Reconcilable Differences

While “irreconcilable differences” is a term often used in divorce proceedings, it might also describe the vast policy chasm on legislative proceedings between an extremely liberal President and an increasingly conservative Congress.  In that light, where all but the least controversial policies (think naming of post offices) face a veto threat, it is no wonder that the Republican majorities in both chambers have resigned themselves to getting few of their legislative priorities to the President’s desk, with little hope that he will agree to sing the bills into law.

While one might think that there should be general consensus on the broad parameters of a GOP “wish list,” the devil is in the details when it comes to the tactics employed to accomplish important objectives.

Enter “budget reconciliation.”

As discussed in the April 2015 Waste Watcher, budget reconciliation was included as a component of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344).  The act created the House and Senate Budget Committees, as well as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whose role is “to provide the Budget Committees and the Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues,” according to CBO’s website.

The key to reconciliation’s success in achieving policy objectives is the fact that it cannot be filibustered in the Senate; only a simple majority is required for passage, and the time for debate is limited.  Furthermore, any amendments must be considered germane, unlike other bills considered in the Senate.  Under the Byrd Rule, established by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) when he was the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate is prohibited “from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill. … The definition … remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian).”

Fast forward to the 2014 elections, after which Republicans now enjoy their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1920s and, for the first time since the 2004 elections, the majority of the Senate seats, with 54.  However, because the majority does not control 60 seats – the “super-majority” necessary to vote down a filibuster – the Democrat minority can threaten to filibuster virtually any motion to proceed to any bill.  And they do.

In other words, when the Democrats were in the majority, they controlled the Senate.  Now that they are in the minority, they still (effectively) control the Senate.

Against this vexatious backdrop, budget reconciliation provides one of the few opportunities for simple majorities to move legislation through both chambers.  Earlier this year, the House and Senate passed budget resolutions that attempted to roll back some of the excesses of the Obama administration, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as part of a larger goal of balancing the federal budget within the next 10 years.  The two chambers ultimately reached agreement on a final budget resolution, which included instructions to the relevant authorizing committees to produce the necessary legislative language to implement the objectives of budget reconciliation.

In retrospect, that may have been the easy part.  The House committees completed their respective assignments and forwarded their results to the House Budget Committee, which is responsible for melding the components into a single piece of legislation.  On October 23, that bill, Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, H.R. 3762, passed the House, where budget reconciliation must originate, with a vote of 240-189.  Now, the measure faces the hurdle of a (simple?) majority of 51 votes in the Senate.

At this point, it is unclear whether differences between the House proposal and inclinations of various Republican senators are, well, reconcilable.  On the one hand, the House committees, rather than putting forth legislative language that fully repeals Obamacare, targeted specific components that fell within their respective jurisdictions.  Some senators may oppose the measure because it does not fully repeal Obamacare, as they had promised during their respective campaigns.

In the meantime, following allegations about Planned Parenthood trafficking in fetal parts, the pro-life majority in the House insisted that de-funding of the organization be included in the reconciliation measure.  But moderate Senate Republicans are expected to oppose these provisions.

So, with some conservative Republican senators potentially opposing the House-passed reconciliation measure because it does not fully repeal Obamacare and some moderate Republican senators potentially opposing the Planned Parenthood provisions, there is no certainty that, without amendment, the bill could garner the 51 votes needed for passage.  That said, an amended Senate bill could then be subject to conference, where a compromise measure could be crafted and (ideally) passed by both Chambers.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), the lobbying arm of CAGW, has long supported full repeal of Obamacare, given its costly and inefficient provisions for taxpayers and consumers, not to mention its usurpation of the doctor-patient relationship in favor of government intrusion into individual healthcare decisions.  But CCAGW does not view the perfect as the enemy of the good:  full repeal and partial repeal are not, in our view, mutually exclusive.  And H.R. 3762 is a big step forward in the battle to overturn President Obama’s signature (but ghastly) healthcare legislation.  While not fully repealing Obamacare, the reconciliation measure would rescind politically unpopular components of the bill.  And if enacted into law, it would render Obamacare essentially unworkable.

Moreover, according to CBO, H.R. 3762 would reduce the deficit by $128.9 billion over ten years, while also achieving $145 billion in tax cuts.  Such accomplishments should be sufficient to find common ground for the Republican majorities in Congress.  In other words, not all differences need be irreconcilable.