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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less