Reconciliation was created through the Budget Reform Act of 1974 in an effort to streamline the budget process, strengthen the ability of Congress to make tough decisions regarding deficits, and to make legislative decision-making more efficient. Congress quickly expanded on the types of measures that could be considered under reconciliation until 1985 and 1986, when the Senate passed rules proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd that limited what could or could not be included when using this process. Before moving forward, Democrats must consider two questions. The first is whether using reconciliation to pass health care is legitimate or an abuse of the process. Republicans have charged that this would be akin to forcing the program through the chamber rather than passing the bill through negotiation and compromise. On this question, the answer is easy. Reconciliation has been as much a part of the Senate in the past three decades as the filibuster. According to an article that was published in The New Republic, Congress passed 22 reconciliation bills between 1980 and 2008. Many important policy changes were enacted through this process, including the Children's Health Insurance Program, COBRA (which allows people who switch jobs to keep their health care), student aid reform, expansions in Medicaid and several major tax cuts. NPR's Julie Rovner reported that most of the health care reforms enacted in the past two decades have gone through reconciliation. President Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to make aggressive use of reconciliation when he pushed through his economic program in 1981. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker said then that speed had been essential because "Every day that this is delayed makes it more difficult to pass. This is an extraordinary proposal, and these are extraordinary times." Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all used reconciliation as well. It is worth noting that these presidents, particularly George W. Bush, also made use of sweeping executive power to circumvent Congress altogether. The second question is more difficult and it involves perceptions. If the Democratic leadership wants to use this tactic, they have to convince enough members of their own party that this won't scare off independent voters. This argument was harder to make in 2009 than in 2010. But after a year of dealing with paralysis in the Senate and highly effective Republican obstruction, more Democrats are coming on board. The leadership must be proactive in responding to the criticism about reconciliation. They will have to explain that reconciliation is a legitimate process by pointing to the history. They will also have to connect the dots for voters frustrated with the ineffective government by explaining that the constant use of the filibuster has turned the Senate into a supermajority institution where both parties have found it extraordinarily difficult -- virtually impossible -- to pass major legislation.On this point, Republicans and Democrats actually agree. Indeed, as Democrats make this decision, Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning is objecting to a unanimous consent order and single-handedly preventing the Senate from passing an important bill to assist unemployed workers.
This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding health care costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the health care system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing health care is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy. The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US health care system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries. And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for health care as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our health care is paid through public sector programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in health care costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector. On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.
