Bush's $760 billion tax cuts were passed via reconciliation
Karolina Dean.....Unauthorized...and proud of it
media did not cover it like it was a gimmick, a nuclear explosion, or
a forcible rape of American citizens
How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't
March 03, 2010 4:48 pm ET
For weeks, the news media have been obsessed with the question of
whether congressional Democrats would use a legislative mechanism
known as "reconciliation" to pass changes to the health care reform
legislation that passed the Senate in late December.
Unfortunately, that obsession has not actually resulted in reporters
consistently getting the story right. Basic facts that should be
central to the debate over the propriety of reconciliation have gotten
lost in the mix. First, nobody is talking about passing the entire
health care reform package via reconciliation -- the Senate has
already passed its bill, and did so by overcoming a filibuster.
Reconciliation would, instead, be used to pass a much smaller package
of changes to that legislation via majority vote. Second, there is
nothing hasty or debate-stifling about using reconciliation in this
case: Congress has been considering health care reform for more than a
year. Finally, reconciliation isn't all that unusual, having been used
in connection with some of the highest-profile legislation in recent
decades, including President Bush's tax cuts and the welfare reform
bill President Clinton signed. Those are facts, and they are not in
dispute.
And yet the media are referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear
option" and portraying it as an obscure procedural gimmick being
considered in an attempt to circumvent Senate rules and "ram" health
care legislation through Congress. The conservative media are going so
far as to claim that use of reconciliation would be "unprecedented."
Funny, I don't remember this level of media outrage in 2003, when
Republicans passed President Bush's tax cut legislation via
reconciliation.
But what's really striking about the media's approach to
reconciliation is how much it differs from the way they treated the
Republicans' use of reconciliation to pass President Bush's 2003 tax
cut legislation. Only two Democrats voted for that bill -- one of
whom, Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, doesn't really count, as he was a de
facto Republican -- and Vice President Dick Cheney had to break a
50-50 tie. (Three Senate Republicans joined 46 Democrats and one
independent in voting against the bill, which these days would be
described as "bipartisan opposition.")
And yet, in the weeks leading up to the reconciliation vote, the media
didn't portray the Republicans as ramming tax cuts through Congress
via unprecedented use of an obscure procedural gimmick to circumvent
Senate rules. In fact, they didn't say much of anything at all about
reconciliation.
The Senate reconciliation vote occurred on May 23, 2003. In the month
of May, only one New York Times article so much as mentioned the use
of reconciliation for the tax cuts -- a May 13, 2003, article that
devoted a few paragraphs to wrangling over whether Senate Republicans
could assign the bill number they wanted (S.2) to a bill approved via
reconciliation. The Times also used the word "reconciliation" in a May
9, 2003, editorial, but gave no indication whatsoever of what it
meant.
And that's more attention than most news outlets gave to the use of
reconciliation that month. The Washington Post didn't run a single
article, column, editorial, or letter to the editor that used the
words "reconciliation" and "senate." Not one. USA Today, the Los
Angeles Times, and the Associated Press were similarly silent.
Cable news didn't care, either. CNN ran a quote by Republican Sen.
Chuck Grassley about the substance of the tax cuts in which he used
the word "reconciliation" in passing -- but that was it. Fox News
aired two interviews in which Republican members of Congress referred
to the reconciliation process in order to explain why the tax cuts
would be temporary, but neither they nor the reporters interviewing
them treated reconciliation as a controversial tactic.
And ABC, CBS, NBC? Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Even the insider publications that tend to cover legislative minutia
paid little attention to the Republicans' use of reconciliation.
National Journal made passing mentions on May 3 and May 10, 2003,
neither of which so much as hinted that reconciliation was unusual,
inappropriate, or controversial. And Roll Call mentioned
reconciliation exactly once: a May 14, 2003, article about Republican
angst over having committed a "procedural snafu" that delayed their
use of reconciliation. The article quoted Grassley saying of Senate
parliamentarian Alan Frumin: "He could be technically right. ... But
there's no need to have a strict interpretation of the rules like
that." And, Roll Call noted, "Some GOP aides even hinted that Frumin's
position as parliamentarian could be in danger if he continued to make
rulings that disadvantaged their political goals."
You'd think that if reconciliation was really the controversial and
heavy-handed tactic the media is currently portraying it as, there
would have been a ton of media coverage of Senate Republican aides
suggesting the parliamentarian would be fired if he didn't let the GOP
handle reconciliation however they wanted. Particularly in light of
the fact that Frumin was elevated to his post by the Senate Republican
leadership in 2001 -- after they fired his predecessor for issuing
rulings that complicated their efforts to use reconciliation for that
year's round of tax cuts.
But there wasn't even a blip -- not a single mention in The New York
Times, The Washington Post, or on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN. Well, that's
not quite true: The Times did mention GOP unhappiness with Frumin on
May 31, 2003, -- more than a week after the reconciliation vote took
place.
Even if you look at the five months preceding the May 23, 2003,
reconciliation vote, you find very little major media attention paid
to the process. And when reconciliation was mentioned, it was only in
passing, without any indication it was controversial. Like the March
14, 2003, Washington Post article that simply stated, "Parliamentary
-- or 'reconciliation' -- language in both the Senate and House budget
resolutions ... would ensure that a $ 726 billion tax package would
need only 51 votes for Senate passage rather than the 60 votes needed
to overcome a filibuster blocking a floor vote." Or Tim Russert's
matter-of-fact statement on January 7, 2003: "[T]he Republicans are
going to use a technique called reconciliation. It's a budget process
where they would in effect take away the right of the Democrats to
filibuster, which means you would only need 51 votes to pass this
legislation." And that's about it: The Times, Post, the three
broadcast networks and CNN combined for fewer than a half-dozen other
mentions of the process over the course of five months, none of which
portrayed it as controversial.
The current hyperventilation about the use of reconciliation is
completely inconsistent with the way the media covered reconciliation
in 2003. Back then, they didn't treat reconciliation as an unusual or
controversial tactic -- in fact, they barely noticed it, even when
Republicans made noises about firing the parliamentarian they elevated
when they fired the previous parliamentarian.
Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a
progressive media watchdog and research and information center based
in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media
blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the
Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and
Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.
GregoryD
> Bush's $760 billion tax cuts were passed via reconciliation, yet the
> media did not cover it like it was a gimmick, a nuclear explosion, or
> a forcible rape of American citizens
Letting people keep their money isn't that big a deal.
Forcing people to buy a product from a private business is a gigantic
expansion of government power.
GregoryD
rwa2play (Lost mode on)
ppor.
Ahmed Johnson's Beer Belly v2.0
wrote:
Do you want him to cut and paste the entire bill or just link to it.
Try being informed before you "contribute"
Guy Namechanger
"Ahmed Johnson's Beer Belly v2.0" <sc...@1225water.com> wrote in message
news:b04a02a5-6936-49f3...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
++++
attempt to change the subject DENIED.
why is it okay to fuck up the budget one way by Reconciliation~ but not the
other way, simply because you like the first way?
Ahmed Johnson's Beer Belly v2.0
wrote:
> "Ahmed Johnson's Beer Belly v2.0" <sc...@1225water.com> wrote in messagenews:b04a02a5-6936-49f3...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I was replying to his claim that to ppor on the statement that forcing
people to buy a product from a private business is a gigantic
expansion of govermnet power. WHICH it is. I didn't like the first
way either, but to be fair Obama and many other people that are going
to vote to get the bill through were on record (not just when "bush
did it" but during the Health Care debate that the nuclear option (odd
that term isnt tossed around anymore) was off the table.
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Should've never been off the table to begin with. Then GOPers went and
did everything to sabotage HCR, so Obama had enough.
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ. -- Ghandi.
A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who has never
learned to walk forward. -- FDR.
Guy Namechanger
"rwa2play, The Northern Lariat" <rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b905a12$0$31273$607e...@cv.net...
moderate, watered-down plan as it is, or we do it in Reconciliation plus add
Teh Public Option. you have ten days."