The Byrd Rule

| Mon Mar. 23, 2009 10:46 AM PDT
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have never roused myself to understand the intricacies of the budget reconciliation process and the Byrd rule. The reconciliation process is basically designed to eliminate Senate filibusters on budget resolutions, but it's the Byrd rule that specifies what counts as a budget issue and what doesn't. But who decides what the Byrd rule itself says?  Ezra Klein:

The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision — however that is defined — is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?

It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable. Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation. But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.

Ah, I see. The Senate parliamentarian will decide whether we get healthcare reform this year. That's comforting to know. Perhaps Ezra's next task should be an in-depth profile of Alan Frumin, apparently the people's representative for all things healthcare related.

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

World's Greatest Deliberative Body

The local city council is more transparent and sensible than this.

The Parliamentarian advises

The Parliamentarian advises the chair on how to rule based on existing rules and precedents, in keeping with the legal concept of stare decisis. He is a non-partisan advisor to the chair. The ultimate power over chamber rules and what they mean still (and always) resides with the Senate itself. They can vote by supermajority to waive the budget act, or override the statute by unanimous consent. If there is any point to be made here, it is only to prove that reconciliation was never intended to be used for implementing policy changes such as health care reform or cap and trade. If people are not happy with some of the potential repercussions of the President using reconciliation to enact his proposal, it's only because they are suggesting the parliamentary equivalent of using a wrench to hammer in a nail. Doesn't work so good? No shit. That's because it was never meant to be used for that purpose.

Reconciliation and the Byrd Rule

tagged as: 
Reconciliation has existed since the Budget Act became law in 1974. It cannot be filibustered because it was intended to reduce the deficit -- a purpose viewed as so important that the Senate's tradition of unlimited debate should be set aside to achieve this purpose. It has been highjacked largely by the Republicans to cut social spending and taxes. Democrats should not hesitate to hijack it for their purposes including health reform. The Byrd rule is just a provision of the Budget Act and can be revised or repealed by just a majority of Senate Democrats on the Budget Committee. It is not a good excuse for not using Reconciliation to pass health reform. The Senate Democratic leadership should simply change it -- not use it as an excuse.

Since Mojo has this useless

Since Mojo has this useless feature of 'recommending' comments, how about we 'recommend' the stupidest posts?

Byrd rule

An addition to the discussion of the Byrd rule:

Among other things, the rule requires any amendment to the bill being considered under reconciliation be germane. Germaneness is very tightly defined. You can't start adding new subject matter to the bill. That means the Committee reporting the bill - in this case, Senate Finance - can control the limits of debate. For example, Finance might report out a bill without public option, which could make it difficult to offer an amendment to add that later.

Panerai watch for sale Patek

ugg boots uk

ugg boots sale -The best Christmas Persents for Lover & Family
Christmas is coming,it's great time to shop Genuine UGG Boots as Christmas gifts to keep your lover & family warm and cozy.Love UGGs,Love UGG Boots UK
Ugg london sale is fashionable & warm and comfortable ugg boots London. Welcome to visit the uggoflondon.co.uk, you may will have unexpected surprises!
bailey button ugg boots
tall ugg boots,
cardy ugg boots,
UGG Sundance Boots.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.