When it comes to reconciliation, there is no House versus Senate
This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to recent media reports suggesting that the Senate merely needs to 'take' what the House does and pass it. Rather, it is a reflection of the statutory framework that governs budget reconciliation in Congress.
Reconciliation, as it operates in the House, exists to originate a revenue measure that maintains procedural privilege in the Senate. Its purpose is not to secure the House's wish list at the expense of Senate priorities, or even the very privilege itself.
In fact, if the House includes provisions that don't comply with the Budget Act, this is called a fatality — it means the entire measure is no longer privileged in Senate, defeating the whole point of the exercise.
This procedural reality does not diminish the political and strategic value of the countless hours House members and staff spent crafting reconciliation targets and instructions. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created an expedited process for the Senate for considering legislation that changes existing revenue, mandatory spending, or the debt limit, provided it meets specific drafting requirements.
The Budget Act is clear: If you want to use this expedited process — one that limits debate time and avoids the need for a 60-vote cloture threshold in the Senate — then the legislation must be written to conform to those requirements.
By choosing reconciliation as the legislative vehicle to advance the priorities of the president and congressional Republican leadership, the House is, by design, deferring to the Senate's procedural needs. Reconciliation is not required to pass tax cuts, reduce spending or adjust the debt ceiling. But it is required if the goal is to pass such measures with a simple majority in the Senate.
The House should fight to produce the best possible product, but ultimately, reconciliation is designed to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation — not to empower the House to dictate the terms.
If the House wants to negotiate as an equal partner, reconciliation is not the right tool. But if the goal is to get a bill to the president's desk by summer, then it must stay focused on the shared objective: preserving privilege. This isn't House versus Senate — it is House and Senate.
Jennifer Belair is former staff director of House Rules Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
30 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Decision to Fire BLS Chief Echoes Putin's Strategies
President Donald Trump's firing of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday afternoon just after she delivered a negative jobs report echoes the impulse of many leaders to shoot the messenger. Trump declared, 'I've had issues with the numbers for a long time. We're doing so well. I believe the numbers were phony like they were before the election and there were other times. So I fired her, and I did the right thing.' While Trump may or may not be friends with Vladimir Putin, he is clearly following the Russian President's HR staffing guidelines to eliminate lieutenants who bring bad news. As we've documented before, the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) has a long history of manipulating official economic statistics to please Putin, 'bending over backward to correct bad numbers and burying unflattering statistics' under the pressure the Kremlin has exerted to corrupt statistical integrity, especially since Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The reliability of official statistics from China has also been brought into question, leading analysts to rely on a wide range of unofficial or proxy indicators to gauge the true state of the Chinese economy. Even China's former Premier, the late Li Keqiang, reportedly confided that he didn't trust official GDP numbers. Read More: What to Know About the Jobs Report That Led Trump to Fire the Labor Statistics Chief Like other strongmen, Trump has repeatedly shown a pattern of manipulating data to suit his preferred narrative. Trump's surprise firing of BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer has quickly caught the attention of technical market analysts and economists on both sides of the political spectrum. One side cheers the push to disrupt a slow, bureaucratic federal agency. The other side shouts in dismay over concerns about yet another example of Trump politicizing an apolitical institution. Both responses are warranted. The accuracy of BLS data has long been questioned as major revisions only come in months later. To their credit, the BLS, in addition to other statistical agencies, has publicly recognized a need to modernize its methodology. Unfortunately, though, the severity of job revisions has worsened since the COVID-19 era, with no successful program to address the issue. The downward revision on Friday of more than 250,000 jobs marked the most significant adjustment since the depths of the pandemic. However, Trump's accusations against the BLS of rigging the job numbers to make him and the Republican base look bad, and his subsequent firing of McEntarfer based on a belief that BLS revisions were politically motivated, are yet another step closer to authoritarianism. Introducing his latest conspiracy theory, the President went even further by suggesting McEntarfer, whose career spans two decades across Republican and Democratic Administrations, rigged the numbers 'around the 2024 presidential election' in then-Vice President Kamala Harris' favor. Trump conveniently fails to mention that his definition of 'around' was back in August 2024. Recall, the 2024 presidential election was a full three months later in November. Revisions are not unusual behavior by the BLS. They are a critical part of the natural process for developing an accurate picture of the largest, most dynamic economy in the world. The average size of job revisions since 2003 is not insignificant at 51,000 jobs. And, despite what Trump may want Americans to believe, his tariff policies have created an unprecedented level of uncertainty in the U.S. economy, comparable only to that of 2020, with many economists expecting a recession to follow as a result. Bloomberg reporting has pointed to a possible connection between the severity of negative job revisions and recessionary economic environments. The BLS has also been subjected to DOGE-led hiring constraints and other resource rescissions. In addition, the Trump Administration's disbanding of the Federal Statistics Advisory Committee in March both eliminated one of the main engines for enhancing agency performance and, perhaps, in what should have been a concerning harbinger, abolished the canary in the data integrity coal mine. Complaints about BLS methods are legitimate, like the reliance on enumerators over scanner data, and deserve attention, but this is not how to fix it. Read More: What Trump's Win Means for the Economy This is far from the first time Trump has subordinated statistical integrity to political theater. From crowd sizes to weather forecasts, vote counts to tariff formulas, Trump has discarded facts for fictions that play to his political favor. Trump doesn't just bend the truth—he twists the numbers until they resemble propaganda and then silences those who disagree. As CBS News titan Edward R. Murrow warned 65 years ago: 'To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Cory Booker's pathetic stunts reveal the sad state of the Democratic Party
Sen. Cory Booker's latest stunt offered yet another eye-opener about the Democratic Party's current dead-endism. Booker went bananas on the Senate floor Tuesday, demanding that Democrats join him in voting NO — on a bipartisan bill — to supposedly prove that they aren't 'bending the knee' to Donald Trump. That is, it was a 'grand gesture' utterly unrelated to the cause he claimed to be serving. Advertisement Booker almost made Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) cry when he thundered that the humdrum package of bills (to improve police staffing and give cops more access to mental-health treatment) would represent 'complicity with an authoritarian leader.' These bills — which, as Klobuchar pointed out, passed unanimously out of a committee Booker sits on — were classic feel-good, no-brainer legislation. But Spartacus 2.0 still paced the Senate floor like a caged Colosseum lion, shouting, 'Don't question my integrity!' when Klobuchar noted that Booker had actually skipped the hearing at which he could have raised any objections. Advertisement Why not question his integrity, or at least his devotion to actually stopping a bill he was treating as the essence of Trumpism? This isn't the first time kooky Cory has gone in big on empty performance art. In July, he staged a walkout during Emil Bove's judicial confirmation hearing — as if his absence would change anything. Advertisement Then there was his record-breaking 25-hour 'filibuster,' without any actual bill on the floor to filibuster against. This posturing isn't new for Booker: As a lowly Newark city councilman, he years ago went on a 10-day hunger strike — in a tent, no less — to 'protest crime.' (It's safe to say that this awakened not a single criminal's conscience, nor anyone else's.) Senator Stuntman is plainly gearing up for another presidential run. 'The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call!' he thundered amid Tuesday's tantrum, practically begging for activists to make the moment viral. The sad part is that Booker's antics are only a bit cheesier than other Democrats' performative 'resistance,' whether it's sit-ins at ICE facilities, kumbaya-style teach-ins on the steps of the Capitol, holding up grumpy signs at the State of the Union address, or filming cringy TikToks. Advertisement It's not simply that Democrats are out of power, but that they're out of ideas (unless you count unpopular ones). Which leaves Booker and all the rest desperately trying to feign passion about . . . absolutely nothing.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Republican Senate candidates seeking to replace McConnell aim to define themselves at Fancy Farm
CALVERT CITY, Ky. (AP) — Three Republicans competing to succeed longtime Sen. Mitch McConnell tried to define themselves before the political attacks that could come Saturday when they share the spotlight at the Fancy Farm picnic, a daunting rite of passage for candidates seeking statewide office in Kentucky. 'You're going to hear some barbs tomorrow, but what I want to focus on is my vision for serving in the United States Senate,' Daniel Cameron, one of the candidates, told a GOP crowd Friday evening. Cameron's rivals in next year's Senate primary — U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and businessman Nate Morris — used their speeches at the event to introduce themselves to Republican voters in western Kentucky. All three could shift into attack mode against each other Saturday afternoon at the Fancy Farm picnic — the Bluegrass State's premier political event. Politicians compete to land the sharpest — and sometimes most outlandish — barbs, and have to endure shouting and heckling from their rivals' supporters. The picnic could turn into a Republican skirmish since Democratic politicians are mostly skipping the event. McConnell, the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history, revealed in February, on his 83rd birthday, that he won't seek another term in Kentucky and will retire when his current term ends. His pending retirement has set up a fierce competition for his seat. Warming up for their appearance that will air on statewide TV at Fancy Farm, the three GOP rivals kept to one script they've all shared — lavishing praise on Republican President Donald Trump. Barr portrayed his congressional experience as an advantage that sets him apart. He represents a district stretching from central Kentucky's bluegrass region to the Appalachian foothills. 'I'm an 'America First' fighter in the United States Congress,' Barr said Friday night. 'Other people like to talk about being a Trump guy or being with Trump. I've been with President Trump from day one. I'm not just talking about supporting President Trump. I've done it. I'm continuing to do it.' Giving voters a glimpse into his political philosophy, Barr said: 'I'm a guy who was raised in the era of Ronald Reagan. I believe in limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense.' Morris, a tech entrepreneur, portrayed himself as a populist and a political outsider while trying to attach himself to Trump's popularity in Kentucky. 'What we've seen with this president is that he has put emphasis back on the American worker,' Morris said Friday night. 'And the people that have been in Washington for all this time — the elites – they sold out the American worker.' Morris also touted his hardline stance on immigration. He said he supports a moratorium on immigration into the United States until every immigrant currently in the country illegally is deported. Cameron, who is Black, used his speech to rail against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 'We don't need … an America built on DEI,' Cameron said. 'We need a country that's built on MEI – merit, excellence and intelligence.' Cameron entered the Senate campaign with one clear advantage — a higher statewide name recognition than his rivals. Cameron served one term as state attorney general and lost to Democrat Andy Beshear in the 2023 governor's race. 'You've been with us in the past,' Cameron told the GOP group Friday night. 'I hope that you'll be with us this time. We're going to get it done because we know that what happens in this seat will have reverberations across this country.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
