Will October 1 Bring Another Repeal Effort?
It could . . .
With the Senate vote tomorrow canceled on the Graham – Cassidy ACA defunding bill, the effort to defund and repeal the ACA will cease for the rest of this budget year ending September 30, 2017. With the passage of a new budget and a new resolution the effort could go onward in an attempt to repeal the ACA.
As I have said, there can only be one resolution per year. Let me clarify the one reconciliation per budget year statement. Unless the Senate passes more than one budget resolution, there can be only one Reconciliation per year for each of three subjects; spending, revenues, and debt limit in one or multiple bills. Since there was no budget passed last year, the Republicans had a unique opportunity to do two Reconciliations . . . one to defund the ACA and the 2nd one to do Tax Reform. The present Reconciliation affected Spending and Revenues thereby killing those two subjects for Reconciliation in 2017.
If one bill covers spending and revenue, Reconciliation using a budget resolution is expended for those two subjects. Budgets end September 30 of each year.
2018 is a different year and again Congress could take up the repeal of the ACA. And why not when they can get 49 votes to pass it any time they wish to do so. Maybe one of the remaining three Republican Senators will side with them or a Dem may have a weak moment. Since Republicans want to do tax reform, they will use Reconciliation again as it only requires a majority vote and defund the ACA to provide the revenue for it. The opportunity to do two Reconciliations due to two budget resolutions will not be available for Republicans. It may end up being both ACA and Tax Reform in one Reconciliation of just one meaning the ACA or Tax Reform.
Martin Longman at Washington Monthly does a good job of explaining Reconciliation. I believe I beat him in predicting a new run at Reconciliation which can be found in the comments section in early September. I was happy he did write on it as few people have done so till the very end. If still interested, here is a detailed primer on the topic also.
Did the effort to repeal the ACA hurt it going forward? Trump’s threats to kill the CSR which funds out-of-pocket expenses for those between 100% FPL and 250% FPL would not be impacted by this move. For those between 100% and 250% FPL, healthcare insurance premium increases would be picked up by the ACA. Those above 250% to 400% FPL would have premiums limited by the a ratio of ~9% of income. Above 400% FPL, some of our readers and everyone else would take on the full impact of the premium increase. Trump has done everything possible to cause issues with the ACA and this would include lying to the public as well.
So what is the historical reason that we have reconciliation at all?
I would assume that the purpose is right there in the name, but in US politics maybe that is a bad idea.
Is there a risk that congress would be unable to accomplish something that it fundamentally ought to be doing if they use up their shots at reconciliation?
Leaving aside that they have pretty much forfeited their ability to control the purse over the last couple decades, ceding huge amounts of power to the executive.
What does Reconciliation do that normal procedure does not do presently in the Senate which became prevalent in the Senate after the “Previous Question” motion was eliminated in the Senate as suggested by Aaron Burr? I wrote about this several times; Will the Reign of Witches Pass? Another Assault on the PPACA/ACA Coming in 2017 to name two times.
Just to clarify, Republicans have two more chances at reconciliation bills before the 2018 elections.
Starting October 1, if they can manage to pass a budget resolution, they can use reconciliation to pass their tax cuts.
Starting January 1, if they can manage to pass another budget resolution, they can use reconciliation to pass ACA repeal.
So potentially two more reconciliation bills over the next 12 months.
From what I have read, they can only do one budget and budget resolution per budget year. If you know of something different, lead me to it so I can read also. Thank you.
Reconciliation or not, they still have to get 50 votes. The issues aren’t going to change.
I hate brinksmanship.
Me too but it is noteworthy that they haven’t been able to get it done with plenty of opportunity.
I wish they would stop. The pain would be terrible if they succeed. My own PCD said he was seeing patients for the first time who never had an appointment with a doctor before.
In January they passed a budget resolution for 2017 using a version of a bill started in December of 2016. Since it was started in 2016, they haven’t used up a reconciliation in the 2017 calendar year yet.
So they can now pass a new budget resolution for 2018, their first in the 2017 calendar year. They can use that for tax cuts.
Then in January, calendar year 2018, they can pass a budget resolution for 2019 and use that for ACA repeal.
The reason this all works is because the reconciliation bill that just failed doesn’t count in the 2017 calendar year because it started in 2016. Note that the fiscal year starts on October 1 of the previous year and that budget resolutions can be passed any time before that fiscal year expires the next September 30.
There is nothing preventing them from passing the 2019 budget in January 2018. In fact, the actual intent is to pass it before the fiscal year starts in the next October because, after all, it is supposed to be a budget. But it can also be passed after the fiscal year already starts, as would be the case for the 2017 and 2018 budgets.
Perhaps I am mistaken. The reason for the rush was the parliamentarian ruling the 2017 budget ended September 30, 2017 and anything using the 2017 budget had to be completed by September 30. Anything started in 2017 had to be finished by then. I believe you are mistaken on your assumption of being able to go further with 2017. Furthermore and as I explained, one Reconciliation per subject for that budget year. They have used reconciliation twice so far in 2017 for 2016 and 2017. This was the 3rd attempt. They already burned up spending and revenues subjects for 2017.
They could pass two budgets going backwards. I am not sure of going forward.
No, they have not yet used reconciliation at all in 2017, officially. They have one budget resolution, passed in January 2017, but officially it was started in 2016 so it doesn’t count for this year. They have used that same single bill for all of their attempts at repeal this year. They just amended the same bill over and over. That one reconciliation bill, since it was for the 2017 budget, expires September 2017. The budget is for 2017, but the bill counts as their one attempt for 2016 since they had no other reconciliation bill in 2016.
So now, October 1, since the 2016 reconciliation bill (for budget year 2017) has expired, they are eligible to do their one reconciliation bill for 2017 (which is for the 2018 budget). The previous one, the one that expired doesn’t count for 2017 because it was started in 2016.
So they use this new reconciliation bill, their first in 2017, for the 2018 budget. They use this for tax cuts.
And then in January 2018, the do a third reconciliation bill for the 2019 budget and use it for ACA repeal.
So, the failed attempt at ACA repeal was their 2016 chance. The tax cuts will be their 2017 chance. And the January ACA repeal will be their 2018 chance.
One reconciliation bill for each year. The confusion comes about because everything they have done so far counts against their 2016 reconciliation bill even though the actual votes occurred in 2017.
I think the key to understanding this is that everything they have done so far regarding ACA repeal is considered the 2016 chance at reconciliation, even though the votes occurred in 2017. And every repeal effort was the same 2016 bill, but with amendments, so counts as just one reconciliation.
So that means they still have an opportunity for a 2017 reconciliation bill, and they plan to use that for taxes.
And next year, January 2018, they have a third opportunity to use for ACA repeal.
And for further clarification. It doesn’t matter what year the reconciliation bill passes. It’s the year that the budget resolution bill is first introduced that counts. So all of the ACA repeal attempts so for are for the budget resolution introduced in 2016. Those repeal attempts count against 2016, not 2017 where the actual votes occurred.
That leaves reconciliation bills for 2017 and 2018 still available. One reconciliation bill introduced per year, in 2016, 2017 and 2018, even if actual voting on the bills is mashed together into a period of a few months.
I hope this helps.
Here is where the information has been derived from:
“Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s ruling that the fiscal 2017 budget reconciliation instruction for healthcare legislation expires on Sept. 30 significantly dims prospects for such legislation this year. The House and Senate approved that instruction in January.
‘Having a fixed deadline of Sept. 30 would be quite tough even if there was nothing else on Congress’ plate,’ said Sarah Binder, an expert on congressional procedure at George Washington University. ‘But there doesn’t seem to be much of a coalition built for the Cassidy-Graham bill, and Republicans have to get into October without shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt.”
There’s nothing preventing Senate and House Republicans from approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that creates a new reconciliation instruction enabling them to pass a healthcare bill with a bare majority. But Republicans also are determined to pass tax reform legislation through reconciliation.”
Then there was this: “The House GOP’s budget resolution for fiscal 2018 does not include instructions on health care, which would likely kill the party’s chances of an Obamacare repeal redo next year.” Now that could have changed since September 1.
I will google a bit more to see if there is something different. As far as I know they are done.
This gives your comment credence: September 30th Deadline is False
The parliamentarian ruled that the 2017 budget reconciliation expires September 30. This is a budget for the fiscal year 2017. But the instructions for the bill are in a 2016 budget resolution. Here’s the key thing to realize it’s called a 2017 budget because it is for the 2017 fiscal year. But the that bill counts against the 2016 one-bill-per-year rule. It does not count against the 2017 one-bill-per-year rule. Forget the name, 2017 budget, it is a 2016 reconciliation bill. All the parliamentarian is saying is that the 2016 attempt expires on September 30.
So now Republicans are writing instructions for the 2018 budget. They have chosen to include only taxes in this new reconciliation bill. This bill is for the 2018 budget but it counts as their one-bill-per-year for 2017, even though the label is 2018 budget. They haven’t used up that chance for 2017 because the one that expired September 30 originated in 2016, not 2017. They are going to use their one-bill-per-year of 2017 for tax cuts (labeled 2018 budget year).
Then in January, they have their one-bill-per-year for 2018. This will be for the 2019 budget. They can used that for ACA repeal.
You seem to be having a problem grasping this basic fact. The ACA repeal bill they have been trying to pass all year is not a 2017 bill. It is a 2016 reconciliation bill (but with the label 2017 budget). Therefore they now, have a new opportunity to initiate a tax bill in 2017 (for the 2018 budget).
Lets understand something here real quick on this: “You seem to be having a problem grasping this basic fact.”
I understood what you are saying. I have no problem grasping facts which are backed up. In other words, your comment is an opinion to me and nothing more. I took the time to cite a few references, the last of which is an expert on healthcare and the process, and you still wish to offer uncited opinions. Your opinion is not a fact and you lack the proper cited foundation to make your statement.
Thank you for your time.
Geez, Run, I don’t know what you are so angry about. You said “I took the time to cite a few references, the last of which is an expert on healthcare and the process” and that expert, which you cited, agrees with me completely.
Not one of your sources contradicts what I said. Perhaps you can point out exactly what you think contradicts what I said, and then I can interpret it.
And before you get started, your quote from Politico (which i would not consider “experts” on parliamentary procedure in any case) say “would likely kill the party’s chances of an Obamacare repeal redo next year.”
Likely, not certain. Not blocked by parliamentary procedure. They are simply making a political judgement about the likelihood, That says nothing about being blocked by reconciliation rules
So again point out exactly where you are getting this idea that they can’t pass a 2018 budget resolution in October followed by a 2019 budget resolution in January.
“So again point out exactly where you are getting this idea that they can’t pass a 2018 budget resolution in October followed by a 2019 budget resolution in January.”
No where did I say you could not pass a resolution in October 2017 for 2018. That is the start of a new fiscal year. The Parliamentarian advised the “fiscal 2017 budget reconciliation instruction for healthcare legislation expires on Sept. 30 significantly dims prospects for such legislation this year. The House and Senate approved that instruction in January.” That is January 2017. Show me where it says they used up 2016 Reconciliation and they still have the 2017 Reconciliation open.
I did not cite Politico as an expert. Quit making stuff up. I did cite the last reference as an expert.
Here is what you said:
“They haven’t used up that chance for 2017 because the one that expired September 30 originated in 2016, not 2017.”
The one that expired September 30, originated January 2017 and not in 2016 as “you” claimed.
No where did I say you could not pass a resolution in October 2017 for 2018. That is the start of a new fiscal year (2nd time I have said this in rebuttal).
The Parliamentarian advised the “fiscal 2017 budget reconciliation instruction for healthcare legislation expires on Sept. 30 significantly dims prospects for such legislation this year. The House and Senate approved that instruction in January.” That is January 2017 when this was approved. It does not matter if these are not the exact words of the Parliamentarian. If you want exact wording, then you provide it.
The originated in January 2017 Resolution and claiming it was originated in 2016 is what you have been claiming can be carried over into 2018. Again, you are wrong.
I did not cite Politico as an expert. You did.
The one Resolution they will use for Tax Reform will originate in Fiscal Year 2018 starting October 1. There is no 2017 Resolutions left to be used or 2016 for that matter if the Senate accepts (and they have so as not to threaten the filibuster) the Parliamentarian advisement.
Look, you have been wrong on just about everything so far, you do not pick up and admit to being wrong which is why I listed things out, when you are wrong you also start off with some new and slanted BS on the same topics, and all in an attempt to confuse the issue. October 1 starts 2018 a new fiscal year in which they can have a new budget and a tax reform Reconciliation or an ACA Reconciliation.
If you are an attorney, you suck.
Your own expert reference says “Congress could pass a Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for Obamacare repeal this month, complete work on the Obamacare bill, then pass another budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for tax reform.”
This is precisely what I said. They can pass a new budget resolution for 2018 “this month”. Then they can pass another budget resolution for 2019 in January. That’s two more resolution bills. One in October and another in January or early next year. Your expert confirms exactly what I said!
The only way i differ from your expert is the order of interest. Republicans now say they want to do tax cuts first starting in October a new reconciliation bill and they they will do Obamacare at the beginning of next year.
That’s precisely what I said.
As for the parliamentarian, you aren’t quoting the parliamentarian. You are quoting some journalist who is paraphrasing some experts who are paraphrasing the parliamentarian. All that statement is saying is that the budget for 2017 expires on September 30 because that is when the fiscal year ends. Therefore the budget resolution for 2017 also expires. That is all they are saying, no more no less.
They say that “expires on Sept. 30 significantly dims prospects for such legislation [Obamacare repeal] this year.” All this means is that congress now only has one reconciliation bill left for this calendar year and they want to use it for tax cuts. And that is exactly what I have been saying.
Next year in January they can pass yet another budget resolution for 2019 and use that for Obamacare again.
So where are your experts contradicting me?
Sheesh. If you don’t believe me, look at what the Senate is doing today. They just today released the first draft of their budget resolution for 2018. They plan to pass this in October and use it for reconciliation for tax cuts.
Here it is:
Cripes. They are doing exactly what I said they would do. They are going to try to pass this this month if they can get the votes, or at the very least by the end of this year.