(Politico).Sen. Jon Kyl, No. 2 Republican in the Senate, told Fox News last night that passing a health care bill through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process would be the same as "the nuclear option."
It's a phrase that Republicans are increasingly invoking these days, but they are being far from clear on what they mean by that. Will they shut down the Senate if Democrats move in that direction? Or is it a talking point aimed at portraying the majority party as overreaching?
The term started in 2005 when a frustrated Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) planned to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, a move both sides called "the nuclear option." It was clear that if Republicans proceeded down that road, partisan warfare would have broken out and all Senate business would be stalled.
But the budget reconciliation process is far different. Republicans used the process in 2001 and 2003 to pass Bush's tax cuts, and tried unsuccessfully in 2005 to fast-track drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the time, Democrats complained that the process was being abused.
Now Democrats are considering using the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill. Led by Robert Byrd, the process was created in 1974 as a way to make changes in tax laws and entitlement programs to meet the goals laid out in a non-binding budget blueprint Congress approves early in the year.
Since such changes are often very unpopular, Congress ensured they could not be filibustered in the Senate. And since floor debate in the Senate can be limited to 20 hours, passing health care reform by a simple majority is a very attractive option for the majority party.
For now, the GOP is objecting strenuously to the possibility, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made clear is on the table.
"First of all, the reconciliation process, or the so-called nuclear option, is not ideal for writing legislation like this," Kyl said last night. "It's never been used to do something this sweeping. ... And if they just tried to ram that through with sheer numbers in opposition to American public opinion, I think it would be a -- well, A, it would be bad for the country, and B, I think it would be bad politically for the Democrats."
It's a phrase that Republicans are increasingly invoking these days, but they are being far from clear on what they mean by that. Will they shut down the Senate if Democrats move in that direction? Or is it a talking point aimed at portraying the majority party as overreaching?
The term started in 2005 when a frustrated Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) planned to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, a move both sides called "the nuclear option." It was clear that if Republicans proceeded down that road, partisan warfare would have broken out and all Senate business would be stalled.
But the budget reconciliation process is far different. Republicans used the process in 2001 and 2003 to pass Bush's tax cuts, and tried unsuccessfully in 2005 to fast-track drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the time, Democrats complained that the process was being abused.
Now Democrats are considering using the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill. Led by Robert Byrd, the process was created in 1974 as a way to make changes in tax laws and entitlement programs to meet the goals laid out in a non-binding budget blueprint Congress approves early in the year.
Since such changes are often very unpopular, Congress ensured they could not be filibustered in the Senate. And since floor debate in the Senate can be limited to 20 hours, passing health care reform by a simple majority is a very attractive option for the majority party.
For now, the GOP is objecting strenuously to the possibility, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made clear is on the table.
"First of all, the reconciliation process, or the so-called nuclear option, is not ideal for writing legislation like this," Kyl said last night. "It's never been used to do something this sweeping. ... And if they just tried to ram that through with sheer numbers in opposition to American public opinion, I think it would be a -- well, A, it would be bad for the country, and B, I think it would be bad politically for the Democrats."
Here is video of Ann Coulter on the Glenn Beck Show yesterday where she talked about what will happen if the Democrats try to ram their Government Health Care plan through the Senate using the "nuclear option," meaning the "reconciliation process" that requires only 51 votes to bring it to the floor for a final vote.
Coulter said that if the Democrats do that, they will bring on a "massive Republican victory" in the 2010 Congressional elections.
Coulter said that if the Democrats do that, they will bring on a "massive Republican victory" in the 2010 Congressional elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment