Legislative sausage-making question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

It is my understanding that the Senate can pass legislation with 51 votes using reconciliation rules. It is also my understanding that these rules can be applied when the effect of the legislation is revenue-neutral - it does not add to the deficit.

The CBO has now said that HR3200 is deficit-neutral.

The fact that people are still worried about a filibuster suggests that my knowledge of the topic is incomplete or wrong. Can someone more wonkish than I explain where we are in a parlimentary sense?

[SteppingRazor]

1. There's a question of whether the Senate will use reconciliation rules to pass a health-care bill.

If the Senate doesn't use these rules, then a filibuster is still possible.

Additionally, a filibuster will never be a concern for HR3200, because that's a House bill, and there's no filibuster in the House.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Put SB in front of it and it becomes a senate bill.

My point is that useful reform has been written by The House in a revenue-neutral way.

Does the revenue neutrality of a senate bill enable a bypass of filibuster? If the House/Senate conference produces a rebranded HR3200, would it be subject to filibuster?

Downthread, Kurt and Hunter indicates not, but I'm unsure why Republicans could credibly threaten to use the tactic to privatize Social Security, but it won't work for HCR.

[SteppingRazor]

6. And DID use the tactic to pass Bush's tax cuts.

I can't really give you an explanation as to why the Dems wouldn't use reconciliation. I think almost any bill that incorporates dollar amounts could be justified as a budget bill that necessitates reconciliation, given past uses of the procedure.

[Skink]

2. The rebublicans basically say we called it and the Democrats bend over.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. reconciliation is for budget bills

it could conceivably be used for certain finance-related aspects of a bill but a comprehensive HCR bill cannot be passed using reconciliation.

It's a red herring.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Then how could Republicans threaten to use it for Social Security privatization? n/t