Orrin Hatch’s Reconciliation Lie Volcano

2:18 am EST March 4th, 2010 | Conservative, Politics | 2 Comments

Even after surviving eight years of attacks on Clinton, then eight years of malfeasance under Bush, I’m still amazed by the conservative movement’s ability to just blatantly make things up without the slightest hint of shame. E.J. Dionne takes down Orrin Hatch:

All of the Republican claims were helpfully gathered in one place by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in an op-ed in Tuesday’s Washington Post. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, “ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill.”

No. The health care bill passed the Senate last December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the “reconciliation” rules established to deal with money issues. Near the very end of his article, Hatch concedes that reconciliation would be used for “only parts” of the bill. But then why didn’t he say that in the first place?

Hatch grandly cites “America’s Founders” as wanting the Senate to be about “deliberation.” But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone “reconciliation.” Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

Hatch quotes Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he doesn’t say is that Byrd’s comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing to do. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein this week that it’s perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation “to improve or perfect the package,” which is exactly what Obama is suggesting.

Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation” unless the legislation has “significant bipartisan support.” But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were “substantive legislation.” The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about “ramming through.”

The underlying “principle” here seems to be that it’s fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

I’ve often argued that Democrats need to be much tougher and much more ruthless to go toe to toe with the Republicans, and I will likely make that argument again. But I see no upside in emulating the right’s ability to just lie with abandon as Orrin Hatch and so many others have done.

Topic: , ,

Related Posts

«
»

2 Responses to “Orrin Hatch’s Reconciliation Lie Volcano”

  1. NCSenior says:
    March 4, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Personally, I am reconciled to the fact that some conservatives have little trouble with lying, but my disappointment lies in the fact that they can find so many Americans stupid enough to believe them.

  2. merl says:
    March 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    I thought christians weren’t supposed to lie. I guess I was wrong. I know he’s a Mormom but aren’t they supposed to follow the 10 Commandants?