York: Dems Dug their Own Grave on Tax Cuts
Byron York writes:
You may remember that during the health care debate, when Democrats, having lost their 60th vote in the Senate with the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, decided to put the final touches on national health care by using the arcane process of reconciliation. That allowed them to pass parts of the bill with a simple majority, 51 votes, rather than the 60 votes required to overcome a GOP filibuster.
Republicans cried foul, arguing that reconciliation wasn't appropriate for such a far-reaching measure. But Democrats pointed out that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- very significant pieces of legislation -- were passed using reconciliation. In the end, Democrats got what they wanted.
Fast forward to this week. Those Bush cuts are expiring, and Democrats, still the majority party, wanted to extend them for everybody except individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and couples who make more than $250,000. Republicans, who have just 42 votes, wanted to extend all the cuts for all income levels. On Saturday, Democrats were unable to beat a Republican filibuster, and their version of tax cut extension went down to defeat.
So why not try reconciliation? If it was used to pass the Bush cuts in the first place, couldn't it have been used to extend them? That way, Democrats, who have 58 votes, could have passed their bill with just 51 and would not have had to worry about a GOP filibuster. Taxes on the "rich" would go up, and progressives everywhere would be celebrating today.
Alas, it didn't happen. And, although the details are complicated, the Democrats have only themselves to blame.
To pass a measure by reconciliation, the Senate must pass a budget that contains what are called reconciliation instructions. But this year, as they faced an angry electorate and grim prospects in the midterm elections, the Democratic leadership made the specific decision not to pass a budget. Revealing their spending priorities to voters already unhappy with out-of-control federal expenditures was just too risky, so Sen. Harry Reid and party leaders punted, even though passing a budget is one of Congress' core constitutional responsibilities.
With no budget, there could be no reconciliation. And no possibility of using reconciliation to extend the Bush tax cuts -- which were originally passed with bipartisan support -- on the Democrats' terms. Shirking your constitutional responsibilities can have consequences.
