'Sidecar' reconciliation - let's deal with the rules

by: skeptic06

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:29

And the political will to do the thing is, naturally, a sine qua non to it happening.

However, in tandem with the lobbying process, it's as well to consider the difficulties - an interreacting mix of the procedural and the political - in getting it done.

For starters, it's the sort of complex series of shenanigans which we've never seen Harry attempt, never mind see through to success. It requires not only will on behalf of both party and leadership, but coordinated technical expertise wielded skillfully on the floor and off.

I can't remember the last time anything so complicated was brought off: I'd say it would every bit as complex as Johnson passing the 1957 Civil Rights Bill.

On the other side - the GOP are bound to look on the very use of reconciliation as legitimising massive resistance (to coin a phrase).

I'm pretty sure that the Interests would be happy to see the Senate bill enacted; and the GOP took care (by going along with unanimous consent agreements) not to get in the way of it passing the Senate.

But the Interests would recognize that the Dems going for reconciliation would be a partisan challenge that the GOP could not pass up: it fits to a T their metanarrative of holding the Alamo against the Washington Establishment (to mix a metaphor or two).

Whatever opportunities to cause mischief will be taken; pressure on must-pass and marquee legislation (reduced floor time this pre-election session) will be maximized; the Dem leadership's will and expertise will be tested at every turn.

Fox and friends will be crying coup d'état - or some English equivalent. The flabbiest WH spokesmen will be invited on cable to defend the process, with a view to driving wedges within the WH and between the WH and the Senate. (Sebelius, for instance - pretty flabby on Maddow, for instance.) The vacillation of the WH on health care in general and the public option in particular suggests it could get ugly pretty soon.

Then, there are the rules. I'd be fairly certain that getting the sidecar within the boundaries of the Byrd Rule is going to be tricky - certainly, every element in the sidecar needs the most careful consideration from the Byrd viewpoint.

The Parliamentarian will be helpful in giving Harry and Co help in threading the needle - but the chance that he will balk at some key provision must be significant. And that provision is probably the quo for some quid elsewhere in the bill.

Practice is that the chair, whose responsibility it is to rule on compliance with the Byrd Rule, abides by the Parliamentarian's decision in every case. But the law (§904(d) of the Congressional Budget Act) says that it's the chair's decision.

Are the Dems prepared to have the chair go against the Parliamentarian if necessary? If not, best not start the whole thing.

(It takes 60 votes to overturn the chair's ruling, by the way.)

How likely is that Dem senators will get cold feet in the face of such an exercise of raw power?

Meanwhile, the GOP will be looking for every opportunity to filibuster - every motion to proceed, for instance.

And, if the bill escapes the Byrd Rule trap, there'll be dozens (hundreds?) of amendments in the vote-a-rama.

(Unlike cloture, every unvoted amendment gets its vote, thus potentially extending the floor debate indefinitely.)

All during this process, GOP morale will be sky-high. And, natch, they'll be getting the teabaggers doing their thing at maximum decibels.

In common with the massed ranks of the lefty sphere, I'd love to see the Senate Dems finally throw down, after years of whining and cringing. But they'd better make sure they're in shape for the long battle ahead.

JTA...

What's with the pre-summit WH bill? Supposedly, Congressional Dems haven't seen it - doesn't mean they don't know what's in it, of course - or agreed it.

Is it a sidecar bill, or does it start from scratch (the GOP proposal, of course!)? Looks like the latter, from the piece, quoting Sebelius. Talking points for the summit? (Easy to get the discussion bogged down in drafting - perhaps that's the purpose.)

Why the WH should roll out a bill at this stage (presumably WH staff have been working on a text for ages), I'm not sure.

Plus - I'm not sure how they set up the bill as a reconciliation measure (this question applies to the sidecar as well).

Battery running out - more thoughts later.