About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Wallace lets McConnell criticize reconciliation even though he previously supported it

February 21, 2010 2:03 pm ET — 18 Comments

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace allowed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to criticize legislative reconciliation as arrogant without noting that McConnell has repeatedly supported the use of reconciliation in the past. McConnell voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts in 2003 and 2005 using reconciliation and supported reconciliation to pass legislation that would have allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Wallace lets McConnell criticize reconciliation without noting his pro-reconciliation record

From the February 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another thing, because it certainly doesn't seem to be headed that way because the White House and congressional Democrats are talking about using reconciliation. We should point out, it's a parliamentary budget maneuver that has been used by other presidents, including George W. Bush, but it would be a way to get health care reform through the Senate with just 51 votes without using a filibuster. Your colleague, or your counterpart, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, talked about it. Here it is.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) [video clip]: Reconciliation can be used for different purposes. We can write a whole new bill, OK? Or we can use reconciliation to pass the bill we've already passed.

WALLACE: What if they try that?

McCONNELL: Well, look, you know we've witnessed the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Gator aid -- the special deal for Florida. Now they're suggesting they might use a device which has never been used for this kind of major, systemic reform. We know it would be -- the only thing bipartisan about would be the opposition to it, because a number of Democrats have said don't do this, this is not the way to go. I think they're having a hard time getting the message here. The American people do not want this bill to pass, and it strikes me as rather arrogant to say, "Well, we're going to give it to you anyway. And we'll use whatever device is available to achieve that end."

FACT: McConnell supported Republican use of reconciliation to pass Bush tax cuts, oil drilling in ANWR

McConnell supported passage of 2003 tax cuts through reconciliation. While Wallace noted that reconciliation "has been used by other presidents, including George W. Bush," in 2003, McConnell himself voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. He subsequently voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, "would increase budget deficits ... by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period."

McConnell supported passage of 2005 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2005, McConnell voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. He subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress and signed by the president, would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

McConnell supported use of reconciliation to pass measure that would have allowed oil drilling in ANWR. McConnell was one of 51 senators who voted against striking language allowing the reconciliation process to be used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the 2006 budget resolution and voted for a reconciliation bill that, as originally introduced in and passed by the Senate, included a provision to open up the refuge to drilling. (The bill as enacted did not contain such a provision.)

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bintx (February 21, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
      10 1
      But that was DIFFERENT. He supports reconciliation if it's something HE wants.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 21, 2010 4:44 pm ET)
      6 1
      I had several specific things to say about this topic, but in the end they fade against the larger truth that no republican is allowed to talk anymore about anything.

      If they beg forgiveness for blowing a hole in the side of the world and go sit in the corner with a dunce cap on for a few years, maybe we'll think about it. But it's probably best if they just retire and be thankful that no subpoenas are coming since there aren't any actual liberals in government.

      The only chance republicans have at power is if the mess they just got done making is so colossally huge that a dent can't be made in it in two years' time, and if the mess they just got done making is so colossally huge that the voters can't conceive that it's possible to screw up so friggin' bad. So the only thing a republican can say that has any relevance to their own party is something that keeps picking at the scab of their own wound.

      So it's best that no republican be allowed to say anything.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bludog1 (February 21, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
      1 8
      Actually, from all that I have read, reconciliation has been used by both sides in the past for the more narrow purpose of fixing differences in tax based bills between the House and the Senate. It has not been used to introduce a whole new program, which of course the folks at OPMMFA (Only Progressive Media Matters For America) know full well. It should surprise no one that McConnell as well as the leadership of the Democrat party have used it in the past for its intended purpose.
      From Wikipedia: Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body. A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

      This use would break new ground and would likely serve as the precedent for all sorts of unintended consequences in the years that follow.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 21, 2010 6:19 pm ET)
        8  
        "all sorts of unintended consequences" amounts, in total, to the weakening of the filibuster. And the filibuster only benefits the party that uses the filibuster, which when push comes to shove is only republicans.

        In 2005 the republicans decided that they didn't like the filibuster. Not because it was blocking the entirety of their agenda, but because of a few judges. So they ordered the democrats to stop and the democrats obeyed.

        The only reason for following your advice is the presumption that in the future the republicans won't get something they really want next time they have power. That's impossible.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by daakaa (February 22, 2010 10:05 am ET)
            1
          With all due deference to Steeve (I'm guessing an alias for "Steve"--clever), the filibuster has a purpose for restraint on both sides of the aisle (who could forget Sen. Byrd's aimless ramblings of the past). The filibuster is a set of constitutional antilock brakes that gives the American people time to catch up on a bill that is unusually controversial. Anyone who cannot see that a massive transformation of the health insurance industry over which the previously filibuster-proof majority party could not agree needs time for serious reconsideration is not only blind to the bill's potential negative impact but deaf to the outcries of the American people. Agenda-based argument (I'm arguing my point from a Democrat/Republican slant) instead of debating facts on pure merit is why the growing independent American voter base wants to puke every time the two extreme party lines try to politcally crush one another for self-gratifying gain. In the particular case of this health bill, no sane person with any knowledge of the Constitution can construe that passing a bill in a more or less emergency measure to add a trillion dollars to the national debt is a matter of budget reconciliation. It goes against the very definition of the process. That's like a small business man saying, "I'm two million dollars in debt, and it's only going to get worse. I know--I'll reconcile my budget by buying a yacht." If the best recurring argument of the extreme left is, "Bush did it, so why can't we?" (and don't forget the visibly stuck out tongue), they will soon learn that a fast growing number of Americans easily see that the only transparency of the current administration is the nakedness of its hypocrisy. Congress is melting globally and its spirit of cooperation is in the poorest of health. Congress and all of its publishing pundits need to rid their eyes of massive beams before dealing with our country's problems which, by comparison, are mere splinters.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cohiba47 (February 22, 2010 8:48 pm ET)
               
            The filibuster is not a "Constitutional antilock brake". In fact, the filibuster is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. It is a Senate rule.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by winston smith 2 (February 22, 2010 10:36 pm ET)
               
            DAAKAA says...
            The filibuster is a set of constitutional antilock brakes that gives the American people time to catch up on a bill that is unusually controversial.


            Wrong. The Filibuster is not in the Constitution. But what is in the Constitution is that the Senate gets to make its own rules. Therefore...According to the Constitution The Senate can "Kill Fill"
            The Senate Filibuster was created by the Senate and can be killed by the Senate.
            Maybe you should try actually reading the Constitution?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (February 24, 2010 12:10 am ET)
               
            "the filibuster has a purpose for restraint on both sides of the aisle"-- When the republican party has power, it is (on all matters it truly cares about) completely unrestrained with or without the filibuster. You can reason and deduce all you want, but it's wasted if you don't start from the facts on the ground.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (February 22, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
        3  
        Actually, from all that I have read, reconciliation has been used by both sides in the past for the more narrow purpose of fixing differences in tax based bills between the House and the Senate.
        Well, then perhaps you didn't read the article you're responding to, which "actually" points out that McConnell and other senate Republicans voted to use reconciliation to open up the ANWR to drilling.

        Bills don't get much more contentious or budgetary than the health care proposal. Calling it "unprecedented" to use reconciliation to achieve such a goal is nothing more than moving the goalposts on your part. There's nothing against-the-rules about it, and as another commenter has observed, if you don't think Republicans would do it to get what they want, you're not a very keen observer of Republicans (who, after all, came up with the whole idea of the "nuclear option").

        If Republicans want to avoid a cramdown, they should play ball and get the people's business done.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by winston smith 2 (February 22, 2010 10:25 pm ET)
           
        Health care reform has already passed both houses Reconciliation would not be used to create a "whole new program" as you suggest but to reconcile what has been passed.
        And it has be used for broader bills than "tax based bills" as you call them. Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. was done thru reconciliation. Medicare Advantage , Ditto. Also through reconciliation came COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) which let Americans keep their healthcare if they lose a job.

        You said...
        "This use would break new ground and would likely serve as the precedent for all sorts of unintended consequences in the years that follow."


        No. This would not break new ground. The only reason the Senate functions this way now is because of the BYRD RULE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29#Byrd_Rule
        The Byrd rule was adopted in 1985.Returning the Senate to how it functioned in 1985 is hardly breaking new ground.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (February 21, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
      2  
      The Salient point is not just that Senator McConnell supported reconciliation - he participated in it.

      The words "rank" and "dishonesty" spring to mind.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (February 21, 2010 7:32 pm ET)
      5  
      "I was for it, before I was against it."

      John Kerry? Nope, Mitch (the ditch) McConnell.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne1 (February 21, 2010 7:55 pm ET)
      6  
      Hypocrisy, thy name is Mitch McConnell.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by daakaa (February 22, 2010 10:08 am ET)
          3
        Oh, I understand the argument now. Let me take a turn--Mitch McConnell, thy name is Julia Jayne. It's the playground equivalent of "You stink", and reeks with the same maturity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (February 22, 2010 10:58 pm ET)
             
          This morsel is too delicious:
          Oh, I understand the argument now.
          Um, it's not really an "argument" when after reading about someone's hypocrisy, you call him a hypocrite. It's more of an "observation."
          Let me take a turn--Mitch McConnell, thy name is Julia Jayne.
          Oh-kayy, not only is it not an argument, but also you don't understand it. When you "take a turn," try making at least a speck of sense.
          It's the playground equivalent of "You stink", [sic]
          Well, there are two ways you could go with this... if the article had been about Mitch McConnell emitting an unpleasant odor, it might be the equivalent, or, if kids insulted each other with "Malodorousness, thy name is Joey," then maybe.
          and reeks with the same maturity.
          Here's a tip: when impugning your opponent for saying the "equivalent of 'You Stink,'" avoid using the term "reeks" to describe her.

          Mmm, wingnut pie. My favorite dessert.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by TJ_rex (February 22, 2010 1:21 am ET)
      3  
      Chris, I'm looking for a hand in your back or puppet strings. How the hell can you be that dense?
      Do you need the money that bad that you'll prostitute yourself for Fox Noise? Goodness man get a spine!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jim Rockford (February 22, 2010 2:04 pm ET)
      3  
      McConnell frequently gets a free ride. Couple of weeks ago David Gregory on MTP let him get by with a statement along the lines that "Obama only knows how to make the stock market go down". A laughably absurd statement, bordering on insanity, since in the past year the market has staged one of the most remarkable comeback rallies in history. But Gregory let him get away with it completely unchallenged.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jc1 (February 22, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
         
      This is the only existing plank in the Republican platform. We are against EVERYTHING, even if it is something that we were or even currently are for.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.