KENT CONRAD: RECONCILIATION IS NOT OFF THE TABLE. (March 2009)

[ProSense]

KENT CONRAD: RECONCILIATION IS NOT OFF THE TABLE.

Speaking of Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and the reconciliation process, I was just on a conference call with Conrad where he was notably unwilling to disavow the need for a 50-vote process.

Asked by a reporter whether Senate Democrats would just adopt reconciliation instructions from House Democrats -- more on that strategy here -- he replied first with the standard caveats. "I don't want to do the negotiation of the Conference Committee through the media," he said. "I've been as clear as I can be, publicly and privately, that I don't think reconciliation is the right way to write health reform legislation. It wasn't designed for that purpose. It was designed for deficit reduction. Using it creates a lot of technical issues."

All that, incidentally, is true. But Kent Conrad's normative judgment on reconciliation is less important than whether he will actually obstruct its usage. And his next comment made it unusually clear that he hasn't ruled the process out.

"One thing I've said to colleagues is the Budget Act contemplates a second budget resolution with only 10 hours (of debate) on the floor," Conrad continued. "If it proved absolutely essential, if there was no Republican cooperation on writing major health reform, you could write a second resolution. It would only take a day on the floor and you could include reconciliation instructions there."

That's rare moment of insight into the backroom strategy sessions Conrad is conducting with his Democratic colleagues. Not only are they discussing reconciliation, but Conrad is developing a variety of parliamentary plays that could reintroduce it into the process. There's not only the option of importing reconciliation instructions from House Democrats, but also adopting a second budget that allows Senate Democrats to write the rules themselves. Moreover, Conrad's comments echo the Democratic Caucus's consensus fairly perfectly: He doesn't want to use reconciliation, but if Republicans won't cooperate on health reform, he'll be left with no choice.

more

(emphasis added)

"Obama’s budget...included language allowing for the use of...reconciliation...to pass health care"

[Clio the Leo]

1. They certainly went to a lot of trouble.....

.... putting it into the budget if they had no intention of using it, didn't they?

My pure speculation on the matter is that the President would prefer to not to use, would rather have the GOP (or some of them) on board. But if he has to use it, he's going to do "this awful thing" under the protection of "an angry liberal base."

[grantcart]

2. Are you sure that is quoting Conrad?

Senator "there isn't enough votes for public option" Conrad.

The guy that says over and over that we can't have a Public Option because we can't get 60 votes?


Really?


Senator Conrad?


Are you sure?



Well Senator Conrad if we got the votes and we got the reconciliation and you have never said that you are actually against the public option (only that we didn't have the votes for it) then let me ask a question,



What is the fucking problem?


Stop worrying about Senate protocol and peer relations and do what is right for the country, people are suffering you ass.