Harry Reid flat-out lied when he said “nobody is talking about reconciliation” as a way to pass the health care reform bill. Here he is only days before the health care summit.

Speaker Gingrich writes,

The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation

While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present — whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action

Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending

This is why passing the left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.

Leaving aside the bill’s merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left’s health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) “an outrage that must be resisted.”

It’s also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton’s efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left’s latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Liberals and Progressive Democrats are already shouting that Republicans used reconciliation to pass welfare reform. Newt’s response:

Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress’ efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was “deficit neutral”. President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that “added one dime” to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.

Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left’s health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can’t get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left’s health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left’s plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Keep in mind that as recently as 2005, even Barack Obama was complaining that the Republican threat to use the “nuclear option” to shut down Democratic filibusters holding up judicial appointments would have created a majoritarian government not intended by the founders. But now that the shoe’s on the other foot, Majoritarianism seems to be the preferred order of the day. Back then, Republicans called Democrats “obstructionists” for filibustering the appointments of Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees, which Bush had every right to make. Now Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists” because they object to the idea of “fundamentally transforming” the American health care system. Which is worse, seating a Republican President’s judicial nominations, or usurping control of a nation’s health care system in a massive power grab that has nothing to do with health care? I think we can all see which obstruction is justifiable.

More and more judges are doing this lately. The ruling is troubling for a number of reasons. First, it amounts to legislating from the bench. That’s bad enough because judges don’t have any Constitutional authority for that.

Second, the ruling cannot only apply to a certain person, the boy in this case, but can now be used as precedent in other cases which may or may not have much in common with this particular case.

Third, does the government have the right to force someone to receive treatment? In my mind, that violates some basic Rights we all have. Granted, we all have the Right to Life, but can methods to preserve life be enforced by the Court? If so, does it remain a Right?

Fourth, does the government know what is best, or do individuals know what is best for themselves? That question is posed by the attorney for the boy’s family.

On the other hand, does stupidity nullify individual rights? How about religious beliefs?

There was similar story from Utah a couple of years back where the parents of Parker Jensen disagreed with a physician’s diagnosis and refused to get chemotherapy for their son. The Jensens had to leave the State to avoid the court ruling, and were subsequently indicted on charges of kidnapping.

Parker is still alive today and in good health. The State of Utah eventually dropped the kidnapping charges against the Jensens. The Jensens tried to sue the State for damages, but were denied.

One of Glenn Beck’s 9-12 principles is that Parents are the ultimate authority for their family, not the government. How do you 912ers feel about that in light of this case?

I’d appreciate comments.

Judge rules family can’t refuse chemo for boy – Yahoo! News.

For example, I cannot go visit my in-laws, my sister, or some of my friends unless I am willing to deal with asthma for a week afterward; they all have dogs or cats. I can’t run any appreciable distance. If I go camping, I have to take an inhaler, just in case.

The inhalant I have found to be very effective is the tried-and-true albuterol inhaler. It typically cost me about $25.00 and would sometimes last more than a year. But beginning Jan. 1, 2009, that inhaler will no longer be legal to sell in the US. You see, the CFCs used as a propellant are allegedly destroying the ozone layer.

Never mind the fact that the hole we have supposedly created in the ozone layer comes and goes on its own from year to year, and appears to repair itself. Never mind that the hole in the ozone layer only appears above the only unpopulated continent on the face of the planet. Never mind that the amount of CFCs used to propel albuterol is environmentally insignificant now that CFCs have been banned in everything else. The pretend hole in the ozone layer is more important than the health and well-being of the people on this planet.

The new inhaler is not even half the size of the old one. Why? Because they don’t want the public to spend more money than they did before. That might arouse suspicion. So now you are paying about twice as much as you were before for medication that, for some people, is necessary to preserve life.

Who is hurt the most by this change in price? The poor people. Asthma does not distinguish between rich or poor. And in fact, if you are in a lower income tax bracket, you will likely receive less treatment for asthma than someone in a higher bracket. Poor people tend to not have insurance, and so have to pay on their own. They will be even less able to pay for the inhalant now than they used to be.

Did you ever wonder why the Left in America is so adamant that we must provide free health care to everyone? There are a couple of reasons. First is to assuage their guilt. They know perfectly well that their policies affect people financially, and they know that people of lesser income are most deeply affected by those policies. Therefore, they devise programs to make up for the harm they would otherwise be causing people, which is the second reason: to provide cover for their bad policies. Once their guilt has been satisfied, they can proceed to subject everyone else to the tyranny that results from their oppressive and draconian regulations. There is no good liberal policy. All policies emanating from the Left are designed to hurt people in at least one way. The frightening part is that the Left never seems to be able to see the consequences of their policies before they are put into action.

So, with this new inhaler will come new efforts to bring health care under the umbrella of government “services.” There are already reports of people being sensitive to the new medication, and thus unable to take it. The inhaler must be meticulously cleaned after each use to prevent a build-up of medication in the nozzle, which would then prevent the medication from being dispensed. That was not a problem with the old inhaler. Furthermore, the drug companies were forced into investing their money in these new products against their will by the government. So much for free enterprise.

Unless I miss my guess, the old inhaler will still be available outside the US. If I want what works, I will just have to go to Mexico to get it. Unfortunately, most of the people who need this medication the most won’t be able to afford the trip to get it. I predict a rise in asthma-related deaths in the next two years. Who will be to blame? The American Left, specifically the enviro-fascist wing.

What I am left wondering is, when all the CFCs have been banned, and the hole in the ozone continues to behave as it now does, can we then finally put them all on trial for crimes against humanity?

Yet, so many people are convinced that we are somehow doing the right thing. We wouldn’t want to live like this, so why would she? Isn’t her “husband” demonstrating real care for her by letting her die? How can those religious-right zealots (read, conservatives) try to undermine her wishes?

The truth is those so-called religious zealots are not attempting to force Terri to continue a miserable life, or even to stay alive at all. What conservatives want is to see the law applied to Terri Schaivo as it is applied to everyone else. We believe in equality before the Law. To this point, the law has not been applied in a just and equal manner.

The real crux of the issue is not what is being portrayed on television or in the newspapers by the “mainstream media.” Terri Schaivo has no representation in this controversy. And because she has no representation, her voice is not heard in this debate. Justice demands that the person most intimately affected by a sentence of death be heard, if not represented by independent counsel. Such is not the case with Terri Schiavo.

Michael Schaivo, Terri’s estranged husband, claimed before the court that Terri expressed wishes to him in informal conversations that she would not wish to continue life if she were being kept alive artificially. His claim is backed up by the word of his brother and a sister-in-law. But the court has also heard from a friend of Terri that just the opposite is true. Her words are upheld by statements from all of Terri’s family members. Both testimonies are based on hearsay. Neither side has solid evidence to prove its argument conclusively. The judge, George Greer, has simply accepted Michael’s hearsay as “clear and convincing.”

Judge Greer, by accepting hearsay evidence as fact, creates a precedent that is singularly dangerous to the rule of law. Under this precedent any claim, no matter how unlikely, unfounded, or uncharacteristic of the person to whom it is attributed can be admitted and accepted by the Court as the truth, provided that person is unable to refute it. It has also caused Terri’s family, the Schindlers, untold grief and heartache as they have tried to appeal the rulings in higher courts, only to be rejected time after time. Because of the ruling, an appellate court can only judge whether or not an error was made in the procedure of the lower court; it cannot address the facts in the case. To do that, the party making the appeal must move for a retrial, which is difficult to obtain.

In the past seven years, Michael Schaivo has repeatedly stated before the court that Terri would want to die. But several points are problematic with his testimony. First, Michael had previously trained as a nurse. He testified under oath that he would continue his training to better meet Terri’s needs. Second, in sworn statements before that court, Mr. Schaivo declared his intentions to care for her for the rest of his life. My question then is: If Terri expressed a desire to terminate her life if she were ever in a state such as she now is, why would Michael bother to study nursing for the purpose of taking care of her? Why did he only bring up her desire to terminate treatment seven years ago?

Perhaps he just couldn’t bring himself to carry out her wishes. Perhaps he just couldn’t let go. If that is the case, why has he changed his mind now? Why is he now so insistent on doing so now, even to the point of preventing anyone else from taking over her guardianship? In my mind, the very fact that Michael studied nursing puts the lie to his current position on Terri’s state of mind.

And what is Terri’s state of mind? The plain and simple fact is that we don’t know. How can we know? It has nowhere been expressed, either in Court or in the Media. Instead we hear a lot about what Michael wants, what Judge Greer wants, and what Michael’s attorney George Felos wants. For the record, Felos is not representing Terri Schaivo in this case. That isn’t opinion; that is fact.

I have heard people say they believe Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state. How did they come to this diagnosis? Because the mainstream media repeats it over and over again. Does any doctor know for certain whether not Terri is in such a state? No. She has not had a full examination in three years. The two doctors who have had the most influence on Judge Greer’s decisions have either not given Terri a full neurological exam, or, because of ongoing Right-to-Die advocacy, are ideologically biased.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, whom Schiavo hired to testify in favor of removing Terri’s feeding tube, has never given Terri a complete neurological examination. He has ordered neither a MRI scan nor a PET scan, which is normally common practice in determining the extent of brain injury in cases like Terri’s. Why has he not ordered the scans? Because Michael has refused to allow them.

Again, Michael has changed his mind in an aspect of this case that raises questions about his motives. Recently, Felos announced that Michael has decided to allow an autopsy of Terri should she die as a way of settling once and for all the questions and rumors surrounding the cause of her original collapse 15 years ago. Why now? Why has he not allowed a MRI scan, which would address the questions and rumors right now, while she is alive? Why now allow an autopsy after her death, after years of refusing?

Why, at the point of her original collapse, did Michael Schaivo not use his nursing training to perform CPR on Terri immediately? CPR was only begun after the paramedics had arrived, long enough after the fact to cause permanent brain damage. Why did he have to be told to call an ambulance by Terri’s father?

There is evidence of Medicare fraud, malfeasance, and mismanagement of funds on Michael Schaivo’s part. The settlement for the original malpractice award was based upon Terri living another 50 years. Will Michael be forced to return any unused portion if Terri dies? What about the portion of funds that was earmarked for Terri’s care that has not been used for that purpose, as he has repeatedly refused rehabilitation for her? Michael never mentioned Terri’s wishes to terminate life during that case. Did he withhold that information from the Court? Will there be any investigation into whether or not Schaivo engaged in fraud to obtain the settlement? The law allows him to change his mind after the fact. Will that law be changed or amended to provide for investigation in such cases?

In my view, the case stinks. The whole thing reeks of cronyism, corruption, and greed. George Felos, Schaivo’s attorney, is a right to die advocate, as is Dr. Cranford. Schaivo has had several attorneys representing himself and (supposedly) Terri since the original malpractice suit in 1992. Several of these attorneys, including Felos, have contributed to George Greer’s campaigns to retain his seat on the Bench. Judge Greer is very friendly with the former and current Sheriffs of Pinella County, the former now holding a seat in the Florida House of Representatives, and who voted against the Bill that would save Terri’s life.

This is not about keeping Terri alive. If it is her wish to be terminated rather than live life under constant care, that is a wish we must respect. And that decision must be made only by the individual. In this case the decision was made by the Court, by Judge George Greer working with George Felos. There is no-one to independently represent Terri’s interests. Since we do not have any clear proof of Terri’s wishes, Greer should have erred in favor of keeping her alive. The assumption must always be that life is preferable. But Greer is too cozy with the Right-to-Die advocates that have circled Terri like the vultures they are.

We must rid our government of this kind of corruption and restore the Rule of Law. It is going to be tough. Removing judicial tyrants, who see themselves as the supreme authority in government, from their offices will not be easily accomplished. But it’s worth it. The place to start is in Pinellas County, Florida.

If Terri dies, she will have the comfort of being released from this mortal plane, where injustice and corruption reign. She will there have the opportunity to make one more appeal, and those who have fought so hard to remove her from this world before her appointed time, along with those who stood by and did nothing to help, will likewise face an eventual accounting before the Great Judge of the Universe, whose rulings are always both perfect and final.

For more information, visit The Empire Journal or this website.