Reconciliation

One of the jobs of the Senate is to keep Bad bills from getting through. Think about it. Think about all of the highly contentious, arbitrary, partisan issues we have and have had that basically split the country down the middle. And think about the other possibilities of a simple majority rule.

The Senate serves as the bad-bill-block by allowing endless debate on the issues. So really serious stuff might take years to hammer out, and unfair stuff won’t get through at all, because you can’t take a vote until everyone is done debating or there are 60 votes to proceed. Blocking a vote by purposely making an endless case is called the filibuster.

In the old days, the filibuster actually involved a guy speaking for hours and hours until enough supporters for the bill dwindled out the door – killing any successful vote for it. But later, a general agreement was made that a filibuster would just be called and you wouldn’t have to perform the bladder/bowel exhibition.

Certain bills can’t be mulled over for years though, like the yearly budget. And often painful cuts and other adjustments need to be made to keep the national debt under control. I mean, seriously – think what a simply majority would do to the deficit! So in 1974 they came up with reconciliation.

“A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.”

-         U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > Reconciliation instruction

And what reconciliation basically does is limit debate to 20 hours, eliminating the filibuster option for the minority. That way, despite screams from the minority, President Romney can eliminate gay marriage and welfare while President Palin makes abortion illegal and  institutes Manifest Destiny and subsequently military service to fulfill it.

So you might wonder how – how in the world can Pelosi pass healthcare reform with reconciliation –an obvious budget specific special exception? Well – simple: Congress includes reconciliation instructions in the budget directing certain committees – like the health, financial, or labor committees – to produce healthcare reform legislation that will hit certain spending targets by a certain deadline. This legislation is then stapled to the omnibus bill and sent to the floor for 20 hours of debate followed by a simple up or down vote.

This is crazy right? This is a huge nightmare waiting to happen. We aren’t the first to realize such a reasonable method to keep the cookie jar safe could be perverted into rationalizing that anything can be called a cookie.

That’s why in 1985 the Byrd rule was added, which imposed a set of rules for the reconciliation process, limiting what it can reconcile to legislation that principally affects federal revenues. A tax cut: yes. Some welfare reform: sure. A new Federal holiday: nope. But this leaves a bit of ambiguity – I guess; especially after Nancy Pelosi blows your record amount of political capital in your first six months in office and leaves you wrapped to a particularly nasty bill like Ahab to his wale.

The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it “produce[s] changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.”  The trouble here though is that “merely incidental” and “provision” aren’t defined. So weather or not something’s affect on Federal revenues is “merely incidental” – like regulating insurers, creating a public plan, or funding abortions – is up to the Senate parliamentarian – an arbitrary referee.

Sen. Robert Byrd is now 92. He says the process was intended for deficit reduction and using it for health reform or cap and trade is an outrage that must be resisted.

But others make the nearsighted argument that health reform and cap n’ trade are deficit reducers. Or they make the argument that, if budget matters are too important to be constrained by normal Senate rules shouldn’t saving live and saving the planet also be exceptions?

Yeah – sure. Good thinking stupid.