The best explanation I’ve seen of this is over at NRO’s Corner blog from Daniel Foster. The whole thing is a must-read, but here is the gist of it:

[E]ach bill brought to the floor of the House is debated under its own “rule” setting the length and structure of debate, including which if any amendments can be considered. A given bill’s rule is created by the — you guessed it — Rules Committee and presented to the whole House for a simple majority vote prior to consideration of the bill itself. In this case, the Democrats would bring a “self-executing rule” to the floor that allowed for the adoption of the Senate bill when, and only when, the reconciliation sidecar is passed, thereby avoiding the need to bring the Senate bill to the floor for a separate up-or-down vote.

This procedure is nearly impossible to stop:

Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans’ options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, “the Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.”

In case anyone was wondering how desperate the Dems are to pass the thing, here’s the proof.

If the Dems are going to ram this through at all costs—and I think that’s where we’re heading—I hope they do it this way. The use of reconciliation is unprecedented and unprincipled, as I explained here, but it has a certain empathic appeal. Dems can argue that they are simply letting the will of the majority prevail, which is always a powerful argument in a democratic-republic. But this is different. This is a pure act of political cowardice. They want to vote for the bill without actually voting for the bill. I think the Slaughter Solution will be a bigger rallying cry against the Democrats in November and 2012 than anything we’ve seen to date. Bring it on.

Consider the following hypothetical. Person A has major surgery. During recovery, he is administered morphine in a hospital under the supervision of a physician. After a few days, the drug is discontinued and he never uses it again. Person B is a junky. He buys morphine off the street, self-administers it, and becomes addicted.

Now imagine that a supposedly credible political analyst (who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard!) published an article on a supposedly credible website proclaiming that anyone who sees a difference between Person A and Person B is a “liar.”

Granted, it is an exaggerated hypothetical, but that is pretty much what Matt Yglesias has done over at the The Daily Beast with an article entitled GOP Liars. Here’s a sampling of Yglesias in his own words:

[Y]ou’ve probably heard that part of the Obama administration’s plan to pass health reform is to use the budget reconciliation process. The reason you’ve probably heard is that the press has been obsessed with the topic, repeatedly labeling it a “controversial” move that would “ram” legislation via an end-run around the normal legislative process.”

In fact, though most bills do not go through the reconciliation process—typically because their subject matter makes them ineligible—the process has been invoked frequently since 1980. And the reason it’s remained obscure until 2010 is that until the health-care debate, the press never saw fit to go into conniptions over congressional procedure. Indeed, as Jamison Foser has painstakingly documented the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on a 51-50 vote (Dick Cheney broke the tie, three Senate Republicans joined Democrats in voting no) passed the press with no comment . . .

ABC, CBS, and NBC combined to mention reconciliation zero times during the 2003 tax cut debate. CNN featured Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) mention it in passing, once, but certainly never did a segment in which its propriety was debated.

The article gets even stranger after this passage. Yglesias goes on to argue that this supposed conspiracy of silence exists because of “the right’s ability to set the media’s agenda.”

If Yglesias really believes that ABC, CBS, and NBC cow-towed to the Bush White House and are out to get Obama, then he’s living in a different universe than me, and we’re never going to find any common ground. But he ought to be willing and able to admit the obvious reason why the “propriety” of passing the Bush tax cuts via budget reconciliation was “never debated”: tax legislation is exactly what budget reconciliation was designed for!

Don’t take my word for it. Here is a description of the budget reconciliation process from the website of Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, the Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee (now famous for the denture sob-story at the health care summit):

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution . . . Whether for tax reduction, tax increases, deficit reduction, mandatory spending increases or decreases or adjustments in the public debt limit, this process has been used to focus many agents on one goal.

Back to my morphine hypothetical. As Congresswoman Slaughter readily admits, budget reconciliation was designed to deal with budget issues, including “revenue programs (tax laws)” and “tax reduction.” Using budget reconciliation for the Bush tax cuts was like Person A using morphine legally, as intended, after surgery. But budget reconciliation was not designed as a vehicle for creating new social welfare programs or regulating 1/6th of the U.S. economy. That’s like Person B buying morphine off the street and becoming a junky. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to draw a distinction between using budget reconciliation for its intended purpose and using it for new, unintended purposes.

That’s not to say there is no room for legitimate debate on this issue. Yglesias could legitimately argue, for example, that the Senate’s fillibuster requirement is bad policy. I, for one, would disagree with that claim, but surely it’s a legitimate argument. Or he could argue, as Senator Conrad does here, that the budget reconciliation bill contemplated by the Democrats to pass Obamacare will comply with traditional budget reconciliation rules. Here’s a taste of his argument:

Since health-care reform re-emerged on the national agenda more than a year ago, I have consistently said that comprehensive health reform cannot be achieved through reconciliation. The reconciliation process was never intended for comprehensive policy changes. The Senate parliamentarian concluded that if legislation such as health-care reform were to go through the reconciliation process, it would come out looking like “Swiss cheese.” Some of the most significant portions of the legislation, such as insurance market reforms and delivery system reforms, might have to be dropped.

Even if implemented only as a “fixer” bill, reconciliation could still be used only for changes that are truly budget-related—meaning they affect revenue or spending. Changes to improve the affordability of health care or adjust the amount of federal aid going to states for Medicaid could be good candidates for a reconciliation bill. But changes involving strictly policy matters, which do not have a budgetary impact, would likely have to be addressed some other way.

Again, I don’t buy Conrad’s argument (there is no way, for example, to effect a “fix” to the Senate’s abortion language through reconciliation), but it’s a legitimate argument that needs to be deabted.

The contrast between Conrad and Yglesias is telling. Senator Conrad acknowledges the obvious distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of budget reconciliation, and attempts to argue that Obamacare can fit within that legitimate distinction. Yglesias, on the other hand, simply calls anyone who recognizes that legitimate distinction a liar, and attributes the whole predicament to a vast right-wing media conspiracy. Conrad attempts to persuade his opponents; Yglesias attempts to obscure the issue and demonize his opponents.

I happen to disagree with both of them, but at the end of the day I respect Senator Conrad despite our disagreement. I can’t say the same of Matt Yglesias.