Mr. Goose, Meet Mr. Gander

Republicans are complaining about the Democrats' possible use of the perfectly legal reconciliation process in order to avoid filibusters against President Obama's health care reform bill. As a matter of fact, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) whined in an op-ed piece in "The Washington Post" from earlier this week, claiming the Democrats, in order "to circumvent bipartisan opposition", are considering reconciliation "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".

First and foremost, the health care reform bill has been estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to cost less than $1 trillion, not multitrillion dollars as Hatch maintains. Not only that but the legislation has already been passed in the Senate by a supermajority under the standard rules. Reconciliation is only being discussed as an expedited way to amend the bill, thereby avoiding an expected filibuster by the Republicans. With that being said, along with the excerpts above, Hatch also offered these comments to obviously tug at the heartstrings of the right: "This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship." This certainly sounds a lot different than the Hatch from April 2001 who, while on FOX News, discussed the Republicans' first use of the reconciliation process in the Bush presidency: "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." In fact, aside from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act to which Hatch was referring, the Republican led Congress during the Bush administration utilized the reconciliation process for the following legislation:

• Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (criticized for primarily providing tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals)
• Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (this legislation, dubbed the Nursing Home Bankruptcy Act by its opponents, passed the Senate with the tie breaking vote cast by Mr. Cheney)
• Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cuts in this bill would increase budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and $340 billion by 2008)

And let's not forget that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) uttered similar statements last year when the Democrats were considering the reconciliation process in order to pass President Obama's budget plan. (However, Gregg certainly went over the top with his remarks by declaring "You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.") But as is the case with Hatch, Gregg sang a different tune when he was debating the passing of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in 2005 with the help of reconciliation: "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so." and "If you have fifty-one votes for your position, you win."