How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't
Right-wing media praise, defend UnAmerican Weasel Jim Bunning's (R-KY) Obstruction of federal jobs and unemployment benefits
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.")
There is nothing inherently wrong with being a millionaire. There are generally two types - millionaires that realize a combination of work and luck have given them a nice life, free of the worries that plaque most Americans. Then there are the millionaire elitist such as Rush Limabugh who really believe they worked for every dollar of their millions just by prattling away at a microphone and writing a few few poorly written books grabbed up by his sheeple listeners. Limabaugh and his ilk refuse to acknowledge that luck plays a big role in their fortunes - its not like Limbaugh is an irreplaceable world class brain surgeon or an air traffic controller that has guided millions of planes to safety. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc simply babble away with their frequently deranged and ignorant opinions and load up their bank accounts. They do not feel they owe the country that made that wealth possible anything - talk about sunshine patriots.
