Democrats Eye (Shh!) Reconciliation

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 Republicans still engaged in the sensitive health talks, causing them to collapse.

Yet with the discussions so far failing to produce an agreement and no guarantee of one after the summer recess, Democrats are gaming out whether as a last resort they could use the process to secure a health care victory if they have to go it alone. The answer: It wouldn’t be pretty and it wouldn’t be preferable, but it could be doable.

“This is tough stuff,” said Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who is chairman of the Budget Committee, “but, yes, it is more than theoretically possible.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02hulse.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

And the thing is that with a little strategy, the Byrd rule does not matter.

We split the health care bill into two bills, one to be passed under reconciliation, the other, not.

We put merciless cuts to GOP earmarks and porkbarrel programs in the reconciliation bill, justifying them by saying we need to make cuts to make sure the bill's deficit neutral and complied with reconciliation rules.

Then make it known that the Rethugs can have _some_ of their pork back if they let the non-reconciliation bill through.

That's how you get 'em by the short & curlies...