Why Reconciliation is Essentially Impossible

[moonlightandmargaritas]

If gov't was the source of all the problems and if gov't was the source of none of the solutions, then I would agree with you. But neither of those statements is true.

We may have some legitimate philosophical differences, but consider this from a piece I read recently:

"Our American free market has done more for the poor than any government hand-out. About 75 percent of American poor own a car; 97 percent own a color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite television. These products are available because our economy treats them as a good or service and the free market keeps their cost down. What's unfair to the poor is rising unemployment, inflation, and financial collapse."

Although I see myself as a political conservative, I'm not opposed to the involvement of the federal gov't in many areas.

There's a major disconnect here. Someone "not opposed to the involvement of the federal gov't in many areas" is a conservative? You better check your label.

The federal gov't, along with the private sector, can do some things very well together, that neither sector could do well by itself.


Examples:

the interstate highway system
national defense
the space program
many research programs (particularly ARPA, without which we would not be having this conversation)
oversight/regulation (e.g. FDA, NRC)
guaranty associations (e.g. FDIC)

National defense is what the federal government is for. All the rest could and should be handled by the free market, at probably half the cost.

Here's one you forgot: if it wasn't for the U.S. Postal Service, there probably wouldn't be a FedEx or UPS. Now there's a federal success story!

Oversight and regulation by the feds is a success? The space program is being privatized, is it not?

Medicare

How could any reasonably intelligent individual argue that a program that has a 37 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability, AND wastes one out of every three dollars is a success?

I think the CLASS Act is good because it will be like Medicare Part B, but just for Long Term Care.

That alone is a reason not to do it! Medicare is BROKE!

It will raise awareness of the need to plan for long term care and it will dramatically increase the private long term care insurance market.

Just as Social Security has "raised awareness" of the need to save some money for your retirement years and dramatically increased the private savings market? Do you know how many seniors are relying on Social Security alone - even though it was not intended for that purpose?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Most conservatives think that the federal gov't started "intruding on the private sector" with FDR. The federal gov't has been actively involved in many good things (partnering with the private sector) since its inception.

To dismiss an idea just because the federal gov't is involved is just stupid.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unfortunately, neither Jefferson nor Adams nor Lincoln would meet your definition of "conservative".

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

To dismiss an idea just because the federal gov't is involved is just stupid.

Ignoring facts and history is stupid too.

History has shown us that government interventions mean that at every decision point, the most costly route is chosen. It's now coming home to roost, and the welfare and warfare is the root cause of the massive financial problems this country is now facing.

I think very few would argue that this country's health care system is in serious disarray and needs some mammoth change. Since government pays for more than 50% of health care now - how could anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence argue that government involvement is NOT the problem?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Ignoring facts and history is stupid too.

History has shown us that government interventions mean that at every decision point, the most costly route is chosen. It's now coming home to roost, and the welfare and warfare is the root cause of the massive financial problems this country is now facing.

I think very few would argue that this country's health care system is in serious disarray and needs some mammoth change. Since government pays for more than 50% of health care now - how could anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence argue that government involvement is NOT the problem?

you need to read more history.

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

To dismiss an idea just because the federal gov't is involved is just stupid.

Yet another success story...

Report: E-Verify misses half of illegal workers

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Name ONE successful FEDERAL government program that works. I haven't seen one program that conformed to any budget estimates, that didn't turn out to be a failure, and is still sucking up money in order to keep it afloat.
Medicare, Medicaid, SS, EPA, Federal Reserve, No Child.., Jobs bills, Cap n Trade, Healthcare....
Leave it up to the states people *cough 10th amendment....

 

[djs]

Well, according to Harry Reid, nobody is talking about reconciliation, which means this whole thread is mute and pretty much dead.

Besides, I don't think they can pass a health insurance mandate via reconciliation, without this, there is a huge structural problem in the entire bill. Reconciliation rules would be stretched pretty far to make this happen. I know usage of reconciliation doesn't require a positive impact on the budget though.

Did you ever wonder why the George Bush tax cuts had an expiration date on them? They passed it via reconciliation, it without the expiration date, it wouldn't have been allowed. Now, imagine health care coverage with an expiration date on it!

Dan

 

[GreenSky]

Well, according to Harry Reid, nobody is talking about reconciliation, which means this whole thread is mute and pretty much dead.

I'm thinking it might be moot rather than being silent or not having the ability to talk.

Rick

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

Well, according to Harry Reid, nobody is talking about reconciliation, which means this whole thread is mute and pretty much dead.

I just heard Kent Conrad - a Democrat - say that it's not possible to pass the bill via reconciliation.

 

[Winter_123]

I just heard Kent Conrad - a Democrat - say that it's not possible to pass the bill via reconciliation.

It is parliamentary nightmare that is uncharted territory in some areas. Not all reconciliations are alike. Budget adjustments are on safer grounds. Actual program iniatives were never intended for reconliliation.

When people are talking about whether it can pass by reconciliation they are not all talking about the same thing. Again, reconiliation is intended to be an adjustment to a larger bill that has been passed. So some are saying that it cannot pass by reconciliation because they dont thing that the house will approve the senate bill to make it eligible for adjustment. Others think that even if the house bill passes that you can only make budget changes through reconciliation. You can't just revamp the programs and and call it a budget adjustment.

It's nightmare. It's like peeling off the layers on an onion. You might get your arms around some of the issues but then there are another ten levels below where even the senate and house parliamentarians dont know yet.

The dems have decided that they have nothing to lose. They will either get something through reconciliation or push it hard enough so that if they don't then they will be able to go into the elections saying that it was the republicans who killed it- versus the real story which is that they can't get the dems in the house to support it.

Change you can believe in.