This December on Capitol Hill appears to follow a familiar script.

There’s a deadline for Congress to act on (insert issue here). And if lawmakers don’t move by Jan. 1, then (insert consequence here). So, everyone on Capitol Hill clamors over pathways to finish (given issue). Lawmakers and staff are at the end of their wits. Everyone is worried about Congress successfully fixing the problem and getting everyone home for the holidays.

There’s always the concern that Congress will emerge as The Grinch, pilfering Whoville of Christmas toys.

But lawmakers often wind up toiling with the diligence and efficiency of Santa’s elves, plowing through late-night, overnight and weekend sessions, usually finishing (insert issue here) in the St. Nick of time.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THURSDAY’S BIG SENATE VOTES ON HEALTHCARE

This pattern is always the same. With few variations.

This parliamentary dance of the sugar plum fairies frequently centers on deadlines for government funding, the debt ceiling and tax policy. Such was the case when the Senate passed the first version of Obamacare on Christmas Eve morning in 2009. Republicans skated on thin ice to finish their tax reform package in December 2017.

Lawmakers moved expeditiously to approve a defense policy bill in late 2020, then made sure they had just enough time on the calendar to override President Trump’s veto of the legislation before the very end of the 116th Congress in early January 2021.

The deadlines sometimes veer into the political. There was a crush to finish articles of impeachment on the House floor for both presidents Clinton and Trump in December 1998 and December 2019, respectively.

And, so, after everyone got this fall’s government shutdown worked out of their systems, lawmakers were far from prepared to address its root cause. Democrats refused to fund the government unless Congress addressed spiking healthcare premiums. Those premiums shoot up on Jan. 1. And no one has built enough consensus to pass a bill before the end of the year.

Yet.

But it’s only mid-December. And everyone knows that the congressional Christmas legislative spirit can be slow to take hold. Some of that holiday magic may have officially arrived Thursday afternoon after the Senate incinerated competing Republican and Democratic healthcare plans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pushed a three-year extension of the current Obamacare subsidies with no built-in reforms.

“This is going to require that Democrats come off a position they know is an untenable one and sit down in a serious way and work with Republicans,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said of the Democratic proposal.

Thune characterized the Democrats’ gambit as “a political messaging exercise.”

MODERATE REPUBLICANS STAGE OBAMACARE REBELLION AS HEALTH COST FRUSTRATIONS ERUPT IN HOUSE

Republicans even mulled not putting forth a healthcare plan at all. It was the group of Senate Democrats who ultimately helped break a filibuster to reopen the government last month that demanded a healthcare-related vote (not a fix, but a vote) in December. So, that’s all Thune would commit to.

“If Republicans just vote no on a Democrat proposal, we’ll let the premiums go up and Republicans don’t offer anything. What message is that going to send?” asked Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “I know what people in Missouri will think. They’ll look at that, and they’ll say, ‘Well, you guys don’t do anything. You’ve just let my premiums go up.’”

It may yet come to that.

So, there’s a holiday healthcare affordability crisis.

“People are looking now at exactly what’s ahead for them, and they’re very, very frightened,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

But most Senate Republicans coalesced around a plan drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, and Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La. The bill would not renew Obamacare subsidies. Instead, it would allow people to deposit money into a healthcare savings account and shop around for coverage.

“Our plan will reduce premiums by 1% and save taxpayers money,” boasted Crapo. “In contrast, the Democrats’ temporary COVID bonuses do not lower costs or premiums at all.”

With skyrocketing prices, Republicans are desperate to do something, even if it’s a figgy pudding leaf, as they face competitive races next year.

COLLINS, MORENO UNVEIL OBAMACARE PLAN AS REPUBLICANS SEARCH FOR SOLUTION TO EXPIRING SUBSIDIES

“It has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with people in Ohio and across America who need to be able to afford access to healthcare,” said Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio.

Gov. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, appointed Husted to succeed Vice President Vance after he left the Senate. So, 2026 will be Husted’s first time on the ballot for the Senate.

There was some chatter that Republicans might allow for a limited extension of the Obamacare aid so long as Democrats agreed to abortion restrictions in exchange.

“Off the table. They know it damn well,” thundered Schumer.

So, the competing plans needed 60 yeas to clear a procedural hurdle. But that also meant that both plans were destined to fail without solving the problem before the end of the year.

“We have to have something viable to vote on before we get out of here,” lamented Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.

That’s why some Christmas congressional calendar magic often compels lawmakers to find a last-minute solution.

“Every legislator up here would like to be home for Christmas,” said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. “That pressure is what forces us to come together.”

CONGRESS FACES HOLIDAY CRUNCH AS HEALTH CARE FIX COLLIDES WITH SHRINKING CALENDAR

We’ll know soon if everyone buckles down to harness soaring premiums after days of political posturing.

“This should have been done in July or August. So, we are up against a deadline,” said Hawley.

And procrastination by lawmakers may yet do them in.

“Healthcare is unbelievably complicated,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. “You’re not going to reform it and bring down costs overnight.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is now promising a separate, still unwritten healthcare bill for the floor in the coming days.

“You’re going to see a package come together that will be on the floor next week that will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans,” said Johnson.

But it’s unclear if Congress can pass anything.

“I think there’s a fear of working with Democrats. There’s a fear (of) taking action without the blessing of the President,” said Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev.

GOP WRESTLES WITH OBAMACARE FIX AS TRUMP LOOMS OVER SUBSIDY FIGHT

That’s why it’s possible Congress could skip town for the holidays without solving the problem.

“It will be used like a sledgehammer on us a year from now,” said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb.

Not a great message for Republicans — especially on affordability — before the midterms.

“If there’s no vote, that’ll run contrary to what the majority of the House wants and what the vast majority of the American people want,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif.

That political concern may be just enough to force the sides to find some Christmas magic and address the issue before the holidays.

That’s one Yuletide script in Congress.

But there’s a script to not fixing things, too.

If Congress leaves town, every communications director on Capitol Hill will author a press release accusing the other side of channeling Ebenezer Scrooge, declaring “Bah humbug!” or dumping a lump of coal in the stockings of voters on Christmas.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That’s the script.

And every year, it sleighs me.

To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

“This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

“Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

That’s where Merkley would step in.

He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

“Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural revamp.

But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.