Move to Reform Senate Filibuster Rules Gains Momentum – What Does President Obama Think?
EmailThe Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports today that Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the number two man in the Senate Democratic leadership and a close ally of President Obama’s, is behind a move by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to reform Senate rules so as to not require 60 votes for every measure to proceed to a full vote.
"The Harkin proposal would officially amend the process by which a filibuster is broken, allowing a four-step process that could eventually allow it to be broken by a majority vote," Sargent writes. "The first vote would require 60 votes to break the filibuster, followed by motions requiring 57, 54, and finally, 51 votes. The key is that Durbin is apparently playing an active role in backing the Harkin effort."
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., didn’t seem to think such a move was likely. As Paul Kane of the Washington Post noted, the high hurdle for Harkin’s reform is that changing the rules requires 67 votes, so eight Republicans would need to "join the 59 members of the Democratic caucus to alter the rules, something Reid said is not going to happen.
"I'm totally familiar with his idea," Reid said Harkin’s proposal. "It takes 67 votes, and that, kind of, answers the question."
But what does the White House think?
The president has expressed frustration at how often Republicans have required Democrats to achieve 60 votes since becoming the minority party after the November 2006 elections.
In December, interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS’s NewsHour, the president said, "as somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation – to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of. I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s – even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was president – you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule."
The president said "if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now."
He suggested that if the 60-vote requirement is "used prudently, then I don't think it's harmful for our democracy. It's not being used prudently right now. And my hope would be that whether a senator is in the majority or is in the minority, that they're starting to get a sense, after looking at this year, that this can't be the way that government runs."
On January 6, I asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about this frustration (and keep in mind this was before Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.!) and whether the president intends to try to change the rules.
TAPPER: I wanted to follow up also on a comment the President made in one of the interviews he gave right before he went to Hawaii. I forget, and I apologize, whether it was with NPR or with PBS. But he was asked about the fact that the minority in the Senate has required the invoking of cloture I believe more than ever before and what he thought should be done about it. There are — the measures that would require a change of the rules would be — one would require 67 votes, which you don't have. One would be a reverse nuclear option, which might cause serious damage to the Senate. The other one is a bill offered by Senator Harkin, which would have some sort of sliding scale of cloture. Is there going — especially with facing the prospect of losing seats in the Senate in 2010, or at the very least a wash, but certainly nobody predicts that you guys are going to gain any — is there any consideration or any support by the President for any of the measures to change the rules so that he can have an easier time getting his agenda put forward?
GIBBS: Jake, I have not heard of any discussion. I will check with Legislative Affairs. I have not heard discussion here about support for changing those rules. I know Senator Harkin's bill has been talked about for some time, going back to some judicial disputes that were had not too long ago. Jake, I think the President's overriding frustration has been — I mentioned this a little bit yesterday in dealing with some personnel announcements — is it's not simply that you see tactics purely to delay, purely to watch the clock wind around and around, but they don't even appear to be philosophical, right? When something gets filibustered and we take 30 hours to debate it, and then the ultimate vote is 88 to 10, is the — was the filibuster predicated on anything else other than watching the clock wind around? Was it — it's not a philosophical argument. It's just an argument, I suppose, to hear people talk in order to delay the passage of vital legislation for the American people. I think the President — I think the American people would be frustrated, and are frustrated, by the lack of not getting anything done just to hear somebody talk.
TAPPER: A lot of liberal activists want you guys to do something about it. Are you going to?
GIBBS: I will check with Legislative Affairs. Like I said, I have not heard anything about changing the rules.
-jpt
UPDATE: My colleague Rich Braham points out that Sen. Tom Udall, D-NM, has indicated in this Daily Kos blog post that he plans to challenge the filibuster under Senate rules during the new congress next January.
If Udall's proposal works, the rules would change so that ending the filibuster would only require a simple Senate majority.
Wrote Udall: “While I am convinced that our inability to function is our own fault, we have the authority within our Constitution to act.
"Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states, 'Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…' Yet, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, unlike in the House of Representatives, there was no vote on a package of rules that would govern the body for the two years that comprises a term of Congress.
"As a result, 96 of my colleagues and I (three senators had an opportunity to vote on the last change to the rules in 1975) are bound by rules put in place decades ago and make conducting the business of the Senate nearly impossible.
"When the authors of the Constitution believed a supermajority vote was necessary, they clearly said so. And while the Constitution states that we may determine our own rules, it makes no mention that it require a supermajority vote to do so.
"In addition, a longstanding common law principle, upheld in Supreme Court decisions, states that one legislature cannot bind its successors. To require a supermajority to change the rules, as is our current practice, is to allow a Senate rule to trump our U.S. Constitution and bind future Senates. This should not be.”
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
Leave the filibuster alone.
Just because the Republican party abuses it does not mean it does not have value in our form of government.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
Funny, I seem to remember that Obama said that legislation was fillibustered last year, when not one piece of legislation was fillibustered by the Republicans.
This must be a preemptive move to jam through legislation, fillibuster or not. Imperialism?
Posted by: Mike, CO | February 12, 2010, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Been enough “reforming.”
Posted by: Parallax View | February 12, 2010, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
So Democrats, who screamed about the importance of the filibuster from 2000-2006, are suddenly trying to eliminate it because, shockingly, they are just having the darndest time ramming huge, complex, expensive and power-grabbing legislation down the nation’s throat just because they want to.
When the Senate flips back to GOP control in the coming years, the Democrats will be wondering why they were so short sighted and had tinkered with the filibuster rules when they find themselves unable to use them against the GOP. It will happen.
And the same “advocates” for this kind of nonsense will be screaming about the importance of the filibuster again.
Remarkably hypocritical, moronic and childish. And it doesn’t say much for “bipartisanship” when one group wants to simply overshoot the other group without having to engage them on the merits of their ideas. Typical of the Obamacrats – too smart by half.
Posted by: Good Lt. | February 12, 2010, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
Has any body bothered to ask what Sarah Palin thinks about this filibuster debate?? Oh, don’t bother. She would think “filibuster” is another name for “big gulp”.
Posted by: bobby | February 12, 2010, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
“So Democrats, who screamed about the importance of the filibuster from 2000-2006, are suddenly trying to eliminate it because, shockingly,”
Republicans have used the fillibuster an unprecedented number of times, setting three consecutive annual records and almost *doubling* the previous record. A bills own sponsor has even participating in filibustering it, only to vote for the bill after the filibuster if finally broken!
But that’s only, you know, documented reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | February 12, 2010, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
Funny, I seem to remember that Obama said that legislation was fillibustered last year, when not one piece of legislation was fillibustered by the Republicans.
Mike, CO | Feb 12, 2010 12:48:41 PM
You are lying or using a unique definition of filibuster. A filibuster is generally defined as a failed cloture vote resulting in the tabling of legislation (ie, a minority demands more debate but does not wish to actually talk any more on the bill).
What is your personal definition of filibuster?
Posted by: jhw539 | February 12, 2010, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
“when not one piece of legislation was fillibustered by the Republicans….”? Please rwead the modern rules of the game, rather than rely on an old Jimmy Stewart movie. EVERY piece of legislation was held up, including funding the troops.
Face it, the rule was arcane even when the Democrats could invoke it — but as cited above, it has NEVER been used to this extent. Time for filibustering, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College to die a long-overdue death.
Posted by: Truth -- Live With It | February 12, 2010, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
You are lying or using a unique definition of filibuster. A filibuster is generally defined as a failed cloture vote resulting in the tabling of legislation (ie, a minority demands more debate but does not wish to actually talk any more on the bill).
What is your personal definition of filibuster?”
Its the new right wing talking point. Another poster quoted Hugh Hewitt saying the same.
The new right wing definition is that a filibuster only counts when its is successful.
If its defeated, or even if the Senate moves onto other business, it now somehow does not count.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
As a multi-billion $$$ CEO, I think Republicans should filibuster anything that doesn’t make me more money so I can trickle it down to the masses.
Posted by: Joe the CEO | February 12, 2010, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
For the wonks out there, it is interesting to note that if Reid loses his seat this November, Durbin is one of the two most likely to replace him.
I would say the biggest help the Democratic party is likely to get from Republicans this year is the defeat of Reid. He has been an utterly ineffective leader; a polite gentleman being rolled over by a Republican party in the mold of Tom Delay and Sarah Palin. He needs to go home.
Posted by: jhw539 | February 12, 2010, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
Reid got rolled by his own party, not by the Republicans. They could’ve easily pushed their agenda if they weren’t so arrogant and clueless.
Posted by: Aaron | February 12, 2010, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
You can scream all you want…one way or the other. For once, Harry Reid is right. It ain’t happenin’.
Next!
Posted by: Dell | February 12, 2010, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
It was, of course, Chuckles Schumer who started the move among Democrats to use the filibuster to block Bush judicial candidates for Senate approval.
Posted by: Horace | February 12, 2010, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm
a polite gentleman being rolled over by a Republican party in the mold of Tom Delay and Sarah Palin. He needs to go home
——
jhw539, your ‘polite gentleman’ had no problem destroying the chance for true bi-partisanship with the jobs creation bill from Baucus and Grassley.
Your ‘polite gentleman’ is instead a dictator who arbitarily blocks any bill that might just help Congress to get to work and take care of America’s business.
Posted by: malcat | February 12, 2010, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
jhw539, your ‘polite gentleman’ had no problem destroying the chance for true bi-partisanship with the jobs creation bill from Baucus and Grassley.
malcat | Feb 12, 2010 1:57:13 PM
That’s part of why I think he’s incompetent for this job. He should have accepted that bill, told the Republicans it has nothing to do with the estate tax, and then allowed the Republicans to explain why they were filibustering their own bill.
And I have no respect for Baucus or the watered down garbage he put forward after the Republicans made an utter fool out of him by stringing him along for months creating a compromise health care bill only to openly mock how they were just playing him for a fool when they spoke to their constituents back home.
Posted by: jhw539 | February 12, 2010, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
===For the wonks out there, it is interesting to note that if Reid loses his seat this November, Durbin is one of the two most likely to replace him.===
Cool. Then he will be the next majority leader to bite the dust. He really ought to reconsider the honor.
Posted by: Axey | February 12, 2010, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
If Udall’s proposal works, the rules would change so that ending the filibuster would only require a simple Senate majority.
Wrote Udall: “While I am convinced that our inability to function is our own fault, we have the authority within our Constitution to act.
Yes, the inability to function IS your own fault. So why is it the Democrats keep blaming the Republicans for EVERY little thing? The Republicans are not doing anything illegal or even immoral by using filibusters. The Democrats, obviously not united in their thinking, agenda or ideas, could easily do something about it. So here’s a suggestion for the libs. Quit whining and SHUT UP.
Posted by: Shoe | February 12, 2010, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
or even immoral
—
I think an unprecedented use of tactics used against legislative measures they’d normally support, all in the name of power versus what is good for the country or security (e.g. troop funding,) could be called by immoral by sum– and I think urging others to quit whining and shut up on the one hand while likely whining about folks urging those of your ilk to shut up could be called hypocritical—
but maybe that’s just me.
That said, despite the Republicans being jerks who stand for nothing, I think we ought to leave the filibuster alone, as they will be in power again one day and heck bent on dragging us back to the dark ages.
Posted by: progressive mama | February 12, 2010, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
lets see Dems had 60 votes in the Senate.. majority in the house..Hmmmmm and still could not pass a bill
How do you Spell STUPID? D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T
Dem Sen. Rockefeller on Obama: ‘He’s beginning to not be believable to me’… LMAO use your thumbs the ship is sinking LMAO
Posted by: What? | February 12, 2010, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Leave the filibuster alone.
Just because the Republican party abuses it does not mean it does not have value in our form of government.
—
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. That is precisely why it’s rules have been established. I believe the record for longest filibuster belongs to DEM Robert Byrd.
Any senate that cannot govern with a 59 seat majority should be looking at themselves. Filibuster isn’t the problem.
Posted by: smartlillena | February 12, 2010, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
“in this Daily Kos blog post ”
Isn’t that the cartoon page? The koskiddie coloring book?
Posted by: What? | February 12, 2010, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.
smartlillena | Feb 12, 2010 2:34:23 PM
That’s nonsense. Spanking is an ocassionally appropriate parenting tool, breaking a child’s nose and beating them until they bleed from their ears is not.
Magnitude matters. Republicans are filibustering everything now – there are Republican Senators who are filibustering bills they themselves cosponsered. And if the filibuster is broken, they turn around to vote yes on the exact, unchanged bill they filibustered the day before!
Abuse is defined by such obviously partisan behavior that is unprecedented – never seen before. The Republicans have set three consecutive annual records for most filibusters ever, besting any Democratic minority by almost a factor of two. But that’s just documented reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | February 12, 2010, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
I’m all for this “Reform”. When in the minority, the Dems blocked everything they could. They only went along with Mr. Bush when compelled by public opinion. There was talk of avoiding filibusters then, but it was rejected by the GOP leadership. Let the Dems “reform” filibusters now, so when the Republicans take back the Senate later this year, they will be able to accomplish a lot more… The Dems – so shortsighted!
Posted by: Quo Warranto | February 12, 2010, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
and I think urging others to quit whining and shut up on the one hand while likely whining about folks urging those of your ilk to shut up could be called hypocritical—
Posted by: progressive mama | Feb 12, 2010 2:24:22 PM
progressive mama, you missed my point. I meant for them to ‘quit whining and shut up’ because of the fact Udall himself said “our inability to function is our own fault”. The Republicans are doing, just as the Democrats do, their “political jobs”. It’s not their fault the Dems don’t fight back. If someone is constantly pushing and shoving you, you can do one of two things…push them back, or do nothing and whine about it. Unless, of course, the Democrats are afraid to push back too hard because they know the public is not exactly on their side with these financial, job, stimulus, and healthcare bills.
Posted by: Shoe | February 12, 2010, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“When in the minority, the Dems blocked everything they could. They only went along with Mr. Bush when compelled by public opinion. There was talk of avoiding filibusters then, but it was rejected by the GOP leadership.”
Here’s a lesson in historical revisionism by right wingers.
The Democrats used the filibuster to try to block some of Bush’s appointees.
GOP leadership, including Senate Majority Leader at the time Bill Frist, was furious and began pursuing the “nuclear option” of eliminating the filibuster.
The filibuster was saved by the bipartisan Gang of 14 as they have since become known as. 7 Democrats agreed to stop voting for judicial filibusters and 7 Republicans agreed to vote against the nuclear option.
The lesson as ALWAYS? Right wingers lie
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
progressive mama, you missed my point. I meant for them to ‘quit whining and shut up’ because of the fact Udall himself said “our inability to function is our own fault”.
Fair enough.
I read an interesting point on a blog today talking about ideology and hypocrisy, but it was related to Medicare hypocrisy. It was Ezra Klein:
“Where the GOP was once happy to propose cuts up to 12 percent on Medicare, and while they’re happy, in Paul Ryan’s budget, to propose cuts that are much larger even than that, they’re screaming bloody murder that Democrats plan to cut Medicare by about 6 percent to fund health-care reform.
Of course, the flip of the column is that Democrats have been similarly hypocritical. Their rhetoric about past cuts would not predict their (correct) comfort with the reforms proposed this year.
But that goes back to one of the themes on this blog. You’ll do a lot better predicting a politician’s position on an issue if you ask which party is proposing the policy rather than how the policy stacks up against the politician’s record. Party is a lot more important than ideology in Washington. The sooner we understand that fact — and its implications for Congress — the better.”
From where I sit, its getting pretty darned old and tired. Let’s lock the right (bright, innovative) people from both parties in a room with C-SPAN and get stuff done– but again, I think changing the filibuster will be short-sighted.
Posted by: progressive mama | February 12, 2010, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
..just in case.. that bipartisanship doesn’t work..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | February 12, 2010, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie. Posted by: Ryan C
and Democrats and left wingers are the most honest people on earth. LOL
Posted by: Lizzie | February 12, 2010, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
You know, over-tweaking rules for your own advantage can end up biting you.
Look at what happened in MA. The Dems changed the rules so a Dem Governor could appoint a Senator after Kennedy’s death. As he sat in the seat, the political winds shifted, the voters got tired of the Dem Senate, and the seat went Republican for the first time in decades.
One wonders what would have happened had they held the vote in August, as the old rules called for.
Don’t get cocky, kids.
Posted by: MayBee | February 12, 2010, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
Out of one hundred peeps and thousands of staffers.. you would think that someone could write some legislation that a majority could easily agree upon.. government has limited options as to what they can do and what works.. so just get on with it with what you have now.. quit wasting your time throwing jabs acrossed the aisle.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | February 12, 2010, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Did anybody bother to ask Sarah Palin what she thought about the filibuster debate? Oh, never mind. She would think “filibuster” is another name for “big gulp”.
Posted by: bobby | February 12, 2010, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
“The president has expressed frustration at how often Republicans have required Democrats to achieve 60 votes since becoming the minority party after the November 2006 elections.”
Seriously? The minority party forced the majority to do anything? Then why didn’t the Democrat minority that existed BEFORE the Nov. 2006 elections ever get anything done?
My understanding of parliamentary rules in Congress is pretty weak, but I thought the 60 vote requirement was simply to be able to avoid debate and amendments, to essentially “force” a bill through the Senate unchanged.
Sixty votes were within the Democrats reach for a full twelve months, that they choose not to ram through all they wanted to before they were knocked all the way down to 59 votes is no one’s fault but their own…
Posted by: n2vip | February 12, 2010, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
“Look at what happened in MA. The Dems changed the rules so a Dem Governor could appoint a Senator after Kennedy’s death. As he sat in the seat, the political winds shifted, the voters got tired of the Dem Senate, and the seat went Republican for the first time in decades.
One wonders what would have happened had they held the vote in August, as the old rules called for.”
That is a good point maybee.
I think the Dem legislature in MA was too clever by half.
First for changing the law in 2004 because of Kerry.
Then again just his summer.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
Posted by: n2vip | Feb 12, 2010 4:56:57 PM
Exactly.
Use of the term “filibuster” (and the accusation of “filibuster abuse” by Republicans in 2009) seems to be inaccurate as it is my understanding 41 votes are required to implement a filibuster.
A lot of whining from Democrats (and supporters) who are unable to pull together 60 votes due the hijacking of the party by the Far Left/Progressives.
Posted by: tjp612 | February 12, 2010, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
I think the Dem legislature in MA was too clever by half.
======
Totally agree, Ryan C. Happens in all walks of life- people over-meddle and mess things up.
Posted by: MayBee | February 12, 2010, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
“Sixty votes were within the Democrats reach for a full twelve months,”
Franken was not seated until July.
The Democrats basically had 6 months of a super majority when Kennedy and Byrd had been healthy enough to vote.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
“The Democrats basically had 6 months of a super majority when Kennedy and Byrd had been healthy enough to vote.”
True, but with a little less radical agenda the Dems could have easily picked off Collins and Snowe pretty reliably (as they did for the trillion dollar “(non-stimulating) stimulus” package.
The radical Progressives/Far Left and a radical WH are responsible for the position Dems find themselves in today. And the reason why Dems will get wiped out in November.
Posted by: tjp612 | February 12, 2010, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
“Use of the term “filibuster” (and the accusation of “filibuster abuse” by Republicans in 2009) seems to be inaccurate as it is my understanding 41 votes are required to implement a filibuster.”
Yet another right winger using the brand new right wing definition that only successful filibusters count.
If the Senate defeats the filibuster or the Senate simply moves onto new business, according to the new right wing definition the filibuster attempt never happened.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
“True, but with a little less radical agenda the Dems could have easily picked off Collins and Snowe pretty reliably”
Yeah that “radical agenda” when the Democrats included everything Snowe wanted until she began goal post moving under pressure from her own party.
The way right wingers frequently re-write history to suit a current narrative is disturbing.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
You people! It’s always the next election cycle. When one party is out of power it’s “just wait till next election, we’ll show em!!” This “us” against “them” attitude plus all the hate filled rhetoric is one of the reasons why politics is getting such a bad rap. There’s no room for civil discourse. Not when you can label the other party with childish bickering and snarking. Communism, socialism, nazism, racism, death panels, obstructionist, party of no. What a negative, limited vocabulary is now common. This country is going down the tubes all right. But it isn’t one person or one party’s fault. There’s more than enough blame to go around. You won’t hear anybody taking it though. You’re all dreaming about taking the next election.
Posted by: jas | February 12, 2010, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
Republicans have set three consecutive annual records for most filibusters ever
—
GOOD
Posted by: smartlillena | February 12, 2010, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
“Yet another right winger using the brand new right wing definition that only successful filibusters count.”
You seem very frustrated today. I would blame you if I shared your ideology.
So, rather than call me a liar, could you please explain how Republicans could mount a filibuster attempt with only 40 votes?
Posted by: tjp612 | February 12, 2010, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
Yeah that “radical agenda” when the Democrats included everything Snowe wanted until she began goal post moving under pressure from her own party.
The way right wingers frequently re-write history to suit a current narrative is disturbing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 12, 2010 6:01:02 PM
Here’s the current narrative. Harry Reid rejected a BIPARTISAN jobs bill that HE had been involved with because of PRESSURE from the liberal left. You want to talk about being “disturbing”? That is disturbing.
Posted by: Shoe | February 12, 2010, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
“So, rather than call me a liar, could you please explain how Republicans could mount a filibuster attempt with only 40 votes?”
Well for 6 months the Democrats could not break any filibuster because they lacked 60 votes so GOP numbers did not matter during that time period.
So does a filibuster only count when its successful and done so with only GOP votes?
Is that the even more RECENT right wing revision to the definition of filibuster?
But you’re right about 1 thing.
It was wrong to call you a liar when all you were doing was parroting something a right wing talking head lied about.
But now you know its a lie so you can avoid parroting it again.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
“Here’s the current narrative. Harry Reid rejected a BIPARTISAN jobs bill that HE had been involved with because of PRESSURE from the liberal left. ”
Really?
AP “Reid, D-Nev., put forward the pared-back $35 billion plan — combining about $15 billion in tax provisions with a $20 billion cash infusion into highway and transit programs — Thursday after Senate Democrats balked at a broader, $104 billion bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors.”
So after spending months outraged about spending and pork, the right wing narrative for I guess what the next 24 hours is that Harry Reid hurt America by not agreeing to another pork laden bill.
After all it was Republican pork which is kosher.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 12, 2010, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
Senate Democrats balked at a broader, $104 billion bill
__________________________________
Not sure your source or what bill you’re referring to but
According to thehill.com the details of the Baucus bill are
The Baucus bill, which was estimated at $85 billion, included $31 billion in tax extenders that Reid has decided to leave out.
Also
The aide said Reid decided to simplify the legislation to “short-circuit potential criticism from one side or the other,” referring to potential Democratic and Republican critics.
Reid’s bill also does not extend unemployment and COBRA benefits that many in both parties want; an aide to the majority leader said those extensions would be handled in a separate bill.
Harkin noted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the impact of extending unemployment insurance would create more jobs then providing tax credits to employers who hire new workers.
Is the pork you’re referring to the COBRA and unemployment benefits? Because according to what you quoted nowhere do people indicate that out of a $104 billion bill only $35 billion was not pork.
Also Reid’s current cutting up has opponents in the middle, right and left. Really doesn’t seem like it was worth destorying a bipartisan effort but that’s how they roll in DC these days.
Posted by: obieone40 | February 12, 2010, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
The 60 votes helps assure that common sense rules rather than a simple majority. If the bill makes sense then getting the 60 should not be a problem. It’s an incentive to find consensus without tromping all over those that would become victims of a bad bill.
Posted by: TX_MBell | February 12, 2010, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Reid had best realize if he pushes such ignorance he won’t be able to duck out of it by saying he doesn’t have 60 votes. His clan will have to vote. It will be on the record.
Posted by: smartlillena | February 13, 2010, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
They need to stop changing the rules to suit themselves! Both sides should work together; otherwise, the first House or Senate leader to stand up and say, “MY CONSTITUENTS TELL ME THEY DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE AND THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY” — and then walks out — that’s the person who will get my vote.
Posted by: THE LIBERALS WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO GET WHAT THEY WANT | February 13, 2010, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Typical of a liberal, they cannot win on merit or ideas so they need to change the rules of the game to allow themsleves a victory. No wonder the Democrat Party is shredding the Constitution and dragging the country in to the abyss.
Posted by: Jon | February 13, 2010, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
Ahh, but there has never been one party with the super majorities and the Presdidency that the Democrats have since the current two party system either as I recall.
Posted by: win | February 14, 2010, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
Thus the filibuster is being used to protect the rights of the political minority in both Congress and the population.
Posted by: win | February 14, 2010, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
The political ratio in in the Senate was 60/40 Dems/Republicans. Works well with the 60 percent of households collect more benefits from taxes then they pay, 40 percent pays more in taxes then they benefit.
Posted by: win | February 14, 2010, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm
The filibuster serves to keep the majority in control of taxing the 40 percent that pay more taxes then government benefits they receive out of existence.
Posted by: win | February 14, 2010, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
The 60% majority without the filibuster could tax that 40% for any benefit they desired.
Posted by: win | February 14, 2010, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
We used to be able to go and wave bye-bye to our loved ones at the boarding gates. We used to be able to carry our drinks onto airplanes. We used to be able to leave our houses and cars unlocked.
Sadly we can no longer do any of these things, or countless others, because those privileges were abused by an irresponsible few.
So it is now with the filibuster. Filibusters are NOT in the US Constitution. Majority rule is in the Constitution. It is not even common sense, to allow a minority to rule the country, and to defeat every single meaningful initiative of the majority.
Posted by: bco | February 15, 2010, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm