The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy offers two very different points of view on the reconciliation issue. This is worth your time if you are trying to sort out this complicated issue. Here is the link to their web page and the articles http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1792/pub_detail.asp We have reprinted with the Federalist Society’s permission the introduction below.
March 10, 2010 Reconciliation and Congress New Federal Initiatives Project
Brought to you by the Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group
There is a lot of discussion right now about the use of “reconciliation,” a mechanism for enacting legislation to carry out the budget resolution that cannot be filibustered in the Senate, to enable enactment of health care legislation. As part of our New Federal Initiatives Project, we asked Martin Gold, a partner at Covington & Burling and one of the country’s leading experts on congressional procedures, for a paper discussing the issues that this raises. The views set out in this paper are his own, not those of the Federalist Society. For a competing take on these issues, see “Reconciliation for Health Care Should Not Be an Issue” by Stanley Collener, a contributing writer for Roll Call who for most of his career worked on budgetary issues.
| –”Reconciliation and Health Care” by Martin Gold, March 10, 2010 |
 |
| –“Reconciliation for Health Care Should Not Be an Issue” By Stan Collender, April 21, 2009, Capital Gains and Games |
|
Editor’s Update 3-15-10: House File 2700 (the Capital Investment Bill totalling nearly $1 billion ) was sent to the governor last week despite clear warnings to keep it around $725 million and focused on priorities such as veterans, military, and public safety. Over the weekend, Pawlenty did what the DFL apparently could not do and trimmed it down to about $680 million. A majority of House Republicans, lead by House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers, had asked the governor in a letter to cut spending to $200-250 million (down to only “critical” construction projects) to bring the DFL to the negotiating table later in the session. The letter said such a move would show the DFL that ”it is NOT OKAY to whip out the credit card for a sculpture garden, for civic centers, for shade trees and for the rest of their out-of-touch spending.” The DFL conceded last week that it expected significant cuts, sending it to the governor’s desk after failing to negotiate a compromise last week. The tone of the governor’s letter is similar to a letter one might find from an exasperated parent to an out of control college student: he basically says, I told you what I expected and you ignored me (again). He noted that the bill exceeded the budgeted capital investment by about $275 million. “The DFL-controlled legislature seems incapable of prioritizing projects or simply sayng no. So I have done it for you.” You can read the governor’s letter detailing the cuts at MinnPost : 
The Governor has joined the debate. Pawlenty, who has warned us over the years that Minnesota is just a “cold Omaha” without major sports teams, proposed using the state lottery to help fund a new stadium. For those of you who oppose public funding, it does not solve the problem as taxpayer funds would presumably still be part of a package. But lottery proceeds, while collected by the state, are at least “private” funds. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC) released this mock-up of what a new $870 million Vikings stadium could look like and cost. That’s a lot of money in good times let alone during an economic down-turn. Yet the clock is ticking on the Metrodome lease and the beloved Vikings still have that ace in the hole; the ability to leave. (See below, LA would love to build the Vikings a new home.) So if we are resigned to making a deal, the financing has to lighten the load on taxpayers (some of whom are not fans and do not care about the NFL, believe it or not). The lottery, which generated over $482 million in revenue last year, supports various natural resouces funds but also the state’s general fund . So to the extent we pull lottery funds out for a stadium without generating new lottery funds, this may be a non-starter because it can just turn into a shell game. But if there is a new game to play (the Strib called it “Skol Bucks” ) with incremental gains, this is an idea worth tossing around. The Strib reported that only about a third of Minnesotans support public funding. This KSTP-sponsored poll is constistent with one done about a year ago. The Vikings responded to the results by saying that the poll focused on the wrong question, and should instead ask if it is important to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. You can read the article at 
