A Byrd in the hand on reconciliation?

In our article, Stephen and I talk about the myth that health care has already passed in the House and Senate and reconciliation would merely be used for “a few small fixes.” In fact, there is no one health-care bill that has or could pass both houses without major modifications, many of which will be difficult or impossible to pursue via reconciliation.

That’s why this letter from “Sen. Robert Byrd” (D., W.V.) to the editor of a Charleston newspaper rings false:

I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction. The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.
Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.
With all due respect, the Daily Mail’s hyperbole about “imposing government control,” acts of “disrespect to the American people” and “corruption” of Senate procedures resembles more the barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan than the “sober and second thought” of one of West Virginia’s oldest and most respected daily newspapers.
My commitment to protecting the best interests of all West Virginians and the American people remains as firm and consistent as my devotion to observing the necessary and essential Senate rules and procedures intended to guarantee debate and the airing of diverse views.

Though I must admit that “barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan” is a nice turn of phrase, it is wildly unfair. There are many outside of Glennbeckistan — including vast swaths of Fosterania and Spruielland and, um, France — who believe with good reason that the use of reconciliation to merge the House and Senate bills would be abusive and unprecedented.