That “Very, Very Dangerous” Reconciliation
Mar 7th, 2010 | 28 responses
As Democrats get ready to perhaps use that arcane, unprecedented, never-before-used, nuclear, cataclysmic, perhaps even unconstitutional reconciliation process to pass health care reform, the angst and misinformation about this Senate procedure is reaching a crescendo.
Just this morning, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” warned “To do this is just very, very dangerous,” and “If we do that, Katie bar the door, I got to tell you.”
The New York Times, in an “Op-Chart” this morning, explains how reconciliation “was intended to be a narrow procedure to bring revenues and spending into conformity with the levels set in the annual budget resolution.”
But it quickly became much more. The 22 reconciliation bills so far passed by Congress (three of which were vetoed by President Bill Clinton) have included all manner of budgetary and policy measures: deficit reductions and increases; social policy bills like welfare reform; major changes in Medicare and Medicaid; large tax cuts; and small adjustments in existing law.
The Times adds:
Neither party has been shy about using this process to avoid dilatory tactics in the Senate; Republicans have in fact been more willing to do so than Democrats.
In answer to the question: “So, would reconciliation represent an anomalous and dangerous power grab?” the authors publish a chart listing 15 major reconciliation bills passed by Congress since the process was first used in 1980, and conclude:
The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.
A link to the chart can be found with the article here.
The authors of this chart are: Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; and Raffaela Wakeman, a research assistant at Brookings
28 Responses to “That “Very, Very Dangerous” Reconciliation”
We can write off anything predictable from the Dem flagship media outlet like this, which is — predictable.
What the Dems may do is unethical. It remains an open question if it is legal, or if parts of the bill that are the only really good things the Dems ever should have attempted in the first place — insurance reform measures — have to be stripped because they are obviously not strictly budget-related (unlike tax cuts, as opposed to tax policy questions about such tax cuts). The Dems are unethical and what matters is what is legal, not what is ethical or unethical at this point any more (not that it was that important, ever, in this case, to the proponents). If this device has been misused in the past for welfare reform (which itself is not a strict budget item), then obviously health care measures, environmentalist “climate change” legislation, or other things Robert Byrd has identified as wrong and counsels against (at least he apparently can see the opening in the future for the Republicans the Democrats want to create now) can also be passed using this device.
The ends don't matter to the Dems; they're desperate to get something passed against the GOP or risk being written off as ineffective the rest of the year as well as at the polls this November.
Plus they need some way to get past the GOP resistance, which includes abuse of the filibuster.
Abuse of X is met with a stronger abuse of Y so the Dems can proceed with legislation. That's the reality.
lol, the only thing that matters in America are memes. Quantity over quality – this is noticeable in the climate issue as well.
Republicans are masters of memes, which is why all the “responsible”, “enlightened” bowtie-wearing mutts are falling over themselves condemning reconciliation. Remember, the only way a democrat can be mature and bipartisan is to not do anything that will benefit them or make their mega-rape-super-extreme-leftist base happy.
It's not OK to use reconcilaition, because a bunch of suits over at some gazettes, posts and presses say it is not OK.
Also, circular logic works because circular logic works.
I don't agree with everything you say, Axel, especially with some of the offensive ways in which you characterize America. However, there is a lot of food for thought in what you just wrote about Democrats and the Democratic Party.
I have myself often felt exasperated by the lack of spine and spunk displayed by our Democratic “leaders,” especially when it comes to responding to so many Republican tactics, antics and shenanigans.
“We can write off anything predictable from the Dem flagship media outlet like this, which is — predictable.
What the Dems may do is unethical.”
Nice alienating way to start off, DLS. Lighten up.
“because they are obviously not strictly budget-related “
of course they are. the bill has subsidies. The cost of policies is affected by insurance reform. Voila. budget-related. More to the point, while you characterize those you demonize as unethical, I think most Americans think minority rule is unethical.
One disappointed partisan characterized the two parties as “the evil v.s. the cowardly”
The Democrats traditionally are not a homogenous group historically. They have consisted of some Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals. The Conservatives and Moderates are being driven away from the party from pressures exerted by the Liberal side of the party to pass legislation no matter what the cost. Is it right or wrong to use reconciliation to pass HCR, reform who knows. The point is there will be consequences in using reconciliation to take over such a large program. Those Liberals of the Democratic party pushing this bill will see large changes in the party and setbacks which may take years to amend. Calling fellow Democrats using caution in this matter spineless is at best lacking in foresight. But I am no longer a Democrat so go for it.
Thanks, I think we will. And by all means, you guys can run on cutting SS and Medicare and permanent tax cuts for the rich. Oh and demonize Dems for doing what Repubs have done all along.
I agree that the Dem party has been less homogeneous. But the cleansing and purity fanatics seem to be more on the GOP side, and the tea party and echo chamber will keep pushing moderates out of the party or twist them into bizarre caricatures of themselves, like the unrecognizable John McCain.
DLS calls NBC “the Dem Flagship” which we all know is totally bogus. David Gregory spent the complete 1st half of the show hectoring Ms. Sebelius & refused to allow her to answer anything, as he does with all Democrats who appear on his rag of a show. He also let Hatch spout all his lies & left it to E.J to call him on them. You right wing thugs need to realize that the majority of America is now seeing through all this bull. Gregory is nothing m,ore than a neo-con shill.
“Lighten up.”
Woof.
The Dems are doing what they need to do, to get going again. I'll be curious if they'll threaten to continue to do it, again and again, if the GOP continues to use the filibuster (which they're almost forced to do now).
“of course they are. the bill has subsidies. The cost of policies is affected by insurance reform. Voila. budget-related.”
Incorrect. What matters here is that everything be related to the budget. Tax cuts (as opposed to tax policy, which I have taken pains to distinguish) is a budget iteam. Welfare reform is not. Health care “reform” is not. “Climate change” environmentalist politics-based legislation is not. Obviously.
While the GOP abuses device X (the filibuster), the Dems may abuse device Y (reconciliation) to get past the GOP. That doesn't make it ethical, or right. But the Dems don't care and may not be able to care now.
and, ahem. NBC is owned by one of the biggest defense contractors and beneficiaries of tons of public largess. Plus, like all MSM, are driven by advertising, much of it for pharma, insurance, energy companies and banking. Their direct financial interests heavily influence their content. So does viewership, also essential to ad revenue. So the news is spectacularized and breathless and tawdry, and thrives on celebrity dogfights.
I don't see the Republicans as running on cutting SS and Medicare. Many seniors see the four hundred billion dollar cut to Medicare, to fund the HCR bill, as the Democrats cutting Medicare. I personally know a lot of seniors who have left the party because of this issue. You mentioned the Tea Party, have you noticed the average age of the people showing up to their events, they don't look like spring chickens to me.
Maybe the Republicans will implode like you say. But if they are smart they will see the tremendous opportunity they have by becoming more inclusive rather than cleansing the party.
“Many seniors see the four hundred billion dollar cut to Medicare, to fund the HCR bill, as the Democrats cutting Medicare.”
I fear being dumped on Medicare (if you're eligible, other insurance sources or providers can exploit this), but totally aside from that I was looking at it dispassionately. Of course Medicare is being raided, actually cannibalized in a cynical way, to find some money to pay for some of what else the Dems want that is new. Not only is this bad, but in addition to making more glaring their failure to be logical and fix Medicare before flirting with more (new) entitlements, it only makes knowledgeable people think back to one of the fundamental flaws with this effort, which began as another stupidly rushed effort to engage in overreach, and without any grasp and presentation of how they really were, and are, going to pay for all of this. (And some still have no obvious clue why so much of the public was concerned about this and everything else the Dems have done wrong this year? Arrgh.)
edicare benefits are not being cut by the Dem bill. Talking points. Take a look around, just on this site, at all the right wing hand wringing about entitlement reform, means testing, Medicare insolvency, etc. Then look at the only GOP plan (Ryan's) brought to the “summit,” and whose author made the GOP opening statement. The plan privatizes both Social Security and Medicare, and takes not 400 million in fraud reduction and paperwork inefficiencies, but takes ALL of it to finance a plan that still leaves 30 million uninsured.
Maybe the GOP spin will work. It seems to work on some here, but I don't think so. We know which party has always resisted and fought and tried to disparage and dismantle these two programs.
The failure to enact HCR legislation has due in large part because the Democrats have been unable to settle issues within their caucus. The absence of leadership in the administration and congress has created a fragmented plan that addresses provider reimbursement more than healthcare. It is too costly for Obama to walk away with nothing and I do agree wholeheartedly that reconciliation should be used to enact the HCR legislation. I also believe strongly that whatever is done will have to be fine tuned very quickly. It would be to Obama's advantage as well as the country's for him to install an experienced competent chief of staff (George Mitchell or Bob Graham or Sam Nunn) who can preside over the fools that comprise the democratic leadership. When he can speak with some form of sanity and unity from his party he will be better able to go to the mat with the Republicans. A few body slams and they will get the message. By the way, if you haven't read anything on Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, you might like him. Like you, he seems to have a bit of spiss and vinegar in his system.
Why do you think I quit reading any posts from DLS, GD? Too much utter vilification of any non-conservative to wade through for too little meaningful content.
I usually skip them too, Sadly, he has some knowledge and is obviously a news junkie like us, but his sneering and snarling style spoils his ability to be persuasive.
Medicare benefits are not being cut by the Dem bill. Try reading the bill, or at least a summary.
I have read summaries of the House, Senate and Obama bills and all will decrease funding to Medicare in certain areas. The Obama plan reduces Part D benefits for people with higher incomes. Both the House and Senate bills reduce payments to Medicare Advantage plans, as well as cutting payments to hospitals and nursing homes. Personally I agree with Obama that Medicare Advantage is kind of a redundant program, but you can't cut Medicare Advantage then turn around and claim it's not a cut.
It's a little disingenuous to claim Medicare payments can be cut without affecting benefits. The effect on rural hospitals and nursing homes will be significant and may well result in closures.
I agree with you the GOP plans have been awful. That doesn't mean the Democrats plans are good, though. I continue to think the Democrat plans are shaky on the funding side, will increase the deficit, and that we would be much better served by increasing the Medicare tax across the board. I don't like higher taxes any more than anybody else, but at least a tax hike would be fiscally honest.
“we would be much better served by increasing the Medicare tax across the board”
It remains a mystery as well as a frustration why the Trustees' own statements of what it would take to make Social Security and Medicare sound haven't been employed. Just do what they say is needed. Done.
Well it could be because nobody wants to propose that large of a tax increase.
On Medicare, I agree that arguing about cuts is silly; however, I do think it's a fair argument to question whether the “easiest” savings in Medicare ought to be used to shore up the solvency of Medicare (currently $37 trillion unfunded liability) or to pay for an additional program. To me the latter argument makes a lot more sense than the former
On the general topic of reconciliation, both sides should just drop it. Filibusters are OK and so is reconciliation. None of us are the Senate parliamentarian (whose opinion is the only one that matters).
If you don't like the bill, you'll oppose reconciliation because it makes the bill's passage more likely and if you like the bill, you'll support it. None of us possesses sufficient knowledge to judge reconciliation on the merits. It's a complete sideshow IMO.
Besides which, the House is what matters. If they pass the Senate bill, HCR is done. Now the Senate may then leave them hanging and pass no fixes but that's a matter of House members as they consider their votes
“Well it could be because nobody wants to propose that large of a tax increase.”
The ironic thing is, I believe many would accept, or be led to accept, such an increase (for Medicare as well as for Social Security). Maybe not during this slump as much, but afterward, certainly. (And again it was a big loss not to have done this during the Bush years, when the Dems had their perfect chance.) An increase from mid single digits per cent to lower tens per cent for Medicare, and another, smaller increase for Social Security? Raising it from insufficiently (even fraudulently) low levels now to as high as 20 per cent total? Well, if that's what's needed for solvency, that's the way it is. (And of course then others may decide, for tax policy purposes, to switch from payroll to [progressive] income taxes instead, or go to a VAT or retail sales tax, all the other choices.)
“I do think it's a fair argument to question whether the “easiest” savings in Medicare ought to be used to shore up the solvency of Medicare (currently $37 trillion unfunded liability) or to pay for an additional program.”
To me there's no question — if Medicare has problems, solve them first before seeking other, new, entitlements. (Of course, the motive of others is to click that incrementalist “ratchet” whenever possible.)
Part D was a wasteful mistake, enacted to benefit private insurers, not Medicare recipients. Remember, it prevented Medicare from doing what it actually does very well, negotiate better prices. The Republicans thought that would be “unfair” to insurers, just as a public option would be “unfair.” Ditto with Medicare Advantage, a plan to let private insurers get a slice of profit from Medicare.
This protection of profit from competition for insurers and drug companies makes no sense from a public health standpoint, and we simply can't afford them any more. Pharma charges us more than Canada, more than Europe, more than anyone. And that goes for European pharmaceutical companies too. Why should Americans pay more for a French or Swiss drug than the French and Swiss pay? We just can't continue to be the big bucks sponsors of overpriced drugs.
As for the tax issue, this is just what Obama pointed out in telling the GOP they've painted themselves into a corner. But they painted the Dems into one too. We're hosed. The GOP has demonized taxes, demonized the government and turned the simplest attempt at cost control into “death panels.” They rail against waste in Medicare and when we propose to cut the waste, they (and you) characterize it as “cutting benefits”. They hate Medicare but still use it to try to scare seniors.
“Just do what they say is needed. Done.”
You mean just like the Republicans did when they were in power? Here's a bet. If the GOP gains control of either house, they will not offer bills to “do what the Trustees propose.” Big talk, no action.
“I believe many would accept, or be led to accept, such an increase”
You're kidding, right? The GOP is so determined to campaign against “tax and spend Democrats” that they will NEVER work to lead people to accept tax increases.
They rail against waste in Medicare and when we propose to cut the waste, they (and you) characterize it as “cutting benefits”.
How do you characterize an across the board payment cut to nursing homes as “cutting waste”?
So you're characterizing the GOP as saviors of Medicare? Or you're criticizing them for adopting a GOP proposal? See BUSH MEDICARE CUTS WOULD DECIMATE NURSING HOMES, CRITICS SAY. Here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BUSH+MEDICARE+CUT…
We'll never fix anything with hyperpartisan and contradictory attacks. EVERY SINGLE cost saving suggestion is shot down by those who shriek we need more cost savings. You may have neglected to note that some of the savings come from coverage of the uninsured. The calculus is that with fewer uninsured, we can spend less to care for the uninsured.
“The White House disputed the claim that providers would become unprofitable and that savings would not be sustained. “History shows otherwise,” spokesman Reid Cherlin said. “Congress has implemented even larger savings in Medicare in the past, and no access problems materialized.”
Democrats say doctors and hospitals rarely pull out of the Medicare program, and providers *have agreed* to the cuts in exchange for the chance to serve millions of new customers with insurance.”
So you're characterizing the GOP as saviors of Medicare? Or you're criticizing them for adopting a GOP proposal?
I have no idea where you're going here. I don't care whether proposals are GOP or Democrat as long as they are good proposals. As I said above I think the GOP plans to date have been awful. What I am for is fiscal responsibility, and frankly neither party agrees with me on that issue.
You keep repeating the mantra that there will be no cuts in Medicare benefits even when I tell you where there will be cuts. I am actually fine with the concept of a cut as long as people admit it actually is a cut, look at it's implications, and not try to sugarcoat it with Democrat talking points. There is too much implying we can somehow get something for nothing with these health plans, and that just isn't possible.