Irony

[BQZip01]

Does anyone else find this ironic:

Congress debating the "nuclear option" on the anniversary of America's largest nuclear test?

[nsplayr]

Reconciliation is not "the nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is using a point of order to declare a filibuster unconstitutional, a vote on which would only require a simple majority, thus potentially ending the filibuster for good. Came about most prominently in 2005 when Democrats were filibustering (or threatening to do so...actual filibusters almost never happen) some of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees and the Republicans were fed up with it. Gang of 14 bipartisan group came up with a compromise at the last minute.

What's happening now is reconciliation, which is very different. It's a process where bills that deal with budgetary concerns (debt-limiting measures, stop-gap payments for programs that are about to have their authorizations end, fixes to previously passed budgets) can be passed with a simple majority and are immune to a filibuster. Has been used several times as a way to pass something you don't have 60 votes for but really wanna do, like the Bush tax cuts, etc. that don't strictly fit the mold of what reconciliation was created to accomplish. Both parties have tried to use it at other times to pass different tax cuts, budgets, oil drilling, healthcare, etc.

Read on the differences between the Nuclear Option vs. Reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used numerous times in the past by both parties. The actual Nuclear Option has never been carried out, but these days politicians are getting more traction calling reconciliation "the nuclear option" because it makes it sound like something bad. It's a finger-pointing, political point-scoring, parliamentary queer-fest that does not deserve a thread here on Baseops.net. I'm sure you are all worse off for having read this...

[magnetfreezer]

Reconciliation is not "the nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is using a point of order to declare a filibuster unconstitutional, a vote on which would only require a simple majority, thus potentially ending the filibuster for good. Came about most prominently in 2005 when Democrats were filibustering (or threatening to do so...actual filibusters almost never happen) some of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees and the Republicans were fed up with it. Gang of 14 bipartisan group came up with a compromise at the last minute.

What's happening now is reconciliation, which is very different. It's a process where bills that deal with budgetary concerns (debt-limiting measures, stop-gap payments for programs that are about to have their authorizations end, fixes to previously passed budgets) can be passed with a simple majority and are immune to a filibuster. Has been used several times as a way to pass something you don't have 60 votes for but really wanna do, like the Bush tax cuts, etc. that don't strictly fit the mold of what reconciliation was created to accomplish. Both parties have tried to use it at other times to pass different tax cuts, budgets, oil drilling, healthcare, etc.

Read on the differences between the Nuclear Option vs. Reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used numerous times in the past by both parties. The actual Nuclear Option has never been carried out, but these days politicians are getting more traction calling reconciliation "the nuclear option" because it makes it sound like something bad. It's a finger-pointing, political point-scoring, parliamentary queer-fest that does not deserve a thread here on Baseops.net. I'm sure you are all worse off for having read this...

Don't think this is a valid use of reconciliation though - a completely new healthcare paradigm is not exactly "fixes to previously passed budgets". It's like equating developing/acquiring a new MWS to signing off on TO -1 interim change 69.

[BFM this]

Don't think this is a valid use of reconciliation though - a completely new healthcare paradigm is not exactly "fixes to previously passed budgets". It's like equating developing/acquiring a new MWS to signing off on TO -1 interim change 69.

And therein lies the debate...

[nsplayr]

Don't think this is a valid use of reconciliation though - a completely new healthcare paradigm is not exactly "fixes to previously passed budgets". It's like equating developing/acquiring a new MWS to signing off on TO -1 interim change 69.

I agree with you. Even if this is the case (and some people will debate that I guess), reconciliation is not = to the nuclear option, and that was the point of my nerdy post.

On the other hand, being sympathetic to the idea of passing healthcare reform, I'd support pushing it through because it's been used inappropriately in the past by both parties and the world didn't end so it's not as big of a deal as some people are making it out the be. The entire reason the Bush tax cuts are ending is because they had a 10 year limit, which they had only because they were passed via reconciliation. Large tax cuts are not exactly "small fixes to previously passed budgets either," but the republicans were willing to play hardball and got what they wanted.

I'd be supportive of just getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate and having them work more like the House does, where a majority party can actually pass it's agenda. The filibuster is not even a written rule, it's just a tradition of the senate that came about in the 1800s that needs to pass away. Unless the parties are willing to compromise and work together more often (the preferred option IMHO), it's undemocratic that a minority can completely roadblock the wishes of the majority. And it goes both ways (sts) and each party would have to work harder to either win the elections or suffer through the other party's agenda becoming law. It's ridiculous that we vote for leaders who are unable to carry out their promises (if they even attempt to) because the way Washington works prevents them from actually governing the country.

[Guest mepppf]

I agree with you. Even if this is the case (and some people will debate that I guess), reconciliation is not = to the nuclear option, and that was the point of my nerdy post.

On the other hand, being sympathetic to the idea of passing healthcare reform, I'd support pushing it through because it's been used inappropriately in the past by both parties and the world didn't end so it's not as big of a deal as some people are making it out the be. The entire reason the Bush tax cuts are ending is because they had a 10 year limit, which they had only because they were passed via reconciliation. Large tax cuts are not exactly "small fixes to previously passed budgets either," but the republicans were willing to play hardball and got what they wanted.

I'd be supportive of just getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate and having them work more like the House does, where a majority party can actually pass it's agenda. The filibuster is not even a written rule, it's just a tradition of the senate that came about in the 1800s that needs to pass away. Unless the parties are willing to compromise and work together more often (the preferred option IMHO), it's undemocratic that a minority can completely roadblock the wishes of the majority. And it goes both ways (sts) and each party would have to work harder to either win the elections or suffer through the other party's agenda becoming law. It's ridiculous that we vote for leaders who are unable to carry out their promises (if they even attempt to) because the way Washington works prevents them from actually governing the country.

Wish there wasn't a promise to squeak health reform by... http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

[Herk Driver]

Wish there wasn't a promise to squeak health reform by... http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

So, are you saying that Obama = Karl Rove? That's what I thought I heard at about 1:24.

[Guest BUFF DRIVER]

Either way its only a matter of time until we max out the credit card and then we will see what handouts Uncle Sam will provide when we break the bank

[338skybolt]

I'd be supportive of just getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate and having them work more like the House does, where a majority party can actually pass it's agenda. The filibuster is not even a written rule, it's just a tradition of the senate that came about in the 1800s that needs to pass away.

Just curious if you'd be so enthusiastic in your views of the filibuster if the Republicans had the majority?

Unless the parties are willing to compromise and work together more often (the preferred option IMHO), it's undemocratic that a minority can completely roadblock the wishes of the majority.

It may be "undemocratic" but it certainly isn't "un-republic".

[nsplayr]

Just curious if you'd be so enthusiastic in your views of the filibuster if the Republicans had the majority?

Yes. If it were up to me to create new rules, I'd give each side (so long as there are only two parties) X number of filibuster opportunities to use on whatever bills they want and that's it. Think of it like the red-flag challenges coaches get in the NFL. If you blow your chances to challenge a bill early on in the year then later on the majority can pass what they want if they have the votes for it (i.e. 51).

It's crazy that the Democrats own the house, have 59 votes in the Senate, and hold the White House yet can't pass some of the signature legislation in their platform. The same would be true for republicans...remember when President Bush wanted an "up or down vote" on his judicial nominees? I agreed with him...even if these judges were off their rockers (some may have been), they were qualified judges and if the President wanted to appoint them to higher positions that was his perogative. The Senate can "consult" to the point of weeding out people who are clearly unqualified, but if a majority of Senators thinks a person is qualified he/she should be confirmed.

Filibusters should be used rarely and the threat of a filibuster can no effectively shut down the government. If I was the majority leader, I'd let the minority physically filibuster a bill. It makes them look stupid and obstructionist when they're trying to read the phone book for 24 hours straight and it rarely works...people physically can't stand and talk for more than 24 hours without stopping or having to pee.

[zmoney]

Reconciliation is not "the nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is using a point of order to declare a filibuster unconstitutional, a vote on which would only require a simple majority, thus potentially ending the filibuster for good. Came about most prominently in 2005 when Democrats were filibustering (or threatening to do so...actual filibusters almost never happen) some of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees and the Republicans were fed up with it. Gang of 14 bipartisan group came up with a compromise at the last minute.

What's happening now is reconciliation, which is very different. It's a process where bills that deal with budgetary concerns (debt-limiting measures, stop-gap payments for programs that are about to have their authorizations end, fixes to previously passed budgets) can be passed with a simple majority and are immune to a filibuster. Has been used several times as a way to pass something you don't have 60 votes for but really wanna do, like the Bush tax cuts, etc. that don't strictly fit the mold of what reconciliation was created to accomplish. Both parties have tried to use it at other times to pass different tax cuts, budgets, oil drilling, healthcare, etc.

Read on the differences between the Nuclear Option vs. Reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used numerous times in the past by both parties. The actual Nuclear Option has never been carried out, but these days politicians are getting more traction calling reconciliation "the nuclear option" because it makes it sound like something bad. It's a finger-pointing, political point-scoring, parliamentary queer-fest that does not deserve a thread here on Baseops.net. I'm sure you are all worse off for having read this...

One of the most intelligent posts I've read on baseops.