The Journal Gazette, 600 W. Main St., Fort Wayne IN

WASHINGTON – Republicans are calling it a “rubber stamp” or an effort to “jam through” legislation. They’ve labeled it “controversial and partisan” and “an assault on the democratic process.”

What they are referring to is the oddly named “reconciliation,” which Congress sometimes uses for major bills to expedite what can be a cumbersome process. Congressional Democrats have said they probably will turn to reconciliation to reach final votes on legislation to revamp the health insurance system.

Under reconciliation, Senate filibusters are prohibited. That means a simple majority – 51 votes – is needed to pass something. When filibusters are permitted, it takes a supermajority of 60 votes to unblock a bill, meaning 41 senators can freeze Senate action.

To suggest that legislation passed by a majority vote is undemocratic and illegitimate is absurd.

Reconciliation is a tool the legislative body gave itself, so there is nothing unethical or underhanded about it.

But just because something is legal does not make it ideal.

Sen. Evan Bayh has suggested several times lately that reconciliation for health insurance restructuring probably will create a backlash that will inhibit across-the-aisle compromises on many other issues.

“Reconciliation should be kept as a last, last resort,” he said on a Charlie Rose interview program. “I suspect because it may poison the well for dealing with other issues over the remainder of this year.”

The Senate was set up to be deliberative. That means slow. One senator can hold up a bill, often indefinitely. But the Senate also has this procedure called reconciliation that allows some efficiency.

It was created by law more than 30 years ago, so it is hardly “controversial and partisan.” In fact, both parties love it – but they love it best when they have a majority.

Democrats are sending around a 2005 video clip of a Republican senator defending reconciliation with full-throated vigor and acting all indignant that Democrats (who were then in the minority) were implying that its use was unethical.

Now, of course, with the GOP in the minority, they are howling as ferociously as the Dems did in ’05.

It’s fair to point out, though, that votes conducted under reconciliation are not necessarily party line. For instance, during the nearly two decades Dan Coats was in Congress, he cast 20 votes under reconciliation. He voted “yes” a dozen times, both when the GOP had the majority and when it did not.

And we should also note that many amendments are permitted under reconciliation, and amendments can be debated almost endlessly. So it’s not as though any bill considered under the reconciliation process will slip through the Senate in a flash.

I’m not sure when – if ever – the minority party has tried to convince the voting public that the other guys were doing something wrong by using reconciliation. Generally, the issues of a bill are argued on their merits. It’s curious that the GOP is spending so much energy on its twisted civics lesson when there are plenty of substantive concerns about the health insurance legislation it could capitalize on.

There are indications that the public supports the theory of health insurance for all Americans. But that theory takes a back seat to their own economic reality, which is rocky to perilous. It seems to me voters are ripe to be persuaded to the Republican viewpoint – that the legislation would expand the federal government too much and be too expensive.

Republicans also have put forth some issues they say everyone could agree on, including prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

But if Republicans succeed in shifting the focus from content to process (that evil perversion of democracy, reconciliation), there is no need to seek common ground.

In the current climate, winning is all that seems to matter. Health insurance legislation is a zero-sum game. Any adjustments to the status quo (even wildly popular pre-existing condition change) would be a victory for Democrats.

Democrats are on shaky ground as the congressional elections approach, and Republicans, of course, want to capitalize on that. (Any political party would do the same.)

So it’s not enough for the GOP to oppose the health insurance legislation. They have to try to convince voters that not only do Democrats have wretched ideas, they want to shove them down our throats using the immoral process of reconciliation.