Talk:Reconciliation (United States Congress)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Since reconciliation was initially geared towards deficit reduction, did it involve a method of deleting spending items which could not be agreed upon?

How much influence does the House have on the process, or is there a counterpart to this in the House?

--Parsiferon 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope today's edits answer your questions. --Dauster 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Economic Stimulus Bill of 2009

I guess this wouldn't qualify for reconciliation? That's why the Democrats had to bend over backwards for 2 or 3 votes? KenFehling (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• To pass this bill using reconciliation would have required adopting a budget resolution first, which would have necessitated substantial delay. As well, even though the Republican Congress used reconciliation for major deficit-increasing actions (like the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts), Budget Committee Chairman Conrad and a number of other Democratic Senators do not believe that it is appropriate to use reconciliation for deficit-increasing legislation. Finally, when we began this bill, Democratic authors underestimated the degree of Republican opposition to what they thought was a reasonable course of action incorporating a number of Republican priorities. -- Dauster (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Reconciliation bill and Reconciliation instruction to here

These two articles are short stubs which have received little attention since they were created in 2006. I don't see a clear separation of topic nor are any of the articles so long that we'd need to start thinking about breaking out the topic into multiple articles (using Wikipedia:Summary style) yet. As all three articles seem to have content which is worthwhile, I would just put them all in this article (probably the other two would go into the lead). If anyone who is more steeped in the legislative process (that is, not me) could clean it up further, that would be helpful, but that could easily happen after a merge. Comments? Kingdon (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. I've also turned Reconciliation process into a redirect (and didn't move any text over, as I didn't see anything there which wasn't already covered here). Kingdon (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress passes..." Congress is the House and the Senate. It looks like you mean to say "To trigger the reconciliation process, House of Representatives passes... But I'm not sure that is what you mean. If you mean the House, please say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.226.78 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Belay my last. I followed the link to concurrent resolution and got my answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.226.78 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Senate Parliamentarian's role

I removed the statement that the Senate Parliamentarian's decisions during a budget reconciliation process can only be overridden by a 60 vote super-majority. This statement directly contradicted the following authoritative source: "The Office of the Parliamentarian in the House and Senate", published by the Congressional Research Service ( http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BPLO%3F%23P%20%20%0A ). This report states that the Senate Parliamentarian's decisions are only advisory. In addition, the authoritative source "The Senate's Byrd Rule Against Extraneous Matter in Reconciliation Measures", published by the Senate Budge Committee ( http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/crsbackground/byrdrule.html ) does not state that the Senate Parliamentarian has any special authority during a budge reconciliation process. In the original article cited ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk ), all those implying that the Parliamentarian has special powers during reconciliation were republicans. I believe making factual statements based on these sources alone violates netural point of view, especially when these claims are in contradiction to neutral, authoritative sources. True, the article refers to democratic senator Conrad worrying that the public option might be "vulnerable". I don't think it's reasonable to assume that by "vulnerable" this lone democratic senator was referring to possible actions of the Parliamentarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little more research, I found that a 60 vote super-majority is required to override the ruling on a Senator's procedural objection made under the Byrd Rule. The ruling is made by "The Chair", i.e. the Senator presiding over the session, not by the Parliamentarian. However the presiding Senator may be advised by the Parliamentarian. My source: Riddick's Senate Procedure, section on the Congressional Budget, p. 505 ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/502-642.pdf ), written by Alan Frumin, the current Senate Parliamentarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reconciliation instruction, bill

Can someone with appropriate legal experience de-legalese the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? They would currently be hard for a person without knowledge of law or senate procedures to understand. (Even if technical language is used in the body of the article, I think it would at least be helpful to have a paraphrasing--a what this means in layman's terms--for those two definitions.)71.224.206.164 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Untitled (2)

"The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (the biggest ass in the Universe)" This statement puts the veracity of the entire article in question.StCelibart (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The part which reads "To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress passes a concurrent resolution on the budget instructing one or more committees" is woefully incomplete in that it fails to state that in order pass each concurrent resolution hurdle, a 60 member super-majority is required in the Senate in order to avoid a Filibuster. Only the final reconciliation vote is an up or down (simple majority) vote.

-Eric Shawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.108.152 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The article so far fails to discuss or even mention anything about how reconciliation actually works, which is surely one of the most important questions about the process. Can anyone contribute details and/or examples?

Reconciliation being discussed regarding the healthcare debate arises from the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 (Act). In the broadest sense it is intended to permit dollar changes in budgeted amounts for services/entitlements previously legislated into law. The Act established the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that performs the budgetary analysis determining the economic effect of proposed reconciliation action. Moreover, macro economic factors, which in turn will impact tax revenues, and for example Medicare, can be subject to using reconciliation to make sure the dollars are available now, and in the future. Therefore, reconciliation, it can be argued, is applicable to maintaining the overall budget obligations for a number of healthcare related services the Federal government provides, such as Medicare, i.e. Social Security. In particular, Social Security not only applies to retirement, it also applies to American’s who pre-maturely leave the work force due to injury, etc., but still need income. In summary the above analysis is very broad and does require legal knowledge/review of 2 USC §601-602. Additionally, asking or expecting a non-legal explanation of the legislative process, which is law making, is not an easy order. Unfortunately, the discussion on “reconciliation” is a foray into the depths of federal law that will challenge most folks without legal training. Rmyers5555 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute - POV bias in 2010 health care reform controversy section

This is absolutely out of line. " (The dirty little secret of Congress is that even if the House votes to pass the Senate health care bill tomorrow, the Speaker has unilateral power to hold that bill at her desk until January 3 of next year before sending it to the President and starting the 10-day Constitutional veto clock.) "

Someone needs to get this article in line. This is all over the news right now, so this page will see a swell in viewership...Netsquall (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing entire section, there are multiple chunks that I feel are bias. Wording such as "which might include a public option" doesn't belong in an article strictly about the procedural reconciliation process. I strongly believe that another section entirely could list examples of times when reconciliation has been used, INCLUDING possibly its use in the 2010 health care reform bill, not an entire section completely focused on this one example. It isn't the first time it has been used, nor has it been the first time it was used in a way that has increased the tax deficit, as listed further down in the article. Also, there are various quotes from primarily Republican sources regarding its use in this process. Its a controversial subject for certain and that in and of itself is wp:notability but it needs to be put in another article entirely!

This entire article needs to have more of it focused on the actual process of reconciliation and how it works! I am no expert in Congressional proceedings, so please if an editor can step forward and make this article truly shine. Netsquall (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The U.S. Constitution gives no authority for passing Bills without 2/3 majority (of quorum present) in the House and then also in the Senate. While Congress has authority to change procedure of a Bill's evolution and of their own body it does not have authority to alter the passage of a bill (by 2/3 House and 2/3 Senate). The U.S. Congress has repeated limitations upon taxing outside of a strict head count of the population (accurate representation) and so spending Bills must begin in the House, not in the Senate, because of that. And that is a whip, if one understands.

by sven_nestle

if you haven't read the consitution please don't bother arguing

my personal on healthcare is Obama has a proper claim that it is their turn to use the "trick", the other side having abused it. However I think it's use should be banned soon after.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Your personal opinions and constitutional analyses are not appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I stated fact not opinion. Your becoming the leader of all criticism is not appropriate. Shut up. Read the Constitution more closely next time. Study law while your at it.

I'll give you a clue. You could argue the use of 2/3 in my statement but you likely can't win out. The rest of it is correct.

Your blanket statements of "your wrong and I'm right" doesn't count for anything. Prove your argument or shut up. Stick to your blanket.

PLAINLY for anyone to know. Reconcilation was said by the President to be argued as to fairness and he claimed fairness upon past use. PLAINLY it's fairness is argued DESPITE what BYRD said to gain his "win" for some likely partisan legislation.

In other words no matter how you cut it if a Bill is changed by the Senate by some "program" without a vote in the House then power and partisan abuse is likely. Just like your removal of my critisism - likely vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.180.147 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor wording in article

This sentence: "Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party" is meaningless nonsense. The date of introduction is inconsequential to the definition. Reconciliation is not about limiting debate or amendments, it is about streamlining and expediting the process. it also does not logically follow from either of those unfounded premises that the majority party benefits any more than they would otherwise. Majorities always have an advantage in every vote or election, so this sentence is meaningless and should be excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.205.66 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please move this to an appropriate new topic instead of having it appear at the top of the page. I agree this article is very poorly worded and needs to be redone! Netsquall (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic vs current events

I came to this article for an explanation of the "reconciliaiton" process. The article has many good points, but I think there's too much focus on the 2010 health care bill. WP has an article on the proposed 2010 legislation; I think that this article should be limited to a wikilink to that article, and focus strictly on the reconciliation process and history here. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree This article needs to be reviewed entirely. Too much of the article is reviewing the EXTREMELY controvercial 2010 health care debate. This is the wrong article for that. Netsquall (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Remove '2010 Health Care' topic

I am not an expert on this subject matter, however am willing to contribute where I can to make sure this article shines. It is ALL OVER the news right now, and contentious material needs to be properly worded. I propose deleting entirely the 2010 Health Care topic, instead applying a 'related article' link, OR adding a FEW sentences giving it as an example where reconciliation COULD be used. (It hasn't even been done yet!) Netsquall (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Remove topic and apply as link for related article Netsquall (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic

The topic is reconciliation not Health care. If you want your health care opinion known you must publish it on a a health care topic page.

Shut up about the 2010 health care bill? There are already like 20 health care bills passed in the past - the 2010 one is nothing new despite all the hullabalooo. So what about 2010.

The topic is one of the procedures the houses have come to use and it's benefits. The criticism is whether it is fair to use at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.180.147 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic is very relevant and current. This is about an actual situation going on in congress which will impact every American and illegal alien in a profound way. The date it was enacted is historically germane and the 2010 Health Care reference is mentioned because the vast majority of tax payers DO NOT WANT MORE DEBT in lieu of social medicine. Karl Marx would be proud of you people!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorjeff7 (talk • contribs) 09:13, March 7, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck369 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the reconciliation process for the United States Congress. There have been many reconciliation bills before congress. The current health care bill is just one of them. I am deleting the reference, unless there is wp:rs on ALL such bills, and place this bill within that context . An interested editor may wish to introduce the section in a "see all" section, but only after significant discussion. The reconciliation process was introduced in 1974. Interested editors may wish to read wp:recentism. --Work permit (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Work permit. It deserves a reference if it DOES end up going through the reconciliation process, but its too early for that. Netsquall (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But there have been many reconcilation bills. For example the 1981 bill. The recent bill hasn't evenn passed the house. Lets calm down here. --Work permit (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've updated what's left of this topic with two new paragraphs about the Senate's reconciliation procedure used at the end of July. I'm not an expert and the language is very tricky so somebody might want to edit them. I tried to keep them short and focused on reconciliation only. The line "During the following vote-a-rama of July 26 and 27[24], the amended legislation was not able to pass with a simple majority vote in the Senate with a 49-51 surprise defeat[25]" could be removed to keep the focus on the topic of reconciliation, yet I also believe it could be important when discussing the history of its use. Thanks! Mannydantyla (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've edited it, made the two paragraphs just one paragraph, and I think it's much better but that first sentence is still a real doozy. The way I had it written at first - "The Senate voted to use reconciliation..." was not entirely accurate because technically it was a vote to proceed to debate yet the debate was constrained by the reconciliation rules soooo....? Mannydantyla (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)