When the mandate was a commerce clause regulation, it could not be repealed through reconciliation. As an exercise of Congress’ tax power though, it’s open and shut. It has a budgetary effect that can be scored, and no police power attached to it, therefore it can go through reconciliation.
I disagree. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to do.
No. In a two-party system, a heated critique of one party, especially here in Lefty World HQ, absolutely implies that the other party is innocent of the wrongdoing. Otherwise, the condemnation doesn’t need to mention the party; it would focus on the behavior.
It’s not open and shut. The Byrd Rule prohibits the use of reconciliation to pass any bill that will increase the deficit more than 10 years after the enactment. On paper, repealing PPACA would do that.
I don’t think the GOP should change the rules to repeal Obamacare as far as budget reconciliation goes. They don’t need to. Just wait out the inevitable Democratic filibuster. Many analysts are under the impression that there is now a routine 60-vote requirement for all legislation. Not so. A filibuster can be waited out:
A filibuster can be defeated by the majority party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, Thurmond’s attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote. Thurmond’s aforementioned stall holds the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history at 24 hours, 18 minutes.[10]
Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.[25]
The only reason the GOP was able to use the filibuster effectively against Democrats was because Democrats knew their window was short so they were always in such a darn hurry. I think Republicans will be quite content to just wait the Democrats out and not conduct any other business until they can repeal the health care bill.
True. Then they would need offsets or repeal it for only 10 years, which would be weird.
But as my other post shows, they really don’t need to do reconciliation unless they want to really do it on Day 1. if they are willing to wait, they can just wait out a Democratic filibuster.
I don’t think that’s true. There isn’t anything in the Reconciliation rules about it mattering whether something was enacted as a Commerce Clause power or not. They probably can use Reconciliation to repeal the mandate, but not any moreso then they could before the SCOTUS decision.
I think the Democrats would be ecstatic to find a strategy that prevents a GOP controlled legislature and President Romney from doing anything.
Only as long as they are willing to occupy the floor. To defend a law a plurality would like repealed. Their speeches had better be persuasive, because unless they use that opportunity to move public opinion, they’ll damage their standing defending an unpopular law.
as far as reconciliation, the mandate is a tax and it has a budget score. It can be done under reconciliation, albeit with the conditions that Really Not All That Bright mentioned: has to reduce the deficit, not increase it.
The law is still unpopular to the extent that it only has plurality support, but it’s become less of an issue for voters. Republicans can’t think that shutting down the Senate over an issue that fewer and fewer people care about is a worthwhile strategy.
But that’s the beauty of it, it’s the Dems that will be shutting down the Senate by filibustering. The Republicans will be helpless to stop it because of the cloture-proof 40+ Dem votes.
A perverse part of me wants to see the GOP retake the Senate just so I can laugh at the people getting bent out of shape when the Democrats start to filibuster like a motherfuck.
That wasn’t the discussion. The discussion is McConnell using reconciliation to eliminate the mandate after railing against it being used to create the law, after he used it to pass the Bush tax cuts. I find it amusing. I don’t see anything in contemporary politics showing the left acting with the same degree of jaw dropping double standards that the right does. If I am wrong, please tell me how because I’ve been wrong before. I don’t agree with the ‘post partisan above it all’ mentality where people lump all politics together. The reality is that in today’s society, when it comes to national politics, the right seems more willing to be duplicitous than the left.
I wish democrats were willing to play sneaky like the republicans. I sincerely do. If I implied that the democrats were moral and upstanding and the GOP is underhanded that is more of a criticism of the democrats than anything because at least the GOP is intelligent enough to realize how poorly informed the average voter is, and willing to do things like vote against their own bills, or rail against senate maneuvers they themselves like to use because they know most people don’t pay enough attention anyway. Which I admire in a way.
The definition of partisan is to do something not because you think it is good but because your party wants you to. If you are saying you would do that, you’ve just admitted there’s no point in discussing any policy with you, because you will always choose to be partisan.
Why you would admit this when you’ve repeatedly claimed that you are not partisan, I don’t know. But I have a hard time believing you don’t know what the word means.
Where are you getting this? The fillibuster hasn’ required occupying the floor in a LONG time. Business goes on.
That’s because the threat of a filibuster causes the majority to move onto other business. The majority does not actually have to move onto other business.
No, because the Republicans will be the ones refusing to go on to other business.
All the signs are pointing to an incredibly close election in the fall, and in any event, all the Republican efforts at vote caging and vote suppression means they have absolutely no basis for saying “the people have spoken.”
The GOP won’t call for a “real” filibuster for the same reasons the Dems didn’t do so when they controlled the Senate. It
-
gives the minority the ability to stop the majority from advancing any part of their agenda. Romney doesn’t want his “first one hundred days” to be entirely consumed by a healthcare fight. Especially since the economy will still be hurting, and he will want to be seen as taking action on that issue.
-
It’ll attract a lot of media attention. And since the Dems will control the floor, that media attention will be entirely taken up by Democratic Senators talking for hours about how many people repeal will kick off health insurance, how many hardworking Joe Schmoe’s won’t be able to get treatment because their cancer is a pre-existing condition, long sob-stories about shady insurance companies using pre-existing conditions to deny care to people, etc.
-
The GOP will need to keep 51 Senators in the Senate the entire time, while the Dems just need to cycle one or two people at a time to hold the floor.
The GOP might not do it, you’re right, but they don’t function exactly the same as the Democrats. The Democrats are always in a hurry, Republicans tend to be more confident that they’ll win the next election. If they really want the health care bill repealed through regular order, they’ll let the Democrats stop Senate business to protect an unpopular law.