I am re-posting this (with minor changes) in GD because it's informative about something a lot of DUers are curious about: The method and ramifications of a certain legislative strategy, Senate Bill with Reconciliation Fix, that is being discussed in DC and in the news. It's my analysis but should not very controversial analysis. I tried to keep it focused on procedure. If erroneous, please elaborate. Thanks!
Scenario (if made necessary by events): House passes Senate bill in a deal with House liberals that certain provisions in the Senate bill will be changed later under reconciliation--notably restoring the union 'cadillac tax' deal. (or, if it looks like the votes are there, substituting the House bill wealth-tax funding method for the policy-surtax.)
It is said that this would be a leap of faith for House liberals because the WH or Senate could sell them out... the fix would never happen.
But once Pelosi keeps her promise to put the "fix" before the House everything else falls into place. (Assuming we have 50 actual Dems in the Senate, which seems to be the case.)
Here is how it would go down:1) House passes Senate bill. (Senate cannot act on the bill again.) President signs it.
2) Pelosi puts new "fix" bill before the House in form that qualifies for Senate budget reconciliation rules.
3) Budgetary "fix" passes the House, goes to Senate.
4) Fix cannot be blocked; can only be filibustered for 32 or 48 hours. (I forget the exact number, but it's only a couple of days.) It only take 41 votes to uphold a ruling by the chair that the bill qualifies as budgetary. Fix passes Senate with 50+1.
5) President signs it
At no point does the WH have to do anything except not veto the fix. The Senate blue dogs play no part in the process because reconciliation rules apply... their votes are never needed. All Reid has to do is have a real Dem in the chair to rule (correctly) on the propriety of reconciliation.
And it is irrelevant whether we have 60 or 59 in the Senate... it's not a factor at any point.
So the only promises that House liberals need are promises from Pelosi, and she is in a position to keep them.
The strategy results in a slightly stronger bill than what we would get through conference.
So why, you ask, why didn't we do this in the first place? Because we couldn't have gotten 60 votes in the senate for the non-budgetary stuff if the blue-dogs thought the budgetary stuff would be changed later without their agreement. They accepted a negotiated package based on inclusion of things like the cadillac-plan tax. So we would be betraying the betrayers. (Boo hoo!)
This might even help blue-dogs in tough elections because they get a free vote against the plan. (We don't need their votes so they can go full wing-nut if it makes folks in Nebraska or Arkansas happy.)
Important note: Unfortunately this would leave the Nelson abortion language in place, but that will happen in every scenario. This is important to recognize: In normal order Ben Nelson is the 60th vote and has absolute veto power over any change to his abortion language. And the House cannot threaten him much because he would probably be happy to see the bill go down. (His polls are not looking good.) So this method doesn't change the Nelson language situation but it does not make it any worse than it already is.
Obvious caveat: If there are not enough votes in the House to pass the fix, or if it cannot reach 51 in the senate, those are different issues. Pelosi can promise to get something on the floor but she cannot promise that it will pass... obviously the fix has to be designed to be something that can get 50%+1 in House and Senate. We cannot reasonably hope for measures that cannot even get 50 votes in the Senate.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
