Top Stories
Obama, Senate May Stymie 60-Vote GOP Filibuster Efforts
By Joe Murray, The Bulletin
The Obama administration announced Sunday it would keep all options on the table as it prepares to battle Republican lawmakers over a massive budget that stands to usher in historic changes in energy and health-care reform.
Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, refused to rule out the possibility the Obama administration would press for the use of a questionable Senate tactic in which just 50 senators would be needed to pass the controversial changes. The comment was a clear indication the White House is expecting a bruising battle over the legislation.
By using the budget reconciliation process — a lawmaking provision that would keep the budget safe from a GOP filibuster — the budget would need only 50 votes to pass instead of the 60 traditionally needed to overcome a filibuster.
“We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these … important things done this year,” Mr. Orszag told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. He singled out healthcare by describing it as “the key to our fiscal future.”
But there is serious question as to whether the Obama administration’s use of the budget reconciliation process is consistent with the bill that birthed the process.
Codified in 1974, the budget reconciliation process was to be used “as a deficit-reduction tool, to force committees to produce spending cuts or tax increases called for in the budget resolution.” There is serious doubt, however, the procedural tool intended to reconcile existing tax or entitlement law with the new tax or mandatory spending targets can be used to circumvent debate on an issue of national importance.
By refusing to take the option off the table, the Obama administration stands to do further erode its bipartisan credibility, especially after congressional Democrats rolled over Republicans in drafting the controversial stimulus package. Mr. Obama, however, has attempted to downplay his administration’s lack of bipartisanship by claiming the 2008 election handed his administration a mandate.
But despite the coverage given to him by the press, Mr. Obama won just 52 percent of the popular vote to John McCain’s 46 percent and observers are quick to question the strength of such a mandate. It is further noted that former President George W. Bush won the 2004 election by garnishing 51 percent of the popular vote and very few Democrats acknowledge Mr. Bush had any type of mandate.
Another problem for Democrats is how they behaved when Republicans floated the “nuclear option” when Democratic lawmakers threatened to block Mr. Bush’s judicial appointments four years ago. The option would have banned the minority party from blocking judicial nominees, but after moderate Republicans joined with Democrats to join the “Gang of Thirteen,” the crisis was averted.
But during the process, Democrats charged Republicans with attempting to thwart the democratic process by denying the minority party a say in the selection of federal judges. Democrats, however, are now considering an option that would do the very same thing to Republicans in terms of energy and health-care reform.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, refused to rule out the possibility the Obama administration would press for the use of a questionable Senate tactic in which just 50 senators would be needed to pass the controversial changes. The comment was a clear indication the White House is expecting a bruising battle over the legislation.
By using the budget reconciliation process — a lawmaking provision that would keep the budget safe from a GOP filibuster — the budget would need only 50 votes to pass instead of the 60 traditionally needed to overcome a filibuster.
“We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these … important things done this year,” Mr. Orszag told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. He singled out healthcare by describing it as “the key to our fiscal future.”
But there is serious question as to whether the Obama administration’s use of the budget reconciliation process is consistent with the bill that birthed the process.
Codified in 1974, the budget reconciliation process was to be used “as a deficit-reduction tool, to force committees to produce spending cuts or tax increases called for in the budget resolution.” There is serious doubt, however, the procedural tool intended to reconcile existing tax or entitlement law with the new tax or mandatory spending targets can be used to circumvent debate on an issue of national importance.
By refusing to take the option off the table, the Obama administration stands to do further erode its bipartisan credibility, especially after congressional Democrats rolled over Republicans in drafting the controversial stimulus package. Mr. Obama, however, has attempted to downplay his administration’s lack of bipartisanship by claiming the 2008 election handed his administration a mandate.
But despite the coverage given to him by the press, Mr. Obama won just 52 percent of the popular vote to John McCain’s 46 percent and observers are quick to question the strength of such a mandate. It is further noted that former President George W. Bush won the 2004 election by garnishing 51 percent of the popular vote and very few Democrats acknowledge Mr. Bush had any type of mandate.
Another problem for Democrats is how they behaved when Republicans floated the “nuclear option” when Democratic lawmakers threatened to block Mr. Bush’s judicial appointments four years ago. The option would have banned the minority party from blocking judicial nominees, but after moderate Republicans joined with Democrats to join the “Gang of Thirteen,” the crisis was averted.
But during the process, Democrats charged Republicans with attempting to thwart the democratic process by denying the minority party a say in the selection of federal judges. Democrats, however, are now considering an option that would do the very same thing to Republicans in terms of energy and health-care reform.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Copyright © 2010 - The Bulletin