Vindicarre wrote:
Reconciliation isn't the same thing as the self-executing rules quote that you presented.
As I understand it -
Budget reconciliation (ala Reconciliation Act of 2010, HR 4872) is the process by which amendments are made to a bill in order to re-shape its provisions to bring it in line with budgetary requirements.
Then a self-executing rule will be used on passing those amendments, essentially saying that with the passage of the amendments, the bill itself passes.
Yes? No? I'm not a lawyer but this is what I understand the machinations to be.
Quote:
Reconciliation isn't what they're proposing to get the bill passed, they're going to "deem" it passed as they review the amendments they want for the reconciliation process. They've moved beyond reconciliation
Not as I understand it. Reconciliation allows a simple majority to pass amendments, rather than the normal 60 votes. The examples I cited used both budgetary reconciliation as well as self-executing rules in order to pass the bills. None of the tax cut bills under Bush would have passed had they been required to get 60 votes.
Quote:
COBRA passed 93-6; it seems to me that these votes were made, not because reconciliation was the only was they would pass, but for expediency.
COBRA is an example of how these special rules were intended to be used, IMO. It's also an example that disproves the myth being perpetuated by certain GOP pundits that special rules have never been used to pass health care reform. In health care it was also used to pass:
TEFRA (1982) - opened Medicare to HMOs
OBRA '87 - added nursing home coverage to Medicare/caid
OBRA '89 - changed doc payment system under Medicare, created new fed oversight agency
OBRA '90 - added cancer screening to medicare, expanded coverage to all poverty-stricken children, required pharmas to provide discounts to medicaid
OBRA '93 - federal vaccination program
Welfare Reform (1996) separated Medicaid from welfare
BBA (1997) - created CHIP
DRA (2005) - allowed parents of disabled to get Medicaid
For the record, I think people like Sen. Hatch (against the current use of Reconciliation) are being misquoted by the talking heads. The news media has trimmed down objecting statements like his down to blanket statements that reconciliation has never and should never be used on a topic like health care reform. But hey, those are the talking heads for you.
Quote:
For the record, I would not say that any of the examples you presented, were they valid comparisons, were of the magnitude of this Health Reform bill. We all know that "price" isn't the only, or even most important, factor here.
I disagree. In government everything comes down to cost, and cost is a Major criticism of the health care bill, as it is with any social program. Funds are not unlimited. If they were, then I doubt there would be many people complaining about providing for the basic needs for those that are unable or unwilling to afford them. But until someone develops free, unlimited energy and creates replicator technology, cost is going to figure prominently in every discussion in government.
IMO a $1T health care bill vs a $1.8T revenue loss is a valid comparison (despite Khross's objection to the figures, $1.8T seems like a fair figure, given that it goes up to $2.5T mark depending on who you are talking to).
You can argue that a loss in revenue is different than spending, but from the balance book it comes out to the same thing -- you don't have X.X trillion dollars to spend on something else.
Quote:
I'm still interested in what the past uses of the self-executing rules were all about, if you'd care to address it.
There have been good number of them throughout the years, from health care to taxes to oil drilling, all the way back to 1933 in HR 2820.
Quote:
(H. Res. 63) March 16, 1933 H.R. 2820 - To maintain the credit of the U.S. Government.
Text of H. Res. 63:
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill H.R.
2820, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all Senate amendments be, and the same are hereby, agreed to.
Floor Debate:
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [R-NY]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER [Henry Rainey, D-IL]: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if we adopt this resolution that ends the bill and there is no further vote on the bill itself.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
MR. SNELL: I understood the gentleman from Alabama to say that we would then vote for or against the bill.
MR. [JOHN] MCDUFFIE [D-AL]: No; the gentleman from Alabama was mistaken.
MR. SNELL: If we adopt this resolution, we pass the bill.
MR. MCDUFFIE: We have then concurred in the Senate amendment, and, therefore, the bill is passed, so far as the House is concerned.
MR. SNELL: And there is no other vote on the bill.
MR. MCDUFFIE: No other vote on the bill, as I understand it.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
As far as I can tell, the use of Reconciliation and self-executing rules have been used by both parties both in the spirit of the intent of the rules as well as abusing them to pass contentious legislation.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
