In mid-September I wrote about the possibility that Democrats would use a legislative process known as reconciliation to pass health care reform. For those unfamiliar with the term in this context, it is a deceptively benign sounding word that means ramming hugely unpopular change down the throats of the American people. Since the Democratic caucus did not emerge from their command appearance at the White House today with 60 votes in hand, it's time again to remember that employing the reconciliation process to pass Obamacare would be, as Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) said last fall, a "bastardization of the legislative process." (source)

Continued...

For those unfamiliar with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, it created a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster and named it reconciliation. Basically it allows the majority party to prevent the minority party's filibuster and pass legislation without having the otherwise required super majority of 60 senators.

The reconciliation process has been employed by both parties (in 1993 to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 budget and in 2001, 2003 and 2005 to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts) but it has never been used for non-budgetary legislation. When President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his own health care plan, Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

And now that Obamacare is dangerously close to dying on the operating table, the idea of using reconciliation to bypass opposition is once again being discussed. In an interview on Tuesday, former Democratic leader Howard Dean said "This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," Dean told Vermont Public Radio. "Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill." (source)

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said today that Democrats were reluctant to use reconciliation to pass health care reform, noting that they would not be able to get everything they want in the current piece of legislation if they used the expedited maneuver, "Reconciliation is a very spare and thin process with limited opportunities," he said. (source)

Does anyone doubt the Democrats would settle for "limited opportunities" if they can't get Obamacare passed in the usual manner?