If this is ramming, we'd hate to see real debate

Mar 10, 2010 — The Charlotte Observer

Mar. 10, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune News Service delivered by Newstex) -- The following editorial appeared in the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer on Friday, March 5:

___

Let's be honest about what's going on with health care fight. Whether you love the Senate's health care reform bill, hate it, or, like us, are somewhere in between, we should all be able to agree: Nobody is "ramming" anything through anywhere.

When President Barack Obama made clear that he wants a health-care reform bill on his desk within weeks, critics pounced. They claimed Congress would be using procedural sleight-of-hand to rush something through that the American people by-and-large oppose. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board was typical, saying Democrats were "ramming a bill through the U.S. Congress on a narrow partisan vote."

Let's review a couple of basic facts:

_The Senate already passed a health-care reform bill with a filibuster-proof 60 votes.

_Health-care reform has been debated intensely for more than a year. There have been town halls, committee meetings and televised summits with both parties at the table. The House passed a version, the Senate passed a version and the House is now likely to vote on the Senate version. Regardless of how reform fares in polls, that's about as deliberative a process as there is.

At issue is the Senate's probable employment of "reconciliation." That's the use of Senate rules to allow amendments to pass with a majority of votes cast, rather than a supermajority of 60. Health-care reform critics decry the use of reconciliation, calling it a "hyper-partisan tactic" (Sen. John Cornyn) and "a partisan scheme to jam the bill through Congress" (House Minority Leader John Boehner).

Please. Anyone who has been paying attention knows Democrats and Republicans alike have used reconciliation to their advantage. Where were Cornyn and Boehner and other reconciliation critics when Republicans used it to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2003? To overcome minority Democrats' opposition, Republicans invoked reconciliation, and Vice President Dick Cheney broke a 50-50 tie. Now that's a narrow partisan vote.

Or where were they when Republicans used reconciliation in 1996 to pass legislation that reformed welfare? Where were they when Republicans used it to cut taxes and make health-care reforms in 1999? Where were they when Republicans used it in 2005 to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and again in 2005 to extend tax cuts? Clearly, there's nothing unprecedented about either party using reconciliation to advance its goals. And in this case, the Senate has already passed health-care reform without it. It would be used only on amendments.

Until a year or two ago, if you asked almost any American how many votes are needed to pass a bill in the 100-member Senate, you would get the logical answer: 50 plus one. That's how the Founders set things up.

There's nary a mention of the filibuster or reconciliation in the Constitution, and there's no reason to think the Founders backed a system that required a three-fifths' vote for anything to pass.

It is essential to reform U.S. health care. The Senate bill is flawed, and we hope Congress passes some important amendments. But let's be honest: We've seen democracy in action on this issue for more than a year. Congress should finally take an up-or-down vote and let voters render their verdict in eight short months. The alternative _ allowing a minority veto power _ would be "ramming through" inaction.

___

Newstex ID: KRTN-0006-42747901