The American Spectator

Bob| 4.24.09 @ 2:28PM

Here's a list of places where Republicans used the reconciliation process to force through legislation:

-- The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
-- The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
-- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
-- The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

Here's the total list where reconciliation was used:

A list of instances where reconciliation was implemented:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

No one can take the high road on this one. In fact, Pelosi complained when Republicans used it and now is willing to do the same. The issue here is not reconciliation -- the issue here is that we're dealing with politicians and power corrupts no matter which party is the majority.

W. James Antle III| 4.24.09 @ 2:41PM

Bob, every single example you list is a tax or spending bill -- that is, the precise kind of legislative item that the reconciliation process was intended to deal with. But even if you had found an example of Republicans misusing the reconciliation process, that's no reason not to oppose the Democrats misusing it here. The fact that power tends to corrupt is no reason to acquiesce to whatever those in power want to do.

Bob| 4.24.09 @ 2:50PM

Antle, I tend to agree with you, especially with you last line. This was really the thrust of my post. However, you could also make a similar argument about the filibuster which has been overused dramatically.

The bigger issue here, and one that is currently hurting Republicans more than Democrats, is partisanship. Reconciliation is acceptable to the majority of voters because the Republicans are voting as a block and are seen as the party of "no". People want something done.

Now, as you are well aware, everyone abuses parliamentary procedures. This is just another one. It doesn't really matter why it is there because if it is there, it can be used. Personally, I liked it better as our framers designed it with a true filibuster and no reconciliation procedure.

By the way, most bills that are passed by Congress are spending bills at their core.

Interested Conservative| 4.24.09 @ 4:31PM

Bob - you opine, "Reconciliation is acceptable to the majority of voters because the Republicans are voting as a block and are seen as the party of "no". People want something done."

Do the people ever want anything undone? If so, is that ever reflected at the ballot box?

I'm thinking of Reagan and Thatcher's hallmark actions against Patco and the miners, respectively.

Nobody voted for those specifically, but it certainly seemed as if they did generally.

Ar you arguing that POTUS Obama's recent election was a vote for nationalized or, if you prefer, greater government intervention in the economy, PARTICULARY Health Care? Is that the hope and change we elected?

Finally, I concur that we haven't had a real filibuster for something like 40+ years - its present use is essentially as an agreed upon press release.

Bob| 4.24.09 @ 4:47PM

IC - "Do the people ever want anything undone? If so, is that ever reflected at the ballot box?" Yes, the Iraq war.

"Ar you arguing that POTUS Obama's recent election was a vote for nationalized or, if you prefer, greater government intervention in the economy, PARTICULARY Health Care? Is that the hope and change we elected?"

Yes, the bulk of people want health care reform. This is the first election where normally Republican leaning organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry also wanted health care reform.

I know a number of people who went bankrupt because of a catastrophic accident/illness. Most of them were covered by insurance that had a maximum cap. Besides, our healthcare, at 16% of GDP, is far too expensive. The Republicans in the last 8 years have made no progress to reduce expenses. This is the primary item that affects medicare and it is getting worse as boomers retire.

I would like to see a Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal implemented in different states. After 4 years or so, let's choose the best solution and implement it nationally. Republicans could recommend this but since they have no plan that will reduce costs, they won't. Republicans need to get ahead of this issue instead of just complaining about Obama.

Interested Conservative| 4.24.09 @ 7:42PM

That's a curious reply Bob. Two questions:

1 - How do POTUS Obama's actions about Iraq differ from POTUS Bush's? Not his policies or campaign positions, but his actions? Where is the change we vote for?

2 - Does "reform" of health care mean nationalization or greater government involvement? Why? Are there other alternatives, such as doing nothing? What amount should we spend on health care - 6%, , 26% of GDP? If the government did less what would happen? Would any proposal of the present administration lower the amount spent as a % of GDP? Should it?

Bob| 4.25.09 @ 10:27AM

IC -- Your responses are typical of Republican rhetoric right now -- and that it the problem -- no new ideas and just complaints about Obama. There is NO conservative alternative. What are YOUR solutions other than cutting spending and saying "NO"?

But to answer your questions, I think Obama made a difference in Iraq during the election as it forced Bush's hand to agree to an end date. Given that the wind down is in process, there should be little difference in their actions as it is primarily a military issue -- not a political one.

Regarding health care, I'm more interested in the economics here. From my calculations, we must cut the cost of health care from 16% of GDP down to about 10% of GDP in order to be competitive for our goods and services. We need some agreed upon outcomes as a measurement tool, i.e., infant mortality, hospital infections, life expectancy, waiting times, etc. Given my career in business, I can see huge opportunities for efficiencies in our system which will require a lot of government coordination. We wouldn't have to start from scratch as other countries already have some developed systems. Given our culture, we need to maintain some level of individualism. I would tie this to how much someone is willing to pay. The more you pay, the more individualism you get -- that's how capitalism works. Right now, our insurance systems are socialistic in that everyone in a specific group gets exactly the same coverage. A system like this would make medicine entrepreneurial again. On the socialistic side, I would cover the bottom tier with basic medical care. Again, I would use an economic argument for this as some level of preventative care and efficient use of trauma facilities would lower overall costs. Right now, the uninsured do get serviced in emergency rooms at a huge cost to all of use. Lastly, I would tie tort reform to the price we pay. If you are in the lowest tier, your litigation options would be limited. If you are in the highest tier, may the best lawyer win.

That solution has a modicum of socialization in it at the lower end, but would maintain individuality for the bulk of people. That's what I would call a "conservative" solution.

Comment?????

tonypal| 4.25.09 @ 11:07AM

The bottom line here is that this is the single biggest piece of legislation to come through the halls of congress in decades. It represents a fundamental change in our approach to the delivery of goods and services.

As Bob said, the American people voted for health care reform, but I doubt very much they voted for a fast track political process to deal with such an extraordinarily complicated issue. I also wonder if many of the people who truly want health care reform have any idea what they're going to get.

This issue, as with so many others, has been thoroughly demagogued. For instance, the number of uninsured is not 47 million. The Heritage Foundation pegs the number at 12 million, a large number to be sure, but only 25% of what the American people have been told.

There should be an open and honest debate. Obama should put forth his proposal and congressional republicans should offer up an alternative. For me, the obvious solution is to allow those with private insurance to keep what they have, de-couple insurance from employment, allow for medical savings accounts along with a competitive market for catastrophic coverage and then move on to the problem of the uninsured. On the last point, I am no expert, but even though I am a conservative who favors limited government in all instances, I do believe that we are a compassionate nation and must provide some sort of basic health coverage for those who truly cannot afford to provide for themselves. I have no way of proving it, but if such an alternative was offered and the American people heard an open and honest debate between these two contrasting ideas, I strongly believe the alternative plan would win the day, especially when a true accounting of the cost of nationalized, single payer health care is given.

tonypal| 4.25.09 @ 11:15AM

One last thing. Bob also mentioned tort reform. This is an absolute must. As an attorney, I have had several lively debates on this issue with my colleagues. Trial lawyers are of course the single biggest impediment to tort reform and contribute 10's, if not 100's of millions of dollars every election cycle to democrats to block any kind of meaningful reform.

Capping punitive damage awards is essential because such awards typically have little relation to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Compensatory damages can run into the millions, but are the result of a calculation based on numerous factors and are usually a true reflection of the harm suffered.

By capping punitive damages, we would drive down the cost of insurance, which in turn would allow doctors to lower their fees and foster a much more competitive pricing environment within health care. I don't think its possible to overestimate the cost associated with out of control jury awards for punitive damages.

Siegfried X| 4.26.09 @ 6:43AM

" I liked it better as our framers designed it with a true filibuster and no reconciliation procedure. "

Actually the framers gave us MAJORITY RULE. The first filibuster didn't take place until the civil war, more than 70 years after the constitution was ratified.

The constitution mentions that the vice president can only cast a tie-breaking vote "if they be equally divided", implying majority rule. The quorum section of the constitution specifically mentions a majority.

The early Senate copied the British House of Lords by allowing every Senator to speak before voting took place, but no one abused the privilege and there were no filibusters. Indeed the current Senate rules provide situations in which a majority can vote without filibuster, but parliamentary tactics are used to avoid that.

So the "abuse" of reconciliation just returns constitional majority rule. If there were no filibusters we would be less scared of legislation passing, because a simple majority could repeal it.

jojo| 1.11.10 @ 2:01AM

nike outlet
adidas outlet