Democrats Eye (Shh!) Reconciliation

Published: August 1, 2009
WASHINGTON — With bipartisan health care negotiations teetering, Democrats are talking reluctantly — and very, very quietly — about exploiting a procedural loophole they planted in this year’s budget to skirt Republican filibusters against a health care overhaul

The Democrats are talking reluctantly because using the tactic, which is officially known as reconciliation, would present a variety of serious procedural and substantive obstacles that could result in a piece-meal health bill. And they are whispering because the mere mention of reconciliation touches partisan nerves and could be viewed as a threat by the three of Republicans still engaged in the sensitive health talks, causing them to collapse.
.....
Under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, reconciliation bills were given special Senate protection and allowed to pass by simple majority votes, after limited debate, to give senators the ability to make the kinds of tough decisions required to cut the deficit.

At the same time, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat and longtime protector of the prerogatives of the Senate, came up with a complex set of rules intended to impede those who would dare to use reconciliation to rewrite federal policy rather than produce budget savings.

Under the Byrd rule, provisions where the fiscal consequences are “merely incidental” to the true intent of the legislative provisions can be stricken from the bill unless 60 senators vote to waive the rule. Reconciliation measures are traditionally scoured for such provisions, in what is known around the Senate as giving the bill a “Byrd bath.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02hulse.html?hp

Allow ANY company to choose the public option.

The House bill prevents companies with 25+ employees from using the public option, unless it has special permission.

They have watered down the Public Option now so much it amounts to little more then Corp. Welfare for the Health Care Insurance Cos.

available to those who have nothing. The rest will
follow in due course.

Here's Dr. Dean vs. Cat Killer on Charlie Rose...

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10524

No need to gender bash, you know.

My "pussy" resents it.

Good for you.

I can't find a source to link, but it passed with less than 60 votes (from Thomas), so I think that had to be true.

Its easy to make reconciliation rules work in your favor when you institute tax cuts that eventually sunset.

The problem is that instituting fundamental health reform is difficult under reconciliation rules that require deficit reduction.

That explains the efforts to make a bipartisan bill.

But, what is really needed is a commitment from all those in the Democratic caucus, including independent Joe Lieberman to break any filibuster, even if they oppose the bill. Then they won't need the 60 votes. Of course, that would mean both Senators Byrd and Kennedy would have to be healthy enough to be present.

They could NEVER be construed as "merely incidental".

Dean can and will make the case.
I hope Sebelius
is up to it.