The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    tmccarthy0's picture

    Filibuster Reform: The Silent Veto

    By tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:25pm |

    Oh the filibuster, I hear Harry Reid was grousing about it yet again, and really, really threatening to reform the filibuster in January 2013, assuming of course he remains the Senate Majority Leader. It isn't guaranteed Reid will be leader of the  Senate next year anyway, Republicans probably have a good chance of taking some more seats, how many is up in the air of course. But I find Reid to be the most disingenuous prick in the Senate.

    We could have used this reform in 2009. Imagine if filibuster reform had been in place. Maybe there would be a public insurance option, a larger infrastructure package, more money for Pell grants, strengthened regulatory agencies, oil companies would have had their subsidies eliminated, Bush tax cuts would have expired, Gitmo might be closed, throngs of openings for federal judges could be filled quickly,  the list goes on and on and on, and yet it is only now Harry Reid is frustrated enough to say he might just do something about this filibuster abuse in January of 2013. Except he won't, all the available evidence points in the direction of preserving the filibuster.

    The filibuster is effectively a veto of any legislation that could be passed by a majority in both houses. If a loose coalition of folks decided to stop certain kinds of legislation or appointments, they do, with gusto.  The Senate has resisted democratizing their rules  for a century. Harry Reid has been saying something needs to be done about the filibuster rule since 2010.

    Even in 2011 Harry Reid threatened to change the rules, but he didn't have the heart to give up his own silent veto, because you never know when you will need such things. I don't really take his threat seriously this time. I think it is too much power for individuals to give up.

    Sorry Harry, I'll believe it when I actually see it, unlike your raving masses who are praising you over your sudden anger and threats to reform the filibuster. But I'll tell you what, when we could have used that particular reform you failed to deliver. Until it is reformed there will be no real progress for America because like the One Ring, power is too much for people, they can't seem to give it up once they have it, Senators are just Gollum in Armani.

    TheAngriestLiberal

    Comments

    I have been following the polls at Daily Kos and it don't look that bad for the dems in the senate. It is still do able for the dems. What I think Harry Reid will do if he keeps Majority Leader, is to make them go back to talking 24hrs a day to block a bill. Force them to sleep on cots and read the telephone book. He should of changed it back at the beginning of this senate. He already knew what he was up against. I often wonder if the dems left it this way so the repugs would behave badly and over reach which they did.

    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 4:58am

    So ... Reid, whose position, pronouncements and actions are largely constrained by caucus consensus, finally comes out and says and does the right thing (on Senate rules) after four years, and he is a feckless fucktard.

    While Obama, who is the leader of the party free of such constraints, finally says and does the right thing (on gay marriage) after four years, and he's ... the greatest thing since cinnabuns?!

    Interesting.

    More seriously, I'd like to hear more about the backroom jockeying, prodding and persuasion that led to Reid being able to make this move before taking a dump on him and his cheerleaders. I.e. did he have to get pushed or was he pulling all along...?

    Anyway, both these developments are good, and should be celebrated as such. That said, this clearly opens the way for a likely GOP majority in the Senate to junk the filibuster without meaningful Democratic party objection. It's gonna be a scary next two years.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 8:54am

    I think Reid is lying. I think he is mouthing the words, but has no intention of doing anything about filibuster reform.

    I don't really like Cinnabuns, they just make you fat an addicted to sugar. Once you hit 40 you can't do that anymore and the closer you get to 50, well it isn't worth discussing is it, that is how bad that stuff affects the body.  The President as a Senator wouldn't have done any better than Reid on this, he would most likely have voted against filibuster reform, there are very few people interested in democratizing the rules of the Senate.  No one even runs on that, can you imagine that slogan, VOTE FOR ME I'LL DEMOCRATIZE SENATE RULES! My real point is that he is too damn late. 

    We needed reform in January 2009. Things could have been so different for America. Not just Democrats as finally being able to deliver some modicum of better governance, but America! Suddenly now, as Republicans are poised to take more seats in the Senate and probably not lose too many in the house, now he want to reform it, but he wants to wait until January? It's a crock of shit.

    It seems to me, Harry Reid, is just mouthing words to make it seem like they would reform the senate to get things done, but I worry that the Republicans will be in control of the Senate next year, and would GOP senators give up their silent veto when clearly their guy isn't going to win, but Barack Obama will be president for a second term?

    What has lead Reid to this position? Keeping control of the Senate I presume. I think he can see it is slipping away. And if he comes out against congress and the filibuster, maybe a guy like Jon Tester can use that issue to keep his seat. And they can keep a tiny majority of  Democrats in the Senate.  I don't know.

    You wrote: "That said, this clearly opens the way for a likely GOP majority in the Senate to junk the filibuster without meaningful Democratic party objection. It's gonna be a scary next two years." That is my worry too.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:44am

    A couple of thoughts about this bit: "would GOP senators give up their silent veto when clearly their guy isn't going to win, but Barack Obama will be president for a second term?"

    1. If there's a GOP majority and Obama in the White House, their 'veto' is ... their majority. Right? Or are you not talking about the filibuster anymore - was there something in the proposed reforms about eliminating those so-called silent holds that individual senators can put on nominations and such?

    2. How likely is it that the GOP gain a majority AND Obama win the election? Isn't that a pretty improbable outcome? Has anyone run the numbers? Nate Silver?

    3. If Obama's in the WH and the GOP have both houses, then they're going to be desperate to pass as much legislation as possible to force Obama to use his veto repeatedly and so face more pressure to cave. I don't see the GOP not reforming the filibuster.

    The worst case scenario in my mind, worse even than the GOP getting their stuff passed by simple majority, is them *threatening* to do so, and the Dems 'cutting a deal' whereby they let all the GOP crap pass in exchange for ... keeping the filibuster. I.e. 2005 all over again. And that's why I'm happy to hear Reid say what he's saying. Because it makes it unlikely they're going to make the same mistake as in 2005.

    Whoever does it, filibuster reform is a good thing long-term. It will be a scary two years under the GOP, but its important that the parties be able to implement, and then be held accountable for, the policy platform on which they got elected. More important than holding on to the Dem *hope* that they can stop anything from getting done for two years. 


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:22am

    Essentially Republicans need to pick up four seats in the Senate to take control. Let's say Maine is going to Angus King, an independent, maybe he will caucus with the Dems.

    Republicans can pickup Montana, Nebraska, Indiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, they can potentially take West Virginia too, and the President can still win the 270 electoral votes necessary.  Wisconsin could easily split by electing Tommy Thompson as their Senator and giving the majority of votes to the President. It is a given that the President will not win the states of ND, MT, Nebraska, West Virginia and he only has a slim chance of keeping Indiana blue, it's mostly red anyway, yet he will come out with the necessary electoral college votes to remain President.

    We could have used this when Dems had majorities in both houses, that isn't going to happen again for a long time, so the chance for it to have done some good is gone. That kind of pisses me off.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:18am

    Interesting tally. On the other hand the dems might pick up a couple, beyond Maine: There's Lugar's seat where the GOP look self-destructive and Brown looks vulnerable. Looks like a toss-up.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:29am

    Maybe. We'll see. I am not saying filibuster reform isn't a good thing, I am saying Harry Reid is lying about being serious about filibuster reform. I say he's said all this before, but failed to use his power when it could have done the country some good, so I am sure he won't do that now that Republicans will make gains in the Senate. But hey, maybe a guy like Jon Tester can run on that and keep his seat, I doubt it, but maybe.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:49am

    "I say he's said all this before, but failed to use his power when it could have done the country some good, so ..."

     

    I know the feeling of being angry at a highly placed Democratic leader for exactly the same reason. I share your pain.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:25pm

    Grasshopper, you have much to learn.

    Obama is powerless - hence blameless.

    and because the presidency is so powerful - it is vital to reelect him.

    Only once you can balance these two thoughts in your head without going cross-eyed can you attain Satori.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:08pm

    Obey


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:08pm

    Grasshoppers can have big effects when there are enough of them. Some 'experts' expect a virtual plague of them in the near future. I'm goin' now to get me some of that satori stuff before the gathering hordes get it all. I don't know what it is but if it helps me quit seeing double, I want me some. Does  it come with instructions?

    http://standeyo.com/NEWS/10_Food_Water/100329.grasshopper.plague.html


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:35pm

    A flit of wings in Washington, and a cyclone starts in Mauritius. Chaos theory - the driver behind our politics. It used to be alternate universes, Shroedinger's Cat and all that, but we've moved on.

    The president - simultaneously a particle and a wave, a woos and a superman. Pull the lever already, dammit, I can't hold it anymore cap'n, we're breaking up..."

    "I'm a doctor, Jim, not a Sunday morning guest on the talkshow circuit..."

    Season cancelled, getting too ridiculous, even for Lost.

    PP


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:56pm

    Tmac, I don't see why you single out Reid for opprobrium on this issue at this time. Sure, he might have come out against the filibuster sooner, but he's just the latest in a very, very long line of senators on both sides of the aisle who couldn't bring themselves to give up their right to obstruct legislation. Given the history, I'm not sure why you didn't write something more along the lines of, "Well at least the bastard is finally is doing something right." In other words, those of us who oppose the filibuster should be celebrating his proposal, even if it's a couple hundred years late in coming.

    But more to the point, I think that you and Reid have very different motivations behind your support for scrapping the filibuster. You're frustrated because Democrats missed an opportunity to pass extraordinary legislation. I suspect that Reid is more concerned that giving up the filibuster will enable a future Republican congress to pass extraordinary legislation of a different sort.

    Instead, what seems to have finally driven him over the edge was not the inability to pass the landmark bills but the Republicans' interference with routine business, in the most recent case, a reauthorizaton of the Export-Import Bank. Now you may not care about the Export-Import Bank, but there is a lot of routine work that the Senate has to do in order to keep the government running. Unfortunately, over the past few years, it has virtually lost its ability to function, period.

    While I oppose the filibuster in any case, I can see that Reid has a point. There is a reasonable case to be made for a supermajority requirement on significant legislation. We should not make big changes lightly. To see that, just imagine what will happen to Medicare and Social Security if Romney wins and Republicans take the Senate.

    But there is no case to be made for a supermajority threshold for routine extensions and confirmations. Such filibusters are designed solely to sabotage government operations. They have finally driven Reid to consider ending the filibuster, and I say better late than never.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 3:24pm

    I don't know if it's a couple of hundred years late.  The Senate can keep its filibuster, if they do it according to the old rules, where it had to be an endless talking filibuster rather than a procedural dodge.  Were physical stamina brought back into the game, the filibuster might be both muted and elevated in its significance.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 3:45pm

    I don't think the stamina aspect is what is so important, but rather that it turns it from a procedural move to an event.  And an event can be show on the teley and youtube.  It provides a backdrop image for an action which then becomes associated to the individuals caught up in the spectacle.  It is one thing to just talk about the others being obstructionists, and a whole other ball of wax to point to someone reading the phone book and calling them an obstructionist.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 5:50pm

    You have a good point. Cable news networks would cover the cots being rolled into the halls of the Senate, interview the pizza delivery boy and explain what telephone book they are reading. All because they are blocking some Senate housekeeping government chore to blackmail getting their way on something that doesn't have the votes. It would not take long for the general public to get tired of the constant obstruction.

    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:37pm

    Yes, for better (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) or worse (the typical scenario) highlighting those that would filibuster can only be a good thing.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 9:42am

    I singled him out because I saw the headlines at Huff_Big_Scary_Headlines that Reid was going to change the filibuster rule come January 2013, cause he is so, so, so, so mad that nothing ever gets done no matter how hard he and the others try. Is it insane to believe things are actually going to change in the Senate? Where are the real reformers running for the Senate who will force this change? TeaBaggies? Hah, no. So I have no reason to believe things will change anyway, and that headline really torqued me off.

    Also it seems too late to have your come to Jesus moment, say your are going to change things come January 2013, when we needed it changed January 2009.  Better late than never you say, except I think it will still be never. What is weird about Reid saying this now, is that Republicans are poised to gain even more power in the Senate, now he is going to talk Dem's into giving up their silent veto? Which tells me it won't actually happen.

    We will see who is right in January 2013.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 7:06pm

    Maybe, couda, shoulda, might have. Blame it all on Reid (or Obama) who could have waved a magic filibuster disappearing wand at some past historical point, and miraculously brought our dysfunctional Congress of obstructive GOP fools and our country into the Promised Land?

    Forget the Mayan calendar, the Nazca lines, the Ark on that hill in Turkey, the greatest mystery in the world is why Americans keep electing Republican hucksters, especially after suffering through 8 bloody years of the Supreme Court anointed, lying dumb-ass GOP war criminal and Decider, George W. Bush.


    by NCD on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 4:33pm

    What is sauce for the goose is a double edged sword.

    WHAT?


    by Richard Day on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 6:05pm

    Nice Dick. cheeky


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 7:07pm