Obama and Dems agree to use "budget reconciliation" to ram health-care bill through Congress

This is not healthcare reform, this is another big government takeover, see the links below and click here to take action!!!

http://renocon.blogspot.com/2009/04/healthcare-reform-subsidize-devised-to.html

http://renocon.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-big-lie-about-healthcareoverhaul.html

By RenoCon

National Health Care With 51 Votes

Ramming a bill through Congress is not in the public interest.

By JOHN E. SUNUNU APRIL 27, 2009

Late last week President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders agreed to use "budget reconciliation" if necessary to jam a massive health-care bill through Congress.

Most Americans probably greeted this news with the glazed eyes and yawns that should rightfully accompany any discussion of "the federal budget process" longer than 30 seconds. But this decision is a deeply troublesome attempt to circumvent the normal and customary workings of American democracy.

It's a radical departure from congressional precedent, in which budget rules have been designed and used to reduce deficits, not expand the size of government. And it promises bitter divisiveness under an administration that has made repeated promises to reach across the partisan divide.

Reconciliation was established in 1974 as a procedure to make modest adjustments to mandatory spending such as farm programs, student loans and Medicare that were already well established in law. Over the past 35 years, it has been used only 22 times -- and three of those bills were vetoed. There are good reasons it has been used so rarely.

The annual congressional budget resolution is simply an outline of federal spending anticipated for the coming fiscal year. It doesn't appropriate any funds or carry the force of law, and as a practical matter only two parts of the resolution have any meaningful effect on the spending bills and other legislation that move through Congress during the remainder of the year.

First, the resolution sets limits for discretionary spending and allows procedural points of order to be raised later in the year against spending bills that exceed these caps. Second, the budget resolution may include a "reconciliation" figure. This is, effectively, a dollar amount assigned to a congressional committee, with instructions to produce legislation that decreases projected spending by the specified amount.

The power of a reconciliation bill is this: Senate rules allow only 20 hours of debate and then passage with a simple majority of 51 votes. This represents a lightning strike in the normal deliberative time-frame of the Senate. The historic precedent of open debate, and the requirement of 60 votes to close debate, are completely short-circuited.

Budget reconciliation was never intended to push through dramatic and expansive new programs. It was created as a way to help a reluctant Congress curb spending, reduce deficits, and cut the debt. Moreover, changes made under reconciliation expire after five or 10 years, depending on the budget. This is clearly not the appropriate process for implementing significant new policies.

The threat to use reconciliation to drive through dramatic policy changes such as a national health-care program also destroys any incentive for good-faith negotiations over the details between the Democrats and Republicans. The president's message is clear: He wants to include reconciliation as an option in case he doesn't like the way discussions are going.

Why should anyone negotiate with him in good faith with such a threat hanging over the deliberations? Taking a bipartisan approach means committing to working with the other side, not just offering to talk until things don't go your way.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton governed effectively by coupling the vision of an outsider with irrepressible self-confidence. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used the depth of their insider knowledge to coax the Congress into moving their policies forward. Barack Obama brings neither of these traits to the Oval Office. Misusing reconciliation undermines him on two counts: It shows a lack of confidence in his own ability to pass an agenda using the regular legislative order. And it exposes his limited experience with the history, traditions and temperament of the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Sununu was a Republican U.S. senator from New Hampshire from 2003-2009.