E.J. Dionne Jr. | The Big Lie About "Reconciliation"

[babylonsister]

http://www.truthout.org/ej-dionne-jr-the-big-lie-about-reconciliation

E.J. Dionne Jr. | The Big Lie About "Reconciliation"

Thursday 04 March 2010

by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed


Washington - For those who feared that Barack Obama did not have any Lyndon Johnson in him, the president's determination to press ahead and get health care reform done in the face of Republican intransigence came as something of a relief.

Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.

Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.

He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health care summit. What he's unwilling to do, and rightly, is to give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.

Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word, and maintain that Democrats are just "ramming through" a health bill.

It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.

snip//

Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."

The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.

It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.

[BeatleBoot]

1. K & R

:kick:

[democracy1st]

2. K & R

[pnorman]

3. Me too! K & R!

(This is the easiest way I know to enter this thread into My Journal)

[klook]

4. "The underlying 'principle' here

...seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance."

Great summation of the entire Republican platform.

[OhioBlue]

5. That plus the fact that the MSM is all a buzz

about passing a bill with only 51 votes... and they don't mention the fact that the major HCR bill ALREADY passed the Senate after it had the 60 votes needed for cloture. correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about a separate reconciliation bill between the house and senate versions going through reconciliation.

They didn't ram anything through - bills passed committees, a bill passed in the House, a Senate version was finalized over several months, passed the Senate through normal legislative process... next, Senate bill passes House, House and Senate write reconciliation bill, which gets passed through reconciliation.

[TomCADem]

6. Thanks! We Need To Hit Back On Fox's BS

[davidpdx]

7. Kennedy's passing leaves a huge hole in the Senate

He was so good at bringing people together.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Civil Rights Act of 1964 took just over a year to pass

Majority Leader avoided sending it through the Judiciary Committee. It resulted in a filibuster on the motion to send directly to the floor.

On the floor they filibustered the bill for about 57 days.
Senator Byrd was one of those that filibustered the bill.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Social Security Act of 1965

The House was controlled by the Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio. The Senate had 32 more Democrats than Republicans.

There were 3 plans: John Byrnes (Republican), American Medical Assn, and Medicare. AMA's plan and suggestions were rejected. Ideas from both Medicare and Byrnes were combined.

There were 500 amendments considered. (Considered does not mean 500 were passed)

Johnson honored President Truman by signing the bill in Independence MO for "planting the seeds of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful."

This bill took about 7 months to pass. I don't have the date that they began working on the legislation but it was given H.R. 1 and S. 1 as the bill numbers. I would assume at least at the beginning of January 1965. The bill was signed on July 30, 1965.