Then and now: Dems, Republicans sing different tunes on the budget

To download a pdf illustrating lawmakers’ statements then and now, please click here .

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have shifted their positions on the use of a filibuster-proof budget maneuver to pass controversial legislation, touting the partisan ploy when their party called the shots and lambasting it in the minority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the use of reconciliation “untoward” in 2001, but recently said he may embrace it for healthcare reform: “We’re taking nothing off the table.”

{mosads}Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau said, “Sen. Reid hopes that Republicans will work with us to develop a healthcare reform bill that expands coverage and lowers costs for American families and businesses. If Republicans do so, reconciliation would be a moot point.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) excoriated the use of reconciliation when they were in the minority. While speaking out against the use of reconciliation now, Baucus and Conrad have suggested they would vote for a final budget package that includes the controversial language.

In 2005, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) delivered a scathing floor speech against reconciliation for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This year, Kerry has said he prefers not to use the reconciliation weapon, but added, “I think we have to reserve the right to do it.”

Asked for comment, Kerry dismissed any suggestion he is being hypocritical: “This gives the phrase comparing apples and oranges a whole new meaning. There’s a big difference between trying to pass ANWR on an unrelated bill and reserving our right to use an undesirable tactic as a last option if the Republicans try to block a bill with broad support. It’s like saying that if you don’t take the use of force off the table, you’ve decided to go to war. Duh.”

But Democrats are not the only ones who have altered their positions on reconciliation.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) was recently mocked on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” for embracing reconciliation while in the majority and criticizing it now that Democrats control Congress. Gregg has said healthcare reform is too big of an issue to use reconciliation, arguing ANWR and other issues passed under the budget procedure when the GOP ran Congress were not as broad.

“Daily Show” host Jon Stewart also jabbed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for being hypocritical, but her office says Stewart has his facts wrong (see story here ).

{mosads}Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) defended using reconciliation when pushing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts through the upper chamber, but has warned Democrats not to do it in 2009. Like Baucus and Conrad this year, Grassley previously stressed that reconciliation was not his first choice.

 Others have been more consistent. Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have long bemoaned reconciliation protections and have spoken out against the potential use of them now.

Congressional Republicans allege the use of reconciliation for healthcare reform would run counter to President Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship.

In 2005, Obama criticized a GOP effort on reconciliation, stating, “I don’t know how you can look in the mirror with a straight face and say we’re going to cut taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent at the same time as we’re slashing Medicaid dollars, at the same time we are promising the moon to Southern states that have been devastated by [Hurricane] Katrina.”

Obama has indicated he is open to reconciliation budget provisions in 2009.

While in the minority, both Republicans and Democrats noted that when lawmakers changed the law 35 years ago to allow for reconciliation, it was aimed to pass legislation that would reduce the federal deficit.

Michael Gleeson contributed to this article.