LogFAQs > #949508150

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 359: Two Scoops of Impeachment
xp1337 01/14/21 7:05:00 PM #98:	Suprak the Stud posted... I'm not sure what cannot be passed through reconciliation is the issue Broadly speaking, reconciliation is something that can only be used once per fiscal year when the House is working on the annual budget. They specify to one or more committees some instructions to follow in terms of targets in spending/revenue/deficeits and the committee has to make it work and the bill is privileged against filibuster. It also forces any Senate amendments to be germane to the bill instead of a free-for-all of jamming in stuff unrelated. And finally, though YMMV on whether this is a positive or not, the Senate can't throw in amendments that increase the deficit (though they can move to strike down House amendments that were saving money; they just can't offer their own that increase it.) Reconciliation can't be used for things that have no effect - or incidental effect - on the budget, and can't increase the deficit for years outside the reconciliation window (I think this is typically a ten year window but may be subject to being defined by the House; this is also why a lot of Republican tax bills have tax cuts for the middle class - but not the wealthy - sunset after 10 years. The lock in the cuts for the wealthy and force Congress to face the choice of expiration or making permanent the cuts for most people at the end of that timeframe) If you try anyway, then in the Senate any such measures can be objected to and if the Senate parliamentarian finds it to be breaking one of those (or a few others but those are the main ones) then such a provision is struck from the bill and cannot be offered later as an amendment. You can bypass such a judgment by the parliamentarian with 60 votes but that defeats the purpose of using reconciliation to dodge the filibuster. Alternatively, I believe the VP can overrule them too. ...Or you can do what Republicans did in 2001 and just fire and replace them. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:949508150] in Politics C... [t:79238763]...</cite> <quote>Suprak the Stud posted... </cite> <quote>I'm not sure what cannot be passed through reconciliation is the issue</quote>Broadly speaking, reconciliation is something that can only be used once per fiscal year when the House is working on the annual budget. They specify to one or more committees some instructions to follow in terms of targets in spending/revenue/deficeits and the committee has to make it work and the bill is privileged against filibuster. It also forces any Senate amendments to be germane to the bill instead of a free-for-all of jamming in stuff unrelated. And finally, though YMMV on whether this is a positive or not, the Senate can't throw in amendments that increase the deficit (though they can move to strike down House amendments that were saving money; they just can't offer their own that increase it.) Reconciliation can't be used for things that have no effect - or incidental effect - on the budget, and can't increase the deficit for years outside the reconciliation window (I think this is typically a ten year window but may be subject to being defined by the House; this is also why a lot of Republican tax bills have tax cuts for the middle class - but not the wealthy - sunset after 10 years. The lock in the cuts for the wealthy and force Congress to face the choice of expiration or making permanent the cuts for most people at the end of that timeframe) If you try anyway, then in the Senate any such measures can be objected to and if the Senate parliamentarian finds it to be breaking one of those (or a few others but those are the main ones) then such a provision is struck from the bill and cannot be offered later as an amendment. You can bypass such a judgment by the parliamentarian with 60 votes but that defeats the purpose of using reconciliation to dodge the filibuster. Alternatively, I believe the VP can overrule them too. ...Or you can do what Republicans did in 2001 and just fire and replace them. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1