"Nuclear Option" stupidity comes full circle
February 24, 2010 1:18 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
Want to see a neat trick?
As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.
To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.
Here's how the trick works:
Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.
Among others, the video has been picked up by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, CPAC "Blogger of the Year" Ed Morrissey, Matt Drudge, and, of course, Fox Nation:
In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.
This is absurd.
The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.
To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of
"deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of
conservatives attacking "freedom."
It would be about as honest.
It is clear that filibuster rule applies to legislation, but not necessarily to judicial appointments. This was the whole point of 2005 Dems opposition to "nuclear" option, which was attempt by GOP to have it NOT apply in nomination cases. It was a reasonable debate to have.
But it was in your 1970's that "reconciliation" was invented to bypass filibuster rule for (strictly!) budget/deficit issues, and the spirit of reconciliation was to permit CUTS in government spending (a notably difficult thing for politicians to agree on). It has been used some 25 times - and not always for cuts - but ALWAYS for budget/deficit issues (which is an absolute parlimentary requirement). Each individual aspect of a reconciled bill MUST be deficit related, else that provision is stricken from the bill before it moves to the House, where, by the way, it must be passed unaltered (no conference committee or anything).
For the Dems to scream bloody murder ("End of Democracy", "Naked power grab", etc.) over its use in the possibly ambiguous case of nominees, yet welcome it's use in sweeping policy legislation (where it absolutely is not applicable) is - I'm sorry - a bit hypocritical. Face it, although some aspects of Health Care Reform ARE indeed budget issues (as were the previous incremental Health related bills passed this way), all the policy provisions would have to be stricken from it, creating a ridiculous result.
Ben Dimiero's lead-in article is little more than a blogabation forcing square facts into round holes to suit ideology. This forwards no cause, except to flaw the ideology he wishes to espouse. For myself, I do not welcome him to our cause, which is just, but must (and can!) be fought on the grounds of truth.
To me, it is a big stretch to ASSUME that these guys actually understand parliamentary process and Senate workings.
They get all of their education and info on Congress from Fox, the GOP and Christian home-schooling.
Let us not forget that Drudge has been running with this bogus phony comparison all day, too ...
If you're claiming to be a news organization or a pundit, you should have to know this stuff, or at least make a solid effort to understand and explain it. I expect my surgeon to have passed med school, and I expect "opinion leaders" and "news organizations" to have an equivalent understanding of politics as a Political Science major. If that's to much to ask of pundits without a college education, that's fine, but I expect them to have a producer with a PoliSci degree explaining it to them.
It makes me sick to see the American public being used by "news" networks that they think they can trust, because they do not know any better. People in the south (where I live) are born bred conservatives that watch Fox news morning, evening, and night and believe every last bit of their propaganda because it is on a television "news" network and appeals to their political stance. They really do not know that Fox is just a puppet network for the Republican party..
The most recent indecent when I was taking a trip to a conference in Orlando with my father, uncle, and two of my cousins a week ago. Somewhere along the drive one of them brought up a discussion about health care. Their ideas about the facts of health care sounded like it was coming straight from Fox. I mean every misinformed fact about the health care plan was right on point with Beck and the gang. When I tried to tell them they were actually being pretty much brainwashed and misinformed by Fox, they thought I was being paranoid and said "How could a news agency be that biased?" and that Fox was just telling the hard truth. My family are all pretty much conservatives, but they are not right wing fanatics or anything.
It actually made me furious that this "news" sources like Fox and Drudge are pretty much controlling the views of MY OWN FAMILY, without them really even knowing. With them being conservative and hearing all this stuff coming from Fox I guess they do not question it because they think that all of America thinks the same way, so it makes them sink deeper into the propaganda. I am truly saddened by this and hope there is something that can be done.
I see now. Their names are different... And for what it's worth, it could be argued that holding up confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee does affect the budget since their salaries are contained in the federal budget...
Reconciliation--whether Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, or Federalists use it--is too efficient for the Senate since everything can be portrayed as affecting the budget. I'm all for 60 votes for everything going through that chamber. The government's capcity to "do something" is too large as it is.
The truth is that the Rs are showing they know how to master the message. And as usual, the Ds are going to the wrong address.
I get it that the "nuclear option" (hate that term) and reconciliation are different things. One is changing a Senate rule, at least as it relates to judicial nominees, and the other is not. I understand. But, in effect, they are attempting to accomplish the same thing -- to use a procedural tactic to circumvent the intent of the rules of the Senate.
Reconciliation was created specifically for budgetary matters and it should only be used for budgetary matters. Now, the Bush tax cuts were clearly budgetary, so they qualify. Health care reform? Not so much. And, yes, I agree that when the Republicans have used it in the past to push through non-budget measures, they were in the wrong too.
If you want to change the rules of the Senate, change the rules of the Senate. It's not handed down from God that you must have 60 votes to pass something. It's just a Senate rule. So change it if you want. But don't, whether Republican or Democrat, whether on a judicial nominee or health care legislate, attempt to circumvent the rules to achieve your goals.