As we all know, the House voted on March 21st to accept and pass the Senate version of Healthcare Reform, and the President has signed that Bill into law.
To complete a deal with House Democrats, Democratic Senators have promised to modify the law to bring it in line with House requested changes.
Since the Democratic Senators lack the 60 votes necessary to pass a bill in the normal manner, they will resort to a backdoor method called Budget Reconciliation (BR) to pass the amendments to the Healthcare Law. There is only one reason to use Budget Reconciliation: to perform an end-run around the Republicans who oppose the new law, and could block it if normal voting procedures.
With Budget Reconciliation, the Democrats need only a simply majority of 51 to pass the legislation.
It is politics, at it’s worst. In the first place, it is simply wrong to mis-use the Budget Reconciliation process in this way, second, it could very well portend the death of government by consensus, in favor of the tyranny of majority rules.
The Budget Reconciliation Process was Meant to Reduce Budget Deficits, not Increase Them
As the name implies, Budget Reconciliation was originally meant to deal with the Budget. In fact, it was specifically instituted as a means to reduce budget deficits. To quote the article below, “To oversimplify (Budget Reconciliation), you can use a reconciliation bill only to change spending, taxes, or the debt limit. The process was used initially to facilitate deficit reduction — various Senate committees are each given a deficit reduction target, and are “instructed” by the budget resolution to produce bills that reduce the deficit by those amounts. ” The idea was to expedite the passage of many individual pieces of deficit-reducing legislation. A noble cause, to be sure, and we could certainly use some real Budget Reconciliation right now.
(NOTE: Click here to read a fine tutorial on the Reconciliation Procedure.)
For the life me, I cannot see how a piece of social engineering legislation like Healthcare Reform can be construed as a Budget Reconciliation item, but, at the moment, it seems that it will succeed, and there is not much that the Republicans can do to stop it.
In America, if there is a loop-hole in any rule, or any law, it will be exploited, for good, and bad. As a country, we seem to have a penchant for creating rules, and then finding ways to tolerate their subversion when it suits our own personal, or partisan, agenda, and then whine went it works against us. There is no thought given to the original intent of the rule, or the long term consequences of exploiting a weakness in a rule.
And that is what has happened with Budget Reconciliation. Every single legislator knows the true intent, and purpose, of the Budget Reconciliation procedure; every single one. And yet, instead of recognizing the truth, and finding more honest ways to build a difficult consensus for their agendas, our legislators, Democrats, and Republicans, want to take the easy way, the simply majority route, by hijacking an otherwise responsible BR procedure, i.e., a procedure to reduce deficits, and are using it to further their own agendas. As a bunch, we seem to have a lazy group of lawmakers.
In the case of Healthcare Reform, BR is actually being used to create even larger deficits. Imagine that; a procedure meant to reduce budget deficits, is now being used to increase budget deficits. It is all a**-backwards.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), has the responsibility of estimating the cost of various bills proposed in Congress. They can only make their estimates based on the information in the Bill, as submitted to them; at best it is an educated guess. And the estimates are easily skewed by those who submit the Bills. If a Senator wants a low estimate on a Bill, they can simply exclude certain costs, with the intention of including those costs in a separate Bill. Make no mistake, legislators know how to score their bills before they ever send them to the CBO. The CBO estimates are technically independent, but they can’t escape the cleverness of politicians.
This is what happened with the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, purposely excluded huge additional costs from the Bill he submitted to the CBO. In order to have a true estimate of the cost of Healthcare Reform, one would need to include those costs in the final estimate, however, the CBO can only make their estimates on what they received from the Senate.
So, the original Senate Healthcare Reform Bill is grossly underestimated. (This article gives a much better explanation of the short-comings of the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill, http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/in-the-news/cost-of-health-care-bill-soars-despite-presidents-pledge/ Cost of Health Care Bill Soars, Despite President’s Pledge).
Not only is the original Healthcare Reform Bill cost estimates a total fraud, and a fabrication, it is under estimated by at least half of the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost of the first ten years at around $ 849 billion. You don’t have to be an accountant to know that this is clearly a phony figure because the plan does not begin until 2013; the government will collect taxes for three years, before it begins paying-out a single dime for all the subsidies, and such. This was done for the purely political purpose of keeping the ten year cost estimate below a trillion dollars to fulfill the Presidents promise that it would not increase the deficit; that it would be “deficit neutral”. It is clearly an accounting gimmick to fool the public into believing that the Bill is cost effective. This should be laughable, yet, they are getting away with it. (It amazes me how dishonest these are folks are; how can they lie with such straight faces ?)
Most independent estimates of the true cost of the original Senate Healthcare Reform bill, for a true ten year period, are more than double the CBO estimate of $ 849 billion. The estimates I’ve seen range from about $ 2.3 to 2.5 trillion dollars for the first ten years. If an estimate under a trillion is ‘deficit neutral’, doesn’t that mean that everything over a trillion will add to the deficit ? Of course it will.
If the true estimated cost of the Bill is at least $ 2.3 Trillion dollars, President Obama’s promise of deficit neutrality will actually increase the deficit by $ 1.3 trillion dollars every ten years; that is $ 130 billion per year will be ADDED to the budget deficits that are already astronomical.
And the Democrats want to use Budget Reconciliation, a deficit reduction procedure, to pass a bill that will increase the budget deficit by a minimum of $ 130 billion per year ?
Now, that is bad. And to make it worse, the revised CBO estimates that include the BR amendments, have come in at $ 940 billion. That is $ 100 billion dollars more. That means that the budget deficit increase by a minimum of $ 140 billion dollars per year.
How can that be ? If I can understand all this, then every single Democratic legislator must know the same truth, and yet there is not one among them, that I know of, who will acknowledge the truth; not one. If asked, they will spout and defend the $ 940 billion dollar figure, and ignore the true cost. If the true cost were really $ 940 billion, then, heck, it would probably be a good deal for America. But at $ 2.3 trillion dollars, it will be a disaster.
Bipartisanship in Practice
========================
Their reluctance to admit the truth, and their inability to defend the true costs just tells me that they want Healthcare Reform, at ANY COST, even if it is bad for the country. They just want it “because”.
Consensus is Essential, Majority Rules is Tyranny
Consensus, or a ’super majority’, in our Senate is defined as 3/5, or 2/3, majority; of 100 Senators, 60 are needed to form a consensus. Budget Reconciliation bypasses consensus, and requires a simple majority, 51 of 100.
Maybe it is time for a reality check on this Budget Reconciliation business.. Since Budget Reconciliation has been subverted, and essentially misused by both sides, to the point where it’s original purpose and meaning are gone, then why not just abandon the current charade, and rewrite the existing Senate rules, and, where it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution, abandon the whole idea of a super majority ? Why stick with a 3/5 (or 2/3) vote majority vote, when it can be so easily ignored and subverted on such a massive scale ?
And isn’t the Democratic way ? Majority rules. In your local city, or perhaps your local club, or classroom, all elections are by majority vote, period. The majority rules.
If we did have a simple majority rules, then, in our current Congress, Democrats would rule the roost, and the Republicans may as well go home. The Democrats could simply pass whatever laws they felt necessary, as they intend to do with Healthcare Reform. They could even outlaw all other political parties, and all dissent, etc. We would have one-party rule, and all the bipartisan bickering would end.
Of course, one-party rule would also mean the end of our country as we know it, and it would mean the death of our personal freedoms, but heck, there are plenty of fantastic countries in the world who have single-party rule. Iran comes to mind; China comes to mind; North Korea comes to mind; oh, and who can forget Germany, under Hitler ?
Anyway, where did the whole notion of a super majority come from ? If you read about the founding fathers, you find out that they seemed to have a keen sense of human nature that was not all that glowing; many, if not most, felt that they needed to create a government that could protect ourselves from the darker side of ourselves, that seeks power over our fellow citizens.
To quote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: ” Hamilton.. highlighted the benefits of requiring an extraordinary majority of each chamber to overturn a president’s veto. “It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body,” he said, “calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.”
He is basically enunciating that it is more difficult to gain an ‘extraordinary majority’, then a simple majority, and that that requirement, alone, will slow, and quell the tendency towards partisanship (faction), and unchecked passion-based decisions that serve only to satisfy the personal ego, but that are harmful to the public. In other words we need to thwart the passionate side of human nature; the anger, and the angst, and try to use our more calm and rational side when it comes to matters of the state.
The founders did not want angry, or fearful, people making emotional decisions that affected the country.
Why is it 3/5 (60 of 100) (or 2/3) ? I’m not sure; it could have been 3/4, or 9/10, etc. I know it seems like a good number, I just don’t know why; maybe it’s just been my experience that a 2/3 majority is solid, while 51/100 majority is weak.
I’m not sure who said it, or where I read it, but the explanation for the super majority, which exists in Senate Rules, and in our Constitution, was that the founding fathers wanted more than a simple majority for certain decisions (such as removing the President, or a fellow legislator); they wanted a consensus.
Consensus is important. A consensus is difficult to achieve, and difficult to break. If you’ve ever been on a jury, you understand how difficult it is for twelve people to come to an agreement; how hard would it be for 60 people to come to a consensus ?
In this country, we seem to have a consensus among our legislators that our healthcare system is in need of some sort of reform. It is difficult to find anyone who wants to maintain the status quo. On one side of the issue, the Democrats say that we need government run healthcare, while the Republican side says that the ills of the existing system can be fixed without government run healthcare.
At the moment, our legislators cannot come to a consensus when it comes to passing Healthcare Reform. Perhaps the philosophical gap is too wide, or perhaps the special interests on both sides are too powerful, or perhaps the emotionality of partisanship, has gotten the best of our legislators. I don’t know why our legislators cannot reach a consensus. I am beginning to believe that this whole healthcare reform business has taken on a life of it’s own that has nothing to do with the welfare of our country, and has more to do with the partisanship of proud folks, and bruised ego’s wanting to win, and at any cost.
We have a President who has done nothing to create a bipartisan atmosphere of cooperation, and has actually created a more hostile, and partisan atmosphere, that has created an even greater divide between the two parties. He talks transparency, and cooperation, and bipartisanship, but, it is just talk.
He only seems to be the President of some Americans; i.e., those who voted for him, and support him, and the rest of us have been discounted as un important, and have been purposely alienated. Every time he bad-mouths a Republican/Conservatie, he is bad-mouthing a millions of Americans, like myself, so how can he be considered a unifying force in this country ? I’ve never seen such an ultra-partisan President.
Instead of being President of the United States (POTUS), he is actually the President of the Democrats (POTD).
His recent Healthcare Summit was just more divisive politics with the purpose being to pay lip service to bipartisanship, and make opposition Republicans look bad, and too set the stage/excuse for using Budget Reconciliation to pass Healthcare Reform. Everyone knows that the BR process was already in the works; the Summit was just the excuse to justify their action; and that is exactly how it has played-out. The President obviously wants a Healthcare Reform Bill at any cost, and he is consumed by the battle, and all reason is gone.
If the Democrats think they are on the moral high ground, and justified in using the Budget Reconciliation to force Healthcare Reform on America, then they wouldn’t need the President’s Healthcare Summit to contrive and engineer an excuse. Even the Democrat leadership must know how wrong the BR process is for this Bill, and, yet, they are too cowardly to do the right thing, and tell the President that he is wrong.
Having said that, we, as a country, simply cannot allow Healthcare Reform unless there is a clear consensus in the Congress; using the Budget Reconciliation procedure flies in the face of consensus, and, while the Reform may pass, and may become the law of the land, it will do irreparable harm to our country. If Healthcare Reform can be passed with the Budget Reconciliation procedure, then ANY bill can be passed; it will mean the end of consensus, and the beginning of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ , and chaos.
We have elections coming up later this year that could change the face of the Congress, and, it’s not impossible that Republican will be the majority party again. Republicans could use the same Budget Reconciliation tactics as the Democrats, and simply undo, and squash Healthcare Reform, and then write their own law.
Then, when the Democrats are in back in power…..
Shame on Democrats, and Republicans, for using Budget Reconciliation to further their own agendas, now, and in the past. Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean that it is right. If your reasons, and logic, and arguments are not good enough to sway your detractors, or the opposition, to gain a consensus, then you need to rethink your beliefs, and take yet another approach. You should not be resorting to procedural tricks to thwart the opposition.
And that is just my opinion.
Spencer Holly
0101
www.angrycalifornian.com
==========================
Trackback URL:
http://angrycalifornian.com/budget-reconciliation-healthcare-reform-and-the-death-of-consensus-2492
==========================
OTHER RESOURCES
Please click here to read a fine tutorial on the Reconciliation Process.
=========================
Super-Majority Votes in the Senate
=========================
=========================
=========================
The Senate Health Bill: True Cost is $4.9 Trillion
=========================
Senate Health Bill Totals $849 Billion, CBO
Estimates
========================
Cost of Health Care Bill Soars, Despite President’s Pledge 2.3 trillion
=======================
Quotes from Senator Lamar Alexander
On passing health care by reconciliation:
• “It’s for the purpose of taxing and spending and — and reducing deficits. But the difference here is that there’s never been anything of this size and magnitude and complexity run through the Senate in this way. There are a lot of technical problems with it, which we could discuss.
• “It would really be the end of the United States Senate as a protector of minority rights, as a place where you have to get consensus, instead of just a partisan majority.
• “It would be a political kamikaze mission for the Democratic Party if they jam this through after the American people have been saying, ‘we’re trying to tell you in every way we know how, in elections, in surveys, in town hall meetings, we don’t want this bill.’”
============================
