Reconciliation resolution tactics with the Byrd Rule mean that IT IS A TRAP

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-16-09 09:46 PM
Original message

Reconciliation resolution tactics with the Byrd Rule mean that IT IS A TRAP

There is the new tactic to just kill the health care legislation in the Senate and go for the Reconciliation tactic to get another version of health care passed.

That sounds cool until you look at the Byrd Rule (named after Senator Robert Byrd) and what it does to any possible passing of legislation that would cost money.

It's a classic example of the old adage where the Small Print that taketh what the Big Print giveth away.

It's called Title 2, § 644. Extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation.

...a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it increases, or would increase, net outlays, or if it decreases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases are greater than outlay reductions or revenue increases resulting from other provisions in such title in such year;

(snip)

...the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the deficit;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/644.html

Aside from a summary of the Byrd Rule, there is the obvious strategy that the Republicans would do if a reconciliation resolution is enacted. They could say that the funding in health care reform is "extraneous" and the only way to stop that procedural objection would mean overturning the ruling with... get this, 60 VOTES!

(1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
(2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
(3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
(4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(5) if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
(6) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any Senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding Senator. A vote of 60 Senators is required to overturn the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

Reconciliation might look pretty on the outside, but it would be the final death knell for any health care reform. As much as the current health care reform bill (which is not yet released) is not perfect, killing it and thinking reconciliation is the answer is a fool's errand.