I take your reply very seriously and I have some questions which I ask quite in ingenuously.
First, do you discount the possibility that reconciliation is possible in the Senate either because the Senate parliamentarian will rule that extensive changes in Obama care are not subject to filibuster, or alternatively, because the Vice President of the United States has the power to overrule her to the same effect?
Second, I am aware that you do not think there of 50 votes in the Senate which is a plausible position to take in view of what I believe to be a sham obstacle created by Rinos to give them cover for the absurd legislation they have offered and the absurd procedure with three stages which we know will never be enacted. I believe that if the president forces the issue on reconciliation in the Senate they just might find 5 1 votes, with the vice president's vote in the background.
Third, The point of the sham concerning reconciliation is to avoid repealing Obama care in full because they simply do not want to be touching a new third rail of politics. The Republicans have never been successful in the real world at taking away entitlements with the possible exception of Gingrich's reform of welfare, which is not survive. They want the issue but they do not want to be seen depriving anyone of healthcare. I think they assumed they could simply plunder the treasury and keep the essence of Obama care going. The promises made by the Rino Republicans were never possible. Candidate Trump is equally guilty but for a shorter time with his overpromising of universal healthcare, cheaper premiums, while keeping pre-existing conditions etc. the circle simply cannot be squared. So they would close the circle with more debt. Your reaction?
Fourth, I am not well-educated on whether sequester would frustrate all our hopes for the Trump administration if Obama care stands. Could sequestration not be undone with 51 votes? If it cannot be, how do the mechanics of sequester work to control spending?
Thank you for your insightful replies on this thread.
I know your name from years of posts on FR.
Senate rules are pretty powerful things. They don’t typically change without overwhelming votes. I suggest time spent with the filibuster wiki. All the tweaks and modifications to it over decades show what a major effort it is to do major things to the rules.
It’s important to have some sort of memory of the intricate maneuvers that went on 2009/10. There was talk by the far left of ignoring the Parliamentarian then, too. Reid generally didn’t do it. Before the Parliamentarian even entered the discussion, it was clear the left wing firebrands in the House demanding single payer NHS style bill were not going to get support from Dem moderates in the Senate. Losing even a single one and they would drop under 60. So they downshifted to Obamacare and struggled to get it through, too.
There’s really nothing particularly different going on today. The same issues and constraints are in play. The only difference really is Ryan is saving time by having seen Pelosi’s flailing around. He knows the final product has to get through the Senate, so his product doesn’t look very right wing.
As for not thinking there are 50 votes in the Senate, I was talking about killing the Filibuster rule. I don’t think the GOP wants to do that, and maybe rightly.
For the final bill, assuming emergence from the House today, Reconciliation needs 50 votes and that’s just barely on the edge of doable. The Dems had a much bigger pad in 2010. We will maybe lose Collins and McCain (we will CERTAINLY lose McCain if we try to kill the Filibuster), but I suspect that’s all. Collins could be bought with some big projects for Maine.
Interesting point about the Sequester. It is in its out years now, but I think you were actually referring to the reality that the internal scoring of Ryan’s original plan was going to show $300+ billion in deficit reduction, which could be spent elsewhere (infrastructure) and also fund tax cuts. “Fund tax cuts” is never a popular conservative phrase, but the meaning is clear. To achieve neutrality deficit-wise, the Ryan numbers were going to offset other plans.
I’m sure the Wall Street types want a tax cut and infrastructure stimulus regardless of deficit, but a House caucus about to be required to approve a debt ceiling increase is not going to be happy with that.