I suppose so but reconciliation bills do have restrictions on how they can be used whereas the nuclear option would basically eliminate any requirement for 60 votes. The nuclear option would literally relegate minority parties to irrelevance.
They are different means to end a filibuster. However, reconciliation (like a cloture vote) is a system specified in the rules of the Senate to resolve a potential filibuster. The nuclear option refers to changing the Senate rules by declaring the idea of a filibuster invalid, thus eliminating entirely in the future. That's why it's called the nuclear option.
It's more than just the situational difference. It's the difference in intent: one intends to work within the rules of the Senate, one does not. This may not seem like much of a difference to you, but it is a HUGE difference politically. To say they are the same because they both break filibusters is like saying a Dremel and a chainsaw are they same because they're both power tools. The usage and intent of the tool is the defining difference.
And reconciliation seems to have gone far past it's original usage and intent. No matter, I find it funny though that the people who love to tell me about "assault weapons" and "gun show loopholes" are now up in arms about this. How many times on this forum did i try to explain what an actual assault weapon is when I was told it was just semantics? Welcome to the party.
I would argue on the healthcare bill it is much more in line with it original purpose, but regardless of the orignal intent, they are still two different procedures. The nuclear option is a legislative loophole apparently. Don't like the fillerbuster, make it illegal.
Not to mention the fact that the two tax cuts passed by republicans through reconciliation has contributed millions more to the deficit than healthcare ever will.
Really? Interesting, given that a few hours ago ago, you said you know much about about how the Senate works. What was it's original intent and past usage?
Hey, don't take my word for it. The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal Newly revised estimates from Citizens for Tax Justice show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010).1 Preliminary estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats’ health care reform legislation is projected to cost $1 trillion over the decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019).2
It's true that Reconciliation was originally used differently. I would suggest the filibuster has gone far beyond it's original intent as well. But in terms of practical use, reconciliation has been used in the current way for decades. Major health legislation like COBRA and S-CHIP were passed using reconciliation, for example.
Because you are suggesting that Democrats are using Reconciliation differently than in the past (which they are not) and that Reconciliation and the nuclear option are somehow similar (which they are not).
I think these discussions make it obvious that it is a big mistake to use the loaded term "nuclear option." Well, it was a genius stroke by the politicians who decided to use the term, but a big mistake for honest citizens making a sincere effort to understand the politics and make their voices heard. Arguing over what is and isn't "nuclear" is a waste of time. What we're talking about here are two parliamentary options. Neither option actually splits an atom, so lets just call them what they actually are.
Not just threats. Reconciliation was used numerous times by the Repubs to pass such bills as the trillion dollar tax break to the upper classes during the Dubya years.
