The Byrd is The Word! (press to hear President Obama explain why reconciliation should NOT be used for passing a Health care bill)

Why the President may have to “start over”

Or

  Regarding RECONCILIATON-- Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering an"extraneous matter" Could abortion or the idea that this legislation regulates an industry be considered extaneous matters?

The president reversed his opinion on using reconciliation, ok, people can reverse their opinion but does this mean that it does not concern the president that such a comprehensive change as Health Care is going to occur using a process that he himself said was unrepresentative of the peoples will? The president was as passionate over this issue as he is over passing a health care bill. When can we take him serious about what really matters?  This just means that when the GOP has control, they'll use the reconciliation process to pass legislation that the Democrats don't want and the process will continue to go round and round.

In the “Money and Policy” section of The New York Times an article titled “ President Urges Focus on Common Ground” By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR, was published on February 25, 2010 where they wrote about the presidents health care summit that had been televised recently.

“Throughout the day, Mr. Obama skirmished with Republicans over the effects of the Democrats’ proposal on health insurance premiums. Republicans, citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill, said the average premium for individual policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium that year under current law. Mr. Obama countered that under the Senate bill, the federal government would establish standards for “decent insurance,” and that the better benefits might be more costly. And in any event, most people buying individual policies would qualify for federal subsidies, which would substantially lower what they pay.”

       One very important phrase to chew on is “decent insurance.” What is decent insurance? A better term would be “adequate health care” and there in lays the gist of what is wrong with the presidents way of visualizing health care: its short sighted. The elite would get exceptional, state of the art, “better” health care while the masses would receive adequate health care? If a parent is suffering from some ailment, the family he/she supports does not need “decent insurance” they need the best. It is true that decent health care is better than no health care but who decides when the good stuff trickles down or the newest technology and healing methods help us all? This does not mean that there should be no reform only that the president may have locked himself into “starting over.”

        Reconciliation is a very good place to begin since it is the big word of the year. This is a term that refers to a process used by law makers to pass a bill with fewer votes than normally needed but it is also a threat the president is using to persuade the GOP into a dialog over health car reform. The GOP used this process in the past but not to pass “comprehensive reform.” This last term has been used by both parties as a goal and describes their intent regarding health care and because of that acknowledgment the process maybe beyond the tools available to the democratic party. Senator Tom Coburn believes that the purpose of the senate was to add a process that brought consensus to big issues in this country and where a reasoned and thoughtful approach is suppose to take place. The Senator wanted to highlight this point to contrast it with the plan to use the process to pass health care reform. On this point people might agree with the senator but the senator is adopting a new ideology at a politically convenient time. Nevertheless, that does not make his argument less true or meaningful.

The real and most knotty obstacle for the president is that the bill is too big to fit into a small reconciliation hole.

Senator Kent Conrad (D) North Dakota, Chairman of the Budget Committee stated on this weekends Sunday talk shows that Reconciliation can not be used to pass comprehensive health care reform because it was not designed for “significant legislation” and that “…it was designed for deficit reduction.” So, it can not work for health care reform. Conrad also said that the role for reconciliation is limited for passing “side-car issues” or for relatively minor issues not a major issue like health care reform. Reconciliation is not for the “main package” (referring to the presidents health car proposal) but “…for issues like what proportion of Medicade expansion, expenses, etc…” the government would be responsible for paying, any other use, would be “unreasonable.”

Meet the press Nancy-Ann DeParle the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform on “Meet The Press” Sunday February 28 said that the president is trying to work with both parties to build a reform bill for health care but did not indicate that reconciliation was off the table. Unlike, Senator Conrad,  DeParle did not mention "The Byrd Rule."

SUMMARY OF THE BYRD RULE 

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes extraneous matter is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian). The Byrd rule is enforced when a Senator raises a point of order during consideration of a reconciliation bill or conference report. If the point of order is sustained, the offending title, provision or amendment is deemed stricken unless its proponent can muster a 3/5 (60) Senate majority vote to waive the rule.”

The term “extraneous” can present an overwhelming obstacle like during THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS.

       “In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order.
       The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.”

The point is that the reconciliation threat is empty! When considering the “Byrd Rule,” the bill is very likely to get bogged down in debate over whether or not it falls into the category of an extraneous matter.

Issue --- Health Care

Rule --- The Byrd Rule states that the reconciliation process is not for extraneous matters

Analysis --- Health Care Reform has been considered a comprehensive reform process by both parties. The use of such terms by both parties clearly indicates that this bill is greater than the kind of legislation that the reconciliation process was designed to work with and has worked with in the past.

Conclusion -- If the Democrats use the reconciliation process, they could find themselves legally challenged by the GOP and facing the Supreme Court on this issue during a midterm election season and well into the 2012 election season. If the process is found to be say, out of bounds or an extraneous matter, by the Supreme Court then the Obama administration will appear to have wasted Americas’ time. So, starting over may not be such a bad idea? Just so long as the GOP works within a reasonable time frame. Had Obama suddenly agreed with the GOP and pushed to start over, live, during the TV summit, the GOP would have been cornered and pressured into announcing a time line to get the bill designed, ready, voted on and signed. That however is “what if” history.

The contributing reporter, David M. Herszenhorn, of The NYT continued:

“For the president, Thursday’s session was a kind of Hail Mary pass, a last-ditch effort to keep his top legislative priority from slipping out of his grasp.”  The president is a law professor so he can answer the question, how does the democratic health care reform bill get past the Bryd Rule? Is it that there is nothing specifically that says not to shove circles into squares?

It appears then, that in the present reality, in a game of basketball, a three point, full court or a “hail Mary” buzzer, beaten shot is still very difficult, but, not impossible. Just, don’t plan on winning the game that way.

So, in the meantime, the Byrd is the word.