Santorum: GOP Should "Go to War" Over Health Care Reconciliation

I had the opportunity to hear former Senator Rick Santorum on the radio yesterday morning.  He was discussing the prospect that the national Democrats will use the reconciliation process in the U.S. Senate to avoid a filibuster when they attempt their de facto takeover of the health care industry, which comprises about one-sixth of the national economy.

Last night, the Democrats reached an agreement that reconciliation would be used if necessary.  Previously, the New York Times revealed that Barack Obama himself is behind this scheme.  This tactic would enable him to pass his odious plan with only 51 votes in the Senate.

Santorum said the GOP leaders in the Senate have various tools at their disposal to go to war against their Democratic counterparts if this tool is used.  None of them would be pretty.  They could require that every bill be read verbatim on the Senate floor.  They could shut down all committee meetings after a minimum required period of time into the meeting has passed.  Procedural roadblocks such as  these could be employed to make life very difficult for Senate Democrats.

If the Republicans were to use these options, they need to be prepared with a very professional public relations strategy, because the mainstream media would likely go ballistic against them.  The media want socialized medicine, they love Obama, and they are biased in favor of the Democrats.

Former Senator John Sununu had a good article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday addressing the reconciliation process, and why it should not be applied to the takeover of the health care industry:

(T)his decision is a deeply troublesome attempt to circumvent the normal and customary workings of American democracy...

And it promises bitter divisiveness under an administration that has made repeated promises to reach across the partisan divide...

The power of a reconciliation bill is this: Senate rules allow only 20 hours of debate and then passage with a simple majority of 51 votes. This represents a lightning strike in the normal deliberative time-frame of the Senate. The historic precedent of open debate, and the requirement of 60 votes to close debate, are completely short-circuited.

Budget reconciliation was never intended to push through dramatic and expansive new programs. It was created as a way to help a reluctant Congress curb spending, reduce deficits, and cut the debt. Moreover, changes made under reconciliation expire after five or 10 years, depending on the budget. This is clearly not the appropriate process for implementing significant new policies.

The threat to use reconciliation to drive through dramatic policy changes such as a national health-care program also destroys any incentive for good-faith negotiations over the details between the Democrats and Republicans. The president's message is clear: He wants to include reconciliation as an option in case he doesn't like the way discussions are going.

Why should anyone negotiate with him in good faith with such a threat hanging over the deliberations? Taking a bipartisan approach means committing to working with the other side, not just offering to talk until things don't go your way.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton governed effectively by coupling the vision of an outsider with irrepressible self-confidence. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used the depth of their insider knowledge to coax the Congress into moving their policies forward. Barack Obama brings neither of these traits to the Oval Office. Misusing reconciliation undermines him on two counts: It shows a lack of confidence in his own ability to pass an agenda using the regular legislative order. And it exposes his limited experience with the history, traditions and temperament of the U.S. Congress.

Comments

[Sue]

Um, Joe? Why is reconciliation NOW such an earth-shattering problem when Republicans used it often in the past?

Santorum's quote:
SANTORUM: What the Democrats have done is to try to short-circuit the process on a major piece of legislation. This has never been done before [Note from Sue: this is untrue; see below]. We have never seen a major, long-term, policy prescription, whether it's Medicare, or go back throughout history and look at all the major pieces of legislation, none of them have ever been passed using this procedure. ... This is truly an abomination.

The untruthiness of Santorum's comment:
Of course, reconciliation has been used nearly 20 times since 1980, when it was first created. The New Republic notes that using reconciliation to pass health care reform fits into the historical pattern. "Whether reducing or increasing deficits, many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children's Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures."

Indeed, Santorum himself was the Senate Republicans' point man in trying to push welfare reform through budget reconciliation in 1995, including it in a budget then-President Clinton opposed, as the Washington Post reported on Nov. 11, 1995: (continue reading here: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/27/santorum-reconciliation/)

This isn't about using reconciliation, is it? Can we admit that?

[Bubba]

"This isn't about using reconciliation, is it? Can we admit that?"

You're right, Sue.

It's about the pending disaster of Obamacare and the and the rest of the disastrous big picture agenda, whether you want to admit it or not.

If this is implemented, it will be the LARGEST (by a huge magnitude) of all legislation enacted this way.

It's also dishonest and unethical, something this administration is quickly becoming known for. It also puts to rest last year's Obamaspeak soundbite of a "bi-partisan" presidency.

Let's review what Democrat Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus said earlier:

" 'Reconciliation would hurt healthcare reform, it would make it partisan, it would hurt, it would stymie, it would make it very partisan,' Baucus told reporters recently. 'The reconciliation route allows the Robert C. Byrd point of waiver to apply, which means that a point of [objection] lies against any provision that does not immediately raise revenue or cut spending. Healthcare reform is so large, you're going to have many provisions that are not directly related to revenue or directly related to spending.'

Baucus also said that putting healthcare reform under budget reconciliation would require that it be sunset after five years, after the pending budget resolution is expected to expire. For example, the largest of the Bush tax cuts that passed under reconciliation in 2001 are set to expire at the end of next year.

"It has to be term-limited five years; that's nuts," said Baucus. "If we want meaningful healthcare reform we can't keep coming back here every five years and redoing this thing. ... Reconciliation is not a good idea.'

Baucus also said that the only way to pass 'sustainable' healthcare reform would be to attract Republican support, with which reconciliation protection would not be necessary.

'If [Republicans] are on board, then it's sustainable; otherwise, it's partisan and it's less sustainable.'"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-split-over-best-way-to-push-health-agenda-2009-03-26.html

On the other hand, perhaps we should let them try this tactic. Even if we can't kill this, we can reduce to the puddle of nonsense it deserves to be.

[Stormy]

Joe,

This issue is now mute. When Frankensein moves to Capitol Hill and with Arlen the Specter becoming a Democrat, the Dems now have a 60-seat majority and can call for cloture. Any embarrassment to Obama in having to use a trick to get his nationalized health care is now mute. He can claim that he did not have to pull any political tricks.

You have to hand it to Obama and the Dems, they play hardball to win. And to think that we believed Obama really wanted to be post-partisan, when he is nothing but a Chicago Ward Boss come to Washington. Mr. Smith he ain't.

[Stormy]

Sue contends that the use of reconciliation is nothing new in the passage of major legislation, however, nationalizing the nation's health care is such a major change that it is the equivalent of passing the Social Security Act in 1935 by reconciliation. This change will have as much impact upon the American people as the approval of Social Security.

Can we imagine what would have happened if such a measure had been used in 1935 over controversy? The original legislation was discriminatory in its benefits. In many regards, women and minorities were excluded. In addition, there were challenges to the constitutionality of Social Security. Only after FDR packed the Supreme Court through some political subterfuge, did the Court uphold the provisions of the Act. So, can we imagine what might lie in store if such an impactful change on the American people is achieved through another political subterfuge?

Nationalizing and materially changing our health care system should be fully discussed and debated, and it is not anywhere close to such matters with limited scope and impact as health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children's Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform. This is a major change that affects every person in the nation. It deserves full disclosure and discussion before implementation. Every citizen should know and understand what is happening....before it happens.

[Stormy]

Sam H. has a great post that continues this discussion of Obama and the government attempting to modify the behavior of the American people in ways that are not necessarily in their best interests or attuned to their preferences.

http://triad.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=2524#comment-21191

[Roger Greene]

You mean Specter wasn't already a Democrat? Who knew?

[Stormy]

Congressional politicians do not change parties without exacting something of value to themselves, especially in the middle of a term. Spector has been planning this for a while since he knew that he would likely not win the Republican primary. So, what did Harry Reid promise him to become a traitor? If we see him surface in a key legislative position for the Dems, we will know what that something was. I could accept Spector voting his conscience as a senator, and that might go against the party at times, but in this instance, Spector is selling out his party for one reason and only one reason...to salvage his own political career. A nice catch for Obama and the Dems...I hope that it was expensive bait. But, Penn. Republicans should not forget or forgive this treason for personal gain.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, what Bubba and Stormy said.

Stormy and Roger, I have had mixed feelings about Specter for a long time, ever since his role in the Bork debacle. I hope his party switch won't influence his vote on this issue (regardless of whatever it was going to be). And let's hope that the proposed legislation drives away at least a couple of so-called moderate Democrats.

I also hope the Republicans will take the Franken/Coleman case all the way to the US Supreme Court-- if they, indeed, have a case.

[Roch101]

The word is "moot," not "mute."

[Bubba]

No, the point IS mute, as in what the perverted Democrat political culture wants to do to Republican/conservative opposition.

Obamacare is not the only example of this disease.

We can't say that we weren't warned about things like this previously.

Now the question comes down to how we make this stench go away.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I dunno, Roch. Given the circumstances, "mute" might actually be more accurate.

[Roch101]

"Now the question comes down to how we make this stench go away."

Start by defending ignorance of the English language, then a bunch of people will want to align with you because they don't like smart and, uh, wait a minute... let me get back to you on that.

[Bubba]

"Start by defending ignorance of the English language, then a bunch of people will want to align with you because they don't like smart and, uh, wait a minute... let me get back to you on that."

The stench just got worse. And we can't even vote him out.

[Foxwood]

Even Canada an the UK tell us this is bad. Why don't our leaders listen? Because they can better control us with socialism. Wake Up, Sheeple!

[Stormy]

Roch,

Yes, I misspelled the word "Moot". I confess. Now, please address the real issue here rather than trying to take it on a tangent.

[Stormy]

Here is a link on the subject from American Thinker that speaks to this better than I possibly can. And, I think that all of the correct words have been used and correctly spelled, but I'll leave that up to the resident English major to critique:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_democrats_magic_bullet.html

[Roch101]

"Yes, I misspelled the word "Moot"." -- Stormy

Liar -- ooops, I'm sorry, I misspelled "intellectually dishonest."

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Sorry guys, I misspelled Roach.

Honestly, it won't happen again.

[Stormy]

Roch,

Can't you just stick to the issues, rather than pick out something small and be offensive about it? How small minded can you get? Really, what difference does it make whether I misspelled the word or used the wrong word?

And, do not ever call me a liar again. Got it, jerk.

[Joe Guarino]

I don't think there was any basis for calling Stormy a liar. He may have gotten the word wrong, but all of us have made errors in our comments and postings. And there was never even any reason for him to lie in that particular comment.

Sorry that happened, Stormy.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I'm sorry too, Stormy But it's the Roach's MO - especially when sticking to the issue is problematic for him.

And it speaks to his own credibility.

[Roch101]

The problem with "sticking to the issues" around here is that they are nearly impossible to get to, requiring one to wade through a pile of factual inaccuracies, logic fallacies, ad hominems and a general preference to avoid any conciliation or admission of error at any cost.

Stormy's comment was a good example. Instead of saying that she misused a word (obviously not knowing the difference between moot and mute) or instead of just ignoring my observation of it, she said she "misspelled" moot. That's the lie. That makes Stormy a liar. I say it again.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I disagree. It is not an issue worth harping upon. It was very clear to me what Stormy meant with all his comments. Sometimes when an error of no substantive consequence is made in comments or posts, we need to have enough grace to ignore it.

[Roch101]

Are you saying Stormy was in error in saying that she misspelled "moot?"

[Joe Guarino]

I am saying that he said something other than what he intended. No big deal, and should not be made out to be a big deal.

And I think Stormy is a "he", not a "she".

[Roch101]

Are you saying he did not intend to say that he misspelled "moot?"