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 |
|
