Budget Reconciliation and Health Care Reform

Despite the assumption by Republicans that they represent a majority of the American people, the Democrats hold a majority of the seats in Congress. Up until now, buoyed by the lavish spending of health insurance companies, the Senate Republicans have been able to stall health care reform. Lately, however, there has been a shift in the polls. The public is increasingly indicating support for health care reform and for President Obama.

One major distortion spread by the Republicans is that the bill will vastly increase budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled, however, that the Senate bill will actually reduce budget deficits. This is because the bill is essentially a budget bill. Due to Republican recalcitrance, the Democrats are now forced to use a procedure designed specifically for budget matters. It is called “Budget Reconciliation.” Now that they’ve passed a health care reform bill, the Senate Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the final changes to the bill.

Republicans threaten that if the Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass the health care reform bill it will be “all-out war.” I would like to know what they consider their wall-to-wall obstruction, distortion, and filibustering to be if not all-out war against President Obama and the Democrats.

Budget reconciliation is a legislative process of the Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit. Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a treating a bill as a reconciliation bill. His objection will then be ruled upon by the Presiding Officer, who is officially the Vice President. The Presiding Officer customarily rules on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, but need not follow that advice. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling of the Presiding Officer. Once the presiding officer rules that a bill is a budget reconciliation matter, the bill cannot be filibustered and requires only 51 votes of the full senate, or a majority of those present, to pass.

In case you question whether the health care reform bill is a budget measure, consider the fact that there are a large number of provisions in the bill dealing with revenue. There are several provisions imposing additional taxes on high-income individuals and couples, including Section 1905, which increases the Medicare tax on wages of individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. There is an excise tax on voluntary cosmetic procedures, an increase in the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction on medical costs, and a tax on the health insurance industry. These and other taxes will not only cover the cost of health care reform, but will actually reduce the overall deficit.

It is with ill grace that the Republicans object to the use of budget reconciliation to pass bills affecting the budget. They made repeated use of it when they were in power. Republicans used it to pass the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. They used it to pass the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, in which Bush cut taxes for the rich and helped abolish the surpluses created during the Clinton years. Those tax cuts were strongly opposed by the Democrats, and by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates. Another reconciliation bill by the Republicans was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which slowed the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, and changed formulas for student loans and other programs.

President Obama tried to change the environment in Washington and to work with the Republicans. He honestly believed that the relationship between the parties was far too poisonous and that this was bad for the country. The Republicans decided to rebuff his every effort. Now the Democrats have to act alone.

Senate Needs to Change Rules

The U.S. Senate needs to change its rules. Although I have been critical of the abuse by Republicans of the filibuster, I can understand the protection it provides to a political minority. But recently, we have been treated to examples of how the tyranny of a solitary senator can gum-up the works of government.

Two weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky single-handedly blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits, along with Cobra health benefits, for over a million-and-a-half people. Bunning’s maneuver also, among other things, halted construction work across the country and cut Medicare payments to doctors.

Because of Republican filibusters, the spending bills needed to fund these essential programs were put-off until they were about to expire. It became necessary for the Democrats to use expedited procedures to continue the programs. Bunning’s objections denied the Senate the “unanimous consent” that Senate rules require for expedited procedures. Finally last week, under pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning relented.

Bunning, who is retiring, has long been considered a loose cannon and a thorn in the side of the Republicans in Congress. Bunning’s frequent absences from important senate votes and numerous loony statements have led some to question his sanity. He attacked fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, accusing him of being responsible for lost GOP seats in Congress. When Bunning learned that Republicans would not support his reelection bid, he threatened to resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name his replacement.

This is the problem. One nutty senator has the power to block legislation, even bipartisan legislation, simply by refusing to agree to unanimous consent for the frequently used expedited procedures. The act of halting legislation has not, however, been confined to head-cases like Bunning. Lone senators routinely put holds on legislation and presidential appointments. Perhaps the most egregious case is the recent act of Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Shelby placed a hold on all of President Obama’s nominees in an apparent protest over earmarks. This stopped Senate approval of 70 appointees nominated by the President, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.

Shelby did not act on the basis of any conservative political principle or because he opposed the appointees. His objections were more basic. He believed that he wasn’t getting the amount of pork he deserved. He was frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to jobs in Mobile, Alabama. He was also “deeply concerned” that the Administration had not released funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.

As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering earmarks to Alabama. He finally released his hold on most of the appointments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "If you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold-up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn't get his earmarks."

Senator Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) exercised his own form of protest by holding-up the nomination of the man nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). You would think that after the attempt to blow-up an airliner on Christmas day, appointment of an administrator for the TSA would be of paramount importance. Not to one demented senator. DeMint did not express any specific opposition to the nominee, a former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert. He claimed that he needed further testimony to clarify the nominee’s stand on unionizing the TSA.

The Senate needs to change this strange rule that gives a single stubborn senator the power to bring the Senate and the government of the United States to its knees.

A Crack in Republican Obstruction

You would think that the public would be on to the Republican program of total obstruction in Congress, but it isn’t. The Republicans have decided to oppose, and in the Senate, filibuster, every single initiative of the Obama Administration regardless of the merits of the initiative and regardless of whether the initiative would benefit the American people and help the economy. The Republican leadership has speculated that the result of all-out opposition to Democratic legislation would make it look like President Obama and the Democrats are accomplishing nothing. They have assumed that this would lead to public disillusionment with the President and a renewed support for the Republicans. They have been right. The results of recent elections seem to reflect a belief on the part of the public that Democrats are ineffective and that the President does not have what it takes to improve the economy and relieve unemployment.

Of course, this policy of the Republicans is the product of profound cynicism. They do not care if millions of people go on being unemployed, uninsured, without housing, shelter, or food. They do not care if our states and localities are without sufficient money to fund education, health care, construction, programs for the homeless, and many other urgently needed projects. All they care about is winning-back Congress and defeating President Obama in 2012. This is very sad. A once proud party has become the party of despair.

There may, however, be a crack in the monolithic unity of the Republican Party. Recently, the Republicans were able to elect one of their own, Senator Scott Brown, to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. There was much rejoicing by Republicans at this coup, and much predicting that the Democrats were on the decline. But there was also a little fact that Republicans ignored. Their handsome new senator is also a fairly liberal Republican. This will not sit well with the Tea Party types who were instrumental in his election. Apparently, he supports freedom of choice on abortion, says same-sex marriage is “settled law” in Massachusetts, and is independent of the lock-step thinking imposed by Republican congressional leadership on Republican members.

The crack in the Republican front first appeared in a vote on the $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats. Senator Scott Brown was the first member of his party to cast his vote for overcoming the Republican filibuster on the measure. He was followed by Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Christopher Bond of Missouri, all of whom voted after it became evident that the Democrats would prevail. Nevertheless, 29 Republican senators voted against the bill.

You would have thought that such legislation, in this time of wretched, desperate unemployment, would have garnered 100 votes in the Senate. You would have thought that every senator would have compassion for the plight of the unemployed. You would have thought such empathy would have overcome all political considerations. And you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, there are some Republican senators who are willing to risk their future with the Republican Party and buck the demands of Republican leadership. One of them is Scott Brown. Our senator, George Voinovich, who is retiring, appears to be another.

There are now pending some items of legislation critical to this nation. More help is needed to improve the economy and overcome unemployment. Health care reform is essential for the future of American business and of the American people. Climate change legislation is essential for the future of the planet. The question is whether some Republicans will step up to the plate and put the interests of their country first, or whether they will revert to the nay-saying culture that is tearing us apart.