> It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year.

No, and lots of controversial bills have passed other than as reconciliation bills, and especially so during trifectas where they "controversial" within the minority party but broadly supported by the majority; reconciliation is necessary to pass something that strains unity in the majority party and is uniformly opposed by (not "controversial to") the minority party, perhaps.

Which is why we need to get rid of reconciliation and go back to actually needing to get compromise, but hell will freeze over twice before that happens.

It seems like a more formalized quid pro quo system is needed so that political favors can be split across bills and relied upon. This sort of thing seems to be human nature, it doesn’t help anyone to pretend in the procedural rules that it doesn’t happen.