GOP Strategy: Bleed Reconciliation Fix To Death With Byrd Rule

[Torie]

Yes, per this article in the Washington Post, the GOP strategy is that the uncertainty about how the Senate parliamentarian will rule on whether a reconciliation change to the Senate Bill is fiscally germane, and thus not out of order, will make House Dems nervous as to whether or not they are buying a pig in the poke. There just isn't much trust out there. No doubt, the Dems will try to get advance rulings from the parliamentarian, but he might not be willing to do that, or change his mind, or say he needs to see the whole package first, or whatever. Or maybe they will trust Joe Biden to say he will just overrule the parliamentarian no matter what the merits.

All in all, this looks to me to be really complicated for the Dems. It may end up to be a mess, or the final product may not end up being what is expected from the reconciliation process, and then some Dems will express regret that they were hoodwinked, and how good will that look to the voters?

What do you think?

[opebo]

It is the first I've heard of 'the parliamentarian', but I should've thought in a majority Democrat Senate, he should be a partisan Democrat and should rule as we like. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Of course that'll be the strategy.  But how is the Byrd rule "arcane"?

And it all depends on how dirty Biden is willing to get his hands in this - and that'll have an effect on the elections in November; however, I don't think Biden will often overrule the parliamentarian (if ever).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, it's obvious that 50 votes + Biden gets this through. The only question is are there 50 votes, and what would they have in the bill.

[Smash255]

Of course that'll be the strategy.  But how is the Byrd rule "arcane"?

And it all depends on how dirty Biden is willing to get his hands in this - and that'll have an effect on the elections in November; however, I don't think Biden will often overrule the parliamentarian (if ever).

Speaking of the Parliamentarian Demint and other Republicans have already started bashing him.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Of course that'll be the strategy.  But how is the Byrd rule "arcane"?

And it all depends on how dirty Biden is willing to get his hands in this - and that'll have an effect on the elections in November; however, I don't think Biden will often overrule the parliamentarian (if ever).

Speaking of the Parliamentarian Demint and other Republicans have already started bashing him.

Is the parliamentarian appointed by the majority party?  Or how is he picked?

[© tweed]

Of course that'll be the strategy.  But how is the Byrd rule "arcane"?

And it all depends on how dirty Biden is willing to get his hands in this - and that'll have an effect on the elections in November; however, I don't think Biden will often overrule the parliamentarian (if ever).

Speaking of the Parliamentarian Demint and other Republicans have already started bashing him.

and he was hired by Trent Lott.  comedy

[Lief 🗽]

Well, if we don't like the Parliamentarian's rulings, we can just sack him and replace him with one of our guys, like the Republicans did when they were in power.

[Lunar]

1.  Almost all of the changes will be germane to the budget and thus not be affected by the Byrd rule.  The biggest thing, in my opinion, is the whole abortion thing that Stupak wants in.  The Democrats are going to be really careful crafting the "patch" and I can't see the parliamentarian substantially altering the patch enough that it changes the character of the bill.

2.  Biden + 50 votes can override the parliamentarian

[Torie]

1.  Almost all of the changes will be germane to the budget and thus not be affected by the Byrd rule.  The biggest thing, in my opinion, is the whole abortion thing that Stupak wants in.  The Democrats are going to be really careful crafting the "patch" and I can't see the parliamentarian substantially altering the patch enough that it changes the character of the bill.

2.  Biden + 50 votes can override the parliamentarian

There seems to be a consensus that parachuting in tougher anti abortion language via reconciliation does indeed violate the Byrd rule. So ...

And then there is a the timing issue. How can House members be sure what will be doable via reconciliation, and what is not doable - in advance of their vote for the Senate Bill?

[Lunar]

Well, I've seen some reporting by Democratic-leaning sources (Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent) saying that the patch should fly through these challenges.

[Torie]

Well, I've seen some reporting by Democratic-leaning sources (Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent) saying that the patch should fly through these challenges.

That's nice. I assume that they were talking about the abortion patch, which is what the game in part hinges on at this point. Is that correct?  If anything with any fiscal impact is deemed germane, even if peripheral vis a vis the policy impact, then yes indeed, the filibuster is effectively - D-E-A-D.

In other news, Pelosi has an odd approach when it comes to courting team Stupak on the abortion matter. I suspect that she would not make a very effective secretary of state.

[The Mikado]

Considering the huge question over what is and is not germane, I don't begrudge the Parlimentarian some indecision.

Robert Byrd must be spinning in his grave right now, his beloved filibuster is facing a challenge that would let it be overridden on any piece of legislation with a non-zero budget impact (or, in other words, anything).

[Lunar]

Well, I've seen some reporting by Democratic-leaning sources (Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent) saying that the patch should fly through these challenges.

That's nice. I assume that they were talking about the abortion patch, which is what the game in part hinges on at this point. Is that correct?  If anything with any fiscal impact is deemed germane, even if peripheral vis a vis the policy impact, then yes indeed, the filibuster is effectively - D-E-A-D.

It has to directly impact the budget.  Since the abortion issue is technically a funding issue, it could qualify, but since the reason for its existence isn't budgetary, my guess is that it'd be controversial.  

Yeah, my understanding is that the direct vs. indirect line is the barrier.   And the filibuster will still be around.  The "patch" is a relatively small bill, there's still presidential appointees, the recon process can only be used once a year, etc.

I mean, the fact is, a supermajority of Senators have already passed this bill and a similar bill has already been passed by the house.  The bill is almost done.  There is no incentive for Democrats who already took the political risk to vote for the bill to kill it and any benefits that may follow.  Ask John Kerry how well the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line resonated.

[Lunar]

Robert Byrd must be spinning in his grave right now, his beloved filibuster is facing a challenge that would let it be overridden on any piece of legislation with a non-zero budget impact (or, in other words, anything).

See, I don't think that's true at all in a number of respects.  Most notably, the main healthcare bill would not have passed through this process, especially the insurance regulations, some of the most important parts of the bill.  Secondly, the Byrd Rule will only face this challenge if Biden + 50 Senators overrides the parliamentarian's decisions, something that doesn't seem too likely from my viewpoint.  Third, I'd say a more ridiculous challenge is Bush & McConnell attempting to pass ANWR drilling via recon.

[Torie]

The recon package is pretty massive actually, and can be used on any bill that manages to get passed by the senate with 60 votes, even if that bill is to endorse American Motherhood Week, and via reconciliation, it morphs into a repeal of social security or something. So I guess in order to keep the filibuster alive, each and every bill would have to have some understanding that it cannot be changed by reconciliation, or again, in my opinion, the filibuster will be effectively dead.

[Lunar]

Like I said, the recon process is still limited.  Once a year, not with appointees, Byrd Rule (so far) still etc.

[Torie]

Like I said, the recon process is still limited.  Once a year, not with appointees, Byrd Rule (so far) still etc.

Once a year is plenty. You just pack everything into one bill. I cede your point about appointees, except that for judges, there is a Constitutional argument that the filibuster is violative of that, and if it were ever used with SCOTUS nominees at least, I suspect that the filibuster will be killed at least for judicial nominees. Heck, the Dems might do that if Obama gets a chance to nominate someone for SCOTUS in 2011 or 2012, particularly if one of the conservative 5 retires, or dies.

[Torie]

Considering the huge question over what is and is not germane, I don't begrudge the Parlimentarian some indecision.

Robert Byrd must be spinning in his grave right now, his beloved filibuster is facing a challenge that would let it be overridden on any piece of legislation with a non-zero budget impact (or, in other words, anything).

The Mikado, Byrd is in favor of reconciliation eating his own rule alive, actually. He just loves Ted Kennedy too much I guess. He is doing health care for Ted.

[Lunar]

Considering the huge question over what is and is not germane, I don't begrudge the Parlimentarian some indecision.

Robert Byrd must be spinning in his grave right now, his beloved filibuster is facing a challenge that would let it be overridden on any piece of legislation with a non-zero budget impact (or, in other words, anything).

The Mikado, Byrd is in favor of reconciliation eating his own rule alive, actually. He just loves Ted Kennedy too much I guess. He is doing health care for Ted.

Do you have to be so gosh darn dramatic about it all?  There's a difference between reconciliation for a patch and the whole damn bill, the latter being a stretch while the former being very much insignificant considering the other changes that have been to our healthcare system done via reconciliation of the last century (remember 90% of the bill will have passed via a supermajority of 60 in the Senate):

[Torie]

Well Lunar, let us wait and see what is in the "patch" as you call it (I would call it a wholesale revision but whatever), and then we can decide on its "size," and whether "patch" or say "changeling," is the most apropos word to describe it all. Fair enough? 

As I am sure that you are aware now, the bigger the better as far as I am concerned, since the main value of this cf will be to help kill off the filibuster if it all comes together.

[Vepres]

The House is more uncertain at the moment I believe, despite all this talk of reconciliation and the like.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Has Byrd given his opinion on using reconciliation for this?  Everybody says it goes against the spirit of what he drafted - why don't we just ask him.

[Lief 🗽]

Has Byrd given his opinion on using reconciliation for this?  Everybody says it goes against the spirit of what he drafted - why don't we just ask him.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/LetterstotheEditor/201003030609

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, he's opposed to using it for a full-scale overhaul, but if healthcare reform were passed in smaller "chunks" of bills, he'd support it?  That's what I got from his letter, but I'm not 100% sure I'm interpreting it correctly.