can all of the provisions of the healthcare bill (4.00 / 1)

be passed via reconciliation?  From what I know about the reconciliation process (everything of which comes from Ezra Klein: http://www.prospect.org/cs/art... ), only provisions that pass the Byrd Rule can be considered in reconciliation, and there's no real agreement on what passes the Byrd Rule (fucked up, huh?)  Conrad, in his interview with Ezra Klein, said that if the Democrats do healthcare through reconciliation, the bill will come out like swiss cheese.

Reconciliation was never designed to write substantive legislation. It was designed solely for deficit reduction. The whole idea was you would change numbers, not policy. You would change numbers on the revenue side of the equation and the spending side of the equation.

And so, the way it works, under current rules, if you're in reconciliation, you have to be deficit neutral over five years. Under the budget resolution, health care can be deficit neutral under 10 years. That's a big difference.

Two, under reconciliation, you're subjected to the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule says that anything that doesn't cost money or save money, or that only costs money or saves money in a way that's incidental to the policy, is subject to strike. The result, for instance, is that all the insurance market provisions are subject to strike. All the wellness and prevention provisions are subject to strike. The Senate parliamentarian said to us that if you try to write substantive health reform in reconciliation, you'll end up with Swiss cheese.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Of course, this may just be an excuse on Conrad's part, but there seems to be a substantive question of whether healthcare legislation can be passed through reconciliation.

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:29:08 PM CDT

Conrad is correct, to a certain degree... (4.00 / 1)

The way I see the bills being created at the moment, is that they are specifically drafting them to be massaged into a reconciliation bill if necessary...  I'm just seeing how they are organizing the pieces of the various bills, and it seems that they are at least preparing for a fallback reconciliation option.

Let's not forget that back in March, Republicans left a meeting with Obama absolutely convinced that he would use reconciliatoin for health care...

So, maybe that's been the plan all along...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:42:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i hope you're right (4.00 / 1)

but it seems that a lot depends on the whims of the Senate Parliamentarian who ultimately judges on what is compatible with the Byrd Rule.  How fucked up is that?

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:03:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't call it whim (0.00 / 1)

You make it sound arbitrary, as if the parliamentarian would be willing to decide on the flip of a coin.  It's no more messed up than having judges rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress.  The parliamentarian is basically a legal expert whose advice is non-binding but almost always followed because of respect for the office and the person who holds it.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:28:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

non-binding? (4.00 / 1)

The parliamentarian is basically a legal expert whose advice is non-binding but almost always followed because of respect for the office and the person who holds it.

On what basis do you think the parliamentarian's advice is non-binding?  You may be right - I'd really like to know.  

This is how Ezra Klein characterizes the Senate Parliamentarian:

The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable. Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation. But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.

Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...

That sure sounds binding and pretty arbitrary, at least when it comes to the Byrd Rule.

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:39:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The parliamentarian's expert advice is non-binding (4.00 / 1)

However, it is almost never ignored, even when Senate leaders hate that advice.  The Republicans do sometimes fire parliamentarians, but the replacement makes the same rulings, so it's a bit like shooting the messenger.

Consider the following from C-SPAN's FAQ:

In the Senate, the Parliamentarian sits on the lower tier of the rostrum just below the presiding officer. He is frequently seen swiveling around in his chair, which faces the Senate floor, to address the Senator presiding behind him. While the Member of Congress presiding is free to take or ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian, most abide by his guidance. Few Members have the independent body of knowledge regarding the chamber's procedures necessary to preside on their own. I

Or this, from the New York Times:

Technically, the parliamentarian does not make rulings; he offers advice, which the presiding officer of the Senate is free to accept or reject. But because most senators are not expert in the Senate rules, the advice is accepted nearly all the time, making it tantamount to a ruling. As Senator Dorgan said, ''The parliamentarian's rulings can be critical to the success or failure of a bill.''

No one knows how the parliamentarian will rule in budget reconciliation not because it is arbitrary but because it is a byzantine process.  There will be a consistent logic involved, but it won't be easy to predict.

As I understand, what will happen during debate is that any Senator can challenge any provision under the Byrd Rule .  The presiding officer of the Senate will rule on the point of order under the advice of the parliamentarian.  Theoretically, the parliamentarian could be ignored, but it is custom rather than law that has the presiding officer rule in line with the parliamentarian's advice.  If the presiding officer ignored the parliamentarian, there are probably some Democrats who would help supply the 60 votes necessary to override the ruling as a matter of principle, even if their vote effectively strikes from the bill something that they support.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:35:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The parliamentarian's expert advice is non-binding (0.00 / 0)

However, it is almost never ignored, even when Senate leaders hate that advice.  The Republicans do sometimes fire parliamentarians, but the replacement makes the same rulings, so it's a bit like shooting the messenger.

Consider the following from C-SPAN's FAQ:

In the Senate, the Parliamentarian sits on the lower tier of the rostrum just below the presiding officer. He is frequently seen swiveling around in his chair, which faces the Senate floor, to address the Senator presiding behind him. While the Member of Congress presiding is free to take or ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian, most abide by his guidance. Few Members have the independent body of knowledge regarding the chamber's procedures necessary to preside on their own. I

Or this, from the New York Times:

Technically, the parliamentarian does not make rulings; he offers advice, which the presiding officer of the Senate is free to accept or reject. But because most senators are not expert in the Senate rules, the advice is accepted nearly all the time, making it tantamount to a ruling. As Senator Dorgan said, ''The parliamentarian's rulings can be critical to the success or failure of a bill.''

No one knows how the parliamentarian will rule in budget reconciliation not because it is arbitrary but because it is a byzantine process.  There will be a consistent logic involved, but it won't be easy to predict.

As I understand, what will happen during debate is that any Senator can challenge any provision under the Byrd Rule .  The presiding officer of the Senate will rule on the point of order under the advice of the parliamentarian.  Theoretically, the parliamentarian could be ignored, but it is custom rather than law that has the presiding officer rule in line with the parliamentarian's advice.  If the presiding officer ignored the parliamentarian, there are probably some Democrats who would help supply the 60 votes necessary to override the ruling as a matter of principle, even if their vote effectively strikes from the bill something that they support.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:35:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

more about the senate parliamentarian (0.00 / 0)

http://www.congressmatters.com...

Republicans are already complaining that health care reforms shouldn't count as budgeting issues. But anybody with half a brain can see that major reforms would absolutely have a budgetary impact, and a considerable one at that. The trick will be relating the policy changes closely enough to budgetary changes to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, whose job it will be to rule on the propriety of the language and whether it fits under the definition of what's proper for reconciliation. The parliamentarian's word isn't necessarily final, but appeals to overturn decisions made under the Byrd Rule require... 60 votes.

The Senate Parliamentarian's interpretation of the what passes the Byrd Rule is not final, but 60 votes are required to overrule him.  That means that the SP's judgement is effectively binding, since if there were 60 votes to overturn it, there would be no need to do healthcare through reconciliation in the first place.

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:01:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oops, here's the link for the above quote (0.00 / 0)

http://www.congressmatters.com...

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:03:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

60 (4.00 / 1)

Remember that to break a filibuster and vote for closure requires 60 actual votes, meaning 60 Senators must actually be present on the Senate floor.

Given the health of Kennedy and Byrd, there is no guarantee we can get 60 Democrats on the floor at the same time.  Even if we assume all Democrats vote as a block, we might not be able to reach closure.

My guess is at least some portion of the health care plan will need to be fixed through reconciliation.  But unless they want to sneak the entire bill into the budget or some other bill, they'll still need to pass something, and that will require 60 votes.

I suspect the House will pass a bill with a strong public option and the Senate will pass a bill with something very weak, but the House version comes out of Reconciliation.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:55:32 PM CDT

I hope you're right. (0.00 / 0)

And hopefully the hope of universal health care will motivate Kennedy to be strong enough to be there when we need him. But even if something in the health care package can't be done via reconciliation, there's no excuse not to do it with 60 Dems now in the Senate. Even Bill Press AND Markos agree on this right now on Ed Schultz!

Either the Dems need to start delivering (and not just on the public option for health care, but also BIG issues like DADT repeal and EFCA) or they'll risk alienating the progressive base.

Want to save marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how! ;-)

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:13:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

50 plus Biden (0.00 / 0)

And even that is a major struggle. The democratic senators are bought and paid for and each one has to be browbeaten into doing the right thing.

The system that allows corporations to give senators millions is so profoundly broken that it calls the idea of the US being a democracy into question.

---

by: obsessed @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:56:57 PM CDT

Make it happen! (4.00 / 1)

Either we get a bill with a strong public option or we walk out. And for anyone who thinks we need to "compromise", the public option IS the compromise! Either we get the public option or we need to defeat a fraud bill that will only continue to allow the insurance & pharmaceutical industries to cheat us out of our health care.

Want to save marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how! ;-)

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:16:30 PM CDT

But Chris, will the Progressive Caucus hang tough? (0.00 / 0)

When it comes down to voting?  And do they have enough numbers?  The GOP will vote for a crappy plan because that will kill reform for another 8-12-16 years.   Add enough GOP votes to gutless Democrats and the PC's 120 or so will be the short end.

---

by: Weeferdog @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:52:38 PM CDT

I doubt the Republicans will vote en mas .. (0.00 / 0)

for even a sucky plan .. my guess is .. if you get a good public option plan ... watch the two ladies from Maine .. plus 2 or 3 other Republican Senators switch their votes last minute .. as someone said ... a lot of the Senators might be stupid as a rock .. but they don't want to be on the wrong side of history .. besides .. if a few Republicans do vote for it .. look for Obama to drag their asses to the bill signing ceremony

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 00:03:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]