Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Reconciliation and partisanship -- in graph form

The Sunlight Foundation released a great graphic this morning showing the partisan breakdown of recent reconciliation votes. It's a bit big to repost here, but take a look for yourself. Contrary to what some Republicans are saying, those blue and red bars don't overlap very often. But it's interesting to note that they overlapped a lot more frequently in the Clinton years than in the Bush years.

By Ezra Klein  |  March 4, 2010; 3:01 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Exclusive: 'Wellpoint would be a primary beneficiary' if reform fails, investment firm says
Next: The Senate parliamentarian


Personally, I am tired of the credence that the "partisanship" argument against passing HCR seems to get. Does anyone deny that HCR contains most of the principles set forth by the baker/dole/daschle proposal from last year? Isn't that a bipartisan proposal? Aren't the exchanges and the individual mandate directly from the 1993 repiglican HCR proposal? Why don't I hear this pointed out repeatedly when the issue of partisanship comes up?

Its time to call out hypoclicans on their shameless flip flopping on substantive issues for political gains.

Posted by: srw3 | March 4, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

What is obvious from the chart, outside of your point Ezra, is the Republican's frequent willingness to utilize the reconciliation process. From a philosophical standpoint, they had a larger majority then, when you take into account the conservative Blue Dog democrats that would vote with them on tax and environmental issues.

I say good on the Democrats for making an effort to move this through the regular legislative process, before resorting to reconcilication. I also think the Democrats have the flavor of the Republicans now and shouldn't have to wait a full year before moving future legislation like Climate Change, toward reconciliation, if it will help.

Posted by: Jaycal | March 4, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Why was reconciliation used onmatters that had broad bipartisan support? Why wasn't there just an ordinary vote?

Posted by: tomtildrum | March 5, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Oops. Looks like all were budget or budget related bills. Is not that the intended purpose of the reconciliation process? And have not most of the players on the Democrat side proclaimed their opposition to using the process for anything other than budget matters? And Is not our form of government a republic rather than a democrcy? And was not the Senate created by the Founders to place a brake on the inclination of representatives to use a simple majority to run roughshod over minorities? I may be wrong but I am sure I heard all of this someshere.

Posted by: troyjordan523 | March 5, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company