Do you see the word right there? “Consultation.” Do not enforce. The Congressional Research Service says: “The MPs and their deputies / assistants only give advice that the presiding MP or senator can accept or reject.”
The chairman can “accept or reject” this advice. To quote Nir again: “Senators are free to run their chamber as they see fit. Elizabeth MacDonough is not her boss – it’s the other way around. ”Republicans knew this and responded to it to push through their massive tax cuts for rich people. In 2001, then Majority Leader Trent Lott dismissed MP Bob Dove for “recent decisions that effectively made it difficult for the GOP to push through President Bush’s budget and tax cut proposals through the equally divided body.”
Republicans surely know how to get what they want through the MP. Note that the same officer now in office, Elizabeth MacDonough, has released two highly controversial and partisan provisions in the 2017 GOP tax fraud: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and lifting the individual mandate penalties of the Affordable Care Act . She decided that both things could stay in the bill even though they had no more than “accidental” effects on the budget. This is one of the rules that the Senate imposed on itself in the budget reconciliation process: The draft laws cannot increase the federal deficit after 10 years and must affect federal spending or income. Their impact on expenditure or income must be “more than marginal” to their political impact.
Republicans also know they can play that card, and the traditional media will no doubt lick them up. “Reconciliation is meant to be a budget issue and not necessarily a political issue. I think they’ll have a very hard time getting immigration, ”Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, told NBC. And so far the Democrats have only accepted that.
“That is left to the MP – what is in there. We leave that to her discretion,” said Senator Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada. “And then we will decide on this basis where the appropriate place is for it.” Which in turn no. It’s not up to the parliamentarian. It’s up to the majority and whether they want to fight for what they believe in or not. It takes a senator and a chairman – in this case, Vice President Kamala Harris – to challenge this decision. Then it would take a united Democratic Group – with Harris – to outvote the MP by 51 votes. Is that a big question? Yes.
Is it a bigger task to wait any longer for the millions of people who toil for America – who helped feed this nation through a pandemic – to be rewarded? Absolutely.
Many voters see it that way too. One route to citizenship for these people is extremely popular. Recent surveys conducted by Global Strategy Group, Hart Research and BSP Research on behalf of FWD.us, the Immigration Hub and America’s Voice found that “a citizenship proposal path remains incredibly popular because it is a large one and stable consensus for reform. “
Proposals for the path to citizenship continue to be supported by a large majority of voters, including the path to citizenship for DREAMers (71% support / 22% against), farm workers (71% / 21%) and for those with temporary protection status (68% Support / 22% are against). Notably, there is minimal opposition to all of these proposals (for example, only 12% strongly oppose a road to citizenship for farm workers).
Recent NPR / Ipsos polls show essentially the same level of support.
This pretense that the parliamentarian is all powerful is a big problem for the Democrats. It’s almost as big a problem as the pretense that the filibuster is some kind of command set in stone from the Founding Fathers. In the real world, the idea that an unelected employee can shut things down and keep the Senate from doing the real people’s work just doesn’t sell. “We tried to get you good stuff, but the MP stopped us” is just not a good campaign slogan.