Ezra Klein: Did Republicans Use Reconciliation for Significantly Bipartisan Bills?

[flpoljunkie]

Did Republicans use reconciliation for significantly bipartisan bills?

Among the odder arguments Republicans are making against the reconciliation process is that the process should only be used for bipartisan bills, and since they refuse to vote for health-care reform, Democrats can't give their package of fixes an up-or-down vote.

But reconciliation hasn't been limited to bipartisan bills. Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44. This is as you'd expect: If bills had overwhelming bipartisan majorities, they wouldn't need to go through reconciliation.

As it happens, Republicans controlled the Senate during each and every one of these bills. And they got less votes than Democrats will likely get for the health-care fixes. It's also worth reminding people that it's harder for Democrats to get Republican votes because voters elected a lot more Democrats in the past two elections. Republicans had a number of moderate Democrats who could be brought into a 58-vote majority, and Democrats don't have as many moderate Republicans who can do the same.

By Ezra Klein | March 3, 2010; 2:15 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/did_republicans_use_reconcilia.html

[unblock]

1. reconciliation is almost by design a tool for controlling partisanship

it's only relevant when the minority is filibustering and the majority can't get cloture, so by definition you're between 50 and 60 votes and this the whip count is remaining in this narrow range even after haggling to find another way to get the bill passed.

odds are rather good that that is breaking down roughly along party lines.

[JVS]

2. Is this their way of saying that they intend to filibuster "bipartisan bills"?

Is that even possible?

[niceypoo]

3. Its just another lie

One of many.

[Jennicut]

4. It is okay when Rethugs want to push their bills through but on no, can't have Dems

doing it...it is not "bipartisan" enough. When did Dems get held to this higher standard by the media that Rethugs never have had to adhere to? It is ridiculous.

[FrenchieCat]

5. K&R!

[depakid]

6. Ezra ought to be bright enough not to use the term "moderate"

but then again, if he didn't, his editors at the Post would throw a fit.