Speak Out: When is reconciliation acceptable?

Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 6:26 PM:

Ike, I thought it was for funding of legislation and not the actual bill passage. Am I wrong? If it is lawful, being for or against does not make much difference.

Replies (28)

  • I want to be fair and even in all things. I really didn't know the Bush admin used this shortcut until the recent discussion. I'm glad they used it to cut taxes, but I don't want it used for health care.

    I'm conflicted.

    -- Posted by Maynard on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:07 PM
  • I think if the bill is intended not to raise deficit spending and funding is restricted to 10 years, it can be used. Too comlicated for me to understand. I think the original intent of reconciliation was to facilitate cuts in spending but has been abused by both parties by tweeking procedural rules.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:22 PM
  • Warbler, Tax cuts for the poor was contoversial.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:32 PM
  • I don't know, Ike.

    I'm just stuck on ... scrap it all and start over, limiting it to ONLY those who have no actual health care coverage and can't honestly afford insurance premiums, and limiting the bill to less than 500 pages so that it can be read and understood by all.

    To me, what both parties have been doing with this is sort of like 're-inventing the wheel.' Or perhaps in a way like trying to fix something that isn't really 'broken?'

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:54 PM
  • Ike, I take it Warbler is saying it unaccecptable to the American people concerning health care.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:55 PM
  • Warbler, At what time do you think it is acceptable? [If at all]

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:57 PM
  • Warbler, Has "soundly against" lost some of it's influence? Are the law makers ignoring the people more now than they were in past examples of reconciliation?

    Ike, Do you think health care legislation will be law because of reconciliation?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 10:38 PM
  • Funny, but you didn't quote Reid in 2005 when things were going the other way...just alowed the Rejects to go on pushing their way on the American public (and look where that got us). I know, it looks different from the other side.

    The warbler is dead and bitter...it happens.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 11:43 PM
  • On the other hand, Nancy seems to have her groove going and I've never seen her looking better.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 11:45 PM
  • No actually, you quoted Reid from 2005.

    Yep, Nancy is hanging tough and poor old Boehner...somebody needs to tell him, he's done.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 12:44 AM
  • "Actually I did quote Reid in 2005."

    Love your style, Warbler.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 12:46 AM
  • Uh ...

    "Funny, but you didn't quote Reid in 2005 ..."

    "No actually, you quoted Reid from 2005."

    I must be having a problem with Reading Comprehension?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 12:50 AM
  • Yes

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 12:52 AM
  • IMO, President Obama tried to include the Republicans in the process, but from the start, the Republicans (with directions from Rush) decided that they would oppose anything put forth. So they made demands, got them and stalled some more. Their goal doesn't take into consideration, what is good for our country, but to save themselves (Again, as Rush directed).

    Now the Rejects call foul and claim things are being "rammed" through. Gimme a break, the Rejects have used the process more than any and now they say its "terrible" and try to twist facts on their record of using it. Hogwash!

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 7:25 AM
  • I think my take on the Rejects is just fine...perhaps you should reread, slow down...and think (And stop listening to Rush).

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 7:31 AM
  • This discussion is superfluous. Its simple. The majority of the American people don't want this socialist progressive monstrosity. If Harry Reid and his merry little band of mischief makers use reconciliation to pass it, they face becoming marble dust in November.

    The real question is why are the nuckleheaded Dimwits so intent upon committing political suicide?

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 8:32 AM
  • Perhaps they are putting "country first". The Rejects should try it.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 8:59 AM
  • Also, just because the Rejects say it, doesn't make it a fact. Most Americans want heathcare/insurance reform and IMO, at least this is a start at getting that.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 9:05 AM
  • Oh well, it was going along as a good discussion of reconciliation when I retired about 11:30.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 10:25 AM
  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html?m...

    The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all--and can't become law without those amendments.

    -- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 10:46 AM
  • blog - that was an opinion in the wsj - not fact.

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 11:21 AM
  • The Bush administration didn't use reconciliation. Nor will the Obama administration. Reconciliation is a legislative branch manuever, not an executive one. The executive can request it or suggest it, they can't employ it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 10:07 AM
  • If its to pass some thing I want, then I like recociliation. If its to pass some thing I don't want, then I don't like reconciliation. Since I want health care reform, I like reconciliation now. Isn't this really an ends justifies the means issue?

    -- Posted by VIKED on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 11:32 AM
  • Reconciliation is a sideshow and a diversion to deflect attention from the real source of action in the House. Pelosi only needs a majority vote on the Senate version of Health Care which will reach Obama's desk and signing to become law before the sun sets.

    It must be stopped in the House. If Pelosi had the votes, the bill already would be passed.

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 12:15 PM
  • Who was the speaker of the house when they used reconciliation to hammer the tax bills through during the Bush years?

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 3:32 PM
  • From Wikipedia:

    "Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.

    The Byrd Rule (as described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

    Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

    Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases.

    In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[3]

    During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to substantially increase federal deficits.[4] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.

    Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed."

    Reconciliation was created in 1974.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 3:53 PM
  • I think reconcilliation was a weak answer to the long time excecutive branch clamor for a line item veto. Since it is a rule it could be changed and defined within the policy of what is is. The purpose was for budget reduction and not the actual content and purpose of a bill, unless it is argued out of context as it is now.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 6:26 PM
  • Someone's been getting his daily dose of Limbaugh.

    -- Posted by Ike on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 6:27 PM

    I am glad you listen to Rush like voyager apparently does. It is very informative and the companies that put ads on the EIB network appreciate it as well. Thanks for listening.

    p.s. make sure you keep tuning in to Hannity after Rush.

    -- Posted by luv2argue on Sat, Mar 6, 2010, at 7:08 AM

Respond to this thread