Reconciliation is the process by which budget bills can be approved by the Senate with a simple majority of votes. The idea, I suppose, is that having a budget is so important that the quest to pass one shouldn’t be vetoed by 41 senators.
Democrats intend to pass a massive spending bill through reconciliation. The bill, once actually drafted and proposed, will be filled with devices designed not only to increase spending, but also to enhance the power of the federal government.
He says he has always supported this type of immigration reform, dating back to the bipartisan attempt years ago. I doubt that I have ever supported the enactment of such reform with only a simple majority of the Senate votes as a way to avoid obstructionism. However, his comments to date suggest that this is not a problem for him.
The support of Kyrsten Sinema will also be required. Because she is from a ground zero state of the illegal immigration crisis, she may have more reservations than Manchin. However, it seems likely that, under intense pressure, he will agree to your party in this case.
Therefore, the ability of Democrats to change our immigration laws with the backing of just 50 senators will not turn against any elected official, but against Senate MP Elizabeth MacDonough. You will be asked to decide whether the radical change that the Democrats seek can be achieved through reconciliation.
The correct answer, of course, is that it cannot be. As editors of National Review point:
There are well-established barriers to reconciliation, the so-called Byrd rule, to prevent it from becoming an obstacle to filibuster for whatever the Senate majority wants to pass.
Among other things, the Byrd rule, which is written into statute, says that provisions that do not have a budget impact or simply have an incidental budget impact cannot be included in the settlement. “A provision will be considered superfluous,” he says, “if it produces changes in expenditures or income that are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.”
The need for this limitation is obvious. Because virtually all laws have incidental budgetary impact, without limitation, obstructionism is effectively removed.
Equally obvious is the fact that the budgetary impact of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is merely incidental to the grant. The editors of National Review note:
Democrats have advocated a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants for decades, but they have never said that we should create one primarily as a budget issue, as if the status of illegal immigrants is an issue comparable to the level of Medicare hospital reimbursements. or unemployment. Profits.
Rich Lowry makes additional points on the subject here.
Does this mean that the Senate MP will block the Democrats’ maneuver? Not necessarily. But if it doesn’t, then, as the editors of NR say, “the post of MP could be abolished as it will no longer serve any purpose.”