Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s latest Human Events column explores the dispute over using “reconciliation” to pass sweeping health-care reforms:
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. …
All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.
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.
