I almost hate to say this, but a fact about reconciliation procedure...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Congress is the sole arbiter of congressional rules.

There is nobody to appeal to if congress bends their own rules. It's their call.

Reconciliation can only be used for certain things. Robert Byrd established serious big-boy rules to govern the thing so it couldn't be mis-used.

So if it is used for something non-budgetary, like insurance regulations, anyone can appeal to the chair and say, "Hey, that's not budgetary!"

And then the chair has to rule on it.

And if the chair says it's budgetary it is. So there! And if worst comes to worst you can have a vote on it, and if 51 say it's budgetary it is... even if it's a bill recognizing Teal as the coolest color.

The reason I feel a little reluctance in posting this is that it's frustrating to realize that if you have a simple majority then all these things are open to easy abuse with no recourse. The cloture rules can be eliminated, anything can be passed under reconciliation, etc..

But I get a bad feeling at the prospect of running too wild over the rules because we might be back in the minority sooner than we think.

[Cleita]

1. We never got out of the minority as far as having the power to

do effective legislation. We were just deluded into thinking we were. So I don't think there will be much to lose frankly.

[liberalmuse]

5. Absolutely.

Thus we find ourselves in the position of being Lieberman's and Snowe's bitches in order to get ANYTHING done.

[villager]

2. By not "running wild," it seems we'll ensure being in the minority...

n/t

[wtbymark]

3. a public option and medicare are budgetary without question

Dr. Dean said pass the regulations in the current bill, then start the public option process over in the house as a budgetary issue. Whether it be expanding medicare or starting a new public option program.

[AndyA]

4. Run too wild over the rules the way the GOP did during the Bush years?

Howard Dean said the Democrats aren't tough enough. He said on TV tonight that if the Republicans wanted health care reform, they would have already shoved it through and been done with it by now.

I understand your point, though. We may not want to cross over the line. Or, make the new rule applicable for 12 months, upon which it expires. ;)

[tabatha]

6. I would rather not that anyone be like Tom Delay.

It was not toughness - it was bribery and corruption.

[grantcart]

7. When the Senate was established none of these rules existed

Cloture wasn't used until 1840's then hardly ever after that. A hundred years ago it was moved from 66 votes to 60.


All of these rules were made by people who had no fucking idea what a telephone is.


At the begining the founders agreed to a modest proposal that would keep small states important by allowing 35% of the population to stop legislation.


With cloture and the growing disparity between large and small states that has been reduced to a lousy 17% of the country's population being able to stop legislation.


The 20 lowest populated states with 40 Senators have less population than the state of California.


We should have no reluctance at doing anything that passes with 51 votes, it is closer to the founders' intentions than the status quo.


The Senate is the only deliberative elected body that is getting increasing less representative and less democratic every year.


We actually were a society based on revolutionary democratic principles and if we are still brash enough to send young people to fight and die for those principles then we should be willing to stand up now and for them in the US Senate, Tweety's hysterics not withstanding.

[hughee99]

11. If I remember right, the cloture numbers dropped from 2/3rds to 60 votes in 1975

when we had 60 Dems in the Senate.

[Clio the Leo]

8. lol, doesn't it sound FUN! NT

[uponit7771]

9. Constitution is written for simple majority to rule

[quakerboy]

10. I also hesitate

But then I think to myself, would leaving those rules in place really stop a future Republican majority from running roughshod over the rules with a mere 51 votes? Did it under Bush? I think our country is at the point where maintaining those rules for some future need is just rearranging deck chairs. Or, to switch metaphors, all our "dry powder" has done jack all for us so far.

[Armstead]

12. To be honest....I think we should bend the rules as far as they'll stretch if for a good cause

The Republicans have never been reluctant to bend or even break gthem if it means they get what they want.

We should be willing to bend them for the right reasons.

As for gthe public....Most people don't really care about how something is done. They care about whether they like or do not like the result.

[lamp_shade]

13. I feel as you do. Bending (actually breaking) the rules now could prove disastrous down

the road if the repubs were ever to regain power. Harry is right in keeping reconciliation off the stove.