Ignoring His Own Votes, Bond Claims Reconciliation ‘Cannot’ Be Used For ‘Major’ Legislation

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Repeating conservative lies about reconciliation, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell today that reconciliation for health care reform “procedurally cannot be done.” Claiming it was never used for major legislation without “overwhelming bipartisan support,” Bond predicted the Senate will ultimately not be able to pass the health care bill through the reconciliation process:

BOND: Well, first of all the president shouldn’t get his allies to cram through on reconciliation, something to which the American people overwhelmingly object. They object to reconciliation. It was never meant to pass major substantive changes, whether they are trying to make a bad bill slightly less worse. No matter how much you put on the outhouse, it would still smell bad.

MITCHELL: Well, that may be a great Missouri expression but that same outhouse was used for the bush tax cuts and for other major legislation in republican years. why shouldn’t the democrats do exactly what the republicans have been doing?

BOND: Major legislation was passed on reconciliation. Everything from the civil rights to social security passed, overwhelming bipartisan support. Reconciliation was meant to deal only with revenue issues, like — dealing with taxes and spending. Not making substantive changes, which the Speaker is trying to convince the house democrats will be made. They will not be made because procedurally it cannot be done.

Watch it:

Bond’s argument is wrong on several counts. Congressional Democrats do not plan to use reconciliation to make “major substantive changes,” but rather to modify revenue issues, like taxes and spending, while keeping most of the bill that already passed the Senate intact.

Regardless, Bond voted for “substantive” bills using the reconciliation process when he was part of the Republican-controlled Senate under President Bush. They used reconciliation to pass “major” domestic policy legislation, including the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and important changes to health care policy. In 2005, Bond railed against the filibuster — the use of which has forced Democrats to consider using reconciliation — calling it a “product” of recent Senate rules that “does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.”

Regarding his claim of bipartisan support for reconciliation bills in the past, the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has documented how the Senate under Bush passed three reconciliation bills with three or fewer Democratic votes. The 2003 Bush tax cuts were supported by only two Democrats and needed Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

And the American people do not “overwhelmingly object” to using reconciliation for health care. A recent Progressive Change Campaign Committee poll of key states found majorities would not “object to the Senate’s use of ‘reconciliation’ rules to pass that bill with a majority vote.” Even 58 percent of people from Bond’s state of Missouri said they would not object.

34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation Through Reconciliation

By Victor Zapanta

As the outlook on passage of health reform improves, Republicans have shifted to a new obstructionist strategy: attacking the process of reconciliation. Republicans claim that reconciliation was only intended to be used for bills dealing closely with the budget. In fact, when Republicans were in power, GOP lawmakers used reconciliation numerous times to pass major domestic policy legislation, including the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and important changes to health care policy. In fact, 34 of the 41 Senate Republicans have used reconciliation in the past to pass major pieces of domestic policy.

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It [the filibuster] is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Watch it:

The full list of Senate Republicans who have used reconciliation to pass major domestic policy, as well as a list of those pieces of legislation can be found after the jump:

Major domestic policy legislation that these 34 Senators have voted for through reconciliation in the past 20 years: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

Senator	State	Senator	State
Lamar Alexander	Tennessee	Judd Gregg	New Hampshire
John Barrasso	Wyoming	Orrin Hatch	Utah
Robert Bennett	Utah	Kay Bailey Hutchison	Texas
Christopher Bond	Montana	James Inhofe	Oklahoma
Sam Brownback	Kansas	Johnny Isakson	Georgia
Jim Bunning	Kentucky	Jon Kyl	Arizona
Richard Burr	North Carolina	Richard Lugar	Indiana
Tom Coburn	Oklahoma	John McCain	Arizona
Susan Collins	Maine	Mitch McConnell	Kentucky
Bob Corker	Tennessee	Lisa Murkowski	Alaska
John Cornyn	Texas	Pat Roberts	Kansas
Mike Crapo	Idaho	Jeff Sessions	Alabama
James DeMint	Sourth Carolina	Richard Shelby	Alabama
John Ensign	Nevada	Olympia Snowe	Maine
Mike Enzi	Wyoming	John Thune	South Dakota
Lindsey Graham	South Carolina	David Vitter	Louisiana
Chuck Grassley	Iowa	George Voinovich	Ohio

Graham Falsely Claims GOP Has Only Used Reconciliation With ‘Bipartisan Support’

By Matt Corley

With President Obama endorsing the use of the budget reconciliation process in the Senate to finish health care reform, Republicans have flown into overdrive to discredit the simple majority procedural tool. Use of reconciliation would be “ripping a piece of the fabric of America off,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) on Saturday.

On CBS News’ Face The Nation today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that use of reconciliation “would be catastrophic.” Sensitive to charges of hypocrisy over the fact that Republicans have pushed legislation through the reconciliation process more often than Democrats have, Graham claimed that every time the GOP used reconciliation the bills “received bipartisan support”:

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

Watch it:

Graham’s claim that “the least” amount of Democratic votes a GOP reconciliation bill received “was 12″ is flat out false. As The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has detailed, during the Bush presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate passed three reconciliation bills with three or less Democratic votes. The 2003 Bush tax cuts were supported by only two Democrats and needed Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote to pass:

	Vote Count	Bipartisan support?
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007*	79-12-9	Yes, although all 12 voting against it were Republicans
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005*	54-44-2	3 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE), Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR)) voted for it
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005*	52-47	2 Democrats (Landrieu (D-LA) and Nelson (D-NE))
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003*	50-50	2 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE) and Miller (D-GA)) voted for it
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001*	58-33-2-7	Yes
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000*	60-34-5	Yes
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999*	50-49	Yes, 3 Democrats (Breaux (D-LA), Landrieu (D-LA), Torricelli (D-NJ)) voted for it
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997	92-8	Yes
Balanced Budget Act of 1997*	85-15	Yes
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act*	74-24-2	Yes
Balanced Budget Act of 1995*	52-47	Yes
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993	49-49-2	No
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990*	54-46	Yes
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989*	87-7-6	Yes

In 2005, Graham voted for two of the reconciliation bills that passed with three or fewer Democratic votes, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Transcript:

BAYH: But I do think that — a couple of things. And Lindsey will probably have a difference of opinion on this one. The bill that’s going to come before the Senate is not the large omnibus health care bill. It is instead a corrections bill that gets out the Cornhusker Kickback nobody liked, the special arrangement for Florida that many states objected. It treats middle class families a little bit better on the tax side of things. So it is a — it’s not one-sixth of the American economy. It’s a much smaller piece of legislation.

And secondly, my guess is that, you know, a lot of your viewers and Americans are looking at this, thinking, I don’t understand all of this procedural stuff. Let’s focus on the substance. And if you think that it’s actually going to be better for the American people, vote for it. And if you think it’s going to be harmful, don’t vote for it.

And for me, it was a close call in my mind on this bill. This is not the way I would have written it. But for me it eventually came down, we need to try something. It may not be perfect, but we need to try something. If it doesn’t work exactly the way we would hope, let’s come back and correct it.

But to just sit here year after year letting things fester, that’s not the right way to go.

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

So it is taking a partisan product and making it law. And I was in the Gang of 14. Remember the nuclear option with judges when we almost changed the rules? I was one of seven Democrats — seven Republicans, seven Democrats who said, don’t do that. Don’t pull the nuclear trigger. I’m glad I was in that gang. I got the heck beat out of me. We didn’t change the rules. This will be the same effect as if you had changed the rules for judges. It would be catastrophic.

How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't

by Jamison Foser

For weeks, the news media have been obsessed with the question of whether congressional Democrats would use a legislative mechanism known as "reconciliation" to pass changes to the health care reform legislation that passed the Senate in late December.

Unfortunately, that obsession has not actually resulted in reporters consistently getting the story right. Basic facts that should be central to the debate over the propriety of reconciliation have gotten lost in the mix. First, nobody is talking about passing the entire health care reform package via reconciliation -- the Senate has already passed its bill, and did so by overcoming a filibuster. Reconciliation would, instead, be used to pass a much smaller package of changes to that legislation via majority vote. Second, there is nothing hasty or debate-stifling about using reconciliation in this case: Congress has been considering health care reform for more than a year. Finally, reconciliation isn't all that unusual, having been used in connection with some of the highest-profile legislation in recent decades, including President Bush's tax cuts and the welfare reform bill President Clinton signed. Those are facts, and they are not in dispute.

And yet the media are referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear option" and portraying it as an obscure procedural gimmick being considered in an attempt to circumvent Senate rules and "ram" health care legislation through Congress. The conservative media are going so far as to claim that use of reconciliation would be "unprecedented."

Funny, I don't remember this level of media outrage in 2003, when Republicans passed President Bush's tax cut legislation via reconciliation.

But what's really striking about the media's approach to reconciliation is how much it differs from the way they treated the Republicans' use of reconciliation to pass President Bush's 2003 tax cut legislation. Only two Democrats voted for that bill -- one of whom, Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, doesn't really count, as he was a de facto Republican -- and Vice President Dick Cheney had to break a 50-50 tie. (Three Senate Republicans joined 46 Democrats and one independent in voting against the bill, which these days would be described as "bipartisan opposition.")

And yet, in the weeks leading up to the reconciliation vote, the media didn't portray the Republicans as ramming tax cuts through Congress via unprecedented use of an obscure procedural gimmick to circumvent Senate rules. In fact, they didn't say much of anything at all about reconciliation.

The Senate reconciliation vote occurred on May 23, 2003. In the month of May, only one New York Times article so much as mentioned the use of reconciliation for the tax cuts -- a May 13, 2003, article that devoted a few paragraphs to wrangling over whether Senate Republicans could assign the bill number they wanted (S.2) to a bill approved via reconciliation. The Times also used the word "reconciliation" in a May 9, 2003, editorial, but gave no indication whatsoever of what it meant.

And that's more attention than most news outlets gave to the use of reconciliation that month. The Washington Post didn't run a single article, column, editorial, or letter to the editor that used the words "reconciliation" and "senate." Not one. USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press were similarly silent.

Cable news didn't care, either. CNN ran a quote by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley about the substance of the tax cuts in which he used the word "reconciliation" in passing -- but that was it. Fox News aired two interviews in which Republican members of Congress referred to the reconciliation process in order to explain why the tax cuts would be temporary, but neither they nor the reporters interviewing them treated reconciliation as a controversial tactic.

And ABC, CBS, NBC? Nothing, nothing, nothing.

Even the insider publications that tend to cover legislative minutia paid little attention to the Republicans' use of reconciliation. National Journal made passing mentions on May 3 and May 10, 2003, neither of which so much as hinted that reconciliation was unusual, inappropriate, or controversial. And Roll Call mentioned reconciliation exactly once: a May 14, 2003, article about Republican angst over having committed a "procedural snafu" that delayed their use of reconciliation. The article quoted Grassley saying of Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin: "He could be technically right. ... But there's no need to have a strict interpretation of the rules like that." And, Roll Call noted, "Some GOP aides even hinted that Frumin's position as parliamentarian could be in danger if he continued to make rulings that disadvantaged their political goals."

You'd think that if reconciliation was really the controversial and heavy-handed tactic the media is currently portraying it as, there would have been a ton of media coverage of Senate Republican aides suggesting the parliamentarian would be fired if he didn't let the GOP handle reconciliation however they wanted. Particularly in light of the fact that Frumin was elevated to his post by the Senate Republican leadership in 2001 -- after they fired his predecessor for issuing rulings that complicated their efforts to use reconciliation for that year's round of tax cuts.

But there wasn't even a blip -- not a single mention in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN. Well, that's not quite true: The Times did mention GOP unhappiness with Frumin on May 31, 2003, -- more than a week after the reconciliation vote took place.

Even if you look at the five months preceding the May 23, 2003, reconciliation vote, you find very little major media attention paid to the process. And when reconciliation was mentioned, it was only in passing, without any indication it was controversial. Like the March 14, 2003, Washington Post article that simply stated, "Parliamentary -- or 'reconciliation' -- language in both the Senate and House budget resolutions ... would ensure that a $ 726 billion tax package would need only 51 votes for Senate passage rather than the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster blocking a floor vote." Or Tim Russert's matter-of-fact statement on January 7, 2003: "[T]he Republicans are going to use a technique called reconciliation. It's a budget process where they would in effect take away the right of the Democrats to filibuster, which means you would only need 51 votes to pass this legislation." And that's about it: The Times, Post, the three broadcast networks and CNN combined for fewer than a half-dozen other mentions of the process over the course of five months, none of which portrayed it as controversial.

The current hyperventilation about the use of reconciliation is completely inconsistent with the way the media covered reconciliation in 2003. Back then, they didn't treat reconciliation as an unusual or controversial tactic -- in fact, they barely noticed it, even when Republicans made noises about firing the parliamentarian they elevated when they fired the previous parliamentarian.

Sen. Alexander: Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care Reform Would ‘End The Senate’

By Pat Garofalo Today, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) appeared on ABC’s This Week to discuss last week’s bipartisan health care reform summit. During the summit, Alexander urged the President and Congressional Democrats to “renounce” the idea of using budget reconciliation to pass health care reform. Alexender went even further today, saying that the use of reconciliation would be “the end of the Senate“: The reconciliation procedure is a little-used legislative procedure — 19 times, it’s been used. It’s for the purpose of taxing, spending, and reducing deficits. But the difference here is, that there’s never been anything of this size and magnitude and complexity run through the Senate in this way. There are a lot of technical problems with it, which we could discuss. It would turn the Senate, it would really be the end of the Senate as a protector of minority rights, the place where you have to get consensus, instead of just a partisan majority. Watch it: If using reconciliation were really “the end of the Senate,” the Senate would have died a long time ago, and Lamar Alexander would have been complicit in its death. Reconciliation has been used to pass at least 19 bills, including major pieces of health care reform legislation like the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Medicare Advantage Program. Fourteen of the times reconciliation was employed it was used to advance Republican interests. Furthermore, Alexander himself has personally voted for reconciliation at least four times, as Igor Volsky pointed out: – 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: The Congressional Budget office, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich increased budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008. The bill had a cost of about a trillion dollars. [Alexander voted yes.] – 2005 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: The bill cut approximately $4.8 billion over five years and $26.1 billion over the next ten years from Medicaid spending. [Alexander voted yes.] – 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005: The bill extended tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax. [Alexander voted yes.] – 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act: The bill forgave all remaining student loan debt after 10 years of public service. [Alexander voted yes] In the end, Alexander’s mere presence on television this morning seems to indicate that using reconciliation does not, in fact, end the Senate. M.C.L comment: I'm convinced that Republicans think everybody in America are just a mouth breathing knuckle dragging Fox News viewer who will believe any lie they tell us.

Fox News continues to attempt to redefine "nuclear option"

In its latest attempt to redefine the meaning of the term "nuclear option," Fox News has seized on a Breitbart-promoted video to falsely accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for considering using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, when they had previously opposed the "nuclear option." But, in fact, the nuclear option referred to a Republican proposal to change Senate filibuster rules on judicial nominees and was not related to reconciliation.

Fox News uses Breitbart-hyped video to accuse Dems of hypocrisy on reconciliation

Fox & Friends: "Irony" that Dems are now considering reconciliation. On Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade said: "The problem with reconciliation is the Republicans say it's an outrage. It's bypassing the Constitution. It was never intended for that reason. Is that what the Republicans are saying, or is that what the Democrats have already said when the Republicans had the majority? Let's look at this tape, first put together by a website called nakedemperor.com." After playing the video, co-host Steve Doocy said: "Harry Reid has said it's still on the table, and that's why we are showing the irony that the Democrats were saying, you can't do reconciliation. It's just wrong. It's not the spirit of the Congress." [Fox & Friends, 2/25/10]

Sean Hannity: "What do you make of the hypocrisy?" On his February 24 Fox News show, Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders and asked Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich, "What do you make of the hypocrisy?" Gingrich replied: "Well, I think that what you're seeing is a Chicago-machine politics approach that basically says, if we can run over you and mug you then we're going to get away with it. And I think what they don't understand is this is not Chicago. The United States is not going to tolerate a group of people trying to apply kind of a Hugo Chavez majoritarian rule in the Senate." [Hannity, 2/24/10]

Bret Baier: Reconciliation was "once called the nuclear option." On Fox News' Special Report, Bret Baier said that the Senate process of reconciliation "was once called the nuclear option" and then aired clips of what he claimed were Democrats criticizing the "nuclear option" "when Republicans were using it." After he aired the clips, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said, "Thank you for establishing beyond all doubt that politicians are hypocrites." [Special Report, 02/24/10]

Fox Nation: "Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option." The Fox Nation embedded the Naked Emperor News video under the headline, "Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option." From the Fox Nation:

Van Susteren: "[Y]ears ago when it came to Republicans using reconciliation, Democrats were singing a different tune." On her February 24 Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren noted that Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass health care and said, "But years ago when it came to Republicans using reconciliation, many Democrats were singing a different tune." After playing the clips, Van Susteren told former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum that there "may be some hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle." Santorum later said, "It is, in my mind, Democratic hypocrisy, not Republican hypocrisy." [On the Record, 02/14/10]

Beck: "[T]hey all stood up and said this was such a bad idea." On his radio show, Fox News host Glenn Beck played clips from the Breitbart.tv video and said of the possibility that Democrats might use reconciliation: "Why are they threatening this so much? Especially when they all stood up and said it was such a bad idea." [Premiere Radio Network's The Glenn Beck Program, 2/24/10]

"Nuclear option" was coined by GOP in 2005 to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules

Lott described proposal to change filibuster rules as "nuclear option." The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of the proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.

Democratic senators in video weren't discussing reconciliation. The clips of Democratic senators aired were first compiled in a video created by the conservative website Naked Emperor News and promoted on Breitbart.tv -- where "NEN videos premiere." As Media Matters noted, the senators were expressing opposition to the proposal to change Senate rules to eliminate use of the filibuster for judicial nominations -- i.e. the "nuclear option" -- not the use of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill that Bush signed did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has been used to pass major changes to health care laws

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Fox News has a history of conflating reconciliation and the "nuclear option"

Fox News repeatedly falsely labels reconciliation as "nuclear option." Fox News hosts and guests have repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the "nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process. The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities like Hannity, Van Susteren, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Bill Sammon have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option," and the Fox Nation has previously coupled its headlines with images of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear bomb:

M.C.L comment: I know I posted a story about the faux outrage and the out and out lies being spew by the Republicans loyal whores in the right wing media.. But I had to say this when Captain hypocrisy Sean Hannity whines about hypocrisy I gotta say something. Anything President Bush and Republicans wanted to do no matter how dumb it was Sean Hannity and the other flying monkeys in the right wing press backed it 100% so he needs to shut the hell up. Yes, yes I know I'm repeating this point again but it's true the Republicans and the right wing media are scared about this passing because A. it hurt their pimps in the health care industry and B. It kills the Republican chances to win back the majority and the white house for the next 30 years.

And seeing how the right wing hacks are falling over themselves trying to discredit a process the Republicans used themselves numerous times during Bush presidency has given me hope that a health care bill with a good(not strong) public option is going to pass via reconciliation.

McCain Assails Reconciliation, Forgetting He Once Said The GOP Laid ‘The Groundwork’ For Its Use

By Ben Armbruster

Today at the White House bipartisan health care summit, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to argue against the Democratic majority using reconciliation to pass health care reform. He first claimed to be an anti-reconciliation champion, falsely equating the “nuclear option” to pass judicial nominees (which he opposed in 2005) with reconciliation in general.

He then admitted that reconciliation has been used in the past, but “never before” for something as costly has health care and that using it now would all but ruin the U.S. Senate as an institution and “harm the future of our country”:

MCCAIN: The last time when there was a proposal that we Republicans in the majority would adopt a 51 vote majority on the issue of the confirmation of judges. There was a group of us that got together and said no that’s not the right way to go because that could deal a fatal blow to the unique aspect of the United States Senate which is a 60 vote majority. And we came to an agreement and it was brought to a halt.

If a 51 vote reconciliation is enacted on one-sixth of our gross national product. Never before has there been –- there’s been reconciliation but not at the level of an issue of this magnitude and I think I could harm the future of our country and our institution which I loved a great deal for a long, long time.

Watch it:

First, the “nuclear option” McCain referred to is not synonymous with “reconciliation” in general. It is the latest dishonest GOP talking point simply meant to derail health care reform.

Second, and most hypocritical, McCain himself has previously supported using reconciliation to pass major legislation and just last year, conceded that the GOP has no case in arguing against its use:

MCCAIN: I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party’s agenda. I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid.

Not only has reconciliation been used on countless occasions in the past, it’s simply not true that “never before” has it been used on legislation as big as the Senate’s $900 billion health care bill. The GOP majority used reconciliation to pass President Bush’s tax cuts, which have so far cost the federal government nearly $2 trillion and continue to add to the deficit. The CBO, meanwhile, said that the Senate’s health care bill yields “a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion” over 10 years. PolitiFact.com noted that it’s “probably true” that Bush’s tax cuts cost more than the Senate’s health care bill.

Moreover, NPR noted recently that “for 30 years, major changes in health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process.”

Conservative media revive "nuclear option" falsehood to accuse Democrats of reconciliation hypocrisy

From Media Matters Research department:

Conservative media are pushing the falsehood that "the nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process in order to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for previously criticizing the nuclear option and now considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform. But Democratic criticism of a 2005 Republican proposal to change filibuster rules is in no way inconsistent with passing health care reform through reconciliation -- a process that has repeatedly been used to pass legislation, including major health care reform.

Conservative media spread Breitbart.tv video and message that Dems are hypocrites on "nuclear option"

Breitbart.tv headline: "Obama & Dems in '05: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." On February 24, Breitbart.tv posted video showing Democratic senators expressing opposition to a Republican proposal that would have eliminated use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. Text accompanying the video states, "Biden: 'I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.' "

Beck: "[T]hey all stood up and said this was such a bad idea." On his radio show, Glenn Beck played clips from the Breitbart.tv video and said of the possibility that Democrats might use reconciliation: "Why are they threatening this so much? Especially when they all stood up and said it was such a bad idea." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 2/24/10]

Limbaugh: Democrats were "against doing this precise thing back in 2005." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Democrats, "They are going to blow up the Senate rules, they are gonna nuke the Senate rules, in order to get health care through the Senate. They were all against doing this precise thing back in 2005 to confirm judges." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/10]

Drudge links to video. In red text above the site's logo, the Drudge Report echoed Breitbart's headline and linked to the video (click on image to enlarge):

Fox Nation embeds video. The front page of the Fox News website Fox Nation featured a headline on its front page reading "Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option":

The headline linked to a Fox Nation page on which the Breitbart.tv video was embedded.

HotAir: "Video: God doesn't listen to Joe Biden." HotAir.com blogger Ed Morrissey wrote in a February 24 post, "Or maybe God just figured that Joe Biden wasn't terribly serious about this 2005 prayer, unearthed by Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News today." Morrissey also embedded the video in the post.

Townhall.com: "Flashback: Obama, Dems Call 50-Vote Nuclear Option 'Arrogant' Power Grab." In a February 24 post that also contained the video, Townhall.com blogger Meredith Jessup wrote, "With rumors Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might try to force a nuclear option vote on Obama's health care plan, this video is especially poignant today."

"Nuclear option" was coined by GOP to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules

Lott described proposal to change filibuster rules as "nuclear option." The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of the proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.

Reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has been used to pass major changes to health care laws

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

On NPR, Prof. Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the last 30 years has been the reconciliation process." Additionally, during the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

M.C.L comment: I give the Republicans and their whores in the conservative media credit they don't let a little thing like in your face hypocrisy get in the way of a good GOP talking point. As it pointed out anytime reconciliation has been it was used by the Rethugs and they're acting like the Democrats are doing something that has never been done before.

You don't need me to tell you why the Republicans and their media whores are working overtime to make sure health care of any form won't pass one it hurt their sugar daddies in the health care industry and two it gives President Obama and the Democrats a victory which in return for the Republicans means they won't see the majority or the white house for another 30 years.

And finally I'm going to comment about the newest right wing media whore one Mr.Andrew Breitbart, dude gets his information from two places one the RNC and two from the hole he calls an ass. From watching "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"few months ago this uber deluxe size douchebag is going to create his own version of Media Matters.. Where he will hold the media accountable for what I do not know but I'm guessing he's going to whine that not enough news outlets are mindless repeating RNC talking points and passing them off as news.

In short to sum up Mr. Breitbart he's the guy that bank rolled James O'Keefe and his 3 dollar whore sidekick in those ACORN videos(which O'Keefe doctored),hopefully Mr. Breitbart got the 3 dollar whore a good lawyer and soap on a rope for Jimmy O'Keefe because I believe Jimmy O is going to be a real popular in the prison shower.