Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your take: Reconciliation and the Inflation Reduction Act

Your take: Reconciliation and the Inflation Reduction Act

To avoid the challenge of overcoming a Senate filibuster, Congress sometimes uses the process of “reconciliation.” That bit of arcane procedure allows Congress to approve budget-related legislation by simple majority votes.

Earlier this week, Senate Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act using the reconciliation process, and the House followed suit on Friday, overcoming the deep partisan divide that prevents most legislation from becoming law.


In an increasingly polarized Congress, reconciliation has gained attention with both sides of the political spectrum criticizing the process as a way to “cheat” the legislative system – and also utilizing it for their own benefit (much like the filibuster).

So we asked our readers: Is reconciliation a legitimate way of passing major legislation? Did you feel differently when Republicans used it to pass the Republicans’ tax cuts in 2017? Was the Inflation Reduction Act a good use of the tool?

Following is a selection of reader responses, edited for length and clarity.

It’s a very difficult call. I think we should need a two-thirds vote to pass anything to get bipartisanship into our legislative process. The challenge with this – in our polarized government – is we may never get any legislation passed. -Al Smith

I think using the reconciliation process is the reality of a hopelessly divided and cynical Congress. As much as I don't like it being used to pass legislation I oppose, I understand that reconciliation is all a majority party is left with if too few legislators are willing to set aside the partisan hackery to work together. It reminds me of the fact that, now more than ever, we need to invest in ways to approach one another across our differences, collaborate on shared goals, and learn how to better define the boundaries of our disagreements. This is not something we will learn from Congress, but it could be something Congress learns from us. -Damien Lally

Reconciliation allows even an extremely polarized Congress to pass legislation. In that this is one of the functions of Congress, reconciliation is a good thing. In passing legislation, a Congress ideally reflects the values and priorities of the majority of the electorate. Given the Electoral College system, and the fact that a majority of Congress can represent a minority of the people, the passing of legislation can at least make clear to that part of the public that is paying attention the values and priorities of the party in the majority, and thus aim to clarify the whole electoral process. -John Mathews

In my opinion, it reflects the slowly emerging end of the Senate rules requiring 60 votes to pass legislation and the use of the filibuster. Or to put it another way, a simple majority is all it will take now to pass most legislation, for whichever party is in control of Congress. -Pat Partridge

As long as the filibuster remains in its broken state, legislators require a way around it. Depriving the American people of legislation that is broadly popular among voters but that "only" 59 percent of senators support is nearly always wrong. -Riley Hart

Reconciliation, which can be characterized as power politics, may be beneficial for "small" legislation since it is almost impossible to get complete agreement on everything. Reconciliation on "large" complex and controversial topics can be perceived as "might makes right" power politics. Thus it can create more not less polarization among competing sides because of the broad ramifications of large, complex and multi-topic legislation. Creating more polarization is the opposite of the term “reconciliation.” mIf you want to polarize the country more, then do more reconciliation on large complex legislation. -Kenneth Rebar


Read More

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Photo provided

The Latino Vote Keeps Changing. Why Do We Keep Calling It a Realignment?

After the 2024 presidential election, the headlines suggested that Latino voters were moving toward the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s gains were interpreted as evidence of a possible political realignment, particularly among working-class Latino voters and younger men.

Two years later, the story has reversed. Latino voters, we are told, are returning to the Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller

President Donald Trump departs a roundtable discussion on cybercrime with White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller (R) in the East Room of the White House on October 21, 2026, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Trump’s Elevation of Stephen Miller Proves His Promise to Work With Democrats Is a Farce

In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s sweeping midterm election losses, a chastened President Donald Trump struck an unusually conciliatory tone, signaling a willingness to work with Democrats. But the spirit of bipartisanship proved fleeting.

By forcing out Susie Wiles and elevating Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff, Trump has delivered a definitive, defiant message to the American electorate: the era of uncompromising grievance and division isn't over—it is being supercharged.

Keep ReadingShow less
economics graph on blackboard

economics graph on blackboard

Getty Images

What Post-1971 Supply-side Economics Has Done to Veterans

Post-1971 supply-side economics—often referred to as "trickle-down economics" or "Reaganomics” fundamentally transformed the relationship between the federal government and military veterans. The year 1971 marked the end of the Bretton Woods system, the closing of the gold window, and a pivot toward neoliberal economic frameworks that prioritized deregulation, sweeping tax cuts, and aggressive federal deficit reduction via domestic spending cuts.

For veterans, who had previously benefited from the expansive, New Deal-style social investments of the original G.I. Bill, this macroeconomic paradigm shift led to four distinct structural consequences:

Keep ReadingShow less
Bank sign
The bank of ornate classical columns and facade
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

A Bank Account Should Not Come with a Political Litmus Test

The ongoing appetite for "debanking"—pressuring financial institutions to cut off customers because of who they are, what they believe, or with whom they associate—should concern everyone. Why? Because in the end, anyone can become an easy target.

One pressure point has been protests against private banks whose customers are companies who build or operate immigration detention facilities under contracts with the Trump administration. The Boston area saw such protests earlier this year, and there have been others.

Keep ReadingShow less