Or, if you don't like all that reading, think about this. Reconciliation essentially restores democracy to America. It limits debate (or a filibuster) on budget related items that affect mandatory spending, or taxes. It allows the Senate a simple up-or-down vote on a budget related piece of legislation, and requires only 51 votes (or 50 votes, plus the Vice President to break the tie). It was considered so crucial to President Reagan's program that he used it to get his agenda done, as did George W. Bush.
The problem is that President Bush used reconciliation primarily in the name of tax cuts for the rich. Because President Bush's initiatives undermined the spirit of the reconciliation process - because his tax cuts added to our national debt - Congress passed a reconciliation bill in 2007. It said in plain language that reconciliation could only be used for budget matters that REDUCED budget deficits.
You would have thought that the "fiscal conservatives" during the Bush administration would have thought about this in 2001 and 2003, when they voted for tax cuts without finding ways to off-set their impact. They didn't. But I digress ...
The real beauty of the reconciliation process is that it reinstates the principle of an up-or-down vote when you have a stubborn party, or a stalled process.
Read the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities piece, or Rep. Louise M. Slaughter's overview for some historical perspective. In all cases, it's clear that reconciliation is not the high drama route Republicans would have you believe. Perhaps more importantly, it also becomes clear that Republican presidents have been using it whenever they want to push their agenda.
Democrats need to use reconciliation, especially since the "health care bill before the Senate would cut costs and reform health-care delivery more than any piece of legislation in American history."
- Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment