Interesting Point from Paul Krugman's Op-Ed

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

"But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill."

I think this is a key problem that we had with this bill, and we'll continue to have it. And this is a polite way to say that until we show Harry Reid to the door in favor of a leader who will do what has to be done and rewrite the Senate Rules as is necessary, we'll continue to be frustrated. Here's another tidbit form the article that's worth pondering:

"The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent."

In other words, every time the Republicans don't like the agenda (which is 100% of the time), they're going to threaten a filibuster. Call their bluff, say I!

It's probably been posted already, but here's Krugman's whole article


Krugman

[WI_DEM]

1. The fillibuster needs to go.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

3. It would appear....

that other than in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the filibuster has only been used by reactionaries who are hell-bent on stopping progress.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Reid's predecessor was another wimp: Tom Daschle, who was Obama's mentor in the senate. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Thanks for refreshing me on that one.

Somehow, it hit me with more force today than when I read it before.

[TomClash]

5. Where do the votes come from?

Even if a resolution to change a rule gets out of the Rules Committee, you still need 67 votes to change a Senate rule. Which seven Republicans will vote to eliminate the filibuster while they are in the minority?

[Sparkly]

6. It's about calling their bluff.

Make them filibuster.

[TomClash]

8. They don't have to filibuster on a Senate Rules vote

Right now, a Rules vote needs 67 votes to pass.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. If I understand correctly...

and I'm neither a lawyer nor a parliamentarian, so I could be way wrong on this...

The so-called nuclear option requires nothing more than a majority vote and the balls to use it. While the Republicans could effectively shut down the Senate, I would generously invite them to do so.

Go ahead and shut down the government in an attempt to deny health care coverage (or campaign finance reform or whatever) because that worked so well for the Republicans that last time they tried it. Let the troops go unpaid because there have been no appropriations bills passed, let Seniors go without their Social Security checks. Go ahead.

It's not a step to take lightly. But it's a step I think has become inevitable.

[TomClash]

9. I'm no expert either

A Rules vote needs 67 votes to pass during this term. As I recall, the Supreme Court once decided that the Senate could change the rules with a simple majority. But that would seem to me to be an internal Senate matter. Maybe the rules cold be changed before the next term. I don't know.

BTW, I oppose the filibuster no matter who uses it.