A primer on reconciliation

[babylonsister]

A primer on reconciliation
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:45 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress

From NBC's Ken Strickland


Increasingly, liberals and progressives pushing for a public option in any health-care reform want to use a tool called budget reconciliation, so reform could be passed by just 51 Senate votes instead of the filibuster-proof 60 (requiring conservative Democrats and maybe even a moderate Republican like Olympia Snowe).

Putting aside the political debate about reconciliation -- and whether or not Democrats should use it -- the bottom line is this: Reconciliation can be used and has been used by both parties. It's written into law.

But the biggest question is this: Can it be used to successfully produce a comprehensive health-care reform bill?

This is an attempt to give a stripped-down, dumbed-down, Cliff Notes-like explanation of what reconciliation is, what hurdles opponents can place before it, and how it might be handled on the floor should Democrats decide to use it.

What is reconciliation and why is it used?
As mentioned above, it takes 60 votes to pass anything controversial in the Senate, due to the threat of a filibuster. But in 1974, in an effort to cut the nation's soaring deficits, Congress passed a law creating a procedure that could NOT be filibustered and would only need a simple majority of 51 votes to pass.

more...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/29/2082655.aspx

[pinto]

1. Thank you. From the same piece -

Remember, reconciliation was originally created to address fiscal policy -- not social policy. So every line in the bill must adhere to strict rules to ensure things stay within those boundaries. In short, if it's not about spending government money or taxing people, an opponent can raise an objection to have that section struck from the bill.

Example #1: Expanding Medicaid or cuts to Medicare would more than likely pass muster, because those programs are run with taxpayer dollars. Example #2: A provision requiring insurance companies to issue coverage regardless of health status could be killed because there's no obvious direct connection to spending or saving federal dollars. (These are, of course, unscientific best guesses.)

When a senator wants to challenge a section of the bill, he or she objects by raising a "budget point of order." There are more than a dozen that could apply to a health-care bill.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/29/2082655.aspx

[babylonsister]

4. I like the tight parameters on these rules; I hope they work

in our favor.

[Barack_America]

6. Does that mean "Medicare for all" could have a better chance of passing....

...than a public option?

:shrug:

I'm not liking that this parliamentarian was appointed by Lott.

[mmonk]

2. Thanks. Very useful. Recommended.

[pinto]

3. Kick

:kick:

[Buck Feck]

5. That's how Dubya got his tax cuts for millionaires!