Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.
A forest fire glowing with bright orange flames and smoke at night
Photo by Egor Vikhrev on Unsplash

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.

The summer of 2026 once again saw wildfire smoke from the West Coast and Midwest blanketing East Coast skies. Smoke-filled summer skies now seem to be the norm across America, and wildfire season isn’t even close to over.

The public response is also becoming normal. When investigators determine that a person started a wildfire, online chatter usually centers on the idea that humans are the cause and that climate change could not have played a role. That argument confuses the ignition source with the complex conditions that contribute to wildfire. A spark may explain where a wildfire began. It cannot, on its own, explain why flames spread so far and devastate entire communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
If It Quacks Like a Fascist

A Navy veteran argues the Trump administration keeps reaching for fascist symbols, from eagle imagery to a livestreamed execution.

Ira L. Black/Getty Images

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

The Trump administration is evoking neo-fascism on purpose. I want to say that plainly, because when a pattern is this consistent, it would be naive to call it a coincidence. They may deny the intent, but they keep reaching for fascist symbols. If it looks like a fascist and quacks like a fascist, it probably is one.

When a reporter at opening night of Les Misérables asked Trump whether he identified more with Jean Valjean, the protagonist who steals bread to feed the hungry, or Javert, the villain who treats mercy as weakness, Trump called it a tough one. It’s not a tough one, unless you want to be the bad guy. And he might. In their new book, Regime Change, New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan describe a moment when President Trump showed them a list that placed him alongside Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan. By Swan’s account, the president relished the company. Trump is less worried about his approval ratings or the law than about expanding his personal power.

Keep ReadingShow less