Low lie the fields of Athenry
Where once we watched the small free birds fly
Our love was on the wing
We had dreams and songs to sing
It's so lonely round the fields of Athenry.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Healthcare Reform
Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party.
Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.
Why is this important? Well, guess what they are trying to do with the healthcare bill?! You guessed it: Reconciliation. But wait. The White House said Monday the leading tactic to win passage of the health-care bill was nothing extraordinary, rehearsing a key argument in the final public-relations battle over the bill. Ah yes. Downplay it. Downplay the fact the bill is getting rammed through legislation using a parliamentary trick which was not designed for anything this large.
"When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn't matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill. No matter whether the House votes on reconciliation or the Senate bill first, the Speaker can ensure that the health care bill is signed into law before reconciliation."
Is it not ironic that the opponents of the Democratic initiative have begun referring to the use of reconciliation as the “nuclear option”? This is a term that was used to describe the majoritarian procedures that effect formal change in Senate rules.
“Using reconciliation would be an acknowledgment that there is bipartisan opposition to their bill, another in a series of backroom deals, and the clearest signal yet that they’ve decided to completely ignore the American people.” It’s not that I’m against the bill. I just think it’s odd when politics rears its head in clear view.
Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.
Why is this important? Well, guess what they are trying to do with the healthcare bill?! You guessed it: Reconciliation. But wait. The White House said Monday the leading tactic to win passage of the health-care bill was nothing extraordinary, rehearsing a key argument in the final public-relations battle over the bill. Ah yes. Downplay it. Downplay the fact the bill is getting rammed through legislation using a parliamentary trick which was not designed for anything this large.
"When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn't matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill. No matter whether the House votes on reconciliation or the Senate bill first, the Speaker can ensure that the health care bill is signed into law before reconciliation."
Is it not ironic that the opponents of the Democratic initiative have begun referring to the use of reconciliation as the “nuclear option”? This is a term that was used to describe the majoritarian procedures that effect formal change in Senate rules.
“Using reconciliation would be an acknowledgment that there is bipartisan opposition to their bill, another in a series of backroom deals, and the clearest signal yet that they’ve decided to completely ignore the American people.” It’s not that I’m against the bill. I just think it’s odd when politics rears its head in clear view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
