So Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have made it clear they will “go nuclear” on health care and use the “reconciliation process.”  As usual, these Washington phrases leave many wondering what they mean and what steps may be taken to do this.

“Going nuclear” on legislation in this instance means jamming it though Congress against bi-partisan opposition and the clearly demonstrated opposition of the American people with 50 votes rather than the usual 60 in the Senate by using “reconciliation” rules.  “Reconciliation” rules were created in 1974 by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to make it easier for the Senate to pass bills that dealt with the federal budget and deficit reduction.  About using this process for the health care bill, Byrd last year said:

The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation -- a process intended for deficit reduction -- to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role. ... [T]actics that ignore the means in pursuit of the ends are wrong when the outcome affects Americans' health and economic security.

--Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), "The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama's Big Initiatives?" The Washington Post, 3/9/09)

Left-wing cheerleaders like EJ Dionne at the Washington Post have argued that Byrd’s comments are irrelevant to the current debate because they were in reference to the big health care bill, not the smaller “reconciliation” bill that will be used to get the big Senate bill passed in the House.  But this is a false dichotomy.  The big Senate bill and its companion “reconciliation” bill are both part of the one big process experts are calling the “two bill strategy”. 

The best and most detailed explanation I’ve seen on this is by Keith Hennessey in “Mechanics of the two bill strategy.”

Basically, the House won't vote on the Senate bill, and all its bad details, until Pelosi and Reid have an agreement on what will be in the second bill, the reconciliation bill, and Pelosi gets a promise from Reid that he has 50 votes for the reconciliation bill.  Once that agreement is in place, they move one bill and then the other.  Maybe.  If all the politicians keep their word.  Which would be unusual. 

That’s why Sen. Gregg (R-NH) noted:

If you're in the House and you're saying, 'Well, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to get a reconciliation bill,' I would think twice about that.  First because, procedurally, it's going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people. In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don't need it.

Dionne also argues that it's OK for the Democrats to abuse the reconciliation process and jeopardize the important function of the Senate because Republicans did so in the past.  This "he did it, too" school-yard argument ignores the fact that the American people threw the Republicans out of power for their many infractions against individual liberty, including such an abuse of power.  And, as first-grade teachers have to say too often, two wrongs don't make a right.

But if they do go all the way through the process, here’s a bit more detail on what to expect.  Using what we know about the process and some dates recently leaked in Inside Health Policy from a Democrat memo their “two bill strategy” will take the following steps:

Step 1, Friday, March 19: Pelosi has the House pass the Senate's health reform bill (Bill #1) from this past December without making any changes.  They have to do this because they know they can not get the 60 votes in the Senate again to pass such a monstrosity of a bill and that there is no way the “rules of reconciliation” could ever be bent far enough to accommodate this bill. 

The passage of Bill #1 is contingent upon the Pelosi and Reid agreeing to what changes will immediately be made to Bill #1 in the separate bill they will move through the “reconciliation” process--Bill #2.

Bill #1 then goes to the president for signature and becomes law.

Step 2, Monday, March 21: The House votes on Bill #2—the “reconciliation” bill—containing the agreed upon changes to the laws created Bill #1. 

Step 3, Wednesday, March 23: The Senate begins debate on Bill #2, the reconciliation bill. Debate is limited to 30 hours.

Step 4, Friday, March 26: The Senate begins voting on amendments to Bill #2, the last day before Congress leaves for Easter recess.  If all amendments are stopped, the Senate will need just 50 votes, under the rules of reconciliation, to pass Bill #2 and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will have succeeded with their government takeover of health care.

What would the Founding Fathers think of this subversion of the legislative process?  None other than George Washington made the deliberative purpose of the Senate clear when Thomas Jefferson, upon returning from France, asked him why at the Constitutional Convention he had agreed to the creation of a bi-cameral legislature, instead of just one chamber.

“Why,” said Washington in response, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson, “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

We need to tell Congress to cool it. Again.

Please sign our petition at www.NoHealthCareReconciliation.com and use our Health Care War Room to get in touch with your representatives and ask them to “cool it” as Washington said.  For more things you can do to make a difference, see "How to Defeat ObamaCare 2.0" by FreedomWorks' director of campaigns, Brendan Steinhauser.

These next few weeks are critical, so please also send this on to everyone you know and get them involved.  Washington "going nuclear" on us calls for a big response!