This is why I admire the GOP. They do what works and helps them achieve their goals, then feed pablum to the masses about ‘fairness’. naturally they will use reconciliation the first chance they get (just like they used it to push the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, despite reconciliation being meant to reduce the deficit not increase it).
They railed against reconciliation, but obviously they will use it the first chance they get just like they have in the past. I love it best when they vote against their own bills, that is awesome.
FWIW, It is my understanding that the senate can change the rules on day 1 each time a new session is established with merely a majority vote. So if the GOP wins the house, white house and has 50 or more senators I’m not going to be shocked if they totally change the senate rules in 2013 to prevent the kind of obstructionism the GOP engaged in freely from 2007-2012.
Except the Bush tax-cuts aren’t permenant because the GOP didn’t act in the manner your suggesting. Reconcilliation limited them to passing deficit increasing measures for less then ten years, which is why the Bush tax-cuts aren’t permanent. The GOP certainly has been willing to stretch the limits of Reconciliation (up to firing the Parliamentarian when he wouldn’t allow it), but they haven’t been able to just ignore it before, even when it would’ve suited their agenda, and they won’t this time either.
If they did this then the insurance companies would have to sell to anyone who comes along at any time but no one would be required to buy.
That means that many healthy people won’t get insurance till they’re in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.
It will be impossible for the insurance companies to survive under those conditions. I highly doubt that the GOP would do that to the insurance companies.
When I was a kid we didn’t have Nintendo or iPhones. We played board games.
One game we played a lot was Parker Brothers’ Monopoly.
Now, most of my friends favored “house rules.” Chief among those house rules was the idea that money normally paid to the bank would instead accumulate in the center of the board, and then be awarded to the next person to land on “Free Parking.” The Free Parking space thus became sort of a lottery prize, despite the rules saying very clearly that player should receive neither reward or penalty for landing there.
When we played at my house, we played correctly – no money in the middle for Free Parking. When we played at friends’ houses, I would argue vociferously for the correct rules to be used, but of course ultimately had to defer to the house rules of that house.
Sometimes, some loud mouth would point gleefully at me when I landed on Free Parking and took the money. “I thought you didn’t want to play that way!!!”
“Of course that’s an absurd comment,” I would reply. “I don’t think this is a good rule at all. But I’m not going to handicap myself – playing correctly is a good rule only if everyone does it. There’s no reason for me to be the only one that doesn’t use this corrupt rule and thus sink my own chances. Everyone has to be covered by the same rules.”
I’m pretty sure some of my friends – the ones that never understood this concept – grew up to be Democrats.
That certainly explains why Republican governors won’t go along with the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, which is paid 100% by the federal government. They would never cut off their own noses to spite Obama.
You know how I hate tu quoques, and how annoyed I get when folks bust out with them in the middle of a thread. If I come in here and say, “But Republicans do it tooooo!” normally that’s just whining.
But here, you’ve suggested that it’s only Democrats who break a rule and then get mad when others, who complain about the acceptance of rulebreaking, break it themselves. Are you really gonna make that claim?
So after you finish straightfacedly offering an analogy between a game in which nothing is at stake other than pretend money and the only goal of any participant is to win at any cost to governing a country, do you ever pause for just a tiny moment and think about the degree to which that’s problematic?
To clarify, enactments passed by reconciliation are still bills and still require the POTUS’ signature. For example, Congress passed the 1999 Taxpayer Refund & Relief Act of 1999 via reconciliation, and Clinton vetoed it.
See, this is exactly how tu quoque is annoying. The post you quoted is claiming a specific bad thing that the Republican party does. Your post claims that in general, this is a trait held only by Democrats. You didn’t tu quoque, you tu insteaded.
If you want to respond to the post you were quoting, I see a few ways to do so that avoid tu quoque:
You could say, "this is rough-and-tumble politics; when politicians claim moral reasons for their particular treatment of the rules, they’re usually bullshitting, and it’s fair to ignore them.
You could say, “At this point, reconciliation is fair game for everyone to use to push their policies through, and it’s incorrect to imply that only Republicans do so.”
You could say, “Of course reconciliation is an unfair way to push policies through. I objected when Democrats do it, and I’ll object when Republicans do it; in this case, though, since reconciliation was used in the final moments for health-care reform, it’s only fair to allow one more use of it in health-care-reform-repeal.”
You could even ask, “What would differentiate this use of reconciliation from (some specific use of it by Democrats that you find objectionable)?”
What’s not a reasonable response is to say, essentially, “Complaining about rules abuse when you’ve abused the same rule yourself is something that only Democrats do.”
Why bother with the big tricky of reconciliation? The mandate is very unpopular. Everything else in the ACA is popular, except with insurance companies. Insurance companies don’t make up a single constituent in an election. Just introduce a regular bill to eliminate just the mandate.
Of course this will never happen because the whole thing is a big Kabuki dance and the insurance companies own and pay for all members of Congress.
Democrats hate the mandate too. But that was the price of getting all the goodies passed.
Also, see not enforcing the mandate, which is probably what will really happen.
The analogy is a fair one. It’s true that in the analogy, the example used is a board game, which is not as serious and does not have the same goals as a session of Congress.
But the analogy was not intended to draw a comparison between the seriousness of the goals, but rather to show the similarities between situations in which a principled actor may speak against the wisdom of a rule, but still use the contrary rule if that contrary rule is in effect.
A major difference is that Monopoly games are discreet events. In the case of legislation, it’s a continuous process. The parties effectively can change the rules in the middle of the game to give themselves an advantage. There are constitutional limits to this, but much of what keeps things in control are simply norms, and a general sense of fairness. Unlike Monopoly, in legislation, you’re not really supposed to press for partisan advantage in any manner the rules allow. Or at least legislators like to talk as if they expect each other to act according to higher principles.
Nor was the rising Neo-Nazi movement in France mentioned, but I didn’t read it as suggesting that the Neo-Nazi movement in France is free of electoral shenanigans. A post may call out one party for its shenanigans without saying anything whatsoever about anyone else.