On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Joseph Catron wrote:
>> Many other well meaning people think we could pass major legislation by
>> using the reconciliation process. But that is limited to expanding or
>> contracting existing programs. You can't create new ones.
>
> Could you expand on this? How tightly-defined are "programs" for our
> purposes here?
"Reconciliation" is short for "Budget Reconciliation." That means you can only change things that refer to already existing budgets.
Creating a new program means a new organization of disbursement. In health care, creating a public option would mean creating a new company or agency of some sort -- that would be verboten. Tax cuts or increases, on the other hand, fit perfectly.
Interestingly, what Shane says about Medicare for all is completely true: all that would involve is a change in eligibility requirements for an existing program. The problems are:
1) So long as the filibuster rule exists that would be considered hugely illegitimate -- the equivalent of FDR's court packing plan; and
2) It's the exception that proves the rule: 98% else of what you want to do can't be done that way.
So it would be much better to tackle the filibuster rule itself. It would be a much profounder change. And it would be easier to succeed with.
Michael