Over at the New America Foundation’s “New Health Dialogue” blog, Joanne Kenen comments on how the media is treating the term “reconciliation” when discussing health care reform.
“Scanning the news coverage this morning of the White House health summit, I kept seeing phrases like 'a parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation.' I couldn't help wonder — if reconciliation, which is admittedly not a pretty way to pass health reform, is a 'parliamentary maneuver' with all the negativity that phrase connotes, what is a filibuster? Have we become so inured to the constant use of the filibuster, allowing a minority to grind the Senate to a halt, that we have forgotten that it is arguably the mother-of-all parliamentary maneuvers?”
Kenen is spot-on. After reading her post, I Googled “reconciliation,” “maneuver” and “health care”, only to find 10 pages of news stories where “reconciliation” was referred to as a “maneuver” or what the Random House dictionary defines as “an adroit move, skillful proceeding, etc., esp. as characterized by craftiness; ploy: political maneuver.”
The New York Times (which used the term twice in the first two paragraph of a story) , CBS News, PBS, Joe Lieberman (via Huffington) Fox News, the LA Times, mother jones, and Newsweek, all seem to believe that there is something downright shifty about trying to pass a bill by majority vote.
Or, as the Heritage Foundation blog puts it: “Reconciliation Maneuvers Around the Will of the People.” Last time I checked, a majority defined “the will of the people.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Also, could I suggest that journalists and bloggers everywhere need a Thesaurus on their desks? We don’t all have to use the same phrases do we? For instance, reconciliation could be called a “parliamentary procedure” or just a plain “plan” without implying “fancy footwork,” “artifice,” “gambit,” “intrigue,” “machination” “plot,” “ruse,” “scheme,” “stunt,” “subterfuge” or “trick”—all synonyms for “maneuver.”
I think a key difference between reconciliation and the filibuster in the Senate is the length of their histories. Reconciliation was introduced only in 1974 and was originally intended to deal with budget related issues that impacted a single fiscal year. The following link provides a history of reconciliation and how the use of that process evolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
By contrast, the filibuster concept has been around since the early days of the Republic. Its first formal use was in 1837 while specific rules related to the invocation of cloture date to 1917. In 1975, the number of Senate votes required to invoke cloture (cut off debate) was reduced to 60 from 67. For a history of the filibuster in the U.S. (and elsewhere), see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
I can understand why some people feel that the combination of the short history of reconciliation combined with the Senate’s attempt to use it to pass healthcare reform which could restructure 17% of our economy is an inappropriate abuse of the process. Personally, I don’t feel all that strongly about it one way or the other. As the President said on Thursday, if people have a problem with the process, “that’s what elections are for.”
It took me a while but I am on board with reconciliation. The health care summit or whatever you want to call it on Thursday may have only been good theatre, but I think it was valuable in that the public was able to hear the points in the Democratic bills articulated. The Republicans seem to come across over and over with ideas that have already been discredited and by their own admission will only cover 3 million people. That seems to be the big-picture difference–do we cover 30 million or 3 million? Not only were bills like COBRA passed with this process and are now taken for granted but there were unfunded tax cuts passed using this process whose name implies that the revenue and the spending must be reconciled.
I am not a huge fan of the Dem bill, but status quo is not an option. I am worried that it may increase the costs of a union health plan that I sit on as a trustee. But the status quo is not an option.
I think they should go for it. This from a polictial independent.
Barry & Martha –
Thanks for your comments.
Barry-Thanks to the link on the filibuster
Yes, the filibuster has a long history, but not a particularly savory one.
It’s interesting that the word goes back to the Spanish “filibustero” which means “pirate.” The filibuster was originally seen as an opportunity to “pirate” or “hijack” a debate.
In modern American history (post-WW II) the filibuster became infamous as a tool used to block civil rights legislation (this goes all the way back to 1946 when it was successful.)
Filibusers used to be rare; it’s only in the past two or three decades that they have become commonplace.
Martha-
You’re right: the status quo is not an option.
Something has to be done, and covering 3 million isn’t enough.
The Republicans never really offered an alternative to the Democratic plan.
I am hopeful that adding 30 milion to the insured pool will force us to rein in spending by taking a hard look at unncessary tests and treatments while simultaneously finding ways to cap prices– either through negotiation or regulation.