Democrats can cut funding for the war without filibuster via reconcilation

[Hippo_Tron]

For those of you who aren't familiar with reconciliation it is in here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate)

This is the process that the GOP used to ram through the tax cuts without filibuster because they only had 50 votes for them.

Reconciliation applies to all matters of the budget process which funding for the war would be under. The Democrats only need 51 votes to pass a bill that says funding for the war would be conditional on the US troops out by a specific date because it's a budgetary matter.

Bush will be left with two options, sign the bill and bring the troops home or be held responsible for leaving the troops stranded without supplies.

[fmlymninral]

1. Bush would veto

and doubt congress would override it.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I don't believe that he could accept the political stigma of abandoning our troops without supplies

It would be the end of the Republican Party. Even if we weren't willing to take that gamble we could fund the pentagon by continuing resolution until we negotiated with him for a date certain (even if he gets to pick a date that is later than we'd like). At least the story about the negotiations would be on the news every night until the negotiations were finished.

[papau]

3. but if a day before shut down could he politically effectively shut down all government? Or does the

continuing resolution that must be passed next week not count as a Budget "reconciliation"?

[Hippo_Tron]

5. No, you don't shut down national security and expect good political results

When Gingrich shut down the government, limited functions such as national security were still funded.

If Bush doesn't sign a CR or the Senate Republicans filibuster it then they would basically be handing us the '08 election.

[Wiley50]

4. You Forgot Option 3: Bomb Iran partially into glass

Hey, These guys create their own reality. Remember?


In the diverson, priorities change, everything changes

These guys are SO EVIL!

Reconcile, my ass!

[Hippo_Tron]

6. True, but just because they might actually be arrogant enough to ignore the law

Isn't a good reason not to pass the law.

[bigtree]

7. reconciliation comes AFTER a bill is reported back out from conference

the conference which is used to reconcile legislation which isn't exactly similar.

The Senate will get whatever the House passes out and amend it. That will put any bill that manages to pass out of the Senate into conference. Before it passes out of the Senate it may be subject to a 'point of order', a filibuster type move.


from OMB Watch: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3695/1/475

The power of the purse is not unlimited. First and foremost, an appropriations bill is subject to a point of order if it "legislates." Legislating on appropriations means the appropriations bill limits, directs or conditions funding in a way that does not comport with enacted authorizations, which enable or create government policy but often do not fund them. The Congressional Research Service summarizes this restriction:

Under Senate and House rules, limitations, as well as other language in the text of appropriations legislation, cannot change existing law (paragraphs 2 and 4 of Senate Rule XVI and clause 2(b) and (c) of House Rule XXI). That is, they cannot amend or repeal existing law nor create new law (referred to as legislation or legislation on an appropriations bill). Limitations also may not extend beyond the fiscal year for which an appropriation is provided.

In other words, Congress must waive a point of order, provided one is raised, to turn on funding for policies that are not already written into law. When this happens, it is what's known as an "unauthorized appropriation." In addition, appropriations bills that change the terms of enacted authorizations are subject to points of order.

This obstacle is not as restrictive as it may appear. Points of order are not self-enforcing, as a member must raise a point of order for it to take effect. In the House, points of order can be waived by special order of the Rules Committee. In the Senate, a 3/5ths majority is necessary for a waiver. And this point of order has limited application. It does not apply to limitations that proscribe or prescribe funding certain activities, unless they amend, repeal or enact authorizing legislation, or require the enactment of a separate authorization.

What's more, there is ample evidence of unauthorized appropriations surviving year after year. The Congressional Budget Office produces a report each year itemizing unauthorized appropriations that continue to pass each year. Therefore, the point of order must be waived from time to time, or not raised at all.

Yet there are other ways this power is limited, such as through the presidential veto. Just like any other bill, appropriations bills are vulnerable to a possible veto, which can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. Further, the president could also choose to not comply with directives included in an appropriations bill. Someone must then enter litigation to force presidential compliance. If such a dispute were to enter the courts, Congress's authority would likely be affirmed. Many constitutional law experts have asserted Congress has the constitutional authority to construct rules that guide military affairs.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. But we control the conference committee

So lets say that the GOP waters down the Senate bill. We simply make the conference report identical to the House bill. Since the conference report can't be filibustered because of reconciliation, we just get 51 votes and pass it.

[bigtree]

9. House and Senate rules forbid Conferees from inserting in their report matter not committed to them

by either House.

I think amending it that way would open it up to the point of order requiring more than the 50 to overcome it.

RULE XXII
House and Senate Relations

Senate amendments

9. Whenever a disagreement to an amendment has been committed to a conference committee, the managers on the part of the House may propose a substitute that is a germane modification of the matter in disagreement. The introduction of any language presenting specific additional matter not committed to the conference committee by either House does not constitute a germane modification of the matter in disagreement. Moreover, a conference report may not include matter not committed to the conference committee by either House and may not include a modification of specific matter committed to the conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the scope of that specific matter as committed to the conference committee.

10. (a)(1) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may raise a point of order against nongermane matter, as specified in subparagraph (2) . . .


edit: re-reading it, it appears it could be done, if, as you say, they introduce the House language. Interesting.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. We don't need to insert new material, just report something identical to the House version

And make the House version the bill that we want. In the interest of pretending that we actually did something in conference we can make all of the important provisions come from the House version but add a few minor things in the Senate.

[bigtree]

11. I see that now. Interesting

nice road map, at least from the points we just covered.

:kick: recommended

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Thx, I'm not saying that it would be guaranteed to work

But I'm just annoyed that the leadership isn't publicly talking about the options available to them that don't require Republican cooperation (especially since the Republicans have shown they're not interested in cooperating).

One of the first things the GOP started talking about after the 2004 elections was the "nuclear option". If the Democrats would start making it clear that they have some serious cards in their hand, the Republicans might not so eager to call it as a bluff.

[bigtree]

13. they are publicly saying they will use the appropriations process

I don't know how much valuable showing their hand would be.

I do think it has worked well to have a bipartisan effort to defend in the face of the republican obstruction since ANY resolution, binding or otherwise, would have been blocked at this point.

Didn't the nuclear option work only because they had Bush at the end of the process?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. They are saying they will use the appropriation process to stop escalation

But not to end the war altogether.

And I'm not saying that we go for the nuclear option specifically but we come up with very real threats (like the one I've mentioned above) that will make the Senate Republicans feel like they aren't more powerful and more inclined to negotiate instead of just filibustering.

And while I don't deny that a bipartisan solution is ideal it has its own disadvantages in that every day we spend negotiating a bipartisan solution more soldiers die. Furthermore there is a chance that we won't get a bipartisan solution.

[bigtree]

15. I think the delay could cut either way

I think a confrontation could delay action without a guarantee of moving Bush any more than a bipartisan one would.

In the end, when we have to reign Bush in for ignoring Congress, it may be better to have some scorned republicans confronting Bush along with us. We can't lose sight of the politics. Right now we're likely to benefit from the lack of traction the republicans got from their obstruction, but I don't think we're completely insulated against overplaying our hand.