Reason For Concern?

     I had posted yesterday that extending SSI to U.S. territories is part of the budget reconciliation bill pending in the Senate. Apart from the general threat of last minute snags on the bill as a whole, there is some reason for concern about the SSI part. The problem is arcane Congressional rules. Generally, any bill can be filibustered in the Senate. Budget reconciliation bills are a major exception. Those can't be filibustered. However, you can't put just anything in a budget reconciliation bill. One major rule is that no provision can be part of reconciliation if it would increase the deficit more than 10 years out. Generally, drafters of budget reconciliation bills get around this by including sunset provisions for budget reconciliation items that cost money. Extending SSI to the territories definitely costs money. However, the provision extending SSI to the territories contains no sunset provision (page 1682).

     I think this means that any Senator or Representative can object to the SSI provision. However, there may be some budget reconciliation exception that might cover this. I don't know. I'm no expert in Congressional rules. However, I'm not the only one asking the question.

    Would someone object? I'm not so sure. My guess is that this legislative provision is part of a settlement of litigation on the subject. I'd say that it's a reasonable settlement looked at from either a Democratic or Republican stance. I think the government's posture in the case pending at the Supreme Court is weak. Settling the issue in this way allows for a much better implementation of SSI for the territories. Doing it immediately as a result of a Supreme Court opinion would be a real mess.

     If someone objects, what happens then? Do they pull the provision altogether? Add a 10 year sunset? What is the deal, if there is one, with those litigating with the government on this issue. I don't know.