Recently on the floor of Capital Hill, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Budget, expressed his displeasure in the possibility of the Democrats rightfully utilizing the reconciliation procedure available to them: "If you're going to talk about reconciliation, you're talking about something that has nothing to do with bipartisanship. You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River. Basically, it takes the minority completely out of the process of having a right to have any discussion, say, or even the right to amend something so fundamental as a piece of legislation of this significance...So using reconciliation in this manner on this type of an issue would do fundamental harm, fundamental harm, to the institution of the Senate. I mean, why have a Senate if you're going to do reconciliation on something this significant?" (You remember Mr. Gregg, don't you? He is the honorable individual who, although he initially contacted President Obama to offer his name for the role of Secretary of Commerce, he then withdrew his name from consideration ten days after President Obama nominated him for the post.) Now let's get back to this whole reconciliation thing. During the Bush administration, the reconciliation process was used for the following legislation:
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
- Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
- Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
- Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
And guess who voted in favor of all of these bills? Yes, that's right. Mr. Hypocrisy himself, Judd Gregg. In fact, while debating the passing of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in 2005 with the help of reconciliation, Gregg had this to say: "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so." and "If you have fifty-one votes for your position, you win."
No comments:
Post a Comment