on reconciliation

Following Obama's speech on Wednesday, I was disappointed at some of the misunderstanding that's out there, about the Democrats' "reconciliation strategy."  Even Limbaugh got it wrong initially, though he corrected himself on Thursday.

What you need to realize is that the House and Senate have to pass the same, identical text.  Ordinarily, their separate bills get sent off to a joint conference that merges them, and then both chambers vote on the product of that conference.  Top Dems were in the middle of merging the House and Senate bills when Scott Brown was elected.  Brown effectively killed that process, because the merged bill is subject to a filibuster in the Senate.  It would have never reached cloture.

The two chambers passed significantly different bills.  The House legislation included a "public option," while the Senate relied on a mandate.  The bills differed in taxation, the "exchanges" worked differently, and they took different approaches to Medicare.  The two versions are each as liberal as their respective chamber can tolerate, which is why they both passed on very close, party-line votes.  And even before Brown was elected, Democrats were having problems reaching agreement on the final merged product.

"Reconciliation" refers to a rule for passing budget items with limited debate.  Since the filibuster is technically an unending debate, putting a time limit on debate defeats the filibuster.  Reconciliation measures are required to get an up-or-down vote in the Senate, where it takes 51 votes to actually pass a bill.  The hard part has always been getting 60 senators to agree to hold a vote, and reconciliation addresses that.

What's going on, then, is that the Senate cannot pass another healthcare bill.  For the process to move forward, everything must be based on the bill the Senate already passed on Christmas Eve.  The House bill is dead.  "Reconciliation" applies only to whatever amendments House Democrats require before they'll agree to pass the Senate bill.  Those changes will need to take the form of budget items, immunizing them against a Republican filibuster. 

The idea is for the House to pass the Senate healthcare bill exactly as written, and then some sort of budget measure amending it.  Senate Democrats would need to commit to passing the "fix" through reconciliation, because the House has no intention of passing the Senate bill without its own changes.  They'll need a guarantee that their additional language will get 51 votes, and obviously this will all have to be agreed upon in advance.

Except for the most liberal members, nobody wants to vote on these bills.  It's a political minefield.  There's a real possibility that, once the House has approved the Senate bill, individual Senate Democrats could then renege on their commitment to passing the House fix.  Look at "cap and trade" -- historically, the House gets hung out to dry after voting for unpopular measures that never get taken up by the Senate.  For moderate representatives to rubber-stamp the Senate bill is a test of faith.

The House passed its bill in early November.  We've looked at the numbers before -- it was a squeaker in November, and the bill's a lot less popular now.  Nancy Pelosi will have to convert a dozen or more of the November "No" votes to make up for the votes she's lost since then.

Earlier this week, Congressman Nathan Deal (R-GA) announced his intentions to leave the House on March 8 to run for governor.  Leaving 431 members, Deal's departure would have lowered Nancy Pelosi's magic number to 216.  Last night, Deal declared that he would remain onboard in the House in order to vote against healthcare reform.  Pelosi now needs 217 votes, and despite public assertions that she will get them, mathematically it will be very difficult.  The libs are putting on a good show, but they have a long way to go.  There's a reason they don't have a timetable for passage.

Understand that the Dems are out of options here.  It should be clear by now that reconciliation is an unpopular way to enact policy, and the Democrats are keenly aware of this.  Pelosi and Obama have been publicly urging Blue Dogs to take one for the team and forfeit their re-election chances by passing the Senate bill.  This is healthcare reform's last stand: If it can't pass now, it's dead.  For years.

Because the Senate bill is already in stone, it'll be interesting to see how Obama's "Republican suggestions" play out.  For all the talk about incorporating those ideas, they're obviously not in the Senate product.  They would have to be incorporated into the reconciliation vehicle, which you'll remember is reserved for budget language.

That also limits Dems' ability to placate Bart Stupak and his anti-abortion Democrats.  The Senate bill clearly allows for federally funded abortion, and it's apparently tricky to eliminate that under reconciliation rules.

Comments

[Hank Rearden]

I know I’ve said this before, but even if congress passes this legislation, it still needs to survive judicial review, which it will almost certainly face (and fail to pass). One question about the campaign finance ruling I haven't heard anyone ask is, "Was the Supreme Court ruling only about campaign finance?" My answer is, "No. Not entirely." Both the timing and the controversial nature of the landmark ruling (and the impending Chicago gun control hearing is even less subtle) suggest that it was also a "warning shot" of sorts to the president and congress. Which is why, in my opinion, the president openly chastised the Supreme Court during his SOTU Address. He didn’t care so much about the ruling, as he did about its future implications for Healthcare Reform.

[ConservativeLibertine]

Good synopsis.

I've been screaming at the TV "Yeah! up or down vote! Do it! Do it now! Go ahead! I dare you!"

The House would never vote on the Senate bill as is, and like you said they have to pass it first and then pray it gets modified in the way that is not abhorrent to their voter base, or else, they have a lot of explaining to do.

Like you said, it's a leap of faith. A leap where you have faith that the most un-trustable body ever assembled will catch you.

I wouldn't trust any of them to catch me falling backwards at a team building event. This is more like hoping they catch you on your jump off the roof of a four story building.