Tweet
Well, that was very quick turn around. In 24 hours, Democrats went from not asking for budget reconciliation instructions to planning to include them. This is potentially very good news for progressives. Reconciliation at least gives Democrats the option of possibly achieving some progressive legislative victories this year. From The Hill:
The budget resolution being drafted by Senate Democrats will include reconciliation instructions, according to Democrats briefed on the matter. […]
[T]he reconciliation language could also be used to pass the extension of expiring tax cuts, job-creation measures and energy legislation, according to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
Reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered, and so need only a simple majority to pass the Senate. The biggest limiting issue on what can be done with reconciliation is the Byrd rule, which says all provision must affect the budget. Even with this limitation, there is a huge set of potential progressive uses for reconciliation.
The one piece of bad news–and it is bad–is that Democrats are possibly thinking about using reconciliation to extend some Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire:
Sen. Ron Wyden said the reconciliation instructions in Conrad’s budget draft would include provisions for the extension of expiring tax policies and tax reform.
This would be a foolish waste of reconciliation–it is hard to imagine that Democrats wouldn’t be able to get at least a few Senate Republican votes for tax extenders. If Republicans really want to filibuster a bill to keep taxes low for the majority of Americans because it does not also help the super-rich, Democrats should go ahead and dare them to. It would be a great issue for Democrats going into November.
Personally, I would not be 100% opposed to including the the tax cut extension in an omnibus reconciliation bill if and only if it were paid for with progressive reforms like a public option, a greenhouse gas tax, and/or a tax to designed to make “too big to fail” financial institutions unprofitable.
Now that reconciliation instructions will be included in the budget, the important battle will be the scope and design of the reconciliation instructions. The broader the scope the better.
It will also be interesting to see if the instructions are for a deficit-reducing bill or for the less common deficit-increasing reconciliation bill. So far, the indications are that the instructions will be for a deficit-reducing bill, but they don’t technically need to be. Republicans set a precedent in the George W. Bush years by using deficit-increasing reconciliation instructions to pass tax cuts. With unemployment so high, Democrats should think about possibly using a deficit-increasing reconciliation instruction to pass a jobs-creating bill like the “Local Jobs for Americans Act.” Of course, I would prefer to see that measure instead paid for with a robust public option, which is projected to save roughly $115 billion.
It is important to remember that including reconciliation instructions in the budget only leaves open the potential to later push for progressive reform. It is not guaranteed that reconciliation will be used at all, or for something good, but it is a critical first step.
33 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
At least this means reconciliation CAN be used for good, right?
Yes teddy. We can possibly turn it towards the light side.
Well good – one bit of supreme stupidity avoided. At least they have the tool in the kit. As to what they’ll actually DO with instructions this year…..
Wonder if enough of us screamed into the right congresscritters’ phones that it suddenly occurred to them that they can’t get away with that crap any more?
Will likely depend on how loud, angry, and unhappy the general public makes its voice heard.
Without continued and INCREASING pressure on all elected offals (calls, faxes, visits, anything) from both left, center and right, Congress will have no reason to side with the masses, against the corporate influences.
There just has to be a series of large, massive demonstrations and protests in the MILLIONS nation wide if we the people are to impact our elected offals for change to better OUR lives, rather than better the corporate elite.
Thass waht I’m tawkin ’bout!!!
*G*
The denizens of Capitol Hill were ALL happier when the public was less engaged and understood less about their shenanigans. Remember not too long ago when they used to act like the vote on cloture wasn’t the same as the vote for the bill? Lieberman, for instance, with his Alito voted.
I figured out how to use eFax from my home pc while I’m at WORK! So I very happily fax Bennet’s office at will when something comes up now.
Warning: I’ve been down with the flu, so I’m already kinda brain impaired and not in a good mood, anyway, but, I’ve made calls, sent faxes and emails and I’m just not sure they give a Fig about what the citizens really want. Someone tell me. Please.
Soda cracker or ginger ale, anyone?
Demi, they definitely are not into figs. They’ve bought into the Republican ideology that corporations are what create prosperity, deficits are bad and destructive, and social progress is a looser. I expect nothing but more big giveaways to the rich and powerful along with just enough crumbs for the rest of us to let the supposed progressives in the media and websphere to say well, it’s better than nothing, when in fact it is worse than nothing.
Just like HC.
From the Hill article Jon links to:
The only concrete rationale being provided for the reconciliation is “deficit reduction measures”. If Democrats are saying they intend to cut the deficit (at a time when deficit spending is needed) it is because they intend to pander to deficit peacocks who want spending cuts of various sorts. It is because Democrats are intending to pander rightwards.
Let’s not hold out much hope for the mythical “public option” to emerge, or job creation measures. We’ve had a clear demonstration from the Democrats over the last year that neither of these items is a priority for them if it is desired by them at all.
Think “spending cuts”. Think “pandering rightwards” and “deficit reduction”.
Are these “expiring tax cuts” that we are speaking of, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
I’m hoping there’s something between better than nothing and worse than nothing. Worse than nothing is hard for me to swallow. But, thank you for your response.
Interesting stuff. The committee instructions that count of course is Senate Finance… they have jurisdiction over the Social Security Act (which has been amended to include Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP) and the Internal Revenue Code (you know what that one covers).
By amending those two Acts, progressives could create a Medicare buy-in, pass a carbon tax, reform banks and other financial regulations via “excess profits” and/or transaction taxes of all sorts and fund reductions of the regressive payroll tax or provide financial relief to states by picking up 100% (instead of the current 57%) of Medicaid costs by passing Len Burman’s $3.5 trillion (!) over 10 year tax expenditure freeze or supply-sider Art Laffer’s unrealized capital gains tax (which would raise about the same). If the bill included instructions for the Senate Rules and Administration, Congress could pass a clean money campaign finance bill (since the Fair Elections Now bill provides voluntary campaign funding for candidates who agree to conditions, its a Spending bill).
The Republicans won’t be able to filibuster any of it. Whether the Democrats pass all or none of these is completely in their own hands… which is why they really didn’t want a Reconciliation bill this year. :o)
We have one weapon at our disposal.
And it’s end date is November 11, 2010 (or whenever the elections are).
Between now and then, we have the combined power of all the prog/lib and some indie votes to withhold publicly, if they DON’T do what we want, and do what we DON’T want.
There needs to be a HUGE and concentrated and repetitive onslaught on the elected offals offices between now and Nov. 11 with a CLEAR and simple message.
Do it, or we won’t vote for you.
We have to ensure they know we WILL cost them the elections by going Indie and ensuring the Reps and Senators WILL be dumped at the ballot box.
I know some folks don’t believe in giving away seats, but without that fear we have NO power whatsoever to persuade the elected offals.
We threaten to decimate the Party At The Ballot Box, or they will have no fear of us.
One singular message to them all.
And it has to have millions of voices, from now until November 11.
If this won’t work, I’m out of ideas and gonna look to invest in shorting any thing I can to get MY share of the pie.
*G*
Demi, howdy, hope you feel better REAL soon.,
See my #15, for some hope!!!
*G*
And my bad, thanks Jon Walker once again for another great bit of news shared with us readers.
All y’all rawhk the news hauz.
Thanks, Larue. For both.
PS, is everyone taking a nap so that they can be here for Jane’s 8:00 pm PDT post about pot? Or, is everyone snagging some?
OT, on Ed show tonight Ed said Rahm is looking for a new job, mayor of Chicago. Anyone know anything about this? It would be shame to lose him.
Lucy has promised not to pull the old football trick?
Apparently Rahm has told the local Chicago press that he’d like to be mayor of Chicago after Daley retires.
It was part of an interview with Charlie Rose, I think. Could be wrong.
Name one member in the House or Senate who talks like a progressive and votes like one. You may find some who sound progressive on some issues but when it comes time to vote there isn’t one in Washington. That is why it makes no sense to me that the reconciliation instructions represent any kind of a progressive opportunity.
All very good ideas.
Thanks, Jon, I did make a few phone calls. Maybe they heard us on this. At least maybe a few of them found out we are paying attention. Whatever. Let’s see what comes of it.
Larue is correct, but it will be a loooooooong time coming.
This is cetainly huge from a political leverage standpoint. How it gets used will emerge as events dictate, but there is little reason to think it will be bad for Progressive interests.
“Deficit reduction” and letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire are absolutely consistent, sensible and prudent. Inviting the Republicans to head into November as defenders of tax cuts for the ultra-rich is both good public policy and smart politics.
Trading off those tax cuts for some other beneficial policy advance? Maybe, depending, but the sacrosanct principle of “Pay-Go” should not be abandoned just to line the pockets of the already wealthy. If there is a swap, I hope it is worthwhile.
If you’re serious about deficit reduction you have to let a big part of those Bush tax cuts expire (on the already Rich). But, it’s hard to raise taxes on everybody during this recession, so some of the cuts should remain.
Amazing! Has someone secretly “unstooged” the Corporate Stooge in Chief?
You are correct.
Who are you referring to?
Thank you. I’m a Modern Monetary Theory fan myself, so its aggravating to watch deficit hysteria stop the government from taking action to provide needed services. But, I suppose any revenue bill in the foreseeable future has to “pay for itself” to get the necessary votes. Its like being a Jesuit missionary in the Amazon, its easier to adapt the villagers’ existing beliefs than to ask them to start from scratch.
I’m also a fan of UW-Madison economist Edgar Feige’s Automated Payment Transactions (APT) tax. Just as its easier to dam a river near its headwaters than near its delta, instead of taxing individual citizens or sales transactions it’d be easier to tax money at a central choke point, when it moves through the banking system. In his presentation to the Bush tax reform panel 5 years ago, Feige estimated that levying roughly half a percent of every transaction that clears through the Federal Reserve System (from paychecks to derivative trades) would raise $1.8 trillion (in 2002 dollars) in annual revenue, about what Uncle Sam collects in payroll and income taxes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25299549/Feige-APT-Presentation-to-Tax-Reform-Panel-2005
Of course that’s a big leap, so I suppose the first step would to enact a miniscule APT tax (say, as a replacement of the Sect. 31 transaction fees on stock sales– raises about a billion a year– that currently fund the Securities and Exchange Commission). Then anytime in the future, Congress could raise additional revenue (or replace other taxes) simply by adjusting the APT rate up.