A lot of readers have asked about the 50-vote reconciliation process in the Senate, which could determine whether health care reform and climate change legislation pass this year. Ezra Klein has a good rundown on the parliamentary ins and outs.
Late Update: TPM Reader AH adds some additional context:
Thanks for the link to Ezra Klein’s piece on budget reconciliation process. For such an important part of the legislative process – and used for some really big things too – it is treated as legislative arcanity by the media, always being played as some sort of “obscure” rules that those crafty congresspeople use to do things but that is too complicated for the American people or media to actually understand (I remember a discussion lead by RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on CNBC during the tax cuts that basically played this line and was totally accepted by one and all).
One important aspect of the reconciliation process and the Byrd rule that wasn’t brought up by Ezra – any fiscal measures that affect the budget and that get passed by reconciliation process can only be in effect for as long as the then-current official budget estimates play out. In 2001 budget estimates were 10 years – so the tax cuts passed by budget reconciliation HAD to expire after 10 years (it’s amazing how many people both in the media and the blogosphere come up with different reasons for why the tax cuts were temporary that have nothing to do with the Byrd Rule requirement). At various times the officialI OMB budget estimates fluccuate between 5 and 10 years in the future – so that does have a bearing.
Something like drilling in the ANWR would have been a perfect candidate – presumably there was a budget item to facilitate development or intfrastructure development, etc. and by the time that particular budget item expired in 10 years, the damage would have been done.
The question is, with regard to health care reform – how much effect would the 10 year fiscal limitiation have on something ongoing like creating real health care reform and the new institutions that that would require. Undoubtedly it would require federal expenditure, and presumably measures to pay for it – none of which could be considered “permanent” according to the rules. Would the democrats do what the republicans failed to do with the tax cuts – pass them in close Congress with the expectation of enhanced majorities in the future enabling a filibuster-proof Senate in the future making them permanent?
The GOP was going to try that with the tax cuts – they even made it their signature legislative goal for the fall of 2005 before Katrina intervened over the Labor Day weekend – which always surprises me that the GOP points to the Democratic failures in the 110th Congress, but never was able to make permanent their signature issue – tax cuts in the 3 Congresses previous.
Anyway, it amazes me how important somthing like the budget reconciliation process is, and how it was completely ignored and treated as something too arcane to be understood or talked about much when the Republicans ruled the roost. Thanks for you attempts at educating everybody about this.
