For those advocating that Democrats "go it alone," here's a peek at the mess that could be:

With the exception of Howard Fineman's comments, I haven't seen a great deal of discussion on this board or elsewhere on what a mess the reconciliation process could be. While I'm at heart a single-payer advocate who knows the public option is the best we'll get given the political realities, I want to warn my fellow progressives that Democrats going it alone is not as simple as it would seem.

The reason is the Byrd Rule. You can read the links provided to read about it in-depth, but the (Robert) Byrd Rule was introduced in the 1980's as a means of curbing abuses of the reconciliation process. That is, reconciliation was orignally intended to deal with the budget, namely reducing federal spending. If the Democrats pursue a reconciliation tactic, any Republican can invoke the Byrd rule by offering an amendment claiming certain provisions of the bill are irrelevant to the federal budget. The motion is then ruled on by the Senate Parliamentarian.

The irony is that a go-it-alone strategy could yield a worse bill than we have now. A Democratic/reconciliation bill could look like Swiss cheese because provisions like the public option or ending the pre-existing conditions practice COULD be ruled as irrelevant to the federal budget. These links provide good information:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090812/pl_bloomberg/a5r5kp1llkyk

www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RL30862.pdf

Perhaps there's something I'm missing or don't understand, but I'm afraid Democrats need to be careful what they wish for.

Again, you're oversimplifying things. This time with a straw man argument: "You say the reconciliation process could be a disaster. Therefore, you think the Democrats should be ruled by Republicans."

I want a public option, too (at least). Someone please tell me how we get there, given the realities of Senate procedure.

The media more or less decides who owns what, and as of the last I checked, Dems are threading on shaky grounds. Those are the realities.

Republicans used reconciliation to pass those tax cuts, ya know.

It's about time that some of the charming rules of the Senate were shoved right up the GOP's rear end.

However,


It would seem the 1996 precedent, and the later use of reconciliation to pass the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy, have significantly weakened the restriction that prevented Clinton from using the process to pass his health care plan in 1993.

Reconciliation is the only way to go. Take out every compromise that we have so far allowed, naively hoping that Republicans would cooperate. Then put together a bill with input from the Democratic caucus only. Pass it in reconciliation and blacklist every Democratic member of Congress who dares vote against it.

This isn't rocket science, and only Beltway hangers-on and weirdos care about process issues.

How many people do you think care about, or even know about, the way Republicans abused the House floor vote on a late night to ram the Medicare drug bill through in 2003? They held the vote open for three hours after the allotted roll call period was up, and pulled wavering Republicans into a back room did God only knows what to get them to vote Yes.

There was much hand wringing on this board about that back then, and on a few other blogs and political websites, but who do you think really gives a shit about any of that today?

But they do care about the Medicare Part D program that was created as a result (actual policy), and it has proven to be a well-liked program. The process of how we got there is not a concern to 90% of people anymore.

And just make the frakkin' Republicans actually filibuster. Not "threaten" to filibuster, which is what it's become, but actually stand there and talk for a few weeks. Their rhetoric will wear out in under 72 hours and they'll be reduced to reading the phone book.

And while the conventional wisdom is that people don't pay attention to what happens in Washington this time of year, this is clearly a special case. Let's grow a backbone, for fuck's sake!

They shouldn't need to use reconciliation.

...just don't want to have to sit and listen to the Republicans reading the phone book for hours on end.

We don't hear that too often, do we.

stand up to be the one to hold back the most significant Democratic bill in 40 years.


There will be some face saving move that will let them appear to have made a difference.


A couple of Republicans who come from Blue States are also likely to jump ship at the last minute.

V.P. Biden, as presiding officer of the Senate.

would go something like this.

Biden. the Senate will now vote on the House version of the health bill.
Republican Senator. objection, not per Senate rules.
B. the rules don't apply to me.
RS. I object to your ruling.
B. the motion is to support the ruling of the chair,
B. the clerk will call the roll.

if Biden gets 50 votes,
200 years of Senate filibuster silliness history
gets canceled.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I merely seek to raise a concern about how the reconciliation tactic MIGHT backfire, and you tell me to shut the fuck up? I simply seek to educate people on the procedure. Since Howard Fineman's comments on Countdown about the reconciliation process not necessarily ensuring a public option, numerous DUers have asked questions about this. I felt it necessary to try to enlighten my fellow progressives.

And you respond by telling me to shut the fuck up?

You're as bad as what your criticize.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.