which is never required to be performed. Its not the rule itself that is unconsitutional. Its using the rule to unilaterally change the constitional requirement (advise and consent) from a simply majority to a super-majority. The way the dems were using the fillibuster was a unilateral amendment to the const–changing the advice and consent rule by increasing the number of votes to meet the threshold.
And, I think you missed a step with the Change to the Senate rules. Cheney wouldnt have to declare the fillibuster unconstituional. Simply, one senator would need to offer a change to the rules, for a vote. Something like “Change the rule so that you cant fillibuster judicial nominees.” They vote on that. They get less than 67 votes. So the next motion would be to change the 67 vote requirement to change Senate rules to a majority vote. Then that passes. Then they re-introduce the motion to eliminate the fillibuster for judicial nominees and pass that with a simple majority.
And thats a HUGE difference. Ending the unconstitutional fillibuster is simply a rule change. Senate president doesnt have to declare anything unconstitutional. He simply has to call a vote to lower the threshold for rule changes from 67 to 51. And further, thats why your comment about the judiciary “not getting involved” in a senate rule actually would advantage the republicans in that case. Because there would never be a constitional claim against the fillibuster. Only a rule change by the senate–and the const protects the right of the senate and house to make their own rules. So, in that case, the nuclear option was really the Constitutional Option.
As such, so mis-state what I said as “for you to imply that the constitutional question is settled is a massive overstatement” is an logical fallacy–straw man argument. No one stated it that way. it never is an issue of if the fillibuster is constitutional. The issue is if the minority can unilaterally amend the const to make a 60 vote threshold for judicial nominees. Clearly it cant. There is no language that supports such an act.
But, as you point out, the ONLY way this works for the Dems (without violating either precedent, or law) is if the house passes the same senate bill. However, it should go without saying that IF that happens, there would be no NEED to GO to coference committee, since the bills are identical. As such, ANY talk of Reconciliation in this discussion logically can NOT contemplate a scenario where the House passes the Senate bill.
So, it is obviously an attempt to take 2 different bills, “merge” them in conference into a single bill, then go back to the senate and claim “reconciliation” under the ACT to prevent (what would normally be the case) and new review period of the new bill–with the possibility of a fillibuster.
Thats the rub. If they could pass the senate bill in the house, they wouldnt need reconciliation at all. What they are trying to do is create a bill that the house will vote for (created in the conference committee) pretend it falls under reconcilliation (the Act) and then have that voted on for 50%. But thats the rub. Because its not a budget bill/tax bill, even the coference reports cant be fillibustered.
BTW, the Dems may have passed an “instruction.” But instructions dont override laws. And the way the law stands (1974 ACT) reconcoliation only allows the nuking of the fillibuster for budget bills, tax bills, stuff like that. Completely inapplicable to creating new programs.
As you quoted, facts are indeed stubborn things. and they fact is the ONLY way to force this health care bill through is to 1) rule change the fillibuster, emilinating it, or 2) ignore the 1974 ACT, and just pretend it applies to any and all legislation, instead of its narrowly contemplated budget bills.
So, indeed this is a nuclear option, one way or another. They either have to nuke the fillibuster directly, or simply violate the 1974 ACT and apply its provisions to ALL legislation, not just budget ones.
Thats why there is rank hypocrisy, and its one-sided. 5 years ago the issue was ending an unconsitutional use of a fillibuster. They wanted to go through a legitimate process to change a senate rule. NOW the same people who railed against it want to ignore NOT just a senate rule, but an actual law (1974 act) by pretending a non-budget bill is a budget bill and therefore cant be fillibustered.
Lastly, when you consider Jobs bills being passed, massive stim packages being passed, appointments of ridiculously unqualified judges have gone forward appointed, youre simply not being serious when you characterize the GOP as “fillibustering everything” (paraphrased).
Aspen, by this point, you and I are probably the only people still reading this, which is really too bad. As I said, in a country where some 75% of the public doesn’t even know how many votes it takes to overcome a filibuster, I wish more people would debate issues like this instead of Tiger Woods’ sex life. So I thank you for participating.
OK, on to your response:
“But, as you point out, the ONLY way this works for the Dems (without violating either precedent, or law) is if the house passes the same senate bill. However, it should go without saying that IF that happens, there would be no NEED to GO to coference committee, since the bills are identical. As such, ANY talk of Reconciliation in this discussion logically can NOT contemplate a scenario where the House passes the Senate bill.”
But that is exactly what they’re talking about doing. They pass the Senate bill. Then both houses pass a separate bill in which they amend (budget-related) portions of the Senate bill.
“So, it is obviously an attempt to take 2 different bills, “merge” them in conference into a single bill, then go back to the senate and claim “reconciliation” under the ACT to prevent (what would normally be the case) and new review period of the new bill–with the possibility of a fillibuster.”
I have been following this debate pretty closely, and this is the first I’ve heard of any attempt to create a merged bill. Do you have a cite for that?
Here’s how ABC News recently described the likely next steps (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/democrats-prepare-plan-passing-senate-bill-house-reconciliation/story?id=9972411):
“Democrat leaders are making plans to pass the Senate health care bill in the House, and then approve a separate package of changes using reconciliation — a legislative process whereby members of the House and Senate could pass bills by a simple majority of members.”
Let me ask you something: I would agree with you that, if the scenario unfolds as you describe it and the Senate tries to stuff through a merged bill via reconciliation, it would violate the 1974 law (which is exactly why I think they won’t do it). Would you concede that, if I and ABC News are right, and reconciliation is only used in a separate bill to pass fixes to the original bill, and the parliamentarian rules that all such changes are budget-related, there would be no violation of the 1974 law?
As for the 2005 nuclear option debate, as I’ve said, I don’t want to re-fight it, so I’ll just say this: You and I could have a fascinating discussion about exactly when and whether the Constitution requires majority votes — I’ve actually heard an interesting theory arguing that, since the Constitution DOES spell out super-majorities for such provisions as Constitutional amendments and treaties, one can infer that any other de facto super-majority requirements (such as filibusters, judicial or otherwise) are unconstitutional; not saying I agree with that, just that it’s an interesting theory. But ultimately, what you or I say doesn’t matter. The Senate will allow filibusters on everything except for budget bills until it changes its own rules to prevent them. When the Gang of 14 reached its agreement, part of the deal was that some judges (Rogers Brown, Owen, and Pryor) were confirmed while others (Myers, Saad) were not. You could say that the latter two were unconstitutionally prevented from being confirmed, but that and $4.95 will get you a Starbucks Frappucino. The Senate refused to confirm them under its rules, so they didn’t become judges, and no other governmental body could/would rule otherwise.
As to your final point, I think you read me as saying that Republicans were trying to obstruct everything. But what I actually said was something different: that Senate Republicans have created a 60-vote threshold in order for the Senate to act. Far from contradicting that argument, the examples you cite prove it. The stimulus, jobs bill, etc. passed only because Democrats managed to secure more than 60 votes, either on their own or with the cooperation of GOP moderates. However, in all of those cases, they still had to overcome a filibuster. What would disprove my assertion would be if Democrats managed to pass a bill with LESS than 60 votes, because the GOP did not attempt a filibuster and it was subject to a simple up-or-down vote. I can’t definitively state that hasn’t happened in the past year, but I am not aware of any significant bills in which it has.
The reason I brought it up in the first place was to make the point that, if you set a threshold of 60 votes for every bill, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the other side will do whatever they can to get around it by using reconciliation. I agree with you that they still have to follow the reconciliation rules as they currently exist; where we disagree is whether it is possible to pass a reform bill while still conforming to those rules. I maintain that it is, but I suppose we will both soon find out for sure.
Zorro for the common good is absolutely right. This article is full of mis-statements or outright lies. The framers of the constitution never intended for a 60% majority to be used to pass legislation in the Senate. That is a rule created in the Senate, by the Senate. And reconciliation has been used to pass legislation (to create legislation) a total of 24 times prior to this. That’s sixteen times by Republicans and 6 times by Democrats. Re-write the truth all you like, but when you’re finished, the truth is still the truth.
yes, they are “talking” about it that way. But in doing so they (as I have explained before) are simply mis-stating the rule itself, and the process for using it, in the hopes the uninitiated wont be repulsed by the abject hypocrisy and the raw power-grab.
“where we disagree is whether it is possible to pass a reform bill while still conforming to those rules”
LOL, well if you think you know better than the guy who wrote the rule, thats really a delusion that cant be discussed. But Byrd is clear and unmistakeable on this both recently, and when it was tried in the 90s to use reconciliation to pass a health care bill. Cant be done.
And there really would be NO fascination in the discussion of judicial nominees. The Const, the federalist, 230+ years of practice tell us exactly what the requirement is.
you even prove this for yourself. As the clause for appoinments speaks DIRECTLY (in some cases) to a supermajority vote for appointment, there is NO question that voting is the mechanism for the senate approval of appointment. And as the very same clause does NOT raise the requirement for the judiciary to that of a supermajority, that leaves a simple majority as the answer to the question.
Dont feel bad. Lots of rookies make that mistake. :)
Ah, you can always tell when someone is losing an argument when they start resorting to condescension. :-)
Look, feel free to keep citing a letter Byrd wrote a year ago, even it was discussing pushing the entire bill through reconciliation, something which I’ve already conceded that they can’t do and have no intention of doing. I’ll focus instead on the words of the Budget Committee Chair, Kent Conrad, who will actually be in charge of shepherding this process. Here’s what Conrad said yesterday:(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_chairman_of_the_budget_com.html):
“What I’ve said all year is that reconciliation for comprehensive health-care reform wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t work for two reasons. First, the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule says that only things that score for budget purposes can be in a reconciliation package. If they don’t score, or the score is only incidental to the aims of the policy, they’re subject to strike. That would mean the insurance market reforms and delivery reforms would be stricken. And many of us believe them to be the most important part of the bill. So I never thought reconciliation would work for a comprehensive bill. But we don’t need to use reconciliation for the comprehensive bill. That bill passed with the supermajority, with 60 votes, not using reconciliation.
If the House passes that legislation as well, it can go straight to the president. But there’s a potential role for reconciliation in what we call a sidecar. It’s there to improve or perfect the package, and it only will include items that score for budgetary purposes.”
Notice what he’s saying here. Aspen claims the Democrats plan on passing the entire bill via reconciliation, but the chair of the Budget Committee says they CAN’T and WON’T do so. However, he also says they can use it for “sidecar” legislation, as long as those items are budget-related. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this entire discussion.
Aspen, however, doesn’t take this argument at its word. He claims the Democrats “are simply mis-stating the rule itself, and the process for using it”. Since Aspen apparently knows the rules better than the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, we should take his word over Conrad’s.
That’s basically what this whole argument comes down to. In the reality-based world in which most of us live, the fact that Obama, Reid, Conrad and every other Dem have said they plan on having the House pass the Senate bill verbatim and using reconciliation for sidecar legislation, and in which the chairman of the relevant committee says that’s the ONLY possible use for reconciliation, that means that, well, Dems plan on having the House pass the bill and using a reconciliation sidecar.
In Aspen-world, though, the fact that every single Democrat is saying the exact same thing is evidence that they plan to do the opposite of what they’re saying. (Similarly, in Aspen-world, Myers and Saad are currently Federal judges, since the Democrats’ filibuster of them was unconstitutional. In the real world, they never became judges because … wait for it … they were filibustered, and the Republicans let it happen.)
Anyway, the good news is that we don’t have to sit here and argue back and forth across our two worlds. Instead, we can just wait until the end of this month or so and see what happens. If the Democrats completely trash the Senate’s rules, I will gladly admit that I was wrong to take them at their word. On the other hand, if the Democrats do in fact proceed exactly the way they all say they are planning to proceed, I will check back here and eagerly look for your concession that you were talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
Until then, have a good month.
LOL, We can tell when someone KNOWS they HAVE lost the argument. They resort to Straw-man fallacies (rewording arguments, making up his own version–”Aspen says this….Aspen thinks that–and then pretends to defeat his made-up arguments) and using cheap, rhetorical trick of escallation.
Heres how the surrender works. Realizing he cant face the REALITY of the comments, he stops having the discussion with ME, instead pretending to be talking to other people. A form of the argument ad populi.
Please dont cry about being called a Rookie. After all, you admitted it was only a few weeks ago you even started to find out about it. You admitted it. No reason to cry over it.
In the end, your “challenge” is simply another logical fallacy. As it simply isnt possible (as Byrd, and others admit) to pass this without trashing either the senate rules (fillibuster) OR violating the 1974 Act, IF the Dems do pass it, they WILL have violated one or the other. So it would be proof that Im right (they were just talking smack, PRETENDING its “legal” to do it so dopes like you will cover for them–not realizing the rank hypocrisy you support).
So, if they do pass it, it proves me right. They will be hypocrites by violating either the Senate Rules, or the 1974 Act.
So, why dont I accept YOUR apology in advance. That way you can pretend youd be man enough to offer one? =]
Aspen: Could you just briefly restate your argument for why you think the proposed attempt to pass the Senate health care bill in the House and then make budget-related changes via majority vote in the Senate would violate the Byrd rule?
It seems to me that, as long as the Senate parliamentarian judges the proposed changes to be budget-related, the Byrd rule has not been violated, and budget-related changes can be made by a majority vote in the Senate.
But maybe I’m missing something?
Nope, you didnt really miss anything–except the fact that its not “my argument.” Its the rules regarding reconciliation.
There are 2 tracks on this issue. First, what was floated was the idea that they could simply treat the health care takeover as a budget item. meaning they wouldnt need to pass the same bill in the house and senate. They could just take the already passed house bill, merge it with the Senate Bill, call it “reconciliation” and not have to have to worry about the filibuster (because the Rec-process prevents fillibuster). But that is prevented under reconciliation, because that would be CREATING a whole new program. Thats not just tweaking budget numbers.
Now if the house simply passes the senate bill, then they dont NEED reconciliation. That goes right to the president, because both houses of congress voted for the same bill.
The distinction is that (hypothetically, pretend medicare doesnt exist) you cant use reconciliation to create a medicare program. But AFTER medicare exists, you CAN use reconciliation to tweak its budget.
They were trying to get away with the former. They wanted to just call the HC a budget item, and therefore bypass any filibuster via reconciliation. They just wanted to iron out the differences via reconciliation, to avoid a filibuster.
Aspen..
Calling someone a Rookie, when they obviously are very well versed in something is pretty arrogant. Especially since Zorro actually cites sources that back up an argument, where you do not. This really makes you look like more of a rookie, to tell you the truth. You seem like more of a jerk, where Zorro seems like a reader…either that, or you are actually Karl Rove, and can’t contain your contempt for anyone that actually has facts on his side.
Lefty (Zorros Sock puppet account) “Calling someone a Rookie, when they obviously are very well versed in something is pretty arrogant.”
Whats even MORE arrogant is not reading the discussion, but pretending to know what was said. As Zorro ADMITTED, he has been onto this subject for only a few weeks. Hence, it is wholely applicable.
“Zorro actually cites sources that back up an argument, where you do not.”
False, I did use sources–in fact I Used zorros sources. so either you are lying, or unable to comprehend what you read, at a 1st grade level.
Regardless which, your criticisms are meaningless and have no place in an adult debate. Thanks for stipping by, though. :)
Lefty — thanks for the kind words, but I think you’re being too hard on Aspen. In fact, he has recently renounced his earlier position, and now agrees that the Democrats would be operating within the rules if they passed a reconciliation sidecar.
How do I know this? Well, in an earlier comment he described Sen. Byrd as “the guy who authored the reconciliation rules” and said “I’m just gonna have to take his word” that Byrd knew when reconciliation rules could or could not properly be used. In a subsequent post, he characterized those who think they “know better than the guy who wrote the rule” as delusional.
Well, as it happens, Sen. Byrd weighed in on this exact issue in a recent letter to the Charleston Daily Mail (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/byrd-defends-use-of-reconciliation/):
“I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction,” Mr. Byrd wrote. “The entire Senate- or House-passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.”
He continued, “Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.”
Since Byrd is, as Aspen has pointed out, the guy who wrote the rule, and since Aspen presumably does not consider himself delusional, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he now recognizes the Senate rules do not pose an impediment to Democrats passing health-care reform.
Aspen, it’s been a pleasure debating this with you. Thank you for having such an open mind.
Apology accepted. :)
The pleasure was all mine.
First of all, I assure you I have better things to do with my time than create sock puppets to win online debates. Besides, why would I need to make up allies when I’ve done such a good job demolishing your arguments all by myself?
“As Zorro ADMITTED, he has been onto this subject for only a few weeks.”
That’s actually not what I said — so much for your self-proclaimed ability to correctly cite sources — but leaving that aside for a moment, your condescension is especially ironic considering that you were the one who, in your initial post, offered a completely inaccurate definition of “reconciliation”. So what conclusions should we draw about a supposed “expert” who apparently knows less than a “rookie”?
In fact, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane and review all the inaccurate statements you’ve made during this discussion. Since you have previously accused me of misrepresenting your positions, I will quote you directly.
“So AFTER each house of congress passes their own bill, THEN they get sent to conference committee to be “reconciled.” Hence the term, reconciliation.”
WRONG — as you yourself admitted, you conflated reconciliation with conference committees, even though they are actually completely separate things
“Reconciliation was NOT a rule used to bypass the fillibuster. It was NOT a way to CREATE legislation”
WRONG — Reconciliation is used to create budget-related legislation, and it explicitly allows the majority to limit debate (ie, prevent filibusters) on such bills.
“So when the guy who authored the reconciliation rules tells me … that reconciliation is NOT a legal way to pass health care, I’m just gonna have to take his word for it.”
WRONG — As I quoted in an earlier post, Byrd has specifically endorsed the Democrats’ plan to pass a sidecar amendment via reconciliation.
“As it simply isnt possible … to pass this without trashing either the senate rules (fillibuster) OR violating the 1974 Act, IF the Dems do pass it, they WILL have violated one or the other.”
OK, technically, I can’t call this claim wrong yet, since the Senate has not actually passed the reconciliation bill. However, even you seem to now be conceding that the Democrats do not plan to change any Senate rules, so it would seem that your earlier categorical statement that it was impossible for them to pass the bill without doing so will, at some point in the next few days, be proven WRONG.
“ANY talk of Reconciliation in this discussion logically can NOT contemplate a scenario where the House passes the Senate bill”
WRONG — The House just passed the Senate bill, as well as a reconciliation sidecar, and the Senate will likely soon pass the reconciliation bill.
“First, what was floated was the idea that they could simply treat the health care takeover as a budget item. meaning they wouldnt need to pass the same bill in the house and senate. They could just take the already passed house bill, merge it with the Senate Bill, call it “reconciliation” and not have to have to worry about the filibuster (because the Rec-process prevents fillibuster).”
WRONG — Passing the entire bill via reconciliation was never “floated”. I asked you in an earlier post to cite a single source indicating that this was the plan of the Democratic leadership. You never did, because you can’t, because it never happened anywhere outside of your own dystopian fantasies. The plan was ALWAYS to do exactly what the Democrats ended up doing — having the House pass the Senate bill and then using reconciliation to pass a sidecar.
“Apology accepted. :)”
Not even sure what this means. I said I would concede you were right if the Senate violated its own rules to pass the legislation. Since the Senate hasn’t even voted, I don’t know how you think you could have been proven right, unless … dear God, is it possible you don’t understand the difference between the House and the Senate?
Well, don’t feel bad, Old Timer. They say the mind is usually the first thing to go. :-)
blah blah blah. That covers the first 90%.
1) “Not even sure what this (apology accepted) means.”
It means “apology accepted.” I dumbed that down as far as I can.
2) Doesnt matter how you want to spin this. I was right, and the vote yesterday proved it. As I said, the ONLY way to pass health care reform (“HRC”) AND have to worry about the Senate filibuster is for the house to pass the Senate bill. Because ANYTHING that went to the senate would be subject to the fillibuster. EXCEPT that (and I used medicare as an example) AFTER they passed HCR into law, THEN they can use reconciliation to adjust the budget items.
3) Here is an 8th grade civics lesson for you.
a) Its the SENATE, not the house, that has 100 members
b) Its the SENATE, not the House, that has a filibuster rule
c) Its the SENATE, not the House, that requires 60 votes to break the fillibuster.
d) its the SENATE, not the House, that they were trying to find a way to bypass the fillibuster
e) The whole tactic of using reconciliation was a tactic, that they contemplated, to push the HCR bill through the SENATE.
You might want to actually memorize those differences before pretending to know what youre talking about. HAHAHAHA.
Because, you embrassingly uneducated novice, it was the HOUSE, NOT the Senate that voted yesterday. DUH!
Meaning (for the slower students in the class)they didnt to ANYTHING in the senate. The whole idea of using reconciliation to pass HCR into law NEVER HAPPENED!!! The Senate didnt vote! LMAOPMSL!!!!
Get it yet? If the senate had voted last night, and used 51 votes to pass it, under reconciliation, THEN you would have been right.
But it wasnt the Senate that voted last night. And they didnt use reconciliation to bypass a senate filibuster. That means I was right. Because they did it the ONLY way they could, without violating senate rules, OR the 1973 act—they passed the senate bill in the house.
Now, Id usually say “Dont worry Sparky. Most beginners start out pretty clueless.” But in this case, no beginner has EVER stupidly mistaken a straight vote in the house with a reconciliation vote in the senate. LOLOL
Lemme guess. Homeschooled, right?
Corrections
2) …and NOT have to worry about the senate fillibuster.
and
…the only way they could without violating senate rules, the 1973 act, OR risk a senate filibuster.
Oh dear. Reading your post, I was reminded of the summer I volunteered in a nursing home. It’s all there — the incoherent responses, the endless repetition of gibberish, the inability to process what other people are saying. (I don’t know if, like those patients I tended to, your mental deterioration will be closely followed by physical deterioration, but you might want to start stocking up on Depends, if you know what I mean.)
In my last post, I identified six different factual errors you had made during this discussion — including a complete misunderstanding of the very term “reconciliation”. In all six cases, I quoted you directly and then demonstrated why you were wrong. At the end, I made a joke about how you were so clueless, maybe you couldn’t tell the difference between the House and the Senate. In your response, you declined to address any of the errors you made, but somehow interpreted my joke to mean that *I* was the one who didn’t understand the difference. Like I said, just sad. It’s enough to make me wonder if you dozed off halfway through my response.
And you know what’s even sadder? You’re now trying to pretend that you knew all along what was going to happen. In your last post, you claimed to have said that, once the House passed the Senate bill, Democrats could “use reconciliation to adjust the budget items.”
Hmm, if only we could actually go back and read what you ACTUALLY said. Oh wait, we can. Here’s what you wrote earlier in the thread:
“ANY talk of Reconciliation in this discussion logically can NOT contemplate a scenario where the House passes the Senate bill. So, it is obviously an attempt to take 2 different bills, ‘merge’ them in conference into a single bill, then go back to the senate and claim ‘reconciliation’ under the ACT to prevent (what would normally be the case) and new review period of the new bill–with the possibility of a fillibuster [sic].”
Maybe instead of debating me, you should have been spending your time debating yourself. There was a guy in the nursing home who used to do that. Kept himself entertained for hours.
It’s funny, though, because I do seem to remember SOMEONE predicting the scenario that actually transpired. Hmm, who was it? Oh right, it was ME. Here’s what I said in my very first post:
“The Senate has already passed a health-care reform bill. If the House passes the Senate bill and Obama signs it, it becomes the law of the land. No reconciliation necessary. However, Democrats are talking about using reconciliation to pass (budget-related) fixes to the bill once it has passed.”
Now, I would expect any sentient being to be able to compare what I wrote to what you wrote and instantly realize that I was completely and totally RIGHT, whereas you were completely and totally WRONG. But, as you’ve demonstrated amply throughout this debate, you’re hardly sentient. So I’m going to ask you to read both quotes a second time. Then once more. Then ask one of the orderlies at your nursing home to read them and explain to you what they mean.
And with that, Aspen, I’m going to bow out of this debate. I think I’ve offered ample evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and now that events have proven that conclusively, it just doesn’t feel sporting anymore. Besides, since you clearly don’t have much time left before total senility sets in, you should be spending your final days surrounded by your great-great-grandchildren, not in online debates where smart-ass kids make fun of your declining mental abilities.
Yep, youre right dude. It was the Senate that passed the health care bill 3 weeks ago. Not the House.
And they used reconciliation.
It wasnt Nancy Pelosi saying “the bill has passed” infront of a cheering House of Representatives. It was Harry Reid.
Yep. youre right! LMAOPMFAO!!!!