The New York Times, in a whopper of a Sunday Editorial, has eloquently and forcefully come out in support of "Budget Reconciliation" in the highly likely event that the Senate Finance Committee fails to come out with a good bill capable of garnering bipartisan support.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
What is fantastic about this piece is not just the articulate case it makes for a procedure that is sure to the draw the ire of the right if implemented, but also the lucidity with which it explains, well, what the heck Reconciliation is.
Update: Many thanks for the Rec List everyone. First time. What's great about this being on the list is that the helpful comments below will get a lot of exposure. Some comments go into a lot more detail about Reconciliation and the Parliamentarian than either I or the editorial did: KateCrashes' "Alan Frumin" comment with many helpful links, for example. H/T to elziax for a spelling pointer.
I'm sure I'm not the only fairly well-read and well-informed contributor to this site who is deeply confused about Reconciliation, what it all means, and what all of its ramifications will be.
Turns out, part of the reason for that is that its a pretty complicated process and NO ONE really knows what all the ramifications of using it for health care reform will be.
But what one can know the New York Times editorial staff lays bare in this long opinion piece. And what becomes clear reading it is that, while certainly not the most ideal solution, there stands a very good chance that pretty hefty portions of this legislation will be able to pass through the Reconciliation process, including perhaps even the public option.
Firstly, the editorial establishes the dire prospects of comprehensive reform without Reconciliation:
With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the Democrats do not have the votes just among their 57 members (and the two independents) to break a filibuster, and not all of these can be counted on to vote in lock step. If the Democrats want to enact health care reform this year, they appear to have little choice but to adopt a high-risk, go-it-alone, majority-rules strategy.
Furthermore, the Republicans are hell-bent on trying to gain politically from failed reform efforts.
It also brilliantly refutes the notion that delaying reform for a future time might be wise politically or tactically:
Superficially seductive calls to scale down the effort until the recession ends or to take time for further deliberations should be ignored. There has been more than enough debate and the recession will almost certainly be over before the major features of reform kick in several years from now. Those who fear that a trillion-dollar reform will add to the nation’s deficit burden should remember that these changes are intended to be deficit-neutral over the next decade.
Delay would be foolish politically. The Democrats have substantial majorities in the House and the Senate this year. Next year, as the midterm elections approach, it will be even harder for legislators to take controversial stands. After the elections, if history is any guide, the Democratic majorities could be smaller.
The piece recaps the quagmire currently taking place in the Senate Finance Committee, then begins its breakdown of what Reconciliation will mean as applied to health care.
First of all, as many of you know, Reconciliation bills were designed to deal with budget items that effect the deficit. What this means is that Senators could challenge any provisions that don't have a substantial effect on the budget and deficit over the next five years.
So what elements of a possible health care bill stand a good chance of surviving Reconciliation?
Knowledgeable analysts from both parties believe that these important elements of reform will probably pass muster because of their budgetary impact: expansion of Medicaid for the poor; subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance; new taxes to pay for the trillion-dollar program; Medicare cuts to help finance the program; mandates on individuals to buy insurance and on employers to offer coverage; and tax credits to help small businesses provide insurance.
Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies.
As to which elements might have a harder time, the piece cites regulations on the insurance industry regarding discriminating against pre-existing conditions and the creation of exchanges for individuals mandated to buy insurance.
Republicans, if they wanted to be d**ks (for a change) could argue that these items will have no effect on budgets and are therefore incidental. Dems would likely retort that all the pieces of the legislation are crucially inter-related.
Who, you may wonder, would mediate such a debate? The Senate Parliamentarian. And the truth is we don't know how he'll rule on the more easy-to-contest portions of the legislation. Few people even know who the hell this obscure figure is.
So, if he sides with Republican objections, the legislation we end up with could have strange holes -- like mandates without exchanges -- which would require further legislation down the line to fill in those holes. If he sides with Democrats on the contested provisions, we're set. We won't know one way or another until we try it.
But the good news is that lots and I mean LOTS of key provisions would make it through if the Dems grow some gumption and go through with this. The bad news is that clearly this is an approach that comes with potential problems that must be overcome if they arise. And of course the Right is sure to make a monumental earth-shattering fuss about it.
But it doesn't look like we have much of a choice.
So, as the NYT has essentially just demanded of the Democratic leadership:
GAME THE FUCK ON.
Let's do this.