Reconciliation schmeckinciliation

MSNBC

Republicans argue that reconciliation is a partisan tactic that would limit their ability to offer amendments and limit debate to 20 hours in what's considered "the world's most deliberative body." They also say it's inappropriate to use a fast-track budget process to craft health care policy.

But Democrats are quick to point out that the process has been used by both parties — more than 20 times since 1980 — on things like tax cuts, student loan programs, children's health insurance, and welfare reform.

"They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Reid said last week. "It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else."

This is why Democrats suck: they don't frame issues well.

They're letting the GOP frame this issue as "Democrats going to extraordinary lengths to ram health care through". And the Democratic response is "well, you did it too".

While that is true, that's not the issue. The issue is that the GOP has turned the Senate from a body that operates on majority rule to a body that needs a supermajority of 60 votes to get anything done. That was NOT the intent of the Framers. The intention was that 1 vote more than half would pass legislation.

The filibuster is being used as a parliamentary tactic (superbly, I might add) to stop passage of anything that might reflect positively on this president. They're paralyzing the nation to score political hits.

Why the Democrats have not noted this - the fact that the Republicans are trying to change the rules of the Senate to require 60 votes for almost anything - is beyond me.

It used to be that to filibuster, one has to have continuous floor speeches until and unless cloture is invoked. Now, it's not necessary - which is ridiculous. If you're going to stop the business of the country, you should at least have to hold your pee for it. Here's the big unless...the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. That's always an option.

On the subject of reconciliation (and liars), Paul Krugman contributes this:

So, on the This Week panel today I didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the biggest whopper from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who told Elizabeth Vargas that reconciliation — I don’t have the exact transcript — had in the past been used for small things and “to reduce the deficit”.

In fact, reconciliation was used to pass the two major Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit — by $1.8 trillion.

And there’s no penalty for this kind of deception.

Update: Brad DeLong has the transcript, including my final lament.

Here's Rachel Maddow taking on the latest lie regarding reconciliation. How do we allow these Republicans to lie and contradict their own statements and votes.



Then there's Jim Bunning, the retiring senator from Kentucky who used to pitch for the Phillies and is likely suffering from some form of dementia (I'm not joking). He decided to throw a hissy-fit and... let's let Jon explain. My only reaction is: if a Democrat did this, the outrage would be legendary. THIS is why Democrats suck. Bunning got a way with this and the very serious media was never forced to deal with it.