Democrats may maneuver around GOP on healthcare

[dilettante]

Democrats may maneuver around GOP filibuster on healthcare legislation

Reporting from Washington -- Removing a major obstacle to the sweeping healthcare legislation sought by President Obama, senior Democrats on Capitol Hill have agreed to deny Republicans the power to block action by filibustering in the Senate, according to Democratic congressional officials.

The maneuver -- which Democrats hope to formally approve in a budget resolution next week -- threatens to spark a revolt by GOP lawmakers and could complicate Democratic efforts to push through other high-priority proposals on their agenda.


But the president and his allies on Capitol Hill believe their decision to use so-called budget reconciliation will make possible passage of the most ambitious overhaul of the nation's healthcare system in generations.
...

With at least 58 Democrats in the Senate, that would all but guarantee that Democrats would not need a single GOP vote in the House or the Senate.

...http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare25-2009apr25,0,2883760.storyAnd from another article explaining a little bit more about what "budget reconciliation" means and giving a Republican response:

Democrats near deal to 'fast-track' health bill
...
The fast-track option, known as "reconciliation," would attach budget protections to healthcare reform legislation that is expected to move through Congress later this year. Budget bills can pass with a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate and are not threatened by procedural hurdles.
Democrats have argued it is a way to overcome Republican objections, which have centered on a proposal to establish a public health insurance plan. Republican say such a plan would drive private insurers out of business, but Democrats say it would inject needed competition into the insurance market.


Republicans, who already have accused Obama's Democrats of ditching all pretense of bipartisanship, reacted angrily.


"Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform or a new national energy tax without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.


"And it would make it absolutely clear they (Democrats) intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis," McConnell said.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2444850020090424?pageNumber=2

I don't know enough about the healthcare bill to say whether I support it or not (though I do think the American health care system is in a bad way). But this certainly seems like an awfully significant piece of legislation to "fast-track" in order to avoid a filibuster or prolonged debate. It seems like there at least ought to be a more sustained attempt to winner over just 2 GOP Senators before this kind of hand-waving is invoked.

[partofme]

And from another article explaining a little bit more about what "budget reconciliation" means and giving a Republican response:

I don't know enough about the healthcare bill to say whether I support it or not (though I do think the American health care system is in a bad way). But this certainly seems like an awfully significant piece of legislation to "fast-track" in order to avoid a filibuster or prolonged debate. It seems like there at least ought to be a more sustained attempt to winner over just 2 GOP Senators before this kind of hand-waving is invoked.

Honestly as hard of a time they have been having getting republicans to come on board it would be a waste of time without really watering the thing down. This was the big promise every democratic candidate was making during the primaries so if it doesn't happen it would be a huge failure.

[Michael]

I don't see anything unusual here. The Republicans appear to be throwing a temper tantrum because the Democrats are going to use their Congressional majority to pass some legislation the Republicans don't like.

Fact is, the Republicans have in the past used the Budget Reconcilliation process to pass quite a bit of legislation that they couldn't get through Congress otherwise. All of Bush's major tax cuts (for example) were passed using this process. I don't recall these same Republican Senators objecting to that.

Indeed, if the Republicans in the Senate are 'defacto' making every bill require a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes in the Senate) then it is reasonable for the Democrats to use a similar 'defacto' rule to get around this tactic.

I don't have a problem with 'majority rule' in the legislature. That's the way it is supposed to work. If the Republicans respected the normal rules of Congress, the Democrats wouldn't have to resort to the 'reconcilliation' process to pass legislation they have a strong public mandate for passing.

And I think that's a key point here - the Republicans have used the Budget Reconcilliation process to pass legislation that they didn't campaign upon (Bush's tax cuts) and thus had no formal public mandate to pursue that policy. With Obama's Democrats, they clearly have a public mandate to move on healthcare policy given that this was a central policy plank of Obama's 2008 election victory.

In other words, this is just another case of hypocritical Republican whinging, nothing more, nothing less.

[Greendruid]

I have to at least agree with the Republicans (did I just say that) in the sense that removing the ability to filibuster is a bit strong-armed of the Democrats in this example, especially considering the weight of what is being considered.

This indicates to me a strong amount of distrust on the part of the Democrats for the Republicans concerning this topic (no doubt) in particular but perhaps more broadly. The divide between the two is clearly shown on this topic. I'm just imagining how I would have reacted if I'd have heard that a similar tactic was used by GWB about a war budget or something of that nature. I wouldn't like it one bit.

[Michael]

I have to at least agree with the Republicans (did I just say that) in the sense that removing the ability to filibuster is a bit strong-armed of the Democrats in this example, especially considering the weight of what is being considered.
The Republicans use the filibuster as a routine blocking tactic. They used it in the last Congression Session more times than it has been used in the last five sessions added together.

That's massive abuse of the filibuster provision in the first place. Using Budget Reconciliation rules to get around the filibuster is reasonable and logical usage of Congressional rules.

Indeed, the effect of this process merely returns Congress to the way things worked prior to the Republicans going all nuclear with non-stop filibusters all the time.

The divide between the two is clearly shown on this topic.
The only divide that matters is in Congress where the Democrats hold solid majorities in both the House and Senate.

I'm just imagining how I would have reacted if I'd have heard that a similar tactic was used by GWB about a war budget or something of that nature. I wouldn't like it one bit.
Didn't you read my post above? Republicans under G.W.Bush used this tactic to move quite a bit of Bush's agenda through Congress.

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001
- this act includes massive income tax cuts as well as removal of the estate tax and huge changes to the taxation provision of pensions.

JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003
- this act includes even more income tax cuts as well as cuts to the Capital Gains Tax and re-definitions of dividend income to individuals, new funding of $10 billion for State Medicaid, new funding of $10 billion for Social Security provisions administered by the States, huge changes to how 'paid bonuses' are taxed.

TAX INCREASE PREVENTION AND RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005
- this act again includes tax cuts for individuals, reductions in the Capital Gains tax and a veritable dog's breakfast of special provisions (pork) for corporations who own music, pension funds, veterans' mortgages, shipping vessel tonnages, amortization rules on music ownership, corporate bonds and managed care facilities, changes to amortization rules "for certain large oil companies" and various other tax shelters.

DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
- this act involves sweeping changes to the Medicare and Medicaid systems, including the new Medicaid Prescription Drug Policy & Reimbursement program.

COLLEGE COST REDUCTION AND ACCESS ACT OF 2007
- this act makes major changes to the Pell Grant program, Perkins Loans and other federal student funding programs.

All of these bills were passed using the Budget Reconciliation process and signed into law under G.W. Bush. Essentially, the Republicans under G.W.Bush used this technique to move any legislation that had significant opposition and couldn't withstand a filibuster. As you can see, using Budget Reconciliation to institute new program funding for social services is fairly routine here.

[dilettante]

I'm not sure how it's relevant that the Republicans did the same thing in the past; slapping a misleading "budget" label on something so you can ram it through the Senate is underhanded no matter who's doing it. I don't think the "Well they did it first" line of reasoning does anything to justify the action. It merely shows that Republicans are hypocritical (which we all already knew, they are, after all, politicians).

If anything, this reminds me of the Republicans threat to use the so-called "nuclear option" to get around democratic filibusters over Bush's court nominees. I was disgusted with the idea of abusing the rules then and was greatly relieved when the "gang of 14" managed to resolve the issue through negotiation. That, IMO, is what the Senate is supposed to be about.

I'm not at all convinced that there's been nearly enough work done to pass this legislation in the normal way to justify this kind of move. Given the sheer enormity of it all, I think the opposition party has a right (and perhaps the duty) to demand a prolonged debate over the particulars.

I'm already a little distressed that some of the recent economic legislation was passed with 0 votes from the opposition party. There's an argument to be made that time was of the essence and the opposition was uncooperative, but ramming through massive bills without giving, hard, serious effort to win over anyone from the other side isn't a philosophy that needs to be embraced.
The only "rush" to get healthcare legislation passed is so the majority party can get it in as close as possible to the "first 100 days" mark. To me, that's no justification for shortening debate over such a mammoth piece of law. The Senate is supposed to be slow to pass legislation. It's supposed to involve lengthy debate that prevents legislation from zipping through based solely on popular excitement.

If healthcare is really such a powerful issue for the public (and I think it is), then let the Reps filibuster for a while so that everyone can get good and angry at them. Popular pressure will mount and eventually moderates will have to give in to any face-saving offer of "compromise" the Democrats want to make. Either that or the issue will give the Democrats their 60+ majority in the Senate in 2010.

[Michael]

I'm not sure how it's relevant that the Republicans did the same thing in the past; slapping a misleading "budget" label on something so you can ram it through the Senate is underhanded no matter who's doing it. I don't think the "Well they did it first" line of reasoning does anything to justify the action. It merely shows that Republicans are hypocritical (which we all already knew, they are, after all, politicians).
Okay, I just listed all the times that G.W. Bush had legislation pushed through using Budget Reconciliation process.

G.W.Bush didn't do it first. This process has a long history of being used for exactly the purpose the Obama Administration is proposing.

I was only showing the hypocrisy of the Senatorial Republicans acting like this is unprecedented and unusual. It is not unprecedented nor is it particularly unusual.

Shall I now list all the times Clinton, G.H. Bush and Reagan did it? Will that at least establish the fact that this is a fairly routine Congressional process?

If anything, this reminds me of the Republicans threat to use the so-called "nuclear option" to get around democratic filibusters over Bush's court nominees. I was disgusted with the idea of abusing the rules then and was greatly relieved when the "gang of 14" managed to resolve the issue through negotiation. That, IMO, is what the Senate is supposed to be about.
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats made a HUGE mistake in not calling the Republican's bluff on this strategy.

Congress would have been greatly improved through the elimination of routine filibusters. Such a change would massively harm the Republicans given that, historically speaking, the Democrats have control of Congress most of the time (and like will for the foreseeable future).

I'm not at all convinced that there's been nearly enough work done to pass this legislation in the normal way to justify this kind of move. Given the sheer enormity of it all, I think the opposition party has a right (and perhaps the duty) to demand a prolonged debate over the particulars.
I don't believe that minority parties holding 40% of seats have a right to block any legislation they choose.

I do believe that majority parties with 60% of the seats do have the right to pass any legislation that they so choose (provided it is constitutional).

Anything that interferes with this is undemocratic - and an institutional tool of the corporate elites to thwart the interests of a democratic majority.

I'm already a little distressed that some of the recent economic legislation was passed with 0 votes from the opposition party.
Why? Since when is electoral posturing considered significant for governance?

I see legislation passed in Ottawa and London all the time that has ZERO votes from opposition parties. Apparently, the government and the electoral system function just fine with this.

There's an argument to be made that time was of the essence and the opposition was uncooperative, but ramming through massive bills without giving, hard, serious effort to win over anyone from the other side isn't a philosophy that needs to be embraced.
Comprehensive healthcare reform has been on the table since 1993 - that's sixteen years.

That's hardly "ramming through" or much of a rush.

Especially when key opposition is being funded directly by the healthcare industry and their allies seeking to maintain the highly profitable status quo.

If opposition was coming from the public, you might have a case here, but the primary opposition is coming from the Honorable Members for the District of Healthcare Corporations.

The only "rush" to get healthcare legislation passed is so the majority party can get it in as close as possible to the "first 100 days" mark. To me, that's no justification for shortening debate over such a mammoth piece of law. The Senate is supposed to be slow to pass legislation. It's supposed to involve lengthy debate that prevents legislation from zipping through based solely on popular excitement.
This is hogwash. The 100 days is already done.

Healthcare hasn't even been tabled yet, meaning that it is months if not years away in Congressional time.

If healthcare is really such a powerful issue for the public (and I think it is), then let the Reps filibuster for a while so that everyone can get good and angry at them. Popular pressure will mount and eventually moderates will have to give in to any face-saving offer of "compromise" the Democrats want to make. Either that or the issue will give the Democrats their 60+ majority in the Senate in 2010.
US mass media doesn't report honestly (they never have reported filibusters honestly). If this policy is followed, the media will push the meme that "Democratic Congress fails to pass Obama's Healthcare policy" without one word of blame on the Republican filibuster that causes it.

And of course, that will cause people to get all pissed off at the "Democratic controlled congress".

And the Republicans & Healthcare corporations win again.

That's the reality of Washington politics.