Consti bringing you the word of the day from the Bunker Library. Today we have a foul word to some in politics. I’m talking about the “R” word. (No not Republican before you comment below.) I’m talking about reconciliation, or more accurately reconcile. Since there has been so much noise about the “nuclear option” pertaining to Healthcare reform I think it would do us to look at the proper term. Take out your pencils and paper.
Main Entry: rec·on·cile
Pronunciation: \ˈre-kən-ˌsī(-ə)l\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): rec·on·ciled; rec·on·cil·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French reconciler, from Latin reconciliare, from re- + conciliare to conciliate
Date: 14th century
Transitive verb
1 a: to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions>
b: settle, resolve <reconcile differences>
2 : to make consistent or congruous <reconcile an ideal with reality>
3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant <was reconciled to hardship>
4 a : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy
b : to account for
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconciling
So let’s apply this definition to the current Healthcare debate shall we?
To restore to friendship or harmony & reconcile differences. I don’t think anyone would argue that there hasn’t been much friendship or harmony in Washington over this issue. Even among the Democratic Party there has been in-fighting as to items in the legislation in exchange for votes. As for both parties the general attitude has come down to an “us against them” mentality. That’s just not good governance in my view. Legislatively this term means to combine both bills into a single law that can be put on the President’s desk. It also has a double meaning in that it can be used to refer to including legislation in with bills to fund the government. And there we come to the part where everyone cries foul. My problem is with the Democratic Party for using a legislative tactic that they criticized the Republicans for. Not that the Republicans were any better for using it in the first place for what it was not intended. But that’s like crying about the bully that hit you after you bullied another kid yourself. Even Pelosi and Obama himself as a Senator stated that it would take a 60 vote majority to make the legislation to his desk as President. Now of course, things are a different reality.
Which brings us to make consistent or congruous (reconcile an ideal with reality). And Obama has received a BIG dose of political reality in the first year of his term. All those lovely hands that were behind him during the election pushing him forward are now pulling him in every direction at once. From defections in his own party to losing Massachusetts and the Kennedy seat as it was inaccurately labeled. Or the formation of the Tea party movement from the outrage at last year’s town hall fiascoes. Despite a tough first year and plummeting popularity numbers the President is moving full steam ahead against the current of public opinion. In other words he hasn’t reconciled his policy with reality. Hence the Presidents change in opinion about the “nuclear option.”
To cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant (was reconciled to hardship). This sounds more accurate a definition to the Healthcare issue. We the American public is going to have to submit to an unpleasant entitlement program we don’t want by a Government that is not listening to those who put it in power. It’s not that the people don’t want reform. It’s that we choose not to expand Government’s power by creating the public option. Remove the public option from research polls and support for the core values of reform increase. However those same people who derided the Republicans for giving tax breaks using this legislative loophole are now set to do it themselves to make the public swallow the horse pill called Healthcare. Here I would reference you to the definition of hypocrisy.
To check against another for accuracy or to account for. If we were to compare the failing Medicare entitlement to the public option my question is how much WASTE and FRAUD will we see in this entitlement? Will the ferreting out of this WASTE & FRAUD be as sloppy and half hearted as the current system for doing the same in Medicare? Who will be held accountable for the loss or theft of personal data since we can’t sue our government? Who will be accountable for medical decisions as to acceptable or covered procedures? Why should we have to publicly fund abortions when the life of the mother is not threatened? We are promised pie in the sky ideals and dealt only the same vague notions to get behind.
“But Consti if we don’t do it now it will never get done!” BS! If we don’t do it correct to begin with we will find ourselves wishing we never did it in the first place. And once this is done taking away the entitlement won’t happen either thanks to politicians. Look at the lesson of Medicare and learn from your history. Or better yet make the entitlements you currently have work properly in the first place and the public might trust you enough to expand or create another.
“But Consti think about the ****!!” Fill in the blank. The children, the needy, the poor, the middle class, the handicapped, the unemployed, the left handed, polar bears, mentally challenged, Democrats, etc, ad nausea. (Literally) And I am thinking about what the liberals call “the greater good”. Unfortunately the political reality of “the greater good” isn’t necessarily “good for all”. If it were a true Democracy we would all get a vote on legislation. That’s why it’s called a Republic.
The bunker is a great place to be when they throw around the term; nuclear.
Consti.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
So much for reconciliation. This is why I always say you have to know the rules to break them. Silly Democrats!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1L0cLABQhP0
Laura,
Sour grapes. Truth hurts doesn’t it? BTW? Are your eyes brown?
J,
There are certain moments where things can be left alone to speak for themselves.
We have seen one of those moments here….And so has everyone else…
“Second, Democrats objected to the Republicans use of Budget Reconciliation because of a change in the rules for it to be applied. Prior to 2001 in order for reconciliation to be used a bill had to be directly related to the budget and had to be either deficit neutral, or deficit positive, meaning that it had to either not add to the deficit or reduce it. For the 2001, and later 2003 Bush tax cuts Republicans removed the deficit rules, passing tax cuts without a way to replace that revenue or reduce spending by an equal amount.”
That is from my previous post. The DEMOCRATS where howling as you say because for the first time this process was being used on measures that had a negative deficit impact. Now, if calling the other side to task for hijacking a process hand using it to increase the debt, something it was specifically designed not to do makes Democrats hypocrits as you say, I say wear that mantel with pride.
Matt,
Thanks.
J Byron
Yes the overhead on social programs is through the roof and 3.3 billion dollars is owed to the IRS from it’s own federal employees. However, like I stated in my article once an entitlement is given it is not taken away. So since we are stuck with the garbage at least we should recycle some of it no? The waste and fraud are a small portion, but every penny counts as my Grandmother always said. And cheaters should never prosper.
Your comments focus on the Republican use of the legislative tactic. Something I mentioned in the article. As for your comment as a whole (big picture) you outline the rational for it’s use, but fail to point out that the Dimowits yelled and hollered when they did it to begin with. Now they themselves are using a tactic that they bashed the republicans over the head for. I call that hypocrisy. If they were so moral and upright about not liking the republicans doing it then they shouldn’t do it themselves. But since they don’t feel they should play by their own rules I will call them on it. So much for being on the moral high ground eh?
Ok No Name, back at it we go.
First, Budget Reconciliation is not the so called “Nuclear Option”. The “Nuclear Option” is a term that Republicans in the U.S. Senate coined while Democrats were filibustering Bush appointees to the Federal Court. They called it such because it was a option of last resort. It would involve taking a series of procedural votes that would ultimately end in a vote to remove the filibuster from the Senate rules, clearing the way for an up or down vote and passage on a 50 + 1 majority.
Second, Democrats objected to the Republicans use of Budget Reconciliation because of a change in the rules for it to be applied. Prior to 2001 in order for reconciliation to be used a bill had to be directly related to the budget and had to be either deficit neutral, or deficit positive, meaning that it had to either not add to the deficit or reduce it. For the 2001, and later 2003 Bush tax cuts Republicans removed the deficit rules, passing tax cuts without a way to replace that revenue or reduce spending by an equal amount. What will happen is that Democrats will pull out of the already passed Senate Bill those things that can ass under the Budget Reconciliation process, the national Insurance exchange along with its rules and regulations for insurance companies in it, the public option etc. Those items will be sent as a bill to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). If it comes back as deficit neutral or positive it can go to reconciliation and be passed with a simple majority of 50 + 1.
May I say, great article as always, but that last paragraph really drive it home. I personally have two in-laws who are entitled to free housing (most anywhere they please, worth the 1st $800.00 and can move every year if they want), $1600.00 social security FOR BEING STRESSED (not from war, just life), $280.00 in food stamps, free medical/dental/pharma. There’s more but I can’t remember the minutia.
Here’s the part that is hard to note, 75% of all social aid dollars are spent on overpaid, rude, highly benefited government workers, buildings, distribution and general overhead. They admit this, and don’t consider any of it fraud or waste. Yeah let’s bust our collective asses to find that 10% waste.
Excellent post. I especially liked the point that Obama has not reconciled his policy to reality.
.-= Matt´s last blog ..Does Single Payer Kill? =-.
Erik,
Thanks. Keep up the good work yourself.
You are right. It IS a republic, if we can handle it (Ben Franklin), as evidenced by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Your articles just keep getting better.