EZRA IS ON TOP OF IT

This morning, I heard Brian Kilmeade argue that this time, reconciliation is different (and wrong) because when it was used in the past, there were large bipartisan majorities. I can't recall the exact numbers he gave but several were over 70 in favor, which lead me to wonder if so many were in favor, why bother with reconciliation? I suspect Kilmeade deliberately ignored these votes that Ezra Klein dug up:

But reconciliation hasn't been limited to bipartisan bills. Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44. This is as you'd expect: If bills had overwhelming bipartisan majorities, they wouldn't need to go through reconciliation.