This week, the floors of the House and Senate were full of the normal partisan cacophony that surrounds adoption of the nation’s budget. There were the usual funhouse mirror gimmicks that make the $3.55 trillion plan look slimmer than it is. But the spending plan for fiscal year 2010 also included “reconciliation”, a provision that enables the majority to slam healthcare policy through the Senate by limiting the powers of the minority – a bad tool sure to result in bad policy.

First the standard gimmicks. Much was made about how this budget was even tighter than what the Administration proposed. Of course this effect was largely achieved by eliminating $750 billion for future bailout funding – though most think another bailout is likely if not inevitable. Also, the reserve fund trick we've written about before makes dozens of appearances again this year. And to avoid looking at the long-term debt hangover the country is facing, the budget window was neatly trimmed from ten years to five, thereby ignoring long-term impacts of several budgetary decisions.

But the biggest controversey surrounds provisions to expedite consideration of certain policy proposals. Items considered under reconciliation only need a simple majority to pass, rather than the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, creating an express lane for Senate passage. But the minority is given a tool as well: Under the Byrd rule, all items in reconciliation have to be budget related – and elements of any proposal that don’t meet that standard can be excised. The non-partisan Senate parliamentarian is the judge. So by the end of the process, instead of a substantive policy proposal you may have swiss cheese . This is one of the reasons reconciliation is a poor vehicle to consider sweeping legislation dealing with thorny issues like health care.

Senator Byrd (D-WV) – that’s right, the same Byrd the aforementioned rule was named for – recently said , “I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass healthcare reform … As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose.” Byrd is one of the few consistent voices on the issue. He opposed Republican use of reconciliation to force through tax cuts earlier this decade, and he opposes reconciliation to enact health care policy today.

RELATED ARTICLE
Reform Farm Subsidies to Get Nation’s Finances Back in Order

The rationale for using this tactic was dealt a further blow with Sen. Arlen Specter’s decision to shift from R-PA to D-PA. If you count the all-but-final Democratic Senate seat in Minnesota, the Democrats will have 60 seats – enough to overcome filibusters. So as long as they can hold their caucus, there’s no reason to pursue this poor policy option.

RELATED ARTICLE
Monsters On the Hill

A bigger point is that tackling big thorny issues like health care requires statesmanship rather petty bickering. Democrats shouldn’t threaten to cram huge policy proposals down the Republican’s throat, and Republicans have to recognize they lost the election and need to work with the Democrats constructively on critical challenges. Looking at America’s aging population and the enormous cost growth of health care, it is clear this issue is a ticking fiscal time bomb that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Reconciliation might speed action, but by no means yield better results.

Share This Story!

Related Posts