Why not use Reconcilliation for this budget impasse?

This is the part of the budget fight I'm just not grasping and why I thought this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. My only conclussion, unless I'm missing something (hopefully someone else can point it out to me), is that McConnell is a spineless turtle-faced jackanape.

Reconcilliation has historically been used for the budget process. The backdoor way that it was used in the process of setting up the ACA basically has opened the door for it's use in the most partisan of ways possible. So why not use it here?

It removes the potential for fillibuster. It also then provides leverage for Republicans to put on the likes of John McCain, who claims that he's not voting in favor of the house bill because it can't get past the senate fillibuster and thus is just "voting to shut down DHS". If they go the reconcilliation route, and McCain's vote would allow them to get above the threshold needing to pass it, NOT voting for it would actually be "voting to shut down DHS". So it'd provide pressure to whip the few Republican defects in the Senate to get on board.

So what am I missing? Why in the world is this not an option McConnell is utilizing?

Zyphlin said:

This is the part of the budget fight I'm just not grasping and why I thought this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. My only conclussion, unless I'm missing something (hopefully someone else can point it out to me), is that McConnell is a spineless turtle-faced jackanape.

Reconcilliation has historically been used for the budget process. The backdoor way that it was used in the process of setting up the ACA basically has opened the door for it's use in the most partisan of ways possible. So why not use it here?

It removes the potential for fillibuster. It also then provides leverage for Republicans to put on the likes of John McCain, who claims that he's not voting in favor of the house bill because it can't get past the senate fillibuster and thus is just "voting to shut down DHS". If they go the reconcilliation route, and McCain's vote would allow them to get above the threshold needing to pass it, NOT voting for it would actually be "voting to shut down DHS". So it'd provide pressure to whip the few Republican defects in the Senate to get on board.

So what am I missing? Why in the world is this not an option McConnell is utilizing?

Click to expand...

Do you mean a reconciliation process for a bill with no immigration provisions or a bill with immigration provisions?

Also, I want to point out that Reconciliation has been used 19 times total, and 16 of those times by Republicans.

It was also used for the Bush tax cuts which were hyper partisan.

I think you answered your own question when you labeled him a spineless turtle faced jackanape. :mrgreen:

iliveonramen said:

Do you mean a reconciliation process for a bill with no immigration provisions or a bill with immigration provisions?

Click to expand...

One with provisions for immigraiton. I believe that could be passed in the Senate and the House. I don't believe one without immigratoin provisions would pass the house, so whether or not it passed the Senate via reconcillation would be irrelevant.

Also, I want to point out that Reconciliation has been used 19 times total, and 16 of those times by Republicans.

Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing this out. If this was meant to be anything more than a point out, such as some kind of argument, I'd kindly ask you to go beat up your strawman elsewhere rather than mucking up my thread with it's straw. No where did I suggest anywhere in my post that reconcilliation is either inherently bad nor that the amount of times reconcilliation has been used is bad. The point regarding which party has used reconcilliation the most is one that I've known for quite some time and is entirely immaterial to any point I made in my post.

It was also used for the Bush tax cuts which were hyper partisan.

Click to expand...

Indeed it was, but historically reconcilliation had been used for one of two things...bills that were primarily and decidingly Budgetary or Tax related. While the Bush Tax Cuts were absolutely an extremely partisan piece of legislation that split down party lines, it was not outside the norm for what reconcilliation had been historically used for. There were a number of instances in the 1980's, for example, where primarily focused Tax Bill were passed via the reconcilliation method.

The one other time it was attempted to be used to primarily pass Health Care, it was actually stopped from being used by a Democratic Senator who correctly pointed out that such a usage was outside the scope of what it was historically used for. The back room deal of "pass our version of health care reform and then we'll just use reconcilliation to amend all the parts of it you don't like and would normally keep you from voting on the normal bill" was historically unlike ANY previous usage of reconcilliation at any time in it's history. This precedent setting use expanded it beyond simply and narrowly being aimed at budgetary and tax related bills.

All of which is rather irrelevant to the question of why McConnell is not choosing to use it, as whether or not you agree with Bush using it or agreed with it's use in the process of health care reform is irrelevant to whether or not it's something McConnell could concievably utilize. The point to precedence was simply to highlight that it seems there absolutely IS precedence that it would be allowable, regardless of whether or not any indivudal would LIKE the notion that it's used.

Zyphlin said:

One with provisions for immigraiton. I believe that could be passed in the Senate and the House. I don't believe one without immigratoin provisions would pass the house, so whether or not it passed the Senate via reconcillation would be irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Well for one it would be vetoed. Maybe...maybe that would allow Republicans to say that it's Obama that won't fund the government but when Democrats where in charge of the Senate, Americans still sided with the Democratic Party's view about attaching things like ACA legislation to funding bills.

Indeed it was, but historically reconcilliation had been used for one of two things...bills that were primarily and decidingly Budgetary or Tax related. While the Bush Tax Cuts were absolutely an extremely partisan piece of legislation that split down party lines, it was not outside the norm for what reconcilliation had been historically used for. There were a number of instances in the 1980's, for example, where primarily focused Tax Bill were passed via the reconcilliation method.

The one other time it was attempted to be used to primarily pass Health Care, it was actually stopped from being used by a Democratic Senator who correctly pointed out that such a usage was outside the scope of what it was historically used for. The back room deal of "pass our version of health care reform and then we'll just use reconcilliation to amend all the parts of it you don't like and would normally keep you from voting on the normal bill" was historically unlike ANY previous usage of reconcilliation at any time in it's history. This precedent setting use expanded it beyond simply and narrowly being aimed at budgetary and tax related bills.

All of which is rather irrelevant to the question of why McConnell is not choosing to use it, as whether or not you agree with Bush using it or agreed with it's use in the process of health care reform is irrelevant to whether or not it's something McConnell could concievably utilize. The point to precedence was simply to highlight that it seems there absolutely IS precedence that it would be allowable, regardless of whether or not any indivudal would LIKE the notion that it's used.

Click to expand...

Well did you throw in the portion about Democrats being the first to use Reconciliation in a "highly partisan manner".

Zyphlin said:

So what am I missing? Why in the world is this not an option McConnell is utilizing?

Click to expand...

I'm not very familiar with the process or its history, but it seems (after a very brief moment of research) it's been used to pass legislation which was later signed by the President. Is it possible he/they fear political blowback? And, if so, is there a reason to risk political blowback when it's highly unlikely the President would sign it?

iliveonramen said:

Well for one it would be vetoed.

Click to expand...

From a political strategy perspective, that is FAR easier to sell as "blame the democrats" than what they're trying to sell now by pointing to Democratic fillibustering of the proposal. It provides a singular target and requires an affirmative action on the part of Obama, where as a fillibuster doesn't have such a definitive target and is generally viewed by the public as less of an affirmative action as it is simply a delaying tactic.

From a practical perspective, all that does is bring you into the same situation you are in now, so it doesn't put you at any WORSE of a position.

So there's a bigger chance for a political gain by going that route than the route they're currently going, with no practical draw back. At least that's how it appears to me.

Well did you throw in the portion about Democrats being the first to use Reconciliation in a "highly partisan manner".

Click to expand...

No, I didn't suggest it was the first. I suggested it's use in a very unprecedented fashion had opened the door for it to be used in such ways again. My use of the word "partisan" there likely conflated the issue, so on that point it was a poor choice on my part and I'll admit that. It isn't so much the "partisan" nature, but rather it opened the door and set precedent for a much broader and wider application of reconciliation than had ever been established in the past.

Slyfox696 said:

I'm not very familiar with the process or its history, but it seems (after a very brief moment of research) it's been used to pass legislation which was later signed by the President. Is it possible he/they fear political blowback? And, if so, is there a reason to risk political blowback when it's highly unlikely the President would sign it?

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct that historically, it's use has been in instances where the President is likely to sign said bill. The potential for the President to veto it in this case would be highly likely.

Fearing political blowback could be a reason, but from an outside observer it seems like a rathe poor one. The President taking affirmative action to veto a bill that is on his desk and which WOULD fund DHS is a much easier piece of information to take and use to place the blame on someone other than the themselves.

It provides a much cleaner and simple message of "We are doing the job you people elected us into a majority to do. We are keeping our promise to pass legislation to keep the government open AND to stop this administrations actions as it relates to immigration. It is the President who is willing to shutdown DHS in order to save his immigration actions rather than fund it and go through the proper legislative process". This is a FAR superior and easier to sell narrative than what they're trying to sell by pointing to Democratic fillibustering of the bill.

Democratic fillibustering ultimatley means the congress doesn't pass anything, which makes it look like congress isn't doing it's job regardless of which party ultimatley caused it to fail. In this instance, ultimately, it would be the congress and congress alone causing a shut down to occur by stopping such a bill from passing.

If you manage to pass something, then congress appears to have done it's job. If the President vetos, then it is the Executive taking action that will cause a shut down. It will be him, ultimately, that would cause the shut down to occur by stopping the bill from being signed into law.

I can not fathom how the political blowback from passing a bill (via reconciliation) and having it vetoed by the President would be wores than the political blow back from:

1. Caving to Democratic demands, thus angering a large section of your base who just helped to elect you into a majority in large part due to immigration

2. Making your stand on immigration issues, thus angering a large section of moderates who you need as potential voters in order to maintain your majority.

Zyphlin said:

From a political strategy perspective, that is FAR easier to sell as "blame the democrats" than what they're trying to sell now by pointing to Democratic fillibustering of the proposal. It provides a singular target and requires an affirmative action on the part of Obama, where as a fillibuster doesn't have such a definitive target and is generally viewed by the public as less of an affirmative action as it is simply a delaying tactic.

From a practical perspective, all that does is bring you into the same situation you are in now, so it doesn't put you at any WORSE of a position.

Click to expand...

That's true, there's no doubt that a fillibuster in the Senate creates a murky situation that is harder to pin it on one group or another. A Presidential veto is something Americans DO understand. The fact that Americans eyes seem to glaze over when the filiibuster is mentioned was something Democrats complained about when they had the Senate.

No, I didn't suggest it was the first. I suggested it's use in a very unprecedented fashion had opened the door for it to be used in such ways again. My use of the word "partisan" there likely conflated the issue, so on that point it was a poor choice on my part and I'll admit that. It isn't so much the "partisan" nature, but rather it opened the door and set precedent for a much broader and wider application of reconciliation than had ever been established in the past.

Click to expand...

Maybe, it's debatable. I think that door was opened originally during the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts HAD to have a 10 sunset period to even be allowed to be considered for Reconciliation. The Bush tax cuts were huge...it was the type of tax cuts you only see in major tax reform bills. The fact it was past on a purely partisan basis, using a 10 year sunset period to circumvent the Byrd rule, and was so costly dramatically upped the ante. Maybe the ACA kicked the door wide open but the door was already open after the Bush tax cuts.