Hypocrites Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton castigated the Republicans, in harsh terms, for suggesting a "nuclear option" to break up Democrat filibusters of judicial nominations just a few years ago. What Democrats termed "rulebreaking" then they are embracing today in invoking "reconciliation" on the health-care vote. Lord Acton weighed in on this phenomenon a long time ago.

There are irreconcilable differences between the position of Democrats in 2005 and the position of Democrats in 2010. Senator Barack Obama decried "a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever." He continued, "What I worry about would be you would essentially have still two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side. And that's just not what the founders intended." Those were Barack Obama's principles when George W. Bush was president and the Republicans controlled the Senate.

The double standard isn't the only reason to decry the Demcrats for seeking to pass health-care reform through reconciliation, a procedure intended for use in budgetary matters that reduce the deficit. This last part is crucial. Have you heard it uttered recently that the president's plan cuts the deficit? The reason the president incessantly states that his health-care plan will reduce the deficit, when any third grader could tell you his math of adding 30 million people to the health-insurance rolls while reducing the deficit doesn't add up, is because that lie creates a rationale for going the reconciliation route. It is calculated deceit.

Reconcilation also gives cover to Democrats representing conservative states. Do you want to know the final vote on reconciliation? It will be 50-50, with Vice President Joe Biden casting the tie breaker. Democrats will do a head count beforehand, determining whose votes they absolutely need and whose votes are expendable. If the president needs Senators Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, or James Webb, they will be there for him. If the president doesn't need them to get to fifty votes, they will be allowed to vote against the bill as a means to save face in their home states. In passing the bill, the Democrats want to inflict the least possible harm on their members. Reconciliation provides them that luxury. Sixty votes, apart from being unattainable at this point, forces every Democrat to stand up and be counted--with dire consequences, in certain cases, for their future in elected office. Reconciliation gives them a politically opportunistic out.

What was stated on this blog five years ago with regard to the so-called "Nuclear Option" (all good Republicans pronounce this the "Nucular" option) applies as readily to the attempt to pass a $1 trillion health-care bill through a simple senate majority: "both actions violate the traditions" of the senate. But when did radicals trying to make the world anew ever pay deference to tradition?

"But when did radicals trying to make the world anew ever pay deference to tradition?"

Never, and since when has our ruling class not tilted into the grip of radicals? Same tyranny different day.

Some more honesty for Dan Flynn:

The "nuclear option" is a clear linguistic reference to those prior attempts by either party to remove filibusters: but Dan's dishonest statement would have you believe it refers to reconciliation, a popular Republican talking point.

On the contrary, "reconciliation" has been used ROUTINELY by Republicans, including the recent Bush tax cuts.

This is all public knowledge.

James, do you deny that when Bush was in office, the Corruptocrats called it "the Nuclear Option" and that the same legislative hocus pocus is currently being called the kinder, gentler term "reconciliation"?

Either way, it was designed as a last resort and skirts Senate and Constitutional rules.

To use it to, literally, cut off debate and opposition and to jam through a legislative mechanism that will put the government in control of 1/6 of our economy and peoples lives is criminal.

asdf wrote,

To use it to, literally, cut off debate and opposition and to jam through a legislative mechanism that will put the government in control of 1/6 of our economy and peoples lives is criminal.

Or, alternatively, "To use [the filibuster] to, literally, cut off debate and support [of a universal single-payer public option] that will put [corporate tyrants and wealth-maximizing bureaucrats] in control of [the health and safety of millions of human beings with intrinsic moral worth whose health should not, by an act-consequentialist, deontological, or even Christian ethical ana1ysis, be traded like a commodity]."

I knew this would somehow come down to the old liberal staple: the Christians, somehow, are involved.

Funny how they admire atheists and abhore Christians when it's been atheist regimes in the form of Communism that has murdered, give or take, 100 million people in the name of stamping out God and man and making the state lord and ruler.

Somewhat like how it's happening now in America.

And government control of our healthcare is just another step.

I knew this would somehow come down to the old liberal staple: the Christians, somehow, are involved.

Funny how they admire atheists and abhore Christians when it's been atheist regimes in the form of Communism that has murdered, give or take, 100 million people in the name of stamping out God and man and making the state lord and ruler.

Somewhat like how it's happening now in America.

And government control of our healthcare is just another step.

PM said: whose health should not, by an act-consequentialist, deontological, or even Christian ethical ana1ysis, be traded like a commodity].

Presumably somebody must be paid money to care for someone's health. How then is that not a trade?

I love this guy. Makes perfect sense with a tint of humor.

http://article.nationalreview.com/426405/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn?page=2

Here is a page with a link to that awesome Mark Steyn piece recommended by asdf above.

Asdf,

Reconcilliation was used to pass the Bush Tax cuts, which affected the ENTIRE economy, not just 1/6. Oh, it's also the reason we have our national debt and deficit crisis.

It amazes me that so many of you think that Obama is responsible for this economic crisis, or even the bailouts!

And If you are going to demonize reconciliation and mention it the way in which politicians "skirt Senate and Constitutional rules" at least be aware of which party actually utilizes reconciliation the most.

Go and look it up right now. You may hate the team that is in power, but you can't make a solid case that reconciliation is their evil tool.

James

Considering that the Reconciliation process is to be used exclusively for budget related bills, one might wonder how it can be used to push a huge social entitlement program like Obamacare. Especially as nobody but he and a handful of statists wants one of the most unpopular policies ever. But I know the answer.

Regardless, the Bush Tax cuts were designed to ease some budgetary log jams and they did more to "stimulate" the economy than anything we've seen so far from Obama's Stimulus boondoggle. If Bush was so wrong, just wait until we see the fun Americans will have when, with a faltering economy, those tax cuts expire at the end of this year.

The reasons we have our national debt are many. But our deficit crisis can't be pinned on just one President. I will give you that Bush spent way too much and incredibly way too much for an alleged Republican. But, then again, he was a "Republican" and not necessarily a Conservative.

But I'm not sure what amazes you so much about we who think that Obama is responsible for our current economic downfall? Could it be the tripling the deficit in less than two fiscal years? Or why don't we start with TARP spending, "Stimulus" spending, government takeover and control of Auto companies, banks, certain other financial institutions, his proposed take over of the healthcare industry, the energy industry, adding taxes and fees onto anything that can be taxed and fee'd - all at the expense of the consumer and of private business.

Is there any wonder why we have a crisis (and a good it is to the delight of White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel)? This guy and the Dems have people afraid as there is no standard or consistency to what they might do.

The problem is what the word 'budget' means and the fact that it means nothing to those who run Washington. Tax cuts work and even if provided for those evil rich, the trickle down effect is known to be significant and do not, in and of themselves, increase deficits. Government spending money that we don't have is the real issue.

And now, not only can the Democrat controlled Congress continue to deficit spend as they've done for these past few years but now the guy who was voting for every budgetary AND social spending bill is now in the White House and can continue the profligacy.