A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove on reconciliation: ""Reconciliation has been used a lot. And I would never use the term illegitimate with regard to reconciliation. It has been used starting in 1980 for very large, major bills. And it is a way, of course, of getting around the problem of the Senate filibuster." See the video.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement.

Pop quiz; COBRA is the acronym used to describe the law that allows laid off employees to retain their employment-based insurance after leaving the company. What does "RA" stand for?

a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker,

Uhhhhh..."Republican Amnesia?"

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) was on Fox News this morning and called reconciliation a way to "railroad the American people and the Congress." This is the same Judd Gregg who took to the Senate floor in 2005 to defend reconciliation as merely a "rule of the Senate" that allows for a simple majority vote. Video after the jump.

On April 16, 2001, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took to Fox News to boast about the GOP's first major use of the budget reconciliation process in the Bush-era. "I think we can do a reconciliation bill that'll have an overwhelming number of senators and congresspeople voting for this $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion tax cut," he said.

Today, he has a somewhat different take.

"To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford," Hatch writes in a Washington Post op-ed today. "This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy."

Former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove on reconciliation: ""Reconciliation has been used a lot. And I would never use the term illegitimate with regard to reconciliation. It has been used starting in 1980 for very large, major bills. And it is a way, of course, of getting around the problem of the Senate filibuster." See the video.

In a display of chutzpah extreme even by modern conservative standards, Sam Stein reports that Republicans have begun a campaign to "cast doubt" on the impartiality of Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin. Why is this so brazen? Because they're the ones who hired him in the first place:



Nickel summary: Republicans hired Frumin in 2001 specifically because they thought he might issue friendlier rulings to Republicans. Now they're afraid he's turned on them.

I have said in the past that no one party should own this.

I think you make a good point, it's a real gamble for one party to take this on. If it bombs, it becomes a noose. But if it's a success it becomes a trophy and the opposing party looks like fools. A win comes with a lot of political clout.

The Dems are in a corner and if they fail to make it happen they will pay for it, so at this point it looks like they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice and owning it alone.

I think you make a good point, it's a real gamble for one party to take this on. If it bombs, it becomes a noose. But if it's a success it becomes a trophy and the opposing party looks like fools. A win comes with a lot of political clout.

The Dems are in a corner and if they fail to make it happen they will pay for it, so at this point it looks like they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice and owning it alone.

Among the odder arguments Republicans are making against the reconciliation process is that the process should only be used for bipartisan bills, and since they refuse to vote for health-care reform, Democrats can't give their package of fixes an up-or-down vote.

But reconciliation hasn't been limited to bipartisan bills. Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44. This is as you'd expect: If bills had overwhelming bipartisan majorities, they wouldn't need to go through reconciliation.

As it happens, Republicans controlled the Senate during each and every one of these bills. And they got less votes than Democrats will likely get for the health-care fixes. It's also worth reminding people that it's harder for Democrats to get Republican votes because voters elected a lot more Democrats in the past two elections. Republicans had a number of moderate Democrats who could be brought into a 58-vote majority, and Democrats don't have as many moderate Republicans who can do the same.

I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.

As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.

Here's a novel idea for Washington. How about shelving Healthcare Reform and GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK! What good is having access to health insurance if Americans DON'T HAVE A JOB to pay their health insurance premiums. Getting our economy back on track and putting people back to work is far more important than revamping the health care right now. Especially when Americans have the best healthcare available in the world!

20% of Grays Harbor is out of work. Do you think those people are wanting another bill to owe in the future. If you have ever been out of work you know it takes forever to get caught back up with bills. A lot of people feel like the guy above does.

There are a lot of costs the people of this country are going to have to pay because of this bill. There is a financial storm brewing just ahead of us full of even more costs. People will not forget that one party felt adding to our debt was more important than putting people back to work.

I am marginally confident it will be this time.

Politicos and corporations have been saying, "Now is not the right time" since Truman. There will never be a "right time" for corporate America or their protectors to willing give up their strangle-hold over the healthcare of our nation.

It must be wrested from them kicking and screaming. I am marginally confident it will be this time.

however, there have a been a lot of times in that gap that were more right than the present

Or, just look in the mirror and ask yourself if you'd trade your house, your savings, and your income for health care.

This plan spreads the risk around by forcing everyone to have healthcare insurance. It is a tax, plain and simple. People cannot afford any more taxes right now. They don't have jobs. Their country is not focused on being able to compete with other countries which would create long lasting jobs. Their country's leading party is focused on another tax.

I am not sure what part of the GDP this new plan is going to consume but I cannot see it being much better. It just spreads the costs to more people, many of which are unemployed.

If I get sick, that's exactly what will happen...

You are buying into the republican false choice; "keep paying and no one gets hurt".

What would the unemployment rate have to be, and how much of the economy should healthcare consume before the time is right?

Sure, he can multitask, but until the jobs happen, the unemployed will look at every bit of attention he put elsewhere as wasted focus that should have been spent on our economy. The appearance is that health care is his focus, whether blatantly false or not, and that is going to cost your party.

I can hear the radio spot now... cue the dramatic dirge... enter the voice over... "At a time when you had less money, what did the Democrats give you? More taxes."

OMG, it's gonna be fish in a barrel time.

I think the team as a whole needs a steady income before they need health care. They need both, I agree, but the economic needs are immediate and pave the way for greater support for health care.

The only jobs being created are government jobs and guess who pays for them.

I imagine the likes of your former employer, or other outfits working on highway jog funded by stimulus money might be a bit surprised at such a sentiment.

Remember the meme. He has been working on jobs... all along, he has been working on jobs. It seems like some are acting like our smallest children; hide under a blanket and you're "All Gone!" If we don't see it, it must not be happening. It was. It is. So is healthcare.

As far as I know the only stimulus money that made it to Grays Harbor was that bus transfer station that we didn't need.

According to this site, Grays Harbor is in line for a total of $67,954,423 in recovery funds.

I couldn't get to the site. I do not believe the 68K includes money going to local schools. I'm not sure about other services, but I'm willing to bet the farm that schools are getting a whole lot more than that amount.

...And, as if on cue, Exhibit A of why I soooo want Obama to get it right. Because apparently, when it suits them, Republicans think there are plenty of jobs just sitting empty.

Republicans are infuriated by the move and claim it's an abuse of what's called "normal order" in moving legislation through. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, for instance, has warned that a health care bill passed through reconciliation "would be the loss of the Senate as a real viable institution."

But Democrats counter that in the past Republicans have regularly used the tactic to pass legislation they prefer. PolitiFact notes that since 1981 reconciliation has been used 22 times: 8 times by Democrats and 14 by Republicans. Republican uses included the 1996 Welfare Reform bill and a 2007 expansion of student loans. And both parties have used the process to win incremental expansions of social benefits, from enhanced Medicare benefits to COBRA health plans extending health insurance coverage to the unemployed. Republicans respond to this by arguing that none of the past uses were as consequential in terms of impact on the economy and Americans' lives.

So if reconciliation is such a powerful tool, why didn't the Democrats use it earlier? Because of another restriction, known as the Byrd rule — named for West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who introduced it in 1974. The Byrd rule allows the minority party to block the use of reconciliation if a bill isn't tied strongly enough to the budget process. The full health care bill the Senate passed in December would have violated the rule (and possibly jeopardized support from many centrist Democrats hoping to avoid controversy).

But, because Democrats passed a full health reform bill in December with 60 votes and are only proposing to make changes to that through reconciliation, it's easier for them to argue that those changes are simply about making the bill fit the overall budget.

That doesn't, however, mean the political fight will be any less bitter. Last September, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky vowed that the Democrats could expect a "severe reaction" if they resorted to reconciliation. "Budget reconciliation has never been used to structure one-sixth of the American economy," he said at the time.

But for Reid to announce the plan to use reconciliation means he's confident that wavering Senate Democrats will support him. And he must not be too fearful of a severe reaction, because he's up for reelection in his home state of Nevada this November.