The Nuts and Bolts of Reconciliation

Former Senator Rick Santorum hosts the Bill Bennett radio program on Friday mornings.  Today, he discussed how reconciliation works. 

In a nutshell, the Democrats would have to violate long-standing parliamentary procedure to make it happen; and Vice President Joe Biden would likely have to intervene with certain rulings.

Of course, a health care bill would theoretically also have to pass the House-- and that is a tough hurdle at the moment.

Santorum's explanation of the reconciliation procedure is found on podcast here (look to the right side of the screen).  If you listen, the discussion begins at approximately the 6:00 mark.

Comments

[Roch101]

Long-standing or short memories?
-------------------------------

- Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
- Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
- The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

[Joe Guarino]

If you did not listen to Santorum's commentary, Roch, I would suggest you do so. He explained that there are certain parameters within which reconciliation can be done according to the manner in which the Senate parliamentarians have ruled over the last several decades. "Health care reform" would violate those parameters. That is why, according to Santorum, Biden would have to make rulings from the chair to make it happen.

He also explains Republicans can thwart the process by offering "thousands of amendments", and the question is whether they would do so.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

As you defend partisanship, maybe the point kind of is, Roch, that NEITHER side of the aisle should be doing this - especially in a matter so sensitive and contentious.

At least that's what one would believe if one had listened to Biden or Obama when they were not in the majority.

Maybe you could provide us with those links while you're at it?

Or maybe not. Selective fact-checking strikes again.

[Everest]

Hey Roch - what's your point above? That since Republicans did it under Bush, they're getting payback...

Incidentally, the first one above passed the Senate with 62 votes, and the last one with 54 - the defecit reduction package was a $40 billion program cut, and well, you probably knew all that when you read Wikipedia to do your research...

If you had read any reasonable history of the Senate, you would find that reconciliation has been used by BOTH parties for almost exclusively budgetary decisions - and that's it. As Clinton tried to use it to pass his own health care bill, Robert Byrd himself refused to do so, suggesting it was only for budget measures...and Byrd is on record saying the same thing now. And those Democrats that were aghast when Republicans discussed using the tactic to get a simple up or down vote on a judge, saying it was only for budget issues, are the same ones today clamoring for majority rule (demonstrating again that they don't understand this country is a representative republic, not a democracy...but that really comes as no surprise)

The point about reconciliation is not whether it's ever been used, or which party has used it...it's NEVER been used for expansions of the federal government like this, by either party. The bill won't pass Congress NOT because of Republican obstruction, but because even Democrats are squeamish about its passage. The American people hate it, and have made that known at the polls - there's been no legitimate attempt, particularly in the House, to give even the appearance of listening to Republicans and on and on. When Domocrats can't pass their signature issue, with the massive majorities they have in Congress, and Obama in the White House, you KNOW the bill is bad news. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a hard-working American who pays for his own health insurance....

[Roch101]

"Hey Roch - what's your point above?" -- Everest

That it does not "violate long-standing parliamentary procedure;" that it is, in fact, part of parliamentary procedure, used recently by Republicans.

[Joe Guarino]

Santorum's point is that "health care reform" would not pass muster under the typical approach to reconciliation taken by Senate parliamentarians over the last several decades. Joe Biden would have to intervene to make it happen, according to Santorum.

[Roch101]

Point taken. A distinction without a difference, perhaps.

[Everest]

Perhaps it's only a distinction without difference because the issue it concerns doesn't bother you...for the vast majority of Americans that think this is the largest boondoggle in American history, the "distinction" is enormous. There is a difference between using this approach to pass traditional budget issues, and quite another to pass a multi-trillion dollar new federal entitlement, that the majority of Americans don't want...

[Bubba]

I say let the fools try to use reconciliation. They will be held accountable for their arrogance by the public. In addition, it's very likely to fail.

The desperation on their side is evident. It's a last gasp attempt to salvage the failed Obama presidency, the failed Democrat majority tenure in Congress, and their tacit acknowledgement of the direct rebuke of the statist "progressive" agenda item by the non-elitist everyday people who comprise the bulk of the voting public.

And here's the kicker: They will never accept those certain realities. The egos, the arrogance, and the agenda doesn't permit things like that. The babble, dribble, drool, and spew in response to their defeats will be loud and obnoxious.