Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico says that he has whipped up 51 votes to change the filibuster rules at the beginning of the next Congress. That’s interesting because the numbers must be pretty tight. Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Carl Levin of Michigan, Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas are in negotiations with Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and (oddly, the retiring) Jon Kyl of Arizona. They are working on a rules change that can pass the 67-vote supermajority non-nuclear option. What they’re talking about doing is effectively another gentleman’s agreement, which is unacceptable.
Anyway, on the math, the Dems will have 55 senators next year and we know that four of them are actively working to avoid the nuclear option. That appears to mean that all of the other 51 Democrats are already on board with bringing back the talking filibuster. I’m a little skeptical about that.
In any case, while we’re in the subject of the filibuster, it’s helpful to keep it in mind as we go careening off the fiscal cliff. In his statement tonight, the president said that he was cautiously optimistic that a deal could still be reached but that, if no deal came into place, he would ask Harry Reid to bring a basic bill to the floor for an up or down vote.
…I expect a bill to go on the floor — and I’ve asked Senator Reid to do this — put a bill on the floor that makes sure that taxes on middle-class families don’t go up, that unemployment insurance is still available for two million people, and that lays the groundwork, then, for additional deficit reduction and economic growth steps that we can take in the New Year.
Normally, the Republicans would filibuster a bill like this. However, they have a number of considerations that are not normally in play. Number one is the clock. The act of filibustering is actually the act of not agreeing to a motion to proceed. That forces the Majority Leader to invoke cloture which takes time to ‘ripen.’ Specifically, the cloture petition is ignored for one full-day, so one filed on Monday cannot be voted on until Wednesday. If the Republicans don’t agree to an up or down vote on Sunday (the 30th of December) they will have effectively stalled the process through to the cliff. Do they want to do that?
And, if they are worried that the Democrats might have the momentum and unity to change the filibuster rules, using a high profile filibuster at the end of this Congress (in direct defiance of the president) would probably remove any doubt about the matter.
Of course, even if Harry Reid passes a bill in the Senate, that doesn’t mean that John Boehner will be willing or able to match him in the House. But that creates a further conundrum from Mitch McConnell. Does he filibuster and take all the blame, or does he dump it all in Boehner’s lap, split the Republicans, and lose the message war?
One thing is for sure. If there is no deal and there is a filibuster in the Senate, no one is going to cry for the Republicans when they lose some of their ability to obstruct in the next Congress.
My guess is McConnell wouldn’t go ahead with a filibuster given the circumstances you present.
Can anyone help me out here? I thought the Senate already passed a bill that all it does is keep taxes low on those making under $250,000. What’s the difference between that one and the one Reid might bring to the floor in the next few days?
The details. Unemployment insurance, for example. I don’t know if any extension was in the old bill, but the dates would be wrong even if they were.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
They are working on a rules change that can pass the 67-vote supermajority non-nuclear option. What they’re talking about doing is effectively another gentleman’s agreement, which is unacceptable.
So Cranky McSame, Mini-me and those couple of Democrats are just whistling “Dixie”? After all, come January 2(or 3rd) doesn’t it just take 51 votes to set the rules for the 113th?
I’m not sure what you mean by “whistling Dixie” in this particular context.
You should follow the link if you want clarification on what their plan looks like.
Yes, we can invoke the nuclear option on Jan. 3rd.
I mean Cranky McSame is just being a complete waste of space and air. And why is it the “nuclear option”? Just because they usually don’t change the rules at the beginning of each Congress(meaning 112th .. 113th)? Gotta love all the tighty-righties in those comments who think the filibuster is in the Constitution, since it isn’t.
Purely for purposes of self-preservation, McConnell has to leave it to Boehner. Boehner may be finished anyway.
Not saying you are wrong, but let’s walk through that.
Negotiations fail.
Reid brings the bill, and it isn’t filibustered.
It passes with a considerable amount of Republican votes.
Everyone looks at Boehner.
He either:
A) refuses to allow a vote on a bill that just got substantial bipartisan support in the Senate, or
B) allows a vote which would probably pass with only 20 or so Republican votes.
And, the Republicans would have just agreed to the $250,000 cutoff when $400,000 was on the table, and would have extended unemployment insurance in exchange for nothing.
Speaker Boehner would probably not be Speaker anymore.
I have to hand it to the president. He set them up beautifully.
Don’t hand it to him until we see the outcome. If we permanently ratify 90% or so of the Bush cuts for a 1 or 2 year small-scale stimulus and rolling back some of the sequester cuts it’s a huge long-term strategic loss. The Bush tax cuts were originally intended to starve the beast and if they get ratified some day they will succeed and we’re going to suffer matching cuts.
Yes, leave the rates alone (revert to Clinton rates) and pass a one year $1000 or $2000 for everybody stimulus. People are more likely to spend a $1000 lump sum than $20 a week anyway.
Republicans/media/Wall Street are really howling about inheritance tax and 15% rate on investments. They just can’t say it outright so they hide between “average tax increases” and pretend concern for the average man when they are just concerned about having to pay their own fair share.
The reductions in inheritance taxes and unearned income taxes are the worst part of the Bush cuts. Of course taxes on high earned income should be higher but right now well-paid professionals have the highest effective tax rates. The obscenely low tax rates on the very rich (e.g. Romney paying less than 10% now that he’s certainly filed his amendments) comes from absurdly low tax rates on unearned income. That’s the part that is driving the wealth to the 0.1% and absolutely has to get fixed for the long-term health of the nation.
Tax rates on 250,000+ earned income are important, but they are number 2 behind the unearned income rates. I worry that the fuss over the 250,000+ tax bracket will be used to cover up keeping the unearned income rates low.
When people think about the unfairness of the current system, they think about people like Romney and Buffett (who acknowledges he’s getting unfair benefits.) I haven’t seen anybody mention that those two are essentially unaffected by the 250,000+ bracket because they don’t have substantial (for them) earned income. How many people realize we could raise the 250,000+ bracket to 98% – and Romney would still have a tax rate far below a middle-class American?
Given your scenario, why would “a considerable number” of Republican Senators support Reid’s Bill. Sure they would want to be on the side of the angels as far as tax cuts are concerned, but they could hardly refer to Reid’s Bill as “balanced” and they would be giving up almost all their negotiating leverage for the future.
The real beauty of going over the Cliff is that it allows Dems to present themselves as the party for tax reductions and to paint Republican’s as those who opposed such tax reductions. From a purely political point of view, this undermines just about the last issue (besides hatred of Obama) which unites all Republicans and effectively destroys their brand.
Why on earth would Obama not want to do that, regardless of the short term economic or tactical costs? It seems to me that everything else in the “negotiations” over the fiscal cliff involves Dems trading long term benefits (welfare, health care, discretionary spending) for short term ameliorating measures which will come into play again every time the debt ceiling approaches.
My negotiating approach would be to say that no deal is possible without the Debt ceiling being taken completely off the table – effectively removing it altogether – and that long term benefits should be preserved at the cost of short term concessions if necessary. It is the Republican donor base that has the most to lose form going over the cliff – they will be the ones screaming outrage and offering concessions wants to tax hikes kick in.
Just how confused will the Republican base be when they realize it is Republicans who want to increase debt by reducing taxes!
MaCain & Levin are working hard to keep the filibuster intact. Will need a super majority.
Anyway, on the math, the Dems will have 55 senators next year and we know that four of them are actively working to avoid the nuclear option. That appears to mean that all of the other 51 Democrats are already on board with bringing back the talking filibuster.
I think you’re ignoring the possibility that one or more of the Democrats trying to negotiate the bipartisan gentleman’s agreement might, if it fails, be among the 51.
That’s why I softened my wording to “appears to mean.”
Schumer, for example, is only engaged because he chairs the Rules Committee.
I guess I can sort of understand Pryor. He’s going to lose the next election not matter what, but he doesn’t want to face it. But the attachment to the old senate…. I suppose it could be fear of what the GOP would do with less chance to obstruct when it eventually wins the chamber but 1) that might not happen for some time 2) even if it does, we have the presidency and 3)allowing the left to govern unhindered will reveal to all the superiority of its ideas.
Superficially that makes sense. But if the filibuster goes effective power on any bill in the next Senate shifts from the 60th vote, or the 5th least conservative Republican (who wants Pryor to lose), to the 5th least liberal Democrat, which will be a Blue Doggy Democrat – an ally of Pryor, or maybe Pryor himself. It converts the Senate from a body working to get him out of office to one trying to keep him in office. Nobody benefits more from ending the filibuster than the conservative Democrats.
As we’ve seen time and again, conservative Democrats aren’t that bright.
I’d just like to say that nothing the Democrats are considering is the “nuclear option”. At the beginning of a new Senate, the Senate body adopts its rules based on a simple majority vote. The “nuclear option” was the Republican majority’s threat in 2005 to change the rules mid-session to allow Bush’s judicial appointments to not be subject to a filibuster. What was “nuclear” about this was that they couldn’t strictly do this and follow the rules. Basically, they said that they had the power to say that the rules said whatever they said they said. While possibly true, saying that they majority can do whatever the hell it wants, rules be damned, would have fundamentally changed the way the Senate functions – the idea of minority rights in the Senate would have been effectively dead. And what the Republicans wanted to ram through this legally dubious process would have stripped real rights away from the minority – the right to filibuster judicial nominees.
In contrast, the Democrats are considering to set new rules for the incoming Senate to increase the cost of obstruction and bring as much of it as possible out of the shadows. The only rights they are taking away are the rights to secrecy and they are making the changes when they set the rules for the new Senate, not mid-session.
So, the Republicans threaten to take away real rights, breaking their own rules = nuclear option
Democrats leave right to obstruct alone, simply increase its political risk and its visibility and follow established procedural rules (although, perhaps not tradition) to achieve this goal = constitutional option (a better name could probably be found)
It pisses me off how the Republicans are getting away with calling this the “nuclear option” when it is nothing like what they wanted to do in 2005. Did I dream it all?
It’s a fair distinction, but it’s still changing the rules with less than a 2/3rd majority, which is the rule.
It’s not changing the rules because there are no rules at the beginning of a new Congress. Each new Congress must adopt its own rules. It’s traditional to use the old rules, but that’s just a tradition, not a rule.
that’s the interpretation. The other interpretation is that the Senate is a continuing body because only one-third sits for election in each cycle.
The closer we get, the more my gut screams “go over the cliff”. It’s better than the alternative.
The republicans are just going to do this again and again – with the debt ceiling and every other thing that won’t be decided by some”mini-deal” they can make in time for the deadline.
Maybe the republicans will wake up, or the american people will wake up, if Obama and the democrats don’t save the republicans from themselves.
I do hold out hope that if we reach the debt ceiling limit on monday as expected, Obama will unilaterally raise the debt ceiling as part of the agreement that he could do so in 2012.
Nothing good comes from negotiating with terrorists.