Posted on 02/25/2010 12:03:40 PM PST by Dementio
Whether or not a reconciliation bill on health care meets the intent of the legislative procedure is certainly a matter for legitimate debate. But Reid said reconciliation has been used 21 times since 1981, and that most of the time, it's been Republicans who have initiated it. We find that there have been 22 reconciliation votes, 14 of them by a Republican-controlled Congress, and that it makes more sense -- in light of the debate over making an end-run around the 60-vote threshold -- to focus on the reconciliation bills that passed without a supermajority. But even then, Republicans have reached for reconciliation bills more often than Democrats since 1981. We rule Reid's comment True.
(Excerpt) Read more at politifact.com ...
Sure... for budget stuff.
Don’t give Democrats control of the language when it comes to the nuclear option, and don’t let them get away with lies.
Since the CBO determined that certain health measures would reduce the budget deficit, isn’t reconciliation justified in that case?
“We’ll set aside some of the hypocrisy here (see Reid’s comments in 2005 when he talked about the “arrogance of power” when Republicans were mulling reconciliation). Similarly, we’ll set aside the hypocrisy of Republicans who used reconciliation in the past, but now denounce it.”
Hypocrisy in Washington DC?
Exactly, perhaps they have, but they have used it where appropriate for BUDGET and FISCAL items. I don’t like reconciliation when any Party uses it, but we all saw the videos of Democrats screaming about it when they were in the minority. Moreover, remember the gang of 14 Republicans? Yeah, they tried desperately to work with Democrats to avoid reconciliation (the nuclear option).
MOM!!! HE HIT ME MORE THAN I HIT HIM BACK!!!
And I do believe that three of the bills counted as “done” by the Republicans were vetoed.
So it’s way past time for a D Bill to be vetoed.
No it is NOT a budget bill. It is a new entitlement bill.
No, because measures in a health bill are not budgetary items... period. This is particularly true when the health bill extends to Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance companies, hospitals, state and federal legislatures, and the like.
You smell like you live under a bridge...
My understanding of the legislative process is that the bill that passed the Senate must first pass the House, go through a conference committee, then be signed into law BEFORE reconcilation in the Senate is implemented. Is this correct or am I missing something?
Exactly. The use per se isn’t the issue. The issue is whether it complied with the Byrd Rule limiting such use to adjusting numbers on EXISTING programs/ taxes, never CREATING new ones. (I can’t swear the GOP never misused reconciliation, but obviously its use to create ObamaCare would be a misuse.)
No. Almost everything can be said to affect the budget. Reconciliation is limited to adjusting rates and budgets on existing taxes and programs (except Social Security). It cannot properly used to create NEW programs. Google “the Byrd Rule.”
Using it for judgeships or new legislation violates the spirit of the reconciliation law.
As for the "Republicans use it more" talking point, that is because Republicans have never had a supermajority the way Democrats have had. In addition, the Senate has far fewer DINOs than RINOs who'll cross the aisle.
Exactly, perhaps they have, but they have used it where appropriate for BUDGET and FISCAL itemsBut hasn't the CBO determined that the health bill would lower the budget deficit? Doesn't that mean that by affecting the budget reconciliation can be used here?
Not on something that takes over 12-17% of the economy....whiner-blame-the-Repubs-and-Bush-”I-will-not-be re-elected-to-office-again-in-November-Reid.
The Democrat spin machine made two related deceptive claims.
One was that the Republicans used "reconciliation" as much or more than the Democrats did, so they have no room to complain.
The other was that the Republicans used "self-executing rules" as much or more than he Democrats did, so they have no room to complain.
Both are intentionally deceptive smokescreens.
1. W/r/t reconciliation:
First, note that the "reconciliation" they're talking about was not reconciling two versions of the bill. Rather, it was actually budget reconciliation, which is something entirely different. The reason they said "reconciliation" rather than "budget reconciliation" is to obfuscate the dishonesty of what they were doing.
Budget reconciliation is a process for passing a new law (called a budget reconciliation bill) which amends an already-passed budget law, to bring it into conformance with a previously-passed budget resolution.
The purpose is to reduce budget deficits. Budget Reconciliation is designed to give some baby teeth to budget resolutions, when subsequently-passed budget bills contain higher spending than the budget resolutions called for.
The Democrats were not reconciling HR 3200 (the House bill) with HR 3590 (the Senate bill). Rather, their plan was to discard HR 3200 entirely, pretend ("deem") that HR 3590 passed, and then amend HR 3590 through the Budget Reconciliation process.
However:
1. It's not a budget bill!
2. The bill being amended hadn't yet passed, and still isn't law!
3. Enacting the reconciliation bill won't bring anything into conformance with a budget resolution!
4. It won't reduce the deficit, it will increase it (psst! don't tell the CBO.)
The Democrats' spin is that Republicans have used this process in the past, so they have no right to complain when Democrats use it. The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats have used Budget Reconciliation to bring already passed budget laws into conformance with previously passed budget resolutions, only. Nobody has ever suggested using it to enact massive new government programs, until now.
2. W/r/t self-executing rules, read this carefully (from here):
"Every one of the examples [of self-executing rules] cited in the 2006 CRS report involved the adoption, via a self-executing rule, of an AMENDMENT to a piece of pending legislation. The rules cited in the report including the ban on smoking on airline flights were rules that made it in order for the House to consider a piece of legislation, and the rule deemed certain amendments to that pending legislation to have been adopted. The House still, however, had to vote yea or nay on the final bill, as adopted. ... [But in this case,] the rule would deem the BILL itself to have been adopted. That is completely different from the examples cited by the CRS report."
The bottom line is that the Democrats lied, and lied, and lied some more to get this monstrosity passed.
Dave
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.