I've got a question: Why not pass major legislation during the lame duck session after this November's election?
Presumably, some Democrats are hesitant to support certain legislation and options like reconciliation because of potential for personal political costs during the upcoming elections.
After the elections, these Dems will either be on their way out the door OR newly-reelected with political winds at their backs and two years to undo any immediate damage.
So, the benefit of working within the lame duck session will be that Democrats will largely be freed from immediate political pressure and can act more on their consciences. Or at least outgoing members of the House and Senate can be bought more easily as they plan for jobs outside of elected office. And others will have extended political capital after recent election wins.
The likelihood is, of course, that Dems will face a reduced majority in the House and Senate in January. So, political power will be at its maximum between November and January.
And I'd bet that Dems have at least an even money chance of keeping the House and even greater odds of keeping the Senate. So, the danger of using a process like reconciliation would be diminished, given the probability that there won't be an incoming Republican majority in the House or Senate to exact revenge for pushing the procedural limit.
And, in fact, the winds are blowing so ill for Dems right now, that a relatively small Republican gain in the House and Senate might result in a media narrative that is more favorable for President Obama and Democrats.
So, does anyone know if lame duck sessions have been used effectively in the past?
Does anyone know if Republicans could turn the procedural screws on a strategy like this?
What are the drawbacks?