A Dilemma Of Their Own Making

The Village Dems are now furiously trying to recast the use of reconciliation for the health bills as a normal process. See, e.g., Kevin Drum, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein. The problem for them is they spent a year pooh poohing reconciliation and the Schumer Plan when public option advocates argued for splitting the health care bills in a regular order bill and a reconciliation bill. (Notable exception - David Waldman.) There disdain for this has come back to bite them. Here's Drum:

There's nothing wrong with the media reporting that Republicans oppose the use of reconciliation to amend the healthcare bill. Of course they do. But they owe it to their audience to explain that reconciliation does nothing more than allow a simple majority vote to pass budgetary issues and that it's been used routinely by both parties for decades. That's just the simple truth.

Indeed, it was always a simple truth. But for a year, the Village Dems did not like that simple truth. Now they reap what they sowed.

Speaking for me only

< "And Then . . " | An Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    I think this is hilarious.   Hoisted by their own petards!  Secondly it's great that you are burning them for their own Village Wisdom and ridiculous CW.    They used really lazy arguments to try to kill reconciliation.

    But then again, reconciliation is insidious isn't it...

    You know how you can tell (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    that the legislation is lousy?  By the fact that, instead of touting the substance of the bill, such that it ends up selling itself, all the discussion among the Villagers is about process.

    They really just don't get it.

    Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    gives the message we should be hearing.

    More and more people are talking about using the reconciliation process, which is simply a parliamentary procedure that enables us to pass legislation with the end result of saving taxpayers' money and lowering the deficit. The beauty of that approach is you can go forward with 51 votes, not the 60 votes we are having a very difficult time obtaining, because we are not getting much support from the other side. Some people say, "Well, this reconciliation approach is unfair. This is a radical idea. Why are you bringing it forth?"

    The answer is that this has been done time after time after time, mostly, in fact, by Republicans. So it seems to me if this is a concept the Republicans have used year after year after year for very major pieces of legislation, it is appropriate for the Democratic caucus to do that as well.

    Many Americans will remember the Contract With America. That was Newt Gingrich's very big idea. I thought it was a very bad idea, but nonetheless it was a very comprehensive approach. The Contract With America in 1995 was passed in the Senate through reconciliation. This was a broad, comprehensive bill. This is what the Washington Post reported President Clinton saying when he vetoed that legislation, and I am glad he did. This is what Clinton said: "Today I am vetoing the biggest Medicare and Medicaid cuts in history, deep cuts in education, a rollback in environmental protection, and a tax increase on working families."

    That is not the only effort the Republicans mounted through reconciliation. In 1996, Republicans passed legislation to enact welfare reform through reconciliation.

    In 1997, Congress used reconciliation to establish new health coverage programs or to substantially expand existing ones, including SCHIP passed through reconciliation.

    In 2003, Republicans used reconciliation to push through President Bush's 2003 tax cuts. In 2001, Republicans used reconciliation to pass President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, much of it going to the wealthiest people in this country.

    In 2005, Republicans pushed through reconciliation legislation that reduced spending on Medicaid and raised premiums on upper income Medicare beneficiaries.

    What is my point? My point is that it would be the utmost hypocrisy for Republicans to tell us we should not use reconciliation when they have used it time and time and time again.

    sow what they reaped? (none / 0) (#1)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:39:12 PM EST

    Dyslexia (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    Thanks for the catch.

    No problem (none / 0) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    you might want to stay away from agricultural issues though.

    And the New Testament. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    At least you can't mess up (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 02:18:32 PM EST
    an eye for an eye too bad :)

    But how about the sheep and the goats? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    Goats are such losers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    aren't they?

    Lucky for them that no one listens to them (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:56:28 PM EST

    The Village idiot... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    ...is more like Einstein in THIS village.

    Bunch of shilling whores (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    I read Booman's writeup a few days ago about how he was for it before he was against it so that now he can be for it.  I'm so sick of the intellectually dishonest bunch of them all.  They all have to be on the shilling dole one way or another.

    Hell, I think some of them free (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    at the moment living in hopes to eventually get someone to toss them a shilling.