Good Morning America, how are you ...

[Nocturnal]

It seems like most people I know are much more centerist than either left wing or right wing. I know of very few Rep's that hate gays and minorities, and very few Dem's that want to kill babies and the elderly. Doesn't stop either side from constantly sending us that message tho. Am I wrong in thinking that the two branches of the government here with the most control are the only one's without term limits? And thats the two that truly need them IMO.

[OldManC]

I think some might do good to look into what reconciliation is and how it's used. It's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure meant to be used on portions of a bill which will lessen the deficit through its use. Reconciliation has never been used as a means to circumvent a filibuster and pass a bill of this magnitude, especially when the deficit benefits are highly questionable at best. (BTW, the filibuster is another perfectly legitimate option in Congress which the Democrats didn't seem to mind when they were the ones using it.)

The idea that both sides of the political aisle have been known to make sleazy deals is well taken, but judging parliamentary procedures as such simply because you don't like them when they're being used by the other side obscures the legitimate part of the discussion.

[uwe]

"Am I wrong in thinking that the two branches of the government here with the most control are the only one's without term limits? And thats the two that truly need them IMO."

Interesting thought. Term limits for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives? It would certainly do something against entrenched partsanship over decades. But I'm not aware of any parliament in any democracy that has that. And it would probably keep people from chosing parliamentary work as a carreer. Which I know some of you would regard as progress  , but I'm not so sure whether today's hugely complex legislative machines could be better worked by parttime politicians as opposed to professionals. I fear that would lead to an unhealthy strengthening of the executive vs the legislative arm.

[uwe]

I think some might do good to look into what reconciliation is and how it's used. It's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure meant to be used on portions of a bill which will lessen the deficit through its use. Reconciliation has never been used as a means to circumvent a filibuster and pass a bill of this magnitude, especially when the deficit benefits are highly questionable at best. (BTW, the filibuster is another perfectly legitimate option in Congress which the Democrats didn't seem to mind when they were the ones using it.)

The idea that both sides of the political aisle have been known to make sleazy deals is well taken, but judging parliamentary procedures as such simply because you don't like them when they're being used by the other side obscures the legitimate part of the discussion.

Hm, George, if I read this here, I wonder whether the reconcilliation procedure hasn't been misappropriated ever since it came into being:

Reconciliation came from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Reconciliation developed into a prominent procedure for implementing the policy decisions and assumptions embraced in a budget resolution, in a way that was unforeseen when the Budget Act was written.[citation needed] Under the original design of the Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used together with the second resolution adopted in the fall, and was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions.[citation needed]

"Historical use
Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases. Former Parliamentarian of the Senate Robert Dove has stated that reconciliation

“ was never used for that purpose. But in 1975, just a year after it had passed, a very canny Senate committee chairman -- Russell Long of Louisiana -- came in to the Parliamentarian's Office, and he kept having trouble with his tax bills because of the Senate rules. People were offering amendments to them that he didn't like. They were debating them at length, and he didn't like that. And he saw in the Budget Act a way of getting around those pesky little problems. And he convinced the Parliamentarian at the time -- I was the assistant -- that the very first use of reconciliation should be to protect his tax cut bill.[3] ”

Congress has used the procedure to enact omnibus budget bills, first in 1981.  Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.

The Byrd Rule (as described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[4]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to substantially increase federal deficits.[5] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.

Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed."


So it seems to be - depending on your view - either a dirty trick or a tool of the trade and was used to lever out another dirty trick/tool of the trade, the filibuster, in this case. That sounds a bit like one (losing) NFL team accusing the other (winning) NFL team of "winning only because of deceptive tactics".

Uwe

[gweimer]

I actually downloaded the full bill contents at home.  I'll probably go over some of it, but it's not an easy document to read so far.  No links from the table of contents to the actual sections of the bill.

An interesting side note - a friend of mine, who is a band leader, will now be required to provide health insurance for his band members as of 2014.  Because he has a formal business in the band, he's going to be someone that will get bit pretty hard on this.

I'm neutral on the bill overall.  I think it's a start, even if it's a rough one.  I'm glad my son will have coverage through my plan for a few more years, but I'm still the one paying for it.  Eventually, the small family business where he works will have to provide it for him, and we'll see how that goes.  The thing that gets me is that everyone had to know that the money for this wasn't all coming out of thin air.  *IF* they can reduce the deficit over ten years, fine, but regardless, I'm still going to be on the hook for some of this.

[OldManC]

Like I implied above, the idea that either political side will use (or bend) the rules for their benefit isn't one I'd argue against. I'm simply against the idea of one side using that as an argument to slime the other in the press, where the typical reader will take that at face value without question.

The President has a term limit in part because of one President (FDR), who decided not to honor the implied limit that was followed for 150 years after Washington set the example. I'm all for Congressional term limits, even if it means 'my guy' sometimes has to go as well. The U.S. was never meant to have career politicians. That may make us different than other countries but that was sort of the whole idea, and while we may be a 'young' country in terms of our land mass being under one government, we have the longest standing constitutional government in the world, instituted by some of the best and brightest minds of the 18th century (IMHO, of course).  

[OldManC]

*IF* they can reduce the deficit over ten years, fine, but regardless, I'm still going to be on the hook for some of this.

My worry is the model that Medicare/Medical set, which is running hundreds of billions of dollars a year over projections used at its inception in 1965. The only way the current law showed deficit reduction was by beginning funding this year (new taxes within 6 months), but not implementing the bulk of the program until 2014, and even that was questioned by the actual CBO report and not the initial estimate numbers that were leaked on Friday. Believe me, I hope I'm wrong, but our government's track record doesn't give me much hope.

[uwe]

"The U.S. was never meant to have career politicians."

That is certainly true, George, but is it carved in stone and still viable and workable today? Can you be on top of something like the healthcare bill document as a parttime politician?
I believe that is unrealistic.

And whether congressional term limits make sense ... I have strong doubts.

Let's imagine a youngish Republican hopeful with slightly right of centrist, devoutly libertarian ideas. We''ll call him Carl Georgeston, he has a wife and two lovely kids which he wants to send to college one day. He has a dayjob that pays the mortgage on his house, his boss says he's doing well, but he's also spotted as a talent by the GOP, being the presentable chap and sharp conservative mind he is. (No dark spots on his CV either, yes, he was caught wearing women's clothes once, but that can be explained by the fact that "I simply woke up that way one morning". It was also very long ago. Rumors that some underground forum featured reflections of his private parts have remained largely unconfirmed.)

His party buddies are pushing Carl to run for the House of Representatives. He has a career decision to make. Give up his day job now and run for and eventually become a member of Congress, his ticket is a good one.

What will Carl's wife say when he reveals to her at dinner, "Honey, I'd like to run because people tell me I can really contribute something in Washington. It means that I will have to give up my job here. And unfortunately I won't be able to stay in Congress until the kids have finished college either, even if my voters are satisfied with me, because after two four-year-terms I'll be out and banned from running for the Senate in the immediate consecutive years. But we'll see what we'll do then when we get to it."

We don't know how much Carl's wife shares his political ideas, but she would have to be one hell of a convert to then still say:

"So what, Carl, I love you, do it. Kill your career here without really having the option of commencing another long term one in Washington. Our founding fathers never wanted career politicians anyway."

 

[godofthunder]

Scott Dasson, ever the undramatic observer. 

I am independent of any political party. Why ramrod a bill that needs to be fixed?

[uwe]

Perhaps because, with the notable exception of Turkey, you were the only developed nation without comprehensive health insurance for your population? And because Herr Obama had unequivocally announced he would bring about a healthcare reform before he was elected not by you, but by a then majority of your countrymen who could all read and write (well, the great majority at least) and understand that this was at the top of his agenda?

So then he goes ahead and ... does it. Even risking the current Democratic majority in Congress in the process. Unfair!

In as partisan a culture as the US currently is and with as many special interest groups lobbying their causes how could you introduce a reform as fundamental as the healthcare one and not ramrod it?

Generally the public's perception is that politicians promise a lot of things and then never get anything done. Obama, whose administration hasn't been bedded in roses, lives up to a promise (or threat, depending on your view, but it wasn't a covert threat at least) and delivers (albeit with a perhaps ramshackle product after all the trials and tribulations of the lawmaking process) and then that isn't agreeable either. The public is never pleased.

And I always thought that getting in and doing something without a perfect plan was one of the most American virtues/vices!!! Applying your view to, say, the NASA program in the fifties and sixties, Scott, and you would have never even attempted the moon landing. That program was certainly "ramrodded" against all technical doubts and uncertainties.

Which didn't happen anyway. The moon landing I mean. As we all know.  

[Pilgrim]

Uwe, I appreciate your viewpoint and remarks...very thoughtful.  I agree that the virtue of what has happened this week is that we have something in place.  It's not the end of US culture, and it's not a solution to all our problems either - it's a start, and it will be changed and shaped as we go.

It seems that in recent years, the extremist/nutball contingents in both major US parties have increasingly controlled the discourse in their party.  Perhaps they're the most active, but politicians seem to feel that they must cater to the extremes - and the extremes seem ready to decry and abandon any politician who makes a move against whatever their narrow interests might be.

It seems like there are ongoing "litmus tests" (popular media phrase) which continually make candidates either great or scum - nothing in the middle. Personally, I don't trust candidates who espouse any party line 100%, because I don't think either party is entirely rational, nor do they have a lock on wisdom.  

There is a kind of divergence in this country in which people simultaneously:

- Decry polarization and extremism, wishing politicians would hold a moderate discussion, and;
- Swear vengeance against any politician who deviates by any fraction from the extremes of their party platform

The two are clearly not reconcilable.  Maybe these expressions are actually coming from two different groups.  It it has often been observed that people distrust all congresspeople - except their own.

I dunno.  I just want the extremes on both sides to shut the hell up and go away.  I think what everyone is refusing to discuss is that we've run up a big bill in the past decade or so, and that sooner or later we're going to have to raise taxes to pay it.  That's the simple truth as far as I can tell.  We can't cut our way out - we're going to have to pay the bill, and since I'm 60 most of the payment is going to fall on my kids' generation.

[Nocturnal]

Well said Pilgrim.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I don't know why this US party radicalisation is - it defies expectation that as a state system matures everyone moves towards the middle - and why it is so pronounced in America. You've been a democracy for more than 200 years and contrary to some prophecies no Democrat or Republican administation has yet brought about the downfall of your great country. All Americans I meet seem to be neither Michael Moore nor Rush Limbaugh, but somewhere in the middle between the two, which appears to be a sensible political position for an adult with an acceptable IQ and not under the influence of drugs. Yet it seems to be the fringe constituencies that are pampered.

Three words: for-profit media. CSpan, a wholly unbiased and completely documentary account of government in action, is just like most of the governing process: boring. So instead of national media presenting governance issues in a factual light, they are "dressed-up" in an effort to entice viewers/readers and instead of fostering debate towards resolution, there is more money to be made in paranoia and propaganda. Health care reform has been a long time coming, and like any government measure, this one will please no one whose only wish is to complain. "Silent majority" indeed! This country has exactly the government it wants.

[Pilgrim]

PBG, you make a good point about media.  Somehow we in the US have evolved a media discourse which includes only the extremes.  If media can find an extreme A and a counterpoint extreme B, they tend not to look for C or D.  As a result, what we hear is increasingly representative only of extreme views, when as Uwe said, there are many people (I'd like to think most, meaning more than 51%) whose views are not represented by either extreme.

My background includes professional work radio & TV, and I don't see this as a media conspiracy, nor do I see media as either predominantly conservative or liberal.  What I do see is media which are lazy, not inclined to dig for good research information, and a setting in which time is devoted to titillation, shock and the spectacular.  Coverage is not given to the kind of well-researched journalism conducted by Edward R. Murrow or (usually) by programs like 60 Minutes, which, although it has made mistakes, does a lot more right than it does wrong, and involves journalists who actually do homework on their stories.  News coverage which involves more than pointing a camera at a car wreck or gang killing is increasingly rare.

Perhaps these are symptoms of reductionism - trying to eliminate complex concepts and boil everything down to simplistic 10-second sound bites both in media coverage and in political discourse.  The result is that little information is shared.

I know I don't like it, and I don't think it serves the public well.

[Denis]

An interesting side note - a friend of mine, who is a band leader, will now be required to provide health insurance for his band members as of 2014.  Because he has a formal business in the band, he's going to be someone that will get bit pretty hard on this.

I might be mistaken but I think employers who have fewer than 50-55 employees are exempt. Again, I could be mistaken.