Reconciliation Skepticism

‘Kill the bill’ advocates believe we should scrap the existing bills and begin anew with the reconciliation process (which requires only 51 votes in the senate).

I’m very skeptical about this process for a couple of reasons:

1) Congress is generally very risk averse, the closer we get into 2010, the greater this aversion becomes. Speaker Pelosi has already said that 2010 will be a quiet time, in terms of controversial legislation.

2) Killing the bill will take the wind out of the sails of legislators and give the momentum to the teabaggers and the ‘Party of No.’ Republicans are determined that health care be Obama’s ‘waterloo.’

3) Health care only passed in the House by 5 votes and that was with the Stupak Amendment. Will the Blue Dogs come along this time? Are there even 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?

4) A reconciliation bill could take a long time to hash out in both chambers. Does Congress, or America for that matter, have the stamina to begin again?

5) A reconciliation bill might not actually do what supporters think it will. Reconciliation only deals with budgetary issues, not regulatory issues. So, no banning rescission or policies that deny people with pre-existing conditions.

6) Even if Congress wants to scale back the number of controversial issues, big issues loom in 2010. Regulating the financial industry, passing worthwhile energy legislation, winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq, etc., are all potential 2010 or 2011 issues that Democrats will need 60 votes on. Don’t collapse the big tent out of spite.