What reconciliation giveth, reconciliation can taketh away.
Since the national health care law passed in March, many have
assumed that in order to repeal it, Republicans would have to
gain a 60-seat majority in the Senate (on top of winning back the
House and the presidency).
But in a phone interview with TAS, Robert Dove, the
former Senate parliamentarian, agreed that the major spending
provisions of the health care law could be repealed through the
reconciliation process with a simple 51-vote majority in the
Senate.
“If you eliminated something that was going to spend money, yes,
that is in the order under reconciliation,” he said, when asked
if the Medicaid expansion and subsidies for the purchase of
insurance could be repealed using the parliamentary tactic that
Democrats employed to help get ObamaCare across the finish line.
The insurance coverage provisions, which go into full effect in
2014, are projected to cost $921 billion in the first six years
alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This
accounts for the bulk of the spending in the legislation.
However, before conservatives get too excited, Dove cautions that
there are “certain caveats.” While the rules of reconciliation
would allow Republicans to eliminate spending in the health care
law, they could not use the procedure to eliminate the tax
increases – even if the overall reconciliation bill still reduced
the deficit on a net basis.
“It’s a provision by provision situation,” Dove said. “So every
provision in the bill must reduce the deficit.”
The same would be true to any attempt to scale back the Medicare
cuts.
“Anything that reduces the deficit is okay,” he said. “And
nothing that increases the deficit is okay. It’s just that
simple.”
Republicans would not be able to touch the new regulations, get
rid of the insurance exchanges, or strike down the mandate
through reconciliation, either. But stripping the major insurance
coverage provisions could help unravel the rest of the law.
Without the subsidies, the insurance exchanges would be narrow in
scope and it would be harder to justify forcing lower-income
Americans to purchase government-approved insurance policies.
This doesn’t get into the political dynamics, most importantly,
whether Republicans would actually be willing, in the face of
Democrats’ demagoguery, to use the reconciliation maneuver to
eliminate subsidies. But the point is, reconciliation is one
option among several others that is available to drastically
scale back the health care law.
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 1:15PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Frm Parliamentarian Say links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jon| 5.6.10 @ 1:33PM
Actually, if there is a GOP President, I believe that technically the entire HC Law, including mandate, could be repealed via reconciliation, by having the Vice President simply overrule the Senate parliamentarian whenever he ruled that something was outside the scope of reconciliation.
Siegfried X| 5.6.10 @ 3:43PM
Good point about the override, but if that were true then the filibuster would be dead, so reconciliation wouldn't be needed. Such a decision would mean that the majority always rules. They could then simply pretend that debate has ended, a "fast gavel", by supporting the chair when he rules that; it would be a simple up and down, not debatable vote, like any ruling of the chair.
But all the talk about reconciliation assumes that a Republican senate would want to keep the filibuster, and therefore the practice of always supporting the reconciliation decisions of the parliamentarian.
JC| 5.6.10 @ 7:47PM
I guess I'm confused. If reconciliation bills can only be used to decrease the deficit, but this bill doesn't in fact decrease the deficit, then how can it be a legal bill?
Proud Enemy of Obama| 11.4.10 @ 10:16PM
If the House Appropriations Committee defunds Obamacare, it is dead-in-the-water so to speak. Then, it can be repealed in future by a more people friendly President and Congress.