Reconciliation and sunset provisions
Here’s my question: do bills passed by the reconciliation process require the inclusion of a five-year sunset provision? And if so, why has this fact hardly been mentioned in the ongoing discussion about using reconciliation to pass health care reform?
Here’s a seemingly relevant Wiki entry:
The Byrd rule [for the reconciliation process]…allows Senators to raise a point of order against any provision held to be extraneous…Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that “would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure.” Since the Budget Act states the budget resolution covers at least the four years following the “budget year” which is typically the year following the year in which it adopted, that is the usual period of time. However, budget resolutions have covered periods as long as ten years, so a reconciliation measure may cover the ten years. This rule has the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase or tax cut that does not contain a sunset provision ending it after five or ten years. Overcoming a point of order requires cloture, and thus a three-fifths majority of 60 in the Senate. In short, a net effect of the Byrd Rule is to require that any spending increase or tax cut be approved by a majority of 60 if it does not contain a sunset provision assuring no increase in the deficit after the budget resolution period.
If this would mean that any health care reform bill passed by reconciliation would need to have a five-year (or ten-year??) expiration date, and since many of the provisions of Obamacare don’t kick in for quite a few years, would it not appear that the entire system would disintegrate five years from passage unless passed again?
These arcane Senate rules are certainly not something I’m familiar with, to say the least. But if true, I wonder why we’ve heard virtually no discussion of the sunset problem. Obviously, reconciliation was never meant to be a way of passing sweeping transformative legislation of this sort. But this rule might afford a built-in way to undo this law, if initially passed; just let it expire.
Of course, by then our entire private health insurance system may have died. And to those proposing this travesty of a bill, that’s probably a feature, not a bug.
[NOTE: Jay Cost has more on the reconciliation process—much more. But he doesn’t mention the sunset provisions. The gist of his piece is that since reconciliation has never been used to make such hugh changes before, no one can predict how it would—or wouldn’t—work.]
This remains astounding as the Dems seem to have lost all common or political sense. This is big and it absoutely has to have general public acceptance. Since also it is low on the public’s priority list right now (and the nations) to spend months of government attention then pass it by some archane measure is guaranteed to have it be resented. 85% of the public has health insurance from employers or the government. Rightly or wrongly they see only changes in Copays or benefits, not costs or terms of insurance. The “uninsured” are a small number of voters yet this is driving the show.
I think this is the great socialist dream of Liberals and they are unable to see anything else around them.
I had thought that the Parliamentarians in the House and Senate, particularly the Senate Parliamentarian, would play a decisive role in deciding whether the Senate could use “reconciliation”–designed to apply only to budget bills–to pass a Health Care Reform bill.
However, according to the CRS report I link to here (http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/The_Office_of_the_Parliamentarian_of_the_House_and_Senate.pdf) such advice by the Parliamentarians about procedure are just that, “advice,” and are not binding “rulings”–as I had thought–and can be rejected.
neo: Great points and thanks for the Jay Cost link.
I’m not any sort of parliamentarian either but it is clear that the Democrats are in unknown territory and no matter what side one favors, one can only speculate on how the reconciliation process will work.
As usual, the Obami are making things up as they go along. What we see time and time again is their constant overreaching and their negligence in robust planning.
They execute with no margin for error, while making plenty of errors. It’s as if they never ran any large sustained enterprise before….
“Tension, created by diversity, is essential to the dialectic process. It energizes members and — when manipulated by well-trained facilitators– produces synergy. You can’t guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views — both “thesis and antithesis.” That’s why the consensus process must include all these elements:
ô€º a diverse group
ô€º dialoguing to consensus
ô€º over a social issue
ô€º led by a trained facilitator
ô€º toward a pre-planned outcome.
The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus, for “continual change” is an ongoing process: one step today, another tomorrow. To permanently change the way we think and relate to each other, our leaders must set the stage for conflict and compromise week after week, year after year. Dialectical thinking and group consensus must become as normal as eating. Eventually, people learn to discard their old mental anchors and boundaries — all the facts and
certainties that built firm convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with the changing winds and currents.
“The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth”
for those who dont get it… its telling people who dont agree that they need their meds, and joining in on that. or that the construction of something (a point of irrelevency) isnt acceptable and they have to conform. or baiting them with more social largess if they comply (but its a lie, the people saying it have no control over that social largess). its interesting when its internalized as the victims tend to play their roles witout the facilitator, and dont understand why it doesnt work… (because they confuse it with actual debate which has the opportunity in a choice)
The end result is a ‘paradigm shift’ in how one processes factual information.” Dr. Robert Klench
Hegelian dialectic process as an essential tool for managing the masses. Through their hierarchical system of soviets (groups led by trained facilitators who led the group dialogue toward a prescribed and evolving consensus). Everyone had to trade individual thinking for collective thinking and communal values. The vision of “common good” was simply the carrot that justified total and cruel control.
i have asked over and over for someone other than me to define what a soviet is… what made it a soviet union, was not the label, it was the practice, and you can call that anythig and any name you want.. names dont change practices or outcomes.. (just beliefs – and that can change things if you can get people to believe false things)
when you read books like “when iron gates yield” you get a better idea of hwo things work (and how McCain could be a progressive). its about China:
“…the Communist revolution was run on principles…. attracting the finest youth of China… who were being filled with enthusiasm to devote their all that their nation might become strong and free….
They had not yet understood that the idea of tyranny and liberation goes deeper than governments and material progress, or even classes. They had not yet awakened to the new and more sinister spiritual bondage that had begun to engulf them.
The task before UNESCO… is to help the emergence of a single world culture. ….at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East…. You may categorize the two philosophies as two supernationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism…. or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? …through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen….
JULIAN HUXLEY BROTHER OF ALDOUS… In his 1947 book UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy
[as i said back then they wrote almost openly..]…
and what better place to add to the politics of regular science lie global warming thatn to get the medical doctor to do things?
[edited for length by n-n]
“We have moved into a new era,” said Dr. Shirley McCune, keynote speaker at the 1989 Governor’s Conference on Education. “What we are facing is total restructuring of society…. We no longer are teaching facts to children.” …
controlling medicine will see adornos authoritarian mind be a criminal thing needing re-education…the elderly who are too individualist, will be slowly administratively removed. abortion will make sure the more socially adept will choose to wait till better circumstances (which the state prevents)…while those who are not that way, will just have lots of children with their abilities. etc.
Group discussion
Group discussion is a way of thinking together. It is a method of pooling your ideas and information with that of others to come to some general conclusions. A leader generally guides the process of the group, but each person must have the responsibility of contributing his share. sounds great… but we no longer can get anywhere unless there is a facilitator who we accept that will conclude for us. which is why over a year later we cant get past this same debate that never changes!!
there is no facilitator here, and we cant resolve without one… conclusions cant be made till someone says which one is right.
you can see this all over in that the people who are taught this from the bottom, cant resolve anything, even as adults. they require a priest, social worker, the state, cps, oprah, feminists, race mongers, someone to tell them what answer to end up on
I dunno. They’re doing quite a few tricks in this bill that are not done often and/or I can’t recall being done before. They’ve even played the card of exempting some sections from judicial review.
I’m with the others, even they can not know how this will play out.
Is this a violation of the social contract between the government and the people? When does it cease being “with consent of the governed?”
If they’re willing to break the rules on what can go into a reconciliation, why should we believe they’d respect any rule on sunsetting?
And Geoffrey, Rasmussen says that only 21% of those polled believe that the feds have the consent of the governed. I think all Americans, and especially our representatives in government, should re-read the Declaration of Independence right away and seriously contemplate the second paragraph.
I have to take exception to the social contract reference Geoffrey de Bouillon. First of all I govern myself not Congress or anyone else (ok my wife, boss, society, etc). I obey the laws because I agree with them or I break when I do not. If there was no law against robbing banks I still would not do it because I disagree with robbing banks.
Second, Congress is not our ruler/master as implied in the above reference, they are supposed to be our employees and as such do our bidding, the social contract is between employer and employee. That is the social contract they violated. Apparently they seem to convinced themselves they are indeed anointed by some entity other than the public and they are in fact our rulers. This misconception should be set straight next November.
To put it in a far simpler and direct way “who the hell do these people think they are?” And also “who the hell do they think we are?”
Bryan,
There’s some interesting stuff after the second paragraph in the Declaration; some of which may apply to the present government/president. To wit:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. ( I thought of Holder and the Black Panters here)
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. (while this referred to the British troops on American soil, I also thought of the KSM trial and mirandizing terrorists)
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
Bob,
Suggest you read this nation’s founding documents. Then you would understand the reference.
For heaven’s sake, Bob gets it. Let us forswear professorial pomposity, GdeB.
Tom,
Anyone can rant righteously. But the founders, who knew about “self-government” and what is required for it, would have denied that we only obey the laws with which we agree.
Of course, the Congress are not our “rulers.” But they do reflect us as a people, and they have been allowed to think they know better than we. What will it take to convince them otherwise? That was the thrust of my question about the social contract.
GdeB:
See Bob’s 2nd para. His 1st would be along the lines of civil disobedience, or watering the Tree of Liberty, perhaps.
We’re all on the same page.
Well I don’t know what it might take to convince them that they don’t know better than we do. But I have this feeling–call me crazy–that we might get to find out.
I think neo’s quite right that by the time any “sunset” provision might kick in on this awful maneuver, our private health insurance system will have died. These wizards know that: A feature, not a bug. The thing is, as in her earlier discussion concerning whether the thing could be repealed, no one has ever been here before with anything of this enormous scale. I keep hoping that they’re about to outsmart themselves. But I don’t much want that to be our big fall-back hope. They’ve been working on this for a long time now, and they appear to have a number of Plan Bs.
And another question: If they are determined to misuse, abuse, and violate all applicable rules in pursuit of this thing (and I think they may well be), who is going to stop them? They do not appear to be of a mind to drop it.
This “meeting” tomorrow may be, as most claim it is, a political stunt designed to put the Congressional Republicans on the defensive and co-opt some of their positions. But I think it may also be a move to inject confusion into all this. We’re looking at the latest act in the ol’ shell game routine. We don’t know what the plan is, we don’t know what the bills are, we don’t know how they are about to be changed, we don’t know what’s going to be in the ones finally submitted for a vote because these wizards apparently feel free to change them at will. During and after tomorrow’s meeting, Obama will make conciliatory noises and offer compromises that may or may not make it into the final bill, whatever that turns out to be, but won’t really be interested in changing (again, I’m reminded of the German sub captain in The Enemy Below). Senate rules and arcana will only make it worse. Button, button, who’s got the button?
The sunset provision is not the relevant factor.
“Byrd rule tests – Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act sets forth six tests for matters to be considered extraneous under the Byrd rule. The criteria apply to provisions that:
…
(2) * produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; ”
“Effect of points of order – The effect of raising a point of order under the Byrd rule is to strike the offending extraneous provision. If a point of order against a conference report is sustained, the Senate may consider subsequent motions to dispose of that portion of the conference report not subject to the point of order.”
In effect, the Republicans can raise a point of order on any provision and it is sustained unless the Dems can invoke cloture.
One of the Senate leadership (can’t remember which one) stated on TV news a couple of weeks ago that they had over a hundred POIs drafted in anticipation of the process.
Jeez. Curiouser and curiouser.
GdeB wrote “But the founders, who knew about “self-government” and what is required for it, would have denied that we only obey the laws with which we agree.”
Funny using the founders as an example of law abiding citizens considering how they handled their legal disagreements with the British.
It comes down to this, (and here is where I think we all agree) we are feel obligated to obey laws mandated by the public and encoded by Congress, we are under no obligation to obey laws cooked up by a self proclaimed governing class, indeed we may be obligated to disobey them and even fight them, for the good of the state, just as the founders did.
Amen.
Every law written should have a 5 year sunset clause so it can be revisited. Theres not an American living that isn’t breaking some stupid law that stupid politician dreamed up every single day.
They execute with no margin for error, while making plenty of errors.
That’s an excellent point. Well said, huxley. I’m gonna steal it for use in casual political conversation in the cubicles….
When does it cease being “with consent of the governed?”
When we do more than just march and yell, I suppose….
Bob,
We are basically on the same page. I don’t want to keep a silly argument going, but the Founders rejected an entire system and put something better in its place. I would argue that they were law abiding, but they rejected illegitimate authority. Maybe an unimportant difference.
At ant rate, “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
– Thomas Jefferson
We are rapidly approaching that point, and we agree on that.
Bob,
We are basically on the same page. I don’t want to keep a silly argument going, but the Founders rejected an entire system and put something better in its place. I would argue that they were law abiding, but they rejected illegitimate authority. Maybe an unimportant difference. I think we are in violent agreement.
At ant rate, “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
– Thomas Jefferson
We are rapidly approaching that point, and we agree on that.
Another agreement, a government capable of passing unwanted laws for the people’s benefit is also capable (eventually) of eliminating elections for the people’s benefit.
As for silly arguments, what other reason for living is there other than silly arguments. You would hate the Mediterranean culture where silly arguments are the sole means of social interaction.
Also the British monarchy was not an illegitimate authority, at the time it was historically the sole legitimate authority. The revolution was about “beginning the world anew” according to Tom Paine.
The Americans evolved into a different people which articulated an ideology to explain itself, but it was new, different and a break with history, very illegitimate in the eyes of tradition.
This article in the London Times about appalling problems in an NHS hospital is fascinating and terrifying — most of all for the comments. I got through the first four pages and found almost none that tried to defend anything about the British health care system. This ought to be printed out and placed on the desk of every American legislator.
tinyurl.com/ybu978b