CT Blue

I just watched Lawrence O’Donnell, on the Keith Olbermann show, ask the head of the House Progressive Caucus if she feared the possibility of the Senate Parliamentarian ruling certain items of the Health Care reconciliation bill out of order, as not fitting subjects for reconciliation. She, of course, with reason did say that the House Democrats did not trust the Senate to follow through on its commitments but my immediate subject is the question of whether the Senate Democrats can actually make a commitment upon whcih they can deliver. In other words, if they say they can and will do something by reconciliation, can any power in the Senate, other than their own cowardice and spinelessness, stop them?

Now, mind you, the Democrats are, as is there wont, trying scrupulously to make the bill comport with reconciliation requirements. Any adverse ruling will most likely be subject to question on the merits.

O’Donnell’s question presumed that if the Senate Parliamentarian ruled against them, the Democrats would have no choice but to get 60 votes to get the right to merely hold a vote, and the Congresswoman did not disagree with this analysis.

Now, this didn’t sound right to me, so I did 30 seconds of googling, which brought me to the Senate website, where I read this:

The Senate and the House each has an Office of the Parliamentarian to provide expert advice and assistance on questions relating to the meaning and application of that chamber’s legislative rules, precedents, and practices. In the Senate, staff from the parliamentarian’s office sit on the Senate dias and advise the presiding officer on the conduct of Senate business. (Emphasis added)

which in turn linked to this (so I assume this is authoritative):

The Parliamentarians in both chambers have as their key responsibility advising the Member of Congress presiding over the floor throughout a day’s session. The Parliamentarian guides the Chair in formulating his responses to parliamentary inquiries and his rulings on points of order. In the House, the Parliamentarian on duty stands to the right of the Chair or sits very close by on the rostrum. In the Senate, the Parliamentarian sits on the lower tier of the rostrum just below the presiding officer. He is frequently seen swiveling around in his chair, which faces the Senate floor, to address the Senator presiding behind him. While the Member of Congress presiding is free to take or ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian, most abide by his guidance. Few Members have the independent body of knowledge regarding the chamber’s procedures necessary to preside on their own. In the Senate, the Parliamentarian, and in the House, the Parliamentarian’s Clerk, also keep track of the time when Members are allotted a specific number of minutes to speak. (Emphasis added)

Now, I invite you to pull out your constitution and go to Article 1, Section 3.4, which provides, lo and behold, that the Vice President shall be President of the Senate. That’s right, boys and girls, it’s the VP that ultimately makes the Parliamentary decisions, not the Parliamentarian. Sure, the Republicans can scream and shout if the VP ignores him, but so what? These, by the way, are the Republicans who fired a Parliamentarian with whose reconciliation rulings they disagreed.

So the Senate and Obama/Biden can give the House Democrats almost iron-clad guarantees, if they merely have the guts to do what we all, each and every living one of us, know in our hearts, souls and minds that the Republicans would do without blinking an eye or shedding a tear were they in similar circumstances.

Ah, but you may say, should the Democrats do such a dastardly thing? Should they trample¹ on the sacred, if nonsensical and undemocratic, institutional traditions of the Senate merely to extend health care to millions of Americans? Shouldn’t this sort of thing be restricted to more appropriate circumstances, like giving tax cuts to the rich, or screwing the poor? Stay tuned. The answer to the latter question is probably “yes”.