Obama should have asked for immediate Senate filibuster repeal for the millionaires tax cuts

[LonePirate]

Instead of his incomplete list of demands, Obama should have asked for the Senate Republicans to agree to an immediate Senate rules change to repeal the filibuster when he was hogtrading the millionaire tax cuts. Pelosi and Reid could accomplish so much in two weeks without a filibuster. We could get everything Obama wanted in addition to a host of other items such as the Dream Act, START ratification, DADT repeal, the Fair Pay Act (name?) and even a public option or whatever bold items Nancy and Harry could pass by the end of the year.

While I still despise the millionaire tax cuts, I would give them up for two years if these last two weeks in the Senate were filibuster free.

[dkf]

1. We are probably losing the Senate in 2012.

You sure you want to get rid of the filibuster?

Worse we could lose the presidency. It is conceivable we are completely out of control starting 2012.

[DearAbby]

3. We'll likely lose more than that

America loves strength, even if you don't mean it...Look at Bush and his DEAD OR ALIVE bullsheeyit. He didn't mean it, it was all show, but AMERICA sucked it up. It saved face. Even got to misdirect that anger, and patriotic ferver to get his unneeded war. It went a long way.

Look at Carter, he didn't appear strong against the Iranians, and what happened to him. He had the best intensions in the world. How far did it get him in 1980?

[Jakes Progress]

5. So just how many times have we used it?

[FBaggins]

9. Many MANY times.

One of the reasons that the current tax cut debate is what it is (rather than a less-politically-sellable "soak the rich" tax increase) is because they are due to expire... and they're due to expire because democrats forced republicans to use reconciliation to get past a filibuster.

We kept them from permanently getting rid of the estate tax, sending a Constitutional Amendment to the states defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual in nature, holding up many of the worst judicial nominees.

It's even a more important tool for Democrats who have a nutural disadvantage in the Senate's design. There are times (and no doubt will be again) where our senators are a minority of the body, but still represent a majority of americans.

[Jakes Progress]

11. Two is not many, many.

I believe you will find that the republicans have used the threat of filibuster many times more than Democrats.

[FBaggins]

12. Well... that was at least *four*, not two... but they were just examples.

I believe you will find that the republicans have used the threat of filibuster many times more than Democrats.

Recently? Of course. We're in the majority (and have been for the bulk of the last several decades).

One key point is that it has been a critical tool for us in the past and will be again.

More importantly, though, is that it's short-sighted. It restructures centuries of design for a short-term gain.

[ladjf]

8. Way beyond "conceivable" . More like a "lead pipe cinch". nt

[FBaggins]

2. And how exactly would they get Republicans to agree to that?

While I still despise the millionaire tax cuts, I would give them up for two years if these last two weeks in the Senate were filibuster free.

Right... so you're willing to trade those cuts in exchange for essentially everything else on the agenda? That's a no-brainer... but I don't see how we would fool the Republicans into falling for it.

Then see dkf's first reply. The filibuster has served us in the past and will do so again. It's an important part of our system of government that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I'll go farther and predict that you couldn't find 51 Senators who would be willing to vote for it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. In mid-session...

...you'd need 67 -- motion to suspend the rules requires 2/3 majority.

You can change the rules with 51 votes only at the beginning of a session, when the Rule under which the new Senate will be organized comes up for initial approval.

[FBaggins]

6. My point is not that a majority is what's required...

.... It's that I don't think you can even get anything close to a simple majority.

People who watch politics the way they watch sports will advocate anything that they think will help them win the current game (regardless of how ill-advised it is over the long haul). If the only way to "win" this week's game is to change the rules, then let's change the rules.

People who get elected to the US Senate for multiple terms tend to have a larger perspective.


Frankly... I'm not sure that you could find 25 Democrats in the Senate who were willing to effectively do away with the filibuster.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. Exactly. Chris Dodd...

...whom we all loved here when he was filibustering the FISA immunity provision for the telcos, spoke out in favor of the filibuster just the other day.

[dionysus]

7. ROFL... that's the ticket!!! the GOP will surely agree to that!!!!

jeeeebus.