McConnell's Reconciliation
Just to be clear, that title shouldn't be read in a normal fashion. This is not the story of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell having a "Kumbaya" moment with President Obama. It's not even the story of McConnell reconciling with the Tea Party wing of his own party. Instead, I'm using the word "reconciliation" in a very specific rules-of-the-Senate fashion. Because McConnell just revealed to Politico how he intends to govern, should his party take control of the Senate in November -- and it appears that the previously-arcane "budget reconciliation" maneuver will figure heavily in his playbook.
Many are focusing on another aspect of what McConnell is promising to do, which is understandable because shutting down the government has a lot bigger impact on the country than details of how the Senate conducts its business. But, in this case, I'm choosing instead to ignore the forest (as it were) to concentrate on one particular tree.
The Politico article is an extensive one, which looks at McConnell's current campaign and his relationship to members of his own party, including fellow Kentuckian Rand Paul. It draws a pretty plain picture of what McConnell would do if given control of the Senate, though:
In an extensive interview here, the typically reserved McConnell laid out his clearest thinking yet of how he would lead the Senate if Republicans gain control of the chamber. The emerging strategy: Attach riders to spending bills that would limit Obama policies on everything from the environment to health care, consider using an arcane budget tactic to circumvent Democratic filibusters and force the president to "move to the center" if he wants to get any new legislation through Congress.
In short, it's a recipe for a confrontational end to the Obama presidency.
"We're going to pass spending bills, and they're going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy," McConnell said in an interview aboard his campaign bus traveling through Western Kentucky coal country. "That's something he won't like, but that will be done. I guarantee it."
There's a reason why McConnell is specific about doing this to "spending bills," and the reason is budget reconciliation. Democrats and Republicans alike were made aware of this tactic a few years back, when the Affordable Care Act passed without having to get 60 votes -- because budget bills only need a majority vote and cannot be blocked by a filibuster.
Much later on in the Politico article, an interesting revelation is made:
In a private meeting before the summer recess, Republicans discussed using the procedural tool known as budget "reconciliation" to make it easier to pass legislation by avoiding filibusters. Some on the right say that could be the way to go.
"That's how we got Obamacare; we'll see if we can undo any of it that way," [Senator Rand] Paul said in an interview. "It makes more sense to try to do it with 60, but I think you do what you have to do."
But McConnell was coy on whether he'd pursue this tactic. And even if he tried to gut Obamacare, he knows full well he'd lack the support to override a presidential veto.
"We'll see," McConnell said when asked about reconciliation.
In this case, "We'll see" can be read as: "You can bet your bottom dollar on it, Jack!" McConnell may want to play it coy now, but it's pretty obvious that if the party caucus is already holding meetings on the tactic that it will indeed be used. My guess is that it will be used often.
In fact, this might be less drastic than what I originally thought when pondering the concept of Mitch McConnell running the Senate. Last month, I wrote an article that ended with the thought that McConnell might just -- in retaliation for Harry Reid "going nuclear" by getting rid of filibusters on presidential appointments -- abolish the legislative filibuster altogether. There would, I pointed out, be nothing to stop him from doing so, except perhaps the fear of how Democrats would rule the Senate when they regained control at some future point.
McConnell is signaling that he won't go this far, though. He won't abolish the legislative filibuster, because he sees a way forward where he won't have to. What he'll be doing instead is to attach every item on the Republican agenda (abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, whatever...) to a budget bill. This way, he can allow Republicans to pass whatever they'd like, and do an end-run around the ability of Democrats to block any of it.
The filibuster used to be rare, remember. It wasn't until Harry Reid took over that its use exploded, where nowadays many journalists (who really should know better) routinely say things like "the bill didn't get the required 60 votes" without even mentioning the filibuster's use. The use of budget reconciliation to pass contentious issues has also been historically rare. It has been used by both parties at various times, but was never previously a first choice -- it was more a tactic of last resort. But Republicans still nurse a rather large grudge over its use to pass Obamacare. If they take over the Senate, McConnell may decide that pretty much any bill worth passing should be included as a rider to a budget bill. He may make it his go-to tactic, to put it another way. Not only will this force Obama to veto bills (and may result in more government shutdowns), it will do so by denying Senate Democrats the use of the filibuster tactic that Republicans have now made so common.
This is not a comforting thought for Democrats, obviously. They don't have the luxury of assuming: "If Republicans take the Senate, we'll just filibuster everything, the way Republicans have been doing for years." Mitch McConnell may not allow that to happen. McConnell's Senate may in fact pass nothing but budget bills, as a direct result. Why bother spending time over an issue if Democrats can filibuster it? Why not, instead, just use budget reconciliation rules for every bill? This won't be in any way limited to tax issues, or government spending (in other words, what budget bills are supposed to be about). Instead, all the thorny social issues on the GOP agenda will be magically transformed into budget issues.
So while others are pointing out the bigger picture -- the fact that McConnell may instigate government shutdown after government shutdown for the next two years -- what struck me about the Politico story was how we'd all better get used to hearing the word "reconciliation" if Republicans do take the Senate. Because my guess is that we're all going to be hearing it a lot.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Thank your lucky stars if you don't see his nauseating ads every time you turn on the TV. He's all about petitions lately, but I'm pretty sure that "petition" is a euphemism for "email list".
Ditch Mitch.
He's flogging The Death Tax again. Honestly, I don't think the optics are good for Mitch-thuselah. If I looked like something that death brought with it in a suitcase, I wouldn't highlight the word DEATH in my ads. Just some friendly advice, MM. That other one, that ALG, she doesn't look like the undead. If I were her, I would cast him as a zombie in an ad. Rant Paul (R) would be a vampire, of course.
CW,
You may be seeing the trees instead of the forest. The continuing theme is Republicans' abusing the rules to circumvent the democratic process, overturn a democratic election, and destroy the executive branch if they cannot control it.--Simply by lying. Flagrantly. Incessantly.
To be blunt, the Republican response to the election of Obama as President has been to destroy the democracy that "betrayed" them. To defy the constitution they claim to revere. To ignore their oaths of office. To place party above country. And to literally destroy America to "save" it.
These are fanatics. And, like every other fanatic, they are incalculably dangerous. To themselves, and everyone else.
We are way past politics as usual.
JFC,
You find that instance where I called you a nazi???
Of course not, because it never happened..
Don't worry, I'll be around to keep reminding you of how you lied until you man up and apologize...
Michale
This article is on the front page of the HuffFace, so maybe Rash Limpbone will mention you today during his three hour hate-orama.
OK As promised.. :D
http://173.12.139.82:1234
user: cw
pw: cw.com
Site can use Java or ActiveX... Java gives you better clarity, but ActiveX gives you more control..
I'll be there in a couple hours with my OBAMA GOT OSAMA T-shirt in all it's glory...
No cracks about how messy my shop is... I ain't the most organized person in the world. :D
Michale
No cracks about how messy my shop is... I ain't the most organized person in the world. :D
For the record, I am doing some renovations.. Which is why things are messier than usual :D
Michale
Did anyone here see the title and not think budget reconciliation process? It's not that obscure, ever since it was used to remove the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase from Obamacare.
John From Censornati -
"Rant" Paul?
Wow, that's brilliant! I can't believe I've never heard this before, since it is so fitting. Whether you made it up or not, I thank you for the laugh! Simply perfect...
:-)
LewDan -
Well, I did warn you about the "focusing in on one tree" aspect...
But I think we're largely in agreement -- this is beyond "politics as usual," that's for sure, but I'm just trying to see where (into uncharted waters) Republicans may be heading next, that's all....
dsws -
Well, anyone here, of course... but I wrote this for HuffPost, and you never know the relative level of wonkiness of the reader over there, these days. So I decided an explanatory intro was needed.
The unanswered question this column really raises: Will Harry Reid (and the rest of the Senate Dems) regret not using this tactic more boldly in the past few years?
Michale -
Heh. Thanks for the link! I promise not to make comments about renovations, since this site is undergoing its own sort of renovations itself...
:-)
-CW
Heh. Thanks for the link! I promise not to make comments about renovations, since this site is undergoing its own sort of renovations itself...
Touche... :D
Michale
For the record, I am gonna catch a lot of grief from my dad and my son for wearing this pro-Obama shirt..
Just want ya to appreciate it.. :D hehehehehehe
Michale
John From Censornati -
"Rant" Paul?
Wow, that's brilliant! I can't believe I've never heard this before, since it is so fitting. Whether you made it up or not, I thank you for the laugh! Simply perfect...
So, how do you feel about 'Odumbo' or 'OBumble'???
:D
"What's good for the goose is NOBODY'S business but the gander's!!"
-Mr Furley, THREES COMPANY
:D
Michale
"I can't believe I've never heard this before, since it is so fitting. Whether you made it up or not, I thank you for the laugh!"
I don't know if that one is a JFC original or not. I know that I've spread it far and wide. I've been hounding the paulcult for so long now (7 years?!) that I don't recall, but it may be my friend HeevenSteven's from that other site. He was one of the very earliest commenters there and now he's also banished.
It's humorous to see the McConnell ads here in KY. Rant's face appears in almost all of them. You've got to love seeing wRong Paul's son as Mitch's BFF because it's all about principle and driving up the value of the silver coins they're hoarding.
It's humorous to see the McConnell ads here in KY.
And here I thought you were in Birmingham, AL...
:D
Michale
Michale [12] -
For name-based taunts, I've always thought "Obummer" was the best, purely on the level of wordsmithing (or maybe I just like the word "bummer" for some reason).
My $0.02, as they used to say...
-CW
"I've always thought "Obummer" was the best"
I'm partial to Obomber.
Yea, OBummer is a good one..
Personally, I have always like 'ODumbo' because of the ears... :D
Michale
I'm partial to Obomber.
Are you partial to apologies for false accusations??
Because that would be the adult thing to be...
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
a more accurate play on the name because it's essentially how he speechifies, would be Uhhhbama
a more accurate play on the name because it's essentially how he speechifies, would be Uhhhbama
Ooooooooo nice one.. I like that. It's so apropos... :D
Michale
thanks m, though it turns out i reinvented the wheel. it turns out they've been calling him that since '08:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uhbama
thanks m, though it turns out i reinvented the wheel. it turns out they've been calling him that since '08:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uhbama
Good ideas are timeless.. :D
Michale
John From Censornati -
Hadn't heard "Obomber" before, but it did get a chuckle out of me, I have to admit...
How did we get on this subject anyway? Sigh...
-CW
I will have to begrudgingly give credit for that one to Ted Rall. I used to like him until he went off the deep end criticizing gay rights organizations for not adopting his OWS agenda - truly baffling.
How did we get on this subject anyway? Sigh...
I am assuming that is a rhetorical question.. :D If not I can provide the entire back-path that got us here from there.. :D
Michale