Micro-reconciliation

Or they could term it, "Look, we want to help the American people. We want to improve healthcare. We want to save lives. This is how we get it done."

Trying to brand it micro-reconcilliation as a meme to be pushed out to all the news shows and repeated ad nauseum is unlikely to have the desired effect. And is more easily counter-acted. Whether it's passing the bill or making tweaks, the point is: it's going to save lives! It's going to solve problems! What about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children?

That's the way to go.

how about "tidying up" or "tying loose ends"?

"I've obviously been struggling to sharply explain the difference between passing a bill through reconciliation and making a few small tweaks to a bill through reconciliation."

Depends on what your definition of "bill" is. :)

Reconciliation is a legitimate process if, and only if, it is used according to the established rules. As noted in several places, Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget committee has stated on several occasions that he does not believe the controversial components of HCR can be protected under reconciliation. This was a major reason the original Senate HCR bill was not brought up under reconciliation rules.

Apparently the current idea de jure is to bundle these components into a "side car" bill with the claim that even if individual components do not merit reconciliation protection, they are covered as part of a larger package. The Republicans tried this with energy legislation in 2005 and their own parliamentarian struck it down. It has been noted that he lost his job over that decision but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats overturned the decision.

In reality, it is very difficult to predict what will happen. The Democrat staff is almost surely working as closely as possible with the parliamentarian to fully understand the rules, precedents and decisions of the Senate so they can write a bill that meets the Byrd rule requirements. Frankly, given what they are trying to do, I do not see how they will be able to reach that goal.

A very critical point is that Alin Frumin, the Senate parliamentarian, is VERY well respected by both sides of the aisle. He and Robert Dove switched back and forth in the office from 1980 (might have been earlier) until 2005 depending on which party controlled the Senate and when Dove was fired in 2005, the Republicans chose Frumin to come back in as parliamentarian.

If Frumin rules as most observers expect; The presiding officer of the Senate, (presumably the VP will be in the chair but it could be any Democrat Senator), will need to issue a ruling from the chair in conflict with the ruling from the parliamentarian. It is the ruling from the chair which is final and sets the precedent for not only this bill but all other reconciliation bills in the future. Republicans would of course appeal the ruling of the chair but they would need 60 votes to uphold the appeal and that is not going to happen.

If these events unfold as expected, and Democrats at both the staff and Senator level have been fairly open about their intention to overrule Frumin if neccessary; Republicans would be completely justified in maintaining the process had been perverted. I sincerely hope I am wrong but given the restrictions of the Byrd rule and Alin Frumin's recognized integrity, I see no other way the Democrats can prevail.

@ WoodbridgeVa1 "Dove was fired in 2005, the Republicans"

the repiglicans fired parlimentarian Dove in 2001 after a unfavorable (in their eyes) ruling on using reconciliation. The parliamentarian was threatened with firing if he ruled against the repiglicans on the nuclear option (eliminating the filibuster), but I see no evidence that the parliamentarian was fired then...

@ WoodbridgeVa1 "controversial components of HCR can be protected under reconciliation." What "controversial" components are being considered. The package that Obama put together are all revenue related and perfectly in line with reconciliation. Again, when the public option (expanding medicare would be an easier and reconciliation approved way to move toward a public option) or abortion language is actually in a reconciliation bill, we can talk about problems with reconciliation.

How 'bout we stick with "normal, reconciliation process", since that appears to be what Dems are proposing to use.

Yeah WoodbridgeVA1, you're going to have to be a bit more specific about what things the Dems are proposing to put through reconciliation that you think is inappropriate. As srw3 pointed out, the package proposed by President Obama is pretty closely related to the budget, which makes it appropriate for reconciliation.

And if the Dems propose the PO through reconciliation then the parliamentarian will make a ruling. Either it's appropriate or it's not, but we won't know until he decides.

Actually, now I think that's the endgame for all these Senators signing on to bringing the PO back through reconciliation: if the partliamentarian deems it inappropriate for reconciliation they can say, "We tried!" to the base and "We could pass this with a simple majority if the Republicans would stop filibustering!" without ever actually having to take a vote on it.

I think we should stop using the word "reconciliation" and call it what it truly is an "up-or-down vote."

As political messaging I don't think it works. It's not based on any simple principal that has strong, broadly based support. Up or down vote has a democratic pedigree, and everybody gets it. But, one party gets to make "micro" changes through different procedures? Huh?

Also, much too defensive, and invites an argument we don't want to have. They'll say - oh, the Democrats are funny. They just want to take over the federal health care system - and it's a "micro-change"! People won't respond well - and if we argue that the main ideas of HCR are in the other bill, so reconciliation is a "micro-change," we lose. Even if people don't know the details, it's pretty well fixed in their minds that HCR is a big bill that does big things - and they're not wrong. If the changes in the reconciliation fix really are "micro," then why on earth would Dems refuse to pass the bill without them? That's even worse! But of course, the changes aren't "micro" - they shift taxes and spending in very large sums.

As others have said - the point is that this bill is going to insure 30 million people and make sure you don't lose coverage if you get sick. It's going to fix broken health insurance markets that *this year* caused Blue Cross Anthem to raise premiums 20, 30, even 39% on their subscribers.

srw3,

so don't you think if the current parlementarian says something crazy like a public option is OUT that the Dems wouldn't rush to fire him?

I agree with the people arguing that "up or down vote" is the best route. People get it, and that's what it is. Still, people need to be reminded every day that the only thing going through reconciliation are the tweaks to the Senate bill. The bill itself will be passed through the normal up or down vote procedures and some budgetary stuff will go through reconciliation, which is what reconciliation was designed for.

visionbrkr, no, I think there's a very low likelihood that the Dems would try to oust the parliamentarian if he ruled against the public option. I'm happy to admit when I'm proven wrong, but that's just not how the Dems have done business in twenty years, if not longer.

I actually think some Dems are counting on the parliamentarian ruling out the PO so they can say they supported it without having to take vote in favor of going through reconciliation.

So what happens if that's what the Dems do? They submit the PO to the parliamentarian and he rules it out and the Dems say 'ok'. Will you admit that the Republicans play dirty and break the rules and the Dems don't?