Why is it acceptable to mislead the public? When politicians are afraid to approach the truth - to admit the real reasons behind their opposition to legislation - we end up with unbridgeable divisions and sectarianism. How can you counter someone's arguments when they don't present the ones that are driving their actions? The GOP doesn't want health insurance reform because it is pro-consumer. They can't say that, so they trot out other reasons.
Passing the health care bill under reconciliation is a parliamentary move, and not ideal. But it is not unprecedented. And let's remember - this bill did get 60 votes already.
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.
[From E.J. Dionne Jr. - The Republicans' big lie about reconciliation - washingtonpost.com]
