Obamacare's Nuclear Option

Honestly, I'd like to know what game Carl Hulse of the NY Times is playing here with his article implying that The Legislative Procedure That Dare Not Speak Its Name, taking health care reform through the budget reconciliation process, is such a huge, dark secret. It's not.

With bipartisan health care negotiations teetering, Democrats are talking reluctantly — and very, very quietly — about exploiting a procedural loophole they planted in this year’s budget to skirt Republican filibusters against a health care overhaul.

They are talking reluctantly because using the tactic, officially known as reconciliation, would present a variety of serious procedural and substantive obstacles that could result in a piecemeal health bill. And they are whispering because the mere mention of reconciliation touches partisan nerves and could be viewed as a threat by the three Republicans still engaged in the delicate talks, causing them to collapse.

Yet with the discussions so far failing to produce an agreement, Democrats are exploring whether they could use the tactic as a last resort to secure a health care victory if they have to go it alone. The answer: It would not be pretty and it would not be preferable, but it could be doable.

No, reconciliation is not preferable. But it's something the Democrats have signaled they would be willing to use all the way back in April:

The deal was hatched late afternoon and last night, in a five-hour negotiating session at the office of Senate Majoriy Leader Harry Reid. A trio of White House officials were there: Rahm Emanuel, Peter Orszag, and Phil Schiliro. Also present, along with Reid, were House Budget Chairman John Spratt and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad.

The reonciliation instruction specifies a date. That date, according to one congressional staffer, is October 15. (The original House reconciliation instruction had a late September deadline.)

In other words, the House and Senate each have until that day to pass health care legislation.

So the Republicans and the Democrats have both been working under this particular deadline since the process started.

But here's what really bothers me about the Times article: listening to Sen. Kent Conrad complain about reconciliation...a deal he signed on to back in April.

Mr. Conrad, who is one of the Democrats bargaining with Republicans, has been advising that fashioning a health care plan under byzantine reconciliation rules is a bad idea. From his perspective, a major impediment is the fact that the plans devised by the Senate finance and health panels would have to produce $2 billion in savings over five years and not add to the deficit after that.

Considering the upfront costs of trying to bring all Americans under the health insurance umbrella, and the fact that some of the structural health care changes that lawmakers are eyeing might not produce immediate savings, the deficit rules could severely limit the scope of a bill.

“You would have a very difficult time getting universal coverage in reconciliation,” Mr. Conrad said.

Here's a question I have for the Senator: Why do we even need reconciliation in the first place when Democrats have a huge margin in the house and 60 votes in the Senate? There should be no need for reconciliation: none whatsoever.

That is unless Democrats like Kent Conrad aren't committed to getting the President's goals into legislation and passing them in the bill. If that's the case, then Democrats have a bit of an issue.

Not to tell Rahmbo, Orszag and the Axe how to do their job, but any Democratic senator yammering on about the evils of reconciliation in the Village Press should have a big ol' target on them for some serious arm-twisting action over August. You want to know where to put those ad blitzes proclaiming ordinary Americans need health care reform?

Try North Dakota, for starters.

Just saying. Kent Conrad just might be a problem.