General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is not a game, people [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)Anytime a party holds a majority in both houses and the Presidency then they can use the budget reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. During 2009/2010 President Obama and the Democrats had this advantage but rather than use it to enact several important changes Obama chose to play bipartisan BS with the Republicans. Since any fool (and Obama is no fool) could predict that the Republicans would reject those overtures, it seems pretty apparent to me that it was a ploy that Obama used against those of us to his left who were calling for things that his corporate sponsors did not want.
There are some constraints on the types of things that can be done through reconciliation, but definitely they could have raised taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes permanently on the middle class. With some care in crafting it they probably could also have created a healthcare public option and passed a much better stimulus that created jobs directly rather than one that was too small and that gave tax concessions to people who were just sitting on their piles of cash anyway.
The claim that they were blocked by the filibuster is just not true. They had a way around the filibuster. Reconciliation has been used time and again by other Presidents to get around the filibuster. That Obama didn't go this route must mean that he simply didn't want to get those things done.