One of the conundrums in the Swamp that annoys US Person is why the Senate is so loath to discard a rule that is clearly anti-democratic. Reconciliation is a kludge--a desperate work-around of gridlock caused by the required super-majority of sixty votes--that only makes current legislative process a Rube Goldberg device of inane complexity. The plain fact is that the Senate can eliminate the filibuster with a majority vote, and they have done that before. You would think that vote would be high on the priority list of tasks for the new majority, given that the COVID relief bill and other progressive legislation do not have Repugnant support. But NOT! The Senate worked into the early morning hours jimmying the reconciliation budget bill to set up passage of the rescue plan. Vice President Harris exercised her raison d'être around 5:30am EST, Friday. The joint budget bill passed after defeating hundreds of amendments in a fifteen hour "vote-a-rama" marathon, 51-50. Good thing the esteemed lawmakers held the votes in the middle of the night because such an arcane process is simply too embarrassing for a "great democracy". Some Senate Democrats, including the lone socialist, Bernie Sanders, do not want to eliminate the filibuster. Instead he has a plan to blow up the Byrd Rule in order to allow passage of more progressive legislation such as the the Fifteen An Hour bill, which was tossed during the early morning law-making. What is the Byrd Rule you ask--a good question. Former Senator Byrd of West Virginia suggested the rule to prevent abuse of the reconciliation process--using it as a means to avoid the filibuster for legislation that is only tangentially related to fiscal issues--such as immigration reform, and federal voting standards. Byrd sets two basic requirements for items to be included in a joint budget resolution: it changes the overall level of spending or revenue where such a change is not merely ‘incidental,’” and it does not “increase deficits outside the 10-year budget window.” Who decides what is proper legislation under the rule--the Senate parliamentarian. But the parliamentarian only makes recommendations to the Senate's presiding officer, the Vice President. Ordinarily, the VP follows the parliamentarian's advisory. So, here is the clever part: Bernie would want Ms. Harris to reject any challenge to legislation under the Byrd Rule, something within her discretion under the Senate's arcane procedure. This strategy has been floated before—Ted Cruz and Rand Paul proposed using it during the debate over Obamacare repeal—but never actually used, because encouraging unchecked discretion could be dangerous in all sorts of other situations perhaps less appropriate.
Perhaps the underlying reason for not wanting to simply eliminate the filibuster and make passage of legislation subject only to majority vote is fear of being in the minority at some point. Senators do not call it the "nuclear option" for nothing. But there is little doubt the current rule is a fundamental roadblock to democratic action. A collective lack of conviction among senators creates an arcane, Frankenstein process giving disproportionate power to self-styled "moderates" who freeze the institution into dysfunction. There is nothing moderate about the modern Senate, as one observer said, "it is radical in its inanity, a legislative chamber designed by Dadaists." No wonder Mr. Smith was confused!