Reconciling the Reconciliation Vote – Politics Today

Are you as tired of having your time wasted as I am by politicians who have at least two faces?  Each party is guilty of the highest degree of hypocrisy, and the cry of the day about it depends entirely on the party who holds the majority in Congress.

Today, that happens to be the Democrats, so the party of no’s, and the party of the long nose for lying, is on the Republican side of the aisle.  It has to do with this notion of reconciliation votes on the budget submitted by the Obama Administration.

It isn’t necessary when discussing hypocrisy to elaborate on the procedural notion of a reconciliation vote.  It’s important for the discussion to know that it requires only a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, and can not be filibustered.  Distinguish that from the other procedural vote on the entire budget bill, which would require a vote of at least 60 in the Senate to prevent a filibuster (by the party of no’s/nose, or by some renegade group of disgruntled “conservative” Democrats), and you can see the point of objection by those no-sayers.

So, it would be possible for the Senate to vote straight up on the Health Care budget, or the Energy budget, proposed by the White House, and a 50-50 vote would be expected to fall on the Administration’s side with Vice President Biden casting the tie-breaking vote.

To listen to the likes of Senator Judd Gregg, Republican from Vermont, or others who rushed into the camera’s eye with the talking point, you would think a reconciliation vote would prevent Republicans from voting.  On the contrary, every Senator is called upon for his or her vote – - every one of them.  Every Republican would be able to vote their no/nose, be recorded as such, and run back to their constituency claiming to have stood their ground and voted their conscience.

It’s just that they would have no chance of winning the vote, and therein is the rub.  That’s why the moans are as loud as they are, notwithstanding the hypocrisy of those moans.  The tactic of a reconciliation vote, they claim, is old “Chicago-style” politics where the body gets molded in concrete and thrown in the river.

Yet, let’s look at the moaning party through the lens of truth.  When we do, we find that when the Republicans controlled Congress, a reconciliation vote was used the following times:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

The whole goose and gander thing means nothing in politics, and we’re accustomed to that.  This is nothing different – - other than the words used to promote the hypocrisy from instance to instance, it’s still the same thing.  And it’s still tiring, too, don’t you think?

These reconciliation votes, if they occur, will pass the House and the Senate, because the Democrats hold the majority, and because Vice President Biden will break the tie in the Administration’s favor.  But, think about that for a moment, please.

A majority vote will carry the day in both the House and Senate; and the bill will be signed into law by President Obama.  Isn’t majority rule the basis of a democratically elected Congress?  Why is that causing such a twist of the Republican’s knickers and anathema to “conservatives”?

Seems pretty straightforward when you look at the entire picture.  Majority rules, President signs.